Hardware Rep says "Wii U 19x more powerful than PS3"

[Maxternal]

Going on a logic something like this :
- If two PC's have the same GPU but the processor is double the power then the PC can do twice as much and so has double the gaming power.
- If two PC's have the same proc but the GPU is double the power then the PC is double the gaming PC.
therefore
- If one PC has double the processor AND has double the GPU then the PC is 4x the Gaming PC (2x2)

if we just multiply out all the parts here ... (and I'm guessing on these numbers, of course)

Wii U vs PS3
processor 1.5x
GPU 2x
drive speed 3x
RAM 2x

(2 x 2 x 3 x 1.5)
That's already 16x right there. If you bend the rules a little bit I'm sure you can get 19x easily.

 

[Rydian]

Except that if the first PC can play the game fine, chances are the second PC's edge on the first one isn't very high, since additional CPU power does very little for modern gaming. Modern games are almost entirely bottlenecked by the videocard.

As I've posted multiple times (with example cards), it's entirely possible for new hardware to be 19 times as powerful as the PS3. Computers were doing that three years ago.

 

[VMM]

Do you think I don't explain?!
I try every fucking time, but they won't listen.
Even though what they say is almost, if not, impossible,
like saying WiiU is 19x more powerful than PS3

So give me a logical explanation that proves that the Wii U cannot be 19 times more powerful than the PS3. Hardware power is constantly growing at exponential rates as per Moore's Law. Let's assume that graphic cards were growing 2x more powerful every 1.5 years. Obviously this value will fluctuate and vary, but for the sake of argument and simple calculations:

x * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 (6 years) = 16x

Using that calculation, in the 6 years that passed, hardware would already be 16 times more powerful at minimum. Now considering the fact that the PS3 and 360 both had very outdated hardware even on release, well, it's obvious they'll be even easier to outperform.

Your turn.

You can clearly see that Moore's Law isn't working for the last past decade.

WiiU CPU is less powerful then PS3 and X360.
GPU is 1GHz, which is almost double from 550MHz from PS3.
PS3 RAM is 512 MB, the best we can consider is WiiU having 8GB RAM,
but I really doubt that, it would raise the manufacturing costs too much.

Then making a comparisson, we could calculate:

(1*2*16)PS3/3 > WiiU Power
then: WiiU Power is less then 11 times the PS3 Power.

Of course these calculations can't be proven right since there is no power measure.
This is just a oversimplific calculation.

We should consider the flops number the WiiU GPU can take and PS3 GPU.
And at least have the CPU and RAM specs.

 

[Deleted_171835]

You can clearly see that Moore's Law isn't working for the last past decade.

WiiU CPU is less powerful then PS3 and X360.
GPU is 1GHz, which is almost double from 550MHz from PS3.
PS3 RAM is 512 MB, the best we can consider is WiiU having 8GB RAM,
but I really doubt that, it would raise the manufacturing costs too much.

Then making a comparisson, we could calculate:

(1*2*16)PS3/3 > WiiU Power
then: WiiU Power is less then 11 times the PS3 Power.

Of course these calculations can't be proven right since there is no power measure.
This is just a oversimplific calculation.

We should consider the flops number the WiiU GPU can take and PS3 GPU.
And at least have the CPU and RAM specs.

what. the. actual. fuck.

That is the worst "calculation" I have ever seen.

 

[Maxternal]

Except that if the first PC can play the game fine, chances are the second PC's edge on the first one isn't very high, since additional CPU power does very little for modern gaming. Modern games are almost entirely bottlenecked by the videocard.

As I've posted multiple times (with example cards), it's entirely possible for new hardware to be 19 times as powerful as the PS3. Computers were doing that three years ago.

Okay, I'll update my bogus math then
... we'll do some good PR, too, and not include the presence of a hard drive or internal NAND either. We can argue that one doesn't actually exist on the other so we'd get divide by zero errors trying to calculate the differences anyhow
Some have rumored that the Wii U proc is actually similar or lower than PS3/360 so leaving that else is just fine to help Ninty achieve their "19x better".

(I'll pretend I actually know what numbers we are dealing with here this time)

RAM 4x
(PS3 : 512mb shared with GPU -- Wii U : 1gb for games another 1gb for OS)

Drive speed 2.5x
(PS3 : 2x -- Wii U : roughly 5x)

GPU 2x
(Basing off of rumors and conversation from people who know more than me.)


The verdict is 2.5 x 2 x 4 = 20x more powerful

 

[VMM]

That is the worst "calculation" I have ever seen.

Did you read the end of my post.
I'm just following Peps and Maxternal logic.
Of course this isn't a calculation.
But we can't say much since we don't know WiiU GPU or RAM.
If there were more info I could use a real calculation.

 

[Mantis41]

You generally add things together not multiply them

Example:

System 1 performance is gauged as.
2 apple, 3 pear, and 2 grape giving a total of 7 fruit.

System 2 performance increases over System 1 is judged to be roughly:
2.5x as many apples, 2x as many pears and 4x as many grapes:

This makes the performance rating of System 2:
5 Apples, 6 pears and 8 grapes giving a total of 19 fruit:

So System 2 is about 2.5 and bit times more powerful than system 1.

Stop multiplying the values together it is ridiculous.

 

[DiscostewSM]

GPU is 1GHz, which is almost double from 550MHz from PS3.

Who wants to tell him how clock frequencies of old tech vs new tech means nothing?

 

[NightsOwl]

Something tells me this rep isn't going to keep his job.

 

[Maxternal]

Stop multiplying the values together it is ridiculous.

we have to do ridiculous things to justify a ridiculous claim like 19x

 

[Deleted User]

 

[Rydian]

Stop multiplying the values together it is ridiculous.

we have to do ridiculous things to justify a ridiculous claim like 19x

But it's NOT crazy... it's entirely possible with currently-existing, available-to-buy-cheaply hardware.

Are all my posts here invisible or something?

 

[Maxternal]

Stop multiplying the values together it is ridiculous.

we have to do ridiculous things to justify a ridiculous claim like 19x

But it's NOT crazy... it's entirely possible with currently-existing, available-to-buy-cheaply hardware.
Are all my posts here invisible or something?

Okay, I'm sure it is possible.
From my point of view, then, just basing on what information I've seen floating around (of course can't say how reliable that info is) It would mostly have to be in the GPU that would make up that 19x then.

Here's the hearsay:
- CPU seems similar in power.
- A lot more RAM (specifically reported 4x)
- GPU is really nice I couldn't find any side by side benchmarks on either the chip Wii U's is based on or the PS3 (supposedly heavily modified from the PC version of the chip so couldn't judge the benchmark anyhow). I know that at least with things within the same DirectX version (as far as the PC goes) you can make a rough estimate by something like (clock speed) x (number of pixel/vertex shaders) but I don't really even know that so I'm not sure what to go off of.

 

[Deleted_171835]

Why are you guys still doing these silly calculations? If one says that the Wii U is x times more powerful than y, they're likely referring only to the GPU grunt.

 

[Deleted-185407]

---

 

[Maxternal]

Okay, never mind my silly math before

here's the real math:

Wii U GPU : E6760 which runs at 600 mhz and has 480 shader processors
PS3 GPU : RSX which runs at 550 mhz and has 24 pixel shaders and 8 vertex shaders

Even if you don't take into account that the PS3 is using DirectX 9c level technology and the Wii U is using DirectX 11 level technology (Imagining that 1 shader processor = 1 pixel/vertex shader ... which it doesn't) that ends up putting the Wii U at a little more than 16x the PS3.

Now, factoring in all the cool stuff that the Wii U's shader processors can do that the PS3's shader's can't. I'd say that EASILY boosts the Wii U up to the 19x mark.

 

[Deleted_171835]

Okay, never mind my silly math before

here's the real math:

Wii U GPU : E6760 which runs at 600 mhz and has 480 shader processors
PS3 GPU : RSX which runs at 550 mhz and has 24 pixel shaders and 8 vertex shaders

Even if you don't take into account that the PS3 is using DirectX 9c level technology and the Wii U is using DirectX 11 level technology (Imagining that 1 shader processor = 1 pixel/vertex shader ... which it doesn't) that ends up putting the Wii U at a little more than 16x the PS3.

Now, factoring in all the cool stuff that the Wii U's shader processors can do that the PS3's shader's can't. I'd say that EASILY boosts the Wii U up to the 19x mark.

The issue with this is that while the Wii U may in fact use an E6760, we do not know the extent to which it has been modified.

 

[Maxternal]

True, but it seems like a reasonable explanation for the whole "19x" thing in and of itself.

There are lots of other things in the description on AMD's site that could be stripped out too
http://www.amd.com/u...screte-gpu.aspx
We'd just hope they choose to only take out the unimportant stuff.

EDIT : Never mind. I think the blue ray decoder and video stuff would be nice if they left in there, just in case. The 6 monitor support is a little excessive but nice when you have to worry about the 2 possible gamepad screens. It's also be nice if that could translate to processing the second image for stereoscopic 3D TV's but now I'm REALLY just speculating. Let's just say it would be nice if the only modification were that they added full backwards compatibility for the Wii's GPU instructions.

 

[Deleted_171835]

...The rep likely doesn't know anything about the Wii U's power so you really shouldn't be taking this seriously. It doesn't make sense for Nintendo to tell a rep this when they haven't even given out full specs.

 

[ShadowSoldier]

...The rep likely doesn't know anything about the Wii U's power so you really shouldn't be taking this seriously. It doesn't make sense for Nintendo to tell a rep this when they haven't even given out full specs.

Uh.. yeah it is. If they want to get hype and everything going for the console, they'd be wise to tell him. Hell, even if Nintendo just said "hey rep, listen, we're not going to tell you the specs, but the console is 19x more powerful than the PS3". When it comes to interviews or questionaires, the rep wouldn't make this up. Hell, how the hell could he not be trusted when Nintendo trusts him, but some hack developer like Tecmo Koei or whoever it is that makes Dynasty Warriors (i think it is) be trusted?