Hardware Wii U Hardware Info

[Deleted_171835]

There has been much specsulation on this site about the Wii U specs. The system recently came out and while we still don't know all the details, we have some new info. A summary of everything we know is shown below.

CPU: Custom Power PC design manufactured on a 45nm process @ 1.24 GHz, OoOE design. (marcan on Wii U CPU vs. 360 CPU)

GPU: Custom AMD Radeon™-based High Definition GPU @ 550 MHz. Supports Shader Model 4.0 (DirectX 10.1 and OpenGL 3.3 equivalent functionality). Believed to have 20 stream processors with 16 texture mapping units and 8 ROPS.

RAM: 2 GB (1GB currently reserved for operating system, unavailable for games). Four 4 Gbit (512 MiB) DDR3-1600 memory modules. 12.8GB/s of peak memory bandwidth

32MB of eDRAM.

Game Performance:

So how has this translated into performance of games on the system? Well...

Batman: Arkham City Armored Edition: FXAA added on Wii U version. V-sync employed on Wii U but inconsistent worse frame-rate.

Call of Duty: Black Ops 2: No tearing compared to other console versions, same resolution (880x720) and AA (2x MSAA) as 360 version. Worse frame-rate in campaign.

Mass Effect 3: Special Edition: Improvement over the PS3 version with overall higher frame-rate but worse than the 360 version.

Trine 2: Locked native resolution (720p) vs. dynamic resolution scaling to sustain framerate on PS3 and 360. More refined FXAA algorithm. Higher-resolution textures and more detailed foliage.

Higher-quality normal map compression, increased water complexity and splash effects. PhysX enhancements from PC game adopted in Wii U version too. More washed-out image though (but to be fixed in patch)

Need for Speed Most Wanted: Features PC textures and assets thanks to more RAM in the Wii U. The lighting, draw distances and framerate are all also improved.

The Wii U has had mixed performance when it comes to games on the system. Assassins Creed 3, Darksiders 2, COD Black Ops 2 are a few of some of the game that have an inconsistent framerate on the Wii U.

On the plus side, Trine 2 features a number of improvements over the PS3/360 versions which the dev says is thanks to the time they spent optimizing as does Need for Speed: Wanted featuring better lighting, textures and draw distances.

Right now, we know that the Wii U is capable of a fair bit more than the current crop of consoles. Exactly how much more and how that translates into game performance, that remains to be seen.

Thoughts?

 

[heartgold]

Wii U CPU is interesting, Although clocked quite low Marcan claims it isn't any less capable then x360's CPU.

Also this from the same guy. - https://twitter.com/marcan42

Hector Martin ‏@marcan42
If you want more evidence that MHz isn't everything, a little birdie points out that Durango (Xbox 720) is specc'ed to have a 1.6GHz CPU.

Next gen might now have higher clocked CPU's if true.

 

[VMM]

Why did Nintendo used a shitty variation of GC CPU on WiiU.
Using a 10 year-old CPU seems to be nothing but a stupid decision.

 

[the_randomizer]

Why did Nintendo used a shitty variation of GC CPU on WiiU.
Using a 10 year-old CPU seems to be nothing but a stupid decision.

Using a Cell CPU with eight "cores" or SPEs wasn't a smart thing to do, either. You obviously didn't read the part "So yes, the Wii U CPU is nothing to write home about, but don't compare it clock per clock with a 360 and claim it's much worse. It isn't." Stop discrediting and disparaging something you don't know jack s**t about, as clock speed is a moot point. By your logic, a Pentium Celeron with 2.4 GHz would outperform a 1.8 GHz Ivy Bridge Core i7 CPU.

Hardware is incontrovertibly vital, yes, but just because the console isn't as powerful as one expects it to be doesn't spell disaster. If that were the case, the PS2 would have lost against the Gamecube and Xbox 1. Doomsayers need to shut the hell up and give the Wii U room to breathe instead of trying to call it out for being "weaker". Marcan42 is someone I can respect because he's an expert. You, my good sir, are just one among many people on the internet trying to find a lame-a$$ reason to bitch about Nintendo's R&D department.

You don't like the Wii U, fine so be it, nothing wrong with not liking something. But the fact you claim the CPU is too underpowered without backing up your claim is just plain sad.

 

[Deleted_171835]

Calm down guys, they're just videogames!

 

[the_randomizer]

Calm down guys, they're just videogames!

I'm not the one disparaging, I'm upset because he has nothing to back up his claim with.

 

[VMM]

Using a Cell CPU with eight "cores" or SPEs wasn't a smart thing to do, either. You obviously didn't read the part "So yes, the Wii U CPU is nothing to write home about, but don't compare it clock per clock with a 360 and claim it's much worse. It isn't." Stop discrediting and disparaging something you don't know jack s**t about, as clock speed is a moot point. By your logic, a Pentium Celeron with 2.4 GHz would outperform a 1.8 GHz Ivy Bridge Core i7 CPU.

Hardware is incontrovertibly vital, yes, but just because the console isn't as powerful as one expects it to be doesn't spell disaster. If that were the case, the PS2 would have lost against the Gamecube and Xbox 1. Doomsayers need to shut the hell up and give the Wii U room to breathe instead of trying to call it out for being "weaker". Marcan42 is someone I can respect because he's an expert. You, my good sir, are just one among many people on the internet trying to find a lame-a$$ reason to bitch about Nintendo's R&D department.

You don't like the Wii U, fine so be it, nothing wrong with not liking something. But the fact you claim the CPU is too underpowered without backing up your claim is just plain sad.

I'm not the one disparaging, I'm upset because he has nothing to back up his claim with.

Dafuq dude? When did I compare X360 clock with WiiU clockspeed.
When did I say something about clockspeed?!

I'm talking about this:
http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topi...ked-a-bit-higher-quotenhanced-broadway?page=0

Do you still think that I have nothing to back up my claims?

PS:

 

[VMM]

Calm down guys, they're just videogames!

I'm preety calm, @the_randomizer all of sudden started rage-quiting.

 

[the_randomizer]

It's Gamespot, they're just as bad as Eurogamer as far as Anti-Nintendo biases go. They hated the Wii, so naturally, hating the Wii U should be second nature at this point. And I thought IGN's staff were all hatemongers. You backed up your claim so I'll give you that. That article contradicts Marcan42's information, and it is irrefutable; the source cited in Gamespot claims it's weaker than the Xbox 360, which we all know is bulls**t. I'll take a non-anonymous source over a reputable, thank you.

The IBM PPC architecture is highly efficient clock-for-clock compared to other architectures, like ARM, which is used for the PSP and NDS. The Gamecube CPU was on-par with the Xbox, despite having a lower clock speed, it all has to do with well the code was written and executed.

Ninja'd

The correct term is "bitching". Rage-quitting is giving up and leaving in a fit of, well, rage. You know, like how WOW/DOTA2 addicts do when they lose a raid.

As I said before, all these articles are coming out slaughtering the Wii U because Nintendo had the balls to make an HD system that doesn't have super high-end hardware. Sony and Microsoft released HD consoles, everyone swarms around them in praise, but when Nintendo does it, people act as though they committed an unpardonable crime.

Disparaging anti-Nintendo articles
Inconsistent information about hardware and ported game comparisons using bad sources
People creating a bitch-fest that Nintendo doesn't make good games or how the console will fail solely based on the fact it's hardware is underpowered.

 

[Rydian]

The CPU isn't just "PowerPC 750". The original 750 model is way old and doesn't fit any of the reports.
It's likely some higher-clocked 750CL variant, or a new variant that hasn't been disclosed publicly yet (as I posted in the original thread).

 

[Cyan]

It's great to see Frozenbyte developer answering on forums and giving informations on future patches.
I wish all developers would be this concerned about their users and explain what their patches are doing (Nintendo... "overall improvement/minor adjustment/behind the scene" doesn't mean a thing. did you fix freezes in a specific menu? just say it clearly).

Is there a game update's changelog database for all games? it would be great. (maybe gametdb can have it if no official website exists?)

 

[VMM]

It's Gamespot, they're just as bad as Eurogamer as far as Anti-Nintendo biases go. They hated the Wii, so naturally, hating the Wii U should be second nature at this point. And I thought IGN's staff were all hatemongers. You backed up your claim so I'll give you that. That article contradicts Marcan42's information, and it is irrefutable; the source cited in Gamespot claims it's weaker than the Xbox 360, which we all know is bulls**t. I'll take a non-anonymous source over a reputable, thank you.

The IBM PPC architecture is highly efficient clock-for-clock compared to other architectures, like ARM, which is used for the PSP and NDS. The Gamecube CPU was on-par with the Xbox, despite having a lower clock speed, it all has to do with well the code was written and executed.

As I said before, all these articles are coming out slaughtering the Wii U because Nintendo had the balls to make an HD system that doesn't have super high-end hardware. Sony and Microsoft released HD consoles, everyone swarms around them in praise, but when Nintendo does it, people act as though they committed an unpardonable crime.

Disparaging anti-Nintendo articles
Inconsistent information about hardware and ported game comparisons using bad sources
People creating a bitch-fest that Nintendo doesn't make good games or how the console will fail solely based on the fact it's hardware is underpowered.

Well, Nintendo until Wii was releasing very high-end consoles.

SNES had a better GPU and soundboard than Genesis.
N64 had a 64 bit processor, different from PS1 and Saturn that had a 32-bit CPU.
GC was surely more powerful than PS2.

But with the commercial failures of N64 and GC Nintendo started using a different strattegy,
and it's working pretty fine.

But; people want more than that, people want a high-end Nintendo console,
and WiiU performance on multiplatform games is worse than a 7 year-old console in some games,
which shows it will not be as powerful as PS Orbis and Durango.

And that's why everyone is bitching about WiiU specs.

 

[the_randomizer]

Again, that's a fallible argument. The ports were rushed, there were ported from one familiar architecture to newer unfamiliar architecture. The ports were handled by outside teams and not the original makers, they had a limited time frame to create the ports. I don't understand why people are so hellbent on not accepting that fact, I don't know why people don't realize that the Xbox 360 and PS3 had worst ports when they were released compared to the Wii U. No one knows the specifications of the next Sony or Microsoft consoles and those who have the balls to compared the Wii U to unreleased consoles needs to shut the bloody hell up and give Nintendo a chance. But no, people turned the Wii U into an excuse to create a bitch-fest because they make assumptions on how powerful the console is compared to the newer systems.

It's annoying, people need to shut up about it, and if they're going to compared console to console, they need hard evidence and not something some babaca claims to be true.


Opinions =/= truth

Ports were rushed
They were handled by outside teams
If the Wii U can't handle ports, explain why Trine 2 is a perfect PC to console port
The architecture is PCC with GPGPU compared to Xbox 360 (x86-based) and PS3 (Cell)

Not giving developer teams the benefit of the doubt with new hardware is a real dick thing to do.

 

[Sakitoshi]

The architecture is PCC with GPGPU compared to Xbox 360 (x86-based) and PS3 (Cell)

IIRC Xenon and Cell are both IBM PPC.
but Xenon is only a fragment of the Cell structure and Cell works very differently.

 

[the_randomizer]

IIRC Xenon and Cell are both IBM PPC.
but Xenon is only a fragment of the Cell structure and Cell works very differently.

Either way, people are unjustifiably criticizing the Wii U by comparing it to unreleased documentation on unreleased consoles; they've no evidence to back up their claims and don't realize why the ports were they way they were. Nothing but a bunch of bitching sods.

 

[Sakitoshi]

Either way, people are unjustifiably criticizing the Wii U by comparing it to unreleased documentation on unreleased consoles; they've no evidence to back up their claims and don't realize why the ports were they way they were. Nothing but a bunch of bitching sods.

yup, thats very true, just to put examples of PS3 vs X360 ports: Bayonetta and Finalfantasy XIII. and to name PC vs consoles: Crysis.

 

[VMM]

yup, thats very true, just to put examples of PS3 vs X360 ports: Bayonetta and Finalfantasy XIII. and to name PC vs consoles: Crysis.

Dunno about FF13, but
Bayonetta was the worst port to PS3 I've ever seen.
It looks like Sega didn't took the minimum effort to make a descent port.

Again, that's a fallible argument. The ports were rushed, there were ported from one familiar architecture to newer unfamiliar architecture. The ports were handled by outside teams and not the original makers, they had a limited time frame to create the ports. I don't understand why people are so hellbent on not accepting that fact, I don't know why people don't realize that the Xbox 360 and PS3 had worst ports when they were released compared to the Wii U. No one knows the specifications of the next Sony or Microsoft consoles and those who have the balls to compared the Wii U to unreleased consoles needs to shut the bloody hell up and give Nintendo a chance. But no, people turned the Wii U into an excuse to create a bitch-fest because they make assumptions on how powerful the console is compared to the newer systems.

It's annoying, people need to shut up about it, and if they're going to compared console to console, they need hard evidence and not something some babaca claims to be true.


Opinions =/= truth

Ports were rushed
They were handled by outside teams
If the Wii U can't handle ports, explain why Trine 2 is a perfect PC to console port
The architecture is PCC with GPGPU compared to Xbox 360 (x86-based) and PS3 (Cell)

Not giving developer teams the benefit of the doubt with new hardware is a real dick thing to do.

Many developers said that WiiU CPU is less powerfull than PS3 and X360 CPUs.
Said that we can blame in part Nintendo for the bad ports.

PS Orbis and Durango will probably be released between 2014-2016,
which already leads time for high-tech CPUs, GPUs and RAM memories to lower their prices.

Also, considering that WiiU is already very outdated compared to modern PCs,
and also considering the huge difference between PS3 and X360 capacity and Wii capacity,
it's easy to understand why everybody thinks that PS Orbis and Durango will be much more powerful than WiiU.

 

[the_randomizer]

Dunno about FF13, but
Bayonetta was the worst port to PS3 I've ever seen.
It looks like Sega didn't took the minimum effort to make a descent port.

Many developers said that Wii U CPU is less powerful than PS3 and X360 CPU said that we can blame in part Nintendo for the bad ports.

PS Orbis and Durango will probably be released between 2014-2016,
which already leads time for high-tech CPUs, GPUs and RAM amounts to lower their prices.

That doesn't mean a f***ing thing as far as how powerful powerful new consoles will be and how much they will cost. More powerful hardware never means having an automatic recipe for instant success. If that were the case, the PS2 would have lost in terms of selling the most units for any console in any generation; 200,000,000 people are proof of that. The Xbox 360 and PS3 sold nowhere near what the Wii sold, 97,000,000 last I checked. What about the Super Nintendo? It outsold the Genesis and won the 16-bit console wars despite having a weaker CPU. Why? Oh, I don't know, maybe it had to do with *gasp* the games? What sorcery is this!?

Also, considering that WiiU is already very outdated compared to modern PCs,
and also considering the huge difference between PS3 and X360 capacity and Wii capacity,
it's easy to understand why everybody thinks that PS Orbis and Durango will be much more powerful than WiiU.

No sh*t Sherlock. Since when have consoles ever been more powerful than PCs? You didn't read anything I said about the ported games, did you? Hell, you probably didn't even read what Marcan42 said about how GHz is a moot point...simply amazing. GHz hasn't even been the most vital aspect of CPUs for a long time, get your fact straight before making baseless assumptions and doomsayer accusations.

History has proven my point.

Snes vs Genesis = Snes
PSX vs. N64 = PSX
PS2 vs. Gamecube vs. Xbox = PS2
Wii vs. PS3 vs. Xbox 360 = Wii

What do these have in common? They're weaker than the other consoles and yet, they won. How? The games perhaps? Nah, they never won the past generations because they had outdated and weak hardware. There's no way in hell they could have won with underpowered components like that. Now, will you please do us a favor and shut your f***ing mouth if all you can do is bash Nintendo all day?

 

[VMM]

No sh*t Sherlock. Since when have consoles ever been more powerful than PCs? You didn't read anything I said about the ported games, did you? Hell, you probably didn't even read what Marcan42 said about how GHz is a moot point...simply amazing. GHz hasn't even been the most vital aspect of CPUs for a long time, get your fact straight before making baseless assumptions and doomsayer accusations.

Again I repeat:

It looks like you distort in your mind every word that I say
When did I say about GHz?
When did I say about which console sells the most?

I'm justifying why people think that PS Orbis and Durango will have a stronger hardware.
It's pretty obvious, you're the only one who doesn't see this.

History has proven my point.

Snes vs Genesis = Snes
PSX vs. N64 = PSX
PS2 vs. Gamecube vs. Xbox = PS2
Wii vs. PS3 vs. Xbox 360 = Wii

What do these have in common? They're weaker than the other consoles and yet, they won. How? The games perhaps? Nah, they never won the past generations because they had outdated and weak hardware. There's no way in hell they could have won with underpowered components like that. Now, will you please do us a favor and shut your f***ing mouth if all you can do is bash Nintendo all day?

No it hasn't.
SNES had a better GPU and soundboard than Genesis,
and games like Donkey Kong Country prove it's superiority to Genesis,

also:
NES<Master System
Needless to say which of these two is stronger and which sold most.

Also, do us a favor and come back to the forum when you stop PMSing.

 

[the_randomizer]

Again I repeat:

It looks like you distort in your mind every word that I say
When did I say about GHz?
When did I say about which console sells the most?

I'm justifying why people think that PS Orbis and Durango will have a stronger hardware.
It's pretty obvious, you're the only one who doesn't see this.

People don't know for a fact it will how powerful the hardware will be. If it was super powerful, the consoles will sell a a loss and be prohibitively overpriced, like the PS3.

No it hasn't.
SNES had a better GPU and soundboard than Genesis,
and games like Donkey Kong Country prove it's superiority to Genesis,

also:
NES<Master System
Needless to say which of these two is stronger and which sold most.

Also, do us a favor and come back to the forum when you stop PMSing.

Sorry, I'm incapable of making such a promise, remember? Just because the Wii U is underpowered doesn't mean it will fail, there is no proof of that. Oh, and the Genesis/Megadrive had a faster CPU than the Snes.