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

[Veho]

19x? Awesome! Is my wii u going to melt through my whole stand after only a few minutes of play?

No, thanks to the new and improved heat sink!

Also, a larger fan!

 

[RodrigoDavy]

Blast processing was a sneaky marketing ploy on Sega's part (but it worked very well), a mere euphemism for a higher-clocked CPU than the Super NES.

That's not entirely true - there was a number of things in the "Blast Processing" bag apart from the CPU - the idea was that the console was equipped with a DMA controller which allowed simultaneous writing and reading from a part of the memory. In other words, it was taking the toll off the CPU by using DMA copying. Blast Processing as a term came from a Sega employee's statement which was as follows: "blasting data into DAC's" - what he meant was that by incredibly fast copying of palettes independently from the CPU and between VBlanks, the Genesis was able to display a full 512 colour palette (for a particular element, for example a sprite or a background) despite technically not supporting one hardware-wise - something the SNES was unable to do. You know where the "Blast" came from now.

Was the method often used? No, it was not, but the DMA controller gave the Genesis an upper hand in certain operations

But blast processing was advertised as speed advantage over the snes not a graphical one. Despite the term's origin, The Randomizer's argument is still valid. Anyway, the snes is much more powerful than the genesis/mega drive in practice. Better graphics, mode 7 and a sound processor that make genesis sound ridiculous in comparison. The myth that the snes is slow is false in my opinion, sonic was ported to the master system... I am pretty sure the snes could run it too. The only slowdowns I remember on snes games are when there are too many sprites on the screen.

 

[Foxi4]

But blast processing was advertised as speed advantage over the snes not a graphical one.

Of course the SNES if overall more powerful, I never denied that. What I said was that the Genesis was able to copy chunks of memory in-between of VBlanks while still using the memory. While the Blast Processing term originated from using this capability with palettes, it could just as well be used in any other calculation requiring copying - it is a speed advantage, not a graphical one per se. The DMA controller is independent from the CPU - it means that it merely receives an instruction from the CPU to deal with some memory-related calculations while the CPU itself dealt with its own, at the same time awaiting a result from the controller.

 

[RodrigoDavy]

@Foxi4 I actually liked your explanation of blast processing technique. The parts where I defend the snes was more directed to people who were underestimating the snes capabilities before. I saw some evil commercials of Sega of that time and I think it had a big impact on North Americans. It was completely anti-ethic imo.

 

[gamefan5]

snip

And all has been said. XD
I thought I was the only one thinking that 19x was ridiculous.

 

[Foxi4]

@Foxi4 I actually liked your explanation of blast processing technique. The parts where I defend the snes was more directed to people who were underestimating the snes capabilities before. I saw some evil commercials of Sega of that time and I think it had a big impact on North Americans. It was completely anti-ethic imo.

The North American campaign was indeed quite an agressive one - I never really understood why. While it didn't feature flat-out lies, it was stretching the truth to say the least. That said, many people still overestimate the edge the SNES had over the Genesis.

I often hear how the SNES could generate full 3D polygon-based graphics easily, with Starfox games at the helm. That's not true at all - the SNES alone couldn't do that, the Super FX and Super FX 2 could. Using those games in SNES versus Genesis comparisons is, to me, an equivalent of comparing the SNES with a Genesis with the 32X attachment - it's additional hardware interfacing with the main console over the cartridge slot and using it as an argument is simply unfair.

Both consoles were powerful at the time of their release and both consoles received superb support. The SNES had the upper hand, fair play, but they were both legitimate and valid choices for a customer.

 

[Deleted_171835]

I firmly believe that the Wii U will dominate the eighth-generation market. Why, you ask? Simple, Nintendo is becoming their old selves once more, much like the days on the Snes, with immense third-party support. Yes, I believe they're returning to their past days of glory.

And here we agree - Nintendo is indeed (finally) back into the risky game of creating kick-ass hardware that's well-within the specs demand of its times.

If I were you, I wouldn't get too excited just yet. While the Wii U appears to be sufficently powerful, full specs have yet to be released and we do not know how they will fare against the other upcoming consoles.

 

[gloweyjoey]

This comment was made by a booth babe that handed the guy the controller
These are the authors,Francois Kitching, facebook comments to his own article

As several sites are quoting us as the source of this "news" story I would like to state, for the sake of clarity, it is a fact that the girl on the show floor, wearing a WiiU shirt, who handed me the Gamepad and played NSMBU against me on the Thursday morning made the comment. It was then followed up by, "yes and it is X times more powerful than Wii." I suspect she was incorrect, as is stated within the article.

I have learned from this. Don't publish throwaway comments that you mistrust.

 

[Foxi4]

If I were you, I wouldn't get too excited just yet. While the Wii U appears to be sufficently powerful, full specs have yet to be released and we do not know how they will fare against the other upcoming consoles.

Fair enough, I merely stated that I am happy with what is known so-far. The competitors may release stronger hardware, but we have to keep in mind that it will also be at a higher cost, which pretty much equalizes the confrontation. All things considered, as long as the hardware is sufficient, it's worth a glance.

 

[Deleted_171835]

The series of the GPU and CPU don't mean much in terms of actual performance. All it tells us is that it's modern tech.

Just look at the AMD Radeon HD 7350, the lowest end model of the 7000 series. At 104GFLOPS with 80 SPUs, it's arguably less powerful than the 360's GPU (ATI Radeon X1800).

Saying that the Wii U is 19x more powerful would be the most significant info regarding the specs that they've released so far (aside from RAM - 2GB). That's not something you go around telling random showfloor reps.

Knowing the series of the GPU and CPU gives us the worst case performance scenarios (even though that's obviously not going to happen), which the below video proves:



There's absolutely nothing significant in knowing how many times more powerful the Wii U is than its competitors, because that's what people should be expecting anyways. Moore's law and all that, we're expecting new hardware to be far superior than older hardware. Now if Nintendo were to give exact details about their hardware, that's a different matter. That's what I would call significant. But hearing something which we already know is nowhere near significant whatsoever.

The issue with that video is that they're going off unconfirmed rumours. We don't know for a fact that the Wii U will feature a 4850 or an equivalent GPU. And the Wii U doesn't actually feature a POWER7 CPU.

I already gave you the worst-case performance scenario if Nintendo is using a GPU from the 7000 series and that's the Radeon HD 7350 which is worse than the 360's GPU in certain aspects. The GPU series only tells us whether Nintendo is using modern tech or not (which thankfully, it appears they are).

It's not necessarily a given that all new hardware will be vastly superior to old hardware. Just look at the Wii which was only a marginal jump over the Gamecube. 19x more powerful than the PS3 would be a significant detail and it certainly isn't something we already know.

 

[Psionic Roshambo]

I could care less if it's 19X more powerful, as long as its 19X more fun I am all set.

 

[the_randomizer]

I couldn't care less if it's 19X more powerful, as long as its 19X more fun I am all set.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Rydian]

I couldn't care less if it's 19X more powerful, as long as its 19X more fun I am all set.

Fixed that for you.

Maybe he cares a little, and thus caring less than he currently does is a possibility?

 

[ouch123]

I couldn't care less if it's 19X more powerful, as long as its 19X more fun I am all set.

Fixed that for you.

I couldn't care less that you could care less about him being (un)able to care less.

On-topic: I doubt that the Wii U is 19x more powerful in any meaningful way, beyond marketing that is.

 

[Maxternal]

I doubt that the Wii U is 19x more powerful in any meaningful way, beyond marketing that is.

Actually, yeah, 19x more powerful marketing sounds like something they can shoot for.

 

[ShadowSoldier]

Besides the recent handhelds versus the PSP/Vita and the gameboy versus the Gamegear/Nomad /Lynx Nintendo has rarely been that weak hardware wise and honestly Nintendo won profit wise 7th generation since 360/PS3 were pretty much bleeding money. So anyone saying the PS3/360 were that sucessful really haven't looked at the numbers.

Playstation 3 lost around 4 Billion not counting the possible profit from 2012.
XBox lost around 4 billion and if you don't count those numbers the 360 has barely broke even.
The fact of the matter is the next release of consoles might mean the death of PS/Xbox.

Believe me man, on this site, nobody is going to take you seriously or even give you the slightest thought that that might happen. Even though this site is pretty damn pro-Nintendo, people bash the fuck out of Nintendo.

I'm pretty sure if they do the research and see that the PS3/Xbox have been bleeding money they will see the companies have to make a drastic change next generation. They cannot just go and make a $500+ system at launch with a loss on each one sold.

Microsoft can, Sony, no.

 

[Deleted_171835]

Microsoft can, Sony, no.

Sony doesn't care (judging by the Vita).

They seem perfectly content with bleeding themselves to death.

 

[Foxi4]

Microsoft can, Sony, no.

Sony doesn't care (judging by the Vita).

They seem perfectly content with bleeding themselves to death.

Sony intends to make a profit the same way they have during the 2010 fiscal year - by bleeding money on hardware, but making money on licensing fees for the games made for said hardware and via providing services. It's a risky tactic that hardly ever works and they would be better off if they changed their approach with the PS4, opting for an affordable and "ample" platform rather than an expensive beast, but that said, during the forementioned fiscal year, the gaming division was one of the only ones that actually posted profits, and throughout the rest it wasn't necessarily their biggest loser.

 

[JoostinOnline]

@soulx and Foxi4: One of you needs to change your avatar.

 

[Foxi4]

@soulx and Foxi4: One of you needs to change your avatar.

http://gbatemp.net/topic/335730-you-know-what-we-havent-had-in-a-while/

Also, no.