Topic: Possible Wii U GPU base specs from reliable (?) source: 160 ALUs - 8 TMUs - 8 ROPs

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=88910409&postc...

bgassassin on NeoGAF has been a good poster and apparently has had a source about Wii U's GPU specs since last year before the console released.

Wii U GPU base specs: 160 ALUs, 8 TMUs, 8 ROPs; Rumor: Wii U hardware was downgraded

Hey guys. I finally caught up with someone I've talked with in the past. While the actual listed specs do not mention these exact numbers, with the die shot they are more than enough to confirm those numbers.

The 160/8/8 doesn't bother me. It's how they allegedly arrived at that which doesn't sit well with me. The allegation is that the Wii U hardware was downgraded due to overheating dev kits.

Also, from a different NeoGAF member:

The Wii U can already do anything better than 7th gen, though, so I don't really get what the point of that chart is.

No, like the recent ports have started to blatantly be better than the 360/Ps3 versions, even ignoring that this makes literally no sense based on X.

We already know it's false.

/thread

This is literally ignoring reality.

Pretty much. Just like when that EA guy said Wii U was weaker than Xbox 360 and some people actually believed him.

Wii U is certainly NOT as powerful as 360/PS3 in some areas, let alone more, in every way.
Wii U CPU is no where near as powerful as CELL, and Wii U does not have as much main system bandwidth as either. Those are two examples.

Wii U does have more modern GPU / graphics features (shader 4.1) than the others (shader 3.0+) but performance is the same or lower.

Wii U's biggest advantage is that it has twice the RAM for games (1 GB) and 4x the RAM in total (2 GB) compared to 512 MB each for 360/PS3.

Blanket statements like "Wii U can do everything better than 360 / PS3" are false.

The reality is, Xbox 360, PS3 and Wii U each have various strengths, and weaknesses, compared with one another.

There are only 2 explanations. Either this is pure bs or that Nintendo did some INCREDIBLE magic, both in terms of game development and the architecture (among other things) of the console. Because even with Nintendo underestimating HD gaming apparently, even 3D World coming out this month makes me question it, and I don't think that's nearly their best looking upcoming title. Not that 3D World couldn't necessary have been done by the other consoles but not during their first year or so (not even Viva Pinata, much as I adore that game's look). Even the difference between what those consoles can do in their first year compared to now is fairly noticible (compare both the first and most recent HD Hitman game, it might surprise you).

@paralaxscroll
How do you explain Wii U's better performance, then? If Nintendo made the Wii U run off of solar energy, there would still be people saying getting power from an outlet is "more powerful".

That's the kind of stuff we're dealing with here.

Wii U architecture is VERY efficient. Nintendo has demanded console efficiency since they started working with ArtX (later ATI) and IBM on Project Dolphin in 1998~1999. The GameCube was an extremely efficient design compared to the N64 and PS2.

This extended to the Wii which was a faster GameCube with more RAM.

The trend continued with the more modern multi-core CPU, GPU shader and memory architecture of Wii U.

So the Wii U is les capable, but does everything better. Great.

Wii U is not powerful, SNES, SEGA Genesis too but I still play their games.

Wii U will miss some crucial third party games, but it will have many other games that will surely satisfy our needs.

I rate this thread a gigaFLOP

Claiming it's less powerful because of cooling problems but then citing "efficiency" as the reason for better performance seems a bit odd. I know there are different types of efficiency but something really doesn't seem right. If Nintendo are so good at building a fantastic architecture to squeeze performance out of weaker hardware then why would they throw all that away with a dinky fan? Products are usually all or none with this sort of thing, not one or the other.

Also.... if it is producing better looking games out the other end then who cares? What does it matter? We're not sitting here wondering which processors will run some generic task better in everyday use. We're talking about which one does the games better. From what we've seen the Wii U does the games better than the previous gen but not as good as its traditional competitors in the next. Isn't that all that matters?

I would say the 32MB eDRAM is a pretty big advantage over 360, as well. It allows developers to use it as framebuffer even in 1080p.

While Wii U is a lot weaker of a system than Xbone and PS4, I'm pretty sure Nintendo put a lot of thought into making it just as capable as required by what they want to do with it. I don't expect photo realistic games for Wii U, but I never expect (or want) that from Nintendo.

You do know that NeoGaf is infamous for blindly hating on everything Nintendo for no particular reason right? This is clearly click-bait.

Well I think the idea is that who cares how the system does in relation to current gen, but how it stacks up to other 8th gen consoles. TBH it doesn't even matter becuase even if it was on par it still wouldn't get the support the other two will. Nintendo would have had to commuincate more with third parties as well as scarfice the gamepad.

Wii U is more powerful than PS3 and 360. I don't understand why that's so hard to grasp.

This is getting old.

We just need to accept that Nintendo sacrificed overall power to make Wii U the most powerful, pound-to-pound. The performance far outstrips the resource consumption, this is Nintendo's vision of the future. Whether we like it or not. (I do. Yeah, stupid environmentalist...)