Topic: Shin’en Says Wii U GPU “Several Generations Ahead Of Current-Gen”

http://mynintendonews.com/2013/05/29/shinen-says-wii-u-gpu-se...

According to Shin'en:

“The Wii U GPU is several generations ahead of the current gen. It allows many things that were not possible on consoles before. If you develop for Wii U you have to take advantage of these possibilities, otherwise your performance is of course limited. Also your engine layout needs to be different. You need to take advantage of the large shared memory of the Wii U, the huge and very fast EDRAM section and the big CPU caches in the cores. Especially the workings of the CPU caches are very important to master. Otherwise you can lose a magnitude of power for cache relevant parts of your code. In the end the Wii U specs fit perfectly together and make a very efficient console when used right.”

This is really interesting, and another counterpoint to all the developers (and moronic fanboys) who slam the Wii U's supposed lack of power.

I wonder what the almighty Digital Foundry has to say about this...

Uh huh.

I just want to point out that when they say "generations" I believe they are talking about GPU generations, and not console generations.

Be careful of how the word "generations" is used. Outside of the video game industry "generation" in tech is generally used to refer to a much shorter cycle. By that measure all of the "next gen" consoles are several generations ahead of the previous consoles.... and they all use "last gen" tech

Thanks for that insightful comment.

Anyway, I just thought it was interesting, considering the fact that Wii U is often lumped with the PS3 & Xbox 360 in terms of comparisons (usually in regards to ports); when in fact it is a powerful piece of tech that has the potential to produce games that far exceed the current HD consoles in terms of visuals and large worlds. The way Shin'en talks about the Wii U's GPU and architecture indicates that the console's potential is still largely untapped, despite negative comments by many developers. In a way, it reminds me of the PS3's early days, wherein the alien hardware eventually gave way to stunning games such as Uncharted, God of War, The Last of Us, and Beyond: Two Souls. Already, Pikmin 3 looks incredible (better than anything on PS3 & X360, IMHO), and I can only imagine what the new Zelda will be like.

Eh, I didn't what to go into another 'Wii U power' diatribe, I just found Shin'en's comments pretty cool.

It all comes down to art design at the end. Mario Galaxy looked amazing considering the hardware it ran on. It had no reason to hide behind some "next gen" games. Then you have Xenoblade with a scale unmatched in this generation. If you know how to use the hardware you are working with, you technicly can overcome every shortcomming there is. If the new Zelda uses the same art style then, say, Wind Waker, it will look just like it, just in HD.
Look at the 360 and PS3. The PS3 is significantly more powerful than the 360 hardware wise, and still, most of the games released this gen ran on both systems and looked mostly the same. You had some that looked better on one console than the other but most of the time, it was nothing to write home about. The reason for that was, that the PS3s hardware architecture was so cryptic, that even first party dev teams didint knew how to use it properly. And regarding the "spectacular PS3 exclusiv games". We simply dont know IF they could run on the 360, so you simply cant compare with them.
Or look at the N64 and the PS1. The PS1 is also considered to be way more powerful compared to the N64 and still, fully 3D games (Banjo, Zelda on the N64, Spyro and Crash on PS1) look better and larger on the N64 whyle 2D games looked way better on the PS1. Power means literally nothing in the console business.
Gamecube and the original Xbox succumbed to the technically inferior PS2, the powerful DreamCast died before it ever really lived.
Its the new demographic that was drawn to gaming in the current generation that made "raw power" more important that it actually is.Look at the games that are popular today. These are mostly the same year after year. Always the same shooter mechanics, the same football / Soccer games etc. These games dont evolve content or gameplay wise, so the only factor they have to show that they are new ist the technical aspect, the graphics which inflated the "look at tha graphix" trend to such hights.
You can present the best gameplay ever conceived, if the graphics are not super shiny, it is considered a bad game.

@Einherjar, just wanted to point out a couple things.

1. While the cryptic architecture of the PS3 was one reason that games looked similar to their 360 counterparts, the other was that the 360 had a larger install base, thus developers would often start development on 360 (meaning they were built around it's architecture, and worked better on it).

2. The N64 was actually more powerful than the PS1, not the other way around. Certain things (like larger game worlds, voice acting, & video) were possible on PS1 not because it was a more powerful system, but because it used discs, which could hold much more memory than carts (meaning all those things could fit much easier into games).

you technicly can overcome every shortcomming there is.

At a cost, smoke & mirrors.

If you can code for the XBox1, you can code for the PS4 and it's gonna be relatively to optimize them. With the Wii U, it's not that easy which is the problem, it's too time consuming and difficult. Developers would rather take the path of least resistance, thus the performance won't be optimal in most cases.

@RR529
1. Larger install base ? The world was flooded with PS2s. Almost everyone i know owns at least one console. So, playstation was the way more known brand. Also, at that time, the main game devs where japanese and they mostly shunned the 360 away. Since they know think (for whatever reason) that their games are lacking and western devs are stronger than ever, its ballanced out quite a bit. Also, the PS3 hat way more first party dev teams (naughty dog, insomniac) that brought the exclusives in. So, i dont think that the install base is a factor here. My point was, that the PS3 is capable of WAY more than we have seen so far, at least it should be able to. But nobody was able to unlock its full potential.

2. Thats why i said "is considered more powerful" Its the same thing with the gamecube. If you take multi console titles and play them back to back with the PS2 version, you see that they run a lot better on the little purple cube and still, people think that it was technically inferior for the simple reason that the system failed. "it cant suck when it has da graphix man" And im absolutely aware that aditional things like voice overs etc where possible due to the larger space CDs provided for the PS1

This has to be the most informative comment that I've seen on the Wii U power subject. I just wish that Nintendo would give these guys a big budget and the chance to work on one of their franchises, as they would likely produce a really stunning game.

Of course it's more powerful. We've known that for a long time. Only the ignorant continue to compare it to the PS3/360. Let's be honest: most Xbox bros have absolutely no idea what a GPU even is. Overclocking (something the Wii U's GPU is totally capable of whilst most console GPUs are not) is over the heads of these people as they have no clue how much of a performance difference it can make. Talk to any PC gamer - I can overclock my i7 from 3.4 to 4GHz quite safely, and my GPU up through 900MHz without batting an eyelash. The Wii U's GPU is specifically made to allow for overclocking through updates, effectively enabling it to evolve over time. This whole "Wii U isn't as powerful" ignorance needs to just go away.

/thread