Skyrim has the GOTY award, and you should see PS3/XBoX users's jaws falling to the ground when they see Skyrim running on a high end PC. It is not a matter of HD or not HD, but how many things can you render and how detailed these things may be and how many of these things are effectively iteracting within the game. Even for the same game (Skyrim as an example), it marks the difference between seeing a fully detailed lanscape with a visual horizon of 10Km, or just being able to see what is closer than 100m from you. The difference is terrific, and it has no relation at all with the screen resolution. Just going HD means little and it would not be enough at all (except for HD marios, of course).
Exactly. Increasing the resolution alone doesn't make these games better. It may make the textures more crisp, and colors more vibrant, but HD alone does nothing about draw distance, polygon count, framerate, depth of field effects, particle effects, shadows and bump-mapping, etc. Most of these effects could be done on the original Xbox, which had very limited HD capabilities.
The Wii U will be comparable to last years mid-range PC's. The technology is newer, and therefore faster and more advanced than the 6-year-old tech in the Xbox 360 and PS3.
Hmm.....all I can really say to this type of topic as an XBox 360 owner myself (Actually, I own a console and handheld(s) from each of the big 3) is, who's honestly gonna be focusing on even then slightest possibility that Wii U could turn out "similar" to XBox 360, when whenever MS is ready to unveil and give us a release date, a next gen XBox successor will take its place? What about Sony and PlayStation 4 for that matter, which we really don't even know much about yet at all? Meaningless to say that the comparison between a current gen console and a next gen console won't really make much of a difference next generation because all 3 will have already taken their successors to the next level in their own, unique ways.
3DS FC: 4768-7451-8056
3DS Mii QR code: http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h447/DaveGX2/HNI_0002.jpg
The Wii U is a huge leap forward from the original Wii. It might be "playing catch up" to the Xbox 360 and PS3 in the graphics department, but the Wii U is still much more advanced than the current Wii.
The only problem Nintendo had this gen was making the Wii only a slightly advanced GameCube. There wasn't much of a leap compared to the PS3 and Xbox 360.
If I recalled, the WiiU will use GPUs equivalent to ATI 4000 series. Oh boy, it can be capable of processing more than just images (general purpose GPU)! As for graphics output, would totally love for developers and artists to make creative use of shaders (not that there's anything wrong with current generation graphics). I also want to know the technical details of the CPU that IBM's providing.
I honestly have a feeling in my stomach that if the next generation repeats itself in terms of tech, either the WiiU/last-gens will sell like hotcakes OR the power-whore companies will marginally improve their specs above the WiiU to compete.
If I recalled, the WiiU will use GPUs equivalent to ATI 4000 series. Oh boy, it can be capable of processing stuff other than images (general purpose GPU)! As for graphics output, would totally love for developers and artists to make creative use of shaders (not that there's anything wrong with current generation graphics). I also want to know the technical details of the CPU that IBM's providing.
I honestly have a feeling in my stomach that if the next generation repeats itself in terms of tech, either the WiiU/last-gens will sell like hotcakes OR the power-whore companies will marginally improve their specs above the WiiU to compete.
But the whole purpose of a GPU is for graphics, hence the name "graphics processing unit". A CPU is the overall system processor, while the GPU is specifically for graphics.
So with these RUMORS of the GPU being equivelant to an ATI 4000 series, does that mean the Wii U is capable of better graphics than the PS3? Well, it would technically be AMD, since they own ATI and that name is just used for branding now.
If these things are melted together, which it seems they are, I will be happy. I don't need super-graphics. I don't even have an HD TV yet, so I really couldn't care less.
Nintendo - Where even first person shooters ooze creativity.
Do you think these specs are good enough to compete with the Xbox 360 and PS3?
Size: Approximately 1.8 inches tall, 6.8 inches wide and 10.5 inches long.
Media: A single self-loading media bay will play 12-centimeter proprietary high-density optical discs for the new console, as well as 12-centimeter Wii optical discs.
Video Output: Supports 1080p, 1080i, 720p, 480p and 480i. Compatible cables include HDMI, component, S-video and composite.
Audio Output: Uses AV Multi Out connector. Six-channel PCM linear output through HDMI.
Storage: The console will have internal flash memory, as well as the option to expand its memory using either an SD memory card or an external USB hard disk drive.
CPU: IBM Power®-based multi-core microprocessor.
GPU: AMD Radeon™-based High Definition GPU.
Other: Four USB 2.0 connector slots are included. The new console is backward compatible with Wii games and Wii accessories.
I'm so happy about the 4 USB slots. There are only 2 on the PS3, and that really frustrates me when I have to charge my PS3 controllers and still need space for the PlayStation Eye.
I just enjoy the games for what they are. I honestly don't give a crap about specs in terms of specific qualities
Well the extra USB ports are certainly something to be happy about, considering the new PS3 models only have 2 in the front, and none in the back. How am I supposed to charge all my controllers and still have the PS Eye plugged in?
One of the sources of concern for the Vita is the requirement (and high expense) of memory cards because there isn't enough internal storage. I wonder how much of an issue this will be with the Wii U when factoring the overall cost. Is it fair to say a decent external hard drive will run around $100?
One of the sources of concern for the Vita is the requirement (and high expense) of memory cards because there isn't enough internal storage. I wonder how much of an issue this will be with the Wii U when factoring the overall cost. Is it fair to say a decent external hard drive will run around $100?
The PSP used memory cards, as did the PS1, PS2, Dreamcast, GameCube, etc. Why are people complaining about the Vita requiring memory cards when all those other systems did too?
And the 3DS requires memory cards too, but luckily Nintendo was smart and included one with the system.
One of the sources of concern for the Vita is the requirement (and high expense) of memory cards because there isn't enough internal storage. I wonder how much of an issue this will be with the Wii U when factoring the overall cost. Is it fair to say a decent external hard drive will run around $100?
The PSP used memory cards, as did the PS1, PS2, Dreamcast, GameCube, etc. Why are people complaining about the Vita requiring memory cards when all those other systems did too?
And the 3DS requires memory cards too, but luckily Nintendo was smart and included one with the system.
Oh, the context has changed for the last few years silly. The market for DLC and some basic extra functions (i.e. music, videos, etc.) had risen. And Sony sorta backfired with the VITA by arbitrarily using proprietary media and virtually eliminating internal storage, considering that they want to focus it as a multimedia device with emphasis on gaming.
Back then, a gaming device stayed as a gaming device; memory cards were mainly used for save data and DLC was mostly absent due to limited internet speeds.
So with these RUMORS of the GPU being equivelant to an ATI 4000 series, does that mean the Wii U is capable of better graphics than the PS3? Well, it would technically be AMD, since they own ATI and that name is just used for branding now.
The E3 demos clearly demonstrated that the Wii U will be capable of better graphics than the PS3. I'm not even sure why anyone would doubt it, as the Wii U GPU is about 7 generations ahead of the PS3 GPU. Most devs are also saying that the Wii U is around 1.5 times more powerful than the PS3. One thing that has often held the PS3 back is the difficulty in programming for the Cell and the inflexible memory; which often resulted in multiplatform games looking better on the 360 despite the PS3 having more powerful hardware. So the Wii U promises more power than the PS3 but with the ease of the 360 (devs have said that they were pleased with how easy it is to port games over to the Wii U ), which should make for some great experiences.
Now I don't actually expect the majority of games to look much different from current PS3/360 games, except for actually displaying in 1080p rather than 720p (or even 540p on many games) and running at 60fps rather than 30fps. That'll be enough for me, as even if the games look very similar they should feel a lot smoother on the Wii U.
One of the sources of concern for the Vita is the requirement (and high expense) of memory cards because there isn't enough internal storage. I wonder how much of an issue this will be with the Wii U when factoring the overall cost. Is it fair to say a decent external hard drive will run around $100?
The Wii requires an SD card when downloading lots of games, and SD cards are very cheap. I don't think we'd need a hard drive for the Wii U. unless Nintendo includes one with the console
Forums
Topic: Wii U Tech Specifications Similar To Those Of X Box 360?
Posts 81 to 98 of 98
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.