• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF

blu
Member
(11-19-2012, 02:42 PM)
blu's Avatar
Ok, I think it's about time we tried to put all known Wii U specification things into its own thread and try to have a civil discussion.

Hard facts (either publicly disclosed, or a non-public leak which can be vouched by somebody trustworthy on this very forum):
  • MCM design: GPU+eDRAM die and CPU die on the same substrate.
  • 2 GB of DDR3 memory @800MHz (DDR3-1600), organized in 4x 4Gb (256Mx16) modules, sitting on a 64bit bus (@800MHz). That gives a net BW of 12800MB/s (12.5GB/s). We can conveniently refer to this pool as 'MEM2'. Currently 1GB of that pool is reserved for the OS.
  • 32 MB of unknown organisation, unknown specs eDRAM, sitting with the GPU. We can conveniently refer to this pool as 'MEM1'
  • Tri-core CPU @1.243125GHz, codename 'Espresso', binary compatible with Gekko/Broadway, featuring 3MB of cache in asymmetric config: 2x 512KB, 1x 2048KB; CPU cache is implemented via eDRAM. Sans SMT. SIMD is same 'paired-singles' 2-way SIMD found in Gekko/Broadway. Fourth Storm's thread discussing the high-res CPU die shot produced by Chipworks on GAF's request.
  • AMD R700-originating GPU @550MHz (R700 is AMD architecture codename 'Wekiva'), evolved into its own architecture (AMD architecture codename 'Mario'), relying on MEM1 for framebuffer purposes, but also for local render targets and scratch-pad purposes. Thraktor's thread discussing the high-res GPU die shot produced by Chipworks on GAF's request.
  • Memory access specifics: both MEM1 and MEM2 are read/write accessible by the CPU, both subject to caching. GPU in its turn also has access to both pools, and is likely serving as the north bridge in the system (an educated guess, subject to calling out).
  • System is equipped with extra co-processors in the shape of an ARM (unknown architecture) and a DSP core (again of unknown architecture) primarily for sounds workloads.
  • BluRay-based optical drive, 22.5MB/s, 25GB media.

Immediate logical implications from the above (i.e. implications not requiring large leaps of logic):
  • Not all WiiU CPU cores are equal - one of them is meant to do things the other two are not. Whether that is related to BC, OS tasks, both, or neither, is unclear.
  • When it comes to non-local GPU assets (read: mainly textures), WiiU's main RAM BW increase over nintendo's most advanced SD platform (i.e. 5.47GB/s -> 12.5GB/s) hints that WiiU is mainly targeted at a 2x-3x resolution increase over the Wii, or IOW, 480p -> 720p.
  • The shared access to MEM1 pool by the GPU and CPU alike indicated the two units are meant to interact at low latency, not normally seen in previous console generations. Definitely a subject for interesting debates this one is.

credits:
  • teardown revealing DDR3 modules courtesy of PC Perspective, Anand and iFixit.
  • U-CPU clocks and architecture details courtesy of marcan.
Last edited by blu; 02-18-2013 at 01:04 PM.
1-D_FTW
Member
(11-19-2012, 02:45 PM)
1-D_FTW's Avatar
EDITED TO KEEP FOCUS STRICTLY ON TECH TALK.
Last edited by 1-D_FTW; 11-19-2012 at 08:56 PM.
C-Drive
Member
(11-19-2012, 02:51 PM)
C-Drive's Avatar

Originally Posted by 1-D_FTW

I have a serious question for buyers: Looking at that Andtech benchmark, would you guys have gladly sacrificed backwards compatibility for a better CPU (and less bottlenecks)? Can't help but think they wouldn't have been better off going with even an ARM based CPU if power efficiency was their top concern. Do you feel this was a valid tradeoff?

I think for most of the "casual gamers" the trade off was needed because a big selling point is "it plays your old games".

As a buyer, not so much.
SirIgbyCeaser
Banned
(11-19-2012, 02:53 PM)
SirIgbyCeaser's Avatar
I think nintendo sent developers a checklist that asked, how much ram they would appreciate and failed to mention how slow it will be. Non the less, i'm sure 1st party nintendo will still figure out a way to make load times virtually non-existant. Retro i'm looking at you.

Does anybody know how quick the proprietary Blu-ray reader and discs are on the wii u?
I NEED SCISSORS
Banned
(11-19-2012, 02:55 PM)
What implications will slower RAM access have? I can guess more pop in, longer loading etc but anything else? And will this undermine the fact that it has a higher amount than current consoles?
pulsemyne
Member
(11-19-2012, 02:55 PM)
Good OP. The memory configuration is a very differant approach to current gen consoles. It seems nintendo went with a slow RAM for none vital code and super fast ram for vital code. My guess is they dump everything into the DD3 and then stream out the necessary bit's in to the Edram (the low latency between the DD3 and the Edram seems to indicate this). This approach could be why there are long load times on certain things. Is differant from the current gen and devs probably aren't used to it yet. Current engines certainly are designed for it and will require a fair bit of tweaking.
However what must be remembered is mature, current gen engines are running on the machine and are pretty comparible with 360/ps3 performance.
CronoShot
Member
(11-19-2012, 02:56 PM)
CronoShot's Avatar

Originally Posted by 1-D_FTW

I have a serious question for buyers: Looking at that Andtech benchmark, would you guys have gladly sacrificed backwards compatibility for a better CPU (and less bottlenecks)? Can't help but think they wouldn't have been better off going with even an ARM based CPU if power efficiency was their top concern. Do you feel this was a valid tradeoff?

Personally, yes.

But if I were Nintendo, I would have done the same thing. Being able to play your old Wii games is a big selling point. Just like DS BC on 3DS.
SquiddyCracker
Junior Member
(11-19-2012, 02:58 PM)
SquiddyCracker's Avatar
Surely they'd have figured out how quick/slow the blu-ray reader is as well by now?
dumbo
Junior Member
(11-19-2012, 02:58 PM)
I guess the OoOE feature of the CPU may be important in dealing with issues arising from the memory choice?

i.e. the CPU can continue handling an eDRAM workload whilst it awaits the data from main memory?
mrklaw
MrArseFace
(11-19-2012, 02:58 PM)
mrklaw's Avatar
what kind of level of performance increase should be expected from the MCM layout of the CPU/GPU, and the edram?

Do we have any idea of the likely bandwidth of the edram, or how much control developers have over how to access it?

i.e can a developer optimise for internal traffic directly between CPU(and cache)-GPU-edram, avoiding hitting main memory as much as possible, and how much could that increase potential performance?

btw, nice topic. Paging Durante, Fafalada and Panajev
nickcv
Member
(11-19-2012, 02:59 PM)
nickcv's Avatar

Originally Posted by pulsemyne

Good OP. The memory configuration is a very differant approach to current gen consoles. It seems nintendo went with a slow RAM for none vital code and super fast ram for vital code. My guess is they dump everything into the DD3 and then stream out the necessary bit's in to the Edram (the low latency between the DD3 and the Edram seems to indicate this). This approach could be why there are long load times on certain things. Is differant from the current gen and devs probably aren't used to it yet. Current engines certainly are designed for it and will require a fair bit of tweaking.
However what must be remembered is mature, current gen engines are running on the machine and are pretty comparible with 360/ps3 performance.

the only thing we really need to know are the actual specs of MEM1
Phazon
Member
(11-19-2012, 03:00 PM)
Phazon's Avatar

Originally Posted by SirIgbyCeaser

I think nintendo sent developers a checklist that asked, how much ram they would appreciate and failed to mention how slow it will be. Non the less, i'm sure 1st party nintendo will still figure out a way to make load times virtually non-existant. Retro i'm looking at you.

Does anybody know how quick the proprietary Blu-ray reader and discs are on the wii u?

22MB/s, was confirmed by Nintendo
BD1
Member
(11-19-2012, 03:01 PM)
BD1's Avatar

Originally Posted by 1-D_FTW

I have a serious question for buyers: Looking at that Andtech benchmark, would you guys have gladly sacrificed backwards compatibility for a better CPU (and less bottlenecks)? Can't help but think they wouldn't have been better off going with even an ARM based CPU if power efficiency was their top concern. Do you feel this was a valid tradeoff?

Personally, I'm fine with it. But then, I've never been a tech-hungry gamer. Just want to play games, ya know?

But it makes all the sense for Nintendo. There are 96 million Wii's in the wild, many of them owned by casual/family/not GAF gamers. Backwards comparability is a big thing, especially for the type of base the Wii had.
GarthVaderUK
Member
(11-19-2012, 03:04 PM)
GarthVaderUK's Avatar
1GB RAM reserved for the OS, right?
Clear
This post contains disingenuous arguments meant to disguise my fanboyism. Reader beware!
(11-19-2012, 03:05 PM)
Clear's Avatar
I really wonder though, how much use do people actually get out of the BC on Nintendo consoles (not handhelds). For me, and I'm pretty sure the majority of gamers, the star attraction of any Nintendo system is the first-party software, which tends to be part of long running franchises. So there's usually a newer version for any older title to compete with for your play-time?
shagg_187
lapdance transform pants
(11-19-2012, 03:07 PM)
shagg_187's Avatar
My questions are:

1. How much of the actual specs differ from the specs provided in "final rumored specs" thread?

2. What is better or worse than what was assumed?

3. How good/bad is it compared to other consoles?

Can't wait for some comparison screenshots/videos!
1-D_FTW
Member
(11-19-2012, 03:13 PM)
1-D_FTW's Avatar
EDITED TO KEEP FOCUS STRICTLY ON TECH TALK.
Last edited by 1-D_FTW; 11-19-2012 at 08:56 PM.
NSider
Member
(11-19-2012, 03:16 PM)
NSider's Avatar
BC is definitely important, but price was obviously the biggest consideration in my opinion. Nintendo chose to make the GamePad's wireless display tech work as best as possible. That and the fact that they added a ton of features to the GamePad made them make a lot of cost cutting measures to the actual console. Add BC to the mix (which is a requirement), and it got messy pretty fast.

Now we have a console that is evidently harder to port game to than previously thought, with a lot of bottlenecks that need to be dealt with. Nintendo and a handful of other Wii U-only developers will work around these issues and will at some point give us games that look better than most PS3/360 games, but most other devs won't really bother, especially if the sales are not there (and why would they?). That means more shitty ports or at least ports that don't really perform that better than the 360/PS3 version. And a year after PS4/Durango are released, well.. it will only be a little better than what the devs did with the Wii.

So once again, this will probably be another Nintendo machine people should only buy for Nintendo games and a few exclusives here and there, and it will probably suffer from some long barren periods. It's been like that since the N64 anyway, so yeah.
Last edited by NSider; 11-19-2012 at 03:30 PM.
Heavy
Member
(11-19-2012, 03:17 PM)
Heavy's Avatar

Originally Posted by GarthVaderUK

1GB RAM reserved for the OS, right?

Yeah, that's missing from the OP. Otherwise great job, wish I knew what half of that meant.
Biggzy
Member
(11-19-2012, 03:18 PM)
Biggzy's Avatar

Originally Posted by GarthVaderUK

1GB RAM reserved for the OS, right?

Yes. 1GB is system RAM.
_machine
Member
(11-19-2012, 03:21 PM)
_machine's Avatar

Originally Posted by CronoShot

Personally, yes.

But if I were Nintendo, I would have done the same thing. Being able to play your old Wii games is a big selling point. Just like DS BC on 3DS.

Pretty much this.

BC is always great and when I do pick-up the WiiU I'll probably use the BC to some extent (will still need Wii for GC games).I still would've sacrificed it for better architecture and hw, but understand why Nintendo did not.
radioheadrule83
Banned
(11-19-2012, 03:23 PM)
radioheadrule83's Avatar

Originally Posted by NSider

Now we have a console that is evidently harder to port game to than previously thought, with a lot of bottlenecks that need to be dealt with.

This statement has no factual basis. Reading the other thread and following the extreme minority of posters who sound like they know what they're talking about - it's clear. I'm not sure it's "evidently harder to port games to" either. It might not be advisable to judge the system off of late ports put together by third party skeleton crews.
blu
Member
(11-19-2012, 03:23 PM)
blu's Avatar

Originally Posted by GarthVaderUK

1GB RAM reserved for the OS, right?

Yes, my bad. Omission corrected.
Captain Smoker
"Hey! What's your name
  then?"
"Mancomb Seepgood."
(11-19-2012, 03:26 PM)
Captain Smoker's Avatar
Thanks for this thread.

It's funny how noone comments in this thread because it hasn't some lurid statements in the thread title. (but that's ok, better discussions)

go on.
Radec
Member
(11-19-2012, 03:27 PM)
Radec's Avatar

Originally Posted by GarthVaderUK

1GB RAM reserved for the OS, right?

Should have went 1.90GB for games.
USC-fan
aka Kbsmoker
(11-19-2012, 03:32 PM)
GPU aka GPGPU

r700 based at 40nm

We have performance per watt figures for a r700 base gpu at 40nm.

4770 at 40nm is 12 glfops per watt is 137 mm die with 826m
edram takes up at least 37 mm and the wiiu gpu is 156 mm.

That leaves at most 100-110 mm for the gpu. Since you have other thing on the die also.

So now we have the power number, gpu on 40nm process and still a r700 based. Man I called all of this....

If you used the whole 33 watts for just gpu you are looking at 396 gflops which is impossible.

More likely using 20-25w at most for gpu, so you have a range of 240 - 300 glfops. Xbox 360 and ps3 are 240-250 gflops.

My copy/paste from the anandtech thread
Last edited by USC-fan; 11-19-2012 at 03:34 PM.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
(11-19-2012, 03:33 PM)
cyberheater's Avatar
Has it been confirmed that the CPU only has 3 physical/logical cores?
NSider
Member
(11-19-2012, 03:35 PM)
NSider's Avatar

Originally Posted by radioheadrule83

This statement has no factual basis. Reading the other thread and following the extreme minority of posters who sound like they know what they're talking about - it's clear. I'm not sure it's "evidently harder to port games to" either. It might not be advisable to judge the system off of late ports put together by third party skeleton crews.

Slow RAM is definitely a bottleneck, and the reportedly weaker CPU is another.

The Wii U definitely has some strong points when compared to the PS3 and 360, but it won't be a lead platform for almost any multiplatform title. This trend of sub-par ports will continue.
The Abominable Snowman
Pure Life tonsil tickle
(11-19-2012, 03:36 PM)
The Abominable Snowman's Avatar
I believe I read on another forum where a incognito dev alluded to the CPU being 3 core single thread/core. Narrows down what we could be looking at in Power-based CPUs. I don't take that as fact, though, because I'm not sure the software we're looking at could run so well on a weak CPU, unless it was clocked high.

Might be closer to the "3x Broadway clocked 3-4x" though.

Based on the die size, we're probably looking at R730+eDRAM/Northbridge. No way a R740 could fit there with eDRAM. It has to be a RV730 retrofitted to interface with DDR3.

Overall, you're looking at a system that may be slightly weaker than the 360 and PS3 in brute strength and speed IMO. It's more modern so things might look cleaner in pics, though. Wii U should have superior texturing and filtering, at least.

But right now you could not budge my mind to think otherwise. It wouldn't be capable of running the 360's and PS3's best. At a playable framerate at least.

Originally Posted by USC-fan

GPU aka GPGPU

r700 based at 40nm

We have performance per watt figures for a r700 base gpu at 40nm.

4770 at 40nm is 12 glfops per watt is 137 mm die with 826m
edram takes up at least 37 mm and the wiiu gpu is 156 mm.

That leaves at most 100-110 mm for the gpu. Since you have other thing on the die also.

So now we have the power number, gpu on 40nm process and still a r700 based. Man I called all of this....

If you used the whole 33 watts for just gpu you are looking at 396 gflops which is impossible.

More likely using 20-25w at most for gpu, so you have a range of 240 - 300 glfops. Xbox 360 and ps3 are 240-250 gflops.

My copy/paste from the anandtech thread

With the GPU die hosting the eDRAM and I/O (Northbridge/Southbridge) NO WAY its a R740. Its probably in between R710 and R730.
Last edited by The Abominable Snowman; 11-19-2012 at 03:44 PM.
Raist
(11-19-2012, 03:36 PM)

Originally Posted by Phazon

22MB/s, was confirmed by Nintendo

So that's like ~2.5X the PS3's BD (which was 2X). I've read reports that it was a 2X too but I guess that was wrong.
dionysus
Yaldog
(11-19-2012, 03:37 PM)
dionysus's Avatar
Tri-core CPU, binary compatible with Gekko/Broadway.

So all this means is that it is PowerPC architecture and is backwards compatible? So we don't know how modern/what generation the CPU is from?
z0m3le
Junior Member
(11-19-2012, 03:42 PM)
z0m3le's Avatar

Originally Posted by USC-fan

GPU aka GPGPU

r700 based at 40nm

We have performance per watt figures for a r700 base gpu at 40nm.

4770 at 40nm is 12 glfops per watt is 137 mm die with 826m
edram takes up at least 37 mm and the wiiu gpu is 156 mm.

That leaves at most 100-110 mm for the gpu. Since you have other thing on the die also.

So now we have the power number, gpu on 40nm process and still a r700 based. Man I called all of this....

If you used the whole 33 watts for just gpu you are looking at 396 gflops which is impossible.

More likely using 20-25w at most for gpu, so you have a range of 240 - 300 glfops. Xbox 360 and ps3 are 240-250 gflops.

My copy/paste from the anandtech thread

It wouldn't be R700, it is a modified version of this GPU family, with enhancements and architecture changes... more realistically you'd call it N800 (N= Nintendo modified, and not part of the R800 family, but parallel to it)

As a side note, R700 GFlops =! R500 GFlops, you can't really compare them in that manner...
USC-fan
aka Kbsmoker
(11-19-2012, 03:43 PM)

Originally Posted by The Abominable Snowman




With the GPU die hosting the eDRAM and I/O (Northbridge/Southbridge) NO WAY its a R740. Its probably in between R710 and R730.

Yeah i agree. the reason i used the r740 is because this is the only r700 card at 40nm. The other card performance per watt should be close to that number.

Originally Posted by z0m3le

It wouldn't be R700, it is a modified version of this GPU family, with enhancements and architecture changes... more realistically you'd call it N800 (N= Nintendo modified, and not part of the R800 family, but parallel to it)

As a side note, R700 GFlops =! R500 GFlops, you can't really compare them in that manner...

Yeah just like the RSX in the PS3 is not a 7900 gt... lol. r800 is dx11 and wiiu is not so i dont understand why you would called it n800. Not related to those cards at all.

glfop = glfop is another debate. But nothing in the world is going to get you anywhere close the 600 glfop like other have spoken likes it a fact on here.
Last edited by USC-fan; 11-19-2012 at 03:49 PM.
Meesh
Member
(11-19-2012, 03:45 PM)
Meesh's Avatar
So where are we sitting with these specs? There are devs if I remember correctly saying wiiu was more powerful and some claim less powerful than current hd consoles. It's confusing, because of the support the wiiu has right now in some of those choppy ports...makes me wonder how it's going to fair down the road. Either way, what I can't play on wiiu I'll play on my shiny new ps3.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
(11-19-2012, 03:52 PM)
efyu_lemonardo's Avatar

Originally Posted by pulsemyne

My guess is they dump everything into the DD3 and then stream out the necessary bit's in to the Edram (the low latency between the DD3 and the Edram seems to indicate this). This approach could be why there are long load times on certain things.

What do we know about the interface between mem1 and mem2?

Originally Posted by Phazon

22MB/s, was confirmed by Nintendo

this should be added to the OP
dan2026
Member
(11-19-2012, 03:55 PM)
dan2026's Avatar
Sorry I am being dense, but does the Wii U have 2GB of memory total?

That seems extremely low, even for a console, in 2012.
jaosobno
Member
(11-19-2012, 03:56 PM)
jaosobno's Avatar

Originally Posted by dan2026

Sorry I am being dense, but does the Wii U have 2GB of memory total?

That seems extremely low, even for a console, in 2013.

In total but only 1GB can be accessed by games. Other 1GB goes to OS and is not accessible by games. In time perhaps Nintendo will find a way to reduce OS footprint (PS3 was reduced from 120 to 50 MB in 2009.), but for now it's pretty massive.
Last edited by jaosobno; 11-19-2012 at 04:02 PM.
ozfunghi
Member
(11-19-2012, 03:58 PM)
ozfunghi's Avatar
Blu, since you are one of the few sane people that actually know what they are talking about, do you have any ideas as to how Nintendo expects developers to put the puzzle together, so that the so called bottlenecks (such as BW for instance) can be overcome to output games of 360+ quality?

If i read the statements from Shin'n, they seem happy about the way the memory is set up, about CPU/GPU balance etc... yet what nitwits like me are seeing in those numbers, it's looking anything but optimistic. I mean it can't be as simple as slapping on 32 MB of eDRAM on there, right? Which is only a 22 MB increase over XB360.
CarbonatedFalcon
Member
(11-19-2012, 04:00 PM)
CarbonatedFalcon's Avatar

Originally Posted by jaosobno

In total but only 1GB can be accessed by games. Other 1GB goes to OS and is not accessible by games. In time perpahs Nintendo will find a way to reduce OS footprint (PS3 was reduced from 120 to 50 MB in 2009.), but for now it's pretty massive.

Which makes the slowness/loads of the system menus even more embarrassing.
dan2026
Member
(11-19-2012, 04:02 PM)
dan2026's Avatar

Originally Posted by jaosobno

In total but only 1GB can be accessed by games. Other 1GB goes to OS and is not accessible by games. In time Nintendo could find a way to reduce OS footprint (PS3 was reduced from 120 to 50 MB in 2009.), but it's pretty massive so far.

Wow so basically the Wii U only has 1GB of memory.
I know current consoles only have about 512, but they are almost six years old.

Is 1GB going to be enough? I really doubt it. But then again I am not that technically minded.
A lot of current PCs have upwards of 12GB memory don't they?
I know it isn't a fair comparison, but still...
DonMigs85
Member
(11-19-2012, 04:04 PM)
DonMigs85's Avatar
I'm still amazed this thing uses up less than 40 watts under load, which is about half what the latest PS3 and 360S models eat.
The Abominable Snowman
Pure Life tonsil tickle
(11-19-2012, 04:04 PM)
The Abominable Snowman's Avatar

Originally Posted by z0m3le

It wouldn't be R700, it is a modified version of this GPU family, with enhancements and architecture changes... more realistically you'd call it N800 (N= Nintendo modified, and not part of the R800 family, but parallel to it)

As a side note, R700 GFlops =! R500 GFlops, you can't really compare them in that manner...

Keep faith alive, homeboy. What kind of architecture changes do you think are feasible?
onQ123
Junior Member
(11-19-2012, 04:05 PM)
onQ123's Avatar
Could the Embedded Ram be like the Embedded Ram in the PS2 where it was used as the VRam but the Main Ram can still be used for Vram for the objects that's not on the screen?
phosphor112
Banned
(11-19-2012, 04:07 PM)
phosphor112's Avatar

Originally Posted by SirIgbyCeaser

I think nintendo sent developers a checklist that asked, how much ram they would appreciate and failed to mention how slow it will be. Non the less, i'm sure 1st party nintendo will still figure out a way to make load times virtually non-existant. Retro i'm looking at you.

Does anybody know how quick the proprietary Blu-ray reader and discs are on the wii u?

I honestly don't think they ever take Developer insight for power. Nintendo not only pushes their games through hardware, but hardware through games.

MS and Sony push their hardware through games alone.
muu
Member
(11-19-2012, 04:07 PM)

Originally Posted by dan2026

Wow so basically the Wii U only has 1GB of memory.
I know current consoles only have about 512, but they are almost six years old.

Is 1GB going to be enough? I really doubt it. But then again I am not that technically minded.
A lot of current PCs have upwards of 12GB memory don't they?
I know it isn't a fair comparison, but still...

If sales dictate that tis important support the Wiiu it will be enough. Don't forget that PS3 ports initially suffered from performance issues as well, probably in no small part to the 256+256mb ram configuration. Compromises may have to be made, but in this day and age if devs are asked to do it, they'll likely have to do it.
Goodlife
Member
(11-19-2012, 04:09 PM)
Goodlife's Avatar

Originally Posted by dan2026

Wow so basically the Wii U only has 1GB of memory.
I know current consoles only have about 512, but they are almost six years old.

Is 1GB going to be enough? I really doubt it. But then again I am not that technically minded.
A lot of current PCs have upwards of 12GB memory don't they?
I know it isn't a fair comparison, but still...

How many GB's do the top end PC games require?

Take BF3 for example.... for it's Max settings it requires 4GB of RAM.
Bare in mind that a good chunk of that is going to be required for running the OS etc while the game plays.
dan2026
Member
(11-19-2012, 04:10 PM)
dan2026's Avatar

Originally Posted by muu

If sales dictate that tis important support the Wiiu it will be enough.

This is what concerns me. When the new Xbox and PS consoles come out and are comparable in power. The Wii U is going to have to take over the market for devs to give a damn about it.

At the very best you'll probably see crap ports of games built for other systems.
nikatapi
Member
(11-19-2012, 04:11 PM)
nikatapi's Avatar
Don't expect a huge reduction in the OS footprint given the internet browser's tab feature. Having multiple tabs open takes quite a lot of memory in addition to having all the miiverse-nintendo network stuff running all the time.
acm2000
(11-19-2012, 04:13 PM)

Originally Posted by DonMigs85

I'm still amazed this thing uses up less than 40 watts under load, which is about half what the latest PS3 and 360S models eat.

old tech but with modern better die size etc, plus NSMBWiiu isnt a system stresser in the slightest, psu is 95w
z0m3le
Junior Member
(11-19-2012, 04:14 PM)
z0m3le's Avatar

Originally Posted by USC-fan

Yeah i agree. the reason i used the r740 is because this is the only r700 card at 40nm. The other card performance per watt should be close to that number.


Yeah just like the RSX in the PS3 is not a 7900 gt... lol. r800 is dx11 and wiiu is not so i dont understand why you would called it n800. Not related to those cards at all.

glfop = glfop is another debate. But nothing in the world is going to get you anywhere close the 600 glfop like other have spoken likes it a fact on here.

Right, you wouldn't call it N800 because it's related to R800, you'd call it N800 because it's a Nintendo Modified Successor to R700, just like R800 is an AMD successor to the R700.

It's a parallel line of succession, and it's important to remove the talk of R700 from the Wii U, as it's likely not using such an expensive chip when cheaper alternatives have become available (and were available shortly after talk of Wii U began)

N800 "mario" is likely more efficient than R700, seeing how Nintendo likes to modify their hardware, it's going to be hard to fit into R700 line at all. (thus N800)

as for the 600GFLOPs comment, it's still possible seeing as how AMD achieved a 118mm turks GPU with 576GFLOPs and a 35watt (with 1GBmemory) @40nm. e6760 (which is a R800 chip granted, but does lend itself to the possibility that "mario" is still ~600GFLOPs)

Originally Posted by The Abominable Snowman

Keep faith alive, homeboy. What kind of architecture changes do you think are feasible?

Pretty sure they took some time to create a better GPGPU, I'm not sure what else they added, but seeing the DoF on Wii U's games (pikmin 3 especially) it seems like it's basically "free" to implement which hints at some effects not available in R700, we know modifications were made to the GPU, and some developers working on the console (including arkam) has said that it is a modern GPU, Antonz has gone so far as to say the GPU has 2011/2012 bells and whistles. So calling it R700 is certainly underscoring these modifications.

Originally Posted by acm2000

old tech but with modern better die size etc, plus NSMBWiiu isnt a system stresser in the slightest, psu is 95w

PSU is 75w at least before release that was the confirmation. I haven't heard it was changed. HOWEVER the tech isn't outdated, it seems to be new tech designed around a small electrical footprint, this is the direction Nintendo is going. I don't see it as a 1080p console anymore though, the ram is far more fit for 720p.
Last edited by z0m3le; 11-19-2012 at 04:27 PM.

Thread Tools