DeuceGamer
Member
My god... i already said this 3 times but... Thanks a ton ChipWorks.
Wow, very classy ChipWorks. Thanks a lot!
My god... i already said this 3 times but... Thanks a ton ChipWorks.
I've been following those threads. The idea of "Oh, well we all thought it would be ~350 GFLOPS. This is just what we expected." is ridiculous revisionist history. The number was floated occasionally more recently, yes, but never seriously expected by the bulk of posters. The expectations have progressively tempered, yes, but they were still higher even recently. It's what happens in echo chambers/groupthink havens - the same scenario occurred with Durango and it's secret sauce.
Well over half a year ago people were floating crazy, stupid numbers like 800 GFLOPS.
Yeah, 360 GDDR3 has around 22GB/sec
Yes, it's old, and yes, I think it's custom. It has to be, it doesn't seem to use any of the three macros listed on the site. As I wrote, there are no 4MB macros on the site to begin with.
For the bus, I was just counting pins. Figured that if it works for external memory, it should work for eDRAM as well.
PS4 is a bandwidth monster. The PS3 is pitiful compared to it.
I heard the VRAM in the PS3 was even reduced to just 650MHz in the final spec.
Oh, alright, my bad:
Are we finally getting close to a compare spec comparison between all three next gen consoles?
If you look at the die shot again you can see that 1MB of the smaller eDRAM already uses much less surface area than 1MB of the larger one. (4 mall squares < 2 big squares)Question:
The smaller eDRAM pool is said to be much higher density than the larger one. If the configuration of the memory banks are the same as the larger pool... wouldn't that put it at 8MB, rather than 4MB?
Question:
The smaller eDRAM pool is said to be much higher density than the larger one. If the configuration of the memory banks are the same as the larger pool... wouldn't that put it at 8MB, rather than 4MB?
(there are 16 'squares' consisting of *16x16 tiny blocks @ a likely 2KB each)
I'm assuming the configuration is the same(2KB per block). Reason being: What would be the the point of the "much higher density" comment from Chipworks if each block actually has 2x less capacity(1KB each, for a total of 4MB)?
Can someone clarify?
DON'T SHOUT AT SQUIDDY!
*cries*
I know!I even threw in question marks for good measure
Yes, I read. What's your point? I'm talking of general expectation.False again. And READ. It was the LOW END of realistic expectations.
Yes, I read. What's your point? I'm talking of general expectation.
Even recently, it was the most pessimistic of possibilities in an environment of unwarranted optimism; that became progressively more unwarranted but still remained.
You're telling me the most pessimistic of possibilities was the general expectation? Again, nonsense revisionist history.
Oh, alright, my bad:
Are we finally getting close to a compare spec comparison between all three next gen consoles?
Wii U!
352 Gflops GPU (???)
2GB DDR3 RAM @ 12.8 GB/s (???)
32MB eDRAM @ 140 GB/s (???)
1MB sRAM/eDRAM (???)
???? CPU (???)
Durango!
1.200 Gflops GPU (3.4x more than Wii U)
8GB DDR3 RAM @ 78GB/s (4x more than the Wii U, 7.8x faster than the Wii U)
32MB eDRAM @ 100GB/s (Same amount as the Wii U, 0.7x slower than the Wii U)
???? CPU
Orbis!
1.800 Gflops GPU (5x more than Wii U; 1,5x more than Durango)
4GB GDDR5 RAM @ 192 GB/s (2x more than Wii U, 15x faster than Wii U; 0.5x less than Durango, 2.5x faster than Durango)
0MB eDram @ 0MB/s (Infinitely less than Wii U; Infinitely less than Durango)
???? CPU
Yes, I read. What's your point? I'm talking of general expectation.
Even recently, it was the most pessimistic of possibilities in an environment of unwarranted optimism; that became progressively more unwarranted but still remained.
You're telling me the most pessimistic of possibilities was the general expectation? Again, nonsense revisionist history.
Yes, I read. What's your point? I'm talking of general expectation.
Even recently, it was the most pessimistic of possibilities in an environment of unwarranted optimism; that became progressively more unwarranted but still remained.
You're telling me the most pessimistic of possibilities was the general expectation? Again, nonsense revisionist history.
I've been following those threads. The idea of "Oh, well we all thought it would be ~350 GFLOPS. This is just what we expected." is ridiculous revisionist history. The number was floated occasionally more recently, yes, but never seriously expected by the bulk of posters. The expectations have progressively tempered, yes, but they were still higher even recently. It's what happens in echo chambers/groupthink havens - the same scenario occurred with Durango and it's secret sauce.
Well over half a year ago people were floating crazy, stupid numbers like 800 GFLOPS.
Orbis is 176gb/s not 192. And once again Wii U memory isn't DDR3. Its T1 SRAM or somethin, but you got the bandwidth right this time.
You're telling me the most pessimistic of possibilities was the general expectation? Again, nonsense revisionist history.
It's still garbage. Those guys should get a ton of flak.As someone who read almost every post of the WiiU speculation threads and the later two threads (one of which is still going), the expected specs went from -
WUST 1 - 3 -
1TFLOP GPU (lots of random people, no one with 'sources').
3GB's of Ram.
WUST - 4 -
600 GFLOP GPU (Bgassassin).
2GB's of Ram.
WUST - 5 (After E3 2012) / EC's Thread / Blu's Thread -
400 - 600 GFLOP GPU (worked out by the guys that brought you this thread) -
2GB's of Ram confirmed, 1GB for Games.
To Ideaman's credit he always said it would end up being around 1.5x an Xbox 360 + whatever was displayed on the controller.
I think Ideaman and BG both has legit sources, as someone else said BG had the PS4 / 720 specs months before any of these websites started to leak them.
As someone who read almost every post of the WiiU speculation threads and the later two threads (one of which is still going), the expected specs went from -
WUST 1 - 3 -
1TFLOP GPU (lots of random people, no one with 'sources').
3GB's of Ram.
WUST - 4 -
600 GFLOP GPU (Bgassassin).
2GB's of Ram.
WUST - 5 (After E3 2012) / EC's Thread / Blu's Thread -
400 - 600 GFLOP GPU (worked out by the guys that brought you this thread) -
2GB's of Ram confirmed, 1GB for Games.
To Ideaman's credit he always said it would end up being around 1.5x an Xbox 360 + whatever was displayed on the controller.
I think Ideaman and BG both has legit sources, as someone else said BG had the PS4 / 720 specs months before any of these websites started to leak them.
This is a relatively accurate description: the progressive decline of expectations as new information emerged, with general sentiment still being more optimistic than this final outcome.As someone who read almost every post of the WiiU speculation threads and the later two threads (one of which is still going), the expected specs went from -
You don't see a difference between the most pessimistic of possibilities and the general sentiment in those threads. Okay. Whatever. You've been vindicated, the GPU is clearly exactly what you thought it would be all along.That doesn't even make sense.
That doesn't even make sense. The general expectation ranged from the pessimistic outlook to the optimistic outlook. Obviously. And i'm not talking about a couple of nutjobs, but about people carrying the threads. Ideaman was always saying "not just xbox360" but 1.5-2x more powerful (guess how much 352 is from 240, and how much 2GB RAM is from 51BMBPS), and both Wsippel and BGassassin have considered these low expectations.
But you seem to not have really followed the threads like you claim you did. Nonsense revisionist history indeed. But by yourself obviously.
Orbis is 176gb/s not 192. And once again Wii U memory isn't DDR3. Its T1 SRAM or somethin, but you got the bandwidth right this time.
the progressive decline of expectations as new information emerged
If people want to set up a thread to debate what people may or may not have thought about the Wii U's hardware, they're more than welcome to. This thread, however, is for discussions of the actual Wii U hardware we have right in front of us. It couldn't be more irrelevant what people used to think.
It's still garbage. Those guys should get a ton of flak.
If people want to set up a thread to debate what people may or may not have thought about the Wii U's hardware, they're more than welcome to. This thread, however, is for discussions of the actual Wii U hardware we have right in front of us. It couldn't be more irrelevant what people used to think.
As someone who read almost every post of the WiiU speculation threads and the later two threads (one of which is still going), the expected specs went from -
WUST 1 - 3 -
1TFLOP GPU (lots of random people, no one with 'sources').
3GB's of Ram.
WUST - 4 -
600 GFLOP GPU (Bgassassin).
2GB's of Ram.
WUST - 5 (After E3 2012) / EC's Thread / Blu's Thread -
400 - 600 GFLOP GPU (worked out by the guys that brought you this thread) -
2GB's of Ram confirmed, 1GB for Games.
To Ideaman's credit he always said it would end up being around 1.5x an Xbox 360 + whatever was displayed on the controller.
I think Ideaman and BG both has legit sources, as someone else said BG had the PS4 / 720 specs months before any of these websites started to leak them.
If people want to set up a thread to debate what people may or may not have thought about the Wii U's hardware, they're more than welcome to. This thread, however, is for discussions of the actual Wii U hardware we have right in front of us. It couldn't be more irrelevant what people used to think.
Oh, alright, my bad:
Are we finally getting close to a compare spec comparison between all three next gen consoles?
Wii U!
3 x OOE CPU at 1.2 ghz
~300-400 Gflops GPU (???)
2GB T1 SRAM @ 12.8 GB/s (???)
32MB eDRAM @ 140 GB/s (???)
1MB sRAM/eDRAM (???)
Durango!
6 x OOE CPU at 1.6 ghz
1.243 Gflops GPU (3 - 4x more than Wii U)
8GB DDR3 RAM @ 68GB/s (4x more than the Wii U, ~5x faster than the Wii U)
32MB eSRAM @ 102GB/s (Not edram)
Orbis!
6 x OOE CPU at 1.6 ghz
1.843 Gflops GPU (5-6x more than Wii U; 1,5x more than Durango)
4GB GDDR5 RAM @ 176 GB/s (2x more than Wii U, 15x faster than Wii U; 0.5x less than Durango, 2.5x faster than Durango)
0MB eDram @ 0MB/s (Infinitely less than Wii U; Infinitely less than Durango)
It's still garbage. Those guys should get a ton of flak.
Are we finally getting close to a compare spec comparison between all three next gen consoles?
Wii U!
352 Gflops GPU
2GB DDR3 RAM @ 48MB/s
32MB eDRAM @ 78MB/s
???? CPU
This is a relatively accurate description: the progressive decline of expectations as new information emerged, with general sentiment still being more optimistic than this final outcome.
Fixed.
I wasn't exactly on top of the WUST. But I can at least confirm the accuracy of this post. I'm not tech savvy at all but I also witnessed the decreasing numbers between the threads, it was very apparent.As someone who read almost every post of the WiiU speculation threads and the later two threads (one of which is still going), the expected specs went from -
WUST 1 - 3 -
1TFLOP GPU (lots of random people, no one with 'sources').
3GB's of Ram.
WUST - 4 -
600 GFLOP GPU (Bgassassin).
2GB's of Ram.
WUST - 5 (After E3 2012) / EC's Thread / Blu's Thread -
400 - 600 GFLOP GPU (worked out by the guys that brought you this thread) -
2GB's of Ram confirmed, 1GB for Games.
To Ideaman's credit he always said it would end up being around 1.5x an Xbox 360 + whatever was displayed on the controller.
I think Ideaman and BG both has legit sources, as someone else said BG had the PS4 / 720 specs months before any of these websites started to leak them.
Oh, alright, my bad:
Are we finally getting close to a compare spec comparison between all three next gen consoles?
Wii U!
352 Gflops GPU (???)
2GB T1 SRAM @ 12.8 GB/s (???)
32MB eDRAM @ 140 GB/s (???)
1MB sRAM/eDRAM (???)
???? CPU (???)
Durango!
1.200 Gflops GPU (3.4x more than Wii U)
8GB DDR3 RAM @ 78GB/s (4x more than the Wii U, 7.8x faster than the Wii U)
32MB eDRAM @ 100GB/s (Same amount as the Wii U, 0.7x slower than the Wii U)
???? CPU
Orbis!
1.800 Gflops GPU (5x more than Wii U; 1,5x more than Durango)
4GB GDDR5 RAM @ 176 GB/s (2x more than Wii U, 15x faster than Wii U; 0.5x less than Durango, 2.5x faster than Durango)
0MB eDram @ 0MB/s (Infinitely less than Wii U; Infinitely less than Durango)
???? CPU
I think the 1TFLOP GPU predictions came from the tech demos at E3 2011 and people not expecting Nintendo to create a new console like the Wii which was considerably weaker than Sony and MS's new consoles.
To be fare it seems like all of the next gen console spec expectations changed over the course of time.
They came from early rumors about what GPU was in the devkits (iirc a 4850) and a falsely interpreted translation from a Japanese interview.
If people want to set up a thread to debate what people may or may not have thought about the Wii U's hardware, they're more than welcome to. This thread, however, is for discussions of the actual Wii U hardware we have right in front of us. It couldn't be more irrelevant what people used to think.
To be fare it seems like all of the next gen console spec expectations changed over the course of time.
Oh, alright, my bad:
Are we finally getting close to a compare spec comparison between all three next gen consoles?
Wii U!
352 Gflops GPU (???)
2GB T1 SRAM @ 12.8 GB/s (???)
32MB eDRAM @ 140 GB/s (???)
1MB sRAM/eDRAM (???)
???? CPU (???)
Durango!
1.200 Gflops GPU (3.4x more than Wii U)
8GB DDR3 RAM @ 78GB/s (4x more than the Wii U, 7.8x faster than the Wii U)
32MB eDRAM @ 100GB/s (Same amount as the Wii U, 0.7x slower than the Wii U)
???? CPU
Orbis!
1.800 Gflops GPU (5x more than Wii U; 1,5x more than Durango)
4GB GDDR5 RAM @ 176 GB/s (2x more than Wii U, 15x faster than Wii U; 0.5x less than Durango, 2.5x faster than Durango)
0MB eDram @ 0MB/s (Infinitely less than Wii U; Infinitely less than Durango)
???? CPU
About 15 watts left on wiiu to power this chip. It will be tough at 40nm.@320SPs/352GFLOPs, what kind of TDP envelope are we working with here? It can't be derived from R700 then.