The eDRAM is the main RAM. It's called MEM1 for this very reason.You guys have to remember there's also eDRAM. We don't know how exactly it will be used, but it could explain why Nintendo didn't feel the need to have fast main RAM.
The eDRAM is the main RAM. It's called MEM1 for this very reason.You guys have to remember there's also eDRAM. We don't know how exactly it will be used, but it could explain why Nintendo didn't feel the need to have fast main RAM.
And again, what part of my posts disputed the RAM specs? Are you sure you're quoting the posts you're replying to? Or at least reading them in full and not instantly resorting to fanboyish kneejerk reactions?I'm not sure how saying "numbers on a chip dont mean everything!" where in this case they literally mean it has slower RAM than the 360 and PS3.
Perhaps Shin'en were pulling things out of their ass. Perhaps all knowing you can explain how this is in fact nonsense and gibberish.Shin'en said:The performance problem of hardware nowadays is not clock speed but ram latency. Fortunately Nintendo took great efforts to ensure developers can really work around that typical bottleneck on Wii U. They put a lot of thought on how CPU, GPU, caches and memory controllers work together to amplify your code speed. For instance, with only some tiny changes we were able to optimize certain heavy load parts of the rendering pipeline to 6x of the original speed, and that was even without using any of the extra cores.
Ah the tech argument...
Why didnt xbox outsell ps2
Why didnt psp outsell ds
Why didnt ps3 outsell wii
Why didnt vita outsell 3ds
It isnt about tech... It never was.
I really don't see Wii U versions of PS4/720 games being a commonality in the long run. It's gonna be all Nintendo, all the time like the Wii. I'm expecting a pretty sizable dropoff in support when those consoles are finally out.
I really don't see Wii U versions of PS4/720 games being a commonality in the long run. It's gonna be all Nintendo, all the time like the Wii. I'm expecting a pretty sizable dropoff in support when those consoles are finally out.
if that was true, why did people buy the 3ds when the ds was still on sale, same for xbox/xbox360, ps1/ps2/ps3. tech matters.
The PS3 base model costs $250 at Best Buy. The Wii U costs $300, has 4 times the RAM, better GPU and a tablet controller.
The PS3 came out a year after the 360, cost what, $599, and is practically speaking worse, especially for multiplatform releases.
Those Sony engineers!
Yes they are. Atleast the next playstation will be. What rumor is saying that it wont be?
If you're not interested in tech then why post in this thread?Ah the tech argument...
Why didnt xbox outsell ps2
Why didnt psp outsell ds
Why didnt ps3 outsell wii
Why didnt vita outsell 3ds
It isnt about tech... It never was.
Like noted they may push for better effects (or FPS) and thus forsake 1080p. Even if we don't see 720p games frequently we'll probably see a lot that are in between 720p and 1080p, much like a huge chunk of current HD games are somewhere in between 480p (SO4 battles at the closest) and 720p.Most of the next gen xbox/ps games will run at 1080p
I'll cut my left sack off if they run at 720, considering that the next consoles are rumored to be extremly powerful
I wonder if it's possible the wi-fi hardware actually IS more expensive than most normal tablet hardware? Though I expect better screen/build quality too.I just don't understand that part honestly. A cheap android tablet with actual processing HW inside is <$80 at retail.
Because that is where the new games would be.
With the exception of the present generation (or do we say former now) generational transition's have been marked by significant increases in hardware capability.Ah the tech argument...
Why didnt xbox outsell ps2
Why didnt psp outsell ds
Why didnt ps3 outsell wii
Why didnt vita outsell 3ds
It isnt about tech... It never was.
The PS3 base model costs $250 at Best Buy. The Wii U costs $300, has 4 times the RAM, better GPU and a tablet controller.
The PS3 came out a year after the 360, cost what, $599, and is practically speaking worse, especially for multiplatform releases.
Those Sony engineers!
I think this is a good post, but surely this only extends so far. If Wii U ends up being even weaker than the current 7 Y.O hardware, then surely they have cut too far to the bone in their configuration. A slight downgrade on the speed of the RAM and the CPU could be the difference between a whole lot of 3rd party support and very little, and that's potentially problematic for both Nintendo and the consumers.
Nintendo's problem with third party support has always been about the perception of demographics way more than it has been about hardware, though the Wii massively complicated the issue by having hardware that was so unfamiliar to the vast bulk of western developers. Most of whom have come over from the PC side since the launch of the original Xbox.
Why should I care about sales if they have no baring on the support a console gets?
Should I just masturbate to the first sign of Nintendo's stock reversing it's decline?
I'm more than willing to bet anything you'd like that these are the chips used in the system and that PCPer didn't somehow manipulate their images to display different serial numbers. As for "implications", I'm willing to do the same for everything I said in this thread, I obviously can't vouch for other people's opinions.
Ah the tech argument...
Why didnt xbox outsell ps2
Why didnt psp outsell ds
Why didnt ps3 outsell wii
Why didnt vita outsell 3ds
It isnt about tech... It never was.
Again, WiiU has 1 GB of usable RAM for games, other 1 GB is reserved for OS.
So correct answer would be WiiU has only 2x of usable RAM which is slower than XDR and GDDR3 in PS3 and is a 6 years younger console. And that is pretty pathetic.
Well, rumors lately have the PS4 as an APU only architecture.. Which can't be that powerful.
I really hope for either MS or Sony to go crazy and build a powerful system at a high cost.. But I'm skeptical because sony is in financial distress and MS probably will include a Kinect update and sacrifice power to compensate costs...
umm the ps3 model has 250GB hard drive, uncharted 3 GOTY bundled (I believe this is what you refer to) and is sold at a profit.
umm the ps3 model has 250GB hard drive, uncharted 3 GOTY bundled (I believe this is what you refer to) and is sold at a profit.
the wiiu came around 6-7 years later and still has issues with ports of last gen consoles
yay?
The PS3 is a pretty bad comparison since it doesn't have eDRAM (but it also has ~2.5x the total external memory bandwidth). 360 is a better comparison, but the eDRAM in Wii U may be more flexible (and it's obviously larger).So correct answer would be WiiU has only 2x of usable RAM which is slower than XDR and GDDR3 in PS3 and is a 6 years younger console. And that is pretty pathetic.
With the exception of the present generation (or do we say former now) generational transition's have been marked by significant increases in hardware capability.
New generation hardware has been significantly more powerful - as a selling point - over the preceding generation. Ergo yes, it has been about tech.
Again, WiiU has 1 GB of usable RAM for games, other 1 GB is reserved for OS.
So correct answer would be WiiU has only 2x of usable RAM which is slower than XDR and GDDR3 in PS3 and is a 6 years younger console. And that is pretty pathetic.
So if sales have no baring on support why is vita getting no games in comparison to 3ds?
and why were they there? because of the newer better tech.
Yes, But Im still dont understand what doest it mean...
That says basically nothing about performance, though.The latest I've read is that Sony is aiming to make the console powerful enough to run most games at 1080p@60fps
I think this is a good post, but surely this only extends so far. If Wii U ends up being even weaker than the current 7 Y.O hardware, then surely they have cut too far to the bone in their configuration. A slight downgrade on the speed of the RAM and the CPU could be the difference between a whole lot of 3rd party support and very little, and that's potentially problematic for both Nintendo and the consumers.
I think this is a good post, but surely this only extends so far. If Wii U ends up being even weaker than the current 7 Y.O hardware, then surely they have cut too far to the bone in their configuration. A slight downgrade on the speed of the RAM and the CPU could be the difference between a whole lot of 3rd party support and very little, and that's potentially problematic for both Nintendo and the consumers.
It's running Black Ops 2 at 720p isnt it?
And you are forgetting that Nintendo is just a small software company and not a big hardware/software company like Sony and MS is that can take those kind of losses (well Sony is having trouble with that ATM lol)
With the exception of the present generation (or do we say former now) generational transition's have been marked by significant increases in hardware capability.
New generation hardware has been significantly more powerful - as a selling point - over the preceding generation. Ergo yes, it has been about tech.
With the exception of the present generation (or do we say former now) generational transition's have been marked by significant increases in hardware capability.
New generation hardware has been significantly more powerful - as a selling point - over the preceding generation. Ergo yes, it has been about tech.
The most recent A10 rumor.
That says basically nothing about performance, though.
I think for Wii U, the tech AND the demographic (or whatever the percoeve s one is) is the issue. The marketing for this thing is borked this far. Nintendo's confusing casuals and doing a half-assed, seemingly reluctant job to appeal to the hardcore.
I don't at all expect it to be much different than the Wii.
You guys who orgasm over numbers are irritating. Yes Nintendo is about cutting costs, but those costs are passed down to the consumer as well. All costs are passed down to the consumer. You know how the Vita is $250? Yeah, well have fun with your $100 32 megabyte memory cards. Have fun with your dead system that noone wants even though it plays nearly current gen stuff on a handheld.
For everyone complaining about how the WiiU costs $350 with 7 year old tech, yet are almost willing to line up today for the 720/PS4- how much do you think those systems are going to cost? If you don't think Sony learned from their mistake of the $600 PS3 launch, do you think the PS4 will be much better? Sony's bleeding money- I have no clue why they'd want to go heads up with Microsoft considering how strong the yen is compared to the dollar.
Specs mean nothing. People buy games to have fun. What Nintendo offers is brilliant. If you want to play a game on the WiiU Pad, you HAVE to buy a WiiU. If you want to play Call of Duty, then you have a choice between the systems. There is nothing that the other systems offer that the WiiU can't offer. If the biggest selling point of the next Xbox or Playstation is that it has better graphics, it will be DOA. Maybe not completely dead, because each brand has large fanbases- but growth will be minimal especially if costs are high.
The problem is Nintendo act like simply having a system that can output HD graphics means it's modern. The second the next systems come out, this system is dated, and supporting it becomes a chore.
The latest I've read is that Sony is aiming to make the console powerful enough to run most games at 1080p@60fps
Admittedly launch ports aren't the best way to gauge how capable a system is. Maybe how easy it is to port, but it doesn't sound like those two are THAT far ahead (with NG3 possibly preferable for other reasons), just that for anyone who already has an HD console they're not really worth getting.It runs ME3 and NG3 sloppily. Dunno about Blops II, but 2/3 is a losing game.
Well, this IS something of a chicken/egg problem since many of those people either A. ARE on other platforms rather than on Wii, or B. have both, and if they're the same game will get the HD version instead unless something went wrong or Wii Remote controls are essential, or they offload a clearly inferior (or at least very different) spinoff on Wii. Then when you have the best unique/"mature" stuff be very niche, yeah, it's kind of risky.I feel pretty comfortable in saying that if there wasn't the perception of "our franchise doesn't really fit the Nintendo hardware-owning audience" then Nintendo would have almost no problem with third-party support this generation. I suppose their hardware focus plays its part, but it's not the most significant part in my view.