Slow PC RAM dumped in a console box
I would say it is wrong to term it "PC RAM" without at least doing the same for the 360 and PS3's RAM (bar the XDR RAM).
RAM does not have to be custom to be fast, but yes, the Wii U RAM is slow.
Slow PC RAM dumped in a console box
One dollar saved per unit is a fortune gained in the long run.
Well, I'm sure Nintendo's game development teams will be willing to spend the extra needed time, effort, and money to optimize what the machine offers, but 3rd party developers wont. Just like Wii this system is destined to have some polished looking 1st party games, but most 3rd party offerings will probably look rushed compared to the PS3 and 360 counterparts.
Makes me wonder how long Nintendo expects the systems lifespan to be. It will probably be only as long as 3rd parties are still making PS3 and 360 games which could be as long as 3 years from now. Unless the system has a respectable user base by then, I don't see 3rd parties throwing money at a watered down port of a PS4 or Nextbox game. 3rd party exclusives will probably be similar to the 3rd party exclusives we've seen on Wii. A few great games and a whole lot of shovelware.
I hope I'm wrong though, my WiiU is under the tree so I want to see it do well.
I think this is e most likely scenario, unfortunately.Well, I'm sure Nintendo's game development teams will be willing to spend the extra needed time, effort, and money to optimize what the machine offers, but 3rd party developers wont. Just like Wii this system is destined to have some polished looking 1st party games, but most 3rd party offerings will probably look rushed compared to the PS3 and 360 counterparts.
Makes me wonder how long Nintendo expects the systems lifespan to be. It will probably be only as long as 3rd parties are still making PS3 and 360 games which could be as long as 3 years from now. Unless the system has a respectable user base by then, I don't see 3rd parties throwing money at a watered down port of a PS4 or Nextbox game. 3rd party exclusives will probably be similar to the 3rd party exclusives we've seen on Wii. A few great games and a whole lot of shovelware.
I hope I'm wrong though, my WiiU is under the tree so I want to see it do well.
Yeah but i doubt this console will have the succes that the Wii had. Not even close would be my guess right now.The Wii was way less powerful than PS3 and 360 and it lasted more than 3 years.
One dollar saved per unit is a fortune gained in the long run.
Am I correct in assuming that nintendo pretty much fucked themselves over with this as far as good looking third party ports go when the next gen xbox and ps come out next year?
So any idea on the size or speed of the edram?
The Wii was way less powerful than PS3 and 360 and it lasted more than 3 years.
The Wii was way less powerful than PS3 and 360 and it lasted more than 3 years.
There is not a chance wiiU will have similar success. The novelty of the wiimote is just not there with the wiiU gamepad.
Umm, that is not how it works.
This is RAM to CPU/GPU bandwidth, data has to be loaded to the CPU and GPU many times a frame. This have nothing to do with loading data into RAM from the disc drive and being able to load more things into RAM does not make up for bandwidth.
Sorry, but I'm just not tech-savy. But can anyone give a little example how this slower RAM can effect games?
Seeing how Batman Arkham City and Darksiders 2 plays well, so from my understanding, current-gen games that are out right now will work well on the Wii U. But going forward, future PS4/720 games will be in trouble if they were down-ported, is that about right?
So we'll see a lot of Wii HD remakes and a bunch of current-gen GOTY/Ultimate editions?
The Wii was way less powerful than PS3 and 360 and it lasted more than 3 years.
What? Batman has serious frame rate issues
I found the gamepad + nintendoland to be a lot more fun with my family than the wiimote was.
Wow.
Why would they do this, sounds like a glaring bottleneck.
Try as I might, I simply cannot fathom Nintendo's logic here. Not for pricing, not for future proofing, not for performance, not for anything. On paper it just seems bafflingly illogical and unnecessarily crippling, to the point where I instinctively assume I'm missing something critical because of how silly this is.
I just don't understand this hardware or what Nintendo expects *shrug*.
Yeah, I'm thinking something like this, but from what I know faster RAM wouldn't have been much more expensive, especially in bulk for manufacturing that Nintendo would purchase them. And, correct me if I'm wrong, RAM has actually been one of the better qualities of past Nintendo consoles.
This is just really slow, super cheap RAM seemingly not suited for the kind of console they're making. Slow PC RAM dumped in a console box, not good for handling textures and assets, and limited in comparison to the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, even when considering the quantity.
I don't know. My technical knowledge has it's limitations, so like I said I feel like I'm missing something. But everything about this, more than anything, screams aimless and dumb to me. And I guess that's just how it's going to be.
So it has twice times the RAM, but it's half as fast? (that's my basic interpretation anyway, I know it's not quite as simple as that).
The Zelda part actually makes this more frustrating to me, as one of the things I've been wanting out of Zelda was to be more seamless like WW's overworld or Dark Souls (yeah yeah using that as an example is overdone, but it's an area more directly relevant), and judging by the texture loading in Batman and perhaps the sudden slowdowns in Epic Mickey 2 (though that at least HAS to be largely bad porting) it's definitely not going to work for that, and in general it doesn't seem to hurt to have faster RAM. I think it'd be easier to go "well ok" if they were nuts and had 4 or 8 GB of RAM, as the sheer bulk would easily make up for how slow it was, but at only four times the total of the 360 and PS3 and EFFECTIVELY double for games... I really do wonder if they shot themselves in the foot for the most miserly of reasons, unless as EatChildren noted there's something being missed here.Well, it still gives you more space to work with.
If you design your technology such that you are mostly bulk loading your games (like say a Zelda dungeon or platformer level) this could still work fine.
So, if you had a very particular use case for how you tended to make your games, you might feel this is a fine solution even if it doesn't work that great for everyone.
Fix'd that for you.There is not a chance any system this gen will have similar success.
The Wii was woefully underpowered and printed money. The 3DS is woefully underpowered and stomped the Vita into a hole.What is Nintendo thinking nowadays?
I hope you werent planning on watching a Blu-Ray....
Nintendo are clearly aiming for a gaming console more then a half baked media system like the 360. And I honestly applaud them for going that route.
I feel that some people here just want this system to BOMB because they dont want to invest in a new system.
Every system has its audience.The Wii was woefully underpowered and printed money. The 3DS is woefully underpowered and stomped the Vita into a hole.
My worry is that if the Wii-U 'wins' next time around, Sony & MS will give up on the power race too. Why bother making killer hardware if nobody cares?
512mb up to 2gb is x4 though?Fixed.
Holy shit, I just got that. :O
But not every audience can sustain a system.Every system has its audience.
512mb up to 2gb is x4 though?
Or does it not have 2gb of RAM?
But not every audience can sustain a system.
It saves a full half of that for the OS. Not that the 360 and PS3 didn't set some aside for the OS, but they kept the footprints VERY small. If Nintendo had a similarly small footprint I don't think this would matter as much, I imagine a lot of developers could make up for it just by loading MUCH more "just in case".512mb up to 2gb is x4 though?
Or does it not have 2gb of RAM?
But not every audience can sustain a system.
It's possible that Nintendo did some prototyping, and discovered that when the eDRAM was utilized properly bandwidth to the larger RAM pool wasn't a bottleneck so they could go with something lower bandwidth.
It's also possible they made this decision for another reason and it will look bad in retrospect. We'll have to wait and see.
Well, I'm sure Nintendo's game development teams will be willing to spend the extra needed time, effort, and money to optimize what the machine offers, but 3rd party developers wont. Just like Wii this system is destined to have some polished looking 1st party games, but most 3rd party offerings will probably look rushed compared to the PS3 and 360 counterparts.
Makes me wonder how long Nintendo expects the systems lifespan to be. It will probably be only as long as 3rd parties are still making PS3 and 360 games which could be as long as 3 years from now. Unless the system has a respectable user base by then, I don't see 3rd parties throwing money at a watered down port of a PS4 or Nextbox game. 3rd party exclusives will probably be similar to the 3rd party exclusives we've seen on Wii. A few great games and a whole lot of shovelware.
I hope I'm wrong though, my WiiU is under the tree so I want to see it do well.
3rd party support is already going to be much better than the Wii's by default. Even when Sony and M$ have new consoles, dev costs will still double, and the Wii U will be the most feasible option for developers. Plus the Wii U has traditional controls (for the most part) which is what held the Wii back before
Or they'll play on a (relatively) low powered Sony or MS console. I didn't say they'd drop out, I said they'd stop the traditional power chase. Why build bleeding edge hardware at a high cost when skimping on specs incurs no penalty?Is everybody going to stop gaming, or what? No I've got it: you think they'll go iOS.
It saves a full half of that for the OS. Not that the 360 and PS3 didn't set some aside for the OS, but they kept the footprints VERY small.
Or they'll play on a (relatively) low powered Sony or MS console.
If that's the case then I Nintendo better let 3rd parties in on the optimization method.
But how much potential money lost from third party ports that run badly or don't happen because of it?
The best explaination I can think of is that they're keeping EVERYTHING open while you play games, so you could theoretically brows the shop or web lag-free on the touch screen while using the regular controls to play the game. But even then I question if it's really worth it, game performance DOES come first.It's always been 32MB on 360. PS3's is down to what, 50MB? Shit's crazy.
lol1giglol
3rd party support is already going to be much better than the Wii's by default. Even when Sony and M$ have new consoles, dev costs will still double, and the Wii U will be the most feasible option for developers. Plus the Wii U has traditional controls (for the most part) which is what held the Wii back before
Not really. Latency in cycles will be lower of course (at lower frequencies), absolute latency in time (which is the more relevant metric) should be similar.~17Gbps was the maximum it could have been, not what was expected. Especially since they are apparently focused on latency and not bandwidth.
Other people know more about RAM than me, but as far as I know latency/timings will be lower at lower RAM speeds.
After one or two experiences like that, I've come to understand that Nintendo build hardware by estimating the very least they think they need, for their own titles. And nothing more.Try as I might, I simply cannot fathom Nintendo's logic here. Not for pricing, not for future proofing, not for performance, not for anything. On paper it just seems bafflingly illogical and unnecessarily crippling, to the point where I instinctively assume I'm missing something critical because of how silly this is.
I just don't understand this hardware or what Nintendo expects *shrug*.