Rumors have expectations high for Wii U specs -- 5x Xbox 360, Radeon HD 4770, 2GB RAM, 3GHz quad-core CPU. All certainly possible and reasonable for a 2012 console, but (this is a big but, and I cannot lie) it feels unlikely for a 2012 Nintendo console. If we take a Master Sword and split that 4770 in half, do the same to the RAM, hold the CPU clock below 2GHz, and hide the fallen pieces in dungeons, then we'll have something diabolical enough that The Steve can endorse. Diabolical Wii U Specs Tri-core PowerPC CPU at 1.6-2.0 GHz Half Radeon 4770 at 400-600 MHz 768MB-1.5GB RAM (one speed, or 512MB fast + 512MB slow) 8GB Flash Quarter 4770 @ 600MHz = 192 GFLOPS, 4.8 GTexels, 2.4 GPixels Xbox 360 GPU @ 500MHz = 240 GFLOPS, 8 GTexels, 4 GPixels Half 4770 @ 400MHz = 256 GFLOPS, 6.4 GTexels, 3.2 GPixels Half 4770 @ 600MHz = 384 GFLOPS, 9.6 GTexels, 4.8 GPixels Real 4770 @ 750MHz = 960 GFLOPS, 24 GTexels, 12 GPixels Quarter 4770 is too low, no?
What do we have here? http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-04-02-wii-u-less-powerful-than-ps3-xbox-360-developers-say Fewer shaders? A quarter Radeon 4770 perhaps?
new hardware, they say that when all new consoles are new. I bet the first party s.w will show this guy what the Wii can do. This developer might be from EA or some small time indy dev for all we know.
What's the point then? It should be more powerful, actually way more powerful this late in the game. Can it even handle HD? It certainly doesn't sound like it.
Here we go! http://www.computerandvideogames.com/342718/wii-u-games-look-just-as-good-as-ps3-but-its-still-not-as-capable/ The CPU is pants.
It's really pathetic that it can't keep up with 2005/2006 era CPUs. What the hell did they even use? A Sandy Bridge i3 is a little over $100, and fast enough that it won't bottleneck even the most powerful GPUs. AMD has some cheap/decent stuff that's under $100. There's really no excuse for using a slow CPU in 2012.
Wii U has a multi-core IBM CPU, probably under 10W, more than enough for Mario physics. No excuse? Cost is always a good excuse.
True, but as I said, you can get some powerful CPUs quite cheaply these days, even cheaper I would imagine buying in bulk. I guess it doesn't really matter as kiddy and girly games don't need powerful, modern hardware.
Oy vay! Are they really still trying to convince people that the current gen consoles actually delivered much more than warmed over 2004 era Half-Life 2 physics and the "AI" of enemies that sometimes take cover instead of running directly at you? I think the Wii U is going to be able to handle that stuff. They really haven't done much innovating in that regard during the past 7-8 years.
They have to cut corners to save money because the "gimmick" for this machine is the controller/touchscreen which I can safely guess will represent the lion share of what the manufacturing/retail costs will cover.
This new input shall help to refine my speculation: - more modern GPU, fewer shaders - slower CPU - more RAM Fewer shaders than Xbox 360 (240 at 500MHz) may be 160 at ~600MHz or similar to the Radeon HD 6450M (600MHz, 160 shader, 8 texture, 4 render) or an underclocked quarter Radeon HD 4770. The slower CPU may mean less brute force -- two or three cores at a low clock speed (1.6-2.4 GHz), and low main memory bandwidth. The lack of brute force may be counterbalanced by out-of-order execution and eDRAM cache. More RAM is at least 768MB, so probably 1GB, maybe more if a significant chunk is reserved by the OS. 1GB as two DDR3 (or LPDDR3) chips is a cheap, low power solution. Diabolical Wii U Specs 2.0 IBM PowerPC CPU, three cores, ~1.8GHz, 4-8MB eDRAM AMD Radeon GPU, 160:8:4 configuration, 600MHz, 192 GFLOPS, 12-24MB eDRAM 1GB DDR3/LPDDR3 (2x512MB or 4x256MB, 64-bit, 12.8 GB/s)
A secret source on some unknown blog says Wii U costs $180 to manufacture. http://www.forgetthebox.net/mag/culture/forum-m/rumor-wii-u-price.php
Did they really have a choice but to cut costs when it came to the hardware? We all knew that the control itself would add a premium and Nintendo probably don't want to make the same mistakes Sony made with the PS3 by selling it too high at launch. With all the rumours around that we will see the next Playstation and XBOX late next year Nintendo may have a year to build some momentum with this thing UNLESS Sony and M$ announce the consoles at E3. I think if they do then the Wii U could end up with the same problem the Dreamcast had, people may hold off on the promise of something better yet to come.
I don't know what kind of 'momentum' will be built when it's no stronger than a 360 (about equal I'm getting) much less a PS3.
Agreed. Add to that the fact that Wii is no longer selling well, and the 3DS is kind of a flop, and I don't see the Wii U doing very well at all. People are tired of Nintendo's gimmicks.
We know the regular hardcore nintendo crowd from looking at GameCube numbers, around 20mil. They have that pretty much guaranteed, although in Japan a lot of that was just because it was the the Japanese console with the best graphics. The thing is, extreme cheapness and low power/heat (small case) aside, I don't see how they could actually mange to not come up with something better than the 360 in every way. A 4 core IBM A2 CPU with a Radeon 6670 class GPU and 1GB GDDR5 would surely fit their price/power constraints and would easily trump current consoles... the only explanation is that they went for the lowest cost option possible... that would be pretty stupid of them IMO.
We're talking about the same people who recycled the Gamecube hardware in 2006. Nintendo are complete cheapskates.