Rumor: Wii U CPU Twice as Beefy As Xbox 360

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Breaking news: Next gen console to be more powerful than current gen console.

Well done Nintendo.

But Microsoft have already released details that the new Xbox will be six times as powerful as the current 360, so what you've effectively done there is say that the new Wii will be just as underpowered next gen as it is this gen.

*claps*

It can be ten times more powerful and it wouldn't matter. Gotta have matching software able to take full advantage of it's resources- like Epic did with GoW3. They're pulling every last pixel out of the Xbox 360's hardware. It's about as optimized as you can get.

Mr. Omega:

DanDeFool:

Mr. Omega:

Well that's very optimistic.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/3ds-sales-top-4-million-in-us-6348126
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/333417/japan-3ds-continues-to-dominate-sales/
http://www.1up.com/news/3ds-takes-8-months-surpass-first-year-ds-sales

Seriously, the rest of the point is valid, and there's little argument, but the "3DS is failing" is a complete BS point.

Hm... guess I've been out of the loop.

So, any good games for it?

Mostly been taking the chance to catch up on the DS backlog that's accumulated since the last time I had a DS (Ghost Trick was a particularly fun game), but I got Mario 3D Land, I rented StarFox 3D, and am waiting for Kid Icarus Uprising, the upcoming Fire Emblem game and MGS3D.

There are also some good downloadable games like Mighty Switch Force and 10 Second Runner.

Okay, that's good, but this is kind of the problem I have with Nintendo these days. You'll notice that all the games you mentioned, with the exception of MGS, are first-party games. This is also something I noticed browsing the Amazon listings for the 3DS, mostly first-party developed/published.

Pretty much the only reason to buy a Nintendo console, ever since the N64, was because you want to play games that are developed/published by Nintendo. Good third-party support is something the Nintendo consoles just don't get these days (with the exception of the DS, of course), and I would argue it's largely because of the gimmicks.

Third party devs have to bust their asses just to get games out the door, and forcing them to use motion controls or 3D effects, or (for fuck's sake) making the second analog stick OPTIONAL just adds uncertainty to an already difficult process.

You're absolutely right (and I was wrong) that the sales figures are great and the high-quality first-party titles will probably do a lot to make the 3DS stick, but to me, having a variety of developers putting out a variety of games makes a console much more worthwhile to own (which is why I own two different PS2s). I imagine the Wii U will suffer from the same problem.

In other words, Commercial success =/= Good console.

GreatTeacherCAW:
Twice as powerful as a system that came out in 2005? Color me completely unimpressed.

Those were pretty much my thoughts. Technology has not remained stagnant over the last 7 years.

If you ask me Nintendo making the Wii U is a "Dollar Short and a Day Late" and by a day late I mean the beginning of the N64 where Nintendo gone down hill. Yes Nintendo was dead to me before Golden Eye had a chance to get out of the gate.

Hearing now that the Wii U (still awful name by the way) has twice the hardware power of the Xbox 360 is like SNK releasing a new console that could compare to the new gen systems only to run only there usual 16 bit era titles. All for what a HD picture?

GreatTeacherCAW:
Twice as powerful as a system that came out in 2005? Color me completely unimpressed.

I think this person said it the best.

The Xbox 360 came out 2005? It is now 2012! Shouldn't we have a Wii U that is at least 4 or 5 times as powerful as the Xbox 360, a Wii U that could put the Xbox 360 in a headlock and give it wedges.

CPU, GPU who cares, twice as powerful as a Xbox 360 when the Wii U hit will be nothing when Sony and Microsoft unveils there next console that will remind us how much the Game Cube and Wii sucked in the performance category.

It disappoints me that there are still some console players who will bash the Wii for being 'under powered'. I bet you if I started talking about PCs here, I would be called an elitist. Get over it. The Wii did what it was meant to do, and that was not run the normal home titles. Any console player has no right to complain about hardware being underpowered, unless they completely accept it when someone else bags their console for the same thing.
I agree with the majority of users in this thread however that twice as powerful as a 360 isn't exactly good in 2012. In 2007 maybe, but 2012, nope. I wonder what the WiiU will turn out as on the whole though. Will be somewhat interesting to see just which path it takes.

In my mind the best thing Nintendo can do this generation, is use it's massive user base of the wii and ds and just royally jack up the price on them.

Go all out make the full 5-600 dollar console, Let it be in the race with everyone else and they can come out on top on this. Ditch the retarded nanny stance opting for parental controls, so that oh I dunno, they can get all the multi platform games onto their console with out devs going, pffft way too weak to run this here have angry birds you should be able to run that.

Am I the only one who thinks this year's E3 is going to be interesting?

360 broke down more times than a used car so who cares about graphics. A system just needs a good library of games and a good controller to play them on. Just haven't really bought a Nintendo system since the Super Nintendo. The system always ends up at one of my friends house. At this point, I might buy it if there is more than just shovelware and hidden gems.

DanDeFool:
Commercial success =/= Good console.

True, I remember a few good consoles that failed horribly commercially.

The Neo-Geo AES & Sega Dreamcast as prime examples

I see anything Wii related, especially Wii U and I'll I think is "Who cares?". Of course there are people that care, but I certainly don't.

Why are people putting so much focus on it being compared to the 360 or the PS3? It's not like there's anything more recent to compare it to. Cut Nintendo some slack guys, damn.

To me, graphics are not the most important thing in games. I still fire up several N64 games a few times a week because the games are damn fun. And let's be real here, the only way graphics are going to get much better at this point is if they figure out how to actually film real people as the characters and have us controlling movies.

I guess my point is, I don't own a Wii because I found a majority of the games to not be that fun not because of graphical issues. There were a few gems for me but not enough to garner me owning a console for them. Make the games fun. Ultimately that is what will win a "console war" (I feel ridiculous even typing that). It's been like that since, well, ever. The system with better games will survive.

Also, this is one person's ESTIMATION of what the WiiU will be able to do. Stories like this don't do much besides rile people up about something that's not officially been disclosed yet.

Even if the Wii U ends up more powerful as the PS4, xbox 720, or the latest, most powerful PC, it doesn't alter the fact all we're getting are more Marios, Zeldas, Pokemons, Metriods, Smash Bros, etc, so even caring about how powerful the console is just seems kinda pointless.

Whenever I see a picture of this thing, I'm hearing in my head: "SEEEEEGAAAAA!"

I dont care if the wiiu dispences milk and cookies and gives bjs. Unless nintendo can start bringing out games that are good and dont require gimmicks, im just never going to care.

And how much more powerful are modern gaming PCs than any console to ever hit the market?
And how old is the Xbox 360?
Does nintindo still think we're fighting in the bit wars?

Next Xbox is this powerful, Wii U is this powerful, blah, blah, blah. As long as there are fun games like there were on their predecessors, I'm game.

Rumor: The XBox 360 is the computational equivalent of a toaster.
Rumor: It doesn't matter because if the wii was any indication nintendo isn't going to be able to pull 3rd party support for shit, and their games are almost entirely devoid of textures.
Wait, neither of those are rumors.

GreatTeacherCAW:
Twice as powerful as a system that came out in 2005? Color me completely unimpressed.

Exactly my thoughts, this is hardly suprising news.

It's still going to be less powerful than the next Xbox and Playstation.

Nalgas D. Lemur:

Greg Tito:
This quote is just heresy and rumor

Heresy? Really? Your articles have been full of weird things like that lately. Have you started writing/speaking them into Dragon, or are they being auto-corrected by your iDevice or something? Heh.

BUUUUUURRRRNN THE HERETIC!!!!!

OT: I hope it has better third party support then the wii, that's what worries me most.

Forget about whether or not the Wii U is more powerful than a Xbox 360. The REAL question is...

image

My thoughts are that all of them won't be as powerful as my PC. :)

But I'm am excited for the next generation!

It will be nice to not cringe at the obvious graphical flaws on my PS3 and Wii thanks to some updated tech.

GreatTeacherCAW:
Twice as powerful as a system that came out in 2005? Color me completely unimpressed.

^That.
It's completely pathetic how Nintendo is so proud of the WiiU being more powerful than last generation's competitors. How about you compare your current Gen console to current Gen Hardware? Last time I checked "twice the power of the Xbox360" was about the equivalent of 3 Cellphones.
If the rumors about the Xbox 720 (AMD 6xxxCard) prove to be true, even THAT one won't be able to compare to CURRENT PCs. Let alone the weaker WiiU.

Too little too late.

I don't care if it 3x better than a 360, if developers continue to make 85% shovelware crap for the system, I'm still not getting it.

Other than the small, very small, catalog of AAA titles for the Wii, I'm very disapointed in it after owning one for almost three years now.

I just can't believe they're going with Xbox 720 - in a world obsessed with HD, surely you go for 1080 or nothing - especially as a mere name doesn't serve as a legal guarantee everything will run at 1080. :D

As for the Wii U, try to take the console seriously after this.

GreatTeacherCAW:
Twice as powerful as a system that came out in 2005? Color me completely unimpressed.

Indeed. Although I guess "Twice as powerful as an obsolete doorstop" or "Almost as powerful as a new fridge" don't sound quite as good from a PR point of view.

Grouchy Imp:
But Microsoft have already released details that the new Xbox will be six times as powerful as the current 360

But again, six times as powerful as a system released 7 years ago, probably 8 or 9 years by the time the new one is actually on sale. That still amounts to saying basically "Not quite as bad as the competition", rather than actually saying anything good about their own system.

Lets just wait and see what happens. I hate rumours, they're never true.

It's really simple actually. This was stated over a year ago, the old dev kits were under clocked and didn't have finalized hardware. Now that the system's final dev kit is out the system is 5x as powerful as the ps360 and 2.5x as powerful as the old dev kit.

Why are people pissed and disgusted that Wii U's CPU is "only" twice as powerful as the 360 on the basis their own assertion that "Thats BS the Wii U's graphics are gonna suck it should be 10 times as powerful or more!".

I somehow imagine if this same figure came out for Microsoft, that the Xbox 720's CPU could be said to be twice as powerful as the 360's, that that would just be proof of how amazingly powerful Microsoft's system is going to be.

The fact is, the evidence right now is generally pointing to the Wii U and Xbox 720 being MUCH more comparable in horsepower than most people would have dared imagine back during E3 2011 when Wii U was announced and everyone was calling it a stopgap system, even though developers even back then were saying that Wii U was more capable than a lot of people were willing to consider possible.

The assertion that Microsoft's 8th gen console would completely outclass the Wii U in terms of graphics yield in the same way that the Xbox 360 did to the deliberately low performance Wii to me stems from an anti Nintendo bias coming from the same sort of people who demand Nintendo to stop being conservative and "do something new for a change", and then accusing anything new they come up with of being a "worthless gimmick" that proves that Nintendo's games and systems aren't worth playing.

I know it may be hard for some of the younger gamers out there who grew up in the N64 and Gamecube days were it was actually popular and fashionable to hate games and systems just because they're Nintendo's, and hard to imagine a world where Nintendo might have a post-Gamecube system that actually has comparable visuals to the competition, but based on the picture a lot of these horsepower rumors are painting, in addition to comments from third party developers, that may be more likely to be the case than a lot of people realize.

Oh, fear not, all, the developers themselves are going to make enough empty promises for everyone. We won't need rumors.

With that said, it'd behoove Nintendo to continue to do things their way, but also adopt a very important intent: giving people what they want. The Wii may have been successful with soccer moms, fine, but they could have bagged so much more if they spent less time making things unintuitive and irritating for everyone else, and yes, also competitive in terms of hardware capability with the other guys. Then you can make a legitimate case that the game developers should come to you, because you offer what the other companies do, but also offer something wholly your own, a chance to deliver on all fronts.

Not that my opinion is going to change a thing, but hey, you're in this to make money anyway, aren't you Nintendo?

Is this like when they said N64 was twice as powerful as the PS, but it turned out to be just adding the two separate chips together?

SonOfVoorhees:
Is this like when they said N64 was twice as powerful as the PS, but it turned out to be just adding the two separate chips together?

In terms of pure graphical grunt, the N64 was twice as the PS. The Playstaion was a 32-bit console. The N64 was a 64-bit console (hence the name). In terms of poly count and pixels, the N64 shat all over the PS. You look at a game like Ocarina Of Time or Conker's Bad Fur Day, and the number of polygons is far, far higher than any equivalent game on the PS. The visuals were also far less pixelated and prone to tearing, a problem that affected even the prettiest of PS titles.

Where the N64 was inferior was in two key areas: Cartridge-based media, and lack of proper texture support. The fact that the PS used CDs over cartridges meant games were able to store a lot more raw data than N64 games, allowing for games like Final Fantasy 7. And the N64's lack of ability to render proper textures meant that a lot of PS games had more detail painted on (and therefore in many ways looked better), despite the fact that the N64 was pumping out higher fidelity but-somewhat-blandly-coloured visuals.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

SonOfVoorhees:
Is this like when they said N64 was twice as powerful as the PS, but it turned out to be just adding the two separate chips together?

In terms of pure graphical grunt, the N64 was twice as the PS. The Playstaion was a 32-bit console. The N64 was a 64-bit console (hence the name). In terms of poly count and pixels, the N64 shat all over the PS...

... The fact that the PS used CDs over cartridges meant games were able to store a lot more raw data than N64 games, allowing for games like Final Fantasy 7. And the N64's lack of ability to render proper textures meant that a lot of PS games had more detail painted on (and therefore in many ways looked better), despite the fact that the N64 was pumping out higher fidelity but-somewhat-blandly-coloured visuals.

That only proves the point that ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ≠ SUPERIOR HORSEPOWER when it comes to video game consoles.

Having technology better suited to the intended experience rather than leaning on horsepower bragging rights is EXACTLY why the PlayStation ended up with a better, more varied game selection and better marketshare than Nintendo 64.

And I say that having owned BOTH PlayStation and Nintendo 64 back then.

With that in mind, it really strikes me as baffling how it's always been somewhat fashionable to paint Nintendo consoles in a negative light as having vastly inferior graphics and horsepower to the contemporary competition.

The Super NES, the Nintendo 64, and GameCube all suffered this sort of trash talk in spite of their visuals and horsepower having been comparable or in some cases objectively superior to other systems of their respective generations, and has ONLY come bear with Wii, which was DELIBERATELY designed to be a low cost, low performance platform.

It sometimes seems to me as though if any system other than Nintendo's isn't the top dog in terms of horsepower, its okay because its the game selection that matters and not having the best graphics, but when it's NINTENDO that has the potentially lowest horsepower, than it's just something to kick them to the gutter for and proof that they are irrelevant to "real" gamers.

I really don't see how any gamer who chose PlayStation 2 over graphically superior Xbox, or Xbox 360 over the graphically superior PlayStation 3, has any right to judge Wii U as a poor or unimpressive system based purely on the fact that it won't be the most powerful console available when other systems are EVENTUALLY released, especially when we have yet to even see a proper demonstration of the console and its games yet and won't until E3 2012.

Its perfectly okay to be excited, or skeptical over a radical new system we know very little about and has next to nothing shown for it, but this spec sheet snobbery over visual improvements that are likely going to be less significant than an any previous situation.

SuperTrainStationH:
SNIP

Please don't misunderstand me. I wasn't trying to bash one console or paint another as being superior. I was simply trying to explain a little just how the N64 compared technologically to the PS. I actually owned a PS myself back in the day, so I'm well aware that in terms of game libraries, Sony shat all over Nintendo.

And regarding your other points, I totally agree. When three consecutive generations of console have been dominated by the least powerful console available to consumers, then it's time to stop acting as if being underpowered compared to your competitors is in any way a sure sign of defeat.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

SuperTrainStationH:
SNIP

Please don't misunderstand me. I wasn't trying to bash one console or paint another as being superior. I was simply trying to explain a little just how the N64 compared technologically to the PS. I actually owned a PS myself back in the day, so I'm well aware that in terms of game libraries, Sony shat all over Nintendo.

And regarding your other points, I totally agree. When three consecutive generations of console have been dominated by the least powerful console available to consumers, then it's time to stop acting as if being underpowered compared to your competitors is in any way a sure sign of defeat.

No, I wasn't disputing you, I was agreeing in full with you, you got it head on.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here