Previous Generation Radeon HD Powers the Wii U

[cburke82]

Reading the comments here makes me laugh. Hahaha..

Have you watch the conference or even played with Wii? Nintendo is not aiming to have the best graphics available today or near future to beat out PS3 and XBox360. They want player experience and unique gameplay. Does parents with kids playing together care about how HD images the see on screen? No, cause they just want to spend the time together.

You do have to realize that most Wii players are young gamers, and that they're grown up. Wii U is for them and can play more intense gaming. I find it very hard to believe Nintendo wants Wii U to replace your PS3 or 360.

So what they're using older GPU? It's stable and cheap. And on par with PS3/360. Let's not forget PS3 had heat issues and 360 with RROD.

I believe they are trying to sell more to the hardcore gamers this round and this will fail that goal 100%

 

[h3ad20n3]

Why is everyone surprised about this. The Wii was just a repackaged Gamecube, and the business model of Nintendo's is lateral expansion of dated hardware. Keeps cost down and innovation up.

 

[millerm84]

I understand that this is a major blow for PC gamers because of the effect of lower end console graphics on game development. But from Nintendo's perspective it's all about the display. Sony and MS both created consoles that would play HD games, even though the majority of the market didn't have HDTVs, that sold for a loss while Nintendo's Wii was made for SDTVs and they turned a profit on every console. Nintendo's strategy made for a large number of console sales but only a handful of must have games most of which were Nintendo brands. Now the market is saturated with at least some form of HDTV and there isn't a foreseeable resolution change on the horizon, honestly the next big thing in TV is 3D.

Now if Sony and MS don't produce DX11 capable machines in favor of 3D tech, then there is no reason that game developers will not invest in the Wii U (which is a stupid freaking name) because games are already developed in 3D. Conversely if Sony and MS (and MS will) go the DX11 route then we'll see the same song and dance for the Wii U. However, if only MS supports DX11 graphics and Sony only pushes more horse power then the Wii U to help keep costs down then we can expect to see a lot more great games for the Wii. But none of that is good for PC gaming.

Lastly the 2 worst things about the Wii U is A) The name it's god-awful B)The lack of a video player. It pisses me off that I can't watch DVDs on my Wii (I have a PC for HD gaming) without hacking the stupid thing even though it has a DVD drive all it needs is a player. The Wii U needs to correct this, I would be willing to pay $10-15 for a video player app that could handle blue-ray and other digital media. And hopefully Nintendo (and Sony/MS) learn from the phone and tablet craze and offer apps for your devices. It might make that stupid "U" name bearable.

 

[Guest]

There's something you all need to realize: DirectX is a Microsoft Windows technology and not applicable to console development. Think about this, it's been announced that the Wii U will use a PowerPC core, which is a completely different instruction set then x86 (RISC vs. CISC) which Windows runs under. The current Xbox 360 also uses the PowerPC architecture, but do you really think Microsoft is going to lend Nintendo any development technologies they may have created for the Xbox? (such as an PPC implementation of DirectX)?

The system will probably use OpenGL 3.2 and Shader Model 4.0 for it's graphics API, plus any custom extensions Nintendo would create. Lets just hope that they put more then 512 MB of ram in it like the Xbox 360 to cut down on massive loading times and having to "install" every damn game to your systems hard drive anymore.

 

[lancelot123]

Hmm, the 360 and PS3 were both behind a generation of graphics cards when they were released. How odd that fanboys didn't rage about that.

 

[gm0n3y]

Considering that the console won't be release for another year (sometime in 2012), they really should be shooting for the Radeon 6000 series. It is significantly more powerful, uses about the same amount of power, and has support for new graphics features. It might add ~$20 to the cost of each console, but the graphical potential (from taking a quick look at the Tom's charts) would more than double. By 2012 and with massive volume discounts, the 6000 series GPUs will be dirt cheap.

 

[gm0n3y]

[citation][nom]lancelot123[/nom]Hmm, the 360 and PS3 were both behind a generation of graphics cards when they were released. How odd that fanboys didn't rage about that.[/citation]
One generation isn't that bad (considering that generation wasn't even released when they were developing the console). By 2012 we'll be into the 7000 series of GPUs, so they will be 3 generations behind.

 

[cburke82]

Hmm, the 360 and PS3 were both behind a generation of graphics cards when they were released. How odd that fanboys didn't rage about that.

Microsoft will most likely make DX11 there next base for a console so that means at least a 5000 series card. So the rage is that this console will be one gen behind competition. Hopefully microsoft moving to dx11 for there next console will mean better PC games.

 

[stupidvillager]

Like a couple people have already said, DX11 doesnt matter, its just a microsoft development thing. A gpu can still have the capabilities without being labeled DX11. Anyways DX10.1 has almost all the capabilities as DX11, plus AMD gpus have had stuff like tessellation built in for years. Besides, it is still a "custom" chip "based off" of the 4xxx series. Who knows what optimizations it will have.

 

[cburke82]

I'm still amazed how many supposedly tech savy people post complete nonsense. The Xbox graphics unit is roughly and Radeon XT 1950 and the one on the PS3 is roughly a Geforce 7900 GS. Why with such lower power processors can they generate the graphic quality the do compared there PC counterparts. Low level optimization. When you you have closed system writing software for it is that much easier. DX sdks for PC are not compatible with consoles so the fact that they don't support DX11 is irrelevant. The R770 is gonna blow the gpus in the PS3 and Xbox away. Plus its gonna be on die with the processor so depending on how many stream cores they use it could even surpass the amount in the AMD A8 series. On top of a 4 core faster/stronger IBM Powerpc proc. This thing is gonna run circles around any competitor with product on market.

Untill microsoft comes out with a DX11 console and nintendo is back to being a kids gaming console. That is the risk you take when coming out with the first console. And that controller looks massive and i dont see the reason for a screen. All that does is add cost, I guess it could be used to free up screen space ( have the hud items on the controller screen) but what else coud you really do with that?

 

[cburke82]

Like a couple people have already said, DX11 doesnt matter, its just a microsoft development thing. A gpu can still have the capabilities without being labeled DX11. Anyways DX10.1 has almost all the capabilities as DX11, plus AMD gpus have had stuff like tessellation built in for years. Besides, it is still a "custom" chip "based off" of the 4xxx series. Who knows what optimizations it will have.

I understand the DX11 is a microsoft thing but.....if they are using a dx11 base that means at least a 5000 series card.......so that means nintendo will again be behin.........

 

[reprotected]

I don't get whats wrong with playing with games that require less processing power, or paying $400 for a Wii U. Look at the PS3, $600 at release, outdated graphics card, and you guys don't complain? The last time I checked, I don't see any Wii games being ported on the PC. I don't remember the Wii making PC game graphics bad. I also don't remember buying a console so I can run Folding@home, or stare at the highest quality graphics for 5 hours. I have a Wii so I can play my Mario and entertain my guests when they come over, and they seem pretty satisfied. I have a PC to play my Steam games, to browse the net, and work on assignments I receive. Maybe you should be trashing the game companies for porting console games to the PC.

 

[bhaberle]

Well this is a decent improvement... we'll see how far they upgrade the machines. I honestly find it difficult to tell the difference between dx9 to dx11, but that might just be me. At the very least, the new consoles will help PC users as well, since ports will be able to use higher graphics and more complicated programming.

 

[Guest]

@cburke82

once upon a time a touch screen on an audio communication device would have seem absurd. No doubt MS will release a DX11 console..... some 3 years from now and then you'll just b*@ch about how it' does not have DX13 hardware

 

[stupidvillager]

that's the thing, it does not have to be labeled DX11 to have the capabilities. It only needs that label if it is going to be on a microsoft platform. They can add whatever they want to that chip and then the developers get to work with straight from the metal.

 

[master9716]

[citation][nom]scrumworks[/nom]...So we can play console ports that use less than 50% of GPU/CPU potential.[/citation]
you can run games like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UwOrl036_A without stressing out the gpu as much with dx11. it has been proven.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]rantoc[/nom]Certainly not, but if you know anything about consoles its that its games are pricier due to licensing and that the regular user usually pays more in the end for a system with 10ish+ games than a working PC game rig and the same number of games.Whats also sad is that when the new version of the console comes out the "gamer" can't even use the new console to run purchased games. With a PC the story is different, instead of purchasing a new system the gfx card for instance can be replaced with ease and the system is taken to a whole new level AND the old purchased games will still work (with greater detail/resolution)This is not a hard choice for me, get robbed for medicree gaming and complete system AND game cycles or robbed for good gaming with only a component swap each cycle![/citation]

well, not exactly, the break down for a console game is a bit... less than you are thinking.

there is money that goes to the makers for licence rights, i believe that on a 360 game its something like 8-16 goes to microsoft. over 10 games that 80-160$ and you better believe they ate more than that on the cost of first year production.

but its a neglagible cost. if the 360 came out after the ps3, it may not be the #1 console for the hard core. the ps3 also ate the cost of bluray and cell for a bit, to make damn sure they won the war, they now get about 1$ for every bluray movie sold, and a % for every writeable media.

nintendo on the other hand... has no way to really make the money back, or reason to really push the envelope, potentially they could be the best system to play a fps on, and im including the pc for some game play types (snipeing), but i will hold judgement till i see it.

 

[cburke82]

@cburke82

once upon a time a touch screen on an audio communication device would have seem absurd. No doubt MS will release a DX11 console..... some 3 years from now and then you'll just b*@ch about how it' does not have DX13 hardware

No I wonr complain at all because ill be gaming on my PC like I do now . And I was not complaining about this one just explaining why I could see some nintendo fans upset. If anything ill be complaining about how console games hold PC gaming back because they cry when PC games look better than the console version.

 

[master9716]

The Ultimate main point! If its a Ati 4870 we all good , it should be able to run Bf3 @ full power with antilizing hopefully , remember PS4 and Xbox720 are coming out soon and those guys dont play around . Wii will always be the weakest console outthere. and game from here out on will requier massive gpu power.

 

[upgrade_1977]

Isn't that "Two" generations behind?

So... New console development is actually behind PC's in performance now before they even reach the market... Nice...
-1 console, +1 PC

And, in there press release they said they are going after the "Hard Core" market??? LOL

Whats next is atari gonna start making consoles again?
Yars Revenge anyone?

 

[Guest]

I don't get why PCs even get compared to consoles anyway. You all realize you are fighting over apples and oranges, right? PCs use a lot less of the CPU for gaming, whereas consoles (especially the PS3) uses their CPUs for all games and can usually have tricks programmed where the CPU is used in conjunction with the GPU on every level of game development.

Let's also get to the point that "The Wii U will be completely underpowered by the end of it's lifecycle". Okay, well, one, by then a new console will be approaching and two, consoles are underpowered when comparing them to PCs by like then end of year one, so what the hell is the point?

Another point everyone keeps bringing up is that they would rather have Nintendo sell their console at a loss with a lot of power under the hood like Sony and MS. You guys DO realize that Sony and MS have other markets to lean on right? Nintendo is strictly gaming, so their business model is completely different, and has to be in order to survive.

 

[upgrade_1977]

[citation][nom]wampdog29[/nom]I don't get why PCs even get compared to consoles anyway. You all realize you are fighting over apples and oranges, right? PCs use a lot less of the CPU for gaming, whereas consoles (especially the PS3) uses their CPUs for all games and can usually have tricks programmed where the CPU is used in conjunction with the GPU on every level of game development.Let's also get to the point that "The Wii U will be completely underpowered by the end of it's lifecycle". Okay, well, one, by then a new console will be approaching and two, consoles are underpowered when comparing them to PCs by like then end of year one, so what the hell is the point?Another point everyone keeps bringing up is that they would rather have Nintendo sell their console at a loss with a lot of power under the hood like Sony and MS. You guys DO realize that Sony and MS have other markets to lean on right? Nintendo is strictly gaming, so their business model is completely different, and has to be in order to survive.[/citation]

I don't know what you said all there, but -1 consoles, +1 PC
WOOT WOOT!!

 

[blubbey]

Now I don't want to sound like I support them (I appreciate consoles for what they are - relatively cheap gaming boxes ready from the start which is what probably 70% of the pop. want) but this isn't as bad as what it sounds. The 360 is using what - an X1600? That's lolworthy. This is probably a 4850 (R770's are 48XX's aren't they?) which is 2-3x as powerful (probably) with double the CPU power (at a guess).

Don't get me wrong, I would rather have much more powerful hardware than this (which is why I am a PC gamer) but economically... not going to happen. Hopefully the new Xbox will have a 4870x2 though..... yes it's old but still a pretty good card. Maybe consoles will finally get some serious AA and draw distance.

 

[wildwell]

[citation][nom]whysobluepandabear[/nom]I hope MS and Sony release high-end GPUs and stomp the ever living shit out of Nintendo. We'll see then how successful they are in bringing back the hardcore crowd, like they've already have admitted to losing due to the casualness of the Wii.[/citation]
Perhaps you didn't know, but the PS3 hasn't made Sony Corporation $1, not even 1¥ yet. The entire project has been a total loss and the company has considered scaling resources from the PS3 back into productive areas of the company. When it comes time to build the next console, Sony will be looking closely at what worked for the PS1 and PS2, and what has been working so damn well for Nintendo. Specifically, internal auditors are highlighting the PS3's HIGH PRICE (OF HARDWARE) and a LACK OF DEMAND DUE TO COMPETITION as the primary reasons for the loss. More recently, there have been the PlayStation Network security breaches to pay $$$ for.

I'm sorry, but Sony's investors really don't give a sh|t if console gamers approve of the GPU or not right now, they are freaking out over competition from Samsung and the like in regards to TV sales and the manufacturing nightmare they are sorting out due to the earthquake and tsunami back in March.

 

[YardstickWHACK]

[citation][nom]gm0n3y[/nom]One generation isn't that bad (considering that generation wasn't even released when they were developing the console). By 2012 we'll be into the 7000 series of GPUs, so they will be 3 generations behind.[/citation]
or 2 if you consider that the 6000 and 5000 series are not a whole generation apart.