Previous Generation Radeon HD Powers the Wii U

[bin1127]

I would've thought people would be happy AMD got this huge contract so they can fight another great next-gen battle with Nvidia.

 

[cburke82]

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.

Did they make money on the PS3 console no. Im sure however they make plenty of money selling games for said console(though they most likely gave that money back to people when the PSN got breached lol). Then you have microsoft that can come in and beat this nintendo console as well. I think Nintendo should have waited until there was a better idea as to what the other two would do before making a commitment on what specs they would have. Being the first out with a system is not always a good thing just ask Sega, they were first alot of the time only to have the competition come out with better stuff after the fact(easy to do when you know what the competition is going to do thus a slight handicap for being first to announce your plans.) The only reason I want console tech to catch up is so that I can see some real improvement in PC games.

 

[AnUnusedUsername]

Honestly an HD 4000 series card is leaps and bounds better than what any game today needs at a minimum. Considering that the GPU in the 360 is around a Radeon x1600, a 4000 series card (that could be anything up to a 4870) is a massive improvement.

 

[whysobluepandabear]

[citation][nom]bv90andy[/nom]I find it a huge leap forward for Nintendo. Dx10 graphics are not bad now, it depends if its a hd 48xx or hd 42xx.I honestly prefer a company that sells the console at a profit and don't trick you into paying for it through games.[/citation]
WTF? Were you brain washed as a child? No one TRICKS you into buying games.


Nintendo SHOULD be confident enough in their product, where they know they can take an initial hardware loss, but make it up on quality accessories and games.


If the games suck, then OF COURSE they're going to be losing money, but that's there fault for making CRAP games.

Nintendo shouldn't sell you hardware that is junk and only worth $150, but charge you $300 for it.

They should in fact sell you $300 hardware, and sell it for $150. The numbers I used were just mythical, but the point still stands. MS & Sony are willing to give you more for your dollar and hope you buy games and etc. MS & Sony know that they better provide some damn good games and other features, otherwise they're not making a profit.


That is VERY good. It drives and motivates a company to create quality, good games.


Nintendo really has no problem with making flops. They make bank on their over-priced hardware, why do they care if they profit from games? They already took you to the bank the moment you laid their console on the checkout counter.

 

[whysobluepandabear]

Oh and....the R770 is: HD 4870, HD 4850, HD 4830 and HD 4730.


They're probably going to roll with a 4730. We'll have to wait to see....

 

[cburke82]

WTF? Were you brain washed as a child? No one TRICKS you into buying games.


Nintendo SHOULD be confident enough in their product, where they know they can take an initial hardware loss, but make it up on quality accessories and games.


If the games suck, then OF COURSE they're going to be losing money, but that's there fault for making CRAP games.

Nintendo shouldn't sell you hardware that is junk and only worth $150, but charge you $300 for it.

They should in fact sell you $300 hardware, and sell it for $150. The numbers I used were just mythical, but the point still stands. MS & Sony are willing to give you more for your dollar and hope you buy games and etc. MS & Sony know that they better provide some damn good games and other features, otherwise they're not making a profit.


That is VERY good. It drives and motivates a company to create quality, good games.


Nintendo really has no problem with making flops. They make bank on their over-priced hardware, why do they care if they profit from games? They already took you to the bank the moment you laid their console on the checkout counter.

I read and I think it was here on toms but I could be wrong, that making console at a loss was considered a bad idea and you wil not see that in the future. However being that the tech is old I think they should sell the console at a break even point and price it in a way that allows the reseller room to make a small profit, then they make all there money on the software and other add ons and such.

 

[clonazepam]

We also don't know what's going to come of the OnLive service, or if the big 3 will copy it and/or incorporate it into their own systems. That alone could make the hardware debate pointless.

 

[rantoc]

[citation][nom]scrumworks[/nom]...So we can play console ports that use less than 50% of GPU/CPU potential.[/citation]

Yupp and even at that 50% load we can still play it at nicer resolutions like 1600p (2560x1600) @ 60fps with high AA ect making the typical console designed low res textured / low poly models look ok even on big displays like 50"+. Now if the consolers would add tessellation and the like it would be shooting themselves in the foot since it would only serve to prove how huge the gap is between a gaming pc and a console (yeah the price is quite different too but with the PC the consumer have the choice to select a price/performance level thats suitable AND are able to upgrade easily without loosing any titles!)

 

[cburke82]

LOL my 4gb 6990, 12gb ram, i7 at 4.5 ghz and 2560 x 1600 res ( super ips panel ) are falling over backwards with laughter on this one! Nice going nintendo FAIL.

I think compairing any setup like that to any console is your attempt to brag about your system. How much did that cost you....what 5-6 time sthe cost of a console. That would be like me buying a Lambo and loling at a corvette because it was slow....... nice try dont break your arm patting yurself on the back.

 

[whysobluepandabear]

[citation][nom]clonazepam[/nom]We also don't know what's going to come of the OnLive service, or if the big 3 will copy it and/or incorporate it into their own systems. That alone could make the hardware debate pointless.[/citation]
The US does not have a network infrastructure to support that. Latency along with not having enough bandwidth would be a major problem.


You see, corporations in this country are only interested in SELLING and PROFITS. They're only going to give us faster speeds, because competition A is offering it, so to retaliate, they're also going to match and barely beat it. Meanwhile Europe and Asia are STOMPING the shit out of the US. Our internet is beyond embarrassing. So is our financial model of Capitalism, but that's a whole other debate.

 

[whysobluepandabear]

[citation][nom]cburke82[/nom]I think compairing any setup like that to any console is your attempt to brag about your system. How much did that cost you....what 5-6 time sthe cost of a console. That would be like me buying a Lambo and loling at a corvette because it was slow....... nice try dont break your arm patting yurself on the back.[/citation]
Yeah *BUT* Nintendo *COULD* if they wanted to, choose to beef up the Wii U, without increasing the price.


How could/would they do that you might ask? By taking one for the team and STOP BEING SO DAMN GREEDY. I swear, everyone has already sold their souls to the Devil (figuratively) just to gain a few bucks.


Let's pretend the Wii U launches at a price of $299.99 (this is pretend remember). So, they decide to use $150-200 in hardware and pocket the rest. Besides the numbers, that's the correct model Nintendo is using - They're using cheap hardware and selling it for a premium.


Now, instead of using a 4 series, they could instead use something more powerful, along with minor upgrades, allowing the Wii U to both be attractive to the casual gamer, but also interest those who are eye candy goers, which also brings back the hardcore crowd, since developers will be interested in making a game that uses their vision, instead of developing a 3 year old kiddy game port. This might increase the cost by $50-75, but guess what? NINTENDO WOULD STILL MAKE SLIGHT HARDWARE PROFITS.


That's the point people. I'm not asking Nintendo to lose their asses off, but what I am asking for is FAIR PRICE FOR FAIR HARDWARE. Stop having $$$ symbols in your eyes, and instead reward your customers damn it. If your console is going to cost $299, make the hardware cost $275. Don't stop short at $150-200 and expect us to just GIVE you the extra money. You bank in on royalties, games and accessories. The least you can do is share the wealth and experience.



I think everyone here can agree that gaming is on a decline. The prices are too F'ing high. I can't afford to buy 4, $60 games a month. I actually *Could* afford that, but I can't afford to take the time to play them, because having a job and real life responsibilities takes It's toll. I'm honestly just frustrated at the quality of life these rich ass holes are creating for the rest of us.



And for the people who come here and tell me that I choose to be where I am, and if I wanted to, I could too be rich - well I have news for you....if It was that easy and If everyone was rich, rich wouldn't have a meaning. It would just be the new norm and inflation would make a can of Coke cost 2 million dollars. You can't be rich, if there aren't poor people. You NEED poor and middle class people.


Yeah yeah...I rant too much....I know.

 

[Murissokah]

[citation][nom]mactronix[/nom]You all seem to be down on this announcement, Why ? I will tell you why because you obviously know nothing about Graphics thats why. Pretty much all games that are being released these days are straight Console ports.When fully optimized to run the game code like it will be in the Wii U the Rv770 core will be a huge step ahead of the graphical abilities of the other consoles. I don't see people complaining about the Xbox graphics at the moment do you ?[/citation]

PS3 and X360 graphics ARE outdated, people don't complain because these consoles are over 5 years old. Yes it will be a step ahead of the other consoles. More precisely, it will be a three-year step ahead, straight to 2008 when the 4000 lauched.

 

[f-14]

[citation][nom]whysobluepandabear[/nom] Why are they going to charge in the range of $400, for a console that has CHEAP ASS hardware in it? Nintendo is seriously the Apple of consoles.[/citation]
because apple gets away with it.

 

[cburke82]

Yeah *BUT* Nintendo *COULD* if they wanted to, choose to beef up the Wii U, without increasing the price.


How could/would they do that you might ask? By taking one for the team and STOP BEING SO DAMN GREEDY. I swear, everyone has already sold their souls to the Devil (figuratively) just to gain a few bucks.


Let's pretend the Wii U launches at a price of $299.99 (this is pretend remember). So, they decide to use $150-200 in hardware and pocket the rest. Besides the numbers, that's the correct model Nintendo is using - They're using cheap hardware and selling it for a premium.


Now, instead of using a 4 series, they could instead use something more powerful, along with minor upgrades, allowing the Wii U to both be attractive to the casual gamer, but also interest those who are eye candy goers, which also brings back the hardcore crowd, since developers will be interested in making a game that uses their vision, instead of developing a 3 year old kiddy game port. This might increase the cost by $50-75, but guess what? NINTENDO WOULD STILL MAKE SLIGHT HARDWARE PROFITS.


That's the point people. I'm not asking Nintendo to lose their asses off, but what I am asking for is FAIR PRICE FOR FAIR HARDWARE. Stop having $$$ symbols in your eyes, and instead reward your customers damn it. If your console is going to cost $299, make the hardware cost $275. Don't stop short at $150-200 and expect us to just GIVE you the extra money. You bank in on royalties, games and accessories. The least you can do is share the wealth and experience.



I think everyone here can agree that gaming is on a decline. The prices are too F'ing high. I can't afford to buy 4, $60 games a month. I actually *Could* afford that, but I can't afford to take the time to play them, because having a job and real life responsibilities takes It's toll. I'm honestly just frustrated at the quality of life these rich ass holes are creating for the rest of us.



And for the people who come here and tell me that I choose to be where I am, and if I wanted to, I could too be rich - well I have news for you....if It was that easy and If everyone was rich, rich wouldn't have a meaning. It would just be the new norm and inflation would make a can of Coke cost 2 million dollars. You can't be rich, if there aren't poor people. You NEED poor and middle class people.


Yeah yeah...I rant too much....I know.

I think you are forgetting one thing. You can just add up the cost of the parts here for a console. First to guess what nintendo is paying for the parts would be just that a guess, untill some parts invoice is released or a leak or something happens.

Then the big thing you are forgetting is this....The cost of R+D is folded into the cost of the console. the parts might cost $300 but designing a case and power system that everything fits in without overheating and making a new OS for everything to run off of as well as R+D for the controllers costs money. So if they expect to sell X amount of consoles over the lifetime of the unit and the raw mats cost $300 the real cost would look like this:

lets say the raw mats cost $300 and we call the R+D cost X and the amount they hope to sell y....($300+X)*y= true cost. They also have to try to price the unit at release to offset future price drops as the unit ages. So just adding the parts up does not give you a real picture of cost.

This is why they dont release a new console every 2-3 years. If they were making tons of money and ripping there customers off every time someone purchased a console dont you think there would be a new console every few years instead of every six or seven? Nintendo is a smart company by not selling there consoles at a loss. As a business model selling a product at a loss in the hopes that the software that goes with it will make up that loss and then return a good profit is a bad idea. So you will see one of two things in consoles from now on... Less than stellar specs art a lowish price OR Prices will keep rising higher and higher. You want cutting edge consoles that are close to PC specs? Sounds good right but how manny people are willing to spend $800-$900 for a console? Thats another reason there aren't more PC gamers most people dont want to drop $1000 plus for a real gaming PC.

I agree they could do a lot better with this WiiU based on what I see but your basically saying they are ripping people off thats not true. If anything they are shooting there self in the foot by letting themselves get behind the other two. It was fine with the Wii because they had a market of people who just wanted simple fun games. If they kill that market off by making the WiiU less simple and then fail to impress the hardcore gamer they will loose out.

 

[upgrade_1977]

We also don't know what's going to come of the OnLive service, or if the big 3 will copy it and/or incorporate it into their own systems. That alone could make the hardware debate pointless.

Not really, if you think about it, most ISP's have bandwidth caps now, and I don't know if you've played it before, but networks are gonna need some serious upgrading due to lag. I suppose in some games like RTS's it won't be a huge deal, but I tried playing Dirt 2 on it, and I couldn't even win 1 race because the lag is so bad. I have the game at home and I come in 1st all the time. I suppose you could get used to it, but, would you want to? Another problem is if your connection bottlenecks the graphic textures get really bad. It's a good idea, but I still think it's way to early for a gaming cloud service right now. Maybe in another 10 years when they have better faster networks in place. But by then, i don't think they will still be in business.

I don't know anybody that use's the service. The only way I can see it taking off is if they get more MMO's on there and they make it playable on tablets or internet ready t.v.'s. I know they are supposed to be coming out with the ipad software soon. We'll see though. Either way, i don't think it will be a replacement for any other gaming systems. And again, the bandwidth caps are getting worse not better. So....

I wonder what the cost is for upgrading all those servers to be able to play the latest games on them.

 

[upgrade_1977]

Yeah yeah...I rant too much....I know.

Lol, it's ok, I think the same thing to sometimes, but it's all good mayn, thats what we are here for. Put our two cents in and have a little fun ranting. IMO ur basically supporting the forums by ranting. Plus, your helping a lot of people improve there reading and arguing skills.

 

[jednx01]

I guess it won't be matching the crossfire 6950s in my computer. lol

 

[whysobluepandabear]

[citation][nom]cburke82[/nom]I think you are forgetting one thing. You can just add up the cost of the parts here for a console. First to guess what nintendo is paying for the parts would be just that a guess, untill some parts invoice is released or a leak or something happens. Then the big thing you are forgetting is this....The cost of R+D is folded into the cost of the console. the parts might cost $300 but designing a case and power system that everything fits in without overheating and making a new OS for everything to run off of as well as R+D for the controllers costs money. So if they expect to sell X amount of consoles over the lifetime of the unit and the raw mats cost $300 the real cost would look like this:lets say the raw mats cost $300 and we call the R+D cost X and the amount they hope to sell y....($300+X)*y= true cost. They also have to try to price the unit at release to offset future price drops as the unit ages. So just adding the parts up does not give you a real picture of cost.This is why they dont release a new console every 2-3 years. If they were making tons of money and ripping there customers off every time someone purchased a console dont you think there would be a new console every few years instead of every six or seven? Nintendo is a smart company by not selling there consoles at a loss. As a business model selling a product at a loss in the hopes that the software that goes with it will make up that loss and then return a good profit is a bad idea. So you will see one of two things in consoles from now on... Less than stellar specs art a lowish price OR Prices will keep rising higher and higher. You want cutting edge consoles that are close to PC specs? Sounds good right but how manny people are willing to spend $800-$900 for a console? Thats another reason there aren't more PC gamers most people dont want to drop $1000 plus for a real gaming PC.I agree they could do a lot better with this WiiU based on what I see but your basically saying they are ripping people off thats not true. If anything they are shooting there self in the foot by letting themselves get behind the other two. It was fine with the Wii because they had a market of people who just wanted simple fun games. If they kill that market off by making the WiiU less simple and then fail to impress the hardcore gamer they will loose out.[/citation]


Maybe I get too wrapped up in my rants.


This is what I'm trying to say: I of course would not want a $800 console. Or $500 for that matter. $400 max, and It better be worth it and come with some serious stuff.

I'm trying to say that whatever price Nintendo is going to charge for the Wii U, I instead want better hardware, for the same price. I KNOW they can do it, but if they are to do it, they'll have to put their pride and greed behind them and actually give you the parts that command the price.


So essentially, the price NEVER changes. W/e price Nintendo has in mind, they can keep. Just beef up the GPU and I'll shut up pretty quick. So instead of making $100 in profit off each console, they'll make like $60...regardless, they're making money, just try not to be so...well...GREEDY.

 

[Nexus52085]

[citation][nom]whysobluepandabear[/nom]You're an idiot. You seriously are. You're using the highest of high end GPUs. I wasn't even TALKING about $300+ GPU's, so WTF are you talking about? I've been preaching about the 6850/6870, or somewhere close around there, and you come here throwing me cards that whoop the [insert profanity here] out of the 6850/6870. Way to skew the debate.[/citation]

Well, you sort of skewed the debate as well using outdated reviews and mismatched hardware. The GTX 470 was Nvidia's 2nd highest GPU at the time of its release, and no one knew that the 6850 and 6870 were going to be a part of AMD's mid-range GPU's. A more fair comparison would be the GTX 470 against the 6950; or better yet, the GTX 570 vs. the GTX 470.

You gotta do your homework before you dish out insults.

 

[whysobluepandabear]

[citation][nom]Nexus52085[/nom]Well, you sort of skewed the debate as well using outdated reviews and mismatched hardware. The GTX 470 was Nvidia's 2nd highest GPU at the time of its release, and no one knew that the 6850 and 6870 were going to be a part of AMD's mid-range GPU's. A more fair comparison would be the GTX 470 against the 6950; or better yet, the GTX 570 vs. the GTX 470. You gotta do your homework before you dish out insults.[/citation]
Can I ask a quick question.....who's talking about the 470? I'm not. In fact, I've not in any shape or form. Not once have I mentioned the GTX 470.

 

[CyberAngel]

I hope Nintendo is going to die with this one
OR
they change their minds and just go with DX11
The PC ports simply need this
OR
PC games (and PS4, Xbox 720) will be so much better

Remember that DirectX 12 and Windows 8 will soon be here
No big difference, but Tesselation on DX11 level system
(yes I know, consoles don't use this API)
makes a huge difference how muc details you'll have on graphics
which makes it EASIER for the GPU
So you' rather have the minimum DX11 HW (rather than anything older)
Also Nintendo doesn't have to make money on the very 1st batch of the Wii U
break even is enough because on the long run the HW can be made cheaper
BTW: 2012 we will see 28nm shrink on cheap DX11 GPUs
so there actually is no other reason to not to use DX11
but
that the news must be false

even Nintendo could not be this stupid...no way...

 

[jasonpwns]

[citation][nom]Saljen[/nom]"the Wii U should have no problem at least matching the graphical output of the current generation." The fact that Nintendo's hardware that's released 6 years after Xbox 360 and PS3 will only "match" said 6 year old hardware is a bit pathetic. It will likely cost more than the current 6 year old hardware as well. Nintendo has always been lackluster in hardware. Lucky they have Mario and Zelda to save their asses.[/citation]

Always? Find a console that had better graphics than the N64 at the time before the dream cast came out... NONE NONE NONE, the ps1 couldn't even do proper 3d where as the N64 could. Also the PS2 was worst than the Gamecube, the Gamecube could push out much higher res textures and had access directly to the CPU from the graphics card. On Top of that a faster core clock on the processor and graphics card yeah. The n64 also could rival modern computers at the time...

 

[jasonpwns]

[citation][nom]jasonpwns[/nom]Always? Find a console that had better graphics than the N64 at the time before the dream cast came out... NONE NONE NONE, the ps1 couldn't even do proper 3d where as the N64 could. Also the PS2 was worst than the Gamecube, the Gamecube could push out much higher res textures and had access directly to the CPU from the graphics card. On Top of that a faster core clock on the processor and graphics card yeah. The n64 also could rival modern computers at the time...[/citation]

*detailed textures, not res. But still.

 

[clonazepam]

[citation][nom]whysobluepandabear[/nom]The US does not have a network infrastructure to support that. Latency along with not having enough bandwidth would be a major problem.You see, corporations in this country are only interested in SELLING and PROFITS. They're only going to give us faster speeds, because competition A is offering it, so to retaliate, they're also going to match and barely beat it. Meanwhile Europe and Asia are STOMPING the shit out of the US. Our internet is beyond embarrassing. So is our financial model of Capitalism, but that's a whole other debate.[/citation]

I'm aware of all that and suspect the suits won't care if there is infrastructure or not, and sell it up to the sheep.

 

[quixoticism]

I find the 4k series an odd choice. The 5k series from AMD has lower thermal temps and much more modest power consumption and delivers the same performance.
This to me speaks so much more sense when trying to fit it into a tiny console box. The 4k series are still good cards but, for this intended purpose, clearly not the best choice.