Wii U CPU Clock Frequencies Below the Xbox 360 and PS3

[metathias]

[citation][nom]kinggraves[/nom]It takes 10 minutes to develop a completely different interface (tablet controller) and optimize for an entire second screen? Get real. [/citation]

It was'nt meant to be taken in the literal sense. I was really referring to the very limited capability of the system hardware wise being easy to saturate with a relatively low quality (graphics wise) games. Also when you say optimize. You really mean reduce not insignificantly the graphics capable of being produced on 1 screen to produce graphics on a 2nd screen you dont have time (most of the time) to pay attention to. Is that real enough for you?

 

[Shin-san]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]flops is really the only way you can get a real world benchmark that can tell you a number of what a card or cpu is capable of doing that is processor independent.a game that is WIMTBP will play better on an nvidia card than an amd, and other games will play better on an amd card than an nvidia, so the only real way to tell how good the cards are is really though flops, independent of games you see the real potential. so many places i find only report that retardedly high 2-3 tflop for the cpu alone which is complete bs its really the only reason i mentioned it.[/citation]
I prefer graphics and frame rate

 

[spookyman]

Nintendo only needs variations of their theme characters to sell consoles. I mean no matter what Mario and Zelda sells and they could just run on that alone.

 

[Guest]

"However, as far as chip architecture and clock speeds are concerned, the specs seem to be a bit underwhelming."

Tom's Hardware just lost some of it's credibility with that attention grabbing nonsense...
Firstly what do you actually know about the CPU's architecture based on the clock speeds given?
What do you know about the actual performance of the CPU based on the clock speeds alone?
Please be a little more detailed with your explanations, I don't come to this site to read the same damn dribble I can find on techy tabloids... Wolfgang.

I support all consoles and have been tinkering with PC's since the early eighties, this article is found lacking some key information, and without benchmarks, basic speculation doesn't cut it!

 

[hedwar2011]

Maybe Nintendo has truly lost touch with the "If you build it, they will come" concept of early years. Although if the last round of next-gen consoles didn't convince anyone, this one comes as no surprise considering Sony (PS3) and Microsoft (X-Box 360) both launched with native HD support and the original Wii did not.

Go figure.

 

[hedwar2011]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]tell me the flops. thats what matters, tell me the flops of the wiiu the 360 and the ps3, and the ps3 isnt 3tflops like many places report.i beleive the 360 is between 150 and 300 gflop total.[/citation]

You want the flops? The machine is a flop....or is starting to reveal itself as one.

 

[Guest]

Tiny compared to Microsoft and Sony? No... Please get your facts straight before you outright lie.

 

[Guest]

Why do Nintendo fanboys try to justify such bad mistakes?
Its like the Wii all over again.

3x1.2Ghz isnt going to be able to bother power that GPU properly AND play a high end games.
Developers never said they didnt wanna work on the Wii before, but isnt good for the WiiU.
You can try to justify it all you want but if nintendo can only sell nintendo franchise games
its going to be bad... How do I know this?

Same thing happened to both SEGA and ATARI.

Consoles are designed to undersell during the first half of their life.
they could have doubled the power for the same cost, take a hit for the first 3 years
then profit for the next 5. So also, saying to keep costs down is stupid as well.
Both PS3 and XBOX follow this route and sure, took a hit at the launch
but now make $$ on every unit sold. and with 3rd profit (err, party 😉 support.
continue to make more money. SO financially, also a bad move.


I dont care how you put it, 1.2GHz is barely enough to power a calculator,
to say "they need to optimize for wii" is a bad move; developers have to dev for 4 platforms
thats just the reality of it, they wont do it, period, and nintendo shouldnt expect them too.

And for the record, a faster "say 2.5ghz which would have been fine" in a mass produced
factory would have been cheaper then a specially made 1.2ghz that nobody wants to do
especially on a 45nm process.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Thesspa64[/nom]Why do Nintendo fanboys try to justify such bad mistakes?Its like the Wii all over again.3x1.2Ghz isnt going to be able to bother power that GPU properly AND play a high end games.Developers never said they didnt wanna work on the Wii before, but isnt good for the WiiU.You can try to justify it all you want but if nintendo can only sell nintendo franchise gamesits going to be bad... How do I know this?Same thing happened to both SEGA and ATARI.Consoles are designed to undersell during the first half of their life.they could have doubled the power for the same cost, take a hit for the first 3 yearsthen profit for the next 5. So also, saying to keep costs down is stupid as well.Both PS3 and XBOX follow this route and sure, took a hit at the launchbut now make $$ on every unit sold. and with 3rd profit (err, party support.continue to make more money. SO financially, also a bad move.I dont care how you put it, 1.2GHz is barely enough to power a calculator, to say "they need to optimize for wii" is a bad move; developers have to dev for 4 platformsthats just the reality of it, they wont do it, period, and nintendo shouldnt expect them too.And for the record, a faster "say 2.5ghz which would have been fine" in a mass producedfactory would have been cheaper then a specially made 1.2ghz that nobody wants to doespecially on a 45nm process.[/citation]

GHz is not in any way an indicator of performance. Not in any way at all. Furthermore, you also have no idea how effective it will be even if it was. You don't know how well-optimized the WiiU is nor how it works for processing nor what it's supposed to accomplish in CPU usage.

Instead of preaching about how much you dislike Nintendo and the Wii/WiiU consoles, I suggest getting a clue about how CPUs work.

Also, some of the olest CPUs around from decades ago that have clock speeds measured in a few dozen MHz are far more than enough for a calculator. They even have far lower performance per Hz than modern CPUs and only one core in addition to other weaknesses. Even if you were exaggerating to an extreme, you'd still be way off with that claim.

For example, something like a Hyper-Threaded Sandy Bridge CPU with three cores at 1.2GHz would rival Intel's dual-core models that lack Hyper-Threading very well and anyone who pays attention to Tom's articles would know that those CPUs pack some serious gaming performance considering what they are and that's despite being on a far, far less optimized PC system.