AfterDawn Forums
These messages are comments to this news item:

Wii U clock speeds revealed

news article released on:

While Nintendo has kept certain aspects of the Wii U hardware secret, developer "Marcan" has released them for the masses. Marcan has revealed the CPU and GPU clock speeds for the new console, which on the surface do not appear to be too spectacular but very efficient According to the dev, the Wii U's CPU speeds run at 1.24 GHz per core with 3x PowerPC type cores. Additionally, the ...

Read full article

This discussion thread has 14 messages.

#1
Rinslowe Unverified new user
Wish the article was a little bit more expansive but playing safe is a smart move considering their is still a lot of unknowns in terms of CPU/ GPU performance...

All in all quite liked the objectivity, way to maintain your integrity.
▼▼ This topic has 13 answers - they are below this advertisement ▼▼
AfterDawn Advertisement
#2
There was essentially a bit more to this article than this site has posted. It went into further detail how the clocks performed between 360/PS3 and Wii, but it didn't give frame results. Basically it's saying the Wii-U is not weaker than PS3 and 360, but nor is it a godly upgrade either. Still for what the tech is, the price range for the console is on par to what it be selling at, they *Nintendo* aren't milking it like they did Wii.
#3
Eh......still sucks that it's much much less lower than the big boy consoles and sucks even more that Nintendo games are intense enough to merit higher clock speeds.

Time for Nintendo to revamp their games into something a little more ..........how should I say............2013(ish)????
#4
Originally posted by hearme0:
Eh......still sucks that it's much much less lower than the big boy consoles and sucks even more that Nintendo games are intense enough to merit higher clock speeds.

Time for Nintendo to revamp their games into something a little more ..........how should I say............2013(ish)????
Less lower than what? Did you not read the article?
#5
Originally posted by hearme0:
Eh......still sucks that it's much much less lower than the big boy consoles and sucks even more that Nintendo games are intense enough to merit higher clock speeds.

Time for Nintendo to revamp their games into something a little more ..........how should I say............2013(ish)????
Did you read the part that said this? "So yes, the Wii U CPU is nothing to write home about, but don't compare it clock per clock with a 360 and claim it's much worse. It isn't."


The CPU and GPU is a few generations newer than what the 360 and PS3 have and the Mhz/Ghz is just a frequency/clock cycle. All that matters is how much work can be done per clock cycle. On top of that if the software is written optimally it can perform well with less power on a closed ecosystem of a console.

Now chances are that the Xbox 720 and PS4 will blow it away in terms of sheer performance but what all comes down to is the games. If the games are fun to play and the graphics meet the requirements to play the game effectively that is all that matters. You can make an ultra definition pile of crap but it will not change the fact that is just crap.

AMD Phenom II 965 @ 3.67Ghz, 8GB DDR3, ATI Radeon 5770HD, 256GB OCZ Vertex 4, 2TB Additional HDD, Windows 7 Ultimate.

http://www.facebook.com/BlueLightningTechnicalServices
#6
It reminds me of the same circumstances as the GameCube and the Wii. Both the GameCube and the wii were underpowered from a purely technical standpoint when compared to their Microsoft and PlayStation competitors. But raw horsepower is not the deciding factor. What really matters is how effectively the system is able to run the games and there is much more to that than simply gigahertz and megahertz.

It seems to me like Nintendo is developing a trend of releasing a system before everyone else and the system is not necessarily the most technically capable box on the market but it is still able to do a fairly decent job.
#7
Yes because all cpus at the same speed have the same bandwidth..............
#8
IF it simply came down to clock speed a machine with an Intel Pentium 4 clocked at 2 GHz and a machine with the latest generation Intel processor clocked at 2 GHz would perform identically.

That just wouldn't be the case. There is a lot more that goes into performance than simply clock speed.
#9
Originally posted by wheelstb:
IF it simply came down to clock speed a machine with an Intel Pentium 4 clocked at 2 GHz and a machine with the latest generation Intel processor clocked at 2 GHz would perform identically.

That just wouldn't be the case. There is a lot more that goes into performance than simply clock speed.
Yeah Intel tried to play that game with the Pentium 4 until people wised up when AMD was kicking their but with processors a 1000+ Mhz slower.

AMD Phenom II 965 @ 3.67Ghz, 8GB DDR3, ATI Radeon 5770HD, 256GB OCZ Vertex 4, 2TB Additional HDD, Windows 7 Ultimate.

http://www.facebook.com/BlueLightningTechnicalServices
#10
Can i honestly say something i dont care about processor speed as long as it works and plays the games i want to play i dont give a fart
#11
Quote:
Can i honestly say something i dont care about processor speed as long as it works and plays the games i want to play i dont give a fart
and that is exactly the right viewpoint to have. Besides, a lot of it probably comes down to how well the programmers are able to create code that works with what the system has to offer.

I remember back in the days of the GameCube, one of the Metroid games had some of the best graphics on any game system at the time. From a purely technical standpoint the GameCube wasn't on par with the other systems. I don't know a whole lot about programming but I'm sure having more power to work with makes it easier to create better graphics but, it is still possible it might just take more effort.
#12
Originally posted by wheelstb:
Quote:
Can i honestly say something i dont care about processor speed as long as it works and plays the games i want to play i dont give a fart
and that is exactly the right viewpoint to have. Besides, a lot of it probably comes down to how well the programmers are able to create code that works with what the system has to offer.

I remember back in the days of the GameCube, one of the Metroid games had some of the best graphics on any game system at the time. From a purely technical standpoint the GameCube wasn't on par with the other systems. I don't know a whole lot about programming but I'm sure having more power to work with makes it easier to create better graphics but, it is still possible it might just take more effort.
as far as i know the ps2 was the least advanced of that generation...and it won that one due to its games
#13
Quote:
as far as i know the ps2 was the least advanced of that generation...and it won that one due to its games
you know what, I think you are correct. I don't know if it takes away from my overall point or not but, it still comes down to how well developers are able to negotiate different hardware configurations to get the best performance.
#14
It also means the Wii U shouldn't run as hot. Less heat = longer console life. The optical drive is still going to be the other big weak point in reliability, but hopefully a WODE type device comes out fast so I don't have to rely on easily damaged optical disks and failing optical drives. I especially hope they haven't mated the optical drive to the motherboard the way the PS3 did (making a drive replacement a monstrous PITA).
This discussion thread has been automatically closed, as it hasn't received any new posts during the last 180 days. This means that you can't post replies or new questions to this discussion thread.

If you have something to add to this topic, use this page to post your question or comments to a new discussion thread.