GR - "Nintendo Wii U's comparatively slower processor doesn't matter as much as you've been lead to think."
"The developers of Metro: Last Light also shared their disappointment with the console's processing power. One of the game's lead developers, Oles Shishkovstov, was quoted as saying that Metro: Last Light's CPU-intensiveness made the Wii U an unsuitable platform for the game." If a game isn't being made for the platform because the CPU can't handle it, then IMO it does matter Although the original quote was "We had an early look at it, we thought we could probably do it, but in terms of the impact we would make on the overall quality of the game – potentially to its detriment – we just figured it wasn’t worth pursuing at this time. It’s something we might return to. I really couldn’t make any promises, though."
The trend for CPU's being important in gaming has decreased for decades. 3D video cards changed the game, and they keep onboarding more and more of the load. If people remember Metro 2033 doesn't even run good on an overclocked i7 and a GTX 670, when the DX11 options are enabled. What that means is a PC that can run Battlefield 3 at ultra settings @ 60 FPS, gets more like 25-35 on Metro 2033 and that's when nothing major is happening. So the guy that designed THAT engine, not only made something that high end PC's can barely keep up with, but also is against the grain of where things are headed (aka bad design decision). CryEngine 3, Frostbite 2 ARE next generation engines, and they currently can run on the 360/PS3 as games have already come out utilizing them. The Wii U can definitely run it. But you also have to remember that Metro: Last light only has 80 people making the game, which is far less than AAA devs with hundreds. They don't have the financial backing, especially with THQ not only a mid-major, but a bankrupted mid-major. So you have an ill-designed engine, made for future PC's (far more advanced than the PS4/720), with a company that doesn't have the manpower or resources to tread new ground in an additional way...in a company that's going bankrupt very soon. People are using THAT as reason why the Wii U can't run next-gen games? Especially since even in that quote you get "we thought we could probably do it" "it's something we might return to" $$$$$$ and manpower were the deciding factors, not the Wii U's prowess. It's designed for an ultra elite future PC, so yes, they would have to make sacrifices for it that would be to it's detriment....same as if there was a PS4 or 720, because guess what, those things won't have a GTX 670 in it, and if they DID, they still wouldn't run the DX11 effects that well with it and would detrimentally have to notch it down one or two notches. So read between the lines, even a game that is the least suited to be on a Wii U in terms of design and scope, was thought that "we could probably do it". ...and why are people drawing other conclusions?
So good to read some intelligent comments from a person that actually knows what is going on. Of course, by pointing out the truth people will just say you are making excuses for Nintendo.
Metro 2033 was horribly optimized reminds me of quake 4 I cant run it with 16x msaa and stay above 30 fps with a GTX 670 OC , And cpu do matter because Cpu's let the GPU work if the cpu cant calculate all that GPU info quick enough it slows down the GPU
Unless the Power PC processor has several threads per core, versus the two for the ones in the PS3 and the 360, the clock difference and the fact that it is the same basic architecture means the CPU is almost certainly inferior to current gen consoles. Sure, some tasks can be pushed off to the CPU, but branchy game logic is not a good choice for that, and it would actually run slower - not to mention the fact that it is harder. This is really not all that different than the "code for the SPUs" argument for PS3. When Sony & Microsoft come out with their next consoles, the difference in overall performance (both CPU & GPU) is going to mean that developers will have to design a different product for Nintendo (designed to its strengths, of course - so not necessarily "worse" in all regards). That or they dumb the entire game down to run on the lowest common denominator capabilities among the three platforms. Or they decide to ignore one or more of the platforms.
It's funny how one effect gave 4A a bad rap in terms of optimisation. As long as you don't turn on the crazy DoF effect they had performance isn't that bad considering the image quality. I'm not really sure why they added that DoF implementation, I guess it was so that people that are playing the game in 5-10 years time could have something to play with lol. The 4A engine actually scales very well on the lower settings. They just pushed the effects quality on max to a real high extream with lots of full resolution effects being spamed at once along with the lighting and motion blur etc wich really pushed systems. It's much like Crysis 1 where it was designed to push future systems with it's highest settings rather being built around current hardware. Ether way Metro Last Light is said to be much better optimised for current hardware this time round.
Key thing here is console optimization. As Frostbite 2 and Cryengine 3 were both built with Cross platform optimization into the game engines. I still say Cryengine 3 is still 95% CE 2.0 just with console optimization added into the mix. This engine from 4A doesn't have that or at least it didn't when it came out with PC/X360 game Metro 2033. Now Last Light is on PS3. Thanks to them expanding due to success. I can see WiiU being included in their future. Likely 4A might need a new publisher though. 4A lacks the money to port to the WiiU really. They spread from PC, X360 to PC, X360, PS3. I suspect if they spread anymore its due to publisher giving them more resources, but I doubt Last Light will hit WiiU as THQ is struggling as it is to hold itself up.
cpu speeds still matter; even today. Getting a 6 core amd at 3.3 ghz vs a intel 3 core i5 at 3.3 guess which wins? Intel gives ALOT of 'free' fps because its physically made to process data better then the AMD design. CPU's matter ALOT and anyone who says differently is talking out their asshole. A good cpu lets your hardware breath, a bad cpu restricts its breathing room thus lower fps on a lesser AMD processor for example.
Fairly obvious CPU performance still matters. You can manage with less performance to a certain extent, if that extent is to match the current games consoles PS3/360. However reduced CPU performance means Wii U will never significantly exceed what PS3/360 can do and have been doing for all this generation now. Its GPU is obviously nothing to really get excited about either. Harping on as if it'll save the day by taking a bunch of CPU specific tasks on when it is blatantly slower than a low end desktop GPU like a 6670. People pinning their hopes on the GPU must realise that particular chip isn't anything special! The fact is CELL in PS3 just about makes up for RSX being slower than Xenos in 360 if you really stretch it but PS3 generally doesn't outperform 360 much. The same will be said of Wii U, processors reversed. Is the emphasis on CPU peformance in modern games somewhat reduced from what it was 7 or 8 years ago? Yes. Does that mean that you can get away with having a particularly slow CPU if you really want to push the enveope with visuals and AI etc? No. CPU performance still continues to matter and neither Wii U's CPU or GPU are anything that will blow you away. Long story short, Wii U's CPU is good enough for Wii U, but not good enough for really state of the art 2012 games NOR ones that we can expect in the future on newer hardware. Get over it and stop arguing already.
Another article from an armchair expert. Meanwhile, top developers like DICE and 4A would rather develop for even the complex Ps3 architecture than the Wii U's supposedly "confusing next-gen" magical GPGPU, and cite the Wii U's weak specs.
DICE prefers developing for the PS3 over the 360. They're strong supporters of the PS3 hardware. But yeah. They came out and said the Wii U was weak and won't last long.
Ok so let's do it again like every day Some developers wiiu is weak, fanboys no its no it's next gen Than fanboys wiiu is weak and Nintendo fangirls no it's next gen believe us The reason I said fangirls because Nintendo consoles are for families,kids etc, Ok now that I have that out of my system Wiiu just came out it took ps3 and xbox360 good 2 years before we started to see full potential so let's wait and see. Wiiu is a little bit more power than ps3 and xbox360 because it came 6-7 years after those systems. It shuld have been a lot more powerful than current systems but gamepad is quite expensive to make so Nintendo wasn't about to sell their system for $500. Xbox720 pre what ever it's called and ps4 will be true next gen. 3rd party support for wiiu will just be like wii because most 3rd party publishers see psn and xblive a more core market and both those systems have a proven track record with core fans. Call me a ms and Sony fanboy but end of the day wiiu should have had much better specs, and you know that and so do I I am excited any wiiu and will buy it when Zelda comes out but my main gaming systems will be next Xbox and ps4. Since NES Nintendo has not have great 3rd party support and NES was a long long time ago
Ps3 launched in US Nov. 17th 2006. I believe heavenly sword came out in Sept 2007...that's less than a year the ps3 started showing major potential. Not only that, but the first uncharted came out 2 months later after heavenly sword. power was being pumped early...I hope WiiU can do the same soon.
seriously, effecincy only matters in terms of how it handles things aside from general numbers The hertz is equivalent to cycles per second. In defining the second, the CIPM declared that "the standard to be employed is the transition between the hyperfine levels F = 4, M = 0 and F = 3, M = 0 of the ground state 2S1/2 of the cesium 133 atom, unperturbed by external fields, and that the frequency of this transition is assigned the value 9 192 631 770 hertz" thereby effectively defining the hertz and the second simultaneously. these cores can handle only 1.6 billion operations per second that is fact etched in stone, that is the speed. effeciency is in optimizing the pipeline so that priority operations get done first, you cant make more space in a cycle this isnt ram its not ddrcpu. the chip is slower yes modern cpus are more effecient then olderones but there also on the same speed, theres no magic to do to find more power here its like saying the atom processor single core is better then a athlon duel core, in benchmarking tests yes things that require cetain patterns maybe but not in speed and not by how it functions. x360 3 cores at 3.2 ghz ps3 1ppc 7spe @ 3.2ghz wiiu 3 ppc at 1.26ghz all are duel issue processors meaning it can write one instruction while reading the next. its cpu brings down the whole system remember trying to use high end gpu back in the agp age sticking a voodoo 5 or gf3 in along side your 512 ram and duron 600 cpu.. same thing slow cpu brings everything down.
If you're going to do a copy paste, at least remove the ref numbers :) But yes I do agree, a slow/poorly optimized CPU can cripple a computer. We'll have to see in future whether devs will take the time and effort to properly optimize for the WiiU
The xbox CPU runs at 1.6 Ghz and is rated at 3.2 GHz only when multi-threading The need for CPU's in gaming have been reduced a tremendously since the age of voodo gfx. Most of the work in modern games is done on the GPU. CPU is only used for rudamentary things, A.I. and physics given that its over 6 times stronger. Elebits on the Wii had superb physics running on the Wii's CPU so I don't see how the Wii U's cpu will run into problems. People are taking things out of context and making a mountain out of a molehill with the clock speeds. If you have any questions of what the Wii U can do. Look at ZombiU, Trine 2: Director's Cut and Wonderful 101.
The physics on the Wii U should be done with the GPGPU. So you take that strain off the CPU, freeing that up to tackle other issues.
All 3 of the Xbox 360's CPU cores run at 3.2GHz, no one adds up core or hardware threads to determine clock speed because that wouldn't make any sense.
***Most of the work in modern games is done on the GPU. CPU is only used for rudamentary things, A.I. and physics given that its over 6 times stronger. *** Just FYI, AI and physics are far from rudimentary. I know they aren't equal to the graphic elements being processed, but they are gaining in complexity and form as it stays in equal footing with GPU capabilities.
Trine 2, crappy game btw, might have beautiful graphics, but beautiful as in aesthetic, not as in anything that pushes the hardware. I really hate it when fanboys have no idea what they're talking about and throw names of games out there. It's not just Nintendo fanboys. Sony and Microsoft fanboys as well. But you only further prove my point when naming Wonderful 101. Have you actually seen the graphics or throwing the games name out there because it's an exclusive by Platinum Games? Platinum could possibly release Wonderful 101 on the Wii and pull off the same graphics(the framerate would more than likely suffer, but graphically it'd be the same.) It's definitely not graphically demanding in the least. It's like Mirror's Edge or Playstation Home. Games that use simple textures for clarity.
yea sorry bout that was in a hurry, optimize means combineing functions to minimize operations still held back by the low speed
Optimize means a lot more than that.
optimize definition of. 1. (tr) to take the full advantage of 2. (Business / Commerce) (tr) to plan or carry out (an economic activity) with maximum efficiency 3. (intr) to be optimistic 4. (Electronics & Computer Science / Computer Science) (tr) to write or modify (a computer program) to achieve maximum efficiency in storage capacity, time, cost, etc. 5. (tr) to find the best compromise among several often conflicting requirements, as in engineering design. in other words what i said more or less. if i need to go to the bank on one side of town the grocery on the other and sce school nearer to the bank the optimum route is bank school grocer. i know people hold on to great hope about wii u and its power. and yes gpus are taking over a lot of cpu tasks however cpu is still needed and is still a key part. gpu can run a lot of physics and graphics but falls down in other parts its a bottleneck still but im done here.
When developers complain about the Wii U then yes I care because they make the games and that's what matters not other people saying it being slow don't matter they're not making games so their statement are irrelevant.
It's the context. Not many games in the next ten years are going to be heavily CPU focused. The guy who made those statements is covering for his idiotic decision to make a CPU focused game engine in an era where the game engines made that way are ill-conceived and don't have a future. It's like making a newspaper page turner when everyone is reading the internet. That's what he did. Really, irrelevant? That's a bold claim. I see people of all stripes making stupid comments. Title and position doesn't make one wise or right. That dev is speaking to the direction he made HIS engine, and yet people area also reading his statements wrong. He said they don't have the $$$ and resources to try new things to utilize what the Wii U (and where everyone else is going), so that even though we think it could probably be done, we aren't right now, but maybe. Also in context, his parent company, THQ, is going bankrupt. See the problem? Is it with Wii U or THQ? So realize those two things. 1. Title and position sometimes means jack s... 2. Clearly read the quotes
It doesn't matter, they do there own thing. People compare and degrade the wii u but they don't have to be in an arms race with the others.
Let me throw you an OpenGL book and have you read into what debs have to deal with regarding buffers and then we'll talk.... Ignorance is bliss
I'm not going to come on here and try to talk tech, I barely know any of that stuff. But I will say this, and it's what I've been saying for a while now. Give it a year, wait and see Retro's new game or Monolith's, something built from the ground up for the Wii U that truly takes advantage of the hardware. Uncharted and Gears of War were the first games the truly felt next gen, and they both came out a year after their respective systems were released. And while we're at it, while the Wii was an overclocked Gamecube, Super Mario Galaxy was the first game that truly felt like it couldn't of been done on the previous system, and when did it come out? A year after the Wii was released. Give it a year and we'll see what the Wii U can do. Personally, can't wait to see it.
It DOES matter. Yes it's a console but if anyone has done anything with PC gaming you'll know that RAM+CPU+GPU is a trinity that works together. why have a weak CPU and a strong GPU? It will be noticed. Why have slow ram and a strong CPU with a weak GPU? It WILL be noticed. Nintendo devs will utilize it's architecture and produce amazing games on it I'm sure. I hope they do at least. However where the real test comes is when there are multiplat games for PS4, XBOX 720 and Wii U. Let's see how many corners get cut or if it's supported by all 3rd party devs.
someone is a disagree ghost today
Why can't people just play games and have fun? Its strange to have so many people hating on something they were never going to buy anyway. All this talk about CPU this and clock-speed that is nonsense. The average console gamer has no idea what any of it means. Plus if you only cared about stuff like that why not just buy a high end PC or make one since you guys seem to know so much. Meanwhile I will continue to enjoy my Wii, Wii U and PS3.
It matters to me because I don't like being ripped off the Nintendo Wii U is a typical Nintendo lets keep our console as low spec as possible while calling it "next gen" it's a joke mate
It is next gen. The 7th or last gen systems were 360, PS3, & Wii. It didn't matter that the Wii was the runt of the three it was still part of the same gen. With that out of the way the Wii U is the first 8th gen console to arrive. It doesn't matter if you hate Nintendo or think Sony and Microsoft have all the answers to your gaming needs or vice versa. Gen is short for generation last time I checked. What does that have to do with specs mate?