forbes.com: Nintendo’s Wii U may not have the most impressive tech specs at first blush, but comparing clock speeds makes little sense.
Very interested in seeing this silly tit for tat amongst these writers who've helped push the crap-storm of Wii U hate/misinformation to the pinnacle, and wind people back up the staircase to reality. That reality that shows that whatever the raw numbers may say, the Wii U is a more capable machine than the older HD consoles. It would be absurd for it not to be. It's even more absurd to hope it to be otherwise, and find personal enjoyment in fantasizing that it's 'weak'. 'Oh noes! Nintendo and the Wii U might get a nasty lead over the next console that I've already decided I want even though I know next to nothing about it! I have to talk crap and dissuade people from buying it so that when my choice comes out and surmounts that lead I can talk even more crap!' Ugh... The Wii U at launch, easily ports PS360 games, has more modern graphics technique capability built in and available at low resource cost and shows it when developers use its more modern textures and lighting techniques. The hard Ugly truth here is this: People who never planned on buying the Wii U, in addition to wanting its 'lead' to be small, are worried that the fact that the Wii U isn't a huge jump forward graphically is indicative of what's in store for us from Sony and MS. They don't believe it. But they worry. And it makes them upset. At the same time though, people don't want to spend $450+ on a new console and $70+ for games, so what's truly needed amongst us is some acceptance of reality. If you TRULY want the best in graphics, build yourself a gaming PC. If you TRULY care about specific game series', and gameplay, then buy the consoles that provide them, and quit pretending that the graphics capability of Wii U on up isn't satisfactory. /mini rant
Here's a simple example for the 'GHZ' mongers, so that hopefully we can all understand and move on: If the current gen HD consoles (in terms of raw GHZ functionality) for the purposes of this example, figuratively represent the U.S. Dollar, and the Wii U the Euro, then arguing that the Wii U is weaker/less capable/slower/etc. is akin to saying that because you have a dollar and 10 cents in your pocket, you have more money than the man who has a single Euro in his pocket. When in reality, the man with the Euro in his pocket has roughly a dollar and thirty cents. 1 GHZ in 2012 > 1 GHZ in 2005. By far. Not unlike the British Pence while being the similar monetary concept of the U.S. penny is worth roughly 50% more. When you consider things such as MHZ/GHZ/etc. or currency, you have to know and understand the value of each unit. To understand what each unit means to the Wii U, one must take into account what the architecture of the Wii U means to the whole picture. What the role of the more modern graphics card is intended to be. What that means for creating a game when a game is developed with the method that the architecture requires to bring out its best. etc. Porting a game to Wii U from another HD system, using the resources in the PS360 way still brings about good looking games. But nowhere near optimal ones. Just as it would be if you had a Euro in your pocket and wanted to buy a loaf of Bread in America. You go up to a guy on the street for an exchange so that you can try to buy something, and you will not get full value since you didn't go through the proper process to ensure that you get the full value of your exchange.
Well you mostly understood it but not entirely. "1 GHZ in 2012 > 1 GHZ in 2005" Really NO comparison between clockspeeds should be made in isolation, not even this one. For example 1ghz on a 2012 ARM Cortex A5 mobile processor (about 1500 MIPS) versus a desktop X86 processor clocked to 1ghz from 2005 (even an ancient 600mhz pentium 3 is 2000+ MIPS) will still end with the 2005 processor probably winning in most raw number benches. We can look at Wii U's CPU in context, by seeing its die size and knowing its power consumption- knowing what chip it is based on. All these factors coupled with the now known clockspeed still show that it is rather slow. You can't judge the chip based on only its clockspeeds but you can make a determination with all the other factors. Wii U's CPU is still slow relative to 360/PS3 and any half decent x86 CPU from the past 7 years. Not just because of its clockspeed, but because of all the other evidence we have to go along with that.
oh my goodness p_-
Thank you Vulcan. I was reading what Truthbetold wrote and just laughed.
I applaud you for this post good sir. This is something I've said many times but never quite so eloquently. Well done.
"Very interested in seeing this silly tit for tat amongst these writers who've helped push the crap-storm of Wii U hate" And those 3 misinformed devs also.
I'm a strong believer in games speaking for themselves as oppose to raw numbers (numbers which to me should apply more to PCs than to consoles). So far we've yet to see any games really take advantage of this hardware. Mostly just third party ports that were thrown together in about half a year. I think the only game built from the ground up for the Wii U so far is Nintendo Land and that's just a compilation of small games. I still want to see how Retro Studios' game will look as well as Nintendo's HD Zelda. Do I think it will EXCEPTIONALLY new and different looking? No, not really. But I do think this platform is capable of having some really fun as well as good looking games.
To be fair, on all this Nintendo Cpu business. I think people usually get Nintendo products because of the software you can get on it not what it's running on.
Wii U having a slower clock speed is a great thing! It gives us more time to play the games, right?
Got a wiiu and the thing has at least a 750mhz gpgpu and a 4 core 3.4ghz cpu my guess going off the graphics ive seen.
Lol that is just silly. But then again coming from the guy who kept saying the wii u was going to be a total beast of a system prior to launch, not exactly a shocker. Better luck next time. Yes it's slightly more powerful than the ps3/360 supposedly, but considering how old they are that isn't saying anything especially encouraging to alot of ps3/360 gamers. Bloggers can spin this all they like it won't change the fact that nintendo released another low power/marginally improved last gen console, that will run into issues with ps4/720 multiplatform ports. The next gen might not be as big a jump as this gen, but they damn sure won't be as weak as the wii u. I already have 2 current gen systems don't need a 3rd late entry system costing $350+.
I've owned a 360 since launch and also a ps3 when they released the 80 gig model, and I can honestly say I'm excited to buy a WIIU. For me this gen as dragged on and on to the point it's become boring. (mY PS3 breaking didn't help) hopefully the WiiU will help me enjoy playing games again, if not there's always next gen.
If hardware specs matter so much, what can't they just buy a gaming PC and call it a day?
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.