topnews.us: It was recently reported that IBM Power PC central processing unit of the Nintendo Wii U has three cores which run at 1.24GHz per core, while that in the PS3's cell processor and Xbox 360's, Xenon run at 3GHz per core.
However, graphics chip in the product is reported to be a little faster or matching to those Xbox 360 and PS3. The graphics processing unit (GPU) of Wii U is made up of Advanced Micro Devices which runs at 549 MHz.
10°
10°
20°
20°
Ad 
40°
Clock speed means nothing. I'v had computers with slower clock speeds that out perform some with higher clock speeds. It's down to how well the hardware is optimized.
Second of all, the Wii U GPGPU is much better than that in the 360 and PS3. It supports DirectX 11 and pixel shader 5.0.
360 launched 1 year prior to the arguably more powerful PS3, but because of the 360 attach rate at the time (5 million +) the 3rd party developers coded to the 360 spec, meaning PS3 was not pushed at all, instead receiving shoddy ports just like Wii U receives in 2012.
Interestingly, I don't see the same for Nintendo. The 3rd party developers are unlikely to utilize Wii U as the main platform when they don't have to until the next gen from MS/Sony arrive within the next year or so.
Wii U would have been better launched late 2009 or early 2010 to really trouble the current gen.
My fears for Nintendo are they will have great success with 1st party, but 3rd party development will progress on a new Xbox/PS in the very near future.
@Monduchestatcenen
Don't be so rude and pig ignorant!!
...and What makes you so superior? Get over ya'self!
Slower components do matter why should anyone pay for obsolete tech.
And people pay for "obsolete tech" because those people just enjoy video games and like to have fun. Not everyone cares about graphics beleive it or not.
We already have games that are demonstrating better graphics than the PS3/360 and one that is even demonstrating better physics.
Regardless of what clock speeds say, the hardware has shown itself to be stronger even though most devs have had less than 6 months to work with and dev kits are still being optimized.
Sadly, unless someone finds a way to penalize media outlets for posting false or misleading information, this will continue to occur.
Even if a more prestigious developers says different, like, "Wii U Aliens: Colonial Marine is best looking version because of consoles more modern tech" <--- direct quote from Borderlands 2 developer 2K. Or when a developer of a game like Trine 2 says, "PS3, 360 can't cope with Trine 2 Wii U graphics." Again this is ignored because some people don't want it to be true. Sources:
http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
http://www.geek.com/article...
to be honest im not impressed with the Wii U yet. im sure a developer will take advantage of all the stuff the system got but for now all the games out for the system (except the nintendo games) look exactly the same as the xbox/ps3 versions. but for now, wii u owners, enjoy your system and dont let anyone tell you diferent
From the article. LOL
And in many other respects, too.
Funny how the quality of a game is completely independent from the quality of its hardware, huh?
Ask yourselves....if the architecture is that easy to program for...why didn't any third party dev get their port to exceed ps360? Why do most of the ports actually perform worse than ps360?
And let's forget all that...how is the WiiU going to play 3rd party games that are also on ps360?! You truly think they are going to flip to wiiU as the starting console? Lol
Wiiu made that impossible by making their system have a unique pad controller.
mean while some developers like ea had only six months to make games like madden look as good as the other two. and some games look better then those two when it also has to stream info to another screen.
so a system with slower cpu clocks speeds just comes out and has to run games on two screens at once.it's launch games are already on par,or better in the graphics department.and has slightly worse, on par, or better frame rates while outputting to two screens with ports of games using current game engines.
and people thinks it's weaker!think about stuff before jumping to conclusions.lets what till games use new next gen engines made for its stronger gpgpu and to yins slower cpu.
did nobody think man its weird wii u has such a slower cpu and ok gpu speeds and can run black ops two looking better then the other two.
how could it do that cause if we go by those speeds its a lot weaker right?how can it keep up.cause wasn't blacks op two be made for the higher cpu?how could it be that much slower and it looks and play so great on two screens at the same time?i guess its magic right?
and ive been playing call of duty everyday and it had like two minor frame rate drops that a regular person wouldn't know.and i had both screen going at once.
so i think wii u has a great future.and the truth is people are just pissed nintendo has great 3rd party support and there great first person line up on one system!
shitty gimmiks won the race for the wii and now phones do it better lol as much as i dont like to say it iphone will take the win over wii u
wish these so called journalists would learn about computer architecture before they get pen/keyboard happy and publish this garbage
dude serious optimise my phones cpu an gpu im sure it would be on par with the wii u well more likely better lol
http://m.youtube.com/watch?...
http://n4g.com/news/1129447...
It even sources Hector Martin but this article doesn't even LINK to his twitter account, just takes what he says without sourcing it.