Who cares about Wii U Cpu Specs? |

Shawn Long of tries to figure out why people care about the "specs" of the latest Nintendo system so much.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Cam_is_16bit2001d ago

Nice picture choice there, Shawny.

ptownjbo2000d ago

Who was lied to about what exactly?!

chadboban2001d ago

Well if my senses are correct we should be seeing them in this comment section any minute now.

ptownjbo2000d ago

But there's not many rebuttles at all. Makes you wonder.

BlackWolf2001d ago (Edited 2001d ago )

Damn, haters gonna hate...

jmc88882000d ago

Well if memory serves correct the bit was really referring to what amounted as the choke point within systems at the time. I believe it was the bus at the time.

If you remember back to say the Commodore 64, it accomplished quite a lot, but the games took a couple of minutes to load up.

The thing consoles had over computers in the day was that they could immediately start games up. The NES was amazing compared to any PC of the day in terms of being able to display the game menu a second after you hit the power button.

So if my memory serves correct it was basically how much you could put immediately put to use at a given time which had more to do with the bit width then the processor speed.

Combined with 16 bit, Sega had it's 'blast processing' and SNES utilized Scaler 7. Each was a different trick to squeeze more functionality out of each.

But as time went on, it was abused as a marketing tool. The Jaguar did really sucked. My friend had it and while the controller is epic in terms of the amount of useless buttons it had on it, the games really did suck.

People want to buy something with a value to it. They want that value to mean something. But what people don't realize is that the measurement always changes, and someone is always trying to game the system to garner more sales and many times try to fool people that past is prologue.

But there is plenty of times the better piece of tech does not win because something else had the better games. But when people use their money, they want to buy the best. They also don't want to spend the time to actually figure out all that goes into it, so they readily accept some shorthand derived made up subjective metric, like a 'bit'.

Am I getting Top Sirloin or Chuck?

Then the fanboys always proclaim something that is better or worse is magnified by 100. So they are looking for some metric that for them they can then magnify in isolation as to why something sucks or doesn't.

They don't want to look at the games, or theorize what the games later on in the console's life would look like.(especially not wait...especially not on the internet)

So people talk about ram and mhz of gpu and cpu. But there's really alot more to it.

What has been obvious absent of all the other factors, has been that the Wii U is capable of the same type of FPS and other hardcore games people have grown used to loving the past ten years on varying platforms. Mass Effect is possible. Assassin's creed is possible. Black Ops 2 is possible. So the type of games you'll get on the Wii U is going to be similar to the others.

The sad thing is so many people overlook the obvious things the Wii U is showing us, and try to bash on information that is wholly incomplete. The article by slapshot 82 a little earlier was a good showcase of why so much isn't shown just by the raw MHZ numbers of cpu and gpu, or even the ram.

If a 100 mph car needs to go 1 mile per stop, it can make 100 stops. If a 100 mph car needs to go only 1/10th a mile per stop, it can make 1000 stops.

So if one wants to assess what the games are going to be, you need to look at what the Wii U is showing early on that it is capable at the basest of level and what type of games those are, as well as know what the actual machinations that make up the entire power argument. Then realize that both Nintendo and 3rd parties are going to make some really great games on the system.

Show all comments (15)
The story is too old to be commented.