Guts of the Wii U: Facts & Rumors

[RD3AV5]

@chris_the_wing-
Loved what you did here. A nice spot with all the internal goodies of the Wii U. HOWEVER, where did you see that "IBM Power®-based multi-core (3 core) processor" is a CONFIRMED triple-core processor? I have seen rumors but yet to see a confirmation. From my understanding devs have only ACCESS to 3 of the 4 cores, whereas the 3 cores are dedicated to games and 1 core all to the OS. Kind of like the same set up they did with the 3DS.

[THEWORD777]

Does this mean the CPU is under powered,im sure one rumour claimed that each core can do 4 threads per core 16 threads.

It's a modified version of that CPU, but it seems like it was modified more then some people though.

So what is it then,3 cores/9 threads like 360 or 12 threads between 3 cores.In all honesty CPU is not the biggest concern it is the ram and the GPU.The Wii U to me is a 360 and ps3 hybrid,the Ps3 really needed 1GB ram for that CPU and i think Nintendo calling it a proper next gen to compete agaisnt 720 and ps4 is an over statement.
But im really looking forward to gett ing into some upto date Ninty action in HD.

[RD3AV5]

I thought it had been confirmed as 3 core, but after some very quick research I think I may have just came to that conclusion after several rumors cross referenced that number. We still don't actually know the core count, clock speed or thread count.

No worries. Great discussion thread though. I'll find out what I can

[ddddd]

Does this mean the CPU is under powered,im sure one rumour claimed that each core can do 4 threads per core 16 threads.

It's a modified version of that CPU, but it seems like it was modified more then some people though.

So what is it then,3 cores/9 threads like 360 or 12 threads between 3 cores.In all honesty CPU is not the biggest concern it is the ram and the GPU.The Wii U to me is a 360 and ps3 hybrid,the Ps3 really needed 1GB ram for that CPU and i think Nintendo calling it a proper next gen to compete agaisnt 720 and ps4 is an over statement.
But im really looking forward to gett ing into some upto date Ninty action in HD.

2 threads per core, 6 total, like the 360.
But that was an old rumor before the "three wii cores duct-taped together" debacle, so it is unknown if the cpu is that simple to describe anymore (maybe some cores do have multithreading but others don't).

[gtt]

Knowing how nintendo does BC, I would bet dollars to donuts that the CPU actually has 4 cores, one of which is a wii cpu that does

A)wii BC
B)ALL VC games (no wiiu native emulation, at least, not for a year or so)
C)the wiiu os, network card, all the I/O (think about what the ps1 cpu did in the ps2)

edit:fixed word order.

[KingBroly]

It's probably going to be more powerful and do more things than people think it can do.

[gtt]

It's probably going to be more powerful and do more things than people think it can do.

[KingBroly]

Never said how much more powerful.

[LegendofZelda1996]

To be honest, I am quite fine with the Wii U being around 2x stronger than the XBOX 360/PlayStation 3 since I mostly buy Nintendo consoles just for first party games (and maybe a few third party titles).

And I believe that even if the Wii U was almost on par or on par with the XBOX 720/PlayStation 4 in terms of power (I doubt it), many third party developers (not most) will still ignore the Wii U due to the image pertaining to Nintendo of Nintendo not caring about hardcore gamers and the third party developers and only caring about the casual audience and Nintendo's reluctance to make a rated M game.

[Amputech]

I know this has been beaten to death, but it comes down to software. Assuming Sony and Micro both go for power, their experiences will be so similar that I would only choose one anyways. I still don't even comprehend how Sony could launch another console considering that they lost so much on the PS3. If Nintendo continues to make gradual hardware improvements but also comes up with software to match, they have a guaranteed buy from me.

That being said, I think that Wii U is just above PS3 in terms of power. I am no expert in the actual tech of it all, but it just seems like this would be the case considering the price point. If we break it down another way:

PS3: $270 with a game and 250GB HDD
Wii U: $350 with a game and 32GB

If we were to assume, the controller is the rumored $120-$150 that would actually make the console about $200. In all honesty that is close to what Sony is charging for a PS3 give or take. Nintendo is using newer tech, so it is believable that they would squeeze out a little more power from Wii U. Of course, this is all conjecture but it seems to be likely considering all the reports from developers.

[KingBroly]

You have to remember that Sony also invested a lot of R&D in Vita. I expect another overpriced and under-delivering console from them unless they go the Wii route and make it a PS3+, which would probably be more powerful than Wii U but at a lower cost.

[Mako]

Double the RAM of the 360. Quadruple the RAM of the PS3. I just don't understand why they need 1 GB for the OS, or why they didn't include 3 GB like the dev kits got. 1 GB is so cheap to add...

GPU seems to be leagues ahead of what either the 360 or PS3 offered. This will be the strong point of Wii U compared to the past systems. Graphically intense games will look much better on Wii U imo.

While the CPU has a slower clock rate than 3.2 GHz it really doesn't matter. It could still be better overall even if it is at 2.5 GHz or close to that. This is because it it based off of newer tech; however developers will need to learn how to utilize this the right way. 3 or 4 Cores seems likely at this point.

Overall, games will be able to look better than on PS3/ 360. My only concern is the slightly under clocked CPU because it won't be as easy to port games over. Nintendo did this because of heat concerns and because they wanted a smaller console, but it would have been nice to say the Wii U is better in every department. It still may be, like I said, we just need to know how advanced the new CPU is.

[LegendofZelda1996]

I just don't understand why they need 1 GB for the OS, or why they didn't include 3 GB like the dev kits got. 1 GB is so cheap to add...

I think I remember reading from somewhere that development kits in general usually have more RAM memory than the retail kits. And that the extra RAM in the development kits are for developers who have the development kits.

But of course, I could be wrong.

[THEWORD777]

Double the RAM of the 360. Quadruple the RAM of the PS3. I just don't understand why they need 1 GB for the OS, or why they didn't include 3 GB like the dev kits got. 1 GB is so cheap to add...

GPU seems to be leagues ahead of what either the 360 or PS3 offered. This will be the strong point of Wii U compared to the past systems. Graphically intense games will look much better on Wii U imo.

While the CPU has a slower clock rate than 3.2 GHz it really doesn't matter. It could still be better overall even if it is at 2.5 GHz or close to that. This is because it it based off of newer tech; however developers will need to learn how to utilize this the right way. 3 or 4 Cores seems likely at this point.

Overall, games will be able to look better than on PS3/ 360. My only concern is the slightly under clocked CPU because it won't be as easy to port games over. Nintendo did this because of heat concerns and because they wanted a smaller console, but it would have been nice to say the Wii U is better in every department. It still may be, like I said, we just need to know how advanced the new CPU is.

Hopefully the Wii U will be able to do more operations per cycle (hert) so the tasks can be redistributed to be done in larger groups. This would make up for the lower actual rumored clock speed.

As for the 1GB ram for the OS, I think at this point the OS may only be using 256-512MB's. Nintendo may be waiting to see if the remaining unused RAM should be given to the OS if the Wii U becomes mainly a multimedia device, or give the remaining RAM to the game developers if they run into problems squeezing next gen games into 1GB Ram.

I think nintendo will use nearly 2GB ram in games to drag out wii u life cycle straight ports in the begining to eventualy pissed watered down covertions before joining next generation.Os does not need 1GB ram,to be honest they may even use the full 2GB ram fully in games,depending on the games them self.

[ddddd]

I just don't understand why they need 1 GB for the OS, or why they didn't include 3 GB like the dev kits got. 1 GB is so cheap to add...

I think I remember reading from somewhere that development kits in general usually have more RAM memory than the retail kits. And that the extra RAM in the development kits are for developers who have the development kits.

But of course, I could be wrong.

Yep, the extra RAM must be for games in early stages when they aren't optimized to use just the 1GB.

[gtt]

You have to remember that Sony also invested a lot of R&D in Vita. I expect another overpriced and under-delivering console from them unless they go the Wii route and make it a PS3+, which would probably be more powerful than Wii U but at a lower cost.

I still say it will just use basically off the shelf parts. no R&D will mean a much, much, much faster time to profitability on hardware. will probably use ps3 bluray drives, and any ps3 parts where they can. (usb controllers, video and audio output chips, sound chips, i/o controllers, etc.

[KingBroly]

I highly doubt that. They need a faster blu ray drive, a better designed Dualshock (3 feels extremely cheap as it is), more ram, as well a less exotic architecture in comparison to PS3 because those are major sticking points for the PS3 atm. That will take some R&D, obviously not as much as it did with PS3 because that lost its' ass and Sony is strapped for cash, but Sony won't be super cheap because they're dumb.

[gtt]

I highly doubt that. They need a faster blu ray drive, a better designed Dualshock (3 feels extremely cheap as it is), more ram, as well a less exotic architecture in comparison to PS3 because those are major sticking points for the PS3 atm. That will take some R&D, obviously not as much as it did with PS3 because that lost its' ass and Sony is strapped for cash, but Sony won't be super cheap because they're dumb.

Ram is dirt cheap. they will probably throw in 2 or 4 GB of GDDR3 ram. will probably use x86-64. I'd bet on a midrange quad core amd part. and they can keep sourcing bluray lasers, drive motors, housings, etc from the same fabs, no need to change that. things like, bluetooth controllers don't need to change, etc. a whole lot of ticky tack stuff that can be the exact same parts.

[coffeewithchess]

I'm still not seeing where that ethernet port is on it. Maybe they have it buried in the disc drive?

Why Nintendo, why?

[KingBroly]

I'm still not seeing where that ethernet port is on it. Maybe they have it buried in the disc drive?

Why Nintendo, why?

Remember that adapter the GameCube had? Remember that it sold badly?

That's why.

[KingBroly]

I highly doubt that. They need a faster blu ray drive, a better designed Dualshock (3 feels extremely cheap as it is), more ram, as well a less exotic architecture in comparison to PS3 because those are major sticking points for the PS3 atm. That will take some R&D, obviously not as much as it did with PS3 because that lost its' ass and Sony is strapped for cash, but Sony won't be super cheap because they're dumb.

Ram is dirt cheap. they will probably throw in 2 or 4 GB of GDDR3 ram. will probably use x86-64. I'd bet on a midrange quad core amd part. and they can keep sourcing bluray lasers, drive motors, housings, etc from the same fabs, no need to change that. things like, bluetooth controllers don't need to change, etc. a whole lot of ticky tack stuff that can be the exact same parts.

You don't understand console ram, and I doubt you ever will.

[gtt]

I highly doubt that. They need a faster blu ray drive, a better designed Dualshock (3 feels extremely cheap as it is), more ram, as well a less exotic architecture in comparison to PS3 because those are major sticking points for the PS3 atm. That will take some R&D, obviously not as much as it did with PS3 because that lost its' ass and Sony is strapped for cash, but Sony won't be super cheap because they're dumb.

Ram is dirt cheap. they will probably throw in 2 or 4 GB of GDDR3 ram. will probably use x86-64. I'd bet on a midrange quad core amd part. and they can keep sourcing bluray lasers, drive motors, housings, etc from the same fabs, no need to change that. things like, bluetooth controllers don't need to change, etc. a whole lot of ticky tack stuff that can be the exact same parts.

You don't understand console ram, and I doubt you ever will.

ah yes, this magical console ram... like the gddr3 in the 360 and ps3.

[KingBroly]

You still don't get it. Console Ram isn't some stick you can just buy for $15 at a store, it's built into the motherboard itself. You need space to do so, which is something that most new consoles (i.e., when they're building them) do not have an excess amount of. The more ram you want, the bigger the board, the bigger the console, and the more expensive will inevitably have to be because of it.

[gtt]

You still don't get it. Console Ram isn't some stick you can just buy for $15 at a store, it's built into the motherboard itself. You need space to do so, which is something that most new consoles (i.e., when they're building them) do not have an excess amount of. The more ram you want, the bigger the board, the bigger the console, and the more expensive will inevitably have to be because of it.

yea, kind of like that non-dimm, soldered right on to the board, gddr3 ram that is in all the video cards. man, you just can't get that stuff ever! and god, at around a square cm per 512MB, that stuff will NEVER fit anywhere!

snark aside, the gtx690, is a board about 18 or 20 square inches. has 4GB of ram. This is a card that is, simply, 2 680 GPUs AND associated ram, running in SLI on a single board. the bulk of a video card that you throw in your computer is heatsink and fan.

ram is cheap. there is nothing magical about console ram. The packaging for those chips is irrelevant. if they are on a so-dimm, a regular dimm, doesn't matter. The cost of video cards is not in the ram. it's in the GPU.

GDDR chips are GDDR chips (gddr3-700mhz is all of the ram in the 360, and probably the wiiu, gddr5 is what video cards use now)

[THEWORD777]

You still don't get it. Console Ram isn't some stick you can just buy for $15 at a store, it's built into the motherboard itself. You need space to do so, which is something that most new consoles (i.e., when they're building them) do not have an excess amount of. The more ram you want, the bigger the board, the bigger the console, and the more expensive will inevitably have to be because of it.

yea, kind of like that non-dimm, soldered right on to the board, gddr3 ram that is in all the video cards. man, you just can't get that stuff ever! and god, at around a square cm per 512MB, that stuff will NEVER fit anywhere!

snark aside, the gtx690, is a board about 18 or 20 square inches. has 4GB of ram. This is a card that is, simply, 2 680 GPUs AND associated ram, running in SLI on a single board. the bulk of a video card that you throw in your computer is heatsink and fan.

ram is cheap. there is nothing magical about console ram. The packaging for those chips is irrelevant. if they are on a so-dimm, a regular dimm, doesn't matter. The cost of video cards is not in the ram. it's in the GPU.

GDDR chips are GDDR chips (gddr3-700mhz is all of the ram in the 360, and probably the wiiu, gddr5 is what video cards use now)

Ninty have made aslim console,that is really a current gen console,720/ps4 will be bulky beasts until slim comes along.