The Wii was a slightly more powerful version of the Gamecube

>The Wii was a slightly more powerful version of the Gamecube.
>The Wii U was a slightly more powerful version of the Wii.
>The Switch is a slightly more pwerful version of the Wii U.

Why does Nintendo do this?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/aDAkVPTn8cc
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

they make cheap hardware and use gimmicks to sell them.

>The Switch is a slightly more pwerful version of the Wii U
Er...it's actually weaker. Zelda runs better on Wii U than on Switch.

I know but didn't the techfags come to the conclusion that's it like 15% more powerful?

>The Wii was a slightly more powerful version of the Gamecube.
>The Wii U was a slightly more powerful version of the Wii.
The Wii was overclock of Gamecube.
The Wii U was overclock + 3 CPU cores (the same old shitty 15 year old cpu)
There was a bit diffeence her. Wii U wasn't merely an overclock.

They are retarded Nvidiafags, take their estimation and shrink it a bit, that's the real world result.

>+ 3
+2, rather.

I meant it was a triple core, not a quadcore.

Because half is "member nintendo so gud, member mario, member zelda" So they get a free pass for pretty much anything they do and the other half is kid's parents who only recognize mario and think it's good for their kids.

>The switch can't handle 1080p in 2017.

Really, let that sink in.

You forgot about the evolution of the New Nintendo 3DS.

Show me a SINGLE PS4/Xbone game that runs in 1080p/60fps

Kill yourselves tech illiterate scum

Wolfenstein The New Order

It's cheap
Idiots buy anything with a nintendo label regardless, no incentive to be good at what they do.
They think it forces exclusivity but realistically most third party publishers just won't bother due to low third party sales on nintendo consoles.

>The Wii U was a slightly more powerful version of the Wii.

Wrong. It was as big of a jump as PS2 to PS3.

mgs5

1080p/30fps as long as it's stable is good enough

Wii U recycled the same CPU core from 1997.

It would be the equivalent of Intel releasing a core 05 today, consisting of Pentium 3 cores, 3 pieces glued together.

because they use cheap shit and think the public won't care because "muh gimmicks"

and most of the time they are right, nintendo is kinda like the cubs for the 100+ years that they didn't win anything, the people kept buying seats so why fucking bother with a quality product? Well I guess the cubs eventually did win the world series, so I guess thats botw in this instance.

>(the same old shitty 15 year old cpu)
the i7 in your computer is pretty much a tweaked multicore version of the pentium pro released in 1996

>tweaked
This isn't relevant because the nintendo core was unchanged for 15 years, whereas Intel poured tens-hundres of billions into improving theirs.

The Wii U was significantly more powerful than the Wii.
This wasn't notable simply because the Wii U was only just as powerful as the Xbox360 and Ps3. In fact it was better at certain tasks, but worse at others than those 11 year old consoles.
The Switch is finally for certain more powerful than the 7th generation consoles, but it doesn't even approach 8th generation consoles in any aspect.
It's certainly a system closer to 7th gen than it is 8th.

>The Wii U was a slightly more powerful version of the Wii.
I swear to fucking god people on Sup Forums are still getting more stupid

The Switch is roughly 50% the power of the Wii U, dummy.

>The Wii U was significantly more powerful than the Wii.
Adding 2 more of the same 15 year old cpu core does not qualify for the "significant" descriptor.

Source?

As stupid as Sup Forums is, the nintendo base is by far the most tech illiterate.

>This isn't relevant because the nintendo core was unchanged for 15 years
because you dumb fucking shit, it's a CPU with a 4 stage pipeline, it already has the best integer IPC possible, no modification is needed - the difficult part is just raising the clock speed

>Intel poured tens-hundres of billions into improving theirs.
because of the balooning number of CPU instructions as intel is trying to make their CPUs jack-of-all-trades necessitating constant tweaks to the CPU pipeline stages

its useless for console because every component should be specialized - a console CPU should just be bloody fast at integers and floating point, it doesn't need a hundred trillion SIMD extensions, the GPU can handle that

that's exactly what the wii u CPU is

>it already has the best integer IPC possible
Prove it. I'd like to see you dish up benchmarks with a Core i7.

It's going to be hard for you though, since I'm preempting with benchmarks of the Pee Poo getting slaughtered by even the google Nexus 4, and the iphone 5.

>a console CPU should just be bloody fast at integers and floating point, it doesn't need a hundred trillion SIMD extensions, the GPU can handle that
The Wii U has neither of these.

the wii u cpu was garbage though

>>The Wii U was a slightly more powerful version of the Wii
no it wasnt retard

Guess who's tech illiterate. You are!
The CPU in the Wii U is an overclocked Wii CPU with more L2 Cache and an ability to share is between the 3 cores.
So the CPU is doing a fair bit more than the Wii CPU and outperforms the 360's Xenon and Ps3's Cell processors in logic calculations, but attempting any kind of Floating Point operations on it is pointless.
This brings us to the GPU which is the biggest improvement. It's a bit weaker in pure theoretical GFLOPs than the 360's Xenos and Ps3's RSX, but it's significantly more efficient thanks to the more modern toolset.

If you genuinely believe the Wii-> Wii U wasn't a large leap then you're genuinely delusional and completely tech illiterate.

It would help their technological case if the real performance of that CPU was anything but awful.
Nintendo aren't pushing the boundary of technology or trying to redefine what should and shouldn't be in a CPU, and they aren't even making it a point that they are or even should be, so why try and ascribe actions to them that they aren't actually doing?

You buy Nintendo, you buy cheap low-spec hardware which plays fun albeit low-tech games. Nintendo makes that abundantly clear every generation, and all of their fans understand it, they just don't really care.

The Switch is more powerful not only on paper but in practice as well.
youtu.be/aDAkVPTn8cc

>So the CPU is doing a fair bit more than the Wii CPU and outperforms the 360's Xenon and Ps3's Cell processors in logic calculations
Is that why it's struggling so hard in most games, while dipping below30 fps even in its own 1st party zelda game?

>I'd like to see you dish up benchmarks with a Core i7.
if you clock them at the same speed with the same number of cores and same memory the wii u's CPU will win

>I'm preempting with benchmarks of the Pee Poo getting slaughtered by even the google Nexus 4, and the iphone 5.
all of those phones have actually been optimized for browsing compared to wii u with its awful OS and poorly implemented browser

that being said, i'll take the example of the snapdragon S4

that's running an ARM7 at 1ghz, which has a 3-stage pipeline which is quite possibly the only processor out there with better integer IPC, the wii u is just held back by its clock, the so-called 15 year architecture is still good for a limited range of purposes

The fact that it performs on the same level as the 360 and Ps3 should tell your brain, critically that it is significantly more powerful than the Wii.
It sits at around 15-20x more powerful than the Wii which was the traditional generational leap between consoles in the past.
The x1 and ps4 broke that trend by being only 6-10x more powerful respectively.

>if you clock them at the same speed
Go ahead. Downclock an i7 and prove your claim.

>all of those phones have actually been optimized for browsing
Many of those are really old phones with really laggy browsers.

>significantly more powerful than the Wii.
Adding 2 more of the same cores isn't significant.

>15-20x more powerful
The GPU might have beefed it up close, but you should damn well know that an increase from 1 core to 3 cores isn't going to yield in 15-20x more.

You're still not using your brain.
The Wii was basically as powerful as the original Xbox, Ps2, and gamecube.
The 360 and Ps3 are MUCH more powerful than those systems by a factor of about 20x. The Wii U performs on the same level as 360 and Ps3.
Use your fucking head.

>The Wii U performs on the same level as 360 and Ps3.
It performs below them.

The GPU in Wii U was more powerful than PS3 and 360. Do we agree?

The reason why the Wii U then performs woorse.... is the CPU.
>Use your fucking head.

>if the real performance of that CPU was anything but awful.
look its definitely pretty slow even for its time due to low clocks, but its not nearly as bad as most people think

it has a lean and mean integer pipeline, as long as you clock that motherfucker up there should be good integer performance - there's no fucking magic in new intel core i7 cpus that make them much more efficient at those kinds of operations compared to older CPUs, branch prediction has its limitations

the reason wii u's CPU has a reputation for being shit is because it doesn't support true SIMD (much like the gamecube and wii's CPU) so yes, the wii u's CPU is "old" only because it carries on the same lack of SIMD support like gamecube and wii u

but console CPUs dont need good SIMD like regular PCs do because they only run games and games can have all of their SIMD load put onto the GPU

the reason most 360/PS3 -> wii u ports were garbage is because the original versions make good use of the powerful SIMD capabilities of 360 and PS3 to assist their now very old GPUs (particularly in the case of PS3 which had an outdated GPU even for its time)

if you try to get the wii u's CPU to do SIMD like it was the cell processor the performance is going to be shit, and thats whats happening here

i'd estimate that at its clocks the wii u's CPU is about 3 times faster than cell at integers though

Are you going to next use the Watch Dogs port as some sort of proof that the Wii U hardware is shit?

>it has a lean and mean integer pipeline
That's not a good thing. Too lean, too thin, is inefficient

Integer pipelines need to be fat and wide, like you see on Core i7 and Zen.

>>the reason most 360/PS3 -> wii u ports were garbage
Bro, even the 1st party games were garbage performance.

>Many of those are really old phones with really laggy browsers.
that may be so but substantial time has been put into optimizing their browsers since thats what they are used for 99% of the time

>The reason why the Wii U then performs woorse.... is the CPU.
you need to understand that CPU performance is not monolithic

it is very possible for CPUs to perform excellently at certain tasks and extremely poorly at others

the wii u's cpu will be hopeless at anything related to SIMD because...it has absolutely no real SIMD instructions built into it

but it will be better than 360 and PS3 at integers (even floating point without SIMD) - there's a multitude of reasons for that

360 and PS3 are both based on the same powerpc architecture - it had a shitload number of pipeline stages (quite similar to pentium 4 actually) which means that actual IPC is very low - also both processor do in-order processing, compared to wii u's cpu which does out-of-order processing which is itself far more efficient

>that may be so but substantial time has been put into optimizing their browsers
Something the Wii U browser also had, since it was newer than theirs and most likely use even newer build of the same browser engine.

He doesn't understand how these things work, it's worth not trying to explain it.

yeah but that's just shoving more ALUs into the CPU which is pretty much the same to adding more cores

you make it chip physically bigger, thats not more efficient, thats not a real improvement to the architecture

this is cherrypicking cause that port was handeled by some backwater australian studio it wasnt coded specifically for the platform

i dont even know how performance could have gone down on the CPU since the CPU load should be exactly the same or similar....upping the resolution and changing the textures shouldnt raise CPU usage over gamecube or wii

im guessing something was fucked up in development

wii u's browser runs on directly on top of the OS layer which is notoriously shit in wii u

most versions of that browser are written for ARM processors, wouldnt be suprised if wii u version is just running on top of a single thread not using any SMP whatsoever

Cloning whole cores is less efficient than waking each core wider. Both in performance, die size, and power usage.

I believe this has been proven when you see instances where Dual core i3 outperforms certain quadcore AMD cpus.

>Cloning whole cores is less efficient than waking each core wider. Both in performance, die size, and power usage.
yes widening by adding more stuff into each core like ALUs certainly gives you more benefit than adding extra cores but thats because inter-core communication is always better than outer-core communication

nevertheless its similar to adding more cores since you are enlarging die space for more performance

theres not really much you can do to make the wii u's powerpc 750 derivative more efficient at integers with the die space it has except i guess to further improve branch prediction and threading

IBM may have actually improved the branch prediction compared to older powerpc 750s - we dont really know - but its certainly possible even likely cause they had to modify it just to get SMP working

>nevertheless its similar to adding more cores since you are enlarging die space for more performance
One doubles the die space for not much faster performance.
The other slightly increases the die space for a lot faster performance.

Because the most powerful console have never won.

It happened this generation.

The PS4 won.

Then cripple the i7 to single core and do your benchmark.

Neptunia VII
God Eater 2

The Switch will beat it.

well it really depends on whats in each core

if have 2 ALUs in a core and you put in an extra ALU then that would give less performance than adding an extra core

of course the reason we dont just make one big core with the ALUs of all the cores is due to manufacturing restrictions - it makes binning much easier - it might be cheaper to double the cores than add an extra ALU

My rx480 can't run payday 2 at 720p at steady 60fps. Let that sink in.

That's a really shitty comparison, because adding another ALU pipe won't cost anywhere near twice the die area, like another core would do.

Is it so hard to admit Nintendo chose the retard approach?

That is literally the card I have. I play at 1080 with everything enabled with constant 60, what are you bottlenecking on

>Buying AMD.

You brought this onto yourself.

Them how can my weaker r7 265x run it at 900p at a steady 60fps?

Perhaps a 10 year old hard drive or I think a 8310 cpu, though not sure.

Hey I can't tell you, I played at windowed 720p and it dips into the 40s when action is going on.

Does it?

adding more cores has other benefits as long as threading is good...for starters ALU isnt the whole core, and each ALU is not truly independent like a core is

from a min/maxing perspective of cost its hard to fault the wii u cpu...aside from moving to ARM they got probably the best performance price ratio integer cpu available at the time

in fact if i go through nintendos entire hardware history its hard to fault them pretty much at any time for performance/price ratios - theyve got a pretty good record for choosing extremely low price components which perform better than their extremely low price contemporaries

>The Wii was a slightly more powerful version of the Gamecube.
True. Most would agree its just a straight up overclock.

>The Wii U was a slightly more powerful version of the Wii.
Not really. Architectures are the same, but the advances are far too big to just call it a "more powerful version of". Though I do agree that's still up for debate

>The Switch is a slightly more powerful version of the Wii U
Not only are these totally different architectures, but Wii U is also more powerful than the Switch.

I've got a rx 480, and a FX4100. Your CPU id basically pumping out twice the power of mine. I'm playing on 1080p 60fps. What about oyur ram? I'm using "G Skill Ripjaws X F3-12800CL10D-16GBXL 8GB" x2 for 16gb total

It's selling the best because people want a box to play their Fifas, Maddens, CoDs and the occasional GTA and PS4 is now the cheapest box to do that.

Shitposters like to brag how it's the exclusives that drive sales, but one look at the top 10 best sellers and it becomes pretty clear that's not the case.

>adding more cores has other benefits
Such as doubling the power consumption and disproportionately lower the yield in production.
In this case, tripling the power consumption.

Instead of doing the smart thing which Intel and AMD does: Make the fucking core wider.

The computer is a Frankenstein of old parts, I know it has 32GB of RAM, but id be lying if I told you I knew what the frequency was, though I don't think it's cheap.

They really need to put Madden on computer again.

>i-its not about specs!
>our condole is not relevant for other reasons!

>Such as doubling the power consumption and disproportionately lower the yield in production.
no no no you have a simplistic understanding of how multi-core works

with good threading two smaller cores can have lower power consumption than one larger one

having smaller cores can actually increases the yield since theres much less probability for defect...if you had 99% yield rate for smaller multiple cores and 90% yield rate for larger single core...the multiple one is going to be cheaper

>Instead of doing the smart thing which Intel and AMD does: Make the fucking core wider.
they literally have no choice because PC software is so generically programmed it doesnt have good threading and core utilization

they have to make each core better because of it even if it might be cheaper to have lots of little cores...most of those would just sit idle in real windows software

>Zelda runs better on Wii U than on Switch.
No it doesn't

Sounds surprisingly similar to Kaby Lake desu.

>see thumbnail
>think its something informative about specs
>open it
>irrelevant degenerate garbage

Kys

I think you may have some driver issues at play. You may want to consider closing out of programs or if none are visibly open when looking in the task manager do a wipe; just make sure to get the important stuff.

Because it's better than
>the PS3 is a slightly more powerful PS2 with less games and no relevant new features
>the PS4 is a slightly more powerful PS3 with less games and no relevant new features

You really don't think it's the 10 year old hard drive? I mean it takes like 15 mins for it to boot and finally stop making loud noises.

>True. Most would agree its just a straight up overclock.
the only major technically change between gamecube and wii aside from higher clock speeds is

they replaced 24 MB of pathetically slow DRAM on the gamecube with 64 MB of GDDR3 on the wii

>two smaller cores can have lower power consumption than one larger one
Wrong, especially with nintendo developers who don't know how to code for multi core.

>having smaller cores can actually increases the yield since theres much less probability for defect
No. If your console is specced for 2 cores, and just one of the cores in the die fails, you have to trash the entire die.

The Wii U had more power than the 360 and the PS3.

>The Wii U had more power than the 360 and the PS3.

According to your picture the 360 was more powerful than the PS3.

But it was, you retard

So?

>Wrong, especially with nintendo developers who don't know how to code for multi core.
is this a hardware or software argument...because you could say this about literally anything

>If your console is specced for 2 cores, and just one of the cores in the die fails, you have to trash the entire die.
if two smaller cores each have a 1% chance of failure and one larger core has a 10% chance of failure...well do the maths....

>and one larger core has a 10% chance of failure
That's a fail premise, since the large core is much smaller die size than the anerexic dual core.

The larger core will have most functional chips.

>is this a hardware or software argument
In hardware, your dual carore will fail, because the wider single core has more functions consolidated, while the dual core has retarded redundancy.

In software, Nintendo developers suck ass at multicore threading, and would have benefited far more from 1 fat wide core.

You're wrong in both acounts.

>That's a fail premise, since the large core is much smaller die size than the anerexic dual core.
not how manufacturing works...some parts of the CPU are more likely to be poorly yielded than others...if you make a core wider you're generally exponentially increasing the probability of failiure

also manufacturing improvements get better when you're generating lots of little cores over the long term

>because the wider single core has more functions consolidated, while the dual core has retarded redundancy.
theres little to no redundancy, not sure where you got that idea from...

doubling the number of ALUs isnt going to give you double performance, you might have to well double everything but at that stage you've likely made a CPU more unwieldy than just dual-coring it

you seem to have this arrogant assumption that you could design nintendo's hardware products better than them...like that nintendo are somehow staffed with intellectually disabled people and you're a genius who can cut through the mire

ive looked over nintendos entire hardware range over the years within historical context its pretty much impossible to make a better choice than nintendo without increasing the price

for example, with the N64 if i wanted that machine to have higher performance i would rip out the memory architecture and put something faster...but that would involve a higher price...i can't see a way of designing a faster console with the technology they had at the time without spending more money

Are you mentally fucking retarded?

Because at this point, the only people buying nintendo consoles are those who have always bought them. It doesn't matter how a nintendo console compares to sony or microsofts, it's going to be judged against its predecessor 90% of the time.

>It's a Sup Forums thinks they know about performance issues episode
You faggots do realize that BotW was originally intended for Wii U right? The Switch version was a rushed port. The framerate issues are not an issue of poor performance from the Switch but poor programming from the programmers who didn't optimize the game for Switch.

I mean who remembers the Xbox Live Indie Arcade? Remember all the shit that ran at 30 fps despite having graphics from the 90's?

>some parts of the CPU are more likely to be poorly yielded than other
That's what redundancy transistors are for.

If you have proper amount of transistors, you will in practice still have much smaller die than than doubling up the die size with dual core.

>theres little to no redundancy,
Not in a dual core, you double up everything. In triple core, you triple up everything.
Everything in the uncore, the front end of the core, everything that feeds the ALU pipes will necessarily be doubled, costing you more transistors and increasing the probability of manufacturing failure.

>you seem to have this arrogant assumption that you could design nintendo's hardware products better than them
>ive looked over nintendos entire hardware range over the years within historical context and they are just so fucking perfect!
Okay, let me give you an example of Nintendo failure.

AMD Llano.
Time to market 1 year faster than Wii U.
GPU, stronger, and faster connect to internal chip CPU and internal chip Mem controller.
CPU stronger cores.
CPU Mem controller is on-chip, contrary to Nintendo CPU memcontroller.
32nm manufacturing, vs 45nm.

So you deny that 1 year time to market advantage with superior specs is a huge advantage?

Maybe You and Nintendo really simply sucks ass?

Kill yourself tech illiterate scum

Bigger question--which will Dolphin add Wii U emulation? Doesn't it run on the same core?

It was, though. Sony was pretty good at selling TEH CELL bullshit.

>That's what redundancy transistors are for.
which are of equal benefit to all types of processors...

>Not in a dual core, you double up everything. In triple core, you triple up everything.
it depends whether the original single core is bottlenecked or balanced

if its bottlenecked than widing the core might help...if its balanced then you might end up bottlenecking it by widening it (and so should just increase the number of cores)

if you simply widen ALUs without widening say the memory controller, you might get bottlenecked on memory

>AMD Llano.
the wii u's memory controller is also on-chip but its in the GPU rather than CPU...just like N64, gamecube and wii...this will just reverse memory advantage from CPU to GPU which is perfectly fine and good for a console

also AMD llano is 228 mm2 in die size at 32nm while wii u espresso + latte is 173.73 mm2 despite being fabbed at 45nm