Crytek "Impressed" With Wii U Hardware Specs

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]badaxe2[/nom]They're excited over a device that's only slightly more powerful than 6 yr old hardware. It really doesn't surprise me at this point.[/citation]



it is far more then slightly more powerful hardware compared to the 360 or so.


the Wii U is running this generation Power 7 Processor based on IBM rep that was @ E3 here is the specs of the chip based on current P7 chip

POWER7 has these specifications:[12][13]
45 nm SOI process, 567 mm2
1.2 billion transistors
3.0 – 4.25 GHz clock speed
max 4 chips per quad-chip module
4, 6 or 8 cores per chip
4 SMT threads per core (available in AIX 6.1 TL05 (releases in April 2010) and above)
12 execution units per core:
2 fixed-point units
2 load/store units
4 double-precision floating-point units
1 vector unit supporting VSX
1 decimal floating-point unit
1 branch unit
1 condition register unit
32+32 kB L1 instruction and data cache (per core)[14]
256 kB L2 Cache (per core)
4 MB L3 cache per core with maximum up to 32MB supported. The cache is implemented in eDRAM, which does not require as many transistors per cell as a standard SRAM[5] so it allows for a larger cache while using the same area as SRAM.


So the Wii U would use something very much the same maby clocked lower yet be able to pull far more -threading operation ( 4 threads per core )options per clock per chip and still make it far more faster and far far more efficient then the 360s Power 4/5 based design which was the first Multi-core-threaded chip from IBM the 360 chip was .


Now the GPU is based on the R700 which would be nearly 4 times the power of what is in the 360 which was the first unified shader based chip AMD/ATI ever made . the 4870 let say that is what is used in the Wii-U is far far faster



So slightly Faster is a joke dude

 
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]When the PS3 was released there were people who had PCs with relatively cheap graphics cards that could thump out Triple A titles in 2560 x 1920 at 100FPS, just because it had a custom triple core cell processor does not mean it was better.And the Xbox 360? Released as DX9, still DX9 today. Yesterday hardware.But, did they do a good job and do they still? Absolutely, because they only have to use a single resolution and no hardware conflicts because of multiple vendors and drivers.[/citation]
dude what the hell are you smoking back then the ps3 WAS cutting edge not alot of people could say they had a more powerful system. Besides that the only cards that could thump out half life 2(AAA title at the time) at that resolution would maybe be an 8800 series card and that would cost at least 400 dollars.

 
[citation][nom]tacoslave[/nom]dude what the hell are you smoking back then the ps3 WAS cutting edge not alot of people could say they had a more powerful system. Besides that the only cards that could thump out half life 2(AAA title at the time) at that resolution would maybe be an 8800 series card and that would cost at least 400 dollars.[/citation]
pfft, i played HL2 on my ati 9800xt just fine, and when i got my 7600gt it ran even better. by the time i got my 8800gts it was a hell of a lot better than any ps3, and ps3 had a poor selection of games upon release.
 
[citation][nom]iam2thecrowe[/nom]pfft, i played HL2 on my ati 9800xt just fine, and when i got my 7600gt it ran even better. by the time i got my 8800gts it was a hell of a lot better than any ps3, and ps3 had a poor selection of games upon release.[/citation]
but the point was at 2560x1920 and cheap, my 8600gt couldn't do that and it was relatively cheap card at the time
 
How it compares to other consoles doesnt matter to me. As long as its slower than my pc im going to have to put up with crappy console ports that dont utilize my pcs full potential.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.