The Wii U Might Be A Little More Powerful Than We Thought

Based on everything we saw at E3, Nintendo's new Wii U console didn't look any more powerful than an Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3. Now, though, some developers are apparently saying that's not the case!

Speaking with IndustryGamers earlier today, Sterne Agee analyst Arvind Bhatia said "Some of the developers we spoke to indicated to us that the console will have 50 per cent more processing power compared to the PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360. This is yet to be confirmed by Nintendo."

Now, this isn't an analyst guessing, or making a prediction like they normally do. This is an analyst directly passing on information they'd heard from people working on the console.

Such a vague term could mean anything, of course, especially without more technical information in support of it, but for those hoping games could look a little better than what was shown at E3, it's cause for optimism.

Wii U Is Actually 50% More Powerful Than PS3 - Report [IG]


Comments

    I hope this is the truth. I really Nintendo's next console to be a beast.

      I think you just accidentally an entire word.

        Pretty sure you just did the thing

        Jordaan, love your work!

      yeah but the next xbox and playstation will destroy it so... nintendo will be in last place in the hardware department again when Microsoft and Sony release their new consoles

        Won't be for a couple years yet.. Wasn't it 2015 that they were saying we could expect the next xbox?

          Wasn't there word of some devs getting next xbox hardware already?

        Nentendo is, and always will be, ahead of the curive. Grahips are not everything, and the Wii proved that. Yeah, only party games where made for it really, but look at what Sony and Microsoft are up to now? THERE DOING THE SAME THING.

        We have to rember something here. Nintendo is inervative. There always looking to do something new.

        N64: first 64 bit Console. GameCube: First 3D console. Wii: First Moiton Control console. And now, the Wii U: First console to stream footige of a game to a handheald devise, without the hand held having ANY GPU. Not as BIG a thing as the Wii, but still something interesting to happen. Only time will tell to see the true capasaty of the devise.

          I for one think Grahips are the most important thing in gaming today.

            Graphics are far from being the most important thing in gaming.

              What are graphics? We're talking about Grahips here.

                Yeah, and more importantly, we're talking about being inervative and ahead of the curive! :p

                  Look, I just want them to release the specs already, so we can all judge the true capasaty of the devise.

          Sorry to be a grammar Nazi, but your grammar and spelling is awful. Using internet shorthand or common l33t to try and speed up typing is acceptable, but poor spelling and grammar just shows how unintelligent you are.

          To start, I'm doing this just to back-up some of my arguments, which in turn are meant to clarify some points made by yourself.

          To begin, it's Nintendo not 'Nentendo. Also, what the fuzz is up with 'curive'? I don't even know what you meant by that, unless you were talking about curve, which still doesn't make sense in that context.

          Graphics* are everything, now before you start on your un-educated campaign on 1080p, resolution isn't graphics. It's resolution. Graphics compromise resolution, pixels (which are made up of bits) and textures. Now, how about we put up an 8-Bit console (which could only process 256 colours at any one time (2^8) meaning that you would only be able to process 256 pixels) up against something like a 32/64-Bit console. I think you'll find that the 32/64-Bit console would win every time.

          Also, the Wii didn't really prove that graphics aren't everything, it more so proved that gimmicks = cash. Look at the game:console attach rate, it's less than half of PS3's and less than a third of Xbox 360's, showing that most people get tired of that gimmick once they've gotten it.

          Moving on, it's they're instead of there, and also, Sony, unfortunately I can't argue for you, but how the hell is Microsoft doing the same thing as the Wii? Are you saying you see no difference in waving around a remote, that's as versatile as a lamp-shade, is the same thing as using your entire body to play? And by that, I'm assuming you also believe that voice control, video-chat and auto-tilting is present on a wii-mote?

          Back to spelling, remember is spelt r-e-m-e-m-b-e-r, the word your looking for next is interactive, and once again you have misused the word there.

          Also, Gamecube? World's first 3D console? Because it was had 3D support for all of.....1.....of it's games? WOW, massive milestone there. Try again buddy.

          You misspelt motion, footage, device, capacity and then ffs, you misspelt device again.

          In conclusion, no, the Wii U hasn't innovated, features like this have been present for years now, just not in this paticular form. Also, I hate to do this, but Wii U is going to fail, take out the gimmicky controls and you've lost the casual market. Bump up the price, you've lost the core market. Fail to go too much beyond the current-gen you've lost the hardcore market and finally, have to replay the game of catch-up once the other 2 consoles are released.....and you've got yourself a failure.

            Wait a minute, did you actually just try and quantify the graphical capabilities of consoles? I think you might have just outed your own unintelligence, despite spelling skills :P

            I can't decide if my favourite part was "pixels are made of bits" or that 8-bit consoles could only process 256 pixels.

            First of all get over yourself. Just get to the point.

            Wii proved something. It is the No. 1 selling console this generation. Of course it didnt mean that graphics aren't important because they are. But it did prove that there is a market for Motion Control. Look sony and microsoft had to get in on that action too. So yeah it proved something.

            Next attach rate? Rehash microsoft drivel. Its away of manipulating the numbers to make xbots feel better. At the end of the day Nintendo sold the most consoles and the most software units (almost double what 360 sold nice of you not to use actual data). Id be happy to show you the charts or just check vg charts.

            If the Wii was such a gimmick why were sony and microsoft so compelled to release a motion control system themselves? Microsoft is even calling it a new launch, but you being such an xbot you love microsoft so much they cant ever release a gimmick right? hypocrite. BTW i think kinect is great tech.

            In conclusion Yes the Wii does have innovative features IMO, maybe not yours but you cant please xbots. The Touch Screen will prove invaluable its just that there is no real game examples of how it will integrate into real games at the moment. When the real finished games arrive then we can truly judge. But for now we can only speculate. It was however good enough that games that normally never grace Nintendo consoles are finally making their way to the Wii U. That to me shows alot of promise. There are more good third party titles announced for the Wii U then was available for Wiis entire life. That is impressive.

            I hate to do this but your xbot argument fails. Gimmicky Controls? Its got dual analogue buttons, triggers d pad, Wiimote controls PLUS motion control AND a touch screen. Its not Gimmicky but just covers all bases. Its up to the developer and the players to decide which is best for them. Its called choice.

            Bump up the price? Do you know the price? No, so please dont talk about things you have no clue on. BTW ps3 started out at an awfully large launch price and a year late (compared to 360) and it still only a few million consoles away from leveling from the 360 (360 about 55 million ps3 about 50 million) - another fail for you sir.

            And no there wont be a ps4 or next xbox for at least 3 or so more years. A developer from THQ already confirmed that. Both are going for 10 year life-cycles and looking to motion controllers to squeeze more life out of the aging consoles.

            If you spent more time getting to the point instead of being a spelling nazi you might have actual had one, you know a point. But you dont.

            The only failure is your argument, thanks for playing.

            Spelling and grammar have nothing to do with intelligence.

            Since you're being so anal Jonathon... Have a look at this:

            "Back to spelling, remember is spelt r-e-m-e-m-b-e-r, the word your looking for next is interactive, and once again you have misused the word there"

            You're, not your.

            That's all. =)

            Um... graphics are NOT everything. Dose not matter weather there 1080p, HD, 2D, 3D, whatever. a game can look REALLY REALLY good, but if the gamePLAY sucks, then the game sucks. its that simple.

            As for being a grammmer 'Nazie', you should know that Nazi means NATIONALIST.

          Funny, I thought the Dreamcast came out long before the Gamecube

            RE The spelling etc. You've been trolled. It's unlikely you'd know, but jagji is known for his purposeful misspelling on the PC Power Play forums.
            However, his grammar is pretty much fine. Not worse than the average, anyway. That might have been a hint to you - but maybe you couldn't see it from all the way up there on that high, high horse.

          Nintendo may always be trying to be the first at trying something new or revolutionary but let's face some obvious facts here, it hasn't worked for them since the Nintendo 64.

          Yes, the Gamecube was the first console to support stereoscopic 3D but no titles were made that supported it. Yes, the Wii has motion support, but it's badly implemented outside of Nintendo's titles and both Microsoft's Kinect and Playstation's Move are, at the very very least, technologically better implementations of the motion gaming.

          As far as I'm concerned the Nintendo 64 was, from a console generation perspective, Nintendo's last successful console. There was a large library of successful games from both first and third party developers which just isn't true for the later generation Nintendo consoles.

          Obviously there are some gems like much of Wii's first party titles but that's simply not enough to justify a console purchase these days.

          My concern for the Wii U is that it's trying to alienate itself, like it has currently with the Wii, from developers. By having too many unique elements like, millions of accessories (which will no doubt be expensive, LCD colour screen, I'm looking at you) and lots of unique gameplay elements. It means developers will just tack things on to utilize them instead of properly developing around them.. which means more shovel-ware.

          I could be wrong but I'm very apprehensive about Nintendo and it's consoles.

          No, someone from THQ already confirmed that there is no competing console from Sony or Microsoft in the foreseeable future. Its funny, because everyone thought Nintendo was dead after the GameCube, they laughed at the Wii and Sony and Microsoft thought they would be the only ones to fight the game console wars - look at their strategies - Sony has bluray, Microsoft had to do HD DVD, Microsoft had Live, Sony had to do a PlayStation network. Sony does 10 year life cycles so did Microsoft with 360. Finally both released competing motion controls at practically the same time. Problem is Nintendo didn't go quietly and become the no1 selling console this gen. Few people imagined that. Its too late to change their strategies now. Sony & Microsoft spent a fortune on getting ps3 and 360 where they are and need a full 10 year cycle to get to the point where they are profitable. Nintendo was profitable from day one of Wii's release, & is not burdened with such profitability issues. Check the financials for the gaming divisions of both Sony and Microsoft. Besides they just released Move and Kinect, if a new console would be out soon why wouldn't they just wait and include it in the new console, you know So everyone that buys the console has one.

          You spell very well....NOT.. Back to school for you my friend...

          Jaguar 64 was the 1st 64-bit
          PSone was the 1st 3D
          PS2 with Eye Toy was the 1st motion control

          However N64 was the 1st with analog

            You kidding, bro? There's so much fail going on in this thread, I hardly know what to say.

            The Jaguar didn't actually have a 64-bit CPU. Hell, the 3DO has 3D in its name, predates PS1. This is all if you're talking polygonal graphics, anyway, which were cropping up in games like Elite before even the NES launched.

            The first analogue thumbstick for games debuted with the Atari 5200.

            Misspelling troll was intentionally misspelling.

            256 colors on 8-bit consoles would've been a godsend. The 8-bit is for the CPU, not the color palette, holmes.

        Nintendo will have a nice year or 2 as the most powerful console competition free. Then PS and XBox can fight it out for 3 or 4 years. Then Nintendo can have another few years competition free! Nintendo will be in no worse position than the PS and XBox are once the U releases!

    What the hell does "50%" mean??

      fifty per cent.

      or half

      or 1/2

      To me, 50% sounds like an arbitrary figure grabbed at from nowhere. We already know it has a Radeon HD in it, which, if that means it's anything like the 5870, the first Radeon HD to be launched, means it has effectively 16x the raw flops of an entire PS3 in just the grpahics card. That won't translate directly to images on screen, but with the displacement shaders that makes possible, you might actually see more then 16x the limits for scene geometry as well as the more complex lighting options this makes possible.

      So it's most likely they're talking directly about the CPU, and in that case it's not that relevant unless we're talking about very complex gameplay programming such as niche AI and physics calculations that can't be offloaded to a graphics card. And what this means is the 50% figure is basically irrelevant.

    I wonder how much Mario cart they can put on a 25gig disc. Oh the possibilities *sarcasm*

    umm...not really. games won't look that much better. they will look better, but the term "destroy" is pushing it. it's not like ps2 to ps3 days anymore.

      What we will see is an emphasis on physics and AI. Right now we have not even seen 10% of the potential of physics and AI. With more processing power we can have much more detailed simulations and processes in our games. And we will see AI and physics as the new selling points of AAA titles.
      Personally I think realistic physics and AI do not suit all games (Splinter Cell would not be the same without idiot guards who are scared of the dark).

      I think the improvements will be comparable to the leap seen in visuals.

    It's as if the next Nintendo console being more powerful is an absolutely huge surprise.

    OMG!

    HD Zelda would be awesome.

    As long as Nintendo's first party games are in HD and look gorgeous I'll be happy.

    Yes when the Xbox720 and PS4 get released 2 years after Wii U graphically they'll look much better. They'll also be more expensive and probably still have the normal control scheme they do now. So what will people do? Probably what they've done this generation, get a Wii U for the unique gaming experience and get either an Xbox720 or PS4 for the hardcore state of the art graphics and online competition. Well that's what I'll be doing anyway. :)

    Nintendo desperately needs to do a Space World at the end of the year, or perhaps attend TGS.

    They need to explain what the Wii U is (current gen or next gen -basic specs please?), what it's capable of (multiple players at once? only short range from tv? blueray playback? memory cards for a hard drive?), are they taking online seriously this time?, are third parties getting on board (activision? all the jap publishers?) and what games are in production (especially at Nintendo) for the launch window?

    Agree with you completely Heath.

    Sounds logical. A lot of progress has been made in respect to power consumption, size and processing power over the years (XBox and PS3 slim?). Expect the same if not better from Micro$oft and Sony.

    Good on Nintendo (not a fan at all) to make the first step on the next generation.

      "Good on Nintendo (not a fan at all)"

      You revealed yourself as fanboy and discreted your post the second you dropped "Micro$oft" into it. Though you could have also included "Gaystation" for maximum trollishness.

    Well, it had to have one redeeming feature, I suppose.

    Looks to me that the PsVita may just be able to do most if not everything that the wiiU can do. So I really can't see me getting it :(

    Shame because I heart Nintendo.

      Um No.

      Sure it can do something similar BUT there is a huge difference. Every Wii U has the New Wii U Controller. Not every ps3 is guaranteed to have a psvita. Developers like assured install base (Wii U) not approximate (ps3 psvita) for them to make games. They cant make the game so that its only playable if you have a vita, that will alienate alot of potential customers. For Wii U the the developers KNOW everyone has the controller so they can make the game knowing the can enjoy the full game if they include the Wii U Controller functionality. You cannot guarantee that with all ps3s + psvita combination. This will limit the amount of games that will have full ps3 psvita connectivity.

      So while in theory they are similar, in practice they are not. Lets remember that

      I have two words for you.

      Multiplatform releases

    50% is not a lot...
    It's not even enough to bump up a direct port to 1080p 60fps.

      Agreed, given how long the PS3 and 360 have been out for, a 50% increase is actually very small. Not surprising from Nintendo however, they're clearly following the same strategy they did with the Wii, make something better than the previous generation without breaking the bank.

      It does make me wonder if I'll bother with the Wii U, it'll probably quite good in the short to medium term, but I can't help but feel that when Sony and Microsoft join the next gen party that my Wii U would be relegated to collecting dust much like my Wii is now.

        Well ps3 and the 360 tried to be so uber powerful and tried to do 10 year life-cycles. Look how that's going. 5 year later the graphics look average and Nintendo is releasing a full HD machine that does proper Full HD (not just upscale). 50% may not be enough for you but if that means i get a new Console with the latest tech every 5 years instead of every 10 years then IMO thats a better deal. Console manufacturers should stick to 5 year cycles and ditch the ridiculous 10 year life-cycles.

    It's more powerful than the 360. The same way the Wii was more powerful than the Xbox. What's the point in speculation.

    Specs won't matter if it doesn't have the games.

    The PSOne was less powerful than the N64 yet it was still very successful.

    I'm looking forward to Ninty faithful crying over getting graphically identical games on Wii U from the PS360. PC says hi :p

    When they release the next set of consoles is pretty much unimportant, it's when the majority can afford the next set of consoles which is the important thing.

    When the Wii U hits for $400, I will buy one. If the PS4 comes out in 2015 at $1000, I will wait. Now that tells you that me personally am willing to spend about $400 on a console. And before I outlay that kinda money I want to see 8 games (1 per $50 spent on the console) that I can't get on another system.

    Assassins Creed 4 may come out on the 360, PS3, PC and Wii U. I won't be counting that on Wii U because I own a 360 and PC (that may run it).

    I'll point out I'm having a hard time letting myself get a 3DS because their $350 and that's about $100 more than I'm willing to play.

    I should hope so!
    I mean, the PS3 and XBox 360 have been around for five or six years... so maybe we should be a little put out that it is ~only~ 50% more powerfull. heck it seems like they're still barely trying, but want to compare themselves to some (technologicaly speaking) quite old devices.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now