Report: Wii U Cracked Open, System Memory And Speed Revealed

Nintendo, like many hardware manufacturers, was cagey about the final specs for the Wii U, choosing not to reveal the system's overall memory prior to release.

Now that the Wii U is out, however, it hasn't taken long for someone to tear one apart and do the detective work themselves.

The crew at PC Perspective raced home and opened a launch-day Wii U up on a livestream. While they didn't solve all the system's mysteries, like what its GPU is like, they did claim to ascertain how much memory the Wii U is packing, and how fast it is.

According to PC Perspective's teardown, the Wii U has 2GB of DDR3 memory (provided by Samsung). User AlStrong on the Beyond 3D forums says this means the memory runs at a maximum speed of 17GB/s.

For reference, NeoGAF user Durante writes for comparison's sake:

360: 22.4 GB/s + eDRAM for framebuffer

PS3: 25.6 GB/s main memory BW + 22.4 GB/s graphics memory BW, no eDRAM

GTX 680: 192.2 GB/s :P

That's raw speed, mind you; the Xbox 360, for example, only has 512MB of DDR3 memory, but can do more courtesy of the system's eDRAM. What we don't know yet is how fast the Wii U's eDRAM is, and how much it's going to help matters when we do.

It's a little silly Nintendo can't release this kind of information themselves, as not doing so has left us with half-truths, which as you can probably predict can often confuse more than no-truths. I mean, it'd be easy to look at this and assume the Wii U is, in simple terms, a less powerful machine than its current-gen competitors.

But it's far from the whole story, and we won't get that until people have had time to really get under the console's skin and do some tests on the complete range of hardware.

You should also note that these findings come as a result of a fairly speedy third-party appraisal; you might do well to wait and compare the findings against those of others once the machine has been thoroughly torn down before considering them as gospel.

Nintendo Wii U Teardown [PC Perspective]


    It's pretty obvious why Nintendo won't release the specs: the system's going to be smoked by any new consoles coming out of Sony or Microsoft, why hand their competitors extra rope?

      If releasing a console with power good enough for 1080p graphics and running the small 480p screen then thats all that matters. Also since its affordable technology it wont be long before Nintendo profits so when 5 years is up for the Wii U we get a new console with affordable technology used wisely. I prefer this over microsoft and sony's Uberconsole concept whereby they give you bleeding edge tech, charge alot for it (well its worth it but its gonna be expensive) then have stuck for 10 years with tech that after a few is already gonna be outdated and by 5 years will be superceded by a new Nintendo console that will have everything those new 720 and ps4 have and so much more. After all phones get released every 6 months, why do we have to be stuck with 10 year concoles? 5 seems perfectly reasonable. Thats how it should be

      Oh BTW if you want bleeding edge, dont fool yourself into getting a console, bleeding edge applies exclusively for PCs.

        The new Mario runs at 720p.

          Would it really matter if Mario runs on HD or not? No, because it would make no difference anyway. Lol

            Why not just release a new controller and be done with it? Why release a new console? Because they want to milk your money. Like the way they milk all their first party franchises to dust. Wii U is next gen 1.5! It's in the name for gawd sakes ~Wii

          What did you expect? NSMB Wii was a massive Wii seller and there just doing the same. They dont need to put out a game that shows off the full potential of the system at launch, that will come in a few years time. For now its about getting as many games out and games that will move systems. NSMB U fits the bill nicely.

          The fact that it runs 720p at launch just means that the next one can amaze with 1080p visuals when it launchs down the track, but from Wii's crappy graphics to 720p, im sure people will still appreciate the better graphics.

            You brought up the 1080p, so I mentioned it.

            Anyway, Rayman Origins is a 1080p/60fps platformer running on seven-year old hardware. It really is a bit disappointing that Nintendo couldn't match that on their own machine.

            I'm very interested in the details of Rayman Legends's performance.

              I said it can at launch do 1080p which it can, and also render 480p simultaneously, can ps3 or 360 do this? No. Its more powerful. Maybe not brute strength powerful, but efficent powerful.

              as far as im aware it is running 1080p on the Wii U (rayman legends) anyway COD BO2 has been confirmed 1080p native on launch where as the ps3 and 360 versions run on 720p.


              Last edited 19/11/12 10:55 am

                Of course it's more capable, it's seven years newer.

                  So why are people saying it belongs to the same generation as 360 or ps3? Thats why generation is defined by time.

                  How about this then, @terrak?

                  The WiiU is the first console of the next generation, due to time.

                  However, the component parts are pretty much on par with the consoles released at the start of the previous generation.

                  Sure, there's a great new gimmick/feature in the game pad, but it still is not doing anything "new" or "better" than the previous generation, aside from a second screen.

                  In short: Is totally the first of the new generation. Is also mostly on par with the previous generation.

                  How did you get on par? Can the ps3 or 360 Render 1080p AND 480p simultaneously? If not your wrong.

                  Its not gonna do anything new or better? I can tell you right now interacting using touch screen for inventory, maps and menus is a hell of a lot better then the cluncky menu systems using an analog controller and that before any real clever use of the touch screen on gameplay, but believe what you like its a feature so useless microsoft introduced smart glass and sony's been talking up ps3/vita connectivity.

                  In short you need to look at how you define things because so far your off the mark.

                  Last edited 19/11/12 2:48 pm

                You should really read that article closer....

                "Bianca Blair, the Publicist of Activision Publishing, has told gaming website, Got Game, that the Nintendo Wii U version of "Call of Duty: Black Ops 2" is not rendered in native 1080p. So it appears that the game will run upscale from a lower resolution."

                That's just like HALO 3, ODST and REACH, how they were rendered in roughly 640 and upscaled to 720. Just because it CAN run in 1080p, it's not going to look like it SHOULD in 1080p. It's going to look messy compared to *native* 1080p games. Just like Halo 3 did.

                  damn - my mistake the did say however

                  "Nintendo fans have no doubt been excited about Activision’s Call of Duty: Black Ops II making its way onto the Nintendo Wii U next month (Nov. 18 to be exact).
                  However, after the publisher had previously stated that the game could run at 60fps and at 1080p, gamers have been asking the question as to whether or not that 1080p is native or if the console will upconvert it."

                  I guess it was too much to ask them to make a launch Wii U title take full advantage of the consoles power when the game was made for 360 and ps3. Also utilizing the Gamepad might have also taken valuable time from optimizing the game for the Wii U

                  Wii U can do exactly what 360 and ps3 doing now (7 years into consoles life) at launch and run a 480p screen at the same time. Its disappointing its not running full HD but it does show Wii U has alot of power under the hood, just waiting to be unleashed.

                No point having 1080p and a 2nd screen if its at below 30fps. So dissapointed at wii u. Not enough quality to survive when the ps4 arrives i think.

        If only resolution was the only issue at play in all of this. The fact is, a more advanced processor does things beyond resolution, like allowing larger dynamic areas, more complex AI, etc.

          I'm looking forward to the 'more complex AI' in NSMB.

            Ha ha ha. Those goombas using advance cover fire techniques yet?

      They don't release specs for the same reason that Apple doesn't for many of its products: quantitative assessments of performance are not important for their target markets.

        I guess it's fair to say that Nintendo have recently been targeting a different audience to everyone else. However their whole marketing push with the Wii U has been that it's for the 'hardcore' gamer again, and that market is the market that does care about specs.

    This is seriously supposed to be next-gen? Really? 2 freaking gigabytes?

    That's absolutely pathetic.

      Dedicated gaming system, etc.

      Also, I don't think anyone is saying it's "next gen". We're all pretty clear about it being current gen.

        No only blind xbots of sonyfanboys wont accept it being next gen. Only those who think they are so high and mighty that they decide whats next gen. Pick which one applies

          Really? You really think the Wii U is next gen?

            I dont decide whats Next gen, just like you dont decide. You seem to make out like its some sort of high and mighty award that goes to the console with the most powerful. It doesnt, generations are decided by timeframes.

              I've never heard that before - that generations are decided by timeframes.

              It doesn't sound right to me at all. For me, gaming generations have always been about technological ability.

                That has never been the case, you should probably look up the word generation in a dictionary.

                  I agree with McGarnical. gen is about tech, not timeframe.

                  if you wanna go with your timeframe idea, the Wii U is like building your children out of parts of your parents. A new product made of old components.

                  and that metaphore was far more creepy & Frankenstein-esque than I imagined.

                Its always decided by when it was released. Wii U is more powerful then any console out today, but like all launch titles nothing really shows of the full potential until a few years down the track.

                  Its always decided by when it was released. Wii U is more powerful then any console out today,

                  Not so. I think there needs to be at least six months worth of analysis and mass use of the hardware to make a final judgement, but from what I gather, the general mood is that it is on-par, or very slightly ahead due to tech changes in seven years. No-one's really calling it "more powerful", aside from Ninty.

                  It's like saying a car going at 217km/hr is faster than a car going at 216km/hr. Sure, it might be true in the micro, but in terms of scale, it's hardly even noticeable.

                  Your basing your knowledge of the consoles power off ports and launch titles? Thats rich. Yes its ahead of any console out there. If it didnt have to render the seperate 480p screen the Wii U would flat out beat any console available today. Thats a fact. Its a fact blind fanboys avoid when talking about power because there console doesnt have it (to render a second screen simultaneously). Secondly no game so far really takes full advantage of the system, which is normal at launch but for you because its Nintendo its a big deal right? Please. Give the console time.

                  Also developers need time to be able to use the gamepad feature, you may not like it so dont buy it. Its not for everyone. But for the Wii U its the main feature, and the way it differentiates itself from other consoles.

                  It should take a little more time before the Wii Us graphics and gamepad potential are fully realized, only someone in denial would believe its on par with current generation consoles, at the end of the day its what the developers can do with the Wii U that matters and by the time the next consoles release we should get a better picture of what the Wii U and gamepad are capable.

                  I dont expect you to agree, its obvious your writing off Nintendo no matter what they do and thats your choice, for me i want something new and the Wii U IMO does that nicely

                  Last edited 19/11/12 2:59 pm

                If gaming generations are about technological ability I hope you realise that actually makes all your "current gen" consoles three or for gens in the past.

                "I've never heard that before - that generations are decided by timeframes."

        Sorry, I was just going off Wikipedia. I hope this is current gen. If MS and Sony's console has any less than 4gb I'll be pretty annoyed.

        But seriously, dedicated gaming machine? What does a stick of 2gb cost these days, 15 bucks?

        I don't want to sound elitist but aren't current gen PCs supposed to be the model, power-wise, for new consoles? When there's people spending less than a hundred dollars on SIXTEEN gigabytes of RAM on their computers, isn't it somewhat ridiculous to think that a new console is being brought out with only 2? 2 gigabytes was considered to be in requirement of an upgrade about 5 years ago.

        I've always been a fan of consoles. I loved the original Xbox because it was far more powerful when compared with price in comparison with PCs, but at this point in time, hardware is just aging so badly with consoles. I really, really want to go back to sitting in front of a massive screen instead of being hunched over a PC, but the hardware is so dated and it's just disappointing.

          I know where you're coming from, and I really do also want the new Xbox/PS to just smash it in terms of raw power, especially if the next gen is supposed to last as long as this gen of consoles is lasting.

          But we really don't need all that much. I'd say 4gb is plenty for a next-gen console. Even with the operating system using heaps of RAM, I don't think a PC needs more than 8gb.

            I don't necessarily disagree, but I am concerned about the way console power is increasing.

            It seems to me, that originally, using the Xbox original and PS2 as examples, that consoles based their power on the current power of PCs. Using RAM as a simple example. The Xbox had 64mb of RAM, which seems to me, was about the same amount of RAM as a decent PC back then (if anyone can give me what was considered to be a good amount of RAM in 2001, I'd genuinely love to be proven wrong). Now, however, we have a new console coming out, and my rig, which is actually beginning to age significantly, utilises 8gb of RAM.

            See what I'm getting at? Before, consoles seemed to be generally on par with PCs. Now, it has a fourth of the RAM of an average (at best) PC. It seems to me that new consoles are basing their power on the power of the previous generation rather than the power of computer technology as a whole.

            Like I said, if you built a gaming rig in 2001, let me know how much RAM was considered a good amount. I'd really like to know.

            Also, I definitely agree that more than 8gb is kind of overkill (at least, while we're still on 64-bit OSes). I'm just so confused as to why they're only using 2gb when it doesn't seem like a huge expense to use 4gb and have the extra power there regardless.

              My shiny new P3 in 2000 had 256MB or RAM - but that was a lot - 64MB would indeed have been about the norm.

                8gig is more than enough for a gaming build, you definitely want more if you're doing audio or video work, but games don't really require all that much.

              256 meg was the flavour of the day in 2001 for a good gaming machine, so the OG Xbox was pretty far behind the curve. That being said the Xbox OS was tiny by comparison to modern console operating systems, 1GB of the Wii U's system memory is dedicated to the OS which leaves 1GB for games.

              Please learn before commenting, consoles don't need ridiculous amounts of RAM, it is pointless, they don't have a large OS to run or apps running in backgrounds, it's dedicated 100% to games.

                My apps take about a gig of ram, but I can still get benefits from the additional seven I have installed.

                  My apps take about a gig of ram, but I can still get benefits from the additional seven I have installed.


              Xbox's 64MB was shared memory too I think, I recall my fairly average PC at the time had around 128MB, and my graphics card around the 64MB mark, it was a long time ago! But even back then there was worry because the Xbox didn't look as quick on paper as a decent gaming PC, even in a decade some things never change!

          Dont forget Console's have no background tasks and No operating systems, They play only games.....

      2GB on a console != 2 Gb on a PC. The two machines use their RAM completely differently. Don't compare the two.

      I'll be surprised honestly if the next Playstation and Xbox have more than 2GB of RAM.

        I'm comparing based on price. If consoles can utilise RAM more effectively, even 4gb would mean a huge boost in power, would it not? It can't possibly be that much more expensive.

        And if consoles utilise their hardware so much more effectively, then will someone please explain why they can still only render at 720p?

          "If consoles can utilise RAM more effectively, even 4gb would mean a huge boost in power, would it not? "

          No, it wouldn't.

          "And if consoles utilise their hardware so much more effectively, then will someone please explain why they can still only render at 720p?"

          Because the PS3 and X360 are both now over 6 years old, and when they first launched "True" HD 1080p was only just entering the limelight.

          You'll notice the PS3 is actually perfectly capable of outputting 1080p when playing blu-rays.

            Using Bluray on PS3 is a bad example because that does not require raw processing power so much as compatibility.

            There's not a single triple-A game that outputs at native 1080p on 360 or PS3, and this is because hardware limits it.

            No, it wouldn't.

            Why not?

              "Using Bluray on PS3 is a bad example because that does not require raw processing power so much as compatibility.

              There's not a single triple-A game that outputs at native 1080p on 360 or PS3, and this is because hardware limits it."

              It's also due to the fact that development costs are higher if you are developing higher resolution visuals for comparatively little gain. And, as I said, both the PS3 and X360 are over 6 years old now (the X360 almost 7). A lot has changed in that time.

              The Wii U is in fact the first console capable of outputting 1080p, but that isn't because the PS3 and X360 are bad, it's because it's newer technology.

              "Why not?"

              More RAM doesn't equate to a "huge boost in power", as you put it. RAM is there to store temporary data that the application (in the case of game consoles - games) can access quickly - much more quickly than reading off a disc or hard drive. That in turn helps the game to run better...loading times are shorter, draw distances larger, streaming is smoother. It does not, however, mean that it's capable of outputting higher quality visuals.

              The visual quality is mostly restricted by the the GPU and the V-RAM, which should be noted is totally separate to the system RAM.

                The Wii U is in fact the first console capable of outputting 1080p

                360 and PS3 have 1080p capabilities and 1080p-native games. Not many of them, but the system is capable of it.

                All of Nintendo's first-party launch games on Wii U are 720p. Most of the third-party games are too.

                The visual quality is mostly restricted by the the GPU and the V-RAM, which should be noted is totally separate to the system RAM.

                Alright, if you can prove me wrong here I'll be slightly less concerned. This could be a misconception born from modding Fallouts 3 and NV extensively, but I was under the impression that higher RAM allows for higher texture sizes. Textures need to be loaded into memory and then accessed as fast as possible to prevent the game from lagging.

                I understand that VRAM and RAM are two entirely different things, but I was under the impression RAM had a large part to play in the acceptable size of textures.

                In addition, please keep in mind I'm not so much unhappy about the size of RAM as the progression of console technology. I'm merely using it as some sort of indicator as to the state that console power is at.

                  It's just an indication of where the tech is at. Like I said I'd honestly be surprised if the next Playstation and Xbox ship with more than 2GB of system RAM, simply because more isn't needed for a dedicated gaming console, even one that's outputting 1080p.

                  Here's some interesting figures for you:

                  SNES: 128KB RAM, 64KB VRAM, 64KB Audio RAM
                  N64: 4MB RAM (VRAM and Audio RAM were integrated into this)
                  Gamecube: 24MB RAM, 3MB VRAM, 16GB Audio and DVD buffer RAM
                  Wii: 88MB RAM, 3MB VRAM
                  Wii U: 1GB RAM, 1GB VRAM

                  As you can see all of those consoles seem to have an absurdly small amount of RAM considering the kinds of visuals they were capable of (Don't forget the SNES was pumping out stuff like Donkey Kong Country and Starfox towards the end of its lifespan), so if I were you, I wouldn't be too worried about the amount of RAM in the Wii U. It'll do just fine.

                  Textures are generally loaded into the VRAM, unless you do some kind of trickery with the engine coding (but I can't see why you'd want to use main RAM space in that way).

          You do realise that the memory put into consoles is *completely* different to what you put into your computer, right?

            If you've read my other comments, that doesn't even dignify a response.

              Excuse me, but you're the one who keeps waffling on about RAM. It's all well and good to say "RAM is cheap for my PC, why can't Sony and Microsoft pop more sticks in?" - it doesn't work like that. I'm sure Sony and Microsoft pour enough money in R&D to know what they're doing.

            Taken from Wikipedia:
            "4 Gbit (512 MiB) DDR3-1600 memory modules"

            That IS the same RAM that is used in PCs. You're confusing the topic with the PS2 and PS3, which used proprietary RAM technology (RDRAM and XDR DRAM respectively) that were both more expensive than the PC alternative, and quite a bit faster.

            I'm also going to point out that RDRAM WAS released for computers, but no one wanted to support it because of the cost.

            Both the initial comment and the responses to it completely gloss over this point.

      And 1gb of that is reserved for the system, so only 1gb available for games.

        I wouldn't be surprised if they free up some of that memory for games in future firmware updates. Sony did so on the PS3, reducing the OS footprint by 70MB and making it available to games released later in the console's lifetime.

    Your also dreaming if you think Microsoft and Sony are going to build some big gaming beast for their next consoles.


      Last edited 19/06/15 9:43 am

        Only the PS3, the PS2 was not a beast, even the Gamecube was more powerful.

          The power gap between the gamecube and xbox was very small, and prior to that nintendo generally had the most powerful system between it and its competitors. Nintendo releasing underpowered consoles only began with the wii.

    So, it appears on the surface that the Wii U is LESS powerful than the current consoles - that are almost a decade old?

      This is raw data. Developers have so far said its powerful enough, and thats before any real effort has gone intoo getting the most out of the system. Numbers dont lie, but there is more to it then simple numbers. If the Wii U is designed efficiently enough it doesnt matter what the raw numbers are - it will be able to do twice the work with less power (theoretically).The other consoles simply took a brute force approach - they have alot of power at their disposal and efficiency isnt as important. If efficiency says the console gets replaced every 5 years thats better then being stuck with a 10 year console.

      Finally the Wii U has an added feature of the touch screen that developers have to get there heads around. And it shows they are having some trouble polishing their ports and getting good use of the Gamepad - which is understandable as its a launch.

        Given that the power has to now be split between two displays, and I've heard numerous reports of frame rate issues - surely no amount of 'efficiency' will make up for what is essentially an already out of date piece of hardware?

          outdated? Its a modern CPU and GPU and atleast 2gigs of RAM, it may not be bleeding edge but im sure Nintendo designed it to just enough to do what it needs to do. Thats not hard, an old PC gpu over 5 years old can do 1080p on most games. However thats if the games take advantage of the power. Thats whats happening now. No one is really taking advantage of the systems full potential as yet that takes time, and as long as we get 1080p 60fps which seems to be the promise, then thats all that matters.

          Yes there are somer reports of issues, and thats to be expected considering its a new console with a new feature - THe gamepad, its not like they can get it right first time everytime. It takes time and experience to, like graphics get the most of it. If this persists throughout its life then yes thats a serious problem, but at launch its kind of expected.

          anyway i prefer Nintendos Use efficient technology and release every 5 years compared to sony and microsofts approach of expensive and powerful consoles that need 10 year lifecycles. Like i said phones change every 6 months, why should we accept consoles that last 10 years. Lets stick to 5 thanks (IMO)

            @ Terrak - 5 year console cycles sound great! I've gone from 24 month to 12 month phone upgrade it! Hahaha!

    Do people really buy Ninty consoles for power or for the exclusives titles?

      Power was a massive selling point for the N64. A 3D Mario was unthinkable beforehand. Simply being able to run Mario in HD is probably enough power for the Wii U though.

        Point. But did people back then care about the power, like people do now, or did they just love the idea of a 3D mario. People now seem to think power is the only point worth noting. If Ninty offers a whole bunch of great games for the life of the Wii U, the power issue won't be worth a damn.

          If 'power' was certainly an issue Nintendo directly addressed in the past, the N64 was directly a response to the Sega 32bit systems and likewise the Gamecube was much superior to the Playstation until the Xbox debut a year later.

          Going forward, 'power' will be an issue, if your console ain't at least meeting parity with the rest, 3rd party devs are going to be dropping like flies when developing for your console means a tailored game. Looking at the Wii's history, that's exactly what we saw, 3rd parties pumping out unique titles to scale their titles from the other consoles, but the second returns weren't worth it, they quickly dried up, hence in the past 2 years the Wii was as good as dead save for a gem or two.

          No, 'power' was big part of their campaign with the SNES too.

            When the 32-bit era started, the SNES was still selling games. I think Donkey King Country came out in about '94, the same year as the Saturn and the Playstation, and went on to be the second-best selling game for the system. The fact it was a 16-bit game competing with the new 32-bit consoles meant nothing.

            My point is that power can't be the only deciding factor concerning success. I don't think people understand how silly they sound when they prattle on about power, or deride a system based solely on its power.

    To be honest guys with the price of RAM etc, im expecting 4gb-8gb RAM and about 2gb VRAM... although more than likely i thing 4gb RAM/2gb VRAM sounds more realstic... The VRAM is going to be essential if they are really thinking about pushing 1080p on the nextgen consoles over the next 4-6 years.

      This is my main point. I just don't understand what they have to lose by doubling it considering how cheap RAM is at this point.

        RAM is cheap, but not all RAM is created equal. Faster RAM is always more expensive, and they put fast RAM in game consoles. Really, the important thing to note is that game console architecture is similar to, but not the same as, x86-64 PC Architecture, and so the price considerations and performance implications of each part are different. Besides, they're selling it below cost already, so I'm sure they'd rather not drive up prices more than they have to :)

      I would actually be surprised if either Sony or Microsoft opted for a partitioned memory architecture in their next console generation. I think Sony's choice of a partitioned 256MB system / 256MB video memory architecture put them at a disadvantage to Microsoft's 512MB unified memory architecture.

      You might be able to get better performance with directly connected video RAM, but it isn't clear the loss of flexibility is worth it. We're not talking about PCs where you can just drop in some new sticks of RAM if the latest software performs poorly on your system.

    If it had 4GB of RAM then it would have to be a 64bit system and you would be stupid to release a 64bit console right now. The extra work for developers would not be worth the extra power.

    Remember games like skyrim could only use 2GB of ram on the PC and they ran fine.



      it's all about how much RAM something has these days. as if you'd use a console to play games. fuck games.

      (seriously though, I dont give a rats about current vs next gen arguments, or what a consoles got under the hood, just give me new Zelda & F-Zero games goddammit)

        Exactly! The games and the fun are important! BUNCHA NERDS JUST RELAX AND HAVE FUN JAYSUS

          you've got your Wii U coming day 1 yeah? what launch titles you got your eye on?

            Mario, Zombi u, Tekken, maybe CoD, umm maybe Ass Creed 3. But def those first 3, then maybe grab some eShop stuff loke Trine 2!

              I'm pretty interested to see how indie / 3rd party devs play with the mini-screen controller thing. definately got potential for any dev that can think outside the box.

              ...but then again, I dunno much about the nintendo store thing, so I dunno if they even have indie games for sale in there.

                Man theh sure do! They can set their own prices, sales and patches are free too! Expect to see a lot of indie stuff there

    Last I heard, Xbox720 may be modular:

    This is funny. Everyone is focussing on a key point and missing the big picture in my opinion. Firstly yes there have been numerous reports about how the CPU is underpowered and on a par or maybe even marginally less than a 360. BUT from my understanding Nintendo have built a new machine with the beef of its power deriving from the GPU not the CPU.
    Now imagine you have 2 pcs with almost the same specs, one has a cpu thats a tiny bit faster. You then strip out the graphics card and slap in one far more powerful, while you are at it you quadruple the memory. Which pc would you prefer? You then compare the two pcs again.
    So I think the key here is developers need to learn to utilise the GPU in their games. Some will suffer, some will shine.
    Oh yeah you also add a wirelss gamepad. Is that not all pointing to next gen. Are people really saying the GPU doesnt matter.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now