Surprisingly, The Wii U Is Easily The 'Greenest' Console On The Market

For the longest time, Nintendo has scored terribly on the Greenpeace Guide To Greener Electronics: dead last to be precise. Apparently this is because, according to Greenpeace itself, Nintendo has been extremely reluctant to release any information. But, in testing by Digital Foundry, it's been revealed that, in actual fact, the Wii U is remarkably efficient when it comes to energy consumption and is easily the greenest console on the market.

According to the testing the Wii U tends to draw a consistent 32W of power, even when processing the most image intensive games, whilst even the latest version of the PS3 tends to max out at 70W. The newest version of the 360 scored worst, drawing over 76W during gameplay. That's a significant difference.

These results are due to the efficiency of the Wii U's design, and the fact it uses less transistors compared to the competition.

In recent Iwata Asks, it has become apparent that Nintendo is focusing more on 'green' issues, and making their consoles as energy efficient as possible. The Wii U seems to be the end result of this. It's really interesting.

Roughly 18 months ago I spoke to Greenpeace about Nintendo's stubborn refusal to 'go green'. At that time a spokesperson challenged Nintendo to "focus on energy use, both in the manufacturing of the products, but also during the use phase". It seems as though Nintendo has done exactly that.

Wii U blitzes PS3 and 360 as the "greenest" console [GamesIndustry International]


    What is this left-wing green rubbish? I'm all for more energy efficient electronics because it will be less of a hit on my pocket - not because of the reduction in their carbon (dioxide) footprint. Greenpeace, while they may have some legitimate worthwhile causes, are just hijacked by those greenies wanting to push a political agenda.

      You know... I've always wondered what people like you assume the end game is for the 'Greenie political agenda'. Isn't a cleaner planet just generally better for everyone, regardless of how you feel about the facts?

        Since you asked - To me, a cleaner planet is better, but the Greens and Environmentalists are NOT the same as they where many years ago. Modern day greens are more interested in pseudo science and the global warming religion.
        I think the 'end game' is ultimately power and money. People will do and say anything to win power, and stay in power. Preach to school children how dangerous and bad humans are, and how we are killing the planet. Scientists and political careers are banking on action on action on 'global warming'. There is a massive pool of money and everyone wants their hands on it.

        Who really is going to want to save the planet, unless there is some financial benefit for them? Why should i walk in 40 degree days when all my neighbours are driving a V8? We'll be long dead before the predicted global warming events are to occur. If there is an issue (which i do believe there is truth in it somewhere) there wont be any action unless there is a financial incentive or political gain. Exactly why man hasnt been to the moon in 40 years. it can be done, but theres no financial or political gain. I laugh at the "we're doing this for our children and our children's children" :P

        Bah. Thats my personal opinion. It gets me fired up because its all about money - not cleaning the environment.

        Last edited 11/12/12 10:42 am

          +1 yeah...the new Greenies, more selfish and not so green

            I agree, I'm all for a cleaner planet. But all these so called 'greens' are not in it for a cleaner planet. They're in it for the money and nothing else. I mean there was a talk in a company I previously worked for organised by a so called 'green' movement. And they were horrible hypocrites:

            1. The presenter/speaker drove to the city by himself in a big gas guzzling 7 seater car. Our company's office is a 30 second walk from the nearest train station. The 2 PR people that were there did the exact same thing, except I think their cars weren't big 7 seaters, it was just regular sedans.

            2. The talk/presentation was during the day and on the top floor. We have windows all around the room that lets natural sunlight in. The room has double curtains, one to stop the light from coming in, the other one is the thinner one that lets light in but diffuses it enough to prevent it from blinding you. Guess what they did? They closed all the thick curtains, turned on all the lights to max (the lights all had dimmers, we didn't need them at max) and turned the A/C to max as well.

            3. They had all these balloons to symbolise the CO2 in the atmostphere. After the presentation, instead of recycling the balloons for another event or at least popping them and put them in the recycling bin, they just left them there.

            4. They had a lot of paper handouts from non-recycled paper.

            Hypocrites the whole lot of them. And the Australian Greens party is even worse.

              Great generalisation! Did you stand up and say anything?

          I'll be upfront and say of the three political parties in this country I probably sympathise most with the greens. And yes, they have political agendas beyond the environment that I may not necessarily agree with.

          Nonetheless, this is one of the most bullshit rants I've ever read. You talk about the financial boon for people espousing global warming, but a paragraph later say no one will do anything because it there is no financial gains.

          And sure, some politicians might use global warming for political advantage, like literally any other issue. I'm not sure why you throw scientists in the mix. Which scientists stand to gain from global warming? Are the same scientists who are actually doing the research right now, because I don't think thats the case. What do climatologists do that will actually make the money from proposed interventions? I'm pretty sure the ones who will actually make money are predominantly engineers. This is a different group to those who are saying the sky is falling, who receive very little beyond research grants (which is hardly a personal gain).

            actually research grants usually includes spending money. So yes it is for personal gain. Also, engineers barely get any money for all their work. Most of the money usually goes to whoever the financial backer is. For example, civil engineers in charge of a building's construction gets like less than 0.1% of the money, but takes 100% of the blame if anything happens.

          I do. I walk to the station when it is easier to drive! I recycle when it is easier to throw it in the bin. I pick up the maccas wrappers from outside my house when they are blown there. I have volunteered numerous times to help clean up the local river and lagoon. Some people do give a shit about their environment. When I go fishing I remove my waste and tangled lines. Its just a matter of not being an ignorant and arrogant fool because others are.

          But there isn't anything pseudo about the science behind climate change theory, it's all highly corroborated and peer reviewed. Yes of course there are people looking to gain from being the first through the door on renewable and sustainable energy business models, what kind of scumbag in suit wouldn't want to become the next Exxon or BP? I'm not saying that there isn't an inherent moral failing on behalf of those people, but those aren't the people generating the data and the warnings. But really at the end of the day if we are going to throw money at people to give us what we need, better it be the ones that aren't in all likely hood endangering our ongoing relatively pleasant existence as a species.

          The only way the human race is going to continue on and enjoy the fruits of the our labours is to ensure that there is a way forward for the future, one that doesn't depend on the constant burning of finite resources (oil is much more useful to us in things like polymers) for something that is as abundant (in other forms) as energy. That and it certainly works out better for us financially if we can stop purchasing our fuels from foreign companies and instead make use of stuff that costs us relatively little to extract once the infrastructure is in place.

          I'd also just like to quickly point out that you cancelled out your own argument in the same post.

          "I think the 'end game' is ultimately power and money. People will do and say anything to win power, and stay in power."

          "If there is an issue (which i do believe there is truth in it somewhere) there wont be any action unless there is a financial incentive or political gain. Exactly why man hasnt been to the moon in 40 years. it can be done, but theres no financial or political gain"

          You imply that there will be no real movement in the sustainable energy space due to a lack of financial or political incentive, yet your basis for dismissal of the premise of being environmentally conscious is that the people rallying behind the cause are only in it for said money and power.

          I'm not suggesting here that everyone give up the advantages of the modern age , move into grass huts and form agrarian communities here. But it seems foolish to abandon the concept of looking after your surroundings whole hog based on misplaced suspicions.

      What? It's saying the machine uses less power. Which means you as a power user uses less power and has smaller power bills. Also, science backs up global warming.

    Cue comment about it becoming even more greener when the PS4 and 720 come out.

    Don't forget that Greenpeace was completely wrong about the Wii in the first place. If we use energy efficiency as our metric for how "green" a console is, the Wii is the most energy efficient home console since the SNES, using 13.7W (i.e. less than an energy-efficient light globe).

    Source 1:

    Source 2:

    I guess the Wii was "underpowered" after all! pun>

    FWIW: Greenpeace's 0 score to Nintendo was because Nintendo doesn't talk about its manufacturing process and whether it controls its dangerous waste. Nintendo didn't condescend to Greenpeace's every whim, so Greenpeace flipped them the bird.

    Well - you'd expect lower power consumption given the fairly established tech in the machine. Regardless, I thought a big part of the green peace score was the manufacturing process, which power consumption has little relevance.

    Wasn't one of the big issues with the Wii (regarding power consumption) the standby power draw?
    What's the rating for the wii u when not in use?

    What about the 1KW PSU's for gaming PCs that run on shredded baby seals?

    Gee, you interviewed someone from Greenpeace and still have no idea why Nintendo scores poorly. It's to do with manufacturing processes and the recycling programs they have set up for when the console reaches the end of its life. Nintendo consoles have generally been a lot more energy efficient than the competitors. I applaud Nintendo for not caving in to the bullying from Greenpeace. They make efficient consoles, and Greenpeace still treat them like shit on their ranking. Nintendo does not need to divulge information on their manufacturing processes just so you can use it against them in campaigns!

      Came to post this. Nice to see I'm not the only one with a memory.

    This is how I choose my consoles because I am an idiot.
    Not based on game catalogue.
    Not based on price.
    Just based on Greenpeace's recommendation.

    Last edited 11/12/12 12:49 pm

    Fail, greenpeace don't rank manufacturers based on power consumption, because it's all relative for the type of product it is ie a desktop computer will inherently consume more than a Laptop. Instead they rank them based on sourced materials and whether the factories reduce their waste footprint, something Nintendo hasn't been able to improve in.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now