we all know that ps4 has a weak sauce tablet cpu at 1.6ghz. however wii u uses a ibm sever cpu so i bet per core wii u is more powerful.
Which one do you think is better and why?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
First off the Jaguar CPU used in both the PS4/Xbone is not a tablet architecture.
Second, the WiiU CPU is refined tech off the 360 CPU.
Third, the cpu in both systems is much stronger than the cpu in the WiiU. but the WiiU has the much better library. So why would I care?
The CPU in the Wii-U is a slightly more powerful adaptation of the CPU that was in the Xbox 360, it's not more powerful than the CPU's in the PlayStation 4/Xbox One.
@svaubel said:First off the Jaguar CPU used in both the PS4/Xbone is not a tablet architecture.
Second, the WiiU CPU is refined tech off the 360 CPU.
Third, the cpu in both systems is much stronger than the cpu in the WiiU. but the WiiU has the much better library. So why would I care?
the Wii U's CPU is from an architecture Nintendo has been dragging since the GameCube days based on those old IBM standards of Apple's G3 (PowerPC 750). Not only the Wii U's CPU is weaker than the X360's but its architecture is more outdated too. It loses in every front. On what Wii U wins over the last gen consoles is on the GPU side and memory. PS3 (24 cores split), X360 (48 cores unified), Wii U (300 something cores unified) with 32 MB of edRam. Just like the PS4 and Xbone Nintendo is betting on GPGPU to make up for the ultra weak and outdated CPU.
Performance wise comparing the PS4's and Wii U's CPU the gap is big, like more than a generation kind of big. Its CPU is not even 64-bit. Wii U's CPU is so ancient and its manufacturing process so outdated that its design can't even be called a true SoC/APU even though that was their aim.
2 things to notice about the PS4 and Xbone's CPU's are:
1. they are the same with the only difference being that the latter has a 50mhz advantage, so Xbone has a slightly faster CPU
2. their CPU's might be based on Jaguar but in the current market they are still the most powerful APU's and still the only APU's with 8 cores. With the PS4 being the stronger one of the 2 of-course.
@osirisx3 said:we all know that ps4 has a weak sauce tablet cpu at 1.6ghz. however wii u uses a ibm sever cpu so i bet per core wii u is more powerful.
Which one do you think is better and why?
Actually is still based on outdated Gekko, akka, PowerPC 750. GC, Wii and Wii U have basically the same CPU.
The server CPU stuff was only a rumor.
@svaubel said:First off the Jaguar CPU used in both the PS4/Xbone is not a tablet architecture.
Second, the WiiU CPU is refined tech off the 360 CPU.
Third, the cpu in both systems is much stronger than the cpu in the WiiU. but the WiiU has the much better library. So why would I care?
Jaguar is an architecture that its primary aim is power efficiency. In other words, a tablet/netbook/laptop CPU.
the wiiu CPU doesnt even beat the 360 or PS3 cpu (i know, wiiu CPU has OOE and better instructions per clock but thats not enough to compensate). it certainly wouldn't do well againt the PS4 and X1.
the overall thinking process behind the wiiu is the same as the PS4 and X1: weak CPUs and strong GPUs with the GPU taking on more of the work. makes sense since, last gen, alot of CPU resources were still given to graphical tasks (MLAA done on the cell for example). modern GPU design means that things graphics related should, and can, be done on the graphics chip. other tasks that are suitable for lots of cores (such as eye candy physics) can also be done better on the GPU.
...though in nintendos case the decisions was probably more based on nintendos games not being CPU intensive and their developers being very familiar with the architecture.
the wiius CPU is very very old though. it hasnt changed a whole lot since the Gamecube.
The Wii U's CPU sucks. It's pretty much a Triple-core + More Cache memory version of the Wii's CPU, which is an overclocked Gamecube CPU.
Nintendo probably choose this because it's cheaper to make and it allows easy backwards compatible with the Wii.
Why did I click on this thread?
So you could lock it and prevent the loss of brain cells.
That'l do it :) Jesus that looks bad. Kinda makes you reconsider just how much of a visual leap this gen really is.
It does. For all of the criticisms over the big two right now (PS4/X1), they're doing a better job of at least sticking closer to next-gen (or "current-gen" if one prefers) standards that millions of gamers expect. I still laugh at the older posts here that said Sony showed nothing but CG trailers during E3 and at their event, and then it was revealed that a majority of them were in-game models. First, they won't admit to being fooled by that. But then they keep going on about how none of the visuals are impressive. "Where is the next gen leap? Waah"
^ Isn''t that more of a GPU flex?
It would be, but consider this a response to the OP and many others who say the PS4 is nothing but weak laptop or tablet parts (both CPU and GPU). If the PS4 really has the absolutely worst junk inside of it, what does that make the CPU/GPU combo inside the Wii U, that was supposed to last them for the next five years? What name should I give it?
I see.
Really don't know what to think of the Wii U. Seems like it's just N's thing to move from their Wii rather than compete with S&MS.
XBCX's 3D artstyle isn't helping either lol.
@osirisx3:
AMD Jaguar beats the old IBM PowerPC G3 class CPU(Wii U).
Jaguar supports 128bit SIMD hardware while Wii U's CPU supports 64bit SIMD hardware.
Jaguar supports 256 bit AVX instructions to reduce instruction issue count ie. Wii U's CPU's four 64 bit SIMD instructions vs Jaguar's singe 256bit AVX SIMD instruction.
Jaguar's X64 instruction set is more compact than PowerPC instruction set.
PS3's CPU at 3.2 Ghz is like PowerPC 970 at 1.6 GHz. AMD Jaguar is similar to Intel Core 2.
PS3's SPE is not a real CPU since it fails 1980s 68000 CPU feature test e.g missing supervisor and user modes.
IBM has defined SPE as a DSP.
@speak_low
PS4's GPU roughly match desktop Radeon HD R7-265 or near high end laptop GPU ie. Radeon HD 8950M. Your claim on PS4's GPU being low end laptop part is bull$hit.
@speak_low
PS4's GPU roughly match desktop Radeon HD R7-265 or near high end laptop GPU ie. Radeon HD 8950M. Your claim on PS4's GPU being low end laptop part is bull$hit.
The GTX 970m and 980m demolish the PS4.
The weaker 970m is more than twice the power of the PS4 While the 980m is about 3 times the power of the PS4.
This early into the generation and laptops are already decimating consoles.
@speak_low
PS4's GPU roughly match desktop Radeon HD R7-265 or near high end laptop GPU ie. Radeon HD 8950M. Your claim on PS4's GPU being low end laptop part is bull$hit.
The GTX 970m and 980m demolish the PS4.
The weaker 970m is more than twice the power of the PS4 While the 980m is about 3 times the power of the PS4.
This early into the generation and laptops are already decimating consoles.
Lowest priced 970m equipped laptop on newegg = $1499. 980m = $2099.
In other words, cool story bro.
@speak_low
PS4's GPU roughly match desktop Radeon HD R7-265 or near high end laptop GPU ie. Radeon HD 8950M. Your claim on PS4's GPU being low end laptop part is bull$hit.
The GTX 970m and 980m demolish the PS4.
The weaker 970m is more than twice the power of the PS4 While the 980m is about 3 times the power of the PS4.
This early into the generation and laptops are already decimating consoles.
Lowest priced 970m equipped laptop on newegg = $1499. 980m = $2099.
In other words, cool story bro.
There was a sale recently where the 970m was 1399USD...
But of course they cost a lot.
The 1399USD ASUS ROG laptop my friend got was much better built than a lousy PS4.
It has a great 1080p IPS screen and much better cooling than what is used in the PS4.
Also the 970m laptop is more mobile and compact compared to the PS4.
Try adding in the price of a quality monitor for the PS4 and it gets even closer to the price of a 970m laptop.
Now take into account that the 970 is more than twice the power of the PS4 and the bang for buck is not as bad.
In a year or so getting a laptop with similar power to the PS4 will probably cost around 500-600USD which is cheap for a laptop.
My current laptop from late 2012 is not as strong as the PS4 but blows last gen consoles away and it only cost me 315USD.
I'm no expert, but i was playing local co-op in hyrule warriors the other day and it's like sub 20fps. I felt sick when I was playing it. Then I played samurai warriors 4 split screen on my ps4 and there was more enemies on screen, the graphics are better, and with split screen it mostly ran at a smooth 30fps. After I played that I felt much better and my sick feeling was gone.
Why did I click on this thread?
u fell for the troll bait like everyone else in here writing paragraphs
My 2010 laptop is better than the Wii U.
The Wii u has already been maxed out with Xenoblade and Smash bros.
Nope. You have no proof of this. I'm not even saying the Wii U is worth much when it comes to raw hardware power, but to make a claim that the system has been maxed out, without any proof to back it up, is a ridiculous assertion. Especially since there are potentially system resources that Nintendo could free up in the future (such as the 1GB of RAM reserved for the OS).
@speak_low
PS4's GPU roughly match desktop Radeon HD R7-265 or near high end laptop GPU ie. Radeon HD 8950M. Your claim on PS4's GPU being low end laptop part is bull$hit.
The GTX 970m and 980m demolish the PS4.
The weaker 970m is more than twice the power of the PS4 While the 980m is about 3 times the power of the PS4.
This early into the generation and laptops are already decimating consoles.
Lowest priced 970m equipped laptop on newegg = $1499. 980m = $2099.
In other words, cool story bro.
There was a sale recently where the 970m was 1399USD...
But of course they cost a lot.
The 1399USD ASUS ROG laptop my friend got was much better built than a lousy PS4.
It has a great 1080p IPS screen and much better cooling than what is used in the PS4.
Also the 970m laptop is more mobile and compact compared to the PS4.
Try adding in the price of a quality monitor for the PS4 and it gets even closer to the price of a 970m laptop.
Now take into account that the 970 is more than twice the power of the PS4 and the bang for buck is not as bad.
In a year or so getting a laptop with similar power to the PS4 will probably cost around 500-600USD which is cheap for a laptop.
My current laptop from late 2012 is not as strong as the PS4 but blows last gen consoles away and it only cost me 315USD.
LOL u talking trash and don't even own the PC that qualifies your discussion.
I kind of doubt your claim that a 2012 laptop costing only $315 even "blows away" last gen - it's starting to sound like you are full of crap. A custom built PC, sure, $315 can blow away last gen - but a 2012 laptop (purchased in 2012) at that price? LOLNO.
My last laptop purchase was 2013, and I got an 3rd gen i5 and integrated graphics, and I believe it was $399. There were NO gaming laptops cheaper than that. The only laptops that might have been cheaper and more capable for gaming, might have been an AMD-APU type processor (perhaps A6 or A8 level). But those hardly "blow away" last gen, let alone compete with PS4 or any newer high end PC's.
@speak_low
PS4's GPU roughly match desktop Radeon HD R7-265 or near high end laptop GPU ie. Radeon HD 8950M. Your claim on PS4's GPU being low end laptop part is bull$hit.
The GTX 970m and 980m demolish the PS4.
The weaker 970m is more than twice the power of the PS4 While the 980m is about 3 times the power of the PS4.
This early into the generation and laptops are already decimating consoles.
Lowest priced 970m equipped laptop on newegg = $1499. 980m = $2099.
In other words, cool story bro.
There was a sale recently where the 970m was 1399USD...
But of course they cost a lot.
The 1399USD ASUS ROG laptop my friend got was much better built than a lousy PS4.
It has a great 1080p IPS screen and much better cooling than what is used in the PS4.
Also the 970m laptop is more mobile and compact compared to the PS4.
Try adding in the price of a quality monitor for the PS4 and it gets even closer to the price of a 970m laptop.
Now take into account that the 970 is more than twice the power of the PS4 and the bang for buck is not as bad.
In a year or so getting a laptop with similar power to the PS4 will probably cost around 500-600USD which is cheap for a laptop.
My current laptop from late 2012 is not as strong as the PS4 but blows last gen consoles away and it only cost me 315USD.
970M is roughtly around R9-M295X (Mobile Tonga GCN) level. R9-M290X uses the older mobile Pitcairn GCN.
R9-M290X is around 30 pecrent slower than 970M.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment