Rumor: Wii U CPU Twice as Beefy As Xbox 360

[SonOfVoorhees]

Is this like when they said N64 was twice as powerful as the PS, but it turned out to be just adding the two separate chips together?

 

[SuperTrainStationH]

Is this like when they said N64 was twice as powerful as the PS, but it turned out to be just adding the two separate chips together?

In terms of pure graphical grunt, the N64 was twice as the PS. The Playstaion was a 32-bit console. The N64 was a 64-bit console (hence the name). In terms of poly count and pixels, the N64 shat all over the PS...

... The fact that the PS used CDs over cartridges meant games were able to store a lot more raw data than N64 games, allowing for games like Final Fantasy 7. And the N64's lack of ability to render proper textures meant that a lot of PS games had more detail painted on (and therefore in many ways looked better), despite the fact that the N64 was pumping out higher fidelity but-somewhat-blandly-coloured visuals.

That only proves the point that ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ≠ SUPERIOR HORSEPOWER when it comes to video game consoles.

Having technology better suited to the intended experience rather than leaning on horsepower bragging rights is EXACTLY why the PlayStation ended up with a better, more varied game selection and better marketshare than Nintendo 64.

And I say that having owned BOTH PlayStation and Nintendo 64 back then.


With that in mind, it really strikes me as baffling how it's always been somewhat fashionable to paint Nintendo consoles in a negative light as having vastly inferior graphics and horsepower to the contemporary competition.

The Super NES, the Nintendo 64, and GameCube all suffered this sort of trash talk in spite of their visuals and horsepower having been comparable or in some cases objectively superior to other systems of their respective generations, and has ONLY come bear with Wii, which was DELIBERATELY designed to be a low cost, low performance platform.

It sometimes seems to me as though if any system other than Nintendo's isn't the top dog in terms of horsepower, its okay because its the game selection that matters and not having the best graphics, but when it's NINTENDO that has the potentially lowest horsepower, than it's just something to kick them to the gutter for and proof that they are irrelevant to "real" gamers.


I really don't see how any gamer who chose PlayStation 2 over graphically superior Xbox, or Xbox 360 over the graphically superior PlayStation 3, has any right to judge Wii U as a poor or unimpressive system based purely on the fact that it won't be the most powerful console available when other systems are EVENTUALLY released, especially when we have yet to even see a proper demonstration of the console and its games yet and won't until E3 2012.

Its perfectly okay to be excited, or skeptical over a radical new system we know very little about and has next to nothing shown for it, but this spec sheet snobbery over visual improvements that are likely going to be less significant than an any previous situation.

 

[SuperTrainStationH]

SNIP

Please don't misunderstand me. I wasn't trying to bash one console or paint another as being superior. I was simply trying to explain a little just how the N64 compared technologically to the PS. I actually owned a PS myself back in the day, so I'm well aware that in terms of game libraries, Sony shat all over Nintendo.

And regarding your other points, I totally agree. When three consecutive generations of console have been dominated by the least powerful console available to consumers, then it's time to stop acting as if being underpowered compared to your competitors is in any way a sure sign of defeat.

No, I wasn't disputing you, I was agreeing in full with you, you got it head on.