Tags
Related Posts
Share This
Wii 2 is 80% More Powerful than 360
(Updated, see bottom.)
Yesterday, the internet was abuzz with information regarding the Wii’s successor. Until Nintendo confirms it at E3 it’s all rumor and speculation, but the sheer quantity of corroborating stories from different sources to different publications at the same time lends credibility to the argument. One such recent piece of information was posted by 01net and translated by Destructoid: the Wii2 will probably have an ATI R700 series GPU.
Let’s compare the processors for a moment.
The R700 series GPU has a clock speed of 900MHz. PS3’s RSX clocks at 700MHz, and the 360’s sports 500MHz. This puts the Wii 2’s graphics at, tentatively, 30% more powerful than the PS3 and 80% greater than the 360.
The architecture is said to be similar to the 360’s three-core CPU, further specs unknown. The Wii 2 is looking as if it could hold its own against Sony and Microsoft’s next consoles.
(Editor’s Note: It has come to our attention that our method of comparing the relative power of these GPUs, their clock speed in MHz, does not consider enough other attributes. We apologize for this, although it is likely that the Wii 2 will sport a GPU comparable to its competition in order to have a chance at success.)
Source: Destructoid
Maybe now Goichi Suda will want to make No More Heroes 3.
that the GPU is 80% more powerful doesn’t mean that the console is, there’s many other factor to consider
I think most computer experts agree that the GPU in the 360 is much more powerful than the one in the PS3. The Cell gave the PS3 an advantage. Not the GPU. The Cells ability to help with graphics. The part in the PS3 was just a modified off the shelf product.
you dont know what u talking about ps3 is more powerful than xbox360 look at metal gear solid , god of war 3 uncharted 2 n 3 kill zone 2 n 3
Sorry, derrick, dcbronco is correct. The 360′s gpu is more powerful that the ps3′s gpu. The is well known in the games industry and amongst graphics programmers such as myself. The only thing that gives the Ps3 an advantage is the Cell processor, which has been able to be utilised in ways that make up for what the ps3 lacks in gpu power.
@derrick, lol get owned :P
But anon, the ps3′s frequency is still clocked higher..
@Anon just above,
The PS3′s gpu may have a higher clock frequency, but that doesn’t mean it’s more powerful. With varying clock frequencies in the exact same gpu architecture, you can pretty much guarantee higher clock = better performance. When you’re comparing different gpu architectures, it’s a completely different thing and is not comparable at all.
@derrick
Stop being a PS3 fanboy. The GPU in the 360 is marginally faster than that in the PS3. The PS3 GPU does not even have anti-aliasing! Sure, 1st party developers get around that fact by using the cell SPU processors to take on that burden. As you see in Uncharted, etc.
But the FACT remains that the 360 GPU is more powerful. Industry developers will tell you that.
What the hell are you on about the PS3′s GPU not having anti-aliasing, any GPU or CPU can produce anit-aliasing, it’s just a set of codes that replicate the lines of a shape over something to smooth out the edges.
That’s something even a gamboy and calculate.
You guys are obviously tech savy, but he should be saying is that although the Xbox has a faster GPU the 3rd party developers have the opportunity to make PS3 versions better by using the cell to take up the slack. The PS3 shouldn’t be seen as weaker because they use the “2 hands are better then 1″ method. Buy hey, just adding to the discussion. I gotta go jump back on Live now.
It’s generally agreed upon by developers that the 360′s GPU is more advanced and powerful than the GPU in the PS3. The PS3′s GPU may run at a higher clock rate, but several architectural innovations such as the Unified Shader Architecture and the 8 MB of ultra-fast EDRAM is what gives the 360′s GPU an edge of ~30% of so over the PS3′s GPU (educated estimation on my part).
The reason PS3 games look so good–PS3 exclusives in particular–is because the ultra-powerful Cell processor is able to make up the difference in speed, as developers leverage the Cell’s SPUs to assist the GPU in performing various rendering tasks (geometry culling and processing, post-process effects, lighting and shaders, anti-aliasing, etc.).
10mb of EDRAM, but otherwise I agree completely! :)
8MB* :)
10mb**
Ummm, no! 10mb eDRAM!
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=xbox+360+10mb+edram
xbox gpu and cpu is weaker you have to admit that
but thats not because of it that the system is better
or not
yeah this doesn’t prove anything, the ps3 and 360 are as almost identical, some titles are better on the 360 yet it has a ‘weak’ gpu. thats not even looking at the pre-school + chav wii console, which goes against the grain, as it has the weakest titles and the weakest gpu.
yeah because developers are being lazy with ps3 bringing bad ports to the system ps3 is way more powerful than xbox 360
@derrick
And that is because they can rely on Sony Fanboys, such as yourself, to keep on buying the bad ports.
I constantly here people saying that the 360 is easier to develop for because it is the same hardware as the PC. Really? The PowerPC chip in the 360 has more in common with the Cell Processor (read the book “The Race for a New Game Machine”) to see how IBM developed both chips in parallel and tried to keep them as similar as possible (essentially screwing Sony, if you read the IBM engineer comments in the book) than with an Intel/AMD processor in your PC.
The true differentiator is the development tools that Microsoft provides for developers. Wow, imagine that, Microsoft is good at development tools for the 360!?!?!
Stop being such a Sony Fanboy and just go by some PS3 games…….
Derrick, why are you still spouting rubbish?
Developers try to optimize for both consoles, but there’s a time and money vs. total benefit, to it all. The 360 conforms very much to the typical pc programming paradigm. The PS3 can too, but will be at a disadvantage unless the benefits of the Cell processor are completely utilised. To completely squeeze as much out of the ps3 can require a lot of changes to code on the whole.
Developers can increase team size to do this, but it costs them more money. They can devote more time to this, but still, it costs them more money. There’s only so much developers can do before it becomes too costly. Granted, there may be some developers that dedicate more resources to doing this than others, but to say they are being lazy when you are obviously completely ignorant to games development and computer hardware on the whole, is outright stupid.
From my average gamer view (not tech savvy person) I have to agree that the Xbox 360 games always appear better. I bought the PS3 first based on ‘technical’ advice but after years with both consoles, I’ve always favored the Xbox 360 graphics. (not a fanboy comment cause I do like my uncharted)
This is comparing apples to oranges here. Clock speed is irrelevent because the GPUs are different architectures. Also, since the Wii 2′s cpu is almost the exact same CPU as in the 360, it will be far behind the PS3′s cell in terms of compute power. The cell processor manages approximately equivalent single floating point compute power to a Core I7 980x. The other thing to consider is RAM. Will the Wii 2 have 512mbs of DDR3, or the latest iteration of XDR?
are you mad? have you ever used a i7980x?
You quite well understand that you are comparing ati X1900/Nv 6800 level gpu’s verus a 4870 level gpu. A 4870 has 2.4X the processing power of the PS3 by it’s self, not even including the CPU. Comparing a 4870 to a PS3/Xbox360 is like comparing ford mustang to a ford fiesta. Yeah they both go forward, but one will blow the other one out of the water. AND on top of that it is a GPU that is 2 generations removed.
Do some fanboys actually doubt that Wii 2 will be more powerful than the 360? It’s coming out 7 years later, of COURSE it will be more powerful than the 360!
it may (i think it will, kinda has to, to even matter) be more powerful than the 360. the problem here is how that comparison was made. that parameter (gpu clock speed) is simply being used wrong.
I doubt it will be more powerful than the PS3, and expect it will be about on par with the 360. Has nothing to do with fanaticism, and everything to do with how Nintendo works. They like to have a profitable console out the gate.
It’s doubtful, after two generations in a row of getting beaten going head to head with Sony and MS that they will suddenly try again. Given the outlandish success of the Wii, I’d expect another lateral move. A much more powerful console, but still based on control improvements. Nintendo will want to keep a stranglehold on the non-traditional gamer, but appeal the the core audience they mostly abandoned with the Wii.
Taking these things together, expect a MSRP of $250 to $300. Adding in retailer profit, and Nintendo’s profit, we can expect a Wii2 that costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 to make. Given everything that’s been said about the controller, it’s going to be the most expensive one yet, and that leaves even less for the console itself.
Bottom line is, unless Nintendo take a really different tack, one that puts them right back in the race they abandoned 5 years ago, the Wii is NOT going to be a powerhouse. It’ll be cheap to manufacture, and on about the same level as current gen consoles.
You act like it would be that hard/expensive to make a console more powerful than the PS3 or 360. The 360 and PS3 are going to be 6-7 years old by the time the Wii 2 comes out. It won’t take much (i.e., more RAM, better GPU, faster CPU clock rates) to beat either the PS3 or the 360 graphically. By today’s standards, the GPUs of the PS3 and 360 are extremely dated and low-end. Even a cheap, entry-level PC GPU nowadays will be much faster than the GPUs of the PS3 and 360.
Like you said, Nintendo probably won’t, and shouldn’t, aim for the stars, and aim for profitability instead of making the most powerful console possible. However, they can stick to this lateral strategy and STILL be able to put out a console more powerful than the aging PS3 and 360.
You do realize that Nintendo has usually had a very powerful console right? You do realize this is the first gen Sony has been able to say that their console is the most powerful right lol?
@Joel
You do realize that Nintendo consoles are toys. They are inferior in every way to their competition.
The Wii placed 2nd in the last generation. And it was released an entire generation behind too. It is not part of this generation based on it’s specs. The WiiHD/2 (whatever) will be for this current generation, again late.
And it will NOT, repeat NOT sell anywhere near the 10′s of millions that the Wii sold. Simply because grandma doesn’t run out and buy new consoles because she isn’t into tech or a fanboy.
Nintendo, please, just go the way of Sega already!
How many ps2 sales are there to date? Like somewhere in the 150 million range, probably more? How many ps3 owners are there? About 50 million. Now how many Wii owners are there? About 80 million. Where do you think a large portion of the ps2 owners are flocking too?
A lot of ps2 purchases were made because of the dvd player…..that was the gimmic. A console that can play movies last gen…..This gen it’s the motion controls….
Soccer Moms, grandmas, little kids, hipsters, etc. will buy whatever is popular. It’s that simple.
Nintendo consoles aren’t toys. Only wannabe gamers would think that. I take it you have never played Zelda? Goldeneye? Battletanx? Perfect Dark? Donkey Kong Kountry? If you don’t like any of those games, sorry but you are no gamer.
Oh and by the way. Don’t bring this “HD” crap to neither. This generation isn’t about High Definition. It’s about making the general public believe they are playing games in High Definition…..Most games this gen are sub-hd and upscaled.
Hmm, we know Nintendo is always late to the party in regards to brute power.
They do this on purpose so they never have to sell their console under the manufacturing price, in constrast to Sony and MS.
But apart from that, I also think the console will be more powerfull than the Xbox360, but not that much.
And you would be wrong….nintendo has been either the most powerful or 2nd most powerful. Sony is the one late to the part when it comes to brute power lol…
And they’ve already been the LEAST powerful this generation with the DS and Wii, and they will continue to be the least powerful next generation (3DS and Wii 2 HD), when compared to their competitors.
And we know nothing about Wii’s current specs. So don’t be so over confident that Wii 2 is going to blow PS3/360 out of the water. even if it ends up being more significantly powerful, X-box 720 and PS4 will be a generation ahead in hardware, once they come out after Wii 2 HD.
You have got to be kidding me. Not to get into a whole debate about the Xbox and PS3 GPU, but the Xbox 360 has a superior GPU, while the PS3 has the CELL processor, which can take the load off the GPU. The PS3 GPU runs at 550Mhz, not 700. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenos_(graphics_chip) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_'Reality_Synthesizer‘ for details. Secondly, actual clock speed can’t be used as a measure of GPU performance these days. For example, the GeForce 8600 GTS runs at 650MHz, while the GeForce 580 runs at 772Mhz, however it’s clear that the 580 is far more than just 18% more powerful than the 8600 GTS. Wait until we hear about shader counts and memory speeds, then we can start talking performance
Using 2008 hardware? It’s not going to last long. Just wait till Sony and Microsoft bring out their next gen, this will mean the new Wii will be out of the question. Sony and Microsoft invest more money to get technology early this is how they will take the Wii 2 off the market fast.
What are they thinking…
If the Wii 2 is backward compatible then I don’t see how Nintendo can really lose even if they are overtaken by new hardware in a few years by Microsoft and Sony. If consumers see this as a continuation of what they already have then it will not seem like such a big thing to go out and buy. If however they feel it is like buying a new computer, which no one but a technical person likes to do then Nintendo will have a hard sell and people will not buy it.
I don’t think the Wii 2 will be overtaken in a few years by Microsoft and Sony… I think they’ll be overtaken in ONE year. Chances are that Sony and/or Microsoft will release new consoles in 2013, the year right after the Wii 2 launches.
I have little doubt that the PS4 or Xbox 720 will be way, way more powerful than the Wii 2, and will make the Wii 2 look very dated just a year later (maybe sooner).
Microsoft has said the 360 has a 10-15 year lifespan, so the next XBOX (PLEASE don’t call it 720!) will not be released anytime before 2015…
*facepalm*
Just because Microsoft and Sony said that their consoles life span can last up to 10 years, doesn’t mean they’ll make a new console in 2015/2016. That just means it may stop production of consoles and games for those consoles, completely.
Look at the PS2. PS2 games and systems were still selling, years after PS3 came out.
Ain’t no way Microsoft and Sony gonna give Nintendo a 3 year advantage before their next generation consoles.
It’s very likely their successors will release sometime in 2013-2014. For all we know, they could surprise us for a late 2012 date. We shall see at E3.
WTF is this kind of comparison? clock speed doesnt equal processing power or graphic prowess.
i mean, the cpu inside a ps2 has 299Mhz and the gpu has some 147Mhz.
The psp has 222-333Mhz for its cpu and 166 MHz for its gpu. you do the math.
and then there is that punchline at the end: there is no way wii2 will compete (hardware wise) to the next consoles from the other 2, at least from sony’s part. this is no fanboy assertion, its history lesson: sony multiplies by 10 almost every parameter that counts from one console to the other.
YeAh! Cats And Dogs and Sports Resort on the Wii 2!! YipPIe! Hope it plays NETFLIX; that is the only reason I took the WII out of the closet-where it sat for 6 months!! Much less noise/heat than the PS3.
80% higher gpu clock speed, not 80% more pwerfull.
You can’t judge a chips power by looking at its mhz rating.
Having said that a R700 is likely much more then 80% faster then the R500 based GPU in XBox 360. Its two graphics generations ahead.
Excellent point. The clock speed is only 80% faster, but the Wii 2′s GPU will actually be even FASTER than that 80% number indicates (much faster)… if this information about the GPUs is true.
Even though by the time the Wii 2 is release, the chip will be 4 years old, it will be a modified one, so it be even better than expected.
Pretty funny how everyone is talking about the wii2 not going to last based on this chart….
I laugh because look where the “Wii” is on this chart and look at there sales….
oops… the RSX runs at 550mhz, the rsx’s ddr3 has 700mhz….
BLAH BLAH BLAH… but they will still kids games that require minimal CPU power and no hardrive… cause 128 is more than enough for another mario title…
HAHAHA, NOOBS! PC > all of this shit consoles… wtf? comparing with pc? never!
Comparing to PCs would be impossible. Every PS3 has the same gpu onboard, while every PC is different. It’s obvious that a PC has the potential to be significantly more powerful than any console out there, but not every PC owner has the hardware to match the full potential of the PC ‘console’.
No one is comparing consoles to PCs you illiterate fool. We’re only comparing between different consoles. And while PCs may have more potential horsepower, console games look good enough… unless you’re a graphics whore who only cares about graphics.
what people are not getting that so what if its more powerful than the current 360 NOW microsoft and sony still havent released their new consoles yet which means they can be even more powerful than the new nintendo console will be
The guy who wrote this article is an idiot. Move along people.
The guy who wrote this article is the CEO of GeekTi.me…
He’s still an idiot!
The fact that this ‘CEO’ says he’s studying computer science and yet produces an article with completely absurd and unfounded claims is beyond me. Even years before I completed my Computer Science degree I had the knowledge to shoot this kind of article down.
I don’t mean to knock the guy, but a lot more thought should have gone into this article than was evidently given. You look at a company CEO, no matter how big or small, and expect them to be the ‘face’ of the company. When this ‘face’ is producing stuff like this, it doesn’t suggest a promising future for the website.
More thought, please!
The claims Jordan made are based on the information he sources in the article (and aren’t ENTIRELY absurd or unfounded). The primary issue seems to be a mix-up between the idea of clock speed and power. While our editors should have caught the mistake, the mix-up seems to have gotten by them. Honestly, we weren’t expecting this large of a response at all. GeekTi.me is a very young website, and we’re still sorting things out.
Jordan and I are also only human. We make mistakes and misinterpret information. While Jordan and I serve as the people in charge of GeekTi.me, we would prefer that opinions regarding the website be based on the work of all of our staff, not just our own.
Very amateur ‘mix-up’ though, ain’t it?
The problem of MHz being an inaccurate measure of actual real-world performance is nothing compared to the problem of the GPU speeds being wrongly described. Where the hell did you get 700MHz for RSX from?! It’s 550 MHz. Even a check of Wikipedia, the most basic research, would have told you that.
Piss poor article!
You take the Destructoid article in turn it into this garbage… makes no sense!
you don’t determine the power of a GPU based on its clock speed. The single most important thing that defines the power of a GPU are its pipelines.
The X360 GPU has 48 unified pipelines at 500mhz = 24000
The PS3 GPU has 16 unified pipelines at 700mhz = 11200
The X360 GPU is not only twice as powerful in raw power but it has its own memory exclusively for anti-aliasing too which make the GPU even more powerful. The funny thing is that even the weakest GPU from Nvidia (the Geforce 310m for laptops http://www.notebookcheck.ne… is twice more powerful than the PS3 GPU. In fact, even an Intel HD integrated card is more powerful than the PS3 GPU and you know what that means right?
There is no way in hell that Nintendo could pull off what they did with the Wii again were they made the console barely more powerful than the original Xbox. The Wii 2 will be at least 4 times more powerful than the PS3/X360 by default simply because there is no other way. There is no GPU weaker than a G310m in the market right now… Are you getting the point?
Below are the spec of both the PS3 and Xbox 360 GPU’s. If you don’t believe me then feel to google the subject before commenting. First off all fanboy aside there is very little in terms of power between the two. Yes I do know that on the benchmark number provided Wikipedia has the PS3 as higher then the 360′s but in terms of graphic power this meaningless (in terms of program the 360 has been considered the easier of the two to program for). In graphic it is not enough to just double the performance of the previous generation the operational functions have to increase exponentially in order to get a significant visual performance.
PS the added memory on the 360 unit is not there for program application. The memory is added for buffering of the main system memory due to the slower memory systems on the 360.
PS3 RSX
550 MHz on 90 nm process (shrunk to 65 nm in 2008[4] and to 40 nm in 2010[5])
Based on NV47 Chip (Nvidia GeForce 7800 Architecture)
300+ million transistors
Multi-way programmable parallel floating-point shader pipelines
Independent pixel/vertex shader architecture
24 parallel pixel-shader ALU pipes
5 ALU operations per pipeline, per cycle (2 vector4 , 2 scalar/dual/co-issue and fog ALU, 1 Texture ALU)[citation needed]
27 floating-point operations per pipeline, per cycle[citation needed]
8 parallel vertex pipelines
2 ALU operations per pipeline, per cycle (1 vector4 and 1 scalar, dual issue)[citation needed]
10 FLOPS per pipeline, per cycle[citation needed]
Floating Point Operations: 400.4 Gigaflops ((24 * 27 Flops + 8 * 10 Flops) * 550)
24 texture filtering units (TF) and 8 vertex texture addressing units (TA)
24 filtered samples per clock
Maximum texel fillrate: 13.2 GigaTexels per second (24 textures * 550 MHz)
32 unfiltered texture samples per clock, ( 8 TA x 4 texture samples )
8 Render Output units / pixel rendering pipelines
Peak pixel fillrate (theoretical): 4.4 Gigapixel per second
Maximum Z sample rate: 8.8 GigaSamples per second (2 Z-samples * 8 ROPs * 550 MHz)
Maximum Dot product operations: 51 billion per second (combined with Cell CPU)
128-bit pixel precision offers rendering of scenes with High dynamic range rendering (HDR)
256 MB GDDR3 RAM at 700 MHz
128-bit memory bus width
22.4 GB/s read and write bandwidth
Cell FlexIO bus interface
20 GB/s read to the Cell and XDR memory
15 GB/s write to the Cell and XDR memory
Support for PSGL (OpenGL ES 1.1 + Nvidia Cg)
Support for S3TC texture compression
Xbox 360 Xenos
500 MHz 10 MiB daughter embedded DRAM (@256GB/s) framebuffer on 90 nm process[citation needed].
NEC designed eDRAM die includes additional logic (192 parallel pixel processors) for color, alpha compositing, Z/stencil buffering, and anti-aliasing called “Intelligent Memory”, giving developers 4-sample anti-aliasing at very little performance cost.
105 million transistors [2]
8 Render Output units
Maximum pixel fillrate: 16 gigasamples per second fillrate using 4X multisample anti aliasing (MSAA), or 32 gigasamples using Z-only operation; 4 gigapixels per second without MSAA (8 ROPs × 500 MHz)
Maximum Z sample rate: 8 gigasamples per second (2 Z samples × 8 ROPs × 500 MHz), 32 gigasamples per second using 4X anti aliasing (2 Z samples × 8 ROPs × 4X AA × 500 MHz)[1]
Maximum anti-aliasing sample rate: 16 gigasamples per second (4 AA samples × 8 ROPs × 500 MHz)[1]
500 MHz parent GPU on 90 nm , 65 nm or 45nm TSMC process of total 232 million transistors
48 floating-point vector processors for shader execution, divided in three dynamically scheduled SIMD groups of 16 processors each. [3]
Unified shading architecture (each pipeline is capable of running either pixel or vertex shaders)
10 FP ops per vector processor per cycle (5 fused multiply-add)
Maximum vertex count: 6 billion vertices per second ( (48 shader vector processors × 2 ops per cycle × 500 MHz) / 8 vector ops per vertex) for simple transformed and lit polygons
Maximum polygon count: 500 million triangles per second[3]
Maximum shader operations: 96 Billion shader operations per second (48 ALUs × 4 shader (2 vector4 and 2 scalar) operations per cycle(4 shader operations per ALU per cycle) × 500Mhz)
240GLOPS
MEMEXPORT shader function
16 texture filtering units (TF) and 16 texture addressing unit (TA)
16 filtered samples per clock
Maximum texel fillrate: 8 gigatexel per second (16 textures × 500 MHz)
16 unfiltered texture samples per clock
Maximum Dot product operations: 24 billion per second
Support for a superset of DirectX 9.0c API DirectX Xbox 360, and Shader Model 3.0+
you don’t determine the power of a GPU based on its clock speed. The single most important thing that defines the power of a GPU are its pipelines.
The X360 GPU has 48 unified pipelines at 500mhz = 24000
The PS3 GPU has 16 unified pipelines at 700mhz = 11200
The X360 GPU is not only twice as powerful in raw power but it has its own memory exclusively for anti-aliasing too which make the GPU even more powerful. The funny thing is that even the weakest GPU from Nvidia (the Geforce 310m for laptops http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-310M.22439.0.html) is twice more powerful than the PS3 GPU. In fact, even an Intel HD integrated card is more powerful than the PS3 GPU and you know what that means right?
There is no way in hell that Nintendo could pull off what they did with the Wii again were they made the console barely more powerful than the original Xbox. The Wii 2 will be at least 4 times more powerful than the PS3/X360 by default simply because there is no other way. There is no GPU weaker than a G310m in the market right now… Are you getting the point? http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-310M.22439.0.html
Iuno if im wrong or not, but clock speeds dont necessarily determine that its better >.>.
IE the GTX 550 ti vs GTX 560 Ti one is at 900 and the other is at 822
Wow, so it’s 80% faster than a console that’s over 5 years old, wow let’s get excited about that!!!!!! Smell the sarcasm
Clock speed really, really, isn’t a determining factor in how powerful a gpu is. How much work a card can do per clock cycle is more relevant… Lets take the gpu market a few years ago. Nvidia clocks were much slower than ATI, but they competed with similar results. Ati had less operations per clock and a higher clock speed. Nvidia had more operations per clock and a slower clock. If you took an ATI 1650 pro and ran it at 900mhz, and took an ATI 6870 and ran it at 100mhz, the 6870 will still do a lot more work. SO, to sum it up. Clock speed doesn’t necessarily mean shit, and if the rest of the articles on this website are equally misleading and uninformed, don’t come here anymore.
Also, to Jelly a few comments ahead, new gpus don’t use the old pipeline model that the old consoles do. Instead, for example, the AMD 6870 has 1120 stream processors. These are essentially the pipelines of the old days, but they are programmable to do different tasks.
Arguing over which console PS3 or 360 on this website really isn’t the point. Yes, at the last minute, PS3 scrapped their own custom gpu and opted for an off the shelf nvidia chip that was pretty underpowered. But, looking forward, the graphical quality of 360 games is pretty far beneath the PS3 due to the cell being able to handle massive amounts of work. The 360 will need a replacement much sooner than the PS3. However, I’m primarily a pc gamer, and get to laugh at how all console games look. So don’t start the fanboy crap.
This article is ridiculous, clock speed isnt everything in gpu just like it isn t in cpu. Everybody knows 360 s gpu outperform ps3 s rsx. Some people s replies were just dumb and uneducated, i just can t believe people are actually replying about thinhgs they don t know anything about, go kill yourself! ( This is not the case of everybody some replies were perfectly correct)
There are more retarded comments on here than I’ve seen in a hell of a long time… >.<
It reminds me of the old retarded flame articles where people would argue how the PS3 having Blu-Ray meant it would have better graphics. I used to get a laugh out of some of the comments I used to see, I really did! lol!
(P.s. Just in case those retards are still present and feel like commenting, blu-ray means more and/or better assets, not graphics. Graphics are determined by the game's code in the game executable, and can vary from a few mb's to several 10's of mb's. End of…)
Haha, you are all such geeks talking about whos computer is quicker. The fact is Ps3 is quicker than xbox 360 and the new wii2 will be quicker than both of them as it is coming out years after the other two. Who cares, get over it!
360 has more pover,but PS3 has much batter games,which is moore important to me.That is more important than pover.Much more and better games :) Sorry for my eng.:(
That headline shows a complete lack of understanding of hardware. Until you know what the CPU is you can’t say Wii 2 is more powerful than any current console.
The GPU doesn’t rule the day, the PS3′s Cell is a huge testament to that.
Will someone please save video game news and start to write with intelligence and authority instead of goddamn fanboy bullshit.
You have a mind it’s use for more than just packing bonghits.
The headline should read “Wii 2 GPU has 80% more Power Than Xbox360′s” <- that is factual and just about as sensational.
Yes very poor article. Thanks for stating the obvious.
I just want to point out that 80% over the 360 and 30% over PS3 for next gen doesn’t seem like a big jump. I see both Xbox and PS jumping much higher than that next gen.
Indeed it isn t a big jump because this 80% that just came out of some people s ass is only a clock speed comparison and so much other things matters when comes to real computing power. In other word all this doesn t mean anything at all. This article is ridiculous but at least the writer ( who should change career or kill himself or both ) got many clicks thanks to a catchy healine.
Its all about games,not the power folks!What you are playing now on your 360?Gears and…i cant remember anithing alse right now PS3 Rules :)
go buy a PC and you got the power,but no games to play like 360
Congratulations. Through your ceaseless arguing, you have furthered society in many unexpected ways. Please continue comparing whose digital cock is larger; I have a ruler if that would help.
I leave you kids alone for a couple days and you break everything.
*sigh*
Is today April Fools Day? No…I clearly see a ’21′ on my watch. What, then, is the reason for this laughably foolish article’s continued presence on the internet? Instead of simply putting up a disclaimer stating that you were completely unfounded and well, as wrong as possible, I simply feel that you should maximize the face-saving and take it down, entirely, and as soon as possible. This simply must be the most ignorant, ridiculously factually inaccurate article I’ve ever read online…ever. This equates (precistely) to stating that a Ferrari and a Honda are equivalent because they can reach the same RPM! Wow…unbelievable! Here are some facts: R700, unless a 4870, is not capable of running at 1080p @ 30fps without making serious cuts to textures, polygons, etc. In other words, since at $250 this console will not contain a 4870 (more likely a 4600 series card (@ 900MHz, potentially)), it will look no better on your screen than either a 360 or PS3. Again…unless you get a 4870, you will not have 1080p *rendered* graphics…only the same 720p, 30fps graphics that console gamers have already had for the past six years. Mark my words, folks! Even with 80% more, as the 360 and PS3 are barely capable of 720p @ 30fps, how could the new Nintendo run smoothly at 1080p, even at 30 fps? It can’t…and that’s all there is to it.
Signed, PC gamer (with heavily overclocked 560ti (6x 360, 7x PS3 (that’s 600 and 700%, folks) and 2500k (God knows how much more power than the “cell processor”). You’re welcome.
Nah. We’ll leave it. Thanks though.
You’re welcome…just a suggestion. I’m here to help.
edit: any 4800 series card might be able to get 1080p done (at current levels of graphic quality). However, I’d guess that even if a 4800 is present, devs. will simply port 360/PS3 games to the system (as they’ll still be developed principally for those two systems, I’d imagine), and that Nintendo will simply make 720p-rendered games that are “fuller,” if you will, in overall appearance (as opposed to cutting textures and everything else to get to 1080p at a playable framerate (especially as the screens on the back of the box aren’t 1080p-equivalent)). Anyway…your chart is accurate, as it compares clock speeds, but again, a 12 cylinder running at 6000 RPM sure as heck ain’t equivalent to a 4 cylinder running at the same speed…
wii gpu 243mhz…….x360gpu 500mhz……ps3 gpu is 550mhz were on earth did 700mhz come from fanboy fantasy……x360 also has a better gpu and 10mb of edram rsx in ps3 is a weak gpu and lacks bandwidth……..wii 2 will have a very efficent spec and a better gpu likly real world visual power will be ps3 and x360 conbined at least and easy to code and port…….700mhz WTF.——– expect fast ram and fast disc drive
new touchscreen pad tablet conbining touchscreen and classic pad and motion and camera,,wiimote,,wiimote and nunchuck,,classic pad,,zapper now thats a darn world beating controller choice
As others have said before, you can’t say a device is more powerful than another based on just one component. There’s so much more that will determine how much more powerful the Wii 2 will be
Ok people, though the 360 is suposedly more powerful (not really) the ps3 OBVIOUSLY looks much BETTER than the 360. I may be a ps3 fanboy but i own both consoles. ps3 looks alot better.
When I came over to Wii 2 is 80% More Powerful than 360 | Geek Time I can only look at portion of it, is this my internet web browser or the web web site? Should I restart? Cheers Lillith Hanson
Informative article about the Wii 2
Wow, amazing blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you made blogging look easy. The overall look of your site is fantastic, let alone the content!. Thanks For Your article about Wii 2 is 80% More Powerful than 360 | Geek Time .
This is what happens when you have uninformed people writing articles for your website.
the RSX is clocked at 550mhz not 700mhz. The xbox360 GPU pushed 500M triangles versus the PS3 275M triangles. Lemme get off this page……….smdh