Rumored Tech Specs Give Wii 2 More Power Than Xbox 360
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm still not interested in motion sensing controls and I dislike touch screens even more. Those specs are pathetic too...
I dont see how clearer the fans can get, we want a powerfull nintendo console that rivals its compeditors!!!!ImprovizoR said:
PowerPC?OP said:
ATI R700 GPU?
512MB of RAM?
That's about the same specs as my ten-year-old iMac lying upside-down in my closet. What the hell is this crap?
I think people forgot to read this was a rumour. More than likely this is not what it is, just some website out to get some time in the spotlight.
touch screen in controller hu? i don't like having to look down at my controller when playing a game, also, sory nintendo, but all hipsters already bought the wii, played it a few times, and it is now siting in their closet, i don't see them coming back for your next console.
So? A console that has only just been announced is rumored that it will be slightly more powerful than technology from 2005? How is this impressive, in the least?
Let's say that the Wii 2 comes out in 2012, as it is being rumored. The MINIMUM life range for a console has always been 5 years, and with the increase in price for new consoles, that 5 years is becoming more like 8-10 at least. How are we not supposed to be furious that in 2020 we will still be playing on a console that could barely run something like Crysis?
The Xbox 360 and even the PS3 are seriously starting to show their age already, I don't believe that we should be happy that the first console of the next generation will barely even improve on it at all.
Let's say that the Wii 2 comes out in 2012, as it is being rumored. The MINIMUM life range for a console has always been 5 years, and with the increase in price for new consoles, that 5 years is becoming more like 8-10 at least. How are we not supposed to be furious that in 2020 we will still be playing on a console that could barely run something like Crysis?
The Xbox 360 and even the PS3 are seriously starting to show their age already, I don't believe that we should be happy that the first console of the next generation will barely even improve on it at all.
Lots of people bashing on the rumored console. Funny thing is that we don't even know if it will exist yet much less what it will look like and yet the hate train rolls on. I kinda feel bad for Nintendo. Even with only a rumor of doing something people hate them for it. They can't win for losing. Ah well, it'll be interesting to see what they actually do and watch the inevitable hate of it roll in like the wall of trolls.
its WAY too early to jump on speculation. i would be happy though if they at least caught up to 360-ps3 standards. maybe then games would be longer and better looking, and more serious designers would come back.
maybe the controller description means they will save wiimote functions for more practical things, or scrap it. (though i doubt it.)
a touch screen on a handset would be weird, i could see problems looking back and forth. but it would probably do things like four swords/crystal chronicles-esque things better and without extra cost. (hopefully)
if it's true I'll forgive nintendo for the wii. they usually don't disappoint on games, but consoles seems to be where they lag. get some people from the hand-held department to help ya mmkay? =D
maybe the controller description means they will save wiimote functions for more practical things, or scrap it. (though i doubt it.)
a touch screen on a handset would be weird, i could see problems looking back and forth. but it would probably do things like four swords/crystal chronicles-esque things better and without extra cost. (hopefully)
if it's true I'll forgive nintendo for the wii. they usually don't disappoint on games, but consoles seems to be where they lag. get some people from the hand-held department to help ya mmkay? =D
This seems a little off. Touchscreen camera controller? I don't know if I can believe that. The tech seems a little off as well. It's really not that much better than what we have now. I mean, it's better, but it's going to be outdone by the new Sony and Microsoft consoles for sure.
I guess we will just have to wait and see.
I guess we will just have to wait and see.
Hmm...don't know computers enough to understand the specs at all, but "slightly" better than PS360 sounds good to me (all three current-gen home consoles look fine. Keep the next gen affordable).
Touch screens on the controller does sound interesting...but wouldn't that really drive up the price for each controller? Unless they had a cheaper controller for multiplayer, making sure only player 1 would ever need the touch screen....
Touch screens on the controller does sound interesting...but wouldn't that really drive up the price for each controller? Unless they had a cheaper controller for multiplayer, making sure only player 1 would ever need the touch screen....
I can see the touch screen being useful for a map that you could mark, or possibly a quick item switch between a limited number of chosen items. Also, why do people think a console need 4 GB of RAM? I have a crappy laptop with 4 GB and can run anything I have needed to, and that's with a OS, music, internet, and a ton of other smaller processes that go along with the functions listed earlier. Simply put, consoles don't need near the memory of your desktop or laptop.
It's not all bad then.
The R700 while only dx10, could suffice. Clock it high enough and you can still pump out more enough pixelshaded polygons and that's more important than extra bells and whistles like tesselation.
A chip based on the R700 should end up at least twice more powerful than the RSX in the PS3, if not more.
CPU. Going triple core is the only good move here. It all depend on how efficient the cores work and how fast those cores are clocked.
Games do not lend themselves well for parallel processing and on the PC we can see how the performance difference between the x3 and a x4 running at equal clock speeds is rarely more than 10% and more often 0%. Diminishing returns. Cores beyond the 3rd one don't really matter.
Without any other information this CPU could be faster or much slower than the powerpc in the 360.
512MB RAM: bad. An extra GB is very cheap now. Low quality textures and/or textures popping in late, is the main problem that's holding the visuals on the current consoles back.
Overal not enough info and not reliable enough either.
I do know that if the new Nintendo console isn't much faster then the 360, or even slower and it's nothing more than a "wii HD", then it will likely fail. Casuals in the west will get a M$ Kinect, if they're not just sticking with their old wiis, while core gamers will stay where they are.
The R700 while only dx10, could suffice. Clock it high enough and you can still pump out more enough pixelshaded polygons and that's more important than extra bells and whistles like tesselation.
A chip based on the R700 should end up at least twice more powerful than the RSX in the PS3, if not more.
CPU. Going triple core is the only good move here. It all depend on how efficient the cores work and how fast those cores are clocked.
Games do not lend themselves well for parallel processing and on the PC we can see how the performance difference between the x3 and a x4 running at equal clock speeds is rarely more than 10% and more often 0%. Diminishing returns. Cores beyond the 3rd one don't really matter.
Without any other information this CPU could be faster or much slower than the powerpc in the 360.
512MB RAM: bad. An extra GB is very cheap now. Low quality textures and/or textures popping in late, is the main problem that's holding the visuals on the current consoles back.
Overal not enough info and not reliable enough either.
I do know that if the new Nintendo console isn't much faster then the 360, or even slower and it's nothing more than a "wii HD", then it will likely fail. Casuals in the west will get a M$ Kinect, if they're not just sticking with their old wiis, while core gamers will stay where they are.