Forgot username or password? Click here.
Wii U Half the Speed of PS3 & 360 Consoles?

Although Nintendo seems to be generally pleased with the launch of their new product, the Wii U, stories in the media aren't exactly painting a very pretty picture about the recently released console. For one thing, kids in the States have been noted to be more keen on Apple's iPad, rather than the Nintendo Wii U.

There are other causes for concern. Some developers are beginning to complain that the hardware is not up-to-date and can barely handle the demands of next-gen. games.

At the same time, infamous hardware hacker referred to as Marcan, uncovered what is supposedly the processor and graphics card specs of Wii U. Apparently, the Wii U processor runs at 1.24 GHz, which less than half the speed of what's in current PS3 and Xbox 360 consoles. Meanwhile, it's speculated that its GPU core runs at 550 MHz, which is the same speed as Sony's console and a bit faster than Microsoft's.

The aforementioned hacker is working to end all speculation in an attempt to clarify just how fast the Wii U is. Marcan is also reportedly trying to hack Nintendo's new console.

7 post(s)
Reader Comments
IcedEarth Nov 30 2012, 07:32 am EST
I'm not for or against the Wii U, but this article from Ars Technica is very relevant. It explains why you can't just compare clock speeds and say AHA! X is better than Y.​ou-cant-read-too-much-into-the-wii-us-slow-cl​ock-speed/
260077 Nov 30 2012, 08:25 am EST
You cant compare clock per clock on two different architectures, that have 6+ years gap between them. For example the 360's triple core cpu at 3.2 ghz operating at 19,200 MIPS, while an Athlon X2 6000 a dual core at 3 ghz operates at above 22,000 MIPS. While a modern dual core at 3.3 ghz operates above 64,000 MIPS.
So a modern triple core at 1.24 ghz would produce higher results then 20,000 MIPS that's for sure.
Terminator Nov 30 2012, 12:28 pm EST
It's true that you can't compare clock speeds, but when developers call a console "horrible and slow", there is a problem. What was Nintendo thinking? They should have made sure the hardware could handle next-gen games!
IcedEarth Nov 30 2012, 01:17 pm EST
Yeah, I don't quite get the logic in releasing a console at the end of a generation that's no better/worse than the existing generation. Especially when it's not any cheaper than the established consoles either. Unless this is just a stop-gap measure and Nintendo will release a Next-Gen console 2-3 years into the next generation?
Whisky Nov 30 2012, 02:58 pm EST
Because it's Nintendo and their fan base doesn't care about performance. They just want little Mario's jumping around and shit.
Kurio Dec 01 2012, 01:02 am EST
Yes, it is as Whisky said, because the fanbase cant give a crap about MAD FPS.

Truth is, most wii games run perfectly fine, and in all honesty... far better than CoD or battlefield, more entertaining and far longer longevity, at least they are worth the money unlike many modern "high end" games that are pure crap and last less than a cavedwellers first pity fuck, given by the cousin he always fantasied about.

While i only play wii games in times where quite a lot of people are around or with the gf and wouldnt really by myself alone, i have to say that what i said previously is still true.

Quality > shinnyness.
Also it does something critical nowadays.

It forces devs to work with limitations, forcing them to be creative instead of spewing garbage reboots after reboots after reboots that are nothing more than a circlejerk of how pretty we can nowadays make games, and forget the purpose of a game, fcking entertainment.
Cheddar Dec 01 2012, 07:28 pm EST
Sub-25 fps basically isn't playable, Kurio. it's not about 'mad' fps, it's about workable fps, period. This late in the console generation, most graphic intensive 360/PS3 games right now already flirt with the 30 fps line. How's the Wii U gonna manage to run those games if the other consoles with faster hardware are already only getting 30 frames?

As for 'forcing devs to work with limitations', all that will amount to are games on the Wii U with drastically gimped graphic quality in order to run on its hardware. Have you looked at the Wii U library? Much of it consists of games that are multi-platform, so it's not like the Wii U is going to be judged by specialized exclusives.​games

Get ready to see lots of negative press in the future consisting of quality comparisons between the PS3, 360, and Wii U versions of games, with the Wii U version getting utterly panned every time.

Your attempt to spin all this off as positive is pure nonsense, Kurio.

The Wii U -- unlike the Wii -- is a direct 360/PS3 competitor... except it has inferior hardware acceleration, and a shortsighted controller gimmick with horrific gameplay ergonomics for the 'serious' sort of games its supporting.

This is not a favorable forecast.


Easily fill in your friends' emails to send them this page.

Which multiplayer shooter have you picked?

Neither, single-player FTW!
What are those? Never heard of them.
» view results
» view poll archives
Yooka-LayleeAgents of MayhemSkylanders ImaginatorsAbsolverVampyrPro Cycling Manager 2016
Perhaps Last But Not Penultimate ComicNever Lose FaithThe Vacation
Three days ago

monitoring_string = "eff2d707bb70db01fa83ebd63e0c5947"