The Wii's Brain Exposed

Jon Stokes, at the Opposable Thumbs column, discusses a final revelation of the Wii's technical prowess. Though it's been assumed since the early days of the marketing push that the Wii is basically a super-charged GameCube, a post to Acer's Hardware boards would seem to confirm that. Not, as Mr. Stokes says, that that is a bad thing: "I'm no longer nearly as upset about the implications of this move as I was back in August. In fact, thanks in large part to my DS Lite, I've gone from being disappointed at Wii's underpowered hardware to actually anticipating the new console. I plan to pick one up when they become generally available, and I'm even hoping to hook my (nongamer) wife on it."

Wii will take over the world.

Enough about its brain. Show us the Wii's pinky.

Supercharged!

And my PC is just a supercharged 386. So what?

Re:Supercharged!

It's not a vastly underpowered (for the current generation) game system being sold for more than the parts are worth (when the competition is selling hot new tech at a loss), propped up by a gimmicky controller.

Honestly, none of what you've mentioned matters at all. The PSP is light years better than the DS from a technological point of view, but the DS is mopping the floor with the PSP. Why?

In the end, it all comes down to games.

If Nintendo has the games that are the most fun they will sell the most consoles. The same is true for MS and Sony... If the controller is gimmicky and the games are not very fun, it will become very clear in due course. How anyone can declare winners and losers in the console war at this point is beyond me. The party is really just getting started.

Re:Supercharged!

And my PC is just a supercharged 386. So what?

Well, not really. The ISA may be the same, but the microarchitecture is completely different. Your PC's CPU looks nothing like a 386, it just happens to speak the same language (and certainly some new instructions, if not entire operating modes like 64-bit, besides).

The point of the article is that the Wii's CPU is really microarchitecturally similar to the Gecko, down to the number of FP pipelines and such, and is basically a 90nm shrink of the old chip with higher clock speeds.

Now personally I find it hard to believe that IBM would go through the trouble of shrinking the chip to 90nm (which isn't as easy as just applying a scaling factor to your old mask) without tweaking the architecture even if there were no major changes planned. I guarantee there were improvements that they either wanted to add to Gecko but didn't have time/resources for, or flaws in the Gecko that they discovered after it was produced that they would like to fix. The shrink to 90nm is the perfect time to get some of those changes in, so I'm betting they did.

Which brings me back to your point, which was: So what? Indeed, so what? So it's the same chip, only at a much higher frequency and probably with a small percent boost in IPC performance besides. How is that bad? It isn't. It just isn't a super brand new highly experimental chip that requires new (or, going back to mainframes with slews of I/O controllers, old) programming methods. So for anyone who was hoping Nintendo would have some incredible hardware specs for them to drool over, dissapointment may ensue. Oh well, there's still a good chance it will be good enough.

Look at the last generation: The Xbox and GC were fighting for best graphics (xbox winning mostly, but GC showing some astounding performances from time to time), and also fighting for 2nd place. 1st place went to the console with the worst graphics, but they were good enough to be part of that generation, and it had the games. The Wii will certainly be representative of this generation of graphics, even if it will be the worst in that regard. Personally I, like anyone who favors a PS2, just hope it has lots of fun games.

Wii isn't underpowered except

It doesn't support HDTV. I think this will be their fatal flaw for next gen console rave. With lifespan of 5 years, it will start showing its age in 2 or 3 years as HDTV become the norm. Really think this was bad decision on nintendo's part, what would it costs to upgrade the video chip and corresponding bandwidth to support 720p? Even the ps2 supported 1080i output as seen with the grand turismo.

Re:Wii isn't underpowered except

I think this will be their fatal flaw for next gen console rave.

I don't know. The PS3 has a very low ecstasy to glow stick ratio.

Nintendo DS uses OpenGL

This is the GBA and Nintendo DS strategy rehashed. Both these consoles has (albeit limited in the case of the GBA) the ability to do 3D, but Nintendo basically -on purpose- ommited to make an API for it to be easily done.

True of the GBA, but Nintendo DS uses a subset of OpenGL, similar to the "GX" API used by the GameCube.

Nothing "underpowered " about the Gamecube/Wii

The Gamecube could produce some stunning visuals and the Wii is even better, but both machines are optimized for 480p. There is no justification or reason to push performance when Nintendo is still firmly in the SD resolution department. Once Nintendo commits to HD, when or if that ever happens, well, obviously they're going to have to make a more powerful machine.

While I absolutely love the visuals from the 360 and PS3, given the still relatively paltry penetration of HDTV sets in North America, the new machines are a bit like driving a Ferrari or F1 race car on a dirt road.

It's been said before...

...and I'll say it again. The Wii doesn't need to be much faster to look good.

The difference in required processing power to properly render the larger textures and more detailed models at 1080p versus what the Wii needs to do at 480p is huge. All that processing power that Microsoft and Sony will throw into 1920*1080=2073600 pixel is going to be much more than Nintendo has to worry about at 640*480=307200

2073600/307200 = 6.75. Sony and Microsoft need to be 6.75 times as powerful as Nintendo's console to maintain the status quo.

Now obviously this is likely to be wildly inaccurate. There are all sorts of factors I know jack about. However, the point remains that Sony and Microsoft's consoles have to go to a much greater effort to keep those framerates up.

On an HD TV, the Wii's graphics will look worse than what Sony and Microsoft offer. I have an Xbox 360 and an HDTV, I've seen the eyecandy and it's delicious. One thing I did notice was despite the fact that my Gamecube was only running at 480i via an S-Video cable, it still wasn't bad at all. The games that were beautiful before (F-Zero, Crystal Chronicles, and that beast of masochism Ikaruga) are still beautiful and I wasn't even using component (which I look forward to on the Wii). You can tell the difference between 480i 6th generation games and 1080i/p 7th generation games, but it doesn't mean the old games burn your eyes.

Even if the Wii is marginally better than the Gamecube remember how incredible games like Resident Evil 4 and Metroid Prime looked. Even a mere 50% to 100% increase will be more than enough to make the Wii awesome.

This sounds interesting...

They're taking one chip design and making it smaller, faster and lower power. Somewhere in the article it mentions that the 90nm version of this CPU takes about 2W at GC speeds. For reference, the DS is rated at 1.6W. You can probably predict where this is going.

The Wii's Brain Exposed

Aw, now that's just plain mean to put this right after an article about babies' brain stems. The opportunity for misinterpretation is just too high. Sickos.

If true, there is one problem

First off, let's recognize that this still isn't confirmed - while it's a supposition with some good reasoning, it's not like the Big N has come out and told us the specs for the hardware. But, assuming that Hannibal is right, I have one complaint about the Wii: $250 is too much.

Yes, I know that I paid $400+ for my 360, and I know that the PS3 is going to be $580. I also understand that there was a ton of R&D on the Wiimote, that Nintendo's business plan includes profit on the consoles themselves, and that the price is determined by the market, not by the cost to produce.

But I also know I've paid $200 for each previous Nintendo console (except the NES...I didn't pay for that one, so I don't actually remember what it cost). I also know that technology gets cheaper over time - particularly microchips. A process shrink is neat, but shouldn't make the thing cost more, it should make it cost less. So the $250 is more than I've ever paid for a Nintendo console on the one hand, and an increase where there should have been a decrease on the other.

All that being said, I'll still probably pick one up at launch, or as soon after as I can manage. So in that sense, it's clearly not a problem from Ninty's point of view. But I'm vaguely irked by the price (again, assuming this supposition is accurate), and I don't think Nintendo's in a good position to withstand ill will.

Power isn't the problem

I'd be a lot more (excited about the XBox360 or PS3)/(upset about the Wii design) if I believed power were the thing holding back games.

But I think to make that argument would take some serious rhetorical gymnastics. The problems with gaming clearly lie in the ideas, the general difficulty of executing complex ideas (programming complicated things, gaming or otherwise, is hard), the overemphasis on 3D graphics, and the stereotyping of controls.

All of these interrelate; in particular the emphasis on 3D graphics to the point that they are a requirement has resulted in the destruction of any number of good ideas from the old days, and who knows how many good ideas have been aborted because they wouldn't work in 3D? For an example of such an idea that luckily wasn't aborted, look at Viewtiful Joe. As graphics get harder, more of the projects programming superstars get dedicated to making them work, because it's hard. How many beautiful games have we seen with unbelievably bad pathfinding, a simple AI problem barely worthy of being called "AI"?

And of course there is the general monetary drain of good 3D graphics.

The DS has proven a safe haven for many of these older genres, and much new experimentation. Kirby: Canvas Curse is really fun, couldn't possibly work in 3D with a conventional controller (and it'd take some serious work with the Wii controller to make it work; I can envision one possibility but it'd still basically be a different game), and probably couldn't even work with a mouse interface. If you think good Sonic games died with the Genesis, the GBA and DS have had quite a few good old-school Sonic games. (I'm really enjoying Sonic Rush; using the stylus for the half-pipe Chaos Emerald stages is awesome, I wish there were twice as many. My favorite Sonic 2D ever, so far.) How many good ideas are never even thought of because console controllers can't support them?

A console with more RAM and more CPU, but the same graphics as the Gamecube and with an innovative new controller would still get my interest, because it attacks several of the real problems in gaming right now. (The rest of the problems will probably be solved the same way they are solved in all other programming domains, the slow but steady accumulation of ever-better libraries, and that's independent of console hardware.)

But I just don't see "power" as our big problem right now; we've got so much to spare that we can make grass wave realistically and make water sparkle and all kinds of other things that are nowhere near as important as the amount of development time they consume would seem to indicate.

It's software, and hardware

Everyone gripes about hardware, but software also plays a big part in the game. Rouge Leader and Rebel Strike hold up immensely well for their age (five years and two years respectively). Nintendo has proven in the past the concept of software versus hardware. I even recall Nintendo's Phil Harrison (in an old EGM) speaking about Pokemon and how crude 8-bit graphics still appeal to people who like the games. It's not all about visuals but how a person can manipulate and immerse themselves to what is presented on screen. It's about control, simplicity, and possibly human addiction (Duck Hunt) Sure, Sony and Microsoft have the specs. Specs = Potential. Same goes for Nintendo and it's controller, it has potential. In reality, it all boils down to whether a person will believe numbers, visuals, and/or how a person can immerse themselves in the challenge in a game. It can even be boiled down to whether people enjoy a game as an interactive movie, or means of it acting as a holodeck. Interactive Movie- Cutscene to Cutscene (Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid Series Holodeck- Where you embody a character through a story (Half Life 2, Zelda, Shadow of the Colossus) There's so many different ways this can be looked at. I could write a paper about all of this. I probably dove into this deeper than I should have.

Gameplay

Here's the thing I don't get.

Ok, so we know Nintendo produces some fun 1st-party games. And thats a great thing. If you love Nintendo's games then you know what you want, definitely a Wii.

The Wii will not be particularly powerful hardware-wise. Some fanboys say, its not next-gen or whatever buzzword you like. Nintendo fans say, that doesn't matter, because art direction trumps graphical muscle, gameplay and plot trump flashy graphics and nice physics. Its a fair argument.

The thing I wonder about is, this is not exclusive to Nintendo. Nothing about the Wii seems 'exclusive to Nintendo' save the 1st-party IP that no one else can produce. In other words, Zelda, Metroid, Mario Whatever.

Everything else about the Wii could potentially end up somewhere else. The controller has been knocked off for Xbox360/PS3/PC already, and is arguable superior. [nintendorevolution.ca] And 'good game design', while happily common with Nintendo's consoles, is hardly unique to them; there are innovative titles for all consoles.

In the end, while it seemed shrewd at first, I increasingly wonder if the cheap route was such a good idea after all. The Wii will look pretty nice at release, but even after 2 years, when they really start to stretch the legs on the X360 and PS3, I'm not so sure. Particularly if that 3rd party Wii Remote is bundled with a hit cross-platform game (ala Guitar Hero).

Go Wii

Wii will prove again that gameplay trumps flash. Just like the DS is bitch slapping the PSP.

Pft no thanks

but will it heat my house too? [slashdot.org] i like multi-in-one gizmos.

it's mine impression...

or PowerPC 750CL can do 4 instructions per cycle? http://www-306.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/t echdocs/2F33B5691BBB8769872571D10065F7D5/$file/ppc 750cl_ds_dd20_5oct06.pdf [ibm.com]

i mean specs data tell that it "Fetches four instructions per clock".

afaik,Gekko only fetches two

Same chip to bring strength to Wii Games

I think that keeping the same chip, rather than try pulling in some crazy new architecture, is really going to be a strength for the Wii. It's been pointed out over and over in this round of the never-ending Console War that while all the new graphics are shiny shiny, the real success of a console is always in it's games. It's even been noted that all the new graphics translate into higher game development costs (got photo-realistic backgrounds? You have to get someone to create every one in photographic detail), and (here's the crux) if it's a totally new system design, people have to start learning how to create games in yet another platform.

The Wii game developers are going to be ahead of the game if it has a similar design, and will be able to focus more on the game than the developing. I am very interested in what is going to come out for the Wii.

But the Wii can do 720p!

I recently read that the Wii actually can output 720p. However, it lacks the processing power to do so decently.
Here are the specifications from IGN, which have been online for several days: http://wii.ign.com/launchguide/hardware1.html [ign.com]
Here's the part about HD: http://wii.ign.com/articles/733/733464p7.html [ign.com]
"Q: Can Wii do high-definition graphics?
A: Technically, it's possible, but it's also implausible. Wii is more powerful than Xbox, a console whose library included a handful of games that ran in 720p HD. Furthermore, Wii features a multi-audio/video port with the option for component out, meaning that 480p through 720p/1080i resolutions are attainable, at least where wiring is concerned. However, due to both a miniscule amount of system RAM and less computing power when compared to HD-ready consoles like Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, the chance that most Wii games will break the 480p visual barrier is slim. In fact, Nintendo executives have gone so far as to comment on the record that Wii does not support high-definition. The company wants Wii to be "quiet, small and affordable," and has thus focused its attention on the system's innovative new controller. Nintendo's leaders have indicated that high-definition graphics are the future. But unlike Sony and Microsoft, which believe that the "HD era" has begun, the Big N asserts that widespread HD adoption will take years. The company's successor to Wii will support high-definition visuals. "