Wii & GameCube Comparison
With all the pissing contests between the PS3 and Xbox 360, it’s easy to dismiss the Wii as the next-gen console so innovative it doesn’t even need specs. But as cool as the Wii is, its technical specifications are relevant and will become increasingly more so as designers test and push its limits.
We all know the Wii isn’t on the same bar as the other two, in terms of technological bragging rights like HD, DVD playback, processor speed, etc. But when Shigeru Miyamoto said that the Wii is essentially a GameCube, I got curious. No one seemed to care if it was, which I found a little odd. So I was pleased to see a comparison chart that clocked the Wii CPU at 729 MHz compared to the GC’s 485 MHz and a GPU comparison of 243 MHz to 162 MHz, as well as four times as much additional RAM on the Wii.
But the specs are still awfully close. Considering the Wii’s original ambitions to sell for less than $100, that’s not surprising.
Maxconsole goes much further in their analysis, check them out for an in-depth look, but they sum up the difference similarly: “The GPU of the Wii is identical to the GC’s but it is on average 1.5X faster.”
It’s not important to many Wii fans, but it presents an interesting (and ironic) observation: how much money and effort Microsoft and Sony put into their hardware, and how much trouble that hardware has caused both companies – especially at launch – versus how imagination and ingenuity led Nintendo to the table.
What do we think?
Just how fast is this Wii of yours really? [Gnome’s Lair]
[Via: Digg]
tiny dancer
Posted to on 5 January 2007
· Comments (4)
Other stuff like this: gamecube, nintendo, specs, wii
I love the Wii. I got one for Christmas and was very surprised with how much I love it. Even Red Steel is a lot of fun once you get the controls under control. I loved the Gamecube and the fact that this is the basically the same doesn’t bother me. I have fun playing the games and that’s all that matters. No noisey fan. No overheating. Just pure gaming fun. Way to go Nintendo.
These Maxconsole specs have been around for almost 6 months now, and I’ve never seen them substantiated by either Nintendo or an independent party who’s actually dissected the console and confirmed it.
Not that they seem wildly out of line or anything, but I just don’t trust them. At the time they were posted, Ars posted a comparison that made it look very much like the Maxconsole source had just taken a Gamecube developer document and replaced a couple numbers, and I’ve never seen that refuted.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060802-7407.html
I love the way Nintendo, ever since the GameCube actually, always push the tech specs to the background and leave people to speculate.
I was a little worried about the Wii, and thought Zelda was looking ropey next to the 360 but having seen Monkey Ball Banana Blitz, I think Sega have shown other developers how to make a Wii game shine.
I doubt Nintendo will lose any fanboys over tech specs. It’s all about the games and I hope they pay Mr Miyamoto well.
I think the real problem will be a year from now. If MS really delivers on HD downloads, FFXIII is as impressive as expected, and people can pick up cheap HD TVs, I see Nintendo losing some major entertainment shelf space.
But I have a funny feeling Nintendo is going to do with the Wii exactly what they did with the Gameboy. Inexpensive, rapid upgrades. They’ve already mentioned a DVD-enabled Wii. I’m sure we’ll hear of a HD enabled Wii too.
If Nintendo can crank out new consoles for $150 every 2 years, I’m sure Nintendo can continue to be the “impulse buy” console much like the DS.
I just hope Nintendo doesn’t become the Fisher Price of gaming console.