Bubble Witch Saga 3 Industrial Deals Beauty Best Books of the Month STEM nav_sap_hiltonhonors_launch Learn more about Amazon Music Unlimited PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon MozartintheJungle MozartintheJungle MozartintheJungle  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held Tailgating STEMClubToys17_gno
Customer Discussions > Video Games forum

Wii U CPU is a 'bottleneck,' Digital Foundry concludes

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 109 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 26, 2012, 3:00:51 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 26, 2012, 3:03:34 PM PST
got mayo?™ says:

Oddly, Nintendo has never released official specs for Wii U. It is theoretically improved over the Xbox 360, equipped with "an improved, more modern AMD Radeon graphics core, twice as much RAM available to developers."

While games will undoubtedly improve as the console matures, a look at the Wii U version of Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 shows that there may be one weak link in the console's design: the CPU.

The Wii U version of Black Ops 2 is essentially a straight port of the Xbox 360 version, down to the identical 880x720 resolution and 2x MSAA. "Aside from gamma issues, we're essentially looking at exactly the same presentation," Digital Foundry noted. In fact, the Wii U version looks better than the PS3 version, which the analysis described as "compromised."

However, the framerate struggles on the Wii U version, dipping to about half of what the Xbox 360 original can handle. Admittedly, this is a quick port on new hardware, which should account for some of the performance loss. However, Digital Foundry believes that the system's CPU is its "main bottleneck," especially when "bearing in mind the specific areas that are causing the most noticeable dips in performance," specifically "any scene where a lot of characters are in the area."

Future games on Wii U will undoubtedly perform better as the console begins to mature and developers get a better grasp on how to best harness its abilities. However, much like multi-platform teams struggled to deal with PS3's unique Cell architecture and divided memory allocation, developers will have to balance Wii U's beefier GPU with its apparently-underpowered CPU.


CNN: In terms of specs, the Wii is pretty much on par with the Xbox 360 and the PS3. But we know Sony and Microsoft are set to release new consoles next year. Aren't you worried about the timing and that the Wii U will be a generation behind your rivals?

Reggie Fils-Aime: Well first off I have to correct you. The specs are quite different than the competitive systems, much more graphically intensive. If you do a side by side comparison you would actually see third-party games like Call of Duty look dramatically better on our system.....that and MY BODY IS READY.

Posted on Nov 26, 2012, 3:05:11 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 26, 2012, 3:07:47 PM PST
got mayo?™ says:

So let's recap. What we know of the Wii U spec strongly suggests that the new Nintendo machine should be something along the lines of an enhanced Xbox 360. We have a tri-core IBM CPU, an improved, more modern AMD Radeon graphics core, twice as much RAM available to developers and we even see a substantial boost in the volume of fast eDRAM directly attached to the GPU. There are trade-offs in any console design, but the key ingredients suggest that 360 ports should transition across to the new hardware fairly easily. Unfortunately, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 proves that the situation is not quite so straightforward.

Based on a visual analysis at least, it seems clear that developer Treyarch thought its best bet in bringing Black Ops 2 to the Wii U was to transplant its existing Xbox 360 work lock, stock and barrel across to the new hardware. In putting together our usual comparison videos and galleries, what struck us was the level of parity between the 360 and Wii U games - aside from gamma issues, we're essentially looking at exactly the same presentation.

All of this means that the new version gets the same 880x720 native resolution, with the same sharp upscaling filter employed on the Xbox 360 release. There's even 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing (MSAA) - the first time we've seen hardware AA deployed in-game on a Wii U title (admittedly, it's early days there).

To illustrate how close it is, and how the Wii U version of Black Ops 2 sits within the hierarchy of releases available, we've put together an exhaustive series of comparison videos. Here you'll see Black Ops 2 on Wii U compared with Xbox 360, PS3 and PC versions. We also have our first quad format comparison gallery for you to pore over.

Our PC and Xbox 360 assets are based on our work on the existing Black Ops 2 Face-Off, but as Treyarch has released a patch to remove some of the excessive blurring from the PlayStation 3 game, we went back and recaptured that in order to give the most up-to-date comparisons (the original Face-Off has been updated too with the latest video).

Pretty much everything we said about the image quality on Xbox 360 in the original Face-Off applies here with the Wii U version - it's a remarkably close conversion, from a visual perspective at least. While the PC game provides the benchmark, Treyarch's upscaling algorithms work just as well as they do on Xbox 360, providing a good, clean presentation - quite remarkable bearing in mind just how extensive the horizontal upscale actually is. Despite the removal of the additional blurring added in the 1.02 patch, both Wii U and 360 are still a class apart from the more compromised PlayStation 3 version. One minor difference concerns v-sync - the Wii U version has no tearing whatsoever, while the PS3 and 360 games occasionally tear right at the top of the screen (this is basically unnoticeable during gameplay though).

Performance analysis - Wii U struggles to compete

So far, so good. In terms of visual quality, Wii U has established itself alongside the more refined of the two HD console versions. Unfortunately, when it comes to performance, the Wii U release has some serious issues, falling way short of the locked 60FPS goal both Infinity Ward and Treyarch aim for in their Call of Duty offerings. This can be illustrated fairly easily: our existing PS3/360/PC Face-Off features two console analysis videos - the first features like-for-like footage, based mostly on engine-driven cut-scenes and environment traversal, while a second test concentrates on raw gameplay captures culled from the same areas, and is more indicative of in-game performance. We de-archived those streams and added Wii U to the mix.

First up, let's take a look at the like-for-like video, which allows us to directly compare engine performance when the renderer of each version is being subjected to almost identical levels of stress. The results are very interesting indeed, reaffirming the Xbox 360's dominance in terms of performance and leaving the Wii U and PlayStation 3 battling it out for the runner-up position.

What's interesting about the read-out overall is that similar events can stress all three engines, but it's the extent to which frame-rates are impacted that varies dramatically. The initial scene doesn't look too promising for Wii U: indeed, we see three distinct performance bands - Xbox 360 at the top, PS3 in the middle and the new Nintendo console right at the bottom. It's clear that plenty of characters and full-screen transparencies are particular Achilles Heels for the Wii U, a state of affairs that persists in further clips later on. However, beyond that we see a fairly close match for the PlayStation 3 version in other scenarios and occasionally it even pulls ahead of the Sony platform.

"The cut-scene and traversal comparison brutally highlights the areas in which Wii U struggles to match the Xbox 360 - high levels of on-screen characters clearly cause issues."

Like-for-like video analysis demonstrates that Xbox 360 commands a clear performance lead, with Wii U and PS3 battling it out for second place. Full-screen transparencies and lots of player characters prove too much for the Nintendo hardware, however.

In every COD game we've looked at since Infinity Ward's groundbreaking work in the original Modern Warfare, we've seen an Xbox 360 advantage over the PlayStation 3 versions. Up until now, our supposition has been that the architecture thrives on the more powerful Xenos graphics core in the Microsoft platform. However, in Wii U we now find ourselves looking at a console with what we're told possesses a significant bump in GPU performance over the old AMD design in the 360, and yet the veteran hardware still commands an easy lead. Lack of experience with the new console and work-in-progress dev tools will play a part in these results, but it could well be that the Wii U's lacklustre CPU is also a contributory factor.

Looking at the gameplay analysis lends a lot more weight to that theory, with the general gulf in performance between the Wii U and the PS3/360 versions opening up significantly. Like-for-like video is great for direct comparisons in engine performance, but actual in-game analysis obviously has more relevance to how well the game plays. This is crucial for Call of Duty, where the interface between player and machine is defined by the low latency controls, which in turn are governed by the 60FPS target frame-rate. The Xbox 360's performance continues to dominate, but the gap does close a little here with PlayStation 3. Unfortunately, the opposite is true with Wii U, which struggles palpably in any scene where a lot of characters are in the area, or when taxing effects work is at play.

On a general level, Treyarch's work with the single-player campaign is ambitious - certainly in terms of concept, but definitely with regards to technology: exceptional dynamic lighting, some beautiful effects work, enclosed interior and sprawling exterior locations along with superb character rendering are just some of the highlights. For a game to look this good and to run at a perceptual 60FPS on console is a substantial achievement - but the fact that the Wii U falls so short of the expected standard during gameplay is a real disappointment.

"In the more ambitious campaign levels, the Wii U has real issues getting close to Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 levels of performance. Frame-rates are highly variable."

While Wii U matches PS3 performance in a range of gameplay scenes, the more ambitious levels bring performance down to unacceptably low levels.

Perhaps the biggest takeaway from the video is to look at the Wii U version in isolation and to take in the peaks and troughs - the delta here is often immense, and clearly more pronounced than it is on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. Lower frame-rates translate directly into muggier response from the controls, but players can "acclimatise" to higher levels of input lag and it won't bother them so much - generally speaking, consistency is the key. The problem with Black Ops 2 on Wii U is that the variance is so dramatic and changes so often that poor response becomes that much more apparent than it does on the other platforms. We had concerns that stereo 3D would be a complete write-off based on these results (3D already features a substantial frame-rate hit on both 360 and PS3) but the feature is omitted on Wii U, which is perhaps for the best.

There is some good news, however. In terms of rendering, the multiplayer component of the game poses far fewer challenges than the campaign, meaning that you get an experience that is very, very close to the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions of the game. You just need to bear in mind that the Wii U's online community is pretty sparse at the moment, and that COD may not be its focus. To put things into perspective, during our online testing there were 321,502 concurrent players online with the PlayStation 3 version of the game. Curiously, that beat out the Xbox 360 version, which clocked in at 282,683. The Wii U version could only boast 452 players. Now granted, the Wii U has only just been released in the US and the timezone difference would factor into that. While we would expect that number to grow significantly once the system is out in Europe, it's safe to say that the community isn't really there yet. This may not necessarily be a bad thing - it may even give those with little COD experience an easier ride as they get to know the game, but it does mean that there's a ghost-town feel to some of the modes.

Black Ops 2 - what does the tablet do?

For the duration of the single-player campaign, it's fair to say that the GamePad isn't exactly put to much use. However, you can mirror the HDTV output onto the tablet display at any point, meaning that in a living room environment you don't need to hog the main screen; you can detach at any point and continue to play simply by pressing an on-screen button on the touch-screen. As we mentioned in the main Wii U review, range is generally pretty good and the GamePad works through walls too, to a certain extent at least. It's a feature that isn't deployed on every game for obvious reasons, but where PS3/360 ports are concerned, we'd definitely like to see it implemented as standard.

Bearing in mind that Black Ops 2 runs with a somewhat variable frame-rate (in contrast to New Super Mario Bros U, which is locked to 60Hz), we thought this would be a good opportunity to see if the mirroring function incurs any kind of further performance hit when the system is servicing two screens. Mobile hardware tends to have bandwidth issues resulting in frame-rate drops when external mirroring is enabled, but the good news is that we could spot no difference at all on Wii U when we analysed HDMI streams running with mirroring both enabled and disabled.

"Does GamePad mirroring impact on Wii U system performance? Thankfully, evidence suggests not."

We played through the initial campaign level with GamePad mirroring enabled and disabled and found that performance between both runs was basically a match. There were some small variations, possibly caused by the varying effects work - but nothing you'd notice while playing the game.

In multiplayer modes, the tablet does gain some additional functionality. The mini-map runs on the touch-screen, you can adjust classes without pressing the start button and you can even access ScoreStreaks too. It sounds like a good bonus, but in some cases we see the same problem here that we find with many of the other Wii U titles - it's a matter of focus. Making use of the touch-screen functionality in-game takes away your attention from the main screen where gameplay is hosted - effectively making you vulnerable at those points.

Where Treyarch deserves credit is for the expansion to the local multiplayer options, specifically in terms of split-screen. While the standard two-player mode of the existing console version is supported, the Wii U has an excellent alternative: discrete screens for each participant - HDTV output for one player, GamePad for the other.

This mode - indeed, split-screen in general - is not without its trades. Frame-rate definitely takes a hit (which varies according to the map and definitely muddies controller response), but resolution is maintained and the only noticeable visual downgrade comes from the removal of dynamic shadows. Even this isn't quite as impactful as it sounds as shadows "baked" into the environments are still there.

"Tablet usage could have been better in the campaign but the multiplayer split-screen situation is impressive - one gamer takes the main screen while the other uses the tablet."

Split-screen gaming in Wii U Black Ops 2 is rather cool - one gamer takes the main display while the other uses the GamePad (traditional split-screen is also supported). While performance is impacted, just about the only noticeable difference on-screen comes from the removal of dynamic shadowmaps.

Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 on Wii U - the Digital Foundry verdict

Speaking to a developer the other day, we heard a story that Treyarch put so much effort into optimising for console that the original Black Ops left just 1MB of free disc space on the Xbox 360 DVD. It's indicative of the ways in which studios are pushing the current hardware to its limits, and with Black Ops 2 it's clear that Treyarch has put even more effort into optimising results for the current-gen platforms to the point where the single-player campaign is a truly remarkable technical achievement and a fantastic slice of gunplay to boot.

The Wii U version matches the look of the Xbox 360 game and thus gives it an edge visually over the PlayStation 3 release, but unfortunately it comes up well short in terms of performance - an aspect that is all-important to the playability of a COD title. The frame-rate variance is such that the PS3 game feels generally smoother, while the 360 release feels like an entirely different game in the more demanding levels. Bearing in mind the commonalities in hardware design between Wii U and Xbox 360, we can't help but feel somewhat disappointed that Black Ops 2 under-performs so noticeably.

True, Treyarch have had years to optimise the COD engine for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 and would not have had this luxury in preparing the game for Wii U. Furthermore, on a basic level, Black Ops 2 itself would have been designed with no regard for the Nintendo hardware. That said, we find it hard to blame the developer here - we have seen generational leaps in CPU, GPU and RAM technology since the launch of the Xbox 360 seven years ago, and for the Wii U hardware to under-perform to this extent on such a crucially important game doesn't look good for future prospects. Bearing in mind the specific areas that are causing the most noticeable dips in performance, once again it looks like the CPU is the main bottleneck.

Still, on the plus side, the multiplayer component of the game has emerged unscathed - if that's your focus, and you're willing to be patient for the online audience to grow in number, Black Ops 2 on Wii U is still worthy of consideration. The game also illustrates rather nicely the application of the GamePad for a new form of split-screen gaming, while tablet mirroring really is a sweet feature that we hope more developers embrace.

Posted on Nov 26, 2012, 3:06:09 PM PST
Uncle Ulty says:
My friend had a similar issue with a high end GPU and crappy CPU in his computer that he built. Seems a bit weird for a major company like Nintendo to do something like this.

From what I hear the higher the resolution the more work the GPU picks up and the faster it runs, like his computer would run slower at 720p than at 1080p. Weird.

Posted on Nov 26, 2012, 4:28:05 PM PST
Nintendo, I love you but, your decision to limit something as incredibly important as a CPU just confounds me. I'm sure developers will learn how to program around it and fix it, but, they shouldn't have to.

Posted on Nov 26, 2012, 4:40:59 PM PST
Rami says:
As soon as Wii U starts pumping out native 1080p games, the workload will switch almost entirely to the GPU and the so called "underpowered cpu" argument will be rendered invalid.

The higher the resolution, the more irrelevant the CPU is. That's why I game at 2560x1440 with a GTX680 paired with a "weak" Phenom 1090t and get Intel i7 performance level in games.

Posted on Nov 26, 2012, 5:01:10 PM PST
It's all true and undeniable, but with new hardware and especially a new architecture it really depends on the dedication and skill of the programmers. We've heard conflicting events on how it is to program on Wii U. Those that ported Darksiders 2 said it took only a matter of weeks to get the full game up and running while those that did Mass Effect 3 said they had a great deal of difficulty. You even have developers that worked on Trine 2 that say the Goblin Menace would need downgrading to run on PS3/360, but runs full force on Wii U.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 26, 2012, 5:04:26 PM PST
Admittedly, I know little about the relationship between the GPU and CPU when it comes to higher resolutions, so if your point is indeed valid, then that's awesome.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 26, 2012, 6:31:48 PM PST
Aku says:
On Mass Effect 3: the port guys only did one other game before, and that was for iOS. I dunno why everyone keeps pointing to that game as if the industry's greatest minds were universally baffled by Nintendo's alien/outdated/backwards hardware.

Posted on Nov 26, 2012, 6:49:17 PM PST
HorizonBrave says:
But, but .. promises!!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 26, 2012, 6:57:33 PM PST
Aku says:
As sadly hilarious as that E3 was, Nintendo holds higher shame with the 2008 showing. As a Nintendo fanboy myself, I had to vanish from the internet for a week or so after this happened:


In reply to an earlier post on Nov 26, 2012, 7:11:38 PM PST
HorizonBrave says:
Hahaha, that's pure gold man, pure gold.
I should create a thread dedicated to stuff like this. Don't worry, I don't side with any company, I just happened to remember the Sony E3 first.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 26, 2012, 7:48:06 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 26, 2012, 7:59:51 PM PST
got mayo?™ says:
That would hold true for DX11 based games.

Dx9 games tend to be more CPU intensive than DX11 games because the pipelines are accessed differently.

Whether all you'll ever see from the Wii U is Dx9 based games will remain to be seen, but if all the platform will be pushed for is ports like these, then it doesn't bode we'll for the Wii U to handle these type of games.

The Wii u has a low clock speed tri core processor, not sure how you compare that to a 6 core or i7 with a $500 GPu. Talk about apples and oranges...lol what is cake for modern gaming parts is not quite that for a barebones console.

1080p games will be rare on the Wii u because it frankly not powerful enough. It obviously had trouble maintaining performance sub 720p with 2x msaa in this circumstance despite the familiar architecture and larger available pool of ram...so couple that with the fact that blops 2 demands a decent quad core on PC , it has to be the CPU.

So the question becomes...if it can't run CoD , can it run Crysis? :p

Posted on Nov 26, 2012, 7:56:20 PM PST
The SNES had a huge CPU bottleneck versus the Genesis.

Posted on Nov 26, 2012, 8:29:44 PM PST
DVvM says:
Well, something's got to be a bottleneck. For the PS3 and the Xbox 360 it's the memory, for the Wii-U it's the CPU. You're never going to be able to ship a piece of hardware where everything is perfectly balanced for anything anybody wants to do on it.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 26, 2012, 8:43:34 PM PST
Yeah, but in this instance, a supposedly brand new console is not even able to run previous gen games.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 26, 2012, 8:47:52 PM PST
DVvM says:
In what sense can't the Wii-U run previous generation games? I mean, BlOps2 doesn't work as well on the Wii-U as the 360, sure. But Skyrim doesn't run as well on the PS3 as it does on the 360. Does that mean the PS3 is incapable of running current generation games?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 26, 2012, 8:54:19 PM PST
Not only that but Bethesda had worked with the PS3 before, developed the PS3 version alongside the 360 version where in the case of Black Ops 2 on the Wii-U this is basically the 360 version ported over directly without the team taking much time to optimize and balance things out. Just look at how the Wii-U version doesn't include live streaming, Elite, and other things which is a clear sign the team didn't spend much time there.

I'll start worrying about the CPU issue when I see games suffering that are developed for the Wii-U alongside the 360, PS3, and whatever comes after them.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 26, 2012, 9:14:12 PM PST
DVvM says:
Yeah, there's no real point in worrying about "the Wii-U can't run this" until games that actually get a full development cycle with the Wii-U in mind start having problems.

But if you bought a Wii-U, you probably didn't buy it to play Call of Duty on anyway.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 26, 2012, 9:21:41 PM PST
There are definitely some interesting results here though since Nintendo was building the Wii-U to be a simple to port too console but that isn't always going to be the case.

Launch titles are always a rush job in a sense and developers are also just getting a feel for what any new platform can do. I've always found it odd how people tend to jump all over launch titles as if that is going to be any indicator of what the rest of the consoles life span will be.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 26, 2012, 9:26:26 PM PST
AndrewA says:
Well people are people. We expect the shiny new object to blow us away right off the bat, and when it doesn't, we hate it.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 26, 2012, 9:31:25 PM PST
I'm finding the Gamepad to be fairly impressive and how well it works. From Netflix, the Miiverse, internet browsing, playing games like Mario on it, even the TV remote function is really impressive in my opinion. In fact I've got the Gamepad in my room right now and the console is on the other side of the apartment. At night while I'm watching Netflix on my 360 I'll be checking out the Miiverse or playing Mario no problem.

Also I don't quite get where people feel like they get lost looking from the Gamepad to the TV. I constantly see people say they have to look at their lap when it isn't hard to raise the controller up so you can easily see both. I do it all the time in ZombiU and it works great. I'm constantly moving my eyes from the TV to the Gamepad checking my radar, where I've marked stuff on my map, going through my inventory, and more. The Gamepad is light and mobile for a reason lol.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 26, 2012, 9:38:59 PM PST
DVvM says:
I've honestly never been blown away by a console right at launch. Intrigued? Sure, but blown away? Never.

Posted on Nov 26, 2012, 9:44:13 PM PST
Modern Bear says:
It's official, the Wii-U is a failure. Let the rotting on shelves at Target begin. Now that Nintendo is bankrupt we can we can move on to more important things like arguing over the next generation Xbox and Playstation for the next 7 years.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 26, 2012, 9:50:39 PM PST
AndrewA says:
What did you expect when you got one tho?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 26, 2012, 9:57:16 PM PST
DVvM says:
Well, the lack of "that's amazing" is why I don't buy consoles at launch.

I allow the amazement to come from games 2-3 years later.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Video Games forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Star Wars Rogue One vs COD: Infinte Warefare 1 7 hours ago
What B movie script will Naughty Dog churn out with TLOU2? 61 7 hours ago
Happy mother's day 17 7 hours ago
I was bitten by a turtle when I was a young lad 17 7 hours ago
Amazon is withholding physical copies of games to prevent preorder discount 77 7 hours ago
OT: How to redeem Amazon store credit statement? 2 8 hours ago
Destiny1.5 VGF Clan v10.0/ 4154 8 hours ago
How's everybody been? Long time no see. 13 8 hours ago
PC version of Final Fantasy IX rated by PEGI for PS4 18 8 hours ago
Metroid: Samus returns impressions! 19 8 hours ago
Fortnite Briefly Allowed Cross-Platform Play Between Xbox One And PS4 9 8 hours ago
OT: Week 2 In the NFL - Who said Zeke wasn't back? Obviously they were wrong. WHO YA GOT! 52 9 hours ago

This discussion

Discussion in:  Video Games forum
Participants:  26
Total posts:  109
Initial post:  Nov 26, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 28, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer