Wii U processing speed “a little bit” low compared to 360 and PS3, says Harada

Wednesday, 11th July 2012 20:56 GMT By Stephany Nunneley

Tekken producer Katsuhiro Harada has said the graphical power of Wii U is about the same as PS3 and Xbox 360, but the CPU is a bit slower. Speaking with Digital Spy, Harada said despite this, it’s not that big of an issue. “As far as graphical processing and such, it’s not much of an issue, but as far as the CPU goes, the clock is kinda low. I guess they’re trying to keep power consumption down so we have to come up with creative ways to get around that and that’s taking a little bit of time.” On the Tekken Tag Tournament 2 front, Harada said he’s planning to release the Wii U version of the game “as close as possible” to the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions, which release on September 14.



  1. Erthazus

    Lol? This is real?

    Processor is the the Most important part of the console. Processing power is the most important part for console’s life span.

    This is a much bigger deal than “No multitouch” on the Nintendo’s Kitchen sink aka GamePad.
    So it’s not even close to 2005-2006 machines. Yeeeaaah.

    #1 3 years ago
  2. daytripper

    If good games are on the machine I’ll get it, for better visuals I’ll go PC/ps4/next Xbox

    #2 3 years ago
  3. The_Red

    Lower clock speed doesn’t always mean slower process but yeah, this is rather disappointing but not as big as “no multitouch”. That just unacceptable.

    #3 3 years ago
  4. OlderGamer

    Not worried.

    #4 3 years ago
  5. Clupula

    Is there anything about this system that doesn’t scream disaster?

    #5 3 years ago
  6. Ireland Michael

    Who cares? All that matters is if the games are any good.

    #6 3 years ago
  7. Christopher Jack

    @6, You can’t deny that limited performance also limits the potential.
    The current Wii is more than capable of dumbing down most of todays games graphics, but there’s more to it than textures that gets effected by weak hardware.

    #7 3 years ago
  8. Ireland Michael

    @7 “You can’t deny that limited performance also limits the potential.”

    No, it doesn’t.

    “Limited” performance (which was yesterday’s innovation) has never been necessary for good gameplay.


    #8 3 years ago
  9. The_Red

    That’s where you’re wrong. “Limited” performance of NES and Master System meant NO to FPS games. Heck, even Genesis had problems with original Doom. Same goes for MGS1. SNES and Genesis could never run it. PS1 and N64 could never run something like Shadow of the Colossus. So, yeah, more power CAN be necessary for good gameplay.

    Good gameplay needs a good design but many gameplay related items like AI or physics rely on performance. Also, you are forgetting about immersion. For many games like Alan Wake, immersion IS the gameplay. The kind of immersion and atmosphere in AW couldn’t happen on a last gen system like Wii. Then there are simulation games where realism in graphics and physics IS the gameplay.

    #9 3 years ago
  10. Erthazus

    Agree with everything “The_Red” said.

    Great example can be with PS2-Ps3 too. Assassins Creed game was impossible on the PS2 hardware for example but it is possible on the Ps3/Xbox 360 architecture.

    Technology should not limit devs. Technology is a tool for great games.

    #10 3 years ago
  11. OrbitMonkey

    And the real world fails to give a fuck, leaving the hardcore clutching their spec sheets and moaning “But Captain it doon’t have tha power!!”

    We’ve yet to see Ninty’s marketing blitz yet and thats a force more powerful than a million doubting forum commentator’s.

    #11 3 years ago
  12. fearmonkey

    @11 LMAO – that was pretty funny :)Sadly though, I agree with you.

    I admit to being the guy clutching the spec sheets but not for Nintendo. Nintendo doesn’t need the biggest specs, I don’t think that is going to hurt them.

    What has hurt them is no Super Mario 64 type of game which I was waiting for, and many others wished for that too. The hardcore Nintendo fans will get it but I’ll wait on a Wii-u until it has that, and by that time MS and maybe Sony will have something new out.

    That being said, MS and Sony better have better than a 6670 GPU on the next gen!!

    #12 3 years ago
  13. The_Red


    Even legendary Nintendo games like Mario 64 would have never existed if they had stayed with the “limited performance” of SNES. Different games have different needs. Sure, a 2D Mario might not need top tier PC power / PS4 / Xbox 720 stuff but what about the Empire Total War. Aside from mouse requirement, there’s no way you can enjoy games like that without some serious processing power to render the game at its essential glory.

    I’m really tired of people trying to downplay importance of visuals in games. Many people including myself and #10 actually have BETTER gameplay experience when certain games look at their best. Certain games like Retro City Rampage are fun BECAUSE of their 8-bit graphics just as stuff like Empire Total War or Forza 4 are fun because of their extremely complicated visuals or super strong physics.

    In short: FUCK saying “graphics aren’t important compared to gameplay”. Gamers should stop using that stupid excuse for dated looking games. That’s just it. An excuse.
    EVERY aspect of a game should be at its best. Gameplay, Sound, Music, GRAPHICS and the rest. They all matter and in some regards, all of the others (Sound, visuals…) ADD to gameplay.

    #13 3 years ago
  14. fearmonkey

    @13 – I agree with you, but your not going to convince the gamers that parrot the “graphics don’t matter” mantra.

    It’s more than just simply better textures, lighting and polygon counts on objects, it’s better animation, better physics, more objects on the screen, better AI, and better Sound/music options.

    Games like Skyrim look great now, but the world is mostly barren when it comes to life. A few foxes, wolves, bears, and deer but the world doesn’t really feel alive. Better water physics for more realistic waves and motion, more particles for explosions, spells, and events.

    Same thing with games like GTA, each game gets better but we haven’t yet hit that tons of people in a city feeling really.

    Does it make the game actually better, maybe not, but to those who like immersion; better graphics, physics, and lighting make a world of difference.

    #14 3 years ago
  15. CPC_RedDawn

    Most of you complaining that CPU processing power is the most important thing you are VERY VERY wrong.

    As long as the architecture is efficient and has a decent amount of L2 and L3 cache then it will be fine. Just look at AMD CPU’s now compared to Intel. Most of AMD’s have more cores and are clocked higher (upto 4.2GHz at stock now) and they are mostly not as fast or efficent as Intel’s.

    Also, everyone knows that nowadays games are more GPU dependant that CPU depended seen as we have entered HD gaming. More pixels to render the graphics power needed, the physics and A.I are all going to stay the same. But the shader/pixel/and geometry calculations are all going to rise the higher you up the resolution, anti aliasing, etc. As long as they opt for 720p as a standard and slap at least 1GB a VRAM onto whatever GPU chip they have in there it will do just fine.

    #15 3 years ago
  16. CPC_RedDawn

    @14 – fearmonkey : “Games like Skyrim look great now, but the world is mostly barren when it comes to life. A few foxes, wolves, bears, and deer but the world doesn’t really feel alive. Better water physics for more realistic waves and motion, more particles for explosions, spells, and events.”

    You obviously have not played Skyrim on PC maxed out with graphics and texture mods enabled.

    #16 3 years ago
  17. fearmonkey

    @16 – I have the PC version and a high end card, and the mods do indeed look great, but my point was regarding Skyrim on consoles not the PC.
    (and it still doesn’t have the animal-insect life I was talking about, though you can increase it but its not the same)

    And your right with your post above that games are more GPU than CPU dependent, but that changes when you add online play, more physics, more characters on the screen, better animation, and sound options etc.

    #17 3 years ago
  18. Cangriman

    @9- I agree to some extend of what you said. This is for everyone but I quote you because of what you wrote.

    I have been visiting vg for a very long time, but it seen that every time I want to post something it doesn’t let me. So while I know who are all the regulars and such, I haven’t have the opportunity to be part of the community because of what I said. So hopefully this post can be read.

    While I agree that most of those game couldn’t be done because of the “limited” performance, I failed to see something. How come with the current-gen we haven’t see a jump in gameplay like when 2D went to 3D. We still are playing games that their core mechanics were creating years ago with the fifth generation. And since you guys mentioned GTA, if innovation were limited by performance, how come GTAIV still play the same as GT3? So what was the excuse for this generation? Limited performace? But wasn’t that the excuse of previous generation?

    Now, if innovation were limited by hardware, how come the PC market is not leading the gaming industry? Why does Skyrim play the same way on PC as on console? If PC is more powerful, and we know it is, why there is not innovation in that platform. Why the PC is not innovating the way we play, why there is not new standard for all the genre?

    This generation is all about graphics, sadly, multiplayer, and DLC. And I can tell that the next generation will be the same. While many people said gameplay is more important that graphics, we still haven’t seen something new in a long while. We are in a industry of copy and paste, if someone find a good selling formula, everyone wants to copy it, or be a [insert name] killer. Like in this case CoD, we are still playing the same game as when CoD4 was released, yet people still buy it, and everyone wants to copy it. Gamers scream innovation, but when a game with innovation is release, no one wants to buy it.

    What is the point of having better texture, physics, more characters on the screen, better animation, and sound, and anything else you want to add, if were are still playing games that their core mechanics were created years ago? But now we played them with a new coat of color, and added feature, but still the same standard. Hopefully I’m wrong and the next-gen will be bring new stuff to the table.

    #18 3 years ago
  19. wania01

    @18 – The PC isnt leading the market because of the price. While it doesnt cost as much as people think, it still does cost more for a gaming PC. A console is a simple box where u buy it and youre set. Thats one reason. Since console sales have grown so large, many developers and publishers focus on consoles rather than the PC. Its all about money. You cant except the PC to just innovate, to put it….awkwardly. Developers cant develop 4 different versions of a game, for each console. Thats not how it works. Not enough man power.

    Consoles are whats slowing everything down. While more “next-gen” engines are being built to accommodate next-gen consoles, there are some next-gen engines right now that suck on consoles. The Metro 2033 engine can’t be used for anything on a console. If you can you should play that. Now Frostbite 2 from EA. Compare BF3 on the PC to consoles. Map size and the amount of players is limited on consoles. They cant handle it. Bigger and better engines means bigger and better worlds. More ways to play. Next-gen engines dont just mean next-gen visuals. It may stay that way for a little longer but thats because people still buy the shit thats thrown in their face. I like now Black Ops 2 gives players “choice” by letting them snipe or use a rifle for two minutes in the game. GREAT WAY TO PROVIDE GAMERS WITH CHOICE…

    Theres a lot more to it. Games will soon change though. Im sure im not the only one that has been sick of the same shit over and over again in the games that have released in the past couple years. But just keep in mind, its all about the money.

    #19 3 years ago
  20. Telepathic.Geometry

    @Cangriman: We can see your post fine so don’t worry. :)

    I think that the jump this generation from last was mostly fidelity, as far as PS3 and 360 go, motion controls as far as the Wii was concerned, and the rise in online gaming and downloadable bite-sized/indie gaming.

    All four changes DID have a big effect on gaming. I think that the graphical fidelity allowed games like Dead Space, Bioshock and (say) Skyrim to transport the gamer into that world. You can say it’s superficial, but I think it really has an effect on the gamer.

    Also, the Wii gave me some of the finest gaming experiences ever, including Excite Truck, Metroid Prime 3 and Geometry Wars Galaxies (I still say it plays better with a wiimote).

    Downloadable games have allowed me, when I really get busy, to keep on enjoying high quality gaming without having to commit to a big gaming session, or get up off my couch for that matter.

    And finally, online gaming. I’m not a CoD type, but I’ve had some incredibly satisfying gaming experiences taking down demons and rogue players alike in both Demon’s Souls and Dark Souls, and other games like Borderlands and Portal 2 really helped me appreciate what an enjoyable element of gaming online can be.

    So that was the benefit of last generation. I think it was very significant. The question is now, what the fuck is the next generation going to do?

    I don’t think that Nintendo needs to build a PS4 beater of a console, but considering that they need to support a TV screen AND the tablet controller (and possibly two), I think that they actually need a console appreciably more powerful than a 360 or a PS3.

    I know that Nintendo will make good games and will make profit this generation too, they always do, don’t they, and I don’t care about console power as a general rule, but I don’t want the console to be limited by penny-pinching suits in Kyoto who are satisfied to scrimp on the console power and then pass the engineering problems on to some poor bastard dev to solve.

    #20 3 years ago
  21. DrDamn

    “How come with the current-gen we haven’t see a jump in gameplay like when 2D went to 3D.”

    We have but it’s been in a different space to graphics. This generation has been about the explosion of online elements in games and is as significant in impact as 2D to 3D for me. Not simply the easy at which you can play against friends but also the less obvious elements. Asynchronous online play, challenges, global scoreboards, interesting takes of what online means and can be used for like Demon’s Souls, Dragon’s Dogma.

    XBLA/PSN releases have also been big this generation. Cheaper, easy access, demos as standard. Big advances over the previous generation and a really good level of innovation and variety in gameplay experiences as a result.

    On a more general level the core gameplay mechanics of the more standard genres have remained the same but there have been big advances in AI, physics and control mechanics made possible by the extra horsepower under the hood. These have enabled a lot of new and refined gameplay experiences. Stuff we take for granted as the transition has been more progressive, but things that are very apparent when you go back to older titles.

    #21 3 years ago
  22. ManuOtaku

    “I guess they’re trying to keep power consumption down so we have to come up with creative ways to get around that and that’s taking a little bit of time.”
    Its seems to me based on the quoted above, that it is lower on purpose, because they are experimenting with what it can do, and what cant, remember is two images this console will be supporting,not a common thing for consoles, therefore i think a lot of testing is needed, and maybe they are multiple reasons for this, but one thing is clear they are experimenting with it.

    #22 3 years ago
  23. poketrainer

    This means nothing. A newer piece of tech will more than likely destroy the 360/PS3′s CPU even at lower speeds. Why are people ignoring this? This is like saying your Core 2 Duo at 3.2Ghz is superior to your Core i7 at 2.4Ghz.

    Jeez people.

    #23 2 years ago
  24. Psychotext

    Probably because he said that they’ve had to use creative solutions just to get it to work (and that it’s not like the PS3 solution where the tech is just exotic)… doesn’t really sound like it’s going to destroy the 360 / PS3 CPUs. Just sounds like they’ve chosen a cheap, low power CPU to go with a much more capable (and by all accounts it is) GPU.

    People are getting too hung up on the clock speed aspect without actually reading into what was written. Though it doesn’t help that the full quote isn’t in the article I guess:

    “For example on PS3 it was kind of difficult at first, but if you made good use of the different cores, you could split up the processing tasks and you could achieve very good effects. But this is kind of a different issue than that.”

    #24 2 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.