Author Topic: More purported Wii specs  (Read 2428 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline thejeek

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
More purported Wii specs
« on: July 31, 2006, 11:38:09 PM »
Yet more claimed Wii specs here: (specs at maxconsole.com). These are basically the IGN 729MHz Broadway/243MHz Hollywood specs but there's more detail here, including specifics on memory. No idea of reliability of this site - I found it through beyond3d.com

Offline GoldenPhoenix

  • Now it's a party!
  • Score: 42
    • View Profile
RE:More purported Wii specs
« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2006, 11:58:04 PM »
Yeah I looked at that, and personally I find it suspect. How does such a small site get sources like that? Even at that, I am always cautious of all "Unnamed" sources, whether they be from that site or IGN.
Switch Friend Code: SW-4185-3173-1144

Offline BlackNMild2k1

  • Animal Crossing Hustler
  • Score: 410
    • View Profile
RE:More purported Wii specs
« Reply #2 on: August 01, 2006, 04:25:05 AM »
Official Wii Rumor thread

just had to let you know that I already posted them.

Offline thejeek

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: More purported Wii specs
« Reply #3 on: August 01, 2006, 01:25:40 PM »
I agree they're probably suspect - I really only posted them for completeness sake. I have problems with several points - including mixture of GDDR3 + 1T memory, lockable L1 cache, CPU specs look like PPC 750 but claim out of order execution (pretty sure 750 is in order) etc. etc.


Offline nemo_83

  • Dream Master
  • Score: -1
    • View Profile
RE:More purported Wii specs
« Reply #4 on: August 01, 2006, 04:38:50 PM »
a birdy threw out the strange (exact) number of 96MB in passing the other day when talking about the Wii
Life is like a hurricane-- here in Duckburg

Offline thejeek

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:More purported Wii specs
« Reply #5 on: August 01, 2006, 07:16:20 PM »
96MB would be odd, given that backwards compatibilty needs 3MB embedded frame buffer + texture cache - 99MB total would be more plausible, I guess. Or perhaps this birdie meant 96MB, excluding embedded GPU memory?