View Full Version : Revolution in June?
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/revolution/index.php#euro-revolution-begins-15-june-2006-118391
BlueTsunami
22-Aug-2005, 18:46
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/revolution/index.php#euro-revolution-begins-15-june-2006-118391
Hmmm...if that article hold true, than the speculated Revolution price would be in the $299 range.
BOOMEXPLODE
22-Aug-2005, 19:28
But remember MS is at $299 with their basic system, and Nintendo usually has the cheapest hardware. Based on recent-past statements by them I expect that will continue with Revolution. =]
Also expect price drops when PS3 launches. I could see MS dropping XBox 360 (basic) to $250. So I would say ~$200 for Revolution.
darkblu
22-Aug-2005, 20:19
i'd take that news with a shovel of salt. merchants do no appear to be the most credible release date sources these days. my local toy'r'us has big flyers and kiosks all over the place about a christmas zelda release with preorders. wishful thinking in combination with slow reaction times..
PC-Engine
22-Aug-2005, 20:21
I can only envision Revolution at $300 with a pack-in game. $249 without a game would be my guess.
i'd take that news with a shovel of salt. merchants do no appear to be the most credible release date sources these days. my local toy'r'us has big flyers and kiosks all over the place about a christmas zelda release with preorders. wishful thinking in combination with slow reaction times..
Yep, wasn't it Amazon who priced PS3 at $299 as well?
Exactly - these merchants just take their 'best guess' and start booking your pre-order revenue as soon as they can. For whatever reason, in this past year it's gone totally out of control. Remember the DS pre-launch? Retailers were openly admitting they had no idea what the actual launch price would be, but they were selling the systems and saying they would either refund or charge extra when the price was finally announced.
I have to agree with most people here that this Amazon release date for Rev really isn't worth much. Its most likely total guess from in order to get pre-orders started.
Anyway the other Revolution thread got locked (for very little reason AFAICS). Since this thread is about Revolution and release dates (and seems to be dead anyway) I'll respond here. .
First, Gamecube came out 18 months after PS2 (march 2000 vs September 2001).
I did think we were discussing US release dates here. PS2 released in the US on the 26th of October 2000, GameCube released in the US on 18th November 2001. But lets say we use Japanese release dates as a guideline and accept that Nintendo needed 1 and a half years to make a much smaller much cheaper system more powerful then its competition (which is dubious IMO). In that case 1 year would surely be enough to make a much smaller cheaper system as powerful as the competition.
And second, Gamecube lags the PS2 in certain aspects powerwise (useful RAM count: 24MB vs 32MB, maximum set up and drawn polys: 32M v 66M, Most of the T and L capabilities of GC is fixed, etc...)
In the end GameCube is a more powerful system and that's all that matters in this case, nit picking into indivudual specs doesn't change that.
Magnum PI
23-Aug-2005, 23:32
In the end GameCube is a more powerful system and that's all that matters in this case, nit picking into indivudual specs doesn't change that.
I fail to see in the other thread the demonstration of the gamecube being more powerful than the PS2.
Every fact that i remember seeing on this board seemed to show otherwise.
For example there was some benchmark of the current gen consoles from electronic arts.
Powderkeg
24-Aug-2005, 00:06
I fail to see in the other thread the demonstration of the gamecube being more powerful than the PS2.
Every fact that i remember seeing on this board seemed to show otherwise.
For example there was some benchmark of the current gen consoles from electronic arts.
I don't think you could definitively say either is more powerful. One is better in some areas, the other is better in others. For every example you could give of one system doing something the other can't, I could give you an example of the opposite.
It's a give and take, and each went a slightly different direction. You may have a personal preference or opinion, but it should not be mistaken for fact.
function
24-Aug-2005, 00:10
But lets say we use Japanese release dates as a guideline and accept that Nintendo needed 1 and a half years to make a much smaller much cheaper system more powerful then its competition (which is dubious IMO).
Don't forget that the PS2 used an internal power transformer, a full sized, motorised DVD tray and (except for the very first Asian models) featured an internal HDD bay.
Take this into account, and I thnk the PS2 could have been very close to the GC's size long before the GC launched, though perhaps with a more sophisticated cooling system. I think someone posted a picture of the PS2's main board on here a while back. Suprisingly small, I remember thinking - looked kind of like it might have fit into something like the Dreamcast.
In that case 1 year would surely be enough to make a much smaller cheaper system as powerful as the competition
Depends what happens in that year. If new manufacturing process become available I imgine this could be the case, but if you're stuck using the same one it would probably be much more difficult.
function
24-Aug-2005, 00:20
I don't think you could definitively say either is more powerful. One is better in some areas, the other is better in others. For every example you could give of one system doing something the other can't, I could give you an example of the opposite.
It's a give and take, and each went a slightly different direction. You may have a personal preference or opinion, but it should not be mistaken for fact.
They're probably broadly similar on balance. EA's benchmark figure showed the two as being pretty close in terms of polygon counts.
What's clear from their history is that Nintendo aren't on the same technology curve as their competitors. This isn't an accident, it's a choice, and so it's nothing for Nintendo fans to get defensive about. And given Nintendo's continued ability to make large profits it's something that should be respected, regardless of what you as a consumer like to see hardware vendors pushing for.
They're probably broadly similar on balance. EA's benchmark figure showed the two as being pretty close in terms of polygon counts.
What's clear from their history is that Nintendo aren't on the same technology curve as their competitors. This isn't an accident, it's a choice, and so it's nothing for Nintendo fans to get defensive about. And given Nintendo's continued ability to make large profits it's something that should be respected, regardless of what you as a consumer like to see hardware vendors pushing for.
Oh no, not the infamous EA benchmarks from 2001.. I agree there are situations where each console shines but taking EA's opinion on this matter is like asking my paralyzed uncle which high school has the best running track. It doesn't matter cause they cant take advantage of any of them.
function
24-Aug-2005, 02:25
Oh no, not the infamous EA benchmarks from 2001.. I agree there are situations where each console shines but taking EA's opinion on this matter is like asking my paralyzed uncle which high school has the best running track. It doesn't matter cause they cant take advantage of any of them.
You think EA Canada's technical staff are too stupid to benchmark hardware? Who are you to be taking the piss out of those guys and making references to cripples and running? Why don't you present opposing evidence, and point out exactly where they went wrong in trying to compare the performance out of these machines at pretty standard tasks?
"Ooh, EA suck and so anything they say about consoles must be wrong because they aren't good enough to understand anything."
It isn't luck that got them to and kept them at the no1 publisher spot. Don't confuse business decisions about what to release and how to make it with "their programmers being stupid/useless".
BOOMEXPLODE
24-Aug-2005, 02:40
The only benchmark that really matters is how good the games look.
The only benchmark that really matters is how good the games look.
I disagree .
Games would tell the story if both systems had equal investments int o the games .
But with the ps2 as the platform of choice it wont be a fair comparison
Also your comparing a system that still cost over 300$ per system when the gamecube was released vs the gamecube that cost a little over 200$ at that point .
PRicing will allways play a role .
Powderkeg
24-Aug-2005, 04:50
Also your comparing a system that still cost over 300$ per system when the gamecube was released vs the gamecube that cost a little over 200$ at that point .
PRicing will allways play a role .
If you are comparing power then price has no bearing whatsoever. After all, the PS2 didn't become a more powerful console when the price dropped did it? It was still the same hardware with the same power, right?
PC-Engine
24-Aug-2005, 10:35
Take this into account, and I thnk the PS2 could have been very close to the GC's size long before the GC launched, though perhaps with a more sophisticated cooling system.
The launch PS2's heatsink alone was already HUGE and I'm not talking wide yet thin. I'm talking about a huge brick about 6x3x4".
I think what some people are trying to say is that if Revolution is released at the same time as say Xbox 360 at a lower price in a smaller box, then it would indeed need to be less powerful which is only half true because you have not factored in the how much each is losing per console. If we assume that MS is willing to lose more then yes a $200 Revolution launched at the same time as Xbox 360 will likely need to be less powerful, but I don't think this was ever disputed. Indication is that it will launch a full year after Xbox 360 and may even cost $249.
If it is going to be as powerful as Xbox 360 then why does Nintendo not want to support HD? I understand that it might cost a little extra in terms of outputs and what not, but there really is no reason to go for something as powerful as 360 if you do not plan to support HD.
Shifty Geezer
24-Aug-2005, 11:02
If Revolution is going to be as powerful as the competitors, why are Nntendo saying such things as 'it's not all about the graphics' and 'unlike the other's we're not just trying to make the most powerful console'? If they were to match their rivals in terms of power AND add this 'revolutionary' controller system, surely they'd be making a big noise about both? 'Everything the other consoles are and more...'
Nintendo at present don't seem concerned with sheer horsepower as seen in their recent hardware relases. DS isn't really cutting-age performance technology, and their latest release is another revamp of old technology (which was funny given some people's hope of a mighty handheld GC with support for GC games, and all that appeared was a pricey GBA http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif). If Nintendo can get by with less expensive and thus more profitable hardware, why stick more in there? There's no need, whichi is why, surely, Nintendo are saying 'it's not all about power' and not 'we're as quick as the next guy'.
If it is going to be as powerful as Xbox 360 then why does Nintendo not want to support HD? I understand that it might cost a little extra in terms of outputs and what not, but there really is no reason to go for something as powerful as 360 if you do not plan to support HD.
I think it's the same reason why only 1% of GC owners purchased the component cable. Nintendo figures they can save silicon to either lose less money per unit or sell at a lower price or both. If they sell it for $250, then they could add more silicon somewhere else instead of the GPU for HD.
I fail to see in the other thread the demonstration of the gamecube being more powerful than the PS2. Every fact that i remember seeing on this board seemed to show otherwise. For example there was some benchmark of the current gen consoles from electronic arts.
I didn't say there was any demonstration of GC being more powerful in that thread. There didn't need to be since Shogmaster accepted that GC is a more powerful system (as most people do), or he did initially.
EA's benchmark was worth very little overall. It was a PS2 engine ported to GC in a few months. Yet despite that I remember GC still having a small edge even in that benchmark. Honestly refusing to admit that GC is a more powerful system then PS2 is like refusing to admit that XBox is more powerful then GC.
Don't forget that the PS2 used an internal power transformer, a full sized, motorised DVD tray and (except for the very first Asian models) featured an internal HDD bay.
But don't you think PS3 and 360 will be similar in that respect? Sony and MS have both shown in the past that having a very small system at launch is not something they're interested in. Also just FYI GameCube's case also has a good amount of empty space (about 1.5 inches of its height is empty casing for addon ports).
If Revolution is going to be as powerful as the competitors, why are Nntendo saying such things as 'it's not all about the graphics' and 'unlike the other's we're not just trying to make the most powerful console'? If they were to match their rivals in terms of power AND add this 'revolutionary' controller system, surely they'd be making a big noise about both? 'Everything the other consoles are and more...'
This has been answered so many times here yet it keeps coming up, why?
Why would Nintendo be downplaying graphics if Revolution can put out as good graphics as the competition? Well to answer the question then ask yourself why did Nintendo play down GameCube's graphics when it could out out as good graphics as the competition? Because they're mad?.. possibly. Whatever the reason its clear that Nintendo playing down graphics doesn't equal Nintendo making a graphically inferior console.
Shifty Geezer
24-Aug-2005, 16:17
But don't you think PS3 and 360 will be similar in that respect? Sony and MS have both shown in the past that having a very small system is not something they're interested in.Huh? What about PSOne and Slimline PS2? Sony have shown they'll happily reduce the size of a machine once components allow, and cash in on the savings.
If Revolution is going to be as powerful as the competitors, why are Nntendo saying such things as 'it's not all about the graphics' and 'unlike the other's we're not just trying to make the most powerful console'? If they were to match their rivals in terms of power AND add this 'revolutionary' controller system, surely they'd be making a big noise about both? 'Everything the other consoles are and more...'
Nintendo at present don't seem concerned with sheer horsepower as seen in their recent hardware relases. DS isn't really cutting-age performance technology, and their latest release is another revamp of old technology (which was funny given some people's hope of a mighty handheld GC with support for GC games, and all that appeared was a pricey GBA http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif). If Nintendo can get by with less expensive and thus more profitable hardware, why stick more in there? There's no need, whichi is why, surely, Nintendo are saying 'it's not all about power' and not 'we're as quick as the next guy'.
aren't you taking that out of context a bit there?
Nintendo was basically saying what they did with GC. They don't like blowing up numbers because they want to establish trush with developers and form a sense of reliablity.They are very modest on how they present thier numbers.Sony and Microsofts models are more hype and show than anything else.They want to put the most powerful theoretical parts most bandwidth more capacity more ram. They don't care if there are bottlenecks and design flaws that may cut the "theoretical power" down by say 1/3. All they care about is putting up big numbers and to pay-off the media to hype the fruaduant specs.While Nintendo keeps it honest so that developers can trust them. Didn't nintendo say GCN may not be more powerful than PS2? And it ended up being way more powerful(proof rogue squadraun sp? and RE4 and look at Mario Sunshine... color wise) than anything on PS2.
If you want detailed proof I can pull up some documents that prove GCN is as power as an Xbox(well its still being argued).
But to break it down....
*Nintendo doesn't present fruadualent specs because they don't want to get on the bad side of developers(I think they say its weaker than it really is just to make developers think "wow thats a lot more than nintendo said cool!")
*If Revolution is so much weaker than its competitors. Port would have to be recompiled or toned down. That would make it harder to develope for.Thus contradicting what nintendo has already said about making it easier for developers and cheaper to developer for. I am I right?
*Why would nintendo release a underpowered console a year after 360 and months after PS3 knowing that they are going to get more 3rd party support from being out longer? Even when if they did release it that late they will have technologies that can make it more powerful than 360.See there is no point to it. I think a CEO to a multibillion dollar corperation has the reasourses and professional maret analysts to tell him that would put revolution a disavantage.
*nintendo has never released a underpowered machine in its lifetime
*If we are judging from what nintendo said they did say they were competing with Sony.They said they were going to release it around sony not microsoft. Why would they release a grossly underpowred console near PS3 while letting microsoft have the headstart? Agian common sense says they aren't worried about microsoft and sony is the real threat.(funny Sony is afraid of microsoft. Remember all the senseless attacks and bashes by ken kutaragi? Seems pretty insecure in the CELL)
*How can you say nintendo will be without a doubt be the weakest if nintendo a)hasn't finished the chips(probably intentional)
b)hasn't released specs
c)hasn't released any screens(the leipzig screens were not run a revolution neither was the metriod demo)(run on a GC)
d)hasn't released any demos
f)everyone that knows about it works at nintendo and are under a strict NDA that if the leak it they will loose thier job and be sued.
e)any other company(the ATI interview was fake if they really would have said that they would have been sued by nintendo)
that has been working on the hardware are under NDA and face the same penalty.
Anyway instead of playing devils advocate I'm going to give me opinion on how I think the systems will stand, graphically, next gen.
I believe that if Revolution is released a full year after XBox 360 then both systems will be similarly powered. Each system will have its advantages in certain area's and each will have there own standout games (graphically). So there will be plenty of room for "no Rev is more powerful", "No 360 is more powerful" :) But in general most will admit they are pretty evenly matched. The majority of people will admit that PS3 is the most powerful system of the generation.
Huh? What about PSOne and Slimline PS2? Sony have shown they'll happily reduce the size of a machine once components allow, and cash in on the savings.
Revamping a console to make is smaller years after release in order to get more sales is quite different from starting off small. Clearly Sony do not see an initial small design as important.
This has been answered so many times here yet it keeps coming up, why?
Why would Nintendo be downplaying graphics if Revolution can put out as good graphics as the competition? Well to answer the question then ask yourself why did Nintendo play down GameCube's graphics when it could out out as good graphics as the competition? Because they're mad?.. possibly. Whatever the reason its clear that Nintendo playing down graphics doesn't equal Nintendo making a graphically inferior console.
they see it for what it. A segnificant piece. A destraction from the main show gameplay. They see it as everyone obsessing on graphics and not gameplay when non-players are kept in gaming by fungames and are attracted by shiny games. After the hype and swooning over the polys wear off they get bored and see the game for what it is...shiny crap.But guess what the unnamed developer sold that game didn't they?(Short sighted success but long term blunder But is johnny non-gamer going to pay another video game when he lost his money repeatedly over polished up horse dung? No he'll get bored and do one of three things....
.a)buy risk being turned off or humilated by his or her friends and buy a reportedly fun game
b)retires from gaming all together with a bad taste in his mouth.
c)get smart and start renting games then buying them thus increasing his chances of actually finding a good game but will lead him to "A)" eventually.
see colon
24-Aug-2005, 17:03
*nintendo has never released a underpowered machine in its lifetime
nintendo DS
See Colon, I think you know very well that he meant in the console market..
GB was an underpowered handheld compared to GameGear, but that had no baring on Nintendo's home console (SNES) which was competetive as ever graphically.
See Colon, I think you know very well that he meant in the console market..
GB was an underpowered handheld compared to GameGear, but that had no baring on Nintendo's home console (SNES) which was competetive as ever graphically.
Yeah the portable market is totally different. The Turbo Express was WAY more powerful than the GB. It's like comparing a NES to a SNES. :lol:
Yeah the portable market is totally different. The Turbo Express was WAY more powerful than the GB. It's like comparing a NES to a SNES. :lol:
Thanks guys for clearing that up.
Nintendo has never made an underpowered home console in its history...
function
24-Aug-2005, 19:25
Thanks guys for clearing that up.
Nintendo has never made an underpowered home console in its history...
Depends on where you're coming from. From Nintendo's perspective, no they haven't, because producing the most powerful console they can wasn't and isn't their primary concern. From the point of view of developers, publishers and customers, sometimes they have.
Sega, Sony and Microsoft work to a different plan, and they place (or placed in Sega's case) far more emphasis on delivering powerful systems.
Depends on where you're coming from. From Nintendo's perspective, no they haven't, because producing the most powerful console they can wasn't and isn't their primary concern. From the point of view of developers, publishers and customers, sometimes they have.
Sega, Sony and Microsoft work to a different plan, and they place (or placed in Sega's case) far more emphasis on delivering powerful systems.
but they weren't more powerful. End of story.
how much they focused on hardware is irrelevant. They weren't more powerful.
Nintendo has never made an underpowered console. And until they release underpowered specs its not a reality.
function
24-Aug-2005, 19:51
What are you trying to refer to?
but they weren't more powerful. End of story.
Who wasn't more powerful? When? I was talking about how much importance the companies placed on delivering "power".
how much they focused on hardware is irrelevant. They weren't more powerful.
Stop trying to ignore the big picture.
Given the time of their arrival, their competitors delivered far more powerful systems (and I'll stress this - relative to the point of their introduction). Nintendo come along 18 months+ later and deliver something roughly the same or a little better, at a time when ther competitors would have delivered something vastly superior. But Nintendo make big profits (or any profits), so it's obviously a good stratagy for them.
And Xbox is more powerful than GC. A good deal more powerful.
Nintendo has never made an underpowered console. And until they release underpowered specs its not a reality.
You're a frustrating man to try and talk to. Stop throwing around the word "underpowered" at people as a catchall when they're going to a good deal of effort to define exactly what their point is.
Nintendo come along 18 months+ later and deliver something roughly the same or a little better, at a time when ther competitors would have delivered something vastly superior
So did Xbox.
And Xbox is more powerful than GC. A good deal more powerful.
On paper sure, however in realworld performance it's not that much more powerful considering it was $300 compared to GC which was $200. GC at $300 with 128MB of RAM would be quite powerful.
What are you trying to refer to?
Who wasn't more powerful? When? I was talking about how much importance the companies placed on delivering "power".
and your puting words in nintendo's mouth. They never said it would be underpowered. They have never done that. So I guess nintendo focuses on "power" but its not the whole picture or say all be all
Stop trying to ignore the big picture.
Given the time of their arrival, their competitors delivered far more powerful systems (and I'll stress this - relative to the point of their introduction). Nintendo come along 18 months+ later and deliver something roughly the same or a little better, at a time when ther competitors would have delivered something vastly superior. But Nintendo make big profits (or any profits), so it's obviously a good stratagy for them.
And Xbox is more powerful than GC. A good deal more powerful.
good deal no. slightly yes
You're a frustrating man to try and talk to. Stop throwing around the word "underpowered" at people as a catchall when they're going to a good deal of effort to define exactly what their point is.
I am only "frustrating" when talking to biased "nintendo is DOOMED" sony and microsoft fans.
Its ok. :grin:
If the Revolution is coming in June, it means it is most likely on th 90nm process which means if it is the same size as the render. It is physically impossible for the Revolution to have the same amount of power at least theoretically as the other two. This may not be true in practice depending on the effeciency of the Revolution and to what degree the other two are actually tapped. Though to think the Revolution will be just as powerful as the other two without atleast one process drop and being as small as it is thought to be in just plain fallicy unless you think the laws of thermodynamics don't apply to the Revolution.
function
24-Aug-2005, 20:42
So did Xbox.
No. Xbox offered a far bigger step up over PS2 than GC did.
On paper sure, ...
In reality.
however in realworld performance it's not that much more powerful considering it was $300 compared to GC which was $200.
I never said that the GC didn't offer good value for money, or reasonable performance for it's price. The whole point I've been repeatedly trying to get across (and seeminginly banging my head into a wall over) is that Nintendo don't want to go for the highest performce, most expensive console they can get away with like MS and Sony.
Magnum PI
24-Aug-2005, 20:52
On paper sure, however in realworld performance it's not that much more powerful considering it was $300 compared to GC which was $200l.
I suppose that the BOM for the xbox would be more than 1.5 time the GC one.
function
24-Aug-2005, 20:59
Epik,
read m posts before deciding you can just repeat your usual "not underpowered" line to dismiss them.
and your puting words in nintendo's mouth. They never said it would be underpowered. They have never done that. So I guess nintendo focuses on "power" but its not the whole picture or say all be all
What on earth are you talking about? I never said that Nintendo said it would be underpowered. I didn't even talk in that post about anything that Nintendo had said.
You only seem to comprehend things in terms of "underpowered" or "not underpowered", with no capability to understand that this is a relative isuue and can be guaged differently by people looking from different angles. Whats more, even when people are trying to move away from this very unsuitable, black and white way of looking at things, you try and force the issue back to "underpowered" or "not underpowered", scuppering the chance of discussing anything in a meaningful manner.
You are *extremely* ill equipped to understand the approach that Nintendo have stated they are taking wrt next gen (and took with GC, DS, GBA, N64 etc).
I am only "frustrating" when talking to biased "nintendo is DOOMED" sony and microsoft fans
So why am I finding you to be frustrating then?
If the Revolution is coming in June, it means it is most likely on th 90nm process which means if it is the same size as the render. It is physically impossible for the Revolution to have the same amount of power at least theoretically as the other two. This may not be true in practice depending on the effeciency of the Revolution and to what degree the other two are actually tapped. Though to think the Revolution will be just as powerful as the other two without atleast one process drop and being as small as it is thought to be in just plain fallicy unless you think the laws of thermodynamics don't apply to the Revolution.
a 4 core Gekko with altitech(sp?) clocked at 2GHz = 144GFLOPs
without a PPU with a PPU its around 208GFLOPS
but PPUs cost $200 I'll go with 4 core gekko with altitech(sp?)at 2GHz 144GFLOPs
Xenos=115GFLOPs
I don't want to play the game "analysing every single word a fellow may have said in a ten minutes speech" (look recent thread about J. Cormack's keynote), but ...
When Iwata presented the box during E3 conference, he said that they were trying to make it even more little.
Could that mean they are trying to use the 65 nm process ?
I don't want to play the game "analysing every single word a fellow may have said in a ten minutes speech" (look recent thread about J. Cormack's keynote), but ...
When Iwata presented the box during E3 conference, he said that they were trying to make it even more little.
Could that mean they are trying to use the 65 nm process ?
Oh....
Could that mean they are trying to use the 65 nm process ?
For a 2006 release date? Hardly conceivable at the moment. neither IBM, NEC or even TSMC/UMC could mass produce 65nm part next year, it seems (Maybe TSMC and IBM for the Q4 2006?).
For a 2006 release date? Hardly conceivable at the moment. neither IBM, NEC or even TSMC/UMC could mass produce 65nm part next year, it seems (Maybe TSMC and IBM for the Q4 2006?).
well intel is coming out with a 65nm chip in 1Q 2006
http://www.dvhardware.net/article3989.html
For a 2006 release date? Hardly conceivable at the moment. neither IBM, NEC or even TSMC/UMC could mass produce 65nm part next year, it seems (Maybe TSMC and IBM for the Q4 2006?).
Depends on when next year how many parts they need i would say .
I believe both tmsc , ibm and intel should all have working lines . How much they can produce i do not know .
I think tmsc is doing some testing on thier 65nm lines this year
They could also go with 80nm which i believe is like 150nm
Shifty Geezer
25-Aug-2005, 09:17
well intel is coming out with a 65nm chip in 1Q 2006
http://www.dvhardware.net/article3989.htmlTwo points come to mind. 1) Intel's not providing components for Revolution. 2) Any idea how much that chip will cost?
Sony were hoping for 65nm for Cell, and invested bucketloads of cash into 65nm processing, but it hasn't happened. For mass production at 65nm by mid 2006 there'd need to be a sudden boost to the industry. However the change of heart for Nintendo to launch later does give them more chance to use 65nm which may be the basis of their postponement (that and the fact they still haven't worked out what their 'Revolution' is yet :p)
Two points come to mind. 1) Intel's not providing components for Revolution. 2) Any idea how much that chip will cost?
Sony were hoping for 65nm for Cell, and invested bucketloads of cash into 65nm processing, but it hasn't happened. For mass production at 65nm by mid 2006 there'd need to be a sudden boost to the industry. However the change of heart for Nintendo to launch later does give them more chance to use 65nm which may be the basis of their postponement (that and the fact they still haven't worked out what their 'Revolution' is yet :p)
so both nintendo and Sony are releasing in 3Q 2006?
Shifty Geezer
25-Aug-2005, 16:16
No-one knows. PS3 is expected March '06. Nintendo were going to release alongside PS3l saying 'we're not going to be last', but they've since changed their tune with suggestions of later '06 until we see Revolution. They'll only have a six month or so jump on 65nm technology, from Cristmas this year as they need some months fabbing to stockpile for launch. I don't think they can have been designing chips over the past 2 years or so with the requirement that they'll use 65nm fabbinf tech when there's no gaurentee that tech will be available. If the Rev's case is dependant on the use of 65nm there could be huge delays for the Revolution while Nintendo wait for someone to invent a way to build their machine.
No-one knows. PS3 is expected March '06. Nintendo were going to release alongside PS3l saying 'we're not going to be last', but they've since changed their tune with suggestions of later '06 until we see Revolution. They'll only have a six month or so jump on 65nm technology, from Cristmas this year as they need some months fabbing to stockpile for launch. I don't think they can have been designing chips over the past 2 years or so with the requirement that they'll use 65nm fabbinf tech when there's no gaurentee that tech will be available. If the Rev's case is dependant on the use of 65nm there could be huge delays for the Revolution while Nintendo wait for someone to invent a way to build their machine.
Sony PS3 is using 90nm?
Shifty Geezer
27-Aug-2005, 10:31
Kutaragi said they were hoping for 65nm but it's not ready in time. Can't find the quote but it was from a post E3 interview IIRC, porbably a 'one' Japanese translation.
Nintendo say Revolution will come out at the same time as PS3. Later Sony say that while they planned to use 65nm it will not be ready in time and then Nintendo delay their console until after PS3. I agree that its doubtful that's a coincidence though I also doubt Revolutions components have been designed from the ground up for 65nm either.
Nintendo say Revolution will come out at the same time as PS3. Later Sony say that while they planned to use 65nm it will not be ready in time and then Nintendo delay their console until after PS3. I agree that its doubtful that's a coincidence though I also doubt Revolutions components have been designed from the ground up for 65nm either.
I think nintendo will use tri-core Gekko+PowerPC 970MP with AltiVec at 2.5-3GHz at 65nm 191-228.4 GFLOPs and with a PPU its 292.4. but PPUs are expensive($200+ retail) so even if they buy it in bulk ($80-$50 then maybe?) its still going to make REV ALOT more expensive. They could like someone on this thread said add a PPU block(whatever that is) but I don't know the mark-up on a PPU so no one can give an accurate answer.
randycat99
28-Aug-2005, 01:52
Just curious, but what will your response be if Rev ends up coming out with something far more simple than what you have spec'd? A single PPE + 1 SIMD, for instance?
Just curious, but what will your response be if Rev ends up coming out with something far more simple than what you have spec'd? A single PPE + 1 SIMD, for instance?
I won't have worry about that happening REV will be a middle console like GC was.
randycat99
28-Aug-2005, 07:40
You didn't answer the question. This would suggest your mind is utterly closed to even consider the possibility. This is what I had suspected.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.