It's not a matter of belief in a rumour, but a lack of closed-minded, prejudiced thinking that makes one unable to see possibilities that may not fit with one's expectations.
Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech
- Thread starter Acert93
- Start date
- Status
DoctorFouad
Newcomer
If I understood well your argument, than I agree with it, But saying that it doesent make any sense for sony or Microsoft to use the 6000 series GPU architecture on a 2013 next gen console is just a plain TECHNICAL argument, that has nothing to do with what you are saying. It has nothing to do with being closed-minded or with prejudice thinking and unability to see other possibilities that may not fit with one's expectations.
Of course sony or microsoft could choose to go the performance way (expansive, very powerful, day1 loss inducing hardware) or to go the Nintendo way (cheap, efficient, day1 profit making hardware), or to choose something in-between, they are all possibilities.
But what I am arguing here is that : whatever the business strategy-model sony/microsoft will choose for their next gen hardware (weak/powerful, in-between), they have no incentive, and it doesent make any sense TECHNICALLY and FINACIALLY for them to use in a fall 2013 console an outdated GPU architecture a la 6000 series. Why ? because better alternatives exist already, a la 7000 series, which is better per watt performer, and thus less expansive to produce at the same performance point.
It is as simple as that, nothing to do with being narrow-minded....
people who seemed they belived the 6000 series nextxbox GPU rumor, didnt give any solid argument of why microsoft would go that way....now if anyone had arguments I am not aware of I would be very happy to hear them....(maybe I am wrong, and the 6000 series produced at 28 nm is better per watt performer than the 7000 series, or maybe it is less expansive to licence the 6000 series technology, or maybe the 7000 series has a GPGPU priority and transistors dedicated to this not needed in next gen consoles, thus the preference for a 6000 series traditional efficient design....etc)
Unless they have another plan that we don't know, like, maybe, use 2 year old tech they can get cheap (???) and introduce new compatible hardware very two years. Your arguments against using old hardware is exactly the same argument me and others used when trying to guess what was going into Wii. The fact 2xGC didn't make TECHNICAL or FINANCIAL sense doesn't matter - it still happened.
The same arguments against going with 6000 series in an MS or Sony console may still end up with a jaw-dropping reality.DoctorFouad
Newcomer
You are right, I have no super secret knowledge, but I am just using common sense with what we have as informations, these are my arguments :
Who said BD is better than power7 or the opposit ?
the power 8 being better than power 7 and available in 2013 is just a common sense prediction.
My argument is that IBM contributed heavily in designing the CELL processor, their own power pc CPUs benefited from this research and development experience, they have more in common with CELL than any AMD CPU, thus using an IBM CPU in ps4 would facilitate the emulation of the CELL processor, IBM could even modify for sony their power7/8 cpu to make it more SPE emulation friendly, AMD is less capable of that.
And at least what we know for sure is that nowadays, at the same price point, the AMD CPUs are far less good in gaming than Intel CPUs, so for sony to go the CPU AMD way is not at all a good sign.
Blazkowicz
Legend
consoles seem the best platform where you would do gaming-related GPGPU. it's a known quantity and even if applications are limited (such as just clothes physics) it would be interesting.
a GPGPU oriented chip would not only do the work efficiently but not impede too much on the graphics rendering. (multitasking-friendly frontend)
a GPGPU oriented chip would not only do the work efficiently but not impede too much on the graphics rendering. (multitasking-friendly frontend)
I'm not sure if we can be so confidant of that.
Fabs other than those of Intel are having real difficulty below the 45nm node. If you look at this history of POWER CPUs IBM has used shrinking node sizes to place more and more execution resources on the die.
When that trend stops, and IBM has to focus a lot more on extracting greater performance/mm2, they could have a serious problem.
Sure, IBM has an average sales price which allows it to sell really huge server chips at a profit, but at some point even they will reach physical limitations related to reticle size and yield.
Are IBM still going forward with a SOI 22nm process against the tide of their Common Platform partners?
They still have their larger ecosystem, of which POWER is only a part, to rely upon though.
See also the first few pages of: http://ieee-cas.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Puri_22nmDLP.pdf
Blazkowicz
Legend
Unless they have another plan that we don't know, like, maybe, use 2 year old tech they can get cheap (???) and introduce new compatible hardware very two years. Your arguments against using old hardware is exactly the same argument me and others used when trying to guess what was going into Wii. The fact 2xGC didn't make TECHNICAL or FINANCIAL sense doesn't matter - it still happened.
the Wii being an overclocked gamecube had another justification.
nintendo could say : "have you ever developed a gamecube game? here's the wii with exact same hardware, only faster and with double the ram. you can hack on it right away without learning anything new".
going from xbox 360 to 720 you still have new CPU, new GPU and new memory hierarchy whether it's a radeon 6000 or radeon 7000.
DoctorFouad
Newcomer
I totally agree, excellent argument, I will also add this :
- the Wii being an overclocked Gamecube, allowed also Nintendo a free-hassle backwards compatibility with game cube games, even the zelda game was the same between GC and Wii.
- the Wii did make sense technically and financially, it wasent meant to be an HD console and there were no better altrenatives for nintendo at that time to allow easy development. game cube environment. The GC was a very specific off-the shelf design, no market available alternatives, if they wanted better performance they should invest in research and development or use a completly different design than GC....It is not like they had the choice between the 6000 series and the 7000 series and they said : lets go with the 6000 less per watt performer series ! given their priorities (similar architecture as GC for easy development environment and no learning curve for their developers) they didnt have this luxury of choice...unlike sony and microsoft today.
- even with these nintendo priorities, the Wii ended up more powerful than GC ! they could have simply reused the GC hardware without modifying it for even a cheaper console.......so the Wii made perfect technical and financial sense....unlike 6000 serries VS 7000 series.....
If Microsoft decided to overclock the xbox360 and release kinect 2 with it, I would say this makes perfect technical and financial sense....it is the best way to assure easy development environment for developers....but choosing the 6000 series VS the 7000 series....is completely a different matter....
Last edited by a moderator:
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
To be fair, Wii was a bit of a gamble. Not knowing if the wiimote would catch on or not they decided to go with hardware that wouldnt lose them loads of money even in case of a early price drop. For it's time Wii turned out to be a great gamble and Nintendo probably made a killing on it.
For WiiU, I hope Nintendo doesn't do a Wii again and goes as cheap as possible on the hardware. At the time it worked and even I didn't care it wasnt the most powerful console. But wouldn't buy a ps360 level hardware WiiU. As others said before, it would probably take more effort to create a console that isn't more powerful than one that is. Even if considering hardware must be cheap.
But Iwata said WiiU won't be such a cheap console right? Even with the tablet controller if they aim for 300~400 euro's it must be possible to put in some decent hardware.
edit: even taking just standard pc hardware, a A6, 6870 and 4gb of ram and mianboard will come at 290 euro's at retail. Now thats retail so buying directly means you can cut atleast 90 euro's, even more when you take into account that a lot of stuff is redundant and won't be needed on a WiiU mainboard. So worst case scenario you pay 200 euro's for the basic hardware. At my part time job we sell tablet with 8'' screen, 4gb memory, 1ghz cpu, the lot for under 80 euro's (and the place I work at isn't the cheapest around). The controller can't be costing more than 30 euro's? Aiming for 300 euro's, that leaves 70 for the case, psu and diskdrive and cooling. Shouldn't be impossible.
For 300 euro's you'll have a system running circles around ps360, could easily do 1080p, hell it might even run ps720 ports without too much trouble. Nintendo making no initial profit or a small loss on the hardware, I think this would make for a great system.
Than again, Nintendo might as well ask AMD and IBM to butcher even their slowest hardware so they can end up with a ps360.
For WiiU, I hope Nintendo doesn't do a Wii again and goes as cheap as possible on the hardware. At the time it worked and even I didn't care it wasnt the most powerful console. But wouldn't buy a ps360 level hardware WiiU. As others said before, it would probably take more effort to create a console that isn't more powerful than one that is. Even if considering hardware must be cheap.
But Iwata said WiiU won't be such a cheap console right? Even with the tablet controller if they aim for 300~400 euro's it must be possible to put in some decent hardware.
edit: even taking just standard pc hardware, a A6, 6870 and 4gb of ram and mianboard will come at 290 euro's at retail. Now thats retail so buying directly means you can cut atleast 90 euro's, even more when you take into account that a lot of stuff is redundant and won't be needed on a WiiU mainboard. So worst case scenario you pay 200 euro's for the basic hardware. At my part time job we sell tablet with 8'' screen, 4gb memory, 1ghz cpu, the lot for under 80 euro's (and the place I work at isn't the cheapest around). The controller can't be costing more than 30 euro's? Aiming for 300 euro's, that leaves 70 for the case, psu and diskdrive and cooling. Shouldn't be impossible.
For 300 euro's you'll have a system running circles around ps360, could easily do 1080p, hell it might even run ps720 ports without too much trouble. Nintendo making no initial profit or a small loss on the hardware, I think this would make for a great system.
Than again, Nintendo might as well ask AMD and IBM to butcher even their slowest hardware so they can end up with a ps360.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not trying to justify such a choice. Only, if it happens, there will be a justification that we can't visualise now.
Don't forget that Nintendo aren't trying to build the most powerful PC they can for $300 (or whatever), they want to sell you the system for $300 (or whatever) and spend as little as possible making it. And they will spend money designing something that costs as little as possible to make. There's no prize for having tight or negative margins.
If Nintendo could tape three GCs together and sell it for five hundred and ninety nine US dollars I'm sure they would they would.
Also remember Nintendo's roots of that of a toy company to get some perspective on their thinking.
The company that makes a GI Joe for example doesn't worry about being on the cutting edge. They don't worry that the six year olds that are playing with their toys today will grow out of that experience,because a fresh crop of kids is always behind them.
They my evolve slightly with the times,but they don't go and remake their whole company to follow that six year today,into manhood down the road.
The company that makes a GI Joe for example doesn't worry about being on the cutting edge. They don't worry that the six year olds that are playing with their toys today will grow out of that experience,because a fresh crop of kids is always behind them.
They my evolve slightly with the times,but they don't go and remake their whole company to follow that six year today,into manhood down the road.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
I know and I understand that. However don't forget that in the console space Wii is the only console that Nintendo made that really was underpowered compare to the competition.
Wii was the right machine at the right time and thats why they got away with the slow hardware. But times change and kids arent stupid either. They grow up with electronics these days and even the younger ones are very well aware of the differences so the notion of you can get away with offering underperforming hardware because it's only kids we sell console to doesn't necessarily work.
Anyway my point is not that Nintendo should make a super powerful console. I just wanted to point out that Nintendo could create a console that offers decent hardware while still being able to sell it at a lower price. Ofcourse Nintendo (Sony and MS as well) would rather sell you the cheapest hardware they can for the highest price but thats not how it work. You need to offer your customers something and I just think that this time around it would be wise for Nintendo to come up with a system that has a bit more power under the hood and isn't just a last gen console 2.0 Worked for Wii, don't think it will work for WiiU.
Wii was the right machine at the right time and thats why they got away with the slow hardware. But times change and kids arent stupid either. They grow up with electronics these days and even the younger ones are very well aware of the differences so the notion of you can get away with offering underperforming hardware because it's only kids we sell console to doesn't necessarily work.
Anyway my point is not that Nintendo should make a super powerful console. I just wanted to point out that Nintendo could create a console that offers decent hardware while still being able to sell it at a lower price. Ofcourse Nintendo (Sony and MS as well) would rather sell you the cheapest hardware they can for the highest price but thats not how it work. You need to offer your customers something and I just think that this time around it would be wise for Nintendo to come up with a system that has a bit more power under the hood and isn't just a last gen console 2.0 Worked for Wii, don't think it will work for WiiU.
An easy one: Form Factor. If the WiiU is the size of the Wii, or smaller, you cannot fit in hot chips. I know someone was trying to compare the iPad chips in another thread but you are looking at chips created on a LP process designed with a nominal TDP regardless of their size (~160mm^2--size isn't everything as they chips are very slow for that size!) If the WiiU is going with a very small form factor you have to make a choice. I think (?) Teasy and someone else had a sig war, one with "Fast, Small, Affordable: You can pick 2." There is some truth to this. If Nintendo wants Small and Affordable it comes at the cost of being Fast.
Depending on the size of the WiiU -- and the cost of the Tablet -- if Nintendo has some strict budgets there may not be the wiggle room to add in another $15 on a better GPU and another $5 for a better cooling system. If they are planning to make 50M units that is $1B (probably less as reductions but you get the point).
If you look at handhelds I think there is a strong trend toward them being more underpowered than the competition. That has been a VERY strong segement of their business and I bet that philosophy over time has influenced the way they look at their home console units that are in an "arms race."
Further they have always done stuff differently, e.g. ROMs versus CDs in the N64, mini-DVD versus DVD in the GCN, etc. They eschewed the performance race altogether with the Wii and focused on an input device. The WiiU is clearly going toward an input device focus so maybe they will be content with rough parity + ease of development than, "We are 50% faster!"
Btw, does anyone else expect in a couple years a new "DS" that is essentially a compatible WiiU controller?
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
However there are good reasons why they never went for high end hardware for their handhelds. Thats why I mentioned consoles only. All Gameboy competitors up until the psp were large, expensive and had terrible battery life.
As for n64 and GC, Carts had the benefit of save game storage and faster loading. CD more storage. For that time, I wouldnt say one was a better choice than the other. Both had their merrits. The only ''odd'' choice would be the mini dvd's for GC.
Couldn't they use the 3DS as a wiiu controller already? I assume they atleast kept that in mind when designing both system.
As for n64 and GC, Carts had the benefit of save game storage and faster loading. CD more storage. For that time, I wouldnt say one was a better choice than the other. Both had their merrits. The only ''odd'' choice would be the mini dvd's for GC.
Couldn't they use the 3DS as a wiiu controller already? I assume they atleast kept that in mind when designing both system.
It's pretty obvious that they didn't. The tab seems like a late addition to the system.
The 3ds didn't even ship with two analogue sticks.
I'm confident that Nintendo management "lose it" in the face of the DS and Wii success... and realize late that they were cornering themselves. Looking forward it's pretty obvious they no longer have what it takes to make proper tech decisions, they've been out of touch way too long.
Definitely I would not bet on Nintendo future in say a decade.
Last edited by a moderator:
DuckThor Evil
Legend
I would, or actually I'll go further than that... Imo going with carts there was one if not the biggest mistake ever by anyone in the electronics industry. Cost them Final Fantasy and much more. They tried to fix it with that fugly disk drive add on, but that was a no go.
DoctorFouad
Newcomer
The mini DVD in GC wasent an odd choice either, it was there to combat piracy.
The Wii being an overclocked GC was an intelligent move from Nintendo : cheap hardware + ease of development (same development environment as GC). It made perfect sense technically and financially and I dont see any other hardware solution at that time that would have worked better for Nintendo given their priorities at that time.
But according to forumers in this topic, the WiiU would be the first console from Nintendo that wont make any sense....a lot of people here are claiming Nintendo could use cheaper hardware with more performance while keeping the same price point and still making a profit.
When Nintendo announces full details of their console, I bet they will prove the opposit, but wait and see...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
