Revolution Tech Details Emerge ( Xbox1+ performance, 128 MB RAM )

[Shogmaster]

I thought about it, but after reading the whole thing I wrote off any complex archtecture.
I just pictured a 300MHz R200 with SM2/3.0 capabilities intead of SM1.4...


My hat goes off to this smart dude, indeed.

Well, if the CPU is indeed 750 based, that is.

That said, I too didn't expect anything powerful could be cram in that case they show last E3, but I at least expected something else for the CPU.

I'm thinking that if it doesn't have Xenos like tiling, then that 3MB of eDRAM will be the real limiting factor for visuals on this GC Turbo. Why even bother with SM3.0 with such a limitation? I wouldn't be surprised Rev GPU is gonna be stuck with SM1.x like the GC at this rate.

Given just a little more eDRAM or tiling, Rev games could have markedly looked better than XBox 1. Oh well.

 

[Shogmaster]

Good question; and it's closer to the VX for a rather important reason

Oh jeez.... It's been such a while that I can't remember all the exact differences between the two other than the clockspeed target. Help us out?

edit: Is it the ALTIVEC or VMX or other vector processing enhencement over Gobi? That's gotta be it, right?

 

[TrungGap]

My predictions.

Rev- $199

Personally, I don't think Nintendo has to launch the Rev at that price to compete with x360 and PS3. I guessing (pure guess - no facts or info to back it up) it would be around $249. Yes, that's only $50 below the 360 core. Even if the 360 core drops to $249, I think N will launch Rev at $249. However unlike 360 and PS3, Rev will drop its price the fastest...$100 within a year.

I think even though many board members here keep on saying it's the games that count, but most of the time, the discussion boils down to either price or my toy is bigger than yours.

When my brother asked for my recomendation on which console to get for my young niece and nephew, I had no problem recommending the GC over the xbox and PS2. Simply becausee the types of games on that platform. Now, I have a feeling that N squeeky clean image will continue to attract parents and all alike to buy Rev just for that.

Another thing to consider is the Rev's controller. N produces one of the most questionable controllers on the market (well at least comparing to MS and Sony), however I have a feeling that the new wand controller will be N least reliable controller...and a source of revenue. In the end, N will do well with Rev. And might give Sony a good run in Asia (more than what 360 will do).

 

[Fafalada]

Ok I have to admit I was hoping for something a bit more modern then 750 family Although on the positive note, at least that means it has SOME kind of OOOe, albeit simple. And with lowlatency memory (and likely an actually fast L2 unlike our fellows the PPE/Xs), it should be a real breeze to work with compared to the other consoles.

Now for the 1$ question, 750 derivate most likely means <=1Ghz, thus I'm very curious- is Broadway multi or single core?

 

[Shogmaster]

Ok I have to admit I was hoping for something a bit more modern then 750 family Although on the positive note, at least that means it has SOME kind of OOOe, albeit simple. And with lowlatency memory (and likely an actually fast L2 unlike our fellows the PPE/Xs), it should be a real breeze to work with compared to the other consoles.

Now for the 1$ question, 750 derivate most likely means <=1Ghz, thus I'm very curious- is Broadway multi or single core?

750 family was designed to go all the way upto 1.6GHz at 110nm IIRC. 750GX (Gobi) was slated for 733MHz to 1.1GHz @130nm, and 750VX (Mojave) was suppose to be clocked from 1.4GHz to 1.6GHz @ 110nm.

And I don't know why you are talking about multi cores for Broadway when the article never mentions anything of the sort.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

When Revolution was announced, I had no particular interest in getting it. If Nintendo release it for less than £100 with some really fun and unique games, I'll likely buy it. If they release a power machine comparable with it's rivals at a comparable pricepoinbt I in all likelihood won't.

So kudos to Nintendo I say! They're differentiating. If the games look good (I do want AA) and play well, that's fine by me. Hitting a disposable income price-point and offering real fun, with better quality visuals than current-gen yet at a similar pricepoint, with easily manufactured hardware, could see Nintendo release and sell many millions a year and create a massive software base to attract all the devs. There could be lots of people not willing to buy XB360 or PS3 at the higher-pricepoint now, who'll buy Revolution while they wait for a price drop.

I have been sceptical of Nintendo's strategy, but if these details are true, I'm warming to it.

 

[V3]

Oh jeez.... It's been such a while that I can't remember all the exact differences between the two other than the clockspeed target. Help us out?

edit: Is it the ALTIVEC or VMX or other vector processing enhencement over Gobi? That's gotta be it, right?

VX suppposedly have VMX over the other.

 

[Corwin_B]

I don't see why people have a problem with the idea of the Rev being less expensive than the DS. After all, Sony sells tons of 149$ PSTwos in addition to tons of 249$ PSPs...

Regarding the spec, I suspect full backward compatibility with the NGC may have a lot to do with the engineering decisions. I don't think Nintendo can cram Flipper+Gekko in addition to more "modern" circuitry into this small box, and the power required for software emulation would probably be too great, in addition to being a pain (somehow I don't see Nintendo requiring people to download an upgraded version of the emulation software like MS does). So while it's certainly true that a better hardware than "souped-up Gekko" + "souped-up Flipper" could be obtained for a low price, it may actually be incompatible with the full-BC for the Gamecube.

Regarding the supposed price point and the games, I'm with Joe on this one : this will be my second console (I have a 360), so the lower the price point and the less ports there are, the better.

 

[Fafalada]

Shog, if Nintendo wanted higher clocks using a non-existant CPU they would have used the 970FX

Seriously though, 750VX has been just as much vaporware as 970FX. Sounds nice, but has anyone actually seen one?
That said, I doubt Nintendo would be taking upper tier of the clock range anyhow - and those vague comments about performance weren't suggesting a 3:1 clock increase over the Gekko either

And I don't know why you are talking about multi cores for Broadway when the article never mentions anything of the sort.

No, but if it's what I suggested (800-900Mhz 750 derivate) it should easily be low enough on Watt scale to use two. It would also make more sense to use multicore if they're keeping the 1MB of L2.

 

[VNZ]

if i understand well, when used on a 480p display a xbox still uses a 1280x720 framebuffer.
that's exactly three times the used pixel that are rendered.
in a way you only use 30% of xbox360 capacity on a 480p display.

so , when both are used on a 480p or a 480i display , despite the lack of powerhorse of the revolution, the final result could be not that much different.

Except that the extra pixels rendered result in ample amount of antialiasing. Not a waste of resources at all.

That said, I've yet to see how well the tv output circuitry handles the downscaling to 480p/i.

 

[Nightz]

This doesnt make sense. Didnt they say Microsoft and Nintendo had similar GPU budgets?

Was Nintendo overcharged?

 

[pc999]

Just to defend myself in the UE3 thing, it is suposed to run in a 9700 at 480p and a P4 at 3-3,2ghz (more than that and they wouldnt have enought costumers for their games anyway, plus their demos ran in a P4) so a (as it as even less transissitoresX1300>)6600>9700 and a 970FX(2ghz)>P4 (at least in flops (16vs12) that UE3 seems very friendly and the FX flops arent intriger based).

About a 1/2 year ago they still very new (dont know by now) I used to see "full cards" 6600 with 256 Mg of Ram (DDR but enought to 480p) at 129 euros the rest (DVD, 512Mg RAM...) we could buy today (paying much more than N would ever pay) and still make it at 199$, Now pick up the 143M t (110nm) of the 6600 put 43M (and still have 25M more due to AVIVO Crossfire that are ~ 3mg edram, enought to 480p right or more VMX in the CPU) to the FX and a die shrink to 90nm (80nm) and you would be able put all of that (X1300+256mg+970FX) in a 199$ console today, if so WHY can they put that in a consoke at the end of 2006 at 199$, and sastify everyone (plus the price would be down soon with 65nm and the others components are cheaper everyday)

Plus if I dont get the UE3 at max setings and normal/paralax maps (which are pretty expensive HW wise) for great detail I dont mind but just the basic fx at low-mid qualitity, like lightining, (hard) shadows ... and specialy AI, physics animation (they would have 1/3 more flops to play anyway)... those thinghs that still affect gameplay.

For the record I did not said that a 99$ 3xGC HW Revolution is bad, but it is much worst than a 199$ that could be a total next gen experience, instead of "just" a different one, they can still make just innovative games only using the controler and not the gfx if it is good it will sell anyway, but a innovative + good gfx will always sell much more as will be bought by those how care more about gfx too.

Anyway I still not bellive in this and expecting a cut down X1600 lv gfx and 2x FX (meybe with 2x VMX) at 199$ plus microphone (and meybe a camera too).

 

[EndR]

I remember reading a comment a long time ago, I think it was after E3 where some industry-fellow (IIRC it was someone from ATI) said that Rev was to be about 3x more powerful than GC.. it seems that that statement was correct... if these alleged specs are to be believed..

 

[Rodéric]

Sounds like the worst joke I've heard in a good while...
Also sounds like the reverse of "fan specs", which are take the best console out there and double the specs, here we have take NGC and double specs...

Dunno whether it's true or not, but it does go against the Revolution competing on screen with the 360/PS3 on SDTV. (Or Iwata is either extremely optimistic, have a crappy TV, blind or lying...)

Beware Ninty, my bare minimum specs are a 970MP@2GHz, R5xx GPU with smart embbed RAM and at least 256MB of RAM, I will be really pissed to have anything lower !
(Anyone preparing tomatoes and other vegetables for E3, just in case ? )

 

[StefanS]

I remember reading a comment a long time ago, I think it was after E3 where some industry-fellow (IIRC it was someone from ATI) said that Rev was to be about 3x more powerful than GC.. it seems that that statement was correct... if these alleged specs are to be believed..

That was Perrin Kaplan, a PR representative of NoA, and he is a she btw

 

[Powderkeg]

Boy there sure is a lot of damage control going on here by the same Nintendo fans who were so sure they would be getting something at least as powerful as the 360 in a tiny little case and for $100 less than the core 360.

Would you like salt and pepper with your crow?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Dunno whether it's true or not, but it does go against the Revolution competing on screen with the 360/PS3 on SDTV. (Or Iwata is either extremely optimistic, have a crappy TV, blind or lying...)

Didn't Iwata say the next Zelda was already looking next-gen? Maybe his standards are different for everyone else?

 

[fearsomepirate]

Boy there sure is a lot of damage control going on here by the same Nintendo fans who were so sure they would be getting something at least as powerful as the 360 in a tiny little case and for $100 less than the core 360.

Would you like salt and pepper with your crow?

Which N fans on here said that? Did anyone here really say that, or are you getting these forums confused with the IGN boards? Actually, when Iwata said "We thing Zelda looks as good as next-gen," I thought "Oh crap, they're just going to put an overclocked Flipper in the Revolution, because they genuinely think they don't need any new features." But then I decided that couldn't be the case...after all, every system they've ever built has been fairly powerful considering the footprint, cost, and other features (Gamecube was fairly powerful for a machine with a mobo the size of my hand and built for ~$200 in 2001, DS is pretty powerful considering it's built for ~$130, draws to 2 screens, and has a battery life of 10 hours, etc). I figured, "Surely Revolution will be about as powerful as a $200 machine in such a tiny case can be," which is of course way less powerful than an X360, but also way more powerful than a doubleclocked Gamecube.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Boy there sure is a lot of damage control going on here by the same Nintendo fans who were so sure they would be getting something at least as powerful as the 360 in a tiny little case and for $100 less than the core 360.

Would you like salt and pepper with your crow?

Well...I've been one of the most vocal Nintendo supporters in this thread...and at the same time I've also been telling people the past month or so (a few Nintendo fans) not to expect a "power competitive" product.

Just a few random comments:

Now we all now that, that didn't happen. And actually the system was sold for $199. Just face it guys a $149 or maybe a $199 is more likely.

Last generation, the GC was "similarly powered" compared to PS2/XBox. It was not reasonable to expect $149 or $99 launch price.

This generation, it appears the Revolution is going to be significantly less powerful than PS3/XBox 360. $149 seems inevitable, with a possibility of $99.

Guys, can you please stop talking about the possibility of Rev being $200?

 

[Rodéric]

Guys, can you please stop talking about the possibility of Rev being $200?

NO !
I want to pay that much to get something way better than a NGC on steroïd (see my previous post).