"2x the power of the GC," can someone clarify what this means? (ERP)

[pc999]

ERP

Dont know if you can say, but if you can I would like to ask (once they say that the CPU "is an extension of the Gekko" and the GPU "is believed to be an extension of the Flipper") in your opinion when can someone consider a chip a extension of anouther chip (or architeture of that chip?). I mean can we say that the P4D955 is a extension of first 1,2Ghz (?) P4 as both uses the Netburst architeture? Or that a Core Duo (or even Conroe) is a extension of the P3? Or that a X800 is a extension of the 9800 but X1900 is not?

I think that if people understand this would be very helpfull and a better definition of "extension" is necessary, so I am trying to colect more answers (as I think that there is no standard definition).

If you can, thanks in advance .

 

[Teasy]

Didn't he mention previously that final devkits were already out in the hands of developers?

I don't remember him ever saying that to be honest, I think you might be mis-remembering (though correct me if I'm wrong of course). Though as I said a few weeks ago I had a feeling No End Soon was fake anyway so..

 

[Li Mu Bai]

I think the quality of those traditionals games will be great on the REV so it won't be technical issue, but I think where it will disapoint is in the quantity of those types of games. So if you are a very traditional gamer looking just for FPS and RPG's with the REV I suspect there will be droughts and in that time you will be bored and feel the system is being under supported. If on the other hand you are willing to try out something new( or old ) to fill in the space between when you are waiting for your traditional choice, you will probably find some good stuff.

What exactly are you basing this off of ninzel? Clearly not the savings associated with the R&D for the console? The overwhelmingly positive support (both announced & unannounced) coming from both eastern & western developers alike? The extremely economical development kits? (allowing for smaller studios like Nippon-Ichi, indie, & start-ups a home or starting platform) Ease of system programmability? Droughts from whom exactly? Nintendo themselves?

 

[darkblu]

Or that a Core Duo (or even Conroe) is a extension of the P3?

your question is fairly tricky. semi-conductor companies seldom do a from-the-ground-up design, you can often trace the genealogy of cpus, gpu, or any other complex piece of silicon multiple generatios of architecture back. sometimes these 'family bonds' remain strong even across 'bitness' boundaries (e.g. i286 to i386 transition). now, the M pentium can be considerd a fairly direct descendant of the last generation of p3 cores, the tualatin, and i'd wildly guess (as i'm not familiar with that next core but judging from secondary signs) that CoreDuo descends from the M. now, does that make the former a direct descendant, or an extension, to the p3? how about to the p2 (as the p3 was a fairly direct descendant to the latter)? i guess with a fair enough stretch of the perspective you can trace it back to the original ppro. *shrug*

 

[Mr. Saturn]

What exactly are you basing this off of ninzel? Clearly not the savings associated with the R&D for the console? The overwhelmingly positive support (both announced & unannounced) coming from both eastern & western developers alike? The extremely economical development kits? (allowing for smaller studios like Nippon-Ichi, indie, & start-ups a home or starting platform) Ease of system programmability? Droughts from whom exactly? Nintendo themselves?

I'm sorry, but when you mention the savings associated with the R&D for the console that seems to be refferencing the whole Revolution will barely be next gen belief. Its not as if I actually have a problem if the Revolution is severely underpowered compared to the 360 and PS3, its just that I've seen you in varous topics in the past, saying that everyone who's saying the Revolution is going to basically going to be a Gamecube 1.5, were to going to have to eat crow at E3 '06.
And I remember you mentioning something about how those who think the Revolution is going to have "Atari" graphics in comparison to the competition, and you said, these people were going to be dissapointed.

Listen I'm not trying to be an ass here, I'm just trying to figure out whats up. If I have been mistaken anything, I'm really sorry.

 

[Li Mu Bai]

I'm sorry, but when you mention the savings associated with the R&D for the console that seems to be refferencing the whole Revolution will barely be next gen belief. Its not as if I actually have a problem if the Revolution is severely underpowered compared to the 360 and PS3, its just that I've seen you in varous topics in the past, saying that everyone who's saying the Revolution is going to basically going to be a Gamecube 1.5, were to going to have to eat crow at E3 '06.
And I remember you mentioning something about how those who think the Revolution is going to have "Atari" graphics in comparison to the competition, and you said, these people were going to be dissapointed.

Listen I'm not trying to be an ass here, I'm just trying to figure out whats up. If I have been mistaken anything, I'm really sorry.

Ease of & efficient developmet does not necessarily equate to "severely underpowered," but instead belongs to the realm of "system architecture." If indeed the Revolution is following a similar development environment or philosophy laid down by the GC, (even further streamlined of course, no more laborious TEV hand coding thanks to Hollywood) well it becomes clear that programmers will not be struggling with platform complexity. I started this thread posing a question to ERP seeking some form of further clarfication as to what this 2-3x actually meant. Was it a clockspeed reference? Central processor ability? Ops per-cycle? Floating point capability? There are too many variables to consider here & therefore the 2x statement becomes insufficient & simply doesn't hold up under inquiry. Twice as powerful in every single GC technical aspect? The queston then evolved to will it be powerful enough? Any DX9 feature-set capable GPU alone puts it well beyond the GC's TEV blending techniques & comparable feature set.

Only having to render 1/3 the pixels on progressive-scan televisions also returns to the fact of how powerful does the Revolution truly need to be to deliver comparable graphics on SDTV's? The 360/PS3 will indeed be more powerful, but it will not render the Revolution archaic visually.

 

[Urian]

Ease of & efficient developmet does not necessarily equate to "severely underpowered," but instead belongs to the realm of "system architecture." If indeed the Revolution is following a similar development environment or philosophy laid down by the GC, (even further streamlined of course, no more laborious TEV hand coding thanks to Hollywood) well it becomes clear that programmers will not be struggling with platform complexity. I started this thread posing a question to ERP seeking some form of further clarfication as to what this 2-3x actually meant. Was it a clockspeed reference? Central processor ability? Ops per-cycle? Floating point capability? There are too many variables to consider here & therefore the 2x statement becomes insufficient & simply doesn't hold up under inquiry. Twice as powerful in every single GC technical aspect? The queston then evolved to will it be powerful enough? Any DX9 feature-set capable GPU alone puts it well beyond the GC's TEV blending techniques & comparable feature set.

Only having to render 1/3 the pixels on progressive-scan televisions also returns to the fact of how powerful does the Revolution truly need to be to deliver comparable graphics on SDTV's? The 360/PS3 will indeed be more powerful, but it will not render the Revolution archaic visually.

I doubt that Revolution is going to have an archaic technology since the Dreamcast was a low price console (199 USD), Gamecube was a low price console (199 USD) and both had an excelent performance/price when they appeared in the market.

 

[pc999]

Didn't he mention previously that final devkits were already out in the hands of developers?

Yes, he did, on the comments section.

Darkblu, thanks for the answer, BTW there is any to the other way around, there is no way of processor A being a "extention" of processor B?

I doubt that Revolution is going to have an archaic technology since the Dreamcast was a low price console (199 USD), Gamecube was a low price console (199 USD) and both had an excelent performance/price when they appeared in the market.

And (GC at least) making a lot of proffit.

 

[see colon]

I doubt that Revolution is going to have an archaic technology since the Dreamcast was a low price console (199 USD), Gamecube was a low price console (199 USD) and both had an excelent performance/price when they appeared in the market.

but both GC and DC used archaic technology in some ways compared to the competition. the DC had no real hardware geometry acceleration, and the GC is fixed function. neither had the storage capacity of their competition, and neither of them offered a complete set of analoug buttons like the PS2 or XB. not to mention that the DC and GC lack any real multimedia features.

nintendo has been pretty good at knowing what to cut and what to keep to make a balanced system that isn't obviously overpowered. but recently, they just got destroyed in the technology race between PSP and DS, but sales have gone in their favor. while that's good for ninteno's bank account, i think they might be using that to justify selling an underpowered revolution because they think that's what the consumer wants.

personaly, as long as it plays games and has a solid library (and it will, thanks to the vitual console) i'll own it.

 

[pc999]

The diference between what is needed for a 720p and a 480p (expect in CPU) alone should be enought for making a "underpowered" console at much lower price and, for many, still very comparable in terms of image.

 

[Urian]

but both GC and DC used archaic technology in some ways compared to the competition. the DC had no real hardware geometry acceleration, and the GC is fixed function. neither had the storage capacity of their competition, and neither of them offered a complete set of analoug buttons like the PS2 or XB. not to mention that the DC and GC lack any real multimedia features.

nintendo has been pretty good at knowing what to cut and what to keep to make a balanced system that isn't obviously overpowered. but recently, they just got destroyed in the technology race between PSP and DS, but sales have gone in their favor. while that's good for ninteno's bank account, i think they might be using that to justify selling an underpowered revolution because they think that's what the consumer wants.

personaly, as long as it plays games and has a solid library (and it will, thanks to the vitual console) i'll own it.

Dreamcast was finished in 1998 with a rasterizer that have the same performance of a Voodoo Banshe but with texture compression and 24-bits color.

Gamecube was finished in 2000 with the same level that a NV1x (GeForce, GeForce2) had.

But using in 2006 an overclocked Gamecube tech for a non-portable console is just offensive.

 

[Ty]

I don't remember him ever saying that to be honest, I think you might be mis-remembering (though correct me if I'm wrong of course). Though as I said a few weeks ago I had a feeling No End Soon was fake anyway so..

Yes, he did, on the comments section.

I think more people had a feeling about NES after that other blog turned out to be fake.

 

[pKontrol]

Hey guy, I've read on GAF forums that the Rev architecture (in general or GPU, don't know?) will produce performance very similar to the x1800 (it was said on the lastest issue of EDGE). but I've read this thread and everyone here seems to agree that nintendo will opt for a low power comsupsion GPU but it's not the case with the x1800. Will it be closer to the mobility chipset?

 

[pc999]

I think more people had a feeling about NES after that other blog turned out to be fake.

I started after he said that and MR(?) from Epic said they still not had one, after that there is the D.I.C.E. fiasco ...

Hey guy, I've read on GAF forums that the Rev architecture (in general or GPU, don't know?) will produce performance very similar to the x1800 (it was said on the lastest issue of EDGE). but I've read this thread and everyone here seems to agree that nintendo will opt for a low power comsupsion GPU but it's not the case with the x1800. Will it be closer to the mobility chipset?

Having a similar performace of a X1800 and being similar to a X1800 is a very diferent thing (eg Xenusis better than a X1800 but it only uses 35W (or 25W?)) plus that may be interpreted in a lot of ways, in fact they (ATI) said it is build from the ground to Rev.

 

[Li Mu Bai]

But using in 2006 an overclocked Gamecube tech for a non-portable console is just offensive.

So Urian, you still believe that Broadway & Hollywood are simply an overclocked Gekko & Flipper? Have you been following this thread closely? As I said, that statement doesn't even hold up under scrutiny, & without architectural specifics & 0 information on how Hollywood performs, (other than its DX9 equivalent capability) your statement is more than premature. ATi already stated that Hollywood was a clean design, & simply even using the term "overclocking" is the equivalent of saying the Revolution is reusing the exact same graphics & processor components. Solely increasing the speed still leaves out too many other important performance related variables.

 

[Ooh-videogames]

My guess is a CPU Dual core 2.0GHz , GPU 1600 equivalent(performance), highspeed 1T-SRAM-Q total memory estimate 140(including cache's), seperate from A-RAM. I'm hoping for memory 256 would be way better.

 

[pc999]

I found a diferent "version" of that article but they say that it will be a 2x the R300, ie, based on R300 (X800 like) which contradict ATI that said it is a new design (and it makes much more sense IMO).

Anyway you can get the article here (no scans), can anyone confirm the article it smeels like BS, as it makes very little sense (at least the way it is writen).

My guess is a CPU Dual core 2.0GHz

With that alone you dont say much about performance...

 

[Urian]

I found a diferent "version" of that article but they say that it will be a 2x the R300, ie, based on R300 (X800 like) which contradict ATI that said it is a new design (and it makes much more sense IMO).

Anyway you can get the article here (no scans), can anyone confirm the article it smeels like BS, as it makes very little sense (at least the way it is writen).



With that alone you dont say much about performance...

In other words: ATI X800 running at 324Mhz with embedded 1T-SRAM.

 

[pc999]

In other words: ATI X800 running at 324Mhz with embedded 1T-SRAM.

Lets ignore that ATI said it will be a new design, why would they go with a X800 like isntead a X1600 like as it is a better performer, does have better/more features, cooler and cheaper.

Personally I would bet in a unified design.

 

[OtakingGX]

I found a diferent "version" of that article but they say that it will be a 2x the R300, ie, based on R300 (X800 like) which contradict ATI that said it is a new design (and it makes much more sense IMO).

Anyway you can get the article here (no scans), can anyone confirm the article it smeels like BS, as it makes very little sense (at least the way it is writen).



With that alone you dont say much about performance...

So twice the performance of the R300 based 9800 is about equivalent to an X800, as you pointed out. Take it one comparison (though likely not valid) further, and you see the X800 XL at 1024x768 (31.9 fps) beating the X1800 XT at 1600x1200 (28.2 fps). I think the mantra "it'll look as good as Xbox 360, just lower resolution" holds true.