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

[pc999]

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.

I dont see any X800 there just a X1800XL
Anyway for the comparation you want you could see a X1600 and a X1900 at the same fremerates just at diferent resolutions in the latest game (it should be almost the same but one at 480p and the other at 720p), althought as you I doubt it is a valid comparision at least it also use the more modern game out there.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Anyone have an X1600 and copies of Doom 3, Chaos Theory, Fear, and anything else interesting and can put some screens on Photobucket of medium settings with modest AA and AF (2x/4x or something, I dunno)?

Those benches are incredible. Revolution is really not going to need all that hot of a graphics chip to do next-gen graphics at 640x480 with 2x/4x AA/AF.

 

[OtakingGX]

I dont see any X800 there just a X1800XL
Anyway for the comparation you want you could see a X1600 and a X1900 at the same fremerates just at diferent resolutions in the latest game (it should be almost the same but one at 480p and the other at 720p), althought as you I doubt it is a valid comparision at least it also use the more modern game out there.

Right you are. I didn't look closely enough. Here's a review of Doom 3 with that includes the X1800 XT and various flavors of the X800 (GT, GTO). You'll notice in the high quality benchmarks the X1800 XT is about as fast at 1600x1200 as the X800 GTOs are at 1024x768. And that's only 2.5 times the resolution, not three times, as 720p is over 480p. It would seem that a similarly optimized X800 at 350 MHz could deliver the same graphical oomph to 0.3 megapixels as a 550 MHz X1800 could to 0.9 megapixels.

I think that quote is right: "You will say wow!"

 

[c_k_i_t]

if the Revolution GPU is based on the R3xx does that mean that it won't have
Pixel Shader 3.0? And is pixel shader 2.0(b) enough for next-gen?

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I think that quote is right: "You will say wow!"

480P is enough for many people not to say wow...

 

[pc999]

if the Revolution GPU is based on the R3xx does that mean that it won't have
Pixel Shader 3.0? And is pixel shader 2.0(b) enough for next-gen?

Inst the X1600 or X1900 based on the R300, at least some key parts are.

Anyway ATI said they built a GPU from the grund to Nintendo so I dont see a "R300 based" (whatever that really means) falling under this concept.

If they are using something like that it would make much more sense using something closer to a X1600 as it is a better performer, does have better features, is cheaper and cooler than a X800 (althought they speak of the X800 team, not GPU).

 

[EndR]

The Rev GPU seems to be a custom job, like the Flipper was.
I would bet that if the GPU is at 324-350 MHz (i strongly belive sub 400Mhz) it could still be SM3-based. (I wouldn´t be surprised if it were at around X800 in performance)

Also..
I strongly believe again that Rev will house a singlecore CPU solution at 1.5-2 Ghz with the 324-350Mhz GPU. Ram could be up to 256.

The reason for a singlecore is because that is what will make the Rev so easy to develop for. A tradtional Singlecore + GPU + memory will achieve the easiest plattform to develop for.

My price guestimate for Rev will be at around 199-249 but will still be sold with profit (I think). The whole controller-setup (the nunchaku setup + the tv thingy you must have by the tv) are unknowns in the expensive departments..

Nintendo are very profit sensitive, they want to sell their stuff at close +/- 0 or at profit. Almost never at a loss. So, by having the specs I speculate, the machine could still be powerful (for the targeted SDTV-resolutions) and still be sold with profit (or close to the -/+ 0 point)

Nintendo has a good chance of making the Rev a very popular second console...
With a low price and interesting controller, things could bode well for NIntendo... (in the second console department)

 

[fearsomepirate]

if the Revolution GPU is based on the R3xx does that mean that it won't have
Pixel Shader 3.0? And is pixel shader 2.0(b) enough for next-gen?

ATI's confirmed that Hollywood will be custom from the ground-up. The reason we're looking at benches for low-end ATI GPU's is because it gives us a good qualitative idea of just what kind of graphical power ATI can produce for a low cost.

 

[pc999]

IMO half (or even less) of the Xenus (ie 24ALUs, 4ROPs , 5Mgs edram ...) could be very good both from the price standpoint (it fits in Moore´s Law from flipper (~(350:2)=175Mtransistores from (4x50)=200M)), heat and it also gives a very nice idea from what to expect about the GPU because it should be, for must cases, as good (in some case meybe even better) as the the XB one for 480p, and being a modern (is it even finished?) costum GPU it will probably be a unified shader design (I think that even Dave hinted this somehere).

So I think this may be a very good comparation to see what kind of power Rev may have, better than compare to PC GPUs.

 

[Urian]

A few things that we must consider:

1. MoSys 1T-SRAM has the same density of DRAM and low latency, 1T-SRAM-Q has 4 times more density and thanks to it we get 2x more memory in the same space if we follow Moore Law we can get 480MB for the same cost of 5 years ago.

2. MoSys RAM has more less latency than the actual GDDR3 and XDR but it has less broadband and this fact kills Revolution in the HD environments.

And this is from my point of view:

I can believe that Revolution CPU is a Gekko 2x+VMX+1MB L2 Cache since this combination has better CPI than a single core PPE at 3.2Ghz and that the console won´t disappoint from the price point of view, because it is going to have an excelent relation price/performance.

 

[pc999]

I thought the "1)" as the other wise , anyway if it is this way it is great news, probably wouldnt even need that much (I guess that some dev will try to kill me now).

Personally I cant see Geeko as a good choice from a performance standpoint, much less compared to what they can do with the GPU. Unless they can do a amzing work to it (using the same anology a picking a P3 and getting a Core Duo or a Conroe, if they are in fact comparable) but then I will wonder why would they invest so much money to do that instead of just picking a modern CPU.

I can believe that Revolution CPU is a Gekko 2x+VMX+1MB L2 Cache since this combination has better CPI than a single core PPE at 3.2Ghz and that the console won´t disappoint from the price point of view, because it is going to have an excelent relation price/performance.

In flops terms only after 2ghz , what about the rest?


Personally follwoing moore law I think they would be able to sell it at 150$-200$ (I hope and it would be better for them too the 150$).

 

[Urian]

I thought the "1)" as the other wise , anyway if it is this way it is great news, probably wouldnt even need that much (I guess that some dev will try to kill me now).

Personally I cant see Geeko as a good choice from a performance standpoint, much less compared to what they can do with the GPU. Unless they can do a amzing work to it (using the same anology a picking a P3 and getting a Core Duo or a Conroe, if they are in fact comparable) but then I will wonder why would they invest so much money to do that instead of just picking a modern CPU.




In flops terms only after 2ghz , what about the rest?

I can´t see the PPE a good choice since it can manage 2 instructions only and have one execution unit for each type of valor number with a pipeline 4 times longer than the Gekko that manages the same number of instructions per cycle.

FLOPS are meaningless in a CPU comparison and we need to see how many complete instructions can be made per cycle instead the numbers of FLOPS. Pentium4 Prescott has more FLOPS power than Athlon64 and we know who win in the battle.

 

[pc999]

Btw

A interesting interview with Miaymoto

We want to get a balance between powerful CPU's or beautiful graphics and making the technology comfortable and appealing. We created the DS and Revolution with this philosophy and concept in mind.

[One of my aims is to let game creators know that they shouldn't feel constricted by budget. If you have a good idea, we have the money.

 

[pc999]

I can´t see the PPE a good choice since it can manage 2 instructions only and have one execution unit for each type of valor number with a pipeline 4 times longer than the Gekko that manages the same number of instructions per cycle.

Is this what I wanted to know, it would still need a good speed bump thought and for that a major reworking of the Gekko (as in it current form it cant go besides 1Ghz as Fafalada said), anyway I as thinking in a 970Fx should also be a very good CPU.

 

[Li Mu Bai]

Right you are. I didn't look closely enough. Here's a review of Doom 3 with that includes the X1800 XT and various flavors of the X800 (GT, GTO). You'll notice in the high quality benchmarks the X1800 XT is about as fast at 1600x1200 as the X800 GTOs are at 1024x768. And that's only 2.5 times the resolution, not three times, as 720p is over 480p. It would seem that a similarly optimized X800 at 350 MHz could deliver the same graphical oomph to 0.3 megapixels as a 550 MHz X1800 could to 0.9 megapixels.

I think that quote is right: "You will say wow!"

Sounds promising if indeed it is not a "clean design."

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.

Multi-media features are superflous when dealing with strictly gaming-related aspects. EMBM is fixed function as well, & features such as per-pixel lighting, shading, etc. are not. Storage capacity differs solely to combat piracy. Surely you do not want to bring up some of the PS2's outdated technology (even when the console launched) as it is far from guiltless in this regard.

 

[pc999]

BTW do anyone does have info about the "X800 team" that can be usefull?

Sounds promising if indeed it is not a "clean design."

Well it would be 1/3 of XB360 as MS made clear around E3 (those things about the Dev kits), now we only need 2x 970FX .

 

[fearsomepirate]

A recent issue of Edge apparently alluded to Revo being about as powerful as an X800. Given how well that chip performs at 640x480, I'm not too worried if that is indeed the case.

Obviously, a "clean design" doesn't mean they're going to discard any knowledge they already have about shaders and such. It just means they're not just modifying an existing chip. Fixed-function T&L units weren't totally archaic when GC launched, either; rather, programmable shaders were bleeding-edge. It's only been in the last year or two that there have been a significant number of PC titles requiring SM1.0 or better to run, and even then, there are still quite a few that will run in DX7.

 

[OtakingGX]

480P is enough for many people not to say wow...

For many people who own HDTVs, I'm sure. Believe me, I used to be a staunch believer in resolution. I recall when Doom 3 came out and everyone was going crazy over the graphics engine. Most people without absolute top of the line graphics cards (Radeon 9800 Pro was still pretty good at the time) were running the game at 640x480 or 800x600, but with the effects turned up. My initial reaction would have been to turn the detail down and the resolution up. Sitting so close to a computer monitor it's easy to see pixels and aliasing. I can't tell what resolution a TV is in because I don't have my face plastered to it as I do a monitor.

I'm sure the technophiles and video geeks will turn their noses up at Nintendo's new console. The rest of the population won't be able to tell the difference. And if they do own an HDTV they probably won't find a sticker on the box that says "Does not support HDTV." They'll take it home, hook it up to their HDTV, which will upconvert the signal, and they'll probably still say "wow."

When ATI said they designed Hollywood from the ground up I didn't think they meant they started at "how do we get graphics information on the screen?" The design of a new GPU starts by putting together parts from their current catalog of chip subcomponents, then designing new ones to add in. It's the new features that ATI came up with for Hollywood that should be exciting.

 

[pc999]

A recent issue of Edge apparently alluded to Revo being about as powerful as an X800. Given how well that chip performs at 640x480, I'm not too worried if that is indeed the case.

For me a X800 performance level card is probably enought, but I still very curious about is architeture and their specific features.

BTW what can someone can really consider as something having a X800 level of performance (or 2xR300), after all X800 beats a X1600 in todays real games (+BW?), but it losses in 3Dmarks 05/06 (here it matters IMO)

 

[fearsomepirate]

Well, FWIW, IGN reported way back that Nintendo had been telling developers to expect specs in the "super high end PC stuff" (http://cube.ign.com/mail/2004-10-22.html). That was October 22, 2004. At that time, X800 was ATI's high-end IIRC.