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

[Ooh-videogames]

I really can't comment on this without getting specific.

It does remind me of the outrage when Gamecube specs were published out of the developer docs by IGN. The number of people who argued that they must be wrong and from early docs, was somewhat amusing. Not that I'm saying IGN is accurate or not this time, just that they have in the do have pretty solid sources, although they can get enthusiastic in their interpretation of their sources.

Nintendo really isn't trying to compete in power terms, they are playing a very different game, in my mind it's an interesting strategy and it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

With litterally >10x the number of polygons/frame and much more complex shaders some people find it hard to differentiate between Xbox and X360. IMO Graphics is getting towards the end of it's tenure as the primary factor in selling games (Note didn't say it was over). The question is how much power is enough to create excellent visuals and does Revolution have enough? I guess the market will decide.

FWIW I'm unconvinced by the revolution controller, it's a bit too gimmicky for my tastes, but I thought the same thing about DS and I really like the Kirby game.

Are you implying that you guys have recieved new Revolution controllers with the other secret features?

Is the Revolution power enough for you?

 

[ERP]

Are you implying that you guys have recieved new Revolution controllers with the other secret features?

Is the Revolution power enough for you?

No I was refering to the controllers that have been shown, the wand and the stick thing.
I'm not currently working on a revolution title, but people in the same building are.

 

[pc999]

Is the Revolution power enough for you?

Then we will get the problem of how much power is enought to ERP.

Personally I think that it is enought power if we could implant all the features that can change the gameplay (ie physics, shadows, AI, "special" interfaces, complexity like FC or 3D RTS ...) after we can put there every feature that will make the gameplay better then we have power enought.

Things like normal maps and such it is nice as a adition if it does not have (high?) cost (in terms of content, features, price, time till we get the next one...).

 

[Teasy]

It does remind me of the outrage when Gamecube specs were published out of the developer docs by IGN. The number of people who argued that they must be wrong and from early docs, was somewhat amusing.

I'm sure if IGN had posted actual specs from Broadway/Hollywood ect rather then just vague out of context comments then most people wouldn't doubt them.

I'd actually be very interested to see the article you're referring to by the way, I wonder if its still around anywhere? In previous threads I've mentioned how underpowered a lot of people must have thought GC was at first sight of some of its specs.

 

[Ty]

I'm sure if IGN had posted actual specs from Broadway/Hollywood ect rather then just vague out of context comments then most people wouldn't doubt them.

I highly doubt that clear specs would ameliorate the debate.

Given a few assumptions (price point, delivery date, etc.):

If the specs annouced by IGN came in X360 or better, people would be saying it couldn't be possible due to the price point.

But if the specs came in X360, people would be saying it "doesn't make sense" for Nintendo to spend all that R&D and end up with a weaker machine because they are coming out nearly a year later.

 

[Rodéric]

But if the specs came in X360, people would be saying it "doesn't make sense" for Nintendo to spend all that R&D and end up with a weaker machine because they are coming out nearly a year later.

Not sure what you imply there but people don't expect the Revolution to kick either the PS3 or the XBox360, power wise.
A power it doesn't need BTW, because of SD vs HD for the other consoles.

ATM most people consider that the Revolution:
-won't simply be a NGC on steroïd (It'll be new chips in, not faster identical chips)
-will be more than an XBox (memory, power... but smaller ;p)
-won't be as powerfull as XBox360 or PS3 (but doesn't need to be)
-have the most different pad ever

 

[ERP]

I'm sure if IGN had posted actual specs from Broadway/Hollywood ect rather then just vague out of context comments then most people wouldn't doubt them.

I'd actually be very interested to see the article you're referring to by the way, I wonder if its still around anywhere? In previous threads I've mentioned how underpowered a lot of people must have thought GC was at first sight of some of its specs.

http://cube.ign.com/articles/092/092458p1.html

Here is the gamecube article from IGN.
My point is this information couldn't have been anymore clear cut and the debate was just as heated as it is now. I remember people saying Oh those can't be peak figures they must be more like 90M polygons/second. I remember people twisting quotes from developers to claim that they were pushing more polygons than the theoretical maximums.

People will continue to believe what they want reguardless of the quality of information to the contrary.

 

[fearsomepirate]

But if the specs came in X360, people would be saying it "doesn't make sense" for Nintendo to spend all that R&D and end up with a weaker machine because they are coming out nearly a year later.

I seem to recall reading around here that GC had the lowest theoretical max polygon rate of any of the 3 consoles (~35m polys/sec), yet no one was complaining about the in-game geometry. There are places to spend R&D money other than getting the fastest clockspeed the silicon can handle before exploding. It's all about image quality. I'd also like to add to Ingenu's list:

-Will have Nintendo games
-Already has more 3rd-party exclusives slated than Cube ever did

 

[Shifty Geezer]

People will continue to believe what they want reguardless of the quality of information to the contrary.

Which is why Nintendo, rightly in my opinion, have said they won't necessarily ever release tech specs. If the games look good in stores and people take to the control system, who cares whether it pushes 1/10th the poly's of PS3, or 10x as many (apart from geeks!)?

 

[OtakingGX]

http://cube.ign.com/articles/092/092458p1.html

Here is the gamecube article from IGN.
My point is this information couldn't have been anymore clear cut and the debate was just as heated as it is now. I remember people saying Oh those can't be peak figures they must be more like 90M polygons/second. I remember people twisting quotes from developers to claim that they were pushing more polygons than the theoretical maximums.

People will continue to believe what they want reguardless of the quality of information to the contrary.

I think that's the precedent that people are looking to. Nintendo claimed that the Gamecube could do 6-12 million polygons per second. Resident Evil 4 clearly exceeded that. Microsoft cited 125 million polygons per second on the Xbox, no game even came close, and a few, got about 1/7 of that. It will be interesting to see if and when IGN gets their hands on Revolution developer documentation.

Now we're trying to pin down what 2-3 time the Gamecube is. Is it 12-36 million polygons per second? Is that a low-ball figure again, and developers will get 50 million polygons per second from the hardware?

Microsoft and Sony tried to take bigger steps with this generation. It was necessary, because on the consumer end we're seeing smaller differences between each successive generation.

 

[ninzel]

My understanding is that the difference between Nintendo's quoted figures and MS or Sony's for that matter is that Nintendo shows realisitic in game figures whereas Sony and MS use raw numbers.

 

[Farid]

Look, my stance on the subject has been the same since a long time ago.
Let's not discuss about the Revolution hardware before we get to see the first game pics. Because no matter what one could say based on Nintendo own docs, people will believe what they want to believe no matter what.

The thing is, knowing Nintendo usual artstyle, the Rev games might end up looking great, and once people see them as great looking games, or at least, good enough, we'll finally be able to discuss about the hardware specs.

Nintendo claimed that the Gamecube could do 6-12 million polygons per second. Resident Evil 4 clearly exceeded that.

I think the only that is clear is that common people can't tell the number of polygon pushed per framed.

RE4 didn't push more than 12 Million pps. Not even close.
I mean that would be saying that the game had more than half a Million Polygons per frame... That's more than a lot of next gen games.

 

[pc999]

I think that what is "cunfusing" people is not concret numbers like 36M polys but the relative jump from the GC to Rev, because while those numbers are very inferior to the others consoles but they still represent a massive improvement from N64, there is no here close to that and that will hardly make a noticiable diference (from a perception POV). And people do know that some innovations that could be done with the controller and better specs

There are places to spend R&D money other than getting the fastest clockspeed the silicon can handle before exploding.

They could easly put a chip like a costum 970FX and still much more powerful, with easy BC and very cheap in R&D, the same for GPUs but they indeed had invested in R&D (as ATI already said it will have DX9 shaders ,you can also see in the http://www.revolutionreport.com/ , ATM they do have a error in the server, so I cant give you the link with the interviewn; or as you can see there; and those guys are also using a engine that requires DX9) so once they invested there is no reason to R&D cost be a constrainment.

Meybe they are thinking in some very specific areas so this comments can make sense (to me at least).

People will continue to believe what they want reguardless of the quality of information to the contrary.

Indeed, some of us can even make good arguments to proof their positions (humans sometimes are interesting), althought even if their information is good this Rev article inst that good IMO.

 

[Urian]

A console two times more powerful than Gamecube 5 years after the launch of Gamecube is easily and insult since they can get a GCNx4 with 0 cost.

I can believe that the Broadway is an overclocked Gekko since the 970FX, Cell and Xenon are too hot for be the CPU of Revolution, this is just logical and have sense.

But a system with twice of graphical power, with the same FX and limitations and with the only difference of more memory just sucks a lot.

 

[pc999]

A console two times more powerful than Gamecube 5 years after the launch of Gamecube is easily and insult since they can get a GCNx4 with 0 cost.

I can believe that the Broadway is an overclocked Gekko since the 970FX, Cell and Xenon are too hot for be the CPU of Revolution, this is just logical and have sense.

But a system with twice of graphical power, with the same FX and limitations and with the only difference of more memory just sucks a lot.

Just as a note the latest 970FX at 1,6Ghz only uses 17W. BTW would a single PPE like core with 512K would be that hot (even if reduced to 2,8 or something like)?

 

[Urian]

Just as a note the latest 970FX at 1,6Ghz only uses 17W. BTW would a single PPE like core with 512K would be that hot (even if reduced to 2,8 or something like)?

I am going to say and stupid thing but I have to say it:

1. Gamecube Power= 10.5 GFLOPS. Developers don´t know about the Hollywood GPU and perhaps they are talking about the CPU only.

2. PowerPC 970FX at 1.2Ghz has a power around 21GFLOPS (FPU+VMX)

 

[pc999]

2. PowerPC 970FX at 1.2Ghz has a power around 21GFLOPS (FPU+VMX)

Edit:
That cant be, a 970FX can only do 8flops/cycle, even a PPE can only do 12f/c , if so a 970MP at 2,5Ghz would be able to do ~100gf/c with only ~180M transistores.

There would be no reason for a CPU like Xenon in that case (or even Cell, almost).

 

[fearsomepirate]

pc999, what I'm suggesting is that perhaps there are some unique approaches to hardware in the GPU that we just don't know about. Especially considering it was a 162 MHz chip with a low fillrate and a very simple T&L unit, Flipper could pull off some very nice graphics due to the unique approach of things like the TEV's indirect texturing, the multiple loopbacks, the ridiculously fast (for the time) framebuffer and texture cache, etc.

I think the most we can assume from the ATI article is that it will have a DX9-like feature set. We know little else about what exactly this feature set will be or how it will be implemented. Based on the engineering of DS, GBA, and Gamecube, I think they have maxima on cost, power consumption, and heat output, and they're trying to maximize image quality and graphical fidelity within those constraints. Without knowing much about the existing architectures but knowing a bit about engineering, it's quite likely that existing PC graphics technology just doesn't fit the bill. It's not designed with that engineering philosophy, so it's entirely plausible that it doesn't scale well to meet those requirements.

To use the incredibly tired car analogy, if you're trying to build the fastest, most reliable, most powerful economy car for the budget-conscious consumer you can, simply scaling down the V8 that goes in your company's flagship sports coupe isn't going to fit the bill. You need a new approach.

 

[pc999]

Sorry I misunderstud your post, in that case I completely agree with you.

 

[Megadrive1988]

[optimistic mode on]

I'm hoping Rev's fillrate is 4x GCN. that would be around 2500M pixels/sec textured with trilinear filtering, and hopefully with pixel shader 3.0

main memory bandwidth needs to be in the 10 GB/sec ballpark, at least.
embedded memory bandwidth should be 80~100 GB/sec (still less than Xenos' 256 GB/sec)
which would give Revolution one ace in the hole against PS3.

polygon performance, at least 50 million with everything turned up.

audio needs to be DD 5.1 in realtime (even Xbox could do that) without hitting the CPU

I realize most of these specs exceed the "2 to 3 times" but I'm starting to think you cannot
"say wow" with 2-3x GCN.