ATI M28+1T-SRAM. A good Graphics Chip for Revolution?

[Urian]

This a salute for Pulutan/Doom3 from spanish forum meristation. Yuhuuu.

Jokes apart. If the console will go with a low price (99-149 dolars) the ATI X800 Mobile (M28) could be a good solution with some custom modifications, in the case of a 199$ console the GPU that has more numbers for me is the RV530.

 

[jvd]

Isn't the m28 based on the r420 ? I di't think we'd see less than r520 tech in the ns5. Even then by june they can most likely run a cool r520 xt version in the case

 

[hey69]

Yeah and that would still qualify as a Flipper, right

a very beefed up flipper would be an Orca .... RrrOOAAR ...

 

[Teasy]

Teasy forgive me if my post sounded arrogant and/or affended you.
Of course latency ALSO is important but its a tradeoff.

No, you didn't offend me and yeah of course I agree its a trade off. I definitely didn't mean to say that either was more important then the other since its all about getting the right balance between the two IMO. I was just saying that to the general public high bandwidth numbers have wow factor, low latency numbers don't.

 

[Powderkeg]

Why aren't MS and Sony using 1T-Sram? Well when your fighting a hype war high bandwidth numbers look a lot better then low latency.

But that would mean the bandwidth numbers weren't as high, which is what I said, right?

 

[Shogmaster]

How can something come out 2 years after 360 and 2 years after PS3 when those two systems are releasing at least 6 months appart?

It was rhetorical statement, but if you want to be a stickler, PS3 might be coming out only 4 months afterX360 (Nov 05 vs Mar 06).

Also where do you get 2 years from?

Approximate amount of time that should allow a console the size of Rev to match the consoles the sizes of X360 and PS3 in power at lower pricepoint.

GameCube released only one year after PS2 and was much smaller and cheaper yet it was more powerful.

First, Gamecube came out 18 months after PS2 (march 2000 vs September 2001).

And second, Gamecube lags the PS2 in certain aspects powerwise (useful RAM count: 24MB vs 32MB, maximum set up and drawn polys: 32M v 66M, Most of the T and L capabilities of GC is fixed, etc...)

 

[PC-Engine]

First, Gamecube came out 18 months after PS2 (march 2000 vs September 2001).

So did Xbox your point?

And second, Gamecube lags the PS2 in certain aspects powerwise (useful RAM count: 24MB vs 32MB, maximum set up and drawn polys: 32M v 66M, Most of the T and L capabilities of GC is fixed, etc...)

Hollow argument since GCN launched at $200. If you want to argue what GCN would be capable of, how about increasing its launch price to $300 and adding a buttload more memory? Finally to your TnL comparison, so what if it's fixed? How about GCN being able to use more lights in parallel? Your comparisons are just stupid dude. That's like saying NAOMI 2 only has a raw transform of 10 million polygons. Well guess what? It was designed that way and could use many complex lights in parallel. It wasn't designed to do 40 million polys with one light. In fact using 1 light would not affect the maximum number of polys at all since that was the way it's designed.

At the end of the day GCN is more powerful than PS2 regardless whether or not PS2 could do a few things better/different. Not only that but the PS2 had both more time for developers to learn the system AND more developers working on the system compared to GCN.

 

[Fafalada]

It holds textures. It holds the same textures as in "standard video memeory."

No, Flipper's texture buffer is an on-demand loaded cache.
But you can also configure a segment of it to be direct addressable - work as normal memory (similar concept to XeCPU L2 cache locking).

 

[Sonic]

And what is your point PC-Engine? So the GCN was released 18 months later and costs less than PS2. It is more powerful in some areas, yes, but not in all. It would be more appropriate to say it is a hell of a lot more efficient and easy to get performance out of. The tools for it make it extremely easy to work with. The PS2 in comparison makes even minor things a major headache for devs.

Revolution should pack quite a powerful punch in its small shell of a system. With an optimal cooling solution I see no reason why it can't be powerful enough to power good graphics for 480P. That's all that Nintendo is aiming for so it doesn't need to be as powerful as PS3 or Gamecube. An M28 seems like a reasonable chip if it is cheap to manufacture by the time Revolution is ready to release.

Oh, and PC-Engine. Refrain from calling someone's opinions stupid on this forum again. If it happens one more time you will be banned for 2 weeks.

 

[Shogmaster]

So did Xbox your point?

My point is that GC needed 18 additional months to get similar power as PS2 at half the casing volume and cheaper launch price. Rev can't launch around the same timeframe as PS3 and offer smiliar power at less than 1/4th the case volume and cheaper price. Same against the X360. If it's only around 6 months later it's luanching, it can't possibly match the power with such a small casing and cheaper price than X360.

Hollow argument since GCN launched at $200. If you want to argue what GCN would be capable of, how about increasing its launch price to $300 and adding a buttload more memory? Finally to your TnL comparison, so what if it's fixed? How about GCN being able to use more lights in parallel? Your comparisons are just stupid dude. That's like saying NAOMI 2 only has a raw transform of 10 million polygons. Well guess what? It was designed that way and could use many complex lights in parallel. It wasn't designed to do 40 million polys with one light. In fact using 1 light would not affect the maximum number of polys at all since that was the way it's designed.

Look man, stop freaking out about every little thing and just calmly think about what I responded to. Teasy said simply that GC is more powerful than PS2. My response simply addressed that false statement. Do you need a hug by the way? You seem very angry at something.

At the end of the day GCN is more powerful than PS2 regardless whether or not PS2 could do a few things better/different. Not only that but the PS2 had both more time for developers to learn the system AND more developers working on the system compared to GCN.

GC is 18 months newer than PS2. And it's debatable if GC is simply more powerful than PS2, when PS2 version of RE4 looks pretty damn close to the GC original, and it's running at a higher resolution (640x480 vs 640x360). And it's not like PS2 launched @ $400+ and GC @ $200 like PS3 vs Rev will likely be. PS2 launched @ $300 and GC @ $200, which is alot closer.

I just don't see how you've proven your case clearly like Teasy and others claim.

 

[PC-Engine]

And what is your point PC-Engine?

My point is one individual is trying to claim that GCN isn't much more powerful to an older console because its size didn't allow it. Well did this little console launch at $300? How about a GCN with 128MB of 1T-SRAM for $300 at launch in that tiny little box? Trolling over the same tired debunked notion of bigger is better isn't going to change reality.

Refrain from calling someone's opinions stupid on this forum again.

Huh? I didn't claim anyone's opinion was stupid. I said the comparison is stupid which it is. We can make stupid comparisons till the cows come home, but at the end of the day most of us know which is more powerful overall.

 

[PC-Engine]

My point is that GC needed 18 additional months to get similar power as PS2 at half the casing volume and cheaper launch price. Rev can't launch around the same timeframe as PS3 and offer smiliar power at less than 1/4th the case volume and cheaper price. Same against the X360. If it's only around 6 months later it's luanching, it can't possibly match the power with such a small casing and cheaper price than X360.

And your point is BUNK since you don't know how much it actually costs to make any of the consoles this generation or next generation. Not only that but who actually told you Nintendo NEEDED 18 months? Has it ever occurred to you that maybe that 18 month delay was for software? You actually think the hardware kept being upgraded to the very last minute right before launch?

Look man, stop freaking out about every little thing and just calmly think about what I responded to. Teasy said simply that GC is more powerful than PS2. My response simply addressed that false statement. Do you need a hug by the way? You seem very angry at something.

Oh so now PS2 is more powerful than GCN because it can transform 66 polys with no textures or lights? You gotta be joking man. Like Readykilowatt mentioned earlier. You're just embarrasing yourself even further by continuing to push your flawed bigger = better logic. Keep asserting your misinformed opinion as fact.

GC is 18 months newer than PS2. And it's debatable if GC is simply more powerful than PS2, when PS2 version of RE4 looks pretty damn close to the GC original, and it's running at a higher resolution (640x480 vs 640x360). And it's not like PS2 launched @ $400+ and GC @ $200 like PS3 vs Rev will likely be. PS2 launched @ $300 and GC @ $200, which is alot closer.

Again more irrelevent comparisons. Are there any BR players on the market? How many DVD players were already on the market when PS2 launched? Will Revolution have a bunch of USB ports? Gigabit? multicard reader? Blue Tooth? Get a clue man.

 

[Shogmaster]

And your point is BUNK since you don't know how much it actually costs to make any of the consoles this generation or next generation.

We can just logically deduce that all 3 manufacturers have to succumb to similar pricing restrictions, and that it would be easier/cheaper to make similar powered package if you have physically bigger space to put them in.

Not only that but who actually told you Nintendo NEEDED 18 months? Has it ever occurred to you that maybe that 18 month delay was for software?

How was it a 18 month "delay"? GC was announced to the world only in August of 2000. Either wya, 18 months difference allowed Nintendo to price the GC near $200.

You actually think the hardware kept being upgraded to the very last minute right before launch?

No, but the prices of the components will be adjusted up to the "last minute". If GC launched in let's say September of 2000 (assuming all the components were finished by then), obviously it would have costed more to make.

Oh so now PS2 is more powerful than GCN because it can transform 66 polys with no textures or lights? You gotta be joking man.

Even you have to admit that PS2 has more raw fillrate than GC. PS2 had like 16 pixel pipelines compared to 4 pixel pipes of GC. Not apples to apples, but there are espects of PS2 that are stronger than GC. It's not black and white more powerful like you make it sound.

Like Readykilowatt mentioned earlier. You're just embarrasing yourself even further by continuing to push your flawed bigger = better logic. Keep asserting your misinformed opinion as fact.

You guys just keep misreading into my assertions. All I'm saying is that smaller = more difficult and more expensive to make as powerful than bigger.

Again more irrelevent comparisons. Are there any BR players on the market?

There are even BR recorders in the market, but it all irrelevent since Sony will be subsudising cost of BR in the PS3.

How many DVD players were already on the market when PS2 launched? Will Revolution have a bunch of USB ports? Gigabit? multicard reader? Blue Tooth? Get a clue man.

Even if you take those components out of the equation (let's say if there was to be a version of PS3 with just Cell + RSX + RAM + DVD-ROM for $300~$350, a la X360 core pack), it's a similar comparasin for Rev and such a theoretical PS3 package to PS2 and GC, if there would be 18 months or so time differnce between the two.

 

[PC-Engine]

We can just logically deduce that all 3 manufacturers have to succumb to similar pricing restrictions, and that it would be easier/cheaper to make similar powered package if you have physically bigger space to put them in.

We've been over this a million times already dude. Who told you case size will be at it's bare minimum for all three consoles?

How was it a 18 month "delay"?

It was a delay because Nintendo wanted enough software to launch with the console, doesn't mean the technology in the console was 18 months newer and state of the art.

GC was announced to the world only in August of 2000.

Yeah it was annouced meaning? You think GCN's design only started after they officially announced it?

Either wya, 18 months difference allowed Nintendo to price the GC near $200.

How do you know they couldn't price it even lower and take a larger loss? Answer: You don't.

No, but the prices of the components will be adjusted up to the "last minute". If GC launched in let's say September of 2000 (assuming all the components were finished by then), obviously it would have costed more to make.

And how does this address the supposed technology being 18 months newer and state of the art? Answer: It doesn't.

Even you have to admit that PS2 has more raw fillrate than GC. PS2 had like 16 pixel pipelines compared to 4 pixel pipes of GC. Not apples to apples, but there are espects of PS2 that are stronger than GC. It's not black and white more powerful like you make it sound.

oh god..this kind of argument is so last laaast laaaaast year man.

There are even BR recorders in the market, but it all irrelevent since Sony will be subsudising cost of BR in the PS3.

You don't seem to be getting the point. A handful of BR recorders on the market means absolutely NOTHING. BR in PS3 is not at the same maturity level or volume level as DVD in PS2, therefore the cost of adding BR to PS3 will be more than the cost of adding DVD to PS2. That's why you're hearing talk about a $400 PS3. The higher cost is also due to the many extra ports etc. You seem to assume this supposed $400 price tag is the result of putting in much more powerful silicon than the competition. My advice to you is don't assume. Finally SONY will be taking losses on PS3 just like they took losses in PS2 so nothing new there.

Even if you take those components out of the equation (let's say if there was to be a version of PS3 with just Cell + RSX + RAM + DVD-ROM for $300~$350, a la X360 core pack), it's a similar comparasin for Rev and such a theoretical PS3 package to PS2 and GC, if there would be 18 months or so time differnce between the two.

You don't know how much the components cost and you don't know how much SONY and MS are losing per console so it's pointless to predict how powerful Revolution will be based on simple timescales and RETAIL prices. According to what information we have already, Revolution will likely launch 1 whole year after Xbox 360 so using your own logic Revolution will be more powerful than Xbox 360 and sell for $200. So where does the Revolutions case size restricting processing power fit into all of this logic of yours

 

[Sonic]

Thread went too off topic. Shog and PC-Engine, take it to pm or start a new thread.