Cost effective design, Gekko and Flipper next gen.

[Ooh-videogames]

How different is the PowerPC architecture design of the Gekko processor compared to the G5?

What are the advantages of the Flipper design and its disadvantages?

What would be needed to make Flipper comparable to Xbox360 and PS3 GPU's?



I think the Revolution technically will be a evolution of the GC chipset, thats the benefit of working with same companies.

How would feel about the use of G4 processors(multi-core)?

 

[Megadrive1988]

indeed, the Revolution's Broadway CPU and Hollywood GPU could very well be an evolution of the Gekko and Flipper. Im not saying that is the case but it could be. you know, before Nintendo's next console was called Revolution, it was known as GCNext and before that, GCN2.

I don't know what kind of performance leap Nintendo is actually planning (im going to ignore the IGN comments of 2 to 3 times the Gamecube).

I'm thinking back to 2000 and what Julian E of Factor 5 said - he was asked what he would have liked to see in Gamecube that wasnt there. he said, something like, it was the best architecture he'd worked on and that the only thing he would want is a 100x increase in every area of performance. or something to that effect.

oh, I actually found the quote
(got luckly by typing the right words into google)

http://www.planetgamecube.com/specials.cfm?action=profile&id=203

Planet GameCube: If there was something you could change about the GameCube hardware, what would it be, and why?

Julian Eggebrecht: Nintendo struck the balance almost perfectly, so aside from increasing every feature hundred-fold we don t have any complaints.

 

[Nightz]

I wouldnt be surprised if they used a modified off the shelf PC part.
Its cheaper, more advantageous compared

 

[PC-Engine]

Good point Megadrive!

I also think Revolution will have a modified Flipper with programmable shaders intead of a fixed function pipeline. I also think Broadway will be a modified Gekko, maybe dual Gekkos with a PPU like third core.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Being a progression of existing GC tech could make backwards compatibility a doddle, and so far backwards compatibility is the only key feature I recall Nintendo talking about. I'd guess it's likely.

 

[see colon]

I wouldnt be surprised if they used a modified off the shelf PC part.
Its cheaper, more advantageous compared

in general, i disagree. in the PC space we often see features implemented that don't have the performance (or limited functionality) to be really used. the geforce FX line is a fantastic example of this, but even the highly regarded r300 has features that are rarely used (HDR without filtering, and whatever they are calling their video deblocking come to mind).

these unused features will (generaly) cost more in the long run because of the extra space needed to implement them. having a custom designed GPU geared directly at your market is a much better solution. especialy if you are going for a small, efficient desing like nintendo is.

-edit-
i forgot to add, another advantage to having a GPU (or anything) custom made for you is you have the option of owning the IP for it. it's my understanding that MS owns the IP for the xb360's GPU, but the original xbox's gpu IP is owned by nVidia. MS is running into a headache or two over bacwards compatability because of some of the custom nVidia extensions used in the xbox that aren't in 360.

 

[Teasy]

To me cost effective in the console space means getting the most performance for your money. Using old technology doesn't fit the bill..

 

[Glonk]

Nintendo used old technology in the Gamecube as well -- DX7-level technology and a modified G4.

 

[Teasy]

No matter what you want to compare Flipper too the fact is it was a new chip design. The G4 architecture used in Gekko wasn't particularly old in 2001 either AFAICS (G5 wasn't out in 2001).

My point is, using a clocked up version of a design from 7 years earlier is not the way to produce a cost effective product.

 

[darkblu]

Nintendo used old technology in the Gamecube as well -- DX7-level technology and a modified G4.

you're largely overestimating the dx7-level technology. if flipper is dx7-level then you can say that eveything dx9 is actually dx8-level, pardon the oxymoron.

 

[ERP]

Nintendo used old technology in the Gamecube as well -- DX7-level technology and a modified G4.

you're largely overestimating the dx7-level technology. if flipper is dx7-level then you can say that eveything dx9 is actually dx8-level, pardon the oxymoron.

Not bad mouthing flipper, but if you look at the design, it's pretty clearly a hardware implementation of the DX7 pipeline. It suports almost every DX7 level feature to the latter, including EMBM and the 8 combiner stages.

 

[Qroach]

I've said the same thing about Flipper in the past and people jumped down my throat. feature wise it really is a DX7 class graphics chip. Tthe funny thing is, that ArtX was about to release a GPU for PC that was essentially the same chip in gamecube, until they were stopped by nintendo (or the purchase from ATi). It was planned to support DX7

 

[Teasy]

It suports almost every DX7 level feature to the latter, including EMBM and the 8 combiner stages.

Isn't it 16 stages? Or do you mean 8 reads and 8 combines?

 

[darkblu]

Nintendo used old technology in the Gamecube as well -- DX7-level technology and a modified G4.

you're largely overestimating the dx7-level technology. if flipper is dx7-level then you can say that eveything dx9 is actually dx8-level, pardon the oxymoron.

Not bad mouthing flipper, but if you look at the design, it's pretty clearly a hardware implementation of the DX7 pipeline. It suports almost every DX7 level feature to the latter, including EMBM and the 8 combiner stages.

well, dx9 supports virtually every feature of dx8, and expands rather quantitaively on those. yet, we know that it's quite different developing for dx9 vs dx8 - in terms of efforts, or if you wish cunningness required to achieve certain visuals, or their feasibility in general. it all boils down to efficiency. and quantitive advancements leading to qualitative advancements. in this regard, flipper adds some key quantities over the typical dx7 part of the pc domain. the 8 stages per pass, attainable only on the pvr parts; the small advancement in the color combiners, adding extra efficiency to the stages. the question at the end of the day is, can you name a "dx7" part of similar efficiency?

 

[Nightz]

I've said the same thing about Flipper in the past and people jumped down my throat. feature wise it really is a DX7 class graphics chip. Tthe funny thing is, that ArtX was about to release a GPU for PC that was essentially the same chip in gamecube, until they were stopped by nintendo (or the purchase from ATi). It was planned to support DX7

I think you mean the ArtX Aladdin 7

 

[Qroach]

I think you mean the ArtX Aladdin 7

What that what the chip was going to be called on the PC? Wait wasn't that a graphics chip designed for motherboard integration? No id don't think that's teh one I was thinking. the chip I was thinking about was more similar to what nintendo had for gamecube.

I don't recall, but I do remember waiting through GDC expecitng it to be annouced, when that annoucement was scrubbed.

 

[archie4oz]

you know, before Nintendo's next console was called Revolution, it was known as GCNext and before that, GCN2.

And the Xbox 360 was called Xbox 2 and Xbox Next, etc. too and it's hardly the poster child for compatible hardware evolution. Shouldn't read too much into it just because of some convenient naming convention...

I also think Broadway will be a modified Gekko, maybe dual Gekkos with a PPU like third core.

You'd better modify it to the point of it no longer being a Gekko. The 750 architecture is woefully inadequate to compete with the CPUs of the 360 and PS3. It'd be like comparing an N64 to the GCN or Xbox. And please people, get off the PPU fetish, especially for a console (Revolution in particular). The damn chip alone has more transistors than 5 Gekkos put together...

Being a progression of existing GC tech could make backwards compatibility a doddle, and so far backwards compatibility is the only key feature I recall Nintendo talking about. I'd guess it's likely.

Considering that it's backwards compatible with Nintendo's entire library, I doubt being a progression of existing GCN hardware a pretty loose criteria at most...

Nintendo used old technology in the Gamecube as well -- DX7-level technology and a modified G4.

No matter what you want to compare Flipper too the fact is it was a new chip design. The G4 architecture used in Gekko wasn't particularly old in 2001 either AFAICS (G5 wasn't out in 2001).

Did I fall off a turnip truck and bump my head or something? Since when did the GCN grow a 74xx?

 

[archie4oz]

How different is the PowerPC architecture design of the Gekko processor compared to the G5?

Quite... The former (750) is a dual-issue processor with an extremely short, low-latency pipeline (1 Load/Store unit, 1 complex and one simple integer ALU, and one FP ALU), and such meager OOE reasources that you might as well consider it an in-order processor. Actually it makes for dandy textbook material.

The latter (970) is a large, deeply-pipelined (2 Load/Store units, 2 complex integer ALUs, 2 FP ALUs, and 2 Vector ALUs (techincally 4 but the compiler only sees 2) processor, with massive OOE resources.


Personally a nice 2GHz 970MP would IMO be ideal... (For a Revolution CPU that is)

 

[BOOMEXPLODE]

Nintendo is saying Revolution will use the same development environment and tools as Gamecube, so their's got to be alot of similarity between the two.

 

[Teasy]

Yeah, I'll blame glonk for that mistake

Its a modified PowerPC 750 derivitive similar-ish to the 750CXe.