Fact: Nintendo to release HD console + controllers with built-in screen late 2012

And they said this

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-project-cafe-rumour-analysis?page=2

I hope that doesn't mean the Nintendo GPU lacks high-bandwidth emedded RAM. If it does, it won't match Xenos' 256 GB/sec internal EDRAM chip bandwidth. Would be very disappointed.

 

Eurogamers info is based on guessing (optimistic speculation as they call it) that Project Cafe may use a HD4770. They then asked a "source" if that chip is faster then Xenos. In other words they've got absolutely no idea, they also said 3DS has 512MB ram in the same article..

Not sure who their source is by the way but can anyone here put across an argument for a HD4770 being only a bit faster then Xenos and slower in some applications? Just out of interest, because I can't.

 

Why? EDRAM isn't needed to match or greatly exceed 360 graphics. An R7xx based GPU with reasonably fast GDDR5 even on a 128bit bus would steam roll Xenos and it's EDRAM.

 

Microsoft is going to sue them for look and feel, that thing looks like a windows box.

 

I hoping for a custom GPU, either RV740 or RV770 based, with significantly more than 10 MB of embedded 1T-SRAM or some next-gen 1T-SRAM (does MoSys have a roadmap, are they making new 1T-SRAM?).

Xenos was completed in 2004 and had stunning on-chip EDRAM bandwidth, 256 MB/sec as I said. How difficult and expensive would it be to have say, 1 TB/sec bandwidth?

In 2004 or 2005 Nvidia said future games may require 3 TB/sec bandwidth. The only way I know how to get that kind of crazy bandwidth is with embedded memory. Even Terabyte Bandwidth Initiative only promises 1 TB/sec and that's main memory.

I expect the next Xbox to have multi TB/sec embedded memory bandwidth, and for Nintendo to at least (at the very least) match Xbox 360 spec in every way. That Eurogamer comment really irritated me

 

But "easy porting from pc & xb360" suggest DirectX

 

I can see this either benefiting or hurting Ninty by becoming the "port box".

They enjoy up-ports from this gen's systems, which is great but not sure it's enough to win the core crowd over.

After MS/Sony release their next consoles, Ninty may get down-ports, depending on the specs of each system.

Not sure if this is a good strategy for them in the long run.

IIRC that actually only started this gen with MS showing the 360 weeks before E3, then releasing the system later that fall.

Prior to this, we generally knew about consoles long before they were set to release. The fact that Sony, Ninty, and Sega were Japanese companies that had staggered launch schedule, releasing in Japan first, with the rest of the world following months or a year later.

 

DirectX is Microsoft proprietary so I'd presume Nintendo would have to license it from MS. I don't see why MS would want to let them though. Certainly the competitive advantage of the Windows/360 platform is worth more than whatever licensing fee Nintendo is willing to pay without eating into their own profit margin.

 

It may work for the next two years and give them a headstart, sure, but is it enough for an entire generation?
Granted, I expect new engines to be more scalable, so porting a PS4/X3 game will not be as hard as it is now for the Wii... but this level of hardware is just not enough to keep them afloat for another 5 years IMHO.

Also, what if they really abandon the Wiimote? It'd be the strangest thing ever... I don't own a Wii so I can't tell if it's really a dead end, or maybe they think Kinect has taken over as the new standard and they don't want to compete with Microsoft's development resources?

 

To me they are hinting that it's using something much slower than RV740, much closer to Xenos. But i don't see any chip out of the R700 line-up that could suit to the description.
RV710 it's too slow (which has just 1/2 of the throughput of Xenos) and RV730, which is twice as fast. And both of these just chips are 55nm. Why not use Cedar or Redwood, or even the newer Caicos or Turks, which sport a much higher performance/mm^2 and performance/watt ratio.. (and the same reasoning would exclude RV770/RV790.. they could use Juniper instead)
Really, i would come as far as saying that RV740 it's not just an optimist speculation but it's the only one that makes sense if Nintendo has really choose a chip out of the R700 family.

 

R700 is a easy configurable architecture, why they should choose something from AMDs R700 desktop line-up?
If the chip (combined with CPU cores) is made at IBM they have to design in their libraries.

 

It really depends on what hardware they go with. Traditionally the core gamers were hardcore about graphics, but it seems like that's been changing. Most by and large still play 360/ps3 which by tech standards are visually ancient yet they stick with it even though a far better looking pc option is available, so it seems like the core aren't all about graphics anymore. However they do seem to complain about the same stuff over and over again with graphics notably smooth frame rate, texture filtering, shadows and msaa are main points that come up repeatedly. It takes very little hardware today to solve those issues, so who knows maybe the new Nintendo box will solve those and be enough for the hardcore not only to switch to it, but to stick with it for a few years after the 720/ps4 come out. I mean look at how often insignificant differences like resolution make people think one version of a game is garbage and go with the other one. Now imagine if Nintendo could not only up the resolution to 1080p, but fix all those other issues like af, etc, in the process. Would people here be able to resist?

Worded another way, say GT5, MW4, RDR2, etc come out and they are subhd on both 360/ps3 and have the usual frame stutters, jaggies, etc. But the Nintendo version is full 1080p, consistent 30fps, 16xaf, nice shadows, no jaggies, etc. Same games, but just cleaned up. The core care about graphics still presumably to an extent, will they be able to resist? If they do stick with their old gen 360/ps3 to me it really sends the signal home that graphics have fallen to the back of the pack in terms of importance to the average gamer.

Even after the 720/ps4 come out, how much of a jump will they be? The beauty of what Nintendo is potentially doing here is that it adds $0 dev cost, ports will be cheap and quick and they will look way better so I'd expect it to get full support. 720/ps4 on the other hand may demand that dev budgets jump again, can many studios afford it? Will studios immediately say sure lets jack the average game budget to 40 million to support making new 720/ps4 games that will only work on a presumably expensive console with limited audience? Eventually it will happen but it may take time, so maybe the Nintendo won't immediately be seriously challenged by 720/ps4. When they do finally get challenged, why not go with the same copycat strategy and put out a new console that is easy to port Xbox 720 games from, and rinse and repeat? In an odd way it lets MS and Sony do all the r&d for them, subsidized the hardware costs, get the game libraries built etc, then Nintendo swoops in and capitalizes of improved versions of the same games on improved version of the same hardware that they can sell for profit from day 1.

The only flaw in the slaw as i see it is that I think graphics have indeed fallen back in terms of priorities to core gamers, people play really old looking stuff today and they are still thrilled with them graphically. So it could be that without a complete ecosystem like online the Nintendo will be considered dead in the water to the core. Of course there is always the chance that Nintendo will sell craptacular hardware again, which would also make them dead to the core gamers.

 

I don't see many core gamers jumping on Wii2 because they get the same game with 1080p and higher AA and/or AF. The thing is expected to launch late 2012 and you can be sure that before it launches Ms and Sony will announce their consoles and will show graphic demos that will make the Wii2 look old.

 

Image quality may be important for our kind of people, but the general audience does not care IMHO. See all the subHD games, lack of AA and so on. I don't think that the promise of 1080p and all filters on would be enough to convince millions to replace their systems, I actually think that most PS3 gamers think they're playing every game at 1080p already.

And those of us who care, would also know that in 2 years we can once again replace the system as whatever Sony and MS will come up with will be significantly ahead. See, the high end engines of today have most of the really important look related features nailed by now. What would, or could, you add to BF3? Major components are all present, you have HDR, shadows and lighting, it's more and more about subtle things now.
Stuff like real 3D geometry instead of jagged edges and normal maps. Hair strands instead of textured polygons. 3D volumetrics for smoke, fire, dust. Simulated cloth instead of simple skinning. No more low res textures on back walls, no cheated reflections. Major increase in world detail and fidelity (megatextures and mega geometry). The one common thing in these, IMHO, is that they require a lot of processing power (and software R&D) so they'll be just as impossible on this new Nintendo system as they are on PS3/X360 today.

So I can see someone like you upgrading for better image quality, and maybe you'll be right that there's a market for a PS360+ system... But personally I wouldn't go for that. My living room is messy enough without trying to find place for yet another device and all of its cables and I still have a lot of games to play (E3 deadlines suck). A mid-cycle upgrade is actually just the thing I'm trying to get away from, the stuff that started to really bother me on the PC, and I wouldn't like to have it creep up on me again.

 

While some of these statements from developers may be based on personal opinion, the range on how powerful this system seems to be very large. I wonder if the inconsistancy is based on some of the leaks having eariler development kits than others.

 

IMO you're going to be disappointed if your expecting all that from any next gen console.

Also 2012 isn't mid cycle, its the end of the normal console cycle and the reason Sony and MS aren't also bringing out new systems is because they're still trying to claw money back from the last time they went cutting edge, I don't think they'll be doing it again personally.

 

Well at least we don't have to wait that long... or maybe Nintendo's not going to reveal hw specs, only tech demos?

Anyway, I still think the controllers are the more interesting piece of the puzzle. Nintendo needs to keep the casual crowd somehow, gunning for the PS360 crowd is not going to be enough and if they really drop the Wiimote as well, they're really going to need some other special thing - and lots of first party titles that make good use of it.

 

They aren't doing it because they don't have to, you don't release a new product to compete with an existing product that is selling well (and not facing any new competition). Nintendo however is definitely trending down. If Nintendo releases something decently powerful in 2012, Sony and MS won't be far behind.

 

I've just recently informed someone that COD Black Ops is 960*540, he was totally shocked to learn it. And it isn't even something that's hard to notice.