Iwata explains why Nintendo picked PICA200 for 3DS

[thop]

It's a lengthy answer, not only answered by Iwata, but here are a few interesting snippets.

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/library/events/101029qa/03.html

I was personally involved in that specific decision making process. After receiving the proposal, I personally thought that it was the right choice because it had the right balance between power consumption and graphical capability. I don't know if this method will be the best choice forever, but as of now, I have concluded that it's a very well-balanced method.

...

We did experience a lot of hardships when working on Nintendo 64. When we were working on Famicom and Super Famicom, basically, whatever was promised in the hardware spec sheets could actually be done. However, since Nintendo 64, the concept of hardware has drastically changed to, "the software developers can do anything as they like, but the total amount of the work the hardware can execute is limited." In other words, we were told, "you are free to choose the allotments of the total performance." When just one designer, be it Mr. Miyamoto, me or someone else, did some extra effort in order to make slightly better graphics, the total frame rate greatly decreased. Such things happened, and we had a hard time dealing with them

...

Nintendo has recognized the importance of a machine for which software developers can always expect stable performance from the hardware.

 

[Squilliam]

Definately worth a read. It'll probably be interesting to see how it also fits with their next generation home console architecture.

 

[Eteric]

The only thing I worry about is how they approach their next generation console. The hardware for the 3DS seems sound to me, and their reasoning is sound. But for a console, most developers seem to want hardware that they can push in different ways.

I understand where they're coming from. I hope that their next console has programmable shaders, though. Allowing multi-platform games to be ported to their system would be a big boon for them next generation.

 

[Rangers]

I think it's simple, Nintendo wanted to use Japanese technology, and as the one company that it really doesn't matter if their tech is vastly inferior (people buy products because they say "Nintendo" on the side, regardless, like Apple) , they were able to do that.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

And why exactly would they want to use a chip from a Japanese company? To me it sounds like they made a well thought out decision on why to use the pica chip.

Also people don't just buy a product because it has a certain name on it. That is why Gamecube failed (and to a lesser extent n64 too) and the wii and ds are so succefull. You need to offer something consumers want. For exactly the same reason ps1 and ps2 where hits and ps3 somewhat tanked.

 

[DeadlyNinja]

I think it's simple, Nintendo wanted to use Japanese technology, and as the one company that it really doesn't matter if their tech is vastly inferior (people buy products because they say "Nintendo" on the side, regardless, like Apple) , they were able to do that.

IBM and AMD are Japanese companies?

How the heck did you come to this silly conclusion from that?

 

[Exophase]

IBM and AMD are Japanese companies?

How the heck did you come to this silly conclusion from that?

He was saying why they chose PICA200 for 3DS (made by Japanese company DMP), not why they chose any other part for any other system.

Of course there is close to zero precedence that would suggest Nintendo has any kind of bias towards Japanese component makers, although such a thing is not uncommon in Japanese negotiations.

The article says a lot without really explaining much. To me PICA200 seems like an interesting (and good) choice most of all because it has strong perf/Watt and overall performance, at the expense of flexibility, at least compared to other platforms. At the point of PICA200's design the gaming industry must have had a good enough idea of what per-pixel operations they require most and DMP has capitalized on this. In no way does Nintendo's decision strike me as going for something slow or weak; not to say PICA200 looks perfect or like a technological breakthrough but it's a much stronger attempt at good graphics than DS was. It's closer to 5 years behind console quality than 10 years behind.

What I find interesting about 3DS and the PICA200 situation is that this represents the first time that I'm aware of where Nintendo has chosen an outside design for the graphics in one of their handhelds. This also should apply to most if not all of their consoles; I don't really know under what terms the graphics in Gamecube/Wii were developed. Now I'm not implying Nintendo always designed their own graphics, but in the past where they've contracted third parties it was to do a new design under their specifications.

This is significant because Nintendo, as a software company, basically issued out specifications limited to their software goals. This made it easier for them to produce games on smaller budgets. They knew their first party games would sell the systems, and that third parties would have to support them by virtue of being the leading platform.

This time they've used an already existing design, one made to try to impress potential buyers as much as possible rather than just suit Nintendo's software desires. The side-effect is that I expect a much stronger initial third party response, which I think we're already seeing.

 

[Teasy]

He was saying why they chose PICA200 for 3DS (made by Japanese company DMP), not why they chose any other part for any other system.

Of course there is close to zero precedence that would suggest Nintendo has any kind of bias towards Japanese component makers, although such a thing is not uncommon in Japanese negotiations.

That's his point though, their is not precedent for such an assertion. Quite frankly its asinine to say the least, there's another worth for it as well but I won't say it.. starts with a t

 

[Exophase]

Rangers never said Nintendo always chooses Japanese companies or often does or even ever does. He just said they chose DMP for being Japanese.

 

[RudeCurve]

I wonder why they didn't go with PowerVR...

 

[Teasy]

Rangers never said Nintendo always chooses Japanese companies or often does or even ever does. He just said they chose DMP for being Japanese.

I know that, and I'm pretty sure DeadlyNinja knew that. IBM and ATI/AMD were mentioned to make the point that there's no precedent for believing that Nintendo would favour a hardware company simply because they're Japanese.

Its an entirely baseless assertion IMO, unless Rangers has some facts to back it up?..

 

[Teasy]

I wonder why they didn't go with PowerVR...

Performance per watt, price, ease of development? Or much more realistically they're not Japanese enough, you decide

 

[thop]

Click the link to find out this is the first time since the NES that Nintendo picked a Japanese company.

Let me ask you about development costs. My first question is for Mr. Takeda. For this time, the company is using the Japan-made PICA200 chip. I'm personally excited because it's the first time since the company used Japanese IC chips from Ricoh for Famicom.

 

[Tahir2]

It seems from the article that ease of development was a major contributing factor to stick with fixed function shaders.

Nintendo's software developers do not like unexpected performance drops when adding new effects and then not being able to understand what is causing these performance drops. With fixed function hardware the hardware limits developers choices and performs as expected.

This saves time, money and energy expended on getting a game working and to the consumer.

If you think about programmable shaders, yes they offer a lot less restricted environment but most developers then pick a 3rd party engine (e.g. the Unreal Technology) which has its own limitations. So Nintendo has traded software limitations for hardware limitations.

The fact that the fixed function shaders offer most effects that will be used most of the time in programmable shaders, and the screen resolution being low helps fixed function graphics hardware to be visually similar (if not identical) to programmable shaders.

That's it. No bias one way or the other - the only bias is how Nintendo can make more money (cost of developing software rather than focusing on how cheap the hardware). It is possible PICA200 is about the same price as a solution from PowerVR for example but the software costs would have been too great for Nintendo at this time.

 

[DeadlyNinja]

I know that, and I'm pretty sure DeadlyNinja knew that. IBM and ATI/AMD were mentioned to make the point that there's no precedent for believing that Nintendo would favour a hardware company simply because they're Japanese.

Its an entirely baseless assertion IMO, unless Rangers has some facts to back it up?..

Exactly. It's a completely baffling comment because Nintendo seems to have used technology from whoever they feel like. The N64 was also designed by SGI.

Anyway, the battery life damn better be good. This is my number 1 concern right now.

BTW, does anybody know what kind of storage medium they're using? Are they using the same kind of "carts" they used for the DS or is it something new? I heard something about holographic storage, but not sure if that has anything to do with it.

 

[Exophase]

Just because Nintendo has chosen a bunch of non-Japanese companies doesn't mean that finding a Japanese one isn't an asset (and there's nothing wrong with that). Look at the interviewers enthusiasm towards it. That's not saying that dominated the decision, far from it, but you can't prove that it had zero impact. Maybe you should be asking why it took a Japanese company to finally use PICA200 - maybe it's DMP who only wants to work with Japanese companies? But I guess if anything it has been Sony who has used Japanese suppliers a lot. For those curious, one of Nintendo's other big IP suppliers was ARM, and I mean for the video in GBA/DS, not just for the CPU.

The screen resolution being low does not help fixed function effects look more like programmable effects, unless it decreases the vertex to pixel ratio and the same sort of programmable effects are done per-vertex. In this case the vertex counts will be pretty low too.

Small screens are not some kind of panacea. If you don't have as many pixels you'd probably want to make them look pretty.

Fortunately, the options here are subjectively useful choices, that may not have been attainable with a programmable engine without spending a higher number of operations per clock and using more die space.

I'm sure they're not using holographic storage to achieve 2GB of storage. They may be using flash now, maybe flash that has been made non-reprogrammable entirely or in all but a save game section... getting this density of NAND flash is probably cheaper than making unique mask ROMs for every game. That, and nearly all DS games include a small flash or EEPROM or something else for save data and that's an extra expense. The electrical interface is probably the same as DS, but maybe (hopefully?) with faster access times and data clock rates.

 

[Teasy]

Just because Nintendo has chosen a bunch of non-Japanese companies doesn't mean that finding a Japanese one isn't an asset (and there's nothing wrong with that). Look at the interviewers enthusiasm towards it. That's not saying that dominated the decision, far from it, but you can't prove that it had zero impact. Maybe you should be asking why it took a Japanese company to finally use PICA200 - maybe it's DMP who only wants to work with Japanese companies? But I guess if anything it has been Sony who has used Japanese suppliers a lot. For those curious, one of Nintendo's other big IP suppliers was ARM, and I mean for the video in GBA/DS, not just for the CPU.

Nintendo might think its an asset and it might have played some tiny part in their decision making process (maybe..), nobody's claiming otherwise. However as usual power usage, price and ease of development will have been at the forefront of their minds when making the decision. There were probably quite a few other reasons on the list before they ever got to "They're Japanese "tick""

Anyway, I wonder how long its going to be until the full details of the exact PICA chip (and CPU config) is leaked? predictions anybody?

 

[Laurent06]

For those curious, one of Nintendo's other big IP suppliers was ARM, and I mean for the video in GBA/DS, not just for the CPU.

Really? Any quote to sustain that?

 

[Ailuros]

Japanese this and that; those that think that NVIDIA got to negotiate with Nintendo by itself in the past should reconsider the whole thing.

As a hypothetical side-note if the 3DS would have had PowerVR GPU IP chances are higher that deal would had gone to some of the other japanese semiconductor manufacturers that happen to incorporate PVR GPU IP in their SoCs, than anything else.

Today one can safely claim that Nintendo got exactly what they wanted/needed. There are always going to be debates that speak for and against those decisions, but on the other hand Nintendo should know what it's doing.

For those curious, one of Nintendo's other big IP suppliers was ARM, and I mean for the video in GBA/DS, not just for the CPU.

Well one of Nintendo's long term partners is Sharp. So what?

 

[wsippel]

Really? Any quote to sustain that?

As far as I'm aware, nobody has any idea who designed the DS GPU. There's a theory that it was designed by some small startup that was later acquired by Imagination Technologies or something, as they were working on tech similar to what the DS uses.