joint Nintendo-NEC console?

[clem64]

Nintendo are stuborn when it comes to their business model. Me thinks GC2 has a very good chance of being underpowred compared to the other systems coming out at around the same time. But it will still be able to compete in the graphics departement. A little like GC is slightly less powerful and still able to produce good looking games compared to Xbox.

It will most likely also be cheaper which I'm all for.

 

[zidane1strife]

the article from IGN even says it could be out by 2005 to meet
Playstation3.

Not good... hope that's not right... 3 consoles in one yr = overkill... too much... they could eat into each other's sales...

1 billion poly/s is expected progression for 2005, considering GeforceFX going to sit at 350 million/s next year.

Well, I think the GeFX number is peak... that 1billion, assuming it would actually be that low, would be with lots of effects in game.
Anyway I expect the nextgen consoles will have the computational power equivalent to that necessary to render peaks of dozens of billions of polys per second... even if such power is not used for polys.

 

[Magnum PI]

Nintendo are stuborn when it comes to their business model. Me thinks GC2 has a very good chance of being underpowred compared to the other systems coming out at around the same time. But it will still be able to compete in the graphics departement. A little like GC is slightly less powerful and still able to produce good looking games compared to Xbox.

It will most likely also be cheaper which I'm all for.

they aren't stuborn. they just don't want to lose 150 dollars by console they sell. not every comparny has 40 billion dollars a hand..

they target a pricepoint. then they do the best possible for this pricepoint.

would it be better if they tid do what sega did w/ the dreamcast ?

 

[Legion]

http://www.npdfunworld.com/funServlet?nextpage=news_article.html&nwsid=4089

this might be of interest to you all.

 

[Qroach]

What the heck? How does this interest anyone?

 

[clem64]

they aren't stuborn. they just don't want to lose 150 dollars by console they sell. not every comparny has 40 billion dollars a hand..

they target a pricepoint. then they do the best possible for this pricepoint.

would it be better if they tid do what sega did w/ the dreamcast ?

I'm not gonna go into whether or not it is a smart decision to do things the way they do. But they seem to be the least aggressive company when it comes to taking a financial hit on hardware, and they also usually target a lower pricepoint then the competition. So, GC2 specs. might not turn out to be as high as they could be. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Megadrive1988]

whatever GG2's specs, it will no doubt be capable of rendering 1 billion polys/sec in in-game situations, and that will not be peak, it will be usable polygons in games. all the next gen systems will have well over 1Bpps rendering at the very least. Even if GC2 is slightly less powerful in some areas...than PS3 and XB...the technicial differences between the NEXT three consoles will matter less, than the differences in this generation.

 

[jvd]

I would find it lodgical to go with ati , they seem to know what nintendo wants. Mabye they will just produce the chip that ati designs ?
While I know that sony is going to be using the cell as a chip imho it will not be the top of the line verson of it. So don't expect some ungodly power . The cell chip will be for workstations and will prob cost over a 1000 each chip.

I would like to see nintendo go for a power vr , something like a nice 16x2 500mhz deffered rendering system. Be nice .. hell i'd love to see that next year in my pc... Okay i need to go hit the slots some more , take care

 

[Teasy]

But Nintendo next gen won't come out till like 2008 or some where there.

No way, I don't even think it'll be a year after PS3 like GC with PS2 this gen. I think Nintendo's next console will be out within 6 months of PS2, probably within only a couple of months. Why would Nintendo get its new console out at the same time as Sony's this time if they didn't last time? Well last time only PS2 was out, XBox was coming later so GameCube only needed to be out at the same time as XBox to compete well enough. This time its almost certain that MS will get XBox 2 out at the same time as PS3. Nintendo cannot afford to come out a year after the other two consoles, because they will then have a serious chance of there console failing.

Nintendo said they would support GameCube upto 2007 or something, but that does not mean they won't bring out a new console before they end GameCube support. Look at PSX now, it still gets support even with PS2 being out over two years now.

clem64

SNES was at least as powerful as Megadrive. N64 was more powerful then any other console at release and for quite some time after and GameCube is more powerful then PS2. So why would you think that Nintendo's next console will be underpowered compared to both XBox 2 and PS3?[/quote]

 

[megadrive0088]

I would find it lodgical to go with ati , they seem to know what nintendo wants. Mabye they will just produce the chip that ati designs ?

Well, I think you're trying to say that NEC would produce the graphics chip that ATI designs for Nintendo. And I would agree, if that's what you ment.


As for Nintendo's launch window for the next system, late 2005 to late 2006 seems about right, as I've said. 2004 is too early, 2007 is too late.

I'm banking on an ATI designed core, within the system LSI that NEC helps to design and manufacture. much like the current GameCube's Flipper LSI, of which the graphics portion was designed by ArtX (acquired by ATI) and Nintendo, with the help of NEC (they embedded the MOSYS 1T-SRAM) and all mass produced by NEC. did you follow that on Flipper?
I know that must have been confusing...

PowerVR is a dark horse at the moment, IMO. they have not proven themselves in the highend PC market since Series 2. and even that was late, resulting in a flop. Actually, PowerVR has never had a truly sucessful highend desktop chip. sure there was Series 1, the PCX1/PCX2 but they were badly beaten in the marketplace by 3Dfx. Series 2 was late for PCs but made an incredible console out of Dreamcast. Series 3/KYRO was for the value market. Series 4, sadly, has been cancelled *sniff* -so Series 5 is PowerVR's chance to prove once and for all, that their tech is viable in the highend. only then, would Nintendo concider the future Series 6 or 7, as a candidate for their next machine. I still doubt though, that Nintendo will stray from the people that have made the graphics for the last two consoles. those people are currently at ATI, and the whole combined force of ATI/ArtX has proven themselves with Flipper and R300. the R350, R400 and R500 are all set to continue that trend. unless something drastic happens....

A Gameboy with strong 3D ability using PowerVR, however, is much more likely, IMHO. but then again, Nintendo has hinted that GameCube will become a handheld one day...small media size is perfect, Shiggy mentioned that a year or two ago..

On the other hand, this world and this industry are a crazy place. For all I know...Nintendo, Sega and Capcom could get together to make games for a dope PowerVR Series 7 console.

 

[jvd]

yes megadrive0088 that is what i was trying to say , sometimes my thoughts(most times ) don't translate to paper correctly.

Sega made a smart choice going with the power vr . It was great for its time and i believe is nintendo worked with video lodgic they could modd a future core into something very powerfull. But hey then again so could ati. I think nintendo is in a smart place right now . They can in theory drop there price again by 20 dollars and still make money. Who knows what will happen. They just have to be close to the xbox 2 and the ps2 .

I agree that a game boy with an mbx (right?) would be a kill system. I would rather have a gamecube though. Or hell a dreamcast as a hand held.

 

[Teasy]

megadrive0088

I'm not really sure about the argument that PowerVR need to have a highend graphics chip in the PC space before Nintendo would consider them. After all Nintendo's last two consoles have graphics chips made by a company that has never even had a low end PC gaming graphics chip (ArtX) in the PC space. PowerBE undoutedly have a much better record for powerful PC chips then ArtX ever have. Also remember that ArtX got the contract for both those consoles before ATI bought them.

I think Nintendo will just use the technology design that suits them best, no matter if the company in question currently has a highend PC chip out or not. But currently the best bet is ATI/ArtX for the next console.

BTW I hope PowerVR do get a highend chip out in the PC space soon. From what I know its not really a question of the next PowerVR chip being high end, the only question you can ask is if they can get it out on time.

 

[V3]

Nintendo said they would support GameCube upto 2007 or something, but that does not mean they won't bring out a new console before they end GameCube support. Look at PSX now, it still gets support even with PS2 being out over two years now.

Why PSX ? Look at N64.

 

[Ty]

From what I know its not really a question of the next PowerVR chip being high end, the only question you can ask is if they can get it out on time.

Well that's part of the problem though, isn't it? It's only highend RELATIVE to the current competition. As has happened before, what once was going to be highend became run-of-the-mill once it finally shipped.

 

[Reznor007]

SNES was at least as powerful as Megadrive.

No way. At least not in general processing power. The Genesis beat the SNES in CPU power by a mile. A 3.6MHz 65C816(SNES) compared to a 7.6MHz 68000(Genesis)? Really...

However, in sound and video hardware, the SNES tossed the Genesis around like a rag doll

 

[clem64]

Teasy:

because of the two reasons I've mentioned. If MS and Sony are both willing to take a bigger financial hit and have a higher pricepoint (say, 300$ compared to 200$) It is very unlikely that GC2 would have superior or even similar performance.

I hope N goes for a higher pricepoint next gen. I don't mind paying 50 or 100$ more at launch if it means having better graphics for the next 5 years.

The GC, even if the specs aren't terribly high for the time it came out, has probably the most efficient architecture seen in consoles in the last few years. It's a shame N wasn't willing to invest more in the hardware to maybe add more RAM or have slightly faster CPU/GPU. Had they done that, the system would have given the Xbox a real run for its money. So who knows, if they have a similar type of super efficient architecture for GC2 and aim for a higher pricepoint, they might actually come out on top performance wise.

 

[PC-Engine]

GCN is already giving Xbox a run for its money and it cost less to boot.

 

[Plasmatics]

Is it not possible to extrapolate numbers for next gen consoles by comparing the N64 to the Xbox? Is it possible that the same percentage increase from the N64 to the Xbox will occur from Xbox to Xbox 2? I use N64 even though it had lower poly numbers than the PSX, its games looked better.

I did some quick numbers and came up with something like an 800% increase in poly performance, (150k for N64 to 120 million for Xbox) which would mean like 100 billion raw polys/sec.

One could also figure out real world performance. ERP quoted 30 million polys/sec in his Xbox racing game only a year into the Xbox's lifespan. Assuming perhaps 40 million polys/sec by the end of the Xbox lifespan we can then assume that the Xbox 2 might be capable of 1/3 the number of raw polys for real world numbers. Using the 100 billion raw we could assume 33 billion in game?

Perhaps this logic (or my math ) is flawed but I just thought I'd throw it out there. And of course all of this is assuming a near identical improvement in every area from memory speed and effeciency to amount of memory to processor improvements. There may be more or less dramatic improvements from here until the next gen of consoles are released.

 

[cybamerc]

Teasy:

> After all Nintendo's last two consoles have graphics chips made by a
> company that has never even had a low end PC gaming graphics chip
> (ArtX) in the PC space.

The N64 was designed SGI whose credentials speak for themself. The very same ppl who worked on the N64 at SGI later formed ArtX and that is why Nintendo went with that company instead of SGI. These former SGI ppl have an outstanding track record including their most recent accomplishments at ATI. Keeping that, and Nintendo's relationship with them, in mind I think it would be absolute madness to dump them... unless of course, there's something we don't know (e.g. key personnel leaving ATI).

I don't understand the PowerVR fascination. Sure they have some interesting technology and provide good value for a reasonable amount of money but the performance of its products has never warranted the attention and hype the company gets.

Saying that PowerVR would make worthy a replacement for ATI is ludicrous. There is absolutely no basis for such a statement.


Also, to the ones claiming that the next gen consoles will push several billion polys per second you might want to keep this in mind:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/19036.html

GeForce 6 will be out in 2003 and built using 100 million transistors and running at 500MHz. The board will shift between one and five million polygons per frame.

Looking beyond, his spiel suggested that by 2006 there could be a GeForce 10 boasting 300 million transistors and running at 750MHz. Again this would render between one and five million polygons per frame.

 

[Teasy]

Well that's part of the problem though, isn't it?

What I was saying is that they are actually aiming for highend this time from what I know. Kyro and Kyro II for instance were never aimed to the highend.

because of the two reasons I've mentioned. If MS and Sony are both willing to take a bigger financial hit and have a higher pricepoint (say, 300$ compared to 200$) It is very unlikely that GC2 would have superior or even similar performance.

But where do you get the idea that Nintendo are only willing to put out a cheap console? The fact is that appart from GameCube Nintendo do not have a record of putting out cheap consoles AFAICS. As I said, GameCube is how it is this time around because that's all that was required. GameCube is capable of being right up there with XBox in visuals and better then PS2, and that's fine by them. But if they see XBox2 and PS3 specs and want there console out at the same time then why would they release it weaker then both the competitors?.. seriously, show me the trend of Nintendo putting out underpowered cheap consoles.

I use N64 even though it had lower poly numbers than the PSX, its games looked better.

To be honest PSX didn't really have higher polycounts then N64 AFAICS. We've actually talked about this before and the conclusion that we ended up on was that while PSX had big raw numbers the actual ingame numbers were lower then N64's ingame numbers.

I did some quick numbers and came up with something like an 800% increase in poly performance, (150k for N64 to 120 million for Xbox) which would mean like 100 billion raw polys/sec.

The problem there is your looking at what I think are probably ingame N64 polycounts vs peak XBox polycounts that will never come close to being reached in a game. Its probably better to look at it as 150,000 vs 40 million.

cybamerc

So the people of ArtX were still SGI when they designed N64, I didn't know that. But still SGI had no highend graphics card in the PC space did they. Which is what I was saying, having a highend graphics card in the PC space isn't all tha matters and I don't think it'll have any baring on Nintendo's decision of who to work with for their next console.

I don't understand the PowerVR fascination. Sure they have some interesting technology and provide good value for a reasonable amount of money but the performance of its products has never warranted the attention and hype the company gets.

Well they had the graphics chip in the fastest console out for quite a few years, and even when PS2 came out DC still stood up to in overall, wouldn't you say that warrents attention? They also have some very impressive arcade machines and at least have some decent history in the PC space. The fascination with their technology is simple, everyone can see that the potential is huge.

Saying that PowerVR would make worthy a replacement for ATI is ludicrous. There is absolutely no basis for such a statement.

Well, I don't really want to get into this discussion, but I think the PowerVR tech has been proven in the console space and I certainly see them as an option for Nintendo. One of the possible advantages is that they have worked with NEC (Nintendo's partner) many times in the past (most notably for DC) and are very prepared to just make a chip design and allow NEC/Nintendo to make the actual chip, because its what PowerVR do, its their business model. ATI don't do this, although I'm sure they could, but will they want to? We'll see anyway, as I said ATI are still the first choice IMO right now and probably will be the people behind Nintendo's next console.