MR-"I think Unreal Engine 3 and Nintendo Revolution would be very well suited to each
- Thread starter pc999
- Start date
Fair point about new games based on the engine, it may be 2 years until we see exclusive Revolution games based on UE3 (if at all). I don't see normal ports being much different from this gen though (taking months not years). Especially since the probable graphics difference between a PS3/360 game and a Rev game will simply be resolution, especially early on (UE3 runs on a single CPU core on 360 and PS3 doesn't it?, so I can't see that being any problem).
With XBox 360 Mark Rein knows the whole deal, so he could be talking about any aspect of the system. Though considering it uses a standard controller like PS3 we'd have to assume he was talking about hardware. But with Revolution Mark doesn't know what the hardware is capable of graphically, so that really only leaves on thing he could be talking about doesn't it?, that being the controller.
BTW I've never hard of Cliffy B before, I don't get G4 where I am.
With XBox 360 Mark Rein knows the whole deal, so he could be talking about any aspect of the system. Though considering it uses a standard controller like PS3 we'd have to assume he was talking about hardware. But with Revolution Mark doesn't know what the hardware is capable of graphically, so that really only leaves on thing he could be talking about doesn't it?, that being the controller.
BTW I've never hard of Cliffy B before, I don't get G4 where I am.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ooh-videogames
Regular
I've read you'll also need a dual core processor clocked at atleast 2.5-3Ghz. Which is something Intel is providing for the PC market.
Ooh-videogames
Regular
Fox5 said:
I'm not sure, I think its in a thread on this board, Mark Rein speaks of multi core processor being the standard. In the article it is mention that UE3 is designed with dual processors in mind. That may just be for recommended specs.
As I remember we would need something like P4 3Ghz with HT, but not DualCore, if they release a DC only game next year very few will be able to play it, even today people still are buying SC and at hard work, so I dont think it will be minimun.
speculation:Any UE3 seems to be math/flop intensive (physics, compression etc...) that may be the reason why i "needed" (recomemded) a DC, and in a PPC console the VMX mey/probabl be enought for it, but I guess they will have a multi core.
speculation:Any UE3 seems to be math/flop intensive (physics, compression etc...) that may be the reason why i "needed" (recomemded) a DC, and in a PPC console the VMX mey/probabl be enought for it, but I guess they will have a multi core.
I don't remember dual-core being a requirement of UE3. That alienates a lot of the potential PC base (though I dunno trends in hardcore gamers. Maybe those that'd buy UE3 based games do all have dual-core systems?). As I remember Mark was talking about UE3 being written to support multicore from the very beginning, so having dual-core was very beneficial to performance.
If they're targetting 9800 Pro's for graphics, why limit yourself to dual-core audience? Surely anyone with dual-core has a much beefier GPU than a 9800! One would guess the CPU minimum requirement is something comparable to a 9800 in time basis. Maybe an Athlon 2500 ish. Of course for minumum spec, which is normally unplayable
If they're targetting 9800 Pro's for graphics, why limit yourself to dual-core audience? Surely anyone with dual-core has a much beefier GPU than a 9800! One would guess the CPU minimum requirement is something comparable to a 9800 in time basis. Maybe an Athlon 2500 ish. Of course for minumum spec, which is normally unplayable
Thunder Emperor
Newcomer
Cornman said:
source
Thunder Emperor
Newcomer
PC-Engine said:
source
Thunder Emperor
Newcomer
Thunder Emperor said:
though the 970mp chip is the most logical chip choice for nintendo.
Thunder Emperor said:
I agree it should have a good amout of power and easy of use (OoO), but I dont know what he mean by +Ram (if is L2 then I think it would be less 1/2).
I still dont see why people dont belive in a PPU (or some sort of), it would be great to ofload intensive tasks like animation and physics at low cost and it should be very easy of use (eg lot of fixed fuctions). I would like to see one.
If 970MP with 512 Kb per core, plus a cut down PPU at higher speeds (the actual still in 130nm) would be less than 200M of transistores (Cell is about 230M), anf if they wait for 65nm it would be very cheap.
The only PPU is Aegia's, and doesn't that only work with Novodex? Plus a PPU is only going to help with physics, not animation or other vector work. A better solution IMO would be a stronger vector showing like the XeCPU's beefed VMX units. Maybe not as strong in the physics department but they could be used for other vector work, which is pretty much everything else including animation, procedural content creation, and anything else adventurous devs can turn it to.pc999 said:
Yes, that is the reason why I put "some sort of" but I should have explained better myself.
I doubt they would ever use the Ageia one, once that they do not have any control of the software as main reason (and IMO their demos still a long road to impress me), but some of the advantages for such heavy tasks and easy of use, meybe even from ATI, but something for that work.
I doubt they would ever use the Ageia one, once that they do not have any control of the software as main reason (and IMO their demos still a long road to impress me), but some of the advantages for such heavy tasks and easy of use, meybe even from ATI, but something for that work.
pc999 said:
Because they cost money and Nintendo is making a budget machine that will sell for less than the PS3 or 360 which don't include one.
It's just not realistic financially. To produce a cheaper machine Nintendo will have to cut some corners, and adding in a PPU isn't going to help meet that bottom line.
Similar threads
