MR-"I think Unreal Engine 3 and Nintendo Revolution would be very well suited to each

[pc999]

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.

Most people expect somethingh in bettwen of a X1300/X1600 that is already less than 1/2 of the others (in transsistores terms) and very cool, if we suposse something like that you can put one "full PPU" here and still have less transsistores than their GPUs, the same if you compare to the CELL ussing a 970MP or even intregrated somehere, and taking in account the thread here is said that most dev know very little about the Rev and may only release later than summer in 06, then it may even be in 65nm.

I am only saying that they can release a console with less than 400M of transsistores with good performance (no HD) and being cheaper even more if 65nm are used (I know that transsistores arent everythingh, but in a console made for low cost it may be one of the main aspects in terms of cost).

 

[Thunder Emperor]

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.

you are right but i beleive tht el2 cache will be higher, due to th elower clock speed, it only makes sense for it to run high at say 2mb on the l2 cache be core.

 

[pc999]

you are right but i beleive tht el2 cache will be higher, due to th elower clock speed, it only makes sense for it to run high at say 2mb on the l2 cache be core.

More L2 because the CPU is slower?
As long as I konw the higher the speed (in Ghz) the higher the latency, then is better more L2 if the CPU is faster not if slower, or I misunderstud you?

 

[Cornman]

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.

or a graphics processor capable of physics made by ATi?

http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.aspx?i=25040

We all know nintendo killed your dog. So please stop taking it out on people who like nintendo.

 

[Cornman]

Most people expect somethingh in bettwen of a X1300/X1600 that is already less than 1/2 of the others (in transsistores terms) and very cool, if we suposse something like that you can put one "full PPU" here and still have less transsistores than their GPUs, the same if you compare to the CELL ussing a 970MP or even intregrated somehere, and taking in account the thread here is said that most dev know very little about the Rev and may only release later than summer in 06, then it may even be in 65nm.

I am only saying that they can release a console with less than 400M of transsistores with good performance (no HD) and being cheaper even more if 65nm are used (I know that transsistores arent everythingh, but in a console made for low cost it may be one of the main aspects in terms of cost).

notice why nintendo pushed back Revolution's release date...

They are waiting for (1)Sony PS3(so it can offset its launch) (2) the 65nm process.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

or a graphics processor capable of physics made by ATi?

http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.aspx?i=25040

We all know nintendo killed your dog. So please stop taking it out on people who like nintendo.

I've never had a dog. If they killed anyone's dog it wasn't mine. As for a GPU doing physics, yeah fine. That's an alternative that'd work. The discussion was talking about adding a PPU alongside a CPU and GPU though.

Let's see now. 3 new threads, all Nintendo centric. Nothing particularly wrong with that save that two of them were nothing like the titles you attached to them. And a spontaneous unintelligent response talking about physics processing on a GPU in a discussion asking if a seperate GPU could be added, in which I suggested an alternative non-PPU vertex processor (GPGPU would suffice), and you suggest I'm huffy with Nintendo fans...

Where's that 'Ignore List' button?

 

[Cornman]

I've never had a dog. If they killed anyone's dog it wasn't mine. As for a GPU doing physics, yeah fine. That's an alternative that'd work. The discussion was talking about adding a PPU alongside a CPU and GPU though.

Let's see now. 3 new threads, all Nintendo centric. Nothing particularly wrong with that save that two of them were nothing like the titles you attached to them. And a spontaneous unintelligent response talking about physics processing on a GPU in a discussion asking if a seperate GPU could be added, in which I suggested an alternative non-PPU vertex processor (GPGPU would suffice), and you suggest I'm huffy with Nintendo fans...

Where's that 'Ignore List' button?

and you troll all my threads so I guess we're even.....

I am going to ignore you troll along with the mods(pro-sony fans).

 

[Bobbler]

and you troll all my threads so I guess we're even.....

I am going to ignore you troll along with the mods(pro-sony fans).

An attitude like that isn't going to get you very far here.

 

[Li Mu Bai]

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.

Budget? Was the new controller interface budget developed too? Or is it because they refuse to add cost to the machine by not supporting HD resolutions? I seem to remember Nintendo being in talks with Elpida for an XDR memory solution, but choosing to go with MoSys 1T-SRAM-Q. Yes, Nintendo has publicly stated that they did not want price to be an alienating factor, (ala the PS3) but the platform is also not housing superflous features either. This also brings down cost, it is essentially solely a gaming platform. Until you know architectural specifics, better not to comment on imaginary bottom lines.

 

[pc999]

MoSys 1T-SRAM-Q

This Q version in which ways is better/different than the 1T-SRAM

 

[Teasy]

This Q version in which ways is better/different than the 1T-SRAM

1T-Sram-Q is much more dense then the original 1T-Sram because it uses Mosys's new Folded Area Capacitor technology. Basically they reduce the memorys bit cell size by folding the bit cell gate oxide capacitor vertically down the STI sidewall (which decreases the horizontal area).

Its way above my head of course , but the end result is that they can fit more memory in the same die area when compared to 1T-Sram.

 

[pc999]

but the end result is that they can fit more memory in the same die area when compared to 1T-Sram.

Then cheaper, thanks.

 

[Teasy]

Just checked a bit more and 1T-Sram-Q is apparently twice as dense as 1T-Sram. So they can fit twice as much memory in the same die area now:

http://www.us.design-reuse.com/news/news4521.html

 

[pc999]

Just checked a bit more and 1T-Sram-Q is apparently twice as dense as 1T-Sram. So they can fit twice as much memory in the same die area now:

http://www.us.design-reuse.com/news/news4521.html

If I remember well 1T-Sram is ~30% pricier than DRAM, then this means it could be cheaper than DRAM (DDR3 etc...), Right?