Nintendo DS 3d performance

[Shogmaster]

why don't they use powervr mbx technology ? it's available with ARM processors...

My guess is that DS was never meant to be a proper 3D system at it's inception. Only after the PSP announcement, they hastily threw in additional 3D aiding components together Sega Saturn style, resulting in the beast we are hearing about today.

I'll bet you that DS in the beginning never had that 2nd screen, and just had the ARM9 as the main CPU, and infact, WAS intended to be just another incremental update to the main GBA line.

Anyways, since MBX was announced by IMG TECH well over 2 years ago, it's entirely Nintendo's fault for not utilising such an ideal tech in it's 2005 portable.

We don't know what they use... It might be MBX, it might be ATi's Acceleon or whatever their crap's called, etc.

Hopefully we won't have to wait until E3 in (late, unfortunately) may before they tell us what hardware is in that thing.

I think we can safely rule out MBX. Even at only 30Mhz, it should be able to do better than 120,000 PPS.

 

[cybamerc]

Shogmaster:

> My guess is that DS was never meant to be a proper 3D system at it's
> inception.

My guess is that you're trolling as usual.

> Only after the PSP announcement, they hastily threw in additional 3D
> aiding components together Sega Saturn style

There are absolutely no indication that Nintendo is worried about matching PSP in features or power.

> I'll bet you that DS in the beginning never had that 2nd screen

Nintendo works on multiple concepts at any given time. Most never amount to anything, others evolve and turn into something else.

> and just had the ARM9 as the main CPU, and infact, WAS intended to
> be just another incremental update to the main GBA line.

That wouldn't really be an incremental upgrade and your speculation makes little sense since the GBA hasn't reached its peak yet.

> it's entirely Nintendo's fault for not utilising such an ideal tech in it's
> 2005 portable.

2004

 

[Shogmaster]

Shogmaster:

> My guess is that DS was never meant to be a proper 3D system at it's
> inception.

My guess is that you're trolling as usual.

Gee Wiz are the Nintendo fans ever touchy! It's just idle speculation man. No need to get all bunched up and pull out the T word. You make it sound like I hang out here all the time.

> Only after the PSP announcement, they hastily threw in additional 3D
> aiding components together Sega Saturn style

There are absolutely no indication that Nintendo is worried about matching PSP in features or power.

No. The soiled undergarments are staying out of open view I'm sure.

> I'll bet you that DS in the beginning never had that 2nd screen

Nintendo works on multiple concepts at any given time. Most never amount to anything, others evolve and turn into something else.

Virtual Boy, E Reader.... I see what you mean.

> and just had the ARM9 as the main CPU, and infact, WAS intended to
> be just another incremental update to the main GBA line.

That wouldn't really be an incremental upgrade

GB Color -> GB Advanced
GB Advanced with ARM7-> GB Advance ARM9

Both incremental in that they are still milking 2D for the most part.

and your speculation makes little sense since the GBA hasn't reached its peak yet.

Please by all means, do go ahead and enjoy all the exciting and improved future GBA titles for the rest of your gaming life. We'll be moving on to bigger and better things.

 

[Guden Oden]

My guess is that DS was never meant to be a proper 3D system at it's inception.

Considering as you have no facts to support your guesses, one might speculate about your motives for making such a post...

resulting in the beast we are hearing about today.

Beast? What beast? We hardly know anything about the system yet.

I think we can safely rule out MBX.

Based on what? You have no knowledge of the hardware, yet you think it's "safe to say"?

 

[Clashman]

The reason I haven't speculated about MBX is because Nintendo does seem to have a pretty cushy relationship with ATI. Therefore, if there is dedicated hardware for 3d, (or 2d, for that matter), I would lean towards ATI as being the provider of said hardware.

 

[MfA]

With ATI they would need to use eDRAM though, and probably IBM as a foundry ... designs which can render to embedded memory have a big performance per watt advantage over designs which cant. That is MBX's advantage, much better suited to the cheap foundries.

Such a pity that XBoy mockup wasnt an actual Microsoft project, the design is so right for this timeframe. Innovation is a nice thing, but what is wrong with just servicing the existing market? They would have been able to make a cheap reasonably powerfull 3D machine at the end of this year, guess they are just too scared to face Sony head on.

 

[Fafalada]

Such a pity that XBoy mockup wasnt an actual Microsoft project, the design is so right for this timeframe. Innovation is a nice thing, but what is wrong with just servicing the existing market? They would have been able to make a cheap reasonably powerfull 3D machine at the end of this year, guess they are just too scared to face Sony head on.

If M$ made something called XBoy, you KNOW Sony would have called theirs PlayGirl, and well... how the heck can you compete with that? 8)

 

[Clashman]

Can anyone give me a link to info on that XBoy mockup? I know it's fake, but it piqued my interest, and I wasn't able to find anything doing a quick yahoo search.

 

[Deadmeat]

...

why don't they use powervr mbx technology ? it's available with ARM processors...

1. Licensing cost : N64 GPU is almost paid for, while the MBX license isn't cheap.
2. Developer Familiarity : Nintendo inhouse engineers are familiar with N64 GPU, but not with MBX. So

 

[Clashman]

Looking at the PDF one more time, anyone else think that the ARM processors are running pretty low? Maybe the speeds listed on the ARM site are top speeds, but the ARM720T is listed as running at 75 Mhz for .18 process and 100 mhz for .13. The ARM946E-S is listed at 160-170 mhz for .18 and 190-210 for .13. Given the low power consumption for both of them, why wouldn't they crank up the clock a little bit? Is cost that much of an issue?

 

[Edge]

Yes, the clockrate is most likely a cost issue, and power issue. It will run longer at the lower clock rate. Of course the second screen kinda of counters the whole power saving issue. Hmmm?

No surprise here on the clock rate, as Nintendo is providing a conservative increase, like usual. I think it's a nice system, and hopefully it will be very compact.

Don't listen to Shogmaster, as he is a trouble maker. Hi Brian!

> "Can anyone give me a link to info on that XBoy mockup? I know it's fake, but it piqued my interest, and I wasn't able to find anything doing a quick yahoo search."

If you are talking about the graphic that Shogmaster showed on the forum, well that's his design.

 

[Paul]

Because I'm nice.

 

[Clashman]

Thanks. I actually found it about 15 seconds before Paul posted it. I didn't realize this rumour was specific to B3D. Doing a search brought up a couple of vague references, but nothing else. Not too terrible a design, either. Looks like it'd be about the size of an Ipod, maybe a little thicker. I think black would go over better than purple, though.

But on the subject of MBX, Nintendo really should be getting their butts in gear for this upcoming successor to GBA, because if they don't soon we're going to have cell-phone games whuppin' the snot out of systems designed for portable gaming, which seems just a tad sad, to me.

 

[ShinHoshi]

Hmmm...Correct me if I am wrong but the amount of VRAM is 656 Kbytes. Just supposing they are going to do 3D on the machine they would need:

FRONT FRAMEBUFFER
256*192*3*6=884736 bits=108Kbytes.
REAR FRAMEBUFFER
108Kbytes.
ZBUFFER
256*192*16= 96Kbytes.

_____________________________________
312 kbytes
_____________________________________

This still leaves a total of 344 Kbytes for textures....
But if you are going to use the two screens... Then...Well, then I have no idea at how are they going to manage it.

 

[Megadrive1988]

The reason I haven't speculated about MBX is because Nintendo does seem to have a pretty cushy relationship with ATI. Therefore, if there is dedicated hardware for 3d, (or 2d, for that matter), I would lean towards ATI as being the provider of said hardware.

agreed.

If Nintendo is going to use a 3D processor / GPU for console or handheld, they'd go to ATI first.


If Sega was going to bring out another handheld, I'm sure they'd concider a PowerVR MBX derivative.

but Nintendo's obvious choice is ATI. ATI of course has the people that built Nintendo 64's Reality Co-Processor (RSP+RDP) and Gamecube's Flipper.

 

[Evil_Cloud]

This still leaves a total of 344 Kbytes for textures....
But if you are going to use the two screens... Then...Well, then I have no idea at how are they going to manage it.

Don't you get it? Those specs are FAKE... I have an insider source that said that the chances of those specs being real are VERY VERY VÉRY slim... Let's just wait 'till E3 to analyse the real specs...

 

[ShinHoshi]

Oh sorry, I hadn't read properly your previous post.

 

[nobie]

I'll bet you that DS in the beginning never had that 2nd screen, and just had the ARM9 as the main CPU, and infact, WAS intended to be just another incremental update to the main GBA line.

Er, why would they call it DS (Dual Screen) if it didnt have two screens?

 

[cybamerc]

Shogmaster:

> You make it sound like I hang out here all the time.

I wasn't necessarilly referring to your posts on this board.

> GB Color -> GB Advanced

That wasn't an incremental upgrade. Game Boy to Game Boy Color was.

> We'll be moving on to bigger and better things.

Who's we? You and your M$ posse? Why don't you try to back up your claims with some proper arguments and save your trolling for GA?



MfA

> Such a pity that XBoy mockup wasnt an actual Microsoft project

Yes, because the Xbox is such an astounding success, both creatively and financially.

> Innovation is a nice thing

Yes, God forbid that someone tries something new. All we need to have fun is fancy specs.

> but what is wrong with just servicing the existing market?

They are... with the Game Boy product line. GBA is only 3 years old.

> guess they are just too scared to face Sony head on.

Or maybe they're just doing their own thing as usual?

 

[Evil_Cloud]

http://www.warioworld.com/

Can anyone tell me if this is fake or not?
If it's real, what's there to see? ^^