Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech

[brain_stew]

Why use DDR3 for a console when GDDR5 is both widely used and available cheaply? Sure it'd require a slight reworking of the memory controller but if you plan to ship 100million of the things (which Nintendo will) its an easy cost to justify in order to gain twice the bandwidth.

Nintendo could blow away the current consoles by pairing between 4 and 6 Bobcat cores to the same 400SP GPU used in LLano (heck, even a 320/240SP part would probably do) and 1GB of GDDR5. They could have that ready for a late 2011 produced at 28nm @ TSMC and fit it in a sub 50w TDP with little issue. It'd be a fantastic little box and be as simple as pie for developers to port all their current generation engines which would all run at better quality than they do on the PS3 or 360.

 

[corduroygt]

Anything with x86 is priced out of competition in the console CPU market, I think.

 

[Squilliam]

Nintendo could blow away the current consoles by pairing between 4 and 6 Bobcat cores to the same 400SP GPU used in LLano (heck, even a 320/240SP part would probably do) and 1GB of GDDR5. They could have that ready for a late 2011 produced at 28nm @ TSMC and fit it in a sub 50w TDP with little issue. It'd be a fantastic little box and be as simple as pie for developers to port all their current generation engines which would all run at better quality than they do on the PS3 or 360.

If the next generation architecture is as good as implied by the rumours, I would bet Nintendo would be significantly better off using a next generation part based off one of the AMD island chain architectures. Sure, it would test the time to market to validate and release a console that quickly but if the rumours pan out for better performance / watt and better compute and tessellation capabilities it may be well worth trying.

If they do rush to market like that it wouldn't be the first time a console maker used a proxy console for early developers to develop on. Sony used a 7800GTX and a Cell processor in a desktop platform and Microsoft used a PowerPC Mac. However in this case developers could simply develop games which work on their own PCs which simplifies the development process in the early days significantly.

 

[archangelmorph]

If they do rush to market like that it wouldn't be the first time a console maker used a proxy console for early developers to develop on. Sony used a 7800GTX and a Cell processor in a desktop platform and Microsoft used a PowerPC Mac. However in this case developers could simply develop games which work on their own PCs which simplifies the development process in the early days significantly.

Working with proxy hardware doesn't simplify anything TBH... & it's made even worse when your final hardware kits come along & you end up with hardware features & API functionality changed & even missing in some cases...

& if the PS4 for example is anything like the PS3 then you'd be better off holding off until the final hardware spec is locked down in order to port your codebase directly from PS3 than you would porting it over to some obscure, off-the-shelf-hardware-based prototype kit of which you'd only end up significantly overhauling it later anyways...

 

[babcat]

I'm hoping the PS4 will be a very powerful machine. However, I'm curious how much more powerful it can be than the PS3 while maintaining a similar range of power usage. Hopefully, the PS4 can use a top of the line custom modified GPU that is printed using a 22nm process or smaller. I also hope they stick to the CELL processor. The easy quickest way for them to proceed would be to link several of them together.

 

[thop]

Fusion seems like a logical and natural fit for the next Nintendo console, but Nintendo isn't in a hurry to do anything. Sony on the other hand cannot afford a PS4.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Fusion seems like a logical and natural fit for the next Nintendo console, but Nintendo isn't in a hurry to do anything. Sony on the other hand cannot afford a PS4.

Now ;-)

... but in 2013 when next rolls around (and believe you me we will most definitely wait that long) they will certainly be able to ;-)

 

[kagemaru]

I don't understand why anyone thinks Ninty would produce a console more powerful than the ps3/360 in any meaningful way. They are out of the tech race and using last gen specs has worked for them before, so why not again?

I understand that Ninty can produce a console today that outperforms the ps3/360 and still pull a profit, but why do anything to eat into said profit? If the successor to the Wii ends up becoming the dreamcast of the next generation, I'll be surprised.

 

[Squilliam]

I don't understand why anyone thinks Ninty would produce a console more powerful than the ps3/360 in any meaningful way. They are out of the tech race and using last gen specs has worked for them before, so why not again?

Because being below the tech parity has cost them in many ways. Arguably they would have made even more profit with a much higher market share had they started with a $299 console with much more performance and worked their way down. The console was out of stock for the first two years of release anyway so the market would have bared a more expensive Wii. They missed out on a lot of games this generation and their competitors got a leg up in managing to salvage a reasonable market position.

I understand that Ninty can produce a console today that outperforms the ps3/360 and still pull a profit, but why do anything to eat into said profit? If the successor to the Wii ends up becoming the dreamcast of the next generation, I'll be surprised.

Releasing a console which is too weak eats into said profit as much as releasing a console which is too powerful, cue PS3. It just doesn't look as obvious because we accept the price Nintendo sold their console for and what hardware it contains. However had they had a more powerful console and priced it higher they could have sold even more of them and for longer and at a higher price.

 

[Gerry]

Because being below the tech parity has cost them in many ways. Arguably they would have made even more profit with a much higher market share had they started with a $299 console with much more performance and worked their way down.

I have to admit that I find that argument very, very tenuous indeed. I don't think there's a lot of evidence to support that supposition.

 

[kagemaru]

I'm sorry I just don't understand how they could have made more profit with a higher performance system when they have been making profit from day one while MS and Sony have been losing bucket loads of money until far later in the generation. Unless I'm mistaken, HD was a huge cost for everyone in the industry, so I can't agree that Ninty would be earning more if they kept tech parity.

Being below tech parity has only cost them in multiplatform titles, but history with the GC has shown that even having a system that stands up tech-wise does not guarantee multiplatform titles. Even with the Wii, if Ninty would had worked harder to be included in multiplatform development, I think more games can be scaled back to fit on the Wii (see CoD:MW). It's not like the Wii-only audience would know nor care of the downgrades.

I guess what I'm trying to say is most of the problems Ninty is facing with the Wii probably would still be there if the Wii was up to spec with the competition, but then the higher specs would eat into Ninty's profits.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm sorry I just don't understand how they could have made more profit with a higher performance system when they have been making profit from day one while MS and Sony have been losing bucket loads of money until far later in the generation. Unless I'm mistaken, HD was a huge cost for everyone in the industry, so I can't agree that Ninty would be earning more if they kept tech parity.

There are as many non-Wii gamers out there as Wii gamers. Ninty gets nothing from them. Had they created a more powerful system, they could catered to everyone, and sold twice as many systems, twice as much software, including revenue from the likes of COD:MW.

I don't know if the numbers support that or not, and you'd need a well costed, comparable system that Nintendo could have released instead of Wii, and you'd need to gauge adoption of that system by the hardcore. But there's certainly a valid argument in favour of more power.

 

[brain_stew]

I don't understand why anyone thinks Ninty would produce a console more powerful than the ps3/360 in any meaningful way. They are out of the tech race and using last gen specs has worked for them before, so why not again?
.

Then why exactly does the 3DS seemingly trounce the PSP in graphics? If Nintendo could "get away with" PSP level graphics then why are they delivering a handheld with stereo 3D graphics and a GPU that can produce games with self shadowing and lots of normal maps with consummate ease?

Just as with the 3DS, nintendo will want to win over the traditional gamers that are attracted to the PSP/PS3/360 with the next Wii. By having the best console version (by some distance) of all those big blockbuster multiplatform titles for a whole two years they can go an awful long way towards doing just that.

That they can produce a console in late 2011 that turns a profit at $300/$250 which gives the PS3 and 360 a severe beating and also doesn't demand a huge form factor means there's little reason not to go ahead and surpass the PS3/360.

Nintendo only stuck with GCN based technology for BC reasons but they're going to have to ditch that design now (since they need a console that targets HD resolutions and shader heavy games, they've admitted as much themselves and have already dipped their toes into modern shaders now with the 3DS), so why not go ahead and deliver the best they can get for their cash?

I have to admit that I find that argument very, very tenuous indeed. I don't think there's a lot of evidence to support that supposition.

3 consecutive years of declining hardware sales (while their competitor's fortunes go in the opposite direction) and a near complete withdrawl of third party support, shows that the Wii's strategy wasn't perfect. No console has ever dropped as harshly as the Wii has after two years where they utterly embarrassed the competition. The PS3 and 360 should have been an irrelevant footnote in history at this point but they're not.

 

[kagemaru]

There are as many non-Wii gamers out there as Wii gamers. Ninty gets nothing from them. Had they created a more powerful system, they could catered to everyone, and sold twice as many systems, twice as much software, including revenue from the likes of COD:MW.

I don't know if the numbers support that or not, and you'd need a well costed, comparable system that Nintendo could have released instead of Wii, and you'd need to gauge adoption of that system by the hardcore. But there's certainly a valid argument in favour of more power.

I don't disagree that there isn't an argument for more power, I think we all would love more power. I just don't think tech parity is in line with Ninty's business model nor is it the answer to all of their problems.

Then why exactly does the 3DS seemingly trounce the PSP in graphics? If Nintendo could "get away with" PSP level graphics then why are they delivering a handheld with stereo 3D graphics and a GPU that can produce games with self shadowing and lots of normal maps with consummate ease?

Just as with the 3DS, nintendo will want to win over the traditional gamers that are attracted to the PSP/PS3/360 with the next Wii. By having the best console version (by some distance) of all those big blockbuster multiplatform titles for a whole two years they can go an awful long way towards doing just that.

That they can produce a console in late 2011 that turns a profit at $300/$250 which gives the PS3 and 360 a severe beating and also doesn't demand a huge form factor means there's little reason not to go ahead and surpass the PS3/360.

Nintendo only stuck with GCN based technology for BC reasons but they're going to have to ditch that design now (since they need a console that targets HD resolutions and shader heavy games, they've admitted as much themselves and have already dipped their toes into modern shaders now with the 3DS), so why not go ahead and deliver the best they can get for their cash?

3 consecutive years of declining hardware sales (while their competitor's fortunes go in the opposite direction) and a near complete withdrawl of third party support, shows that the Wii's strategy wasn't perfect. No console has ever dropped as harshly as the Wii has after two years where they utterly embarrassed the competition. The PS3 and 360 should have been an irrelevant footnote in history at this point but they're not.

Touche. The only argument I can make for the 3DS is that Ninty knows they have a stronghold over the handheld market that they do not have in the home console market, so they are more willing to take risks and spend money for a safer market.

I don't think anyone is claiming Ninty's strategy was perfect, but considering how expensive HD was in the beginning of this gen, it was the move that worked best with their business model.

Also again, the decline in hardware sales and software support could have very well happened even if the Wii was as powerful as the ps3/360.

 

[Mobius1aic]

There are as many non-Wii gamers out there as Wii gamers. Ninty gets nothing from them. Had they created a more powerful system, they could catered to everyone, and sold twice as many systems, twice as much software, including revenue from the likes of COD:MW.

I don't know if the numbers support that or not, and you'd need a well costed, comparable system that Nintendo could have released instead of Wii, and you'd need to gauge adoption of that system by the hardcore. But there's certainly a valid argument in favour of more power.

Nintendo probably would need a much better Live like service in order to pull people away from the 360 to their system. As for the NGCish hardware, I'm sure it helped to smooth out ease of early development for the Wii, while providing BC, though I'm sure people are starting to consider the BC capabilities as not worth the bane they created.

 

[Teasy]

kagemaru - Who's talking about tech parity? We're talking about Nintendo making a system more powerful then 360\PS3 in 2011. To be honest I can't see a reason to make a system less powerful then those two when backwards compatibility is no longer an issue.

 

[TheChefO]

...when backwards compatibility is no longer an issue.

Did I miss something? Why is BC no longer an issue?

 

[upnorthsox]

Did I miss something? Why is BC no longer an issue?

Were any people besides diehard nintendo fans playing gamecube games on the Wii? Would it have even really mattered to the fanboys if it weren't there? In practice, this gen was the anti-BC generation for al the consoles. Next gen may be a bit different with all the DD content, or not, still hard to say but since Ninty hasn't really participated in that this gen it doesn't realy matter to them either way,

 

[Squilliam]

Nintendo does have quite a few good options between Bobcat, Bulldozer and Llano and any various custom chips based upon each depending on how much they want to invest, spend and their target bill of materials.

 

[Silenti]

Did I miss something? Why is BC no longer an issue?

I was under the impression BC was as good as dead for a couple of reasons.

1. They can sell recompiled DC versions of the old games. (ie Halo CE for 10 or 20$) and
2. By sidestepping the issue they remove all kinds of legacy problems with software and/or hardware.

Hey, I could be dead wrong. However, it would not surprise me if only a few big name titles actually still worked and they allowed publishers/ developers to do a code rework and sell the games all over again, at a much reduced price of course.

Sidenote:
Are we really talking about 2013 here for everyone? That seems like an incredibly long time between generations. That would be 8 years for the 360!