Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech

[Rangers]

Agreed..the biggest load of bull since the moon landing ...Nintendo couldn't create an os that complex of they tried.

bgassasin would tell you different...

what the heck are they doing with 2gb of RAM then? it's not showing up in the games (although for that matter neither is 1.5GB).

look to 3DS as well, 1/4 of it's 128 mb for os.

Sorry guys, a hefty chunk for OS is reality, on newest systems shipping right now.

i always assumed it had something to do with tablet overhead/nonsense.

 

[XpiderMX]

That must be the dumbest rumor ever. What on earth would Nintendo do with a half-gigabyte OS? Their resident software has ALWAYS been as bare-bones as it possibly could be, if there even was any at all. I can't even begin to imagine the universe in which that would change.

Wii U will support apps, 512mb can be for OS + apps, apps running on controller screen (web browser for example).

 

[french toast]

Yea perhaps the ability to run apps at the same time as a main game and multitask? In that scenario I would congratulate Nintendo...hardware foresight.

 

[anexanhume]

Yea perhaps the ability to run apps at the same time as a main game and multitask? In that scenario I would congratulate Nintendo...hardware foresight.

It wouldn't kill them to provide a suite of features like in-game voice chat as a standard and parties like live does.

 

[Grall]

512MB reserved for apps on the tablet, when the PRIMARY CONTROLLER for the system is the tablet? I call total bullshit.

What would people use to actually play games, if apps are running on the tablet? Run out and buy a pro controller to play with just to be able to use apps while gaming? No, that's crazytalk.

If you don't/can't play games at the same time as run apps, then you don't need to reserve 512MB for app use. Just use however the fuck much of the Wuu's RAM that you want; you're not using it for anything else anyway.

Also, with the rumored anemic CPU Nintendo is supposedly using, why would they want to reserve capacity there as well to run apps at the same time as games? You can't run anything with just RAM alone, you need processing power as well. All of this is just crazy, and a bad idea. Hopefully Nintendo is smarter than this.

 

[bgassassin]

bgassasin would tell you different...

what the heck are they doing with 2gb of RAM then? it's not showing up in the games (although for that matter neither is 1.5GB).

look to 3DS as well, 1/4 of it's 128 mb for os.

Sorry guys, a hefty chunk for OS is reality, on newest systems shipping right now.

i always assumed it had something to do with tablet overhead/nonsense.

That rumor morphed from discussion about what was going on in the dev kit. Before Ideaman eventually said how much was reserved in the dev kit, a poster was asking him about it and asked if the amount was ≥512MB which IM really only said yes. This dealt solely with the dev kit, but some how from that 512MB became the de facto number for Wii U's OS and functions. The dev kit supposedly had 1GB set aside for them. While I would be surprised if the final was near 512MB, that was still a large amount set aside in the dev kit.

 

[XpiderMX]

That rumor morphed from discussion about what was going on in the dev kit. Before Ideaman eventually said how much was reserved in the dev kit, a poster was asking him about it and asked if the amount was ≥512MB which IM really only said yes. This dealt solely with the dev kit, but some how from that 512MB became the de facto number for Wii U's OS and functions. The dev kit supposedly had 1GB set aside for them. While I would be surprised if the final was near 512MB, that was still a large amount set aside in the dev kit.

1Gb reserved for OS? How big is the RAM? 3GB?

 

[ams]

IIRC, in early 2011, NVIDIA's CEO was asked in an interview posted online if their company was working on any next gen console. He said something along the lines of "There is no company in the world that has the resources to develop three all new next gen consoles concurrently", and he confirmed that NVIDIA is working on a next gen console. He specifically mentioned three next gen consoles, meaning one of the Big Three (Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft, rather than something different like Ouya). So rumors of AMD sweeping all three next gen consoles don't make sense in light of this. NVIDIA appears to have a hand to play in at least one next gen console. The real question is, which one of the Big Three would be most likely to use NVIDIA in a next gen console? We know it can't be Nintendo, because an AMD GPU is already confirmed for use in Wii U. So that leaves Sony or Microsoft......

 

[Shifty Geezer]

In early 2011. Could be that nVidia were dropped for an alternative option.

 

[MfA]

Still betting Microsoft goes with NVIDIA again.

 

[Ruskie]

There is just to many "sources" mentioning AMD for me to believe otherwise. Only one person said nVidia, and thats superdae, and I doubt that true.

 

[Grall]

In early 2011. Could be that nVidia were dropped for an alternative option.

Unlikely that either Sony or MS would drop a GPU maker in favor of another like that, so late - relatively speaking - in the console cycle. It'd mean pushing reset on virtually any/all the hardware development done up to that point. That's time - and money! - straight down the drain.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sony already did that with PS3 though, and I'm sure if MS had noticed issues with the contracts on NV2A that were going to cost them billions and had the option to swap, they would have. Early 2011 is two years from release, which is reasonable especially if the hardware replacement is very similar (swapping PC GPU for PC GPU).

 

[ams]

Unlikely that either Sony or MS would drop a GPU maker in favor of another like that, so late - relatively speaking - in the console cycle. It'd mean pushing reset on virtually any/all the hardware development done up to that point. That's time - and money! - straight down the drain.

I agree. It would be highly unlikely that NVIDIA would be busily working on a next gen console in March 2011 and then all of a sudden be dropped sometime between then and now for apparently no good reason whatsoever (and I don't buy into the theory that there would all of a sudden be a contract dispute, especially since Microsoft, Sony, AMD, and NVIDIA have so many years of experience working on consoles). Also, I do not recall seeing any rumors over the last year saying anything of the sort either. And NVIDIA's roadmap and positioning in the GPU marketplace have grown stronger since March 2011, not weaker. Last but not least, if Microsoft knew that archrival Sony was planning on using an AMD GPU in their next gen console (or vice versa), then it would be nonsensical for them to use that same brand of GPU when there is already a highly competitive alternative from NVIDIA.

 

[Kaotik]

IIRC, in early 2011, NVIDIA's CEO was asked in an interview posted online if their company was working on any next gen console. He said something along the lines of "There is no company in the world that has the resources to develop three all new next gen consoles concurrently", and he confirmed that NVIDIA is working on a next gen console. He specifically mentioned three next gen consoles, meaning one of the Big Three (Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft, rather than something different like Ouya). So rumors of AMD sweeping all three next gen consoles don't make sense in light of this. NVIDIA appears to have a hand to play in at least one next gen console. The real question is, which one of the Big Three would be most likely to use NVIDIA in a next gen console? We know it can't be Nintendo, because an AMD GPU is already confirmed for use in Wii U. So that leaves Sony or Microsoft......

Nope, he said this:

Q: And can you predict when it will be in terms of how many years from now?

A: We will build one of them, right. And the reason for that is because the world doesn’t have enough engineering talent for anybody to build three of them at one time. It takes the entire livelihood of a computer graphics company to build one of them. And every single time they build one, my life is in danger. You build it once every five or seven years, but you have to build it all in a very short time. That’s because they wait and wait and then they say, ‘Can I have it next week?’

http://venturebeat.com/2011/03/04/q...his-strategy-for-winning-in-mobile-computing/

He's basing that "they're building one of them" to the claim that "no-one could build all three" in his his opinion. That's the only claim nV or someone at nV has ever made at any point supporting that nV would be building one of the next gen consoles, while pretty much every single other rumor, source, whatever says AMD in all 3.

If both Sony and Microsoft are using off-the-shelf or close to that hardware (like the claim that Sony will be using APU for example), resources shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I agree. It would be highly unlikely that NVIDIA would be busily working on a next gen console in March 2011 and then all of a sudden be dropped sometime between then and now for apparently no good reason whatsoever.

If one was dropped, then it would be very a good reason. You have no idea what the level of 'working on' nVidia would have been doing in March 2011. Could be general paper specs at that point.

Also, I do not recall seeing any rumors over the last year saying anything of the sort either.

Rumours have been few and far between. We've had no real rumours on who's supplying the chips at this point. We've even had a Durango devkit yet no word of who makes the chips inside it. I don't recall any rumours about the sudden change of GPU in PS3 either. We only heard after the fact that Sony were entertaining other GPU ideas and only went with nVidia in the last minute (over a year before release) when the other ideas clearly weren't going to work.

And NVIDIA's roadmap and positioning in the GPU marketplace have grown stronger since March 2011, not weaker.

Doesn't matter. All that matters for the GPUs in a console is who can provide the best part factoring in performance and cost etc. the only reason marketplace strength would matter is if a company is so financially troubled that they may fold, and if you're licensing IP to manufacture the chips yourselves, that's not a problem as long as they last long enough to finish the design.

Last but not least, if Microsoft knew that archrival Sony was planning on using an AMD GPU in their next gen console (or vice versa), then it would be nonsensical for them to use that same brand of GPU when there is already a highly competitive alternative from NVIDIA.

Why? The GPU in the box is immaterial. No sane engineering company on the planet is going to make their component choices on the basis of "the opposite of the competition". If AMD can provide a better solution to MS than nVidia can, than MS will go that route.

Add in Kaotik's reference to the actual source and it's clear to me that it's wide open for any company to have any contracts, including AMD netting all three.

 

[Grall]

Sony already did that with PS3 though

...Which I'm sure was financially painful for them and not something they'd be eager to repeat.

I'm sure if MS had noticed issues with the contracts on NV2A that were going to cost them billions and had the option to swap, they would have.

I'm sure NV put those lock-in provisions in the contract because getting dumped by MS would be a big financial blow to them. Any other GPU maker would not want to get dumped either and would do what they could to cover their asses against such an event. Undoubtedly Sony had to pay money in compensation to Toshiba for not going ahead with that never-to-be Cell graphics processor; just how much we'll never know no doubt...

Early 2011 is two years from release, which is reasonable especially if the hardware replacement is very similar (swapping PC GPU for PC GPU).

...No console GPU has ever been a straight PC GPU though. Anyhow, even switching a straight PCI express connected NV PC GPU for another PC GPU from AMD would still require quite a bit of software re-engineering methinks, and new devkits of course, and all-new performance profiling etc. A fair-sized headache overall which I'm sure all involved would just as soon be without.

And we have no reason whatsoever to believe NV getting dumped of course, if they ever had any contract to begin with that is. I'd think Sony is the most likely to keep NV, since they're partners already currently.

 

[ams]

Nope, he said this:

http://venturebeat.com/2011/03/04/q...his-strategy-for-winning-in-mobile-computing/

He's basing that "they're building one of them" to the claim that "no-one could build all three" in his his opinion.

Umm, no. He specifically said "We will build one of them", and he specifically said "the reason for that is because the world doesn’t have enough engineering talent for anybody to build three of them at one time. It takes the entire livelihood of a computer graphics company to build one of them". There is no reason to be obtuse when interpreting this statement. It is very obvious based on his statement that NVIDIA will build one next gen console, and it is very obvious that he thinks one computer graphics company would be spread too thin in trying to concurrently build three all new next gen consoles.

 

[ams]

Why? The GPU in the box is immaterial. No sane engineering company on the planet is going to make their component choices on the basis of "the opposite of the competition".

Don't be silly. The GPU is a critical hardware component in any console, and it is also one differentiator between competing consoles. To suggest that archrivals Microsoft and Sony would be interested in using identical GPU hardware for next gen consoles is insane when there are two equally good GPU hardware vendors to choose from in AMD and NVIDIA.

 

[BRiT]

To suggest that either side knows what the other side would use is sillier and just as insane.