Revolution Tech Details Emerge ( Xbox1+ performance, 128 MB RAM )

Here's a different spin on the news:

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=62069

While Broadway is well-understood by developers, the ATI part remains "a bit of a black box", according to one senior developer we spoke to. "We have theoretical throughput figures and stats from Nintendo, but no body's seen the hardware yet - we're just treating it like it's a faster version of the GameCube GPU, at the moment."

How much faster exactly it will be remains to be seen, but the chip - which "seems to be an evolution of the Radeon range" according to our source - will probably mirror the CPU by running at around twice to three times the speed of the existing part.

So it maybe is more than a doubleclocked Flipper. I could handle an advanced architecture with only twice the data throughput of Flipper. I'd be fine. Really.
 
fearsomepirate said:
Double the clockspeed, and you get a double GC, not a 3x GC. At least that much is pretty simple.

Hmm.
For the life of me, even with the absolute lack of substantial info, I can't understand why anyone on these boards should believe that Nintendo will simply scale their existing GC design. It would be terrible engineering, and Nintendo is not noted for that. A much more reasonable baseline for speculation would be that they will launch an up to date design (at launch time) geared towards low cost and power draw.
This would not be a GC times three from a hardware architecture point of view. They could do much better than that even using technology we are already aware of. A more customized approach would improve efficiency further.
The only reason to simply make a clock-ramp + more memory would be to achieve secure compatibility with the existing catalog of games. That would be rational, but does not mandate that the gfx features stay within the confines of the GC.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes...anyone who takes "double the clock speed" literally is just jumping to conclusions. Everything I've read (the developer comments) indicates that in effect, if you take the current hardware, 2-3x the clocks....that's about the power you will have.

This does not mean (almost assuredly does not mean) thay are just taking current components and ramping clock speed.
 
Entropy said:
Hmm.
For the life of me, even with the absolute lack of substantial info, I can't understand why anyone on these boards should believe that Nintendo will simply scale their existing GC design. It would be terrible engineering, and Nintendo is not noted for that. A much more reasonable baseline for speculation would be that they will launch an up to date design (at launch time) geared towards low cost and power draw.
This would not be a GC times three from a hardware architecture point of view. They could do much better than that even using technology we are already aware of. A more customized approach would improve efficiency further.

Exactly. Nintendo could save the same amount of money while still making a system much more efficient than simply a GC with double the clockspeed. I certainly don't think they paid ATI millions of dollars to make Flipper twice as fast.

I certainly believe that the dev kits they shipped may simply be sped-up Gamecubes, but I think the final hardware will be a little bit more than that. How much power did the 360 dev kits have compared to the final hardware?
 
Bobbler said:
And those are all systems that sold horribly or started out at far too high of a price. Are we assuming that 300 dollars is too high of a price? or that Xbox360 is going to sell horribly? I honestly don't think Xbox360 will need a price cut to compete, it isn't as if a price cut to Xbox360 next christmas will do much to compete against a new and highly sought after system (sort of like dropping the price of the PS2 this christmas vs the Xbox360) -- the PS3 is going to sell out regardless of MS's pricing, so it would only hurt them (since chances are it won't be profitable enough, if at all, to withstand a pricedrop and retain profitability).

I'm still wondering when PS1/PS2/N64/Xbox/etc first got their price cuts in USA (since the pricing scheme that MS is using for Xbox360 is closer to that of the USA -- europe isn't getting nearly as screwed ;)). I think without knowing those (since I vaguely remember them following the same pattern) it's a possibly false assumption to be stating that there will be a price cut at all, let alone a 100 (1/3) price drop.

I was just giving examples I can remember locally - a price drop for a consoles second Xmas is normal, but I too don't think that the 360 will hit $200 by then. Even if the PS3 is sold out, MS could still push home their first launch advantage and rack up extra sales with a price cut but I don't see it being $100.

I think a $150 / £100 Revolution for Xmas 2006 could do quite well, but it all depends on the ability of Nintendo and chums to create games with a Nintendogs style pull.
 
Entropy said:
Hmm.
For the life of me, even with the absolute lack of substantial info, I can't understand why anyone on these boards should believe that Nintendo will simply scale their existing GC design. It would be terrible engineering, and Nintendo is not noted for that. A much more reasonable baseline for speculation would be that they will launch an up to date design (at launch time) geared towards low cost and power draw.
This would not be a GC times three from a hardware architecture point of view. They could do much better than that even using technology we are already aware of. A more customized approach would improve efficiency further.

Well, I was basing it off the IGN article, but having looked at this eurogamer article, I think the reporting may be giving the impression that they know more than they do. Literally, the article straight-out says that if you take the Gamecube clockspeed and double it, that's Revolution. You're right, it is terrible engineering, and I could hardly believe it because Nintendo has such historically brilliant engineers (esp compared to MS and Sony, blech)...but I guess I shouldn't take IGN reporting at face value. The eurogamer article makes it sound like it will be more advanced architecturally.
 
To put a different spin on the topic, I wonder if Nintendo understood the consequences of hiding their specs from the public. We know the developers would eventually get specs since they have to build their polygon models etc. based on the specs, and we know some developers like to leak info. So lmost invariably, the specs would be released. Didn't Nintendo realize this was going to happen and wouldn't it have been better for them to just publicly announce it themselves rather than have it leak out?
 
Asher said:
Good question; and it's closer to the VX for a rather important reason ;)

It does not have all of the features of the 750VX (which do not make sense in a game console, but it has some additional ones that the VX does not have).
So, at least, you're confirming(?) the VMX support?
Shogmaster said:
I'm thinking that if it doesn't have Xenos like tiling, then that 3MB of eDRAM will be the real limiting factor for visuals on this GC Turbo. Why even bother with SM3.0 with such a limitation? I wouldn't be surprised Rev GPU is gonna be stuck with SM1.x like the GC at this rate.
That's why I was thinking about the Rev games rendering directly to the main RAM, like the Xbox 1 does.
And yeah for the SM, I too expect something "custom". Now does the limit lie in the SM1.0/2.0/3.0 territory, I honestly can't tell. But after reading thoses conjectures about the CPU, you could only expect something equivalent for the GPU...

Joe DeFuria said:
For the sake of sanity and the safety of those around you, I would encourage you to take my earlier advice: if you want a console with "next generation power", convince yourself to get an XBox360 or PS3. ;)
He wants to play the Nintendo classic franchise, Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc... With all the next-generation bells and whistle. And I agree with him. Yeah, I know I'll get a next-gen Dragon Quest or Virtua Fighter on the two other consoles, but that doesn't mean I don't want a next-gen

The second problem is that I'll bet that the console will be priced $149 or $199, and not $99. Nintendo never sells its hardware for a too high price, but it never sells for a low price nethier. The recent exemples of the DS and the GBA Micro come to mind. It's not a "high" price, but the price clearly shows that it's unrelated with the technology used (GBA Micro went on the market for $99).
 
Vysez said:
He wants to play the Nintendo classic franchise, Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc... With all the next-generation bells and whistle.

Yes, I said earlier that this is one type of fan I can definitely sympathize with. Still, you'll end up with something better than gamecube...just not as good as PS3 / 360 visuals.
 
fearsomepirate said:
Double the clockspeed, and you get a double GC, not a 3x GC.
As already stated, the whole "2X/3X more powerful" has no real meaning in relative terms. It's just a figure of speech, if you will.
That said, if the CPU is now boasting a VMX, it has a significant advantage over the custom CXe, found on GC, so ~twice the clockrate plus a VMX could be considered, in a rough description of the thing, as 3X the Gekko.
 
Joe DeFuria said:
My personal guess at the 360 core next x-mas will be $250. However, I'm also guessing that it will be a kind of "core-plus". That is, today's core version plus something else thrown in: memory card or a pack-in game.

I would say that's almost a certainty, it just makes too much sense not to happen. $250 core w/ Forza 2 or Splinter Cell 4, or maybe a platinum hit like PD0, Kameo or GR: AW.

$250 core + game is what we'll see next x-mas, it just seems so obvious.

They would really hti the nail on the head if they offered a variety of packs, race pack(forza 2), sports pack(madden 07) and shooter pack(pd0 or something newer) for $250.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Something I just thought of: If the CPU and GPU aren't going to be that power-intensive, could Revolution actually have a dedicated Physics Processing Unit? Nintendo has hinted that there are still secrets about the Revolution, perhaps some developers still don't know/are under NDAs about it.
 
Joe DeFuria said:
You all fail to realize that Nintendo is attempting to make console gaming more approachable.

The line of thought is this:

Game consoles have gotten so powerful, and games so "sophisticated" because of that power and sophistication, a sizable population just isn't interested. They don't want to learn what 2 analog sticks "do", 6 buttons, plus a D-Pad that the hard-core users pretty much demand all be used on every game....when they are not demanding full blown keyboards and mice as well. ;)

You may agree or disagree with that assessment. I think there's a lot of truth to it. It's MUCH easier for people who have never been into gaming to pick up a SNES controller and "just play" than it is a dual shock or XBox controller.

So, to make Revolution more approachable, 2 things need to happen:

1) Lower the price, so that the barrier to entry is not as high.
2) Offer a more intuitive and approachable interface than the typical controller....while at the same time offering much of the effective functionality of the typical controller.

The big question is number 2. How well can Nintendo pull it off...we'll have to wait and see.

We will have to wait, but I horribly disagree with your assetment that the consoles are sooo powerful and complicated that people don't want to play them. You can still play simple games on the PS2. I just don't understand this arguement about the hard and complicated Dual Shock and Xbox 360 controller.
 
Branduil said:
Something I just thought of: If the CPU and GPU aren't going to be that power-intensive, could Revolution actually have a dedicated Physics Processing Unit? Nintendo has hinted that there are still secrets about the Revolution, perhaps some developers still don't know/are under NDAs about it.
There's a tacit rule on this forum forbidding any PPU talk. ;)

Now more seriously, a PPU on a console would a pure waste of transistors and money.
Why put a complex IC for dedicated task like physics, in a closed system? If they include something close to that they could just as well call it a FPU co-processor, and give it a full programmability.

Anyway, judging from what we're reading now about the Rev, wasting transistor or money are not to be expected, and, when you think about it, such a chip could end being bigger then the CPU and the GPU. So...

Note that Nintendo systems used to have a PPU, though. A Pixel Processing Unit, a rasterizer, in other word. That may explain the confusion about a PPU being include in Rev, I guess.
 
Entropy said:
Hmm.
For the life of me, even with the absolute lack of substantial info, I can't understand why anyone on these boards should believe that Nintendo will simply scale their existing GC design. It would be terrible engineering, and Nintendo is not noted for that. A much more reasonable baseline for speculation would be that they will launch an up to date design (at launch time) geared towards low cost and power draw.

If these articles are accurate, this "evolution" of current technology could possibly be explained by their corporate strategy. It could be that they see the direction of their console business (losing market share every generation) and realized they could not continue doing the same thing. Then they looked at their successful handheld business and have decided to apply that model to their console business. Essentially, with the Gameboys, you get an incremental improvement with each new iteration. That seems to be what they are doing with the Revolution, which if true, is ironically a terrible code name for the project.
 
mckmas8808 said:
We will have to wait, but I horribly disagree with your assetment that the consoles are sooo powerful and complicated that people don't want to play them.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I personally don't think there's any real question that non gamers are more or less intimidated by today's gaming consoles. (Again...I'm looking at my parents for example...)

The question in my mind, is even given that, can Nintendo (or anyone else) still attract the non-gamer and enlarge the gaming demographic? We'll see...I applaud them in any case for giving it a try.

You can still play simple games on the PS2.

But people like you who bought a PS2, and the press that reviews games on a PS2, will shun such games. This thread is a case in point. What? It's doesn't use the latest gee-whiz features? It's not "next gen?" I didn't buy a $350 console to play games like this!

I just don't understand this arguement about the hard and complicated Dual Shock and Xbox 360 controller.

That much is obvious. ;)
 
Joe DeFuria said:
We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I personally don't think there's any real question that non gamers are more or less intimidated by today's gaming consoles. (Again...I'm looking at my parents for example...)

The parents already buy PS2's and Xbox consoles. Did you know a great amount of 35+ year olds buy and play PS2 games? Are the parents that you are talking about 65+? Why would my 65 year old grandma buy a Nintendo Revolution?
 
mckmas8808 said:
The parents already buy PS2's and Xbox consoles. Did you know a great amount of 35+ year olds buy and play PS2 games?

Yes including me.

I also know there are a lot more 35 year olds that that DON'T buy consoles.

Are the parents that you are talking about 65+?

A few years younger.

Why would my 65 year old grandma buy a Nintendo Revolution?

The same reason why they like to play solitaire....

You are starting to get the point, even if you don't know it. The question is why would your 65 year old grandma spend $300+ on a PS3 or 360? Can't think of many reasons. Nintendo is going to try and change that by making the console more accessible.
 
Joe DeFuria said:
You are starting to get the point, even if you don't know it. The question is why would your 65 year old grandma spend $300+ on a PS3 or 360? Can't think of many reasons. Nintendo is going to try and change that by making the console more accessible.

But wouldn't it be better for grandma to buy a Nintendo handheld? Games are already simple and she can carry it around the house too. No hooking things up to the TV. My grandma still thinks that I can mess up their TV buy hooking up a PS2.:???:
 
Back
Top