mckmas8808
Legend
fearsomepirate said:
I have your answer. Motorstorm!!
Revolution Tech Details Emerge ( Xbox1+ performance, 128 MB RAM )
- Thread starter Megadrive1988
- Start date
I have your answer. Motorstorm!!
mckmas8808
Legend
Readykilowatt said:
These are not regular don't listen to them rumors. Matt says this about the new news.
Q: I hope you don't mind me asking you this question about your recent revelation of the Revolution specs. I was just wondering why you think these developers have leaked this information at this time? If Nintendo are waiting until E3 to unveil the full console as it will be why would they let some developers leak vital information on the system. It's just a general wonderment. Anyway, thanks for the New Revolution section - great stuff!
They are hearing it straight from the developers mouths. Imagine DeanoC telling us what the CELL chip contains. Oh wait he kinda did and we believed him.
Official documentation for what though?.. he does not confirm that its official documentation for the final Revolution console. I know because I asked him that very question. Also notice from the same article:
If they have it why not share, they apparently talked about everything else that was in the development kit they had.
So Branduil is right here, at best these developers are judging the system without the actual Hollywood GPU.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
revogaming.net is reporting word that Hollywood is based on RV530
http://www.revogaming.net/html/modules/news/article.php?storyid=172
I don't quite believe that yet. but if it is true, then Hollwood has significantly better visual capabilities than a faster Flipper, though still not really close to the performance of R520 or Xenos.
http://www.revogaming.net/html/modules/news/article.php?storyid=172
I don't quite believe that yet. but if it is true, then Hollwood has significantly better visual capabilities than a faster Flipper, though still not really close to the performance of R520 or Xenos.
mckmas8808
From the very start of Matt's article:
Hmm, GameCube based kits, sounds exactly like the system Matt's source is describing
Matts article/s are very vague and confused and lets not forget just how wrong he has been on Revolution in the past (Rev would not be backwards compatible at all, and would us slightly bigger GC sized discs according to Matt and his sources). Lets wait and see what final kits look like. Then there can be no confusion.
From the very start of Matt's article:
Hmm, GameCube based kits, sounds exactly like the system Matt's source is describing
Matts article/s are very vague and confused and lets not forget just how wrong he has been on Revolution in the past (Rev would not be backwards compatible at all, and would us slightly bigger GC sized discs according to Matt and his sources). Lets wait and see what final kits look like. Then there can be no confusion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Megadrive1988 said:
Are you kidding me that would be quite nice!
An X1600XT can run fear capably at high res! Imagine what it could do at low res!
Granted we dont know the clocks plus 128 bit bus..
That goes in the too good to be true catagory.
Seems likely too though, as ATI would need to pull from current design.
But doesn't match up to Matt's reporting which frankly I believe more than this other report..
Site seems amauterish and ******ish though
Uh no.
Last edited by a moderator:
Um, the point is even simple concepts using non-complicated yet elegant and efficient methods of input can be very successful. That is the point I am making; you however seem more snowed in under arguing about semantics, griping over your own preconcieved notions concerning nintendo and displaying a high level of hostility.Powderkeg said:
If you take a gander at Nintendo's past and present game library, would you say only girls and children play them?
Or might it be that people at least as old as those of the other major consoles also enjoy all the various Marios and Zeldas and whatnot? Whoah, as Keanu might've said, what a funky concept huh!My theory is probably not so strange, considering nintendo is not only the oldest, but also the ONLY surviving hardware manufacturer of the mid-80s videogaming resurgence, and the people who played, liked, and not seldom grew up with the NES are now been having their own kids for quite a while now.
[Moderator : removed parts about deleted Powderkeg messages, those weren't matching your reputation anyway. (You're above that, right ?)]
Refreshment
Regular
The leaked specs seem acurate
At least they go well to what Kaplan said at E3 2005. As a matter of fact the term "GC turbo" was coined not to long after, i think it was from some developer comments. Going on, what was expressed at EGM recent rumor mill seems to match the IGN specifications.
We have to remember this is how the DS specs were released.
Maybe the whole scenario will improve when solid details are released for the CPU and GPU, as of now the spec sheet at that point in time left alot to be desired.
At least they go well to what Kaplan said at E3 2005. As a matter of fact the term "GC turbo" was coined not to long after, i think it was from some developer comments. Going on, what was expressed at EGM recent rumor mill seems to match the IGN specifications.
We have to remember this is how the DS specs were released.
Maybe the whole scenario will improve when solid details are released for the CPU and GPU, as of now the spec sheet at that point in time left alot to be desired.
Bill said:
Forza was already an ugly game. The reds were washed-out and faded, the greens looked too minty, and some stuff looked almost cel-shaded. Compare to PGR2 or GT4 (ignoring the jaggies and sparklies in GT4).
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Megadrive1988 said:
This is not some big stretch or revelation, IMO. Revolution being better significantly than GameCube, but a "step down" from 360/PS3, is exactly what one should have been expecting ever since the first announcements last E3.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Teasy said:
Because that's what they are?
Refreshment
Regular
Joe DeFuria Quote:
Originally Posted by Teasy
Why even call these early kits "GameCube based Revolution dev kits" if the final Revolution console is GC based anyway?
Because that's what they are?
Well yes, you said "based". Its based and extended on. Suposedly this translates in advantages to developers such as familiarity, ease of development, cut costs, etc. Of course we know that. So they start working concepts on the GC kits they already had, and when the definitive ones arrive continue from there. Simple as that.
I dont think, (limiting ourselves to speak only about the Ign information) that the significant fact is that Revolution is based on GC chipset (even if it is). What is important here is that we finally have an idea of how under the competitors the console will be procesing wise. One draws that conclusion not from the scarse specs but from the coments and general feeling of developers, even if they are anonimus.
Anyone remenbers or has a link to that ATI representative coments months ago?
Originally Posted by Teasy
Why even call these early kits "GameCube based Revolution dev kits" if the final Revolution console is GC based anyway?
Because that's what they are?
Well yes, you said "based". Its based and extended on. Suposedly this translates in advantages to developers such as familiarity, ease of development, cut costs, etc. Of course we know that. So they start working concepts on the GC kits they already had, and when the definitive ones arrive continue from there. Simple as that.
I dont think, (limiting ourselves to speak only about the Ign information) that the significant fact is that Revolution is based on GC chipset (even if it is). What is important here is that we finally have an idea of how under the competitors the console will be procesing wise. One draws that conclusion not from the scarse specs but from the coments and general feeling of developers, even if they are anonimus.
Anyone remenbers or has a link to that ATI representative coments months ago?
The key is how better can be Hollywood compared to the Flipper.
It seems that the main base for the GPU is an overclocked Flipper but we don´t know what improvents they will add to its. The important is that now we have a good base for speculating and personally I believe that Hollywood will be a Flipper with 8 or 12 Pixel Shader 3.0 pipelines and with 2 or 4 Vertex Shader 3.0 pipelines running at 333Mhz.
It seems that the main base for the GPU is an overclocked Flipper but we don´t know what improvents they will add to its. The important is that now we have a good base for speculating and personally I believe that Hollywood will be a Flipper with 8 or 12 Pixel Shader 3.0 pipelines and with 2 or 4 Vertex Shader 3.0 pipelines running at 333Mhz.
Urian said:
12 is overkill. Chip yields on the 12-pipelined versions of the X1K series are not good at all. It's probably more like 4, and more like 300 MHz. If they're saying double the data throughput of Flipper, that would do the trick (Flipper had 4 pipelines, right?). And any shader model they use would be customized to handle the Flipper instruction set, which wasn't exactly an SMAnything part.
Eurogamer says "evolution of the Radeon range," and that the double-clocked Flipper thing is an "at the moment" deal. I don't think we should use Matt's schizophrenic reporting as our only news source. I mean, this is a guy who claims to be a "graphics whore," but uses Macs and sticks to console gaming. Come on, you should own at least 1 7800 GTX to claim that title.
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=62069
Last edited by a moderator:
Error, error, does not compute.
Dang, I cut this, but forgot to record the author, and I'm not digging through 18 pages to find it (o.o; It took me 3 hours the first read through!). These specs have me completely baffled. Gekko has roughly 20 million transistors and flipper around 26 million (or so google tells me). Gamecube never had a process shrink so those chips are still produced on 180nm. The X1300 on the other hand has about 105 million. So the simplest current generation graphics part has 4 times the transistors used in flipper. The fact that flipper and gekko are so simple makes them extremely good candidates for 65nm. That would put you at about 13% of the original core size. Meaning you could make almost 8 cores with the same amount of silicone. Say you doubled the complexity of both gekko and flipper, you could still make 4 times as many per wafer as are currently being made now. So the brains of the Revolution should be significantly cheaper than the brains of the gamecube. On the other hand you have to toss in the slot loaded dvd player, the 512MB Flashdrive and the WiFi as well as the controller, so it will be more than the Gamecube, but not hugely so. Another side effect of the die shrink would be the ability to clock higher. It would be baffling if IBM couldn't at least tripple Gekko's performance on a modern process. Three times Gekko's 485Mhz gives you about 1.4Ghz. 1.4Ghz on a 90nm process (let alone a 60nm one) with a 20 million transistor chip shouldn't be too challenging... and if it was heavily enhanced then it wouldn't require 1400Mhz to triple the performance of Gekko. Ditto on Flipper. 2 or 3 times flipper on a modern process is absurd. If you tripple the clocks of Flipper you have a <i>scorching...</i> 486Mhz. Yep, 486Mhz and this on a chip that is a quarter as complicated as the simplest chip ATI is currently producing.
I was playing F-Zero GX 2 weeks ago through component cables on a standard definition set (though with scanline compression to 16:9)and thinking, damn this still blows me away. At that point I realized I agreed with Nintendo's strategy. I don't need another fidelity jump the likes of N64 to Gamecube, that won't be enough to make me buy a new system. That being said, I expect more than 2 times a Gamecube. 3 times a Gamecube or higher and I'll be happy. By my reasoning, that should be very simple for Nintendo to reach simply by doing a die shrink. The thing is Nintendo has invested a good chunk of cash in R&D. I'm expecting a die shrink and somewhat substantial enhancements. Between the two it seems Nintendo would almost have to TRY to artificially limit performance not to at least triple the specs of the Gamecube with even with the same technology as is found in the original Gamecube.
Does anyone else follow my reasoning? Are there flaws in it? I'm really curious, because I can't wrap my head around a little more powerful than an XBox. It just doesn't compute. I can't imagine it being less than twice as powerful as XBox. If this makes sense, someone please confirm it, if not dispute it... if one or the other doesn't happen soon my brain might melt down.
Dang, I cut this, but forgot to record the author, and I'm not digging through 18 pages to find it (o.o; It took me 3 hours the first read through!). These specs have me completely baffled. Gekko has roughly 20 million transistors and flipper around 26 million (or so google tells me). Gamecube never had a process shrink so those chips are still produced on 180nm. The X1300 on the other hand has about 105 million. So the simplest current generation graphics part has 4 times the transistors used in flipper. The fact that flipper and gekko are so simple makes them extremely good candidates for 65nm. That would put you at about 13% of the original core size. Meaning you could make almost 8 cores with the same amount of silicone. Say you doubled the complexity of both gekko and flipper, you could still make 4 times as many per wafer as are currently being made now. So the brains of the Revolution should be significantly cheaper than the brains of the gamecube. On the other hand you have to toss in the slot loaded dvd player, the 512MB Flashdrive and the WiFi as well as the controller, so it will be more than the Gamecube, but not hugely so. Another side effect of the die shrink would be the ability to clock higher. It would be baffling if IBM couldn't at least tripple Gekko's performance on a modern process. Three times Gekko's 485Mhz gives you about 1.4Ghz. 1.4Ghz on a 90nm process (let alone a 60nm one) with a 20 million transistor chip shouldn't be too challenging... and if it was heavily enhanced then it wouldn't require 1400Mhz to triple the performance of Gekko. Ditto on Flipper. 2 or 3 times flipper on a modern process is absurd. If you tripple the clocks of Flipper you have a <i>scorching...</i> 486Mhz. Yep, 486Mhz and this on a chip that is a quarter as complicated as the simplest chip ATI is currently producing.
I was playing F-Zero GX 2 weeks ago through component cables on a standard definition set (though with scanline compression to 16:9)and thinking, damn this still blows me away. At that point I realized I agreed with Nintendo's strategy. I don't need another fidelity jump the likes of N64 to Gamecube, that won't be enough to make me buy a new system. That being said, I expect more than 2 times a Gamecube. 3 times a Gamecube or higher and I'll be happy. By my reasoning, that should be very simple for Nintendo to reach simply by doing a die shrink. The thing is Nintendo has invested a good chunk of cash in R&D. I'm expecting a die shrink and somewhat substantial enhancements. Between the two it seems Nintendo would almost have to TRY to artificially limit performance not to at least triple the specs of the Gamecube with even with the same technology as is found in the original Gamecube.
Does anyone else follow my reasoning? Are there flaws in it? I'm really curious, because I can't wrap my head around a little more powerful than an XBox. It just doesn't compute. I can't imagine it being less than twice as powerful as XBox. If this makes sense, someone please confirm it, if not dispute it... if one or the other doesn't happen soon my brain might melt down.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Refreshment said:
First of all, I didn't say "Based"...but I agree with what you're saying here. I was just playing with Teasy because I don't understand his apparent objection to people / press calling the current dev kits "Gamecube Based".
Early 360 kits were called PowerPC based/apple based....because that's what they were.
Similar threads
