Spring 2005 say's sources. Nintendo's next console

[Ooh-videogames]

GCN Successor Takes Shape
Find out what Nintendo is saying to developers.

June 02, 2003 - Various development sources have confirmed to IGNcube that preliminary talks about the successor to GameCube have begun. Nintendo has allegedly told studios to prepare for a "spring 2005" release for the still-unnamed next-generation console.
Asked if they had received any official documentation for the machine, all software houses contacted said no.

Nintendo has repeatedly stated that it would not be the last hardware manufacturer out of the gates with its next console. In an interview with IGNcube, Nintendo of America's vice president of corporate affairs Perrin Kaplan stated that the company would come to market at the same time or perhaps even before its rivals.

Industry analysts believe that Sony, underway with the tentatively titled PlayStation 3, is the furthest along with its platform, but that the firm -- content with still-strong sales of PlayStation 2 -- may be in no rush to debut its technical successor.

Several development houses admitted to IGNcube that they have already started work on games for the next round of consoles, but none would confirm whether or not they are targeting Nintendo's machine with their games.

More as it develops.

It seems that Nintendo is trying get third-party developers to start games for launch on their next system.

 

[clem64]

I dont buy that. They'll launch in 2005 if they have to, but if they can afford to wait, they will. And with Sony apparently looking to extend the PS2's life span beyond 2005, with the release of PSX, Nintendo won't miss the opportunity to push the GC for an extra year.

Also, what MS will do should influence Ninty and Sony. The way I see it, the first of the three to announce their plans for their next console, will force the other two to come foward with their own plans for their system. Something tells me all 3 systems will hit the market in 2006.

 

[PC-Engine]

Whenever it does come out, I hope the design doesn't look like a toy. Something along the lines of the GBA SP would be nice.

 

[Paul]

Spring 2005 for Japan and maybe Fall 2005 for USA? Sounds alright to me..

But a 4 year life span.. I hope this isn't a trend that continues.

 

[Rockman]

Well if they make the GCN2 backwards compatible then it'll be able to play GCN games so projects could potentially be released for the GCN while you release and work on GCN2 games. This would be a lot better than canceling titles and etc.

 

[zurich]

It's a shame Deferred Rendering doesn't double polygon rates eh? ~paul

Whats with the sig? You have serious issues dude :?

 

[Paul]

It's funny because he's wrong and doesn't know what Deferred Rendering even is or does. It's a catch word kinda like alot(not all) of xbox fan-boys hang onto the bump mapping thing. Many don't know what it is but throw it around so much it's not even funny.

 

[Rockman]

It's a shame Deferred Rendering doesn't double polygon rates eh? ~paul

I found it funny because of a discussion paul and I had where he said ps2 games double the geomtry that of what the DC is capable so it couldn't even run ps2 games. I said have you considered the fact DC doesn't need to render double polygons because of deferred(tile) based rendering. He went on a dodging rant, I asked him to answer my question he never did but retort and said I don't know anything about it. I've had people do tht before and they just want you to explain to them what it means. So I gave him a finally chance to respond to my question he didn't so I left the thread as is

Whats with the sig? You have serious issues dude :?

No, I have no issues you were just ignorant to what transpired.

 

[zurich]

I found it funny because of a discussion paul and I had where he said ps2 games double the geomtry that of what the DC is capable so it couldn't even run ps2 games. I said have you considered the fact DC doesn't need to render double polygons because of deferred(tile) based rendering. He went on a dodging rant, I asked him to answer my question he never did but retort and said I don't know anything about it. I've had people do tht before and they just want you to explain to them what it means. So I gave him a finally chance to respond to my question he didn't so I left the thread as is

Tile based rendering is used to reduce/eliminate overdraw, and make efficient use of texture bandwidth/memory requirements. Unfortunately, this wouldn't mean the DC could run many 'built for the PS2' games like MGS2 and ZoE2, which go frubar on the polygon counts and particle effects. What Paul said is correct, differed rendering doesn't magically double polygon counts

No, I have no issues you were just ignorant to what transpired.

No, I was laughing We had this discussion (DC running ground up PS2 games) a long while ago, but I'm too lazy to dig the thread up. Basically, alot of developers just said (using MGS2 as the example), that the DC would throw in the towel on the 2nd pass of effects

 

[Paul]

Have you ANY idea what Deferred Rendering is? You really just don't do you.

How does saving performance by not drawing unnecessary pixels get rid of the need for polygons? Going by this logic, if psone supported Deferred Rendering it could possibly catch up and look like many PS2 games.

So tell me, how does DR magically double max system polygon rates and or magically add system bandwidth? Amoung other things?

Not to mention, top end DC games use DR and still don't look nearly as good as top end pS2 games, explain that smarty?

Oh and yea, I did answear you in that topic go read it son.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5982&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=120

 

[Rockman]

[qoute] this wouldn't mean the DC could run many 'built for the PS2' games like MGS2 and ZoE2, which go frubar on the polygon counts and particle effects. What Paul said is correct, differed rendering doesn't magically double polygon counts [/quote]
sigh...
let me clear up a few things I never said or implied tile based rendering would double anything the argument was if DC was still being developed for I felt the games would look better than most ps2 games. The same way developers "tap into" the ps2 power more efficiently, developers would find ways to run similiar effects and improve DC games. And why would I want "built for ps2" games on the DC I would want the game "built for DC" it's similiar to GCN having a game with fur some said it couldn't be done but you won't know until you try. All in all I'm sure Ps2 would shine in some areas and the DC would as well. All in all not having that matte look and AA would be a great improvement as well. Note that a conversion/port doesn't aim to replicate the exact same thing from one system to the next, you excel where you can and make the best of things where you fall short.

No, I was laughing We had this discussion (DC running ground up PS2 games) a long while ago, but I'm too lazy to dig the thread up. Basically, alot of developers just said (using MGS2 as the example), that the DC would throw in the towel on the 2nd pass of effects

you still don't get it but I don't expect you to

 

[Paul]

And yet you banked on the entire deferred rendering bit thinking that alone would make top end DC games compare to top end PS2 games? Your changing your argument now.

I said have you considered the fact DC doesn't need to render double polygons because of deferred(tile) based rendering.

And since when does deferred rendering eliminate the need for polygons? I'm still waiting for you to answear this.

 

[Rockman]

I was aiming at the fact that it doesn't render what isn't being displayed, and planned to go in depth on what I mentioned above but you refuse to discuss this with me. Anyway this thread is about 2005 gcn2 pop up the old thread if you want to continue.

 

[zurich]

you still don't get it but I don't expect you to

Where 'it' is....?

 

[Rockman]

'it' isn't 'it' from a technical aspect from which you and paul have taking but purely What visuals are being display on screen. Comparing 1 gen to 1 gen DC title win IMO and continued development would all but assure you developers would have found more ways to take advantage of the DC's abilities like making the DR more efficient and etc. Anyways pop up the old thread I'm taking a walk be back in a little while.

 

[Teasy]

Rockman

What Paul and Zurich are trying to say is that tile based deferred rendering elimates pixel overdraw not polygonal overdraw. All polygons, even ones that will not be displayed in the final frame, are still transformed and lit with a deferred renderer.

Zurich

Basically, alot of developers just said (using MGS2 as the example), that the DC would throw in the towel on the 2nd pass of effects

I don't think any PS2 game would send DC into a second pass, it can do a hell of a lot of effects in a single pass. I'm not saying DC could do all the effects your refering too faster then PS2 (nor that it couldn't), just that it wouldn't take a second pass to do them.

BTW one thing to consider with DC is that it has an extremely high stencil fillrate. AFAIK its stencil fillrate is 3.2gpixels/s.. I'm not sure on that though, it might be 1.6gpixels/s, either way its very high. Considering a lot of effects on PS2 are stencil type effects using raw fillrate (since it has a lot of spare pixel fillrate) DC should be right at home with those sort of effects.

Paul

So tell me, how does DR magically double max system polygon rates and or magically add system bandwidth? Amoung other things?

I suppose at a stretch you could say that deferred renderers can generally do things in less passes then IMR's (technically a DR can do unlimited amounts of textures per pass). So that could effectively double/triple ect a TBDR's T&L power compared to a IMR (since a second pass usually requires geometry being resent). But as I said it is a stretch to say this generally as it very much depends on the TBDR and IMR your comparing. Looking specifically at PS2 this wouldn't apply since PS2 doesn't need to resend geometry with multi-pass rendering (due to its use of a main CPU rather then GPU for T&L). So of course you are correct, DC wouldn't gain any T&L power advantage over PS2 from deferred rendering.

On bandwidth and TBDR, of course it doesn't magically add system bandwidth, it just uses that system bandwidth far better. Which can have the same effect as magically adding bandwidth What other things were you refering too (just out of interest)?

 

[Paul]

it just uses that system bandwidth far better

Efficiency yes, however I meant maximum system bandwidth. As what I mean't

DR may make DC run more efficient but it just does not make DC be able to pump out more polygons than the system can do which is about 4-5M poly's max? That was the point I was trying to make.

And the other things were like clock speed, memory ammounts stuff like that.

 

[Teasy]

Paul

I did already say that I agree on your comments on polygon counts. My comment on bandwidth was seperate from that (after all bandwidth isn't the limiting factor for polygon power with DC anyway). I was just saying that while TBDR doesn't actually add extra bandwidth its efficiency can give the same effect. As in 1gb/s bandwidth for a system like DC could be equivalent to 3gb/s with a system like PS2 due to the differences in efficiency.

As for clock speed and memory size, TBDR can help to increase clock speed in comparison to a IMR due to no overdraw. Same goes for memory amounts (especially in certain conditions, like when using AA for instance).

NOTE: While I am sort of defending TBDR hear I am not neccesarily saying that I think DC would be able to equal PS2's newest games. I don't want to get into that argument.

 

[SGX-1]

IIRC the SH-4 in the DC can transform 10 million polys/sec. I think the bottleneck would be space to hold that vertex data along with all the other game data. Either that or the triange setup on the PowerVRDC chip which is 7 million polys/sec.

 

[Teasy]

SGX-1

SH-4 can T&L 10mpps but that's without considering AI and physics. Taking that into account I'd imagine 5mpps would probably be the limit for SH-4 in actual games with decent AI and physics.