Why would nintendo release an underpowered console a year after the release of 360?

[ninzel]

Well if Nintendo can tell us and DEVELOPERS what they have we won't have to speculate all the damn time. I hope they go for a simpler single core chip just to see the difference between there machine and the others.

How about just a dual core but out of order chip like current ones and opposite to what the PS3 and 360 will be? I heard another dev once say he just wants more of what he already has but faster to work with.

 

[ninzel]

I think you are underestimating what mulitcore chips can do for a console. If Nintendo shows up with 256 MB of RAM and has a 2.2 Ghz single core CPU to lessen the cost, it WILL show in games. Just because devs will program for SD doesn't mean that there will be no differences.

I hope for Nintendo's sake that they have at least 512 MB of RAM.

Oh and I never said if they came with a slower CPU AND less RAM it would good be. I was making the point that a slower CPU plus an equal amount of RAM(512) to compensate would be very ok.

 

[Megadrive1988]

at the end of the day, the Revolution's CPU and GPU chipset is going to be whatever was in the GCN2 project. It's going to be going down the same path that Gamecube went, not another direction, as others have pointed out before me.

 

[ninzel]

at the end of the day, the Revolution's CPU and GPU chipset is going to be whatever was in the GCN2 project. It's going to be going down the same path that Gamecube went, not another direction, as others have pointed out before me.

What's the GCN2 project?

 

[Powderkeg]

I think you are underestimating what mulitcore chips can do for a console. If Nintendo shows up with 256 MB of RAM and has a 2.2 Ghz single core CPU to lessen the cost, it WILL show in games. Just because devs will program for SD doesn't mean that there will be no differences.

I hope for Nintendo's sake that they have at least 512 MB of RAM.

I will agree that a multicore chip and half the RAM of the PS3 or 360 WILL show in games.

Ram = storage for data to be processed.
Less RAM = less data that can be processed at any given time.


So yes, the reduction in textures and texture resolution, the reduction in geomitry, the reduction in game engine coding will be very obvious. More than anything else, the reason why the Xbox seems so much more powerful than the PS2 or GCN isn't the GPU or CPU, it's the fact that it had twice the RAM.

 

[Powderkeg]

Where does this number come from ?

This is ohhh 75$ more per unit than the anylist has claimed


You sure this figure isn't for system + hdd + remote + wireless controller + headset + composite cable + ethernet cable ?

Sorry, I should have used the ever popular "Up to" phrase before that $450.

Analysts speculate anywhere between $380 and $450 for the core SKU. Even at $380, you would still have to remove $180 worth of stuff from the 360 for Nintendo to not lose money at the $200 price point.

 

[Powderkeg]

As for ram its cheap enough that i don't see why they wont have 512 megs . Remember 700mhz gdr ram will be even cheaper at that point and that is what they may go for

PC System RAM is cheap. DDR/DDR2 is cheap.

Graphics RAM like GDDR3 is still very expensive. To give you an idea of just how expensive it is:

ATI Radeon x800 XL 512MB = $370
ATI Radeon x800 XL 256MB = $239

It's the exact same GPU, the exact same card, exact same manufacturer, and the exact same store. The only difference is the amount of RAM, and that extra 256MB costs an extra $131.

 

[jvd]

sure it does . If you think ati doesn't wnat to profit more .



Neither of us know the costs of the ram . However on a part that you want to make money off of you can add higher cost .

If you notice however I said gddr 700 will be cheap then and it will. Gddr 700 will be cheaper than it is now for ms . It will be almost a year older and the prices will have fallen .



You generaly see 256 meg cards at the low end only 50$ or so more sometimes even closer in price for the same gpu .



That is because slower ram is cheaper . Next year gddr 700 will be cheaper

 

[ninzel]

PC System RAM is cheap. DDR/DDR2 is cheap.

Graphics RAM like GDDR3 is still very expensive. To give you an idea of just how expensive it is:

ATI Radeon x800 XL 512MB = $370
ATI Radeon x800 XL 256MB = $239

It's the exact same GPU, the exact same card, exact same manufacturer, and the exact same store. The only difference is the amount of RAM, and that extra 256MB costs an extra $131.

What if they used 512 MB of that 1t low latency Sram?

 

[Powderkeg]

What if they used 512 MB of that 1t low latency Sram?

It's even more expensive than GDDR3 right now because it's made in such low quantities. There aren't a lot of companies that use it, and most that do use it embedded into the die of a processor, such as Flipper.

But, if they cut the RAM in half, down to 256MB, and use the 1T-SRAM for all of the systems memory, then they could save money, and produce a more efficient machine than MS or Sony has. That is what I believe they will do.

Nintendo has different concerns than Sony or MS. Unlike the other two, Nintendo makes the vast majority of their money off of hardware and 1st party game sales. Nintendo tends to make their products very much in the classic arcade style of gameplay. They aren't complex in design, in fact many are downright simplistic, but they aren't trying to be either. It's not like Mario needs advanced AI or Mario Kart needs the physics of a Gran Turismo or Forza.

Nintendo video gaming was born in the arcade, and they've stayed very true to their roots. That design philosophy doesn't require realistic physics or graphics in their games and their hardware reflects that. It's very efficient in design, but not made to compete with the likes of Sony or MS on a pure processing power basis.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

. Staying with a sd will also help alot .

Yes staying sd means that the console doesn't need to be as powerful as in 720p, but if you ask me sd is this gen and hd is next gen and whatever gains Nintendo get's from staying in sd is overshadowed by the fact, that atleast on my 61" hdtv Rev's games are going to look like old turd compared to PS3 and X360. Ofcourse if one has small display and sits 15ft from the screen the difference is not that big.

 

[Megadrive1988]

I will agree that a multicore chip and half the RAM of the PS3 or 360 WILL show in games.

Ram = storage for data to be processed.
Less RAM = less data that can be processed at any given time.


So yes, the reduction in textures and texture resolution, the reduction in geomitry, the reduction in game engine coding will be very obvious. More than anything else, the reason why the Xbox seems so much more powerful than the PS2 or GCN isn't the GPU or CPU, it's the fact that it had twice the RAM.

more like, Xbox had 50% more RAM than PS2 or Gamecube, not twice

 

[see colon]

because i love to play devil's advocate, i just want to point out that just because you have multiple CPU's doesn't mean it's going to do great things for you. look at the sega saturn (2x sh2 @ 25mhz) vs. sony ps1 (1x mips @33mhz). sega's "paper stats" at the time were far above what sony had, and they (sega) spent alot of effort in pointing out how "technicaly superior" their hardware was (3 32bit cpu's and more ram). at the end of the day sony won because it had a better graphics processor (for 3d at least, giving them a bit of a screen shot advantage) and baited many 3rd parties away from the competition (namco is a prime example of this. ridge racer and tekken were both solid titles around launch, stealing a bit of thunder from sega's VF and daytona).

nintendo has to spend more time working on the politics and less time pimping their numbers to be successfull. maybe that's what they are doing...

 

[Guden Oden]

It's the exact same GPU, the exact same card, exact same manufacturer, and the exact same store. The only difference is the amount of RAM, and that extra 256MB costs an extra $131.

It doesn't COST $131 more, it is PRICED $131 more. Quite a difference, actually...

There's several layers of markup on top of the actual price difference on the extra memory itself, and a big part of that is simply paying for the pleasure and luxury of having half a gig on your vidcard.

 

[Inane_Dork]

more like, Xbox had 50% more RAM than PS2 or Gamecube, not twice

The PS2 has 32 MB of system RAM which is 50% of the Xbox's.
The GC has 24 (or 40) MB of RAM which is 37.5% (or 62.5%) of the Xbox's.

I'd say he is more right than you are.

 

[Inane_Dork]

It doesn't COST $131 more, it is PRICED $131 more. Quite a difference, actually...

There's several layers of markup on top of the actual price difference on the extra memory itself, and a big part of that is simply paying for the pleasure and luxury of having half a gig on your vidcard.

I'm sure all the price difference is not just to cover the cost of the added memory. But on the other hand, they can't raise the price too much because added VRAM is a pretty vague bonus for most people. It's pretty easy to charge more than customers are willing to pay for rather undefined enhancements.

All IMO, of course.

 

[ninzel]

It's even more expensive than GDDR3 right now because it's made in such low quantities. There aren't a lot of companies that use it, and most that do use it embedded into the die of a processor, such as Flipper.

But, if they cut the RAM in half, down to 256MB, and use the 1T-SRAM for all of the systems memory, then they could save money, and produce a more efficient machine than MS or Sony has. That is what I believe they will do.

Nintendo has different concerns than Sony or MS. Unlike the other two, Nintendo makes the vast majority of their money off of hardware and 1st party game sales. Nintendo tends to make their products very much in the classic arcade style of gameplay. They aren't complex in design, in fact many are downright simplistic, but they aren't trying to be either. It's not like Mario needs advanced AI or Mario Kart needs the physics of a Gran Turismo or Forza.

Nintendo video gaming was born in the arcade, and they've stayed very true to their roots. That design philosophy doesn't require realistic physics or graphics in their games and their hardware reflects that. It's very efficient in design, but not made to compete with the likes of Sony or MS on a pure processing power basis.

Oh ok I thought that RAM was actually less expensive according to Nintendo. I must have read something wrong.
As for the rest, I agree that Nintendo has remained the most "old school", which I like to a degree but I think we have also seen some progress from them this gen in expanding thier genres.
Also when I look at the REV I see some ackowledgement of some of thier mistakes this generation. Nintendo must see and I do believe they do see they have to start conforming more and cater to the kind of audience that would normally be interested in a PS2 for example. I still think they will remain "Nintendo", but with some important changes.
When I see the styling of the REV, the wifi,a proper DVD drive,flash drive for downloadable content, mature Zelda,Metroid Primes, RE4, Geist, Killer 7 I see the beginning of progress.

 

[Powderkeg]

Oh ok I thought that RAM was actually less expensive according to Nintendo. I must have read something wrong.

The embedded 1T-SRAM is cheaper than embedded DRAM.

As for the rest, I agree that Nintendo has remained the most "old school", which I like to a degree but I think we have also seen some progress from them this gen in expanding thier genres.
Also when I look at the REV I see some ackowledgement of some of thier mistakes this generation. Nintendo must see and I do believe they do see they have to start conforming more and cater to the kind of audience that would normally be interested in a PS2 for example. I still think they will remain "Nintendo", but with some important changes.
When I see the styling of the REV, the wifi,a proper DVD drive,flash drive for downloadable content, mature Zelda,Metroid Primes, RE4, Geist, Killer 7 I see the beginning of progress.

I would like to see some changes in Nintendo's style. Not to the extent that they change everything that they are, but I would like to see them expand their own efforts into new genres and styles that they don't normally work with, as well as staying with their tried and true franchises. I think they've become a bit to accustomed to thinking inside the box when it comes to their own games. A broader range of diversity would be a very welcome change IMO.

 

[Powderkeg]

It doesn't COST $131 more, it is PRICED $131 more. Quite a difference, actually...

There's several layers of markup on top of the actual price difference on the extra memory itself, and a big part of that is simply paying for the pleasure and luxury of having half a gig on your vidcard.

True, but the amount of markup is not that high. Those are wholesale prices, so you don't have the retailer markup, the RAM manufacturer markup is something even Nintendo would have to pay, so the only markup that could be factorer in here is from the card manufacturer (ATI).

Last time I checked, ATI was oprating at about a 10% profit margin. (Could have changed, it's been a while since I've looked) So, out of that $131 extra cost, only about $10-$15 is profit.

 

[swaaye]

The amount of RAM on a video card is the defining stat for about a bazillion tards in our world. I bet I could sell a 256MB FX5200 or 9x00 to several people I know and convince them they were set for life. The fact that a 512MB X800 and a 256MB X800 perform within like 1% of each other 98% of the time, and that it is arguable whether it has enough overal fillrate etc to push a game that uses really 512MB, does not matter to these people. These people don't care to educate themselves and seem to bask in not really knowing anything. To most people, even the more educated, 512MB VRAM sounds magical. In a few years we'll have 6800s still being sold with 512MB and maybe 8800s with 256MB lol and the cycle will just continue.

I don't really care what Nintendo does to their console. If they want to make it cheap I can handle 128MB RAM. They will still make games that kick ass. Hell if they can make kick ass games on the sad N64 hardware, they can do anything!