Actually that is the max they can do and keep the same price of flipper (from 180 --> 90 they could have up to 12 Mgs and using 1T-Sram-Q they could double that).
WiiGeePeeYou (Hollywood) what IS it ?
- Thread starter Megadrive1988
- Start date
- Status
Actually that is the max they can do and keep the same price of flipper (from 180 --> 90 they could have up to 12 Mgs and using 1T-Sram-Q they could double that).
i'm not sure increasing the GPU's framebuffer and texture cache memory would have made the most sense for them, given that it seems no new fat antialiasing schemes were introduced. the virtual texturing mode of the GPU, plus the fact that hollywood now can have the whole 24MB pool to itself when not running cube titles, suggest that the pools to increase were either the pirmary 24MBs or the external pool - they went for the latter, most likely for compatibility reasons.
Ooh-videogames
Regular
I doubt Nintendo chose the low power memory, it would be a step backwards. The 24Megs in GC ran at 325Mhz, or does that have more to do with the clock rate of Hollywood. Remember in the Iwata interview, the goal is low-power/high performance.
Wii couldn't be more powerful then the Xbox, if Hollywood was just an OC'd Flipper. How is it possible for some of you guys to ignore comments made by ATI and Retro. Its new architecture, in the sense that its more powerful then Flipper. My guess is, they just doulbed some things(i.e pixel pipelines, texture single pass, hardware lights, and floating point numbers). Flipper was ahead of its time, 8 textures in a single pass and the use of floating points over integer. It was basically the formula for R300, which I believe was the next likely step for Nintendo. Particularly when going with the decision to have a low-powered console.
yes, it has to do with hollywood's clock. and the fact that the low-power macro would fit in nicely while saving power with no assiciated drawbacks.
i think it all depends on whether the 24MB pool is on the same die as hollywood - if it is, then chances are you'd be right and the 1t-sram there could not be of the low-power type, as the latter could not meet the 24MB pool clock requirements. but with that said, i don't see the use of the low-power variety as a drawback, given it satisfies the original clock requirements. i.e. i don't see why the EFB and the tex pools on hollywood could not be of the low-power type, given this 1T-sram type handles the clock nicely. i can't seem to remember any drawback of the low-power version compared to the rest, aside from the lower clock ceiling *where is Li Mu Bai when one needs him?*
Ooh-videogames
Regular
Aren't the drawbacks less bandwidth?
ok, just found Li Mu Bai's post on the subject - he seems to stand firmly behind the idea that it's the Q variety, actually. though i personally am not sure if there would not be a differentiation in between the Q and QM varieties, as some mem pools in there seem to have lower clock requirements than others.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't really buy IGN's specs. They sound too much like "an aggregate of various things we've heard from various developers with various stages of the Wii devkit." I suppose those clockspeeds are right, but something seems shady about the 64/24 setup and the way it's consistently been described by IGN. I'm not saying it's actually 5x as powerful as X360, but I'm just not putting anything into those numbers.
How many times do I need to say that the two main processors are not the only thing in Wii that costs money? They don't give away Wifi technology and half-gigs of flash memory for free.
How many times do I need to say that the two main processors are not the only thing in Wii that costs money? They don't give away Wifi technology and half-gigs of flash memory for free.
Wifi g cards can be bought for less than $20, and 512MB usb flash drives for around $10, so we're looking at maybe a max of $30 added to the cost of the wii; the primary costs should still be the gpu and cpu, though I guess once they're shrunk down so much and don't have particular high performance goals, they may end up pretty cheap as well.
Rumors when gamecube launched placed it around $220 to produce, the wii should be getting considerably better yields on its chips and may even have the combined die space of all its chips be lower than the cube's, but it is coming with a pack-in game and an expensive controller + sensor bar. Nintendo has said they're making a profit on the wii, and if we assume that the profit purely comes from the $50 they jacked up the price for the cost of wii sports then we could place the wii at around $200 cost to produce. Subtract out maybe $80 for the controller + sensor bar, $30 for the flash ram and wifi, and you get $90, which is around how much the gamecube currently sells for. The wii core may be even cheaper than that to produce, I'd be surprised if it cost any more than gamecube to produce, with the extra cost over that going into the sensor bar + controller, and nintendo wanting to be reimbursed for the R&D they put into the controller and the Wii channels.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
I believe the supposed 24 MB embedded RAM is probably not embedded, as like taking up transistors on the GPU die. as like 4 MB DRAM on GS, 3.12 MB 1T-SRAM on Flipper or 10 MB EDRAM daughter-die in Xbox 360.
I believe for Wii, it is like this; either 3.12 MB embedded in Hollwood (like Flipper) or a new *somewhat* larger amount embedded (but less than 10 MB).
then 24 MB external memory pool a.) and 64 MB external memory pool b.)
24 MB embedded memory would take up close to ~200 million transistors, probably more transistors than the entire Wii CPU + GPU.
with that said, I am hoping that Nintendo increased the external memory a little bit beyond 24MB+64MB.
128 MB would be nice.
Last edited by a moderator:
that's a rather open question - kaplan said they were breaking even on the hw, and apparently that allows them to make profit once they start selling titles. which SKU she had in mind, though, is only open to speculations. we can take the NA SKU, the jap SKU or the EU SKU - for now we know the jap one is ~220 usd and it's the only one we know that comes without a title bundled. the big question is - is the jap SKU breaking even or is the NA SKU breaking even. if it's the NA one (yes, with the sport included) then your estimates may come short. if it's the japanese one, then actually your estimates may be quite close, having in mind that the jap price includes taxes too.
Clearance prices don't reflect manufacturing & licensing costs. I can find a Radeon 9600XT 128 for $63 on Pricewatch. That in no way implies that anyone could manufacture the board and sell it for that much and still be profitable.
Unless you work for a company that fabricates computer hardware and have had to deal with the manufacture price of components yourself, I'm going to go on a limb and say you don't really have a clue how to tally up Wii production costs and get an estimate.
No idea, but 4GB flash memory sells for about $60, shouldn't 512MB be 1/8th the size and approximately 1/8th the cost?
Hi all i have lost my old account and i follow this forum mainly reading it cause much serious people. I have read this about the chip codename ''hollywood'' :
The graphics processor (code-named "Hollywood") will use an ATI chipset running at 243Mhz with 3 MB of texture memory. It might also have 32 shader pipelines -- 16 fewer than the Xbox 360. However, the Nintendo GPU is rumored to run at 500 million triangles per second (100 million sustained) -- roughly equivalent to the Xbox 360. It will also be able to handle 50 billion shader operations per second, which is about the same as the 360 as well.
source: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/nintendo-revolution1.htm
What you think about this? thank you for reply bye.
The graphics processor (code-named "Hollywood") will use an ATI chipset running at 243Mhz with 3 MB of texture memory. It might also have 32 shader pipelines -- 16 fewer than the Xbox 360. However, the Nintendo GPU is rumored to run at 500 million triangles per second (100 million sustained) -- roughly equivalent to the Xbox 360. It will also be able to handle 50 billion shader operations per second, which is about the same as the 360 as well.
source: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/nintendo-revolution1.htm
What you think about this? thank you for reply bye.
oh, Mega, a couple of questions:
the above list confuses me a bit - flipper's memory pools are on the die, whereas xenos' daughter die is, well, separate. which did you mean?
but how did you come to this number?
the above list confuses me a bit - flipper's memory pools are on the die, whereas xenos' daughter die is, well, separate. which did you mean?
but how did you come to this number?
Well nothing is confirmed, I am just going by the rumours.
It doesn't matter, even if they embedded 24 MB, the entire Holywood would still have less transistors than a single memory chip in either Xbox 360 or PS3, runs at lower clock too. Is not like it'll require some exotic work. It'll be just a cost and power saving measure. This way they can still stick with 64 bit external bus, instead of the 128 bit, they are looking at with 2 external memory pool.
Perhaps you shouldn't think of it as the GPU with embedded 24 MB, but rather the 24 MB is embedded with a tiny GPU+IO.
More would be nice obviously. But they are Nintendo, we would still be on cartridge if they have it their way.
One transistor per bit...
Please don't compare DRAM processes with Logic.
Perhaps you shouldn't think of it as the GPU with embedded 24 MB, but rather the 24 MB is embedded with a tiny GPU+IO.
Again, I think this is down to a misinterpretation of leaked/rumored information. Both memory pools are sure to be external, as is the case with the current Gamecube.
very interesting.. and it has always been a possibility. do you happen to know the bandwidth or the clock of that pool?
on another note, here's the best off-screen SMG video i've seen so far (131MB):
http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?type=mov&id=13187
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
