Revolution Tech Specs Mooted: Uproar Ensues – Full Report

This sounds pretty good to me, although I'm not sure why shaders are so important. I'm perfectly happy with the graphics on Gamecube at the moment - I really don't feel we need better graphics.

I think you're wrong though about lower costs. Costs will be lower, mainly due to no need for more complex graphics, however how much by is debatable. This could be more than offset by the fact that if Revo sales poorly it will be impossible shift as many units and therefore impossible to get revenues the same as those on Xbox and PS3.

It will also be more difficault, and expensive, to port cross-platform titles.

I think the claims that Revo will be better for developers are very dubious.

Also, if your not making many games for the system then programming for it will become a speciality and therefore more expensive, so it will become more expensive in the long run.

I would have expected it to be more powerful than the specs above suggest. Although if this is the specs I would expect the system to be very cheap unless the controller is expensive to produce, I'd say around the £100 mark.

we just have to look at games like resi4 and Zelda:tp to see what the game cube can do. even if the revo is 1.5x or 2x graphically more advanced we are still in for some treats.

yes i will admit,if nintendo turned around 2mro and said "revolution will be supporting HD,has super grapics and will wash your at the press of this button" i would love it,but then i have to think why i am so excited to get my hands on a rev,its to experience new ways of games,being the game instead of playing it.

This rumor or fact couldn't have come at a worst time. Nintendo up to this point had the momentum going into E3. I personally hope that the specs post by IGN isn't for the final system.

I for one is fine with the fact that it will not support HD but I will be damned if I am going to invest in a system that graphically doesn't differentiate itself from the previous gen. All that I have seen from Nintendo plans for REvo I am happy with, but a great improvement in graphics is a must.

NEED MORE MEMORY THAN 88MB…I EXPECT THE MINIMUM OF 128MB

Hmm. If this is true, it looks like Nintendo are trying to re-use GC technology in an effort to save cash. Although I'm an XBOX and 360 user, I was always quite impressed with the image quality of the GC - it was crisp and colourful and seemed capable of very 'solid' looking 3d. Very much like the DC in fact. However, in this world of 'mine is bigger than yours', these published specs will enable the playground Nintendo bashers to have a field day.

Nintendo have a precedent for reusing old hardware. The SNES was based around re used hardware with a kick-ass graphics and sound chip stuck on but it introduced a new controller and a new way of playing .
I still don't think memory and power is that important. Running games in HD takes a lot of power and I think polygon for polygon revo games will match 360 and ps3 games (only those won't have suck pretty pixels attached to them).
For the normal user, the average gamer, will that actually make any difference. I don't have an hd tv, I have no intention of buying one and I can't afford it anyway even if I wanted one. Will 360 games look better than revo games on my 14inch tv?

I think this new console is made to be the best value for money possible. The cheapest to develop for, the cheapest to make and likely the cheapest to buy. I don't expect cheaper games. I reckon they'll cost the same as GC games do today.
I'm so bored with games right now. I haven't bought a proper console games for longer than I can remember. I've spent money on 'other distractions' and I've bought DS games but as far as proper playthemonthetelly console games. I'm bored stiff by them!

As long as the graphics on the first-party games are at the RE4 level (hopefully a little better) at E3, there shouldn't be too huge of a hit on N.

I, like others, am generally bored with most of the console games out there (although I finally picked of SSBM) so the fact that there aren't any terraflops of things moving around isn't a deal-breaker to me.

The key is making sure that the graphics are on a RE4 level. Sure, Graphics don't equal gameplay, but graphics generally get the interest going in a game/system.

This also raises the hopes of someone hoping to see an under $200US system, or at 200.

Not great news, but not bad news, either. I'm still interested...

Hmm, this is close to the spec I estimated they could do for the Game Boy advanced 2 based on the Gamecube.

What happen to the higher end spec options that were mooted last year for the Revo. Those options were much closer to what you would fit in a box the size of a Revolution and keep it reasonably cool. Sure they could put in multi-core 3Ghz CPU, next year when IBM has there new high speed low powered process on line, but presently the limit is closer to around 1.8Ghz.

Something smells fishy here.

Still, this machine should be able to fast track to a portable version very quickly (hold it GBA2, was supposed to have disk) as it will likely not be too far more complex than a PSP (which is more complex than a PS2). Nintendo likes to introduce really cheap to manufacture hardware based on older tech for it's portables, that has been shrunk down in cost and power consumption. Without actually spec on the Revo's transistor count, process, and power consumption, or the PSP's, an estimate would be that it might be mature enough for a low cost portable version next year, they might delay it the year after. If this is the case they might be free to upgrade the Revo itself next year or the year after.

About the graphic potential:
The spec of the Revo might look quiet low, but remember, like Power VR, this is an optimised architecture, that only needs to render on screen pixels. It is possible for them to provide what they claim on these sorts of Mhz, especially with parallel processing arrays. My own scheme would use less than 200Mhz for near photo realistic rendering in a hardware version. All is not lost, but I don't see anybody that far advanced in 3D process modeling refinement.

From a technical standpoint having 24 md ram and then 64 mb ram of the same type separetly is very ineffcient, easier to just stick a 96 mb slab into it.

And there are some other stuff in there that sound very inefficient. Why is that a factor, well Nintendo likes efficienty, that's why the GC could produce Xbox-like graphics against double the framerate (where Halo 2 has trouble reaching 30 fps, RE4 was locked on 60 fps... go figure) it was hyperefficient and fast as hell. Suddenly making a piece of hardware that's supposed to be easier to work for then the GC with those kind off inefficienties...it smells fishy indeed.

Oh yes, for those who doubt that 88 mb of 1T-SRAM isn't enough... the 16 mb of 1T-SRAM of the GC(strange that IGN again mixes up the 24 MB E-RAM of the GC for the 16 MB 1T-SRAM) is favored by developers over PS2's total 32 MB RAM, capable of handling much more data (1T-SRAM is about 10 times faster then PS2's RAM type).

okay,wtf are u ppl talking about.i think i understood about to sentances of the last 3 or fourm posts.

Way,

You obviously do not have a clue of what you are talking about.

Next up...MHZ comparisons between systems do not mean much of anything if you do not take into comparison the actual architecture. For instance 3 gigahertz machine that is only capable of doing 1 alu (arithmatic logic unit( 1+1=2)) calculation per cycle (hertz) is going to be slower then a 1 gigahertz machine that can process 4 alu calculations per cycle because the first machine can do 3 thousand alu operations per second while the second can do 4 thousand alu operations per second even though the first chip is clocked 3 times faster.

The very fact that ign tried to compare the PIII based xbox chip with either the gcn or xbox 360 chip shows total ignorance on all things computing.

I highly doubt the claims of this report or the accuracy of the system specs. I am certain that the rev is not going to have near the horsepower of either ps3 or x360 but N has said that we will say wow at the graphics.

To put things into consideration ps3 and x360 were designed to be media hubs which required a much more general processor and hardware design while the gcn and the rev were designed from the ground up to play games. If i am capable of playing music off of my pc while playing pgr3 while being connected and periodically jumping back into xbox live think about how much computing power and ram has not been applied to pgr3.

I do fully believe that the gpu will be a more cutting edge chip then an upclocked gcn graphics chip...it would not cost them a cent more to simply take a new ati chip based on more modern technology out of their middle of the line hardware which is way more capable than the 5 year old graphics chip technology in the gcn and it supports shader support. Besides i think that the 3mb of onboard graphic memory is for pixel and shader operations.

Ram wont be nearly the issue because resolutions will be limited to 480p so textures will be by nature much smaller than 720p or 1080i/p.

By the way the reason for seperating the 2 main rams is for cost reasons. The ram is on 2 seperate levels. I think 16 is onboard with the processor (again indicating a full processor redesign even if it is similar) but each transistor on the chip increases the die size of the chip which exponentially increases cost. The 16mb will be on a lower level and faster to access then the rest of the ram which will be external and will require some external bus (access limited by bus width and bus clock) to access. 16mb of on board processor cache is pretty good considering that most server chips feature 1-2 megs 4 max on the latest chips.

I still say bogus specs. Maybe those where early dev kits that where to be used as a platform to start development.

Can i just say that it really doesn't matter about the specs of the machine. Nnintendo have already proved that with the DS. Nintendo have already outsold the PSP due in part to the new and original control system. The same will be true of the Revolution whic i expect to be not far of the publisized specs by IGN. The main thing is that nintendo arn't trying to compete in a willy waving "my machine looks better than yours" contest but bring fresh gaming to the consumers. Nintendo has already proved that it can and i'm sure that no matter how underpowered the machine may seem they will once again make console gaming fun and enjoyable again. If you want pretty graphics and HD resoultions go spend £3k on a pc. Thats what i've gone and done and my machine makes the Xbox 360 look positvly pitiful (F.E.A.R. any one). The console market has always been about cheap, fun and easly accessable gaming. Something that Sony and Microsoft shoulld really be taking in to account (and quite clearly dont really understand). Let the war commence and watch as microsoft and sony lose millions of dolllars whilst nintendo laugh as there bank balence stays in the black. Its already a well known fact that the 360 and PS3 will lose both companies money on each unit sold. Fair play to nintendo for not submiting to the hardcore fans, crying out for HD and media center connectivity. And personally if your such a hardcore fanactic gamer (like myself) that you need the HD display and media center conectivity shouldn't you really be spending cash on building a customised PC rather than buying an expensive toy from sony or microsoft.

Specifications do matter. They are what defines the game. The controller is one part of the specification. The problem is, people compare two chips, when they should be comparing the whole system.

Like you say, (hardcore) fans do care, therefore it does matter how powerful it is. Ok, maybe what actually matters is the appearance of the game, not the speed of the processor, but we can still roughly estimate how good it will be, because a lot of things are unfeasible.

And yes, that isn't all that matters. But this is the next generation. This is what Nintendo themselves called the "Revolution." That, to me, doesn't correspond to last generation's technology with a new controller.

They're making a whole new system, 5 years after the last one. Not only have my expectations risen accordingly; so have my standards. The same with every other person on this side of the planet. It's no good making something worse than people expect, in any aspect that is important (which includes processor power and graphics, and more - not just the controller). Gameplay is important, so is graphics - neither is trivial - so people aren't going to be satisfied with trivial gameplay; neither will they be satisfied with trivial graphics.

Put it this way - if the majority of people were already satisfied with what there already is, they wouldn't buy the new one - they'd keep playing the old one.

I agree with most of your points crs117.



As well as the fact that you would NEVER put 16MB of RAM on a processor die. That would be insane.

For a start, your processor would be massive, really hard to manufacture and have a high failure rate. It would be very hard to mass-produce.

Secondly, 16MB of RAM would be really inefficient. You use a small amount of on-die memory for a reason; to give yourself a super-quick work area to load in frequently used instructions. The more memory you add, the slower it becomes.

However, I do agree that it sounds like they have some faster RAM and slower RAM.

I think I'm right but I will check my facts on Monday.



I think that the point is that graphics are no longer limiting. The Revo's graphics will be sufficiently good on a normal TV to compete with Xbox and PS3, I guess (possibly with some spec changes).

IMO we just don't need such technically amazing graphics as the new systems. The last few GC games have had stunning graphics, and I don't feel that even those would let a next-gen package down.

Someone I know has an Xbox 360. Apparently the graphics are good, but they don't matter. About the only thing that's impressed him is the online service. And he's a hardcore gamer.

Yeah, we'll just have to wait until E3, really...

I can't say for sure how good graphics have to be to be what people are pleased with, but the thing is, like i said - standards increase.

I don't think, though, that the controller is enough on its own. Still, we all know it's going to be more powerful to an extent.

But using last generation's processors that are overclocked just seems like Nintendo didn't really bother at all. Still, we obviously have to wait and see what it does.

On the other hand, I'm about 50/50 undecided as to whether this is actually an April Fool's joke. I mean, presumably people with dev kits are making games, that they presumably want to sell! So it would be in their own interests to present the specs, or any Revolution details in as favourable a way as possible - not just simply by saying "50% as fast as last time, because we're not focusing on improving graphics anymore."