DCK Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Han_Solo at it again... These specs mean that the Rev will be like the GameCube on fire (I mean serious inferno.) Just about every chip is a next next gen version of what's in the Cube. He posted specs like these before, only the CPU had four cores instead of one and the graphic chip was a bit slower. These specs are nonsense anyway because the CPU outperforms the Xbox 360 CPU: Rev: 1x 2.5 GHz core - 13 billion dot product operations / second 360: 3x 3.2 GHz core - 9 billion dot product operations / second Don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo yo Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 the way things were shouldn't really effect anything redshell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darv Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 These specs are nonsense anyway because the CPU outperforms the Xbox 360 CPU: Rev: 1x 2.5 GHz core - 13 billion dot product operations / second 360: 3x 3.2 GHz core - 9 billion dot product operations / second Don't think so. They don't have to be nonsense. Extra cores will make little difference to a single operation. It will only make a difference to mulitple things. Besides clock speed means nothing at all. An AMD FX57 is only 2.8ghz but will outperform any Intel CPU even those at 3.8ghz. Performance is down to the architecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christophicus Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 the 2 cpus are both ibm powerpcs arnt they?so their architechture will be roughly the same.hopefully the other cores will just be used for running the operating system(s) and firewalls and other such programs.i know tis is unlikely as the processing power would be extreame overkill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YenRug Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Well, a lot of technical analysts and developers have stated that the multiple cores are causing a lot of problems and it will likely be several years before they can be exploited properly. If the Rev CPU can run on a single core, and yet produce greater processing power, then it's at a distinct advantage from the off. Also, the Physics Processing Unit, that Han_Solo has mooted previously, will take a huge load off the CPU too, which means there will be processing capacity to spare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoBlizz Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 The way I have read/heard, Han Solo also put out some rumour xb360 specs before MS had officially published their specs, and he was very very close on those. And the people on G4tv forum and Gamespot forum thinks the specs could be possible in the small design Nintendo have for Revolution (can be done in that small package). They also say the REV-GPU should place itself somewhere between PS3 and XB360 (only looking on GPU). About the rest they say a PPU would really help the CPU since the CPU will not need to be as powerful as the once in PS3 or Xb360. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jordan Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 The Revolution will be totally different in terms of its architecture. Thus Darv is totally right. A single core PowerPC computer (if run well) can quite easily outrun a multicore on x86/x64 of the same speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White_Wolf Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 Everyone knows that the PS3's CPU is faster to what the Xbox 360 has and the Revs CPU will be 20% slower to the Xbox 360's. What everyone has to realise is that the PS3 and Xbox 360's CPU's are not only ment for gaming, but also for media function. Nintendo is creating a CPU that's only for gaming and since the PPU is added the performance of the CPU will not be effected. The Revolutions GPU is slightly more powerful compared to the PS3's, but it's on par with the Xbox 360's. Nintendo still has plenty of surprises when it comes to the hardware of the rev as someone from Retro put it "We will be using the special features of the controller and also the features of the hardware." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RATM_4_EVA Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 Friggin Awesome sig :lmao: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White_Wolf Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 My sig speaks the truth :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabookerman Posted September 22, 2005 Author Share Posted September 22, 2005 My sig speaks the truth :p just a plain obvious fact. but indeed you are right about the whole fact that the rev doesnt need to be as powerful since it will only be a gaming machine. i really hope those specs are correct yknow. but then again, ppus are expensive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YenRug Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 Everyone knows that the PS3's CPU is faster to what the Xbox 360 has and the Revs CPU will be 20% slower to the Xbox 360's. What everyone has to realise is that the PS3 and Xbox 360's CPU's are not only ment for gaming, but also for media function. Nintendo is creating a CPU that's only for gaming and since the PPU is added the performance of the CPU will not be effected. You're comparing clock speeds on the Rev Vs Xbox 360, though, but the quoted performance is higher for the Rev despite having the slower clock speed. It's been obvious for a while that comparing clock speeds directly is no longer a reliable comparison for performance, i.e. see Intel Vs AMD CPU's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
system_error Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 A PPU might not be that expensive - a deal with Ageia (I think that is the name of the company) could make both sides happy. Until know you can't buy those PPU cards for a PC and I bet many people are still sceptic if Nintendo has a PPU in all their consoles it would change. Nintendo gets a good price because every Revolution will have such a chip and Ageia gets money + massive free advertising. People see what the chip can do on a console and want one for PC too. But I am quite sure that those specs are false because 512mb MoSys 1-T SRAM in the machine and 256MB on the GPU are too expensive the only believable thing is the CPU but it is not hard to come up with something like that. IBM already introduced the PowerPC 970FX and the 970MP - the FX is a powerfull but energy saving design wheras the 970MP has up to four cores (each with one cache and AltiVec engine) and the speeds can go up to 3.0GHz. It is all a matter of choice. I had about one year hardware design at university and GHz do not mean anything - it is more important to focus on the important things. The fastest CPU slows down if the GPU, the Bus, ... is too slow. So it is completly useless to have a top notch GPU and only a mediocre CPU. I guess Nintendo knows what they are doing. My Guess: Custom PowerPC970FX with a higher clock rate or Custom PowerPC970MP with 2 or 4 cores at a much smaller clock rate. Custom things mean that Nintendo does what game developers want plus their own ideas. The clockrate will be not more than 1 x 3.0GHz or 2 x 2.GHz or at most 4 x 1.5GHz. RAM: 512MB MoSys 1-T SRAM (it is expensive but worth it) GFX Card: Can't say much about it but I hope for something similar like ArtX did with the Gamecube GPU (even though I doubt that the original ArtX team still exists). 128MB RAM at best but I would prefer 8-16MB EDRAM on the chip itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoBlizz Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 Specs just showed up over at GAF.. And all they say is: "FAKE", "Ultrafake" and "would cost $500-600 for that console". http://forum.gaming-age.com/showthread.php?t=64188 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellfire Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 These rumoured specs never change a lot do they? I suppose we'll know soon enough what Revolution is capable of graphically. Don't pay attention to the fact that PS3 and XBOX360 have big flashy numbers, because that really doesn't mean a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtle Squad Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 I hate these kinda specs, they make no sence really!! All you wanna know is the frame rate, polygon thingies and stuff like that compared to the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White_Wolf Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 Specs just showed up over at GAF.. And all they say is: "FAKE", "Ultrafake" and "would cost $500-600 for that console". http://forum.gaming-age.com/showthread.php?t=64188 Why isn't the Xbox 360 $500-600? By the time the rev comes out it's going to be cheaper to produce everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtle Squad Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 The 360 costs LOADS, I'd never spend that much on a console. (Esp. not one that doesn't grab me) or seem interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White_Wolf Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 The Xbox 360 is $299 or is it $399? Anyway the Rev comes out a year later in which case the price to develope the hardware will drop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
system_error Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 The XBOX360 costs more than a customer will pay for it - simply because MS can afford the loss of money. Nintendo always calculated the price of the console in a way they are even or get a bit money. For customers the Sony + MS way is better ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White_Wolf Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 Nintendo makes enough profit to take a loss on console sales. The software sales will more then make up the loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfernalEternal Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Nintendo couldn't sustain making a $100-150-200 USD loss on each Revolution sold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
system_error Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Sure they could afford a loss like that - not easily but they could if they want. But Nintendos company policy is not to lose money but to get money. Furthermore more money does not always mean more power - limited resources sometimes produce even better hardware because the development team actually has to think what is important, how can we improve a game without adding more memory, and so on. I personally think that Nintendos biggest surprise was not the controller - there is something else ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuneSP Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 ... a VISOR hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YenRug Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 If there are any more major surprises to come out, I would say it would most likely be this 3D display technology that's been rumoured. Apparently it should work with any TV set and be relatively inexpensive, it also doesn't require headsets nor these shuttered glasses that are usually required, either. In a way it does make sense as they have introduced a 3D control system, this would just be a natural extension of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts