mike-zim Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 specs specs specs. i dont even know what that all means!! i will buy a rev because i am a FANBOY and only care about gameplay and as long as there is an improvement in graphis (and there obviousely will be) then i will be happy. and who is the idiot that keeps saying Rev = Gamecube upgrade? ofcourse it is. just the same as PS3 = PS2 upgrade and Xbox 360 = Xbox upgrade the difference is the Rev is one hell of an upgrade.
Jamba Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 "eredrend ni ramoec d3 rep phasicrp" I can't believe this. I know he may know some stuff but does anyone else think that this anagram thing is completely childish. Stinks of Aeries all over it...
Catterick Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 Hi, im new to these boards.... I seriously dont think Hollywood and Broadway have been in development for all this time with only minor upgrades from a Gamecube to show for it. There is some missing information here. Obviously something big will be uncovered to show why specs dont matter. Maybe the controller is enough id ont know, but im personally holding out for some 3D related stuff that only Nintendo can surprise us with. E3 cant come soon enough!
Myke Greywolf Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 Nothing that I wasn't expecting, but I'm still a little disappointed. I'll reserve the rest of my judgement for when I see the games running. Also, aren't we approaching April 1st now?...
Social Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 Xbox 360 game have made me go " wow " in terms of graphics, but i have yet to go " wow " gameplay wise
Smowza Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 First i want to point out that i dont give a damn about specs. But for those who are interested (based on ign specs): Rev has 1.5 times more powerfull CPU than GC > xbox cpu multiplied by 1.5 = 1099Mhz (previously 733Mhz) Rev has 1.5 times more powerfull GFX than GC > xbox gfx multiplied by 1.5 = 349Mhz (previously 233Mhz) GC was roughly on par with the original xbox, so thats what spec original xbox your looking at. Saying the rev is just an xbox spec wise is stupid
Patch Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 I can't believe this. I know he may know some stuff but does anyone else think that this anagram thing is completely childish. Stinks of Aeries all over it... Er...I didn't come up with the anagram. That was BigTac. And by the way, I agree with you.
small tac Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 First i want to point out that i dont give a damn about specs. But for those who are interested (based on ign specs): Rev has 1.5 times more powerfull CPU than GC > xbox cpu multiplied by 1.5 = 1099Mhz (previously 733Mhz) Rev has 1.5 times more powerfull GFX than GC > xbox gfx multiplied by 1.5 = 349Mhz (previously 233Mhz) GC was roughly on par with the original xbox, so thats what spec original xbox your looking at. Saying the rev is just an xbox spec wise is stupid Yeah you are on the right track.. it depends on a number of factors, you cant just go on the clock speed. For example an assembly instruction to divide by 4 (the brains of the CPU) may take 1 clock cycle for the Rev CPU but 2 clock cycles on the XBOX/360. so to be the same speed the cube would only need to clock at half the rate. The Rev may have specialised instructions that did not exist on the cube, again increasing speed without increasing clock rate. We just dont know, clock speed alone does not give a complete picture.
Hellfire Posted March 30, 2006 Author Posted March 30, 2006 This was on GC, now imagine the graphics on a console with the same architecture with double the power and no need for the developers to adapt to a new hardware.
Cheapshot Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 You've convinced me there Schpickles. What about that rumored new rendering technique that Nintendo might be using? Could be interesting.
Hellfire Posted March 30, 2006 Author Posted March 30, 2006 What Schpickles said :P Another thing, slightly related Iwata said, about storage that revolution has usb so it can support any kind of storage, meaning usb drives might be compatible. Yay!
Konfucius Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 I was actually expecting the Revo to have about 1.2 GHz. I didn't expect much RAM though but as many pointed out, the clock speed doesn't matter that much. Another thing I was thinking about: next gen graphics aren't really polygon pushers it seems but they have improved lighting (high dynamic range rendering), lots of bump maps and bigger textures. The GC had volumetric clouds that used virtually no resources. The new Crytec Engine also has volumetric clouds but they are praising it at something very processing intensive. So I think the Revo graphics chip could also have bump mapping or HDR without much performance loss and I'm sure if say RE4 featured HDR it would look truly next gen. Almost forgot: the GC also compresses textures 6 times without performance hits, if they improved that method and have more memory they are next-gen enough for me. However, I'm going to buy the Revo anyways, good graphics would only be something extra.
Pit-Jr Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 Its ironic that IGN downplays specs one minute and then makes a debacle of them the next. Anyway, i, like many, have owned every Nintendo console and a handheld or 2 and ive never regretted or had to replace any of them due to poor design or inadequate specs. Bottom line, Nintendo knows what theyre doing in the hardware dept.
colormonkey Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 Have you read Matt's blog? He commented the story in the article "Why So Blue?" http://blogs.ign.com/Matt-IGN/2006/03/29/7864/ As you see there is a big image of a blue Revolution. Isn't it a strange title? I know it is an expression but still ... Then i read that the preview-page of the upcomming EDGE displayed a big BLUE "5". And Nintendo have talked alot about the blue ocean. Could "blue" be a part of the final name? Anyways. I dont see any reason to use to much time thinking of what these specs can deliver. I would rather wait and see!
DCK Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 For all the people that immediately shot to Nintendo's defence - this does suck very much. Of course graphics aren't the aim they're going for, I'm really dissappointed to see how little effort they seem to have taken. Even the 2-3 times more powerful we tripped over at the last E3 was a lie. With this setup there'll barely be a visual improvement over the GameCube. Adding 50% more power has little influence on the actual look of the graphics. The extra power in the CPU and GPU won't make much of a difference, only the extra memory may have some impact, as it kind of removes a bottleneck the GameCube seemed to face - low amounts of fast memory. They could've coped with a similar setup as long as they added shaders, and they didn't. New games, new engines and any new technology (even physics) will require loads of shaders. They can't keep up with the archaic programmable hardware lights in the Revolution... The Flipper (and Hollywood therefore) have one pixel shader and one vertex shader. Seeing how they've done zero except for overclocking the Flipper, I bet it doesn't even include Dolby Digital surround. They have got to be selling this for €150 now. I'm getting the feeling this race will be all or nothing for Nintendo, even though it shouldn't have to be.
Jay Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 The lack of HD with the Rev doesn't concern me, nor does the lack of horse power compared to the 360/PS3. The fact is that games will all look better than the very best looking Xbox/Cube/PS2 games, roughly twice as good - Regardless of whether they don't look as good as 360/PS3 games they will still look stunning - Twice as good as Rogue Leader/Twilight Princess/Resident Evil 4? Bloody hell, games will look gorgeous. I do not own a HD TV yet and currently have no plans to get one in the near future, I don't have Sky so I won't be able to get HD Broadcasts for a few years and at this moment in time I'm not interested in a 360/PS3 - I expect I will get one eventually but I'm talking two or three years from now when they both have good software libraries and a cheaper shelf price, at the moment there are only a handful of games on each system which interest me - In three or even two years time I will be able to get a much better idea of which systems software library interests me most, not only that but I will have a HD TV - Revolution I see as an independent system, I don't see it as a "Revolution/360/PS3" choice, I see it more as a "Revolution and 360/PS3" choice. As Schpickles says, games may not look as good or be of the same scale as 360/PS3 games but they will still look great and be considerably cheaper and easier for developers to make as well. I can't wait.
Pestneb Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 down/upscaling an image doesn't result in that much loss.I've seen 480 signals upscaled to 720, and it looks fine. therefroe, I really do not care about hi def, next gen when I have a HD tv simply because that is most likely all they will sell when I get round to replacing mine, then I will care, but then Nintendo will support HD. as mentioned, its not how fast the chip is, its what it does. say I have a shipment of 500 boxes, I can choose a sports car that can carry a few of them and has great acceleration and top speed, but would need to make 10 journeys to carry all the boxes, or a lorry that can carry all 50 boxes in 1 trip. the car can carry 50 boxes so it has to travel 20 times as far (as it also has to make the return trip) and only goes 10 times as fast. the lorry, despite being ten times slower than the car is able to complete the job in half the time. this analogy obviously ignores many factors such as traffic, low bridges etc etc. but it basically - being twice as fast doesn't mean the job will be done twice as quick.
DCK Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 as mentioned, its not how fast the chip is, its what it does. say I have a shipment of 500 boxes, I can choose a sports car that can carry a few of them and has great acceleration and top speed, but would need to make 10 journeys to carry all the boxes, or a lorry that can carry all 50 boxes in 1 trip. the car can carry 50 boxes so it has to travel 20 times as far (as it also has to make the return trip) and only goes 10 times as fast. the lorry, despite being ten times slower than the car is able to complete the job in half the time. this analogy obviously ignores many factors such as traffic, low bridges etc etc. but it basically - being twice as fast doesn't mean the job will be done twice as quick. This case is different. The Revolution is a revision of the GameCube hardware - the chips are similar. Therefore we know that the Revolution is about as fast as a GameCube overclocked to those speeds, along with some efficiencies made by Nintendo which I'm sure will make it go faster, but don't expect wonders of it.
gorrit Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 These specs say, well, nothing. We don't know the big picture so to say, we don't have the full tech spec. Still, we can only really judge after the first in-game screenshots and movies.
mike-zim Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 and where did these specs come from? Matt's mate high up in Nintendo. Where are all the sceptics now? if it were Big Tac revealing this there would be blood spattered all over the place.
mario114 Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 When I first saw them I though WHAT!, I wasn't expecting 3, 3GHz cores, but I does seem a little on the weak side, then I rembered the graphics of resi4, windwaker, and metroid prime 1, and that the rev will be better than them. Raw power isn't everything I guess. But surly they could put the ram up to 512, how costly could that be?
DCK Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 and where did these specs come from? Matt's mate high up in Nintendo. Where are all the sceptics now? if it were Big Tac revealing this there would be blood spattered all over the place. BigTac is a forum poster who only says he's an industry insider and frankly says everything that people like (nothing to big though) to here and is therefore believed. Matt Cassamina is a real, respected journalist who has proven himself many times before. Faking this for some unknown reason (what if he works for Sony?) would destroy his and IGN's reputation. Just because it's negative about Nintendo doesn't mean it's not true. It seems as though Nintendo has put zero effort in putting something new in the hardware they have.
mike-zim Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 Respected? not by me. lets face it this is un official, nintendo said that they might never reveal the specs. and lets face it Matt has had a few past indiscretions. i am taking the side of the sceptic here and waiting for nintendo to officially reveal their specs.
system_error Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 IGN are off with their assessment of the original GC, and with their subsequent assessment of these supposed specifications. They aren't comparing like with like - they are taking the raw "Mhz" speed of the CPUs, and assuming that they are comparile. CPU-wise, the original GameCube chip, running at 485Mhz, was around about the the same performance as the Xbox CPU, if not slightly better. This is because the original GC chip was PowerPC (~ equivalent to a G3) whereas the Xbox CPU was a x86 chip, about half way between a celeron and a pentium 3. The architectures are very different, with the GameCube's PPC CPU architecture effectively offering more "bang for buck" from each clock cycle. Combined with a tightly integrated system bus, the CPU in the GameCube packed a fair old punch. Overall, the Xbox had a lot more main RAM (the GameCube's 16Mb of ARAM is difficult to use by comparison) and a more flexible GPU. This is why you see approximately equal performance between the two, but slightly better textures / larger areas on the Xbox - more system RAM, slightly more PC-style Graphics systems. I've been saying for months(do a search and check!) that the Revolution will more than likely have CPU roughtly equivalent to a G4 CPU, and an evolution of its original flipper chipset. This rumour certainly seems to support that idea, and also supports comments made by Iwata-san about being able to use the existing GameCube developments kits for early Rev development. I'd say that these rumours are fairly believable. However, analyses comparing clock speeds between these specs and Xbox specs are totally off the mark. A PPC G4 chip running at that speed would effortlessly outperform the CPU in the original Xbox. Combined with more 1T-SRAM (very fast access RAM) and - presumably - a evolved version of the original Flipper, you'll get a powerful console along the lines of what Nintendo have been alluding to. For Nintendo-style games, it'll be able to create amazing looking games. For games of the kind of scope of something like Oblivion on the 360... it probably wouldn't be able to cope (as much because of RAM as anything else). However, the bonus of such as system would be that - compared to PS3 and 360 - it would be remarkably straightforward to develop for (pretty much like OpenGL programming on the PC, and akin to the current GC development environment), and would allow smaller developers to still make home console games, where it looked like only the handhelds offered them a future. This is very important, given the recent acquisition of SN Systems by Sony, and Nintendo's relative weakness at providing tools for developers. Is it going to graphically compete with PS3/360? No. Is it going to be very cheap to make and buy? Yes. Will it produce great looking games? Yes - but they won't be of the same scale or definition as 360 and PS3 games. Will it be quick and easy to develop for? Yes. Will it be successful? Only time will tell. GN are off with their assessment of the original GC, and with their subsequent assessment of these supposed specifications. They aren't comparing like with like - they are taking the raw "Mhz" speed of the CPUs, and assuming that they are comparile. CPU-wise, the original GameCube chip, running at 485Mhz, was around about the the same performance as the Xbox CPU, if not slightly better. This is because the original GC chip was PowerPC (~ equivalent to a G3) whereas the Xbox CPU was a x86 chip, about half way between a celeron and a pentium 3. The architectures are very different, with the GameCube's PPC CPU architecture effectively offering more "bang for buck" from each clock cycle. Combined with a tightly integrated system bus, the CPU in the GameCube packed a fair old punch. Overall, the Xbox had a lot more main RAM (the GameCube's 16Mb of ARAM is difficult to use by comparison) and a more flexible GPU. This is why you see approximately equal performance between the two, but slightly better textures / larger areas on the Xbox - more system RAM, slightly more PC-style Graphics systems. I've been saying for months(do a search and check!) that the Revolution will more than likely have CPU roughtly equivalent to a G4 CPU, and an evolution of its original flipper chipset. This rumour certainly seems to support that idea, and also supports comments made by Iwata-san about being able to use the existing GameCube developments kits for early Rev development. I'd say that these rumours are fairly believable. However, analyses comparing clock speeds between these specs and Xbox specs are totally off the mark. A PPC G4 chip running at that speed would effortlessly outperform the CPU in the original Xbox. Combined with more 1T-SRAM (very fast access RAM) and - presumably - a evolved version of the original Flipper, you'll get a powerful console along the lines of what Nintendo have been alluding to. For Nintendo-style games, it'll be able to create amazing looking games. For games of the kind of scope of something like Oblivion on the 360... it probably wouldn't be able to cope (as much because of RAM as anything else). However, the bonus of such as system would be that - compared to PS3 and 360 - it would be remarkably straightforward to develop for (pretty much like OpenGL programming on the PC, and akin to the current GC development environment), and would allow smaller developers to still make home console games, where it looked like only the handhelds offered them a future. This is very important, given the recent acquisition of SN Systems by Sony, and Nintendo's relative weakness at providing tools for developers. Is it going to graphically compete with PS3/360? No. Is it going to be very cheap to make and buy? Yes. Will it produce great looking games? Yes - but they won't be of the same scale or definition as 360 and PS3 games. Will it be quick and easy to develop for? Yes. Will it be successful? Only time will tell. What in [insert your religious leader] name makes people read your posts and ignore mine... I am so jealous right now !
Recommended Posts