Wii Hardware Discussion

[LazyBoy]

In general, the bigger the number, the better it is

 

Or at least that's Sony's angle

[conzer16]

I know that the thread on this fella's blog was locked, but i REALLY like what he is saying!

 

Does anyone think that his idea for the last secret could be right?

[system_error]

In general, the bigger the number, the better it is

 

(1Ghz = 1024hz)

 

 

1GHz = 1024MHz :awesome:

 

 

Numbers are by no means important anymore. Arguing over technical specifications on the other hand is at least in my opinion interesting.

[mcj metroid]

There all ready is a mic built in.

that was just a speaker.mic is still just a rumor!

[Hellfire]

On the other hand every speaker can serve as a mic.

[mcj metroid]

On the other hand every speaker can serve as a mic.

what?a speaker lets out sound a microphone lets in sound.i believe the mic and speaker will be seperate but then again the speaker does sound pointless on its own.

[mario_jr]

what?a speaker lets out sound a microphone lets in sound.i believe the mic and speaker will be seperate but then again the speaker does sound pointless on its own.

 

Yes it can, he's right.

[mcj metroid]

Yes it can, he's right.

 

ok ill take your word for it.i still have much to learn about the knowledgeable world of nintendo.

[conzer16]

ok ill take your word for it.i still have much to learn about the knowledgeable world of nintendo.

 

 

Elementary physics actually!

 

A speaker is a cone connected to a wire coil which is inside a magnet. The wire conducts a current which when passes through the magnetic field of the magnet makes the cone move which produces the sound.

 

A microphone is the same structure. A cone connected to a wire coil inside a magnet. Only it works in reverse. When someone speaks into it the cone vibrates. This vibration moves the wire coil which induces a current into the wire.

 

A speake is the opposite of a mic. It is a safe guess to assume that the speaker in the Wii-mote is capable of transmitting sound in both ways.

 

All speakers can do it, but the necessary electronics are needed internally to make it function.

[phez_boy]

I know that the thread on this fella's blog was locked, but i REALLY like what he is saying!

 

Does anyone think that his idea for the last secret could be right?

yeah i dunno if its true. but i do like what he is saying. but then i have been racking my brain trying to get this crazy puzzel of nintendos figured out and in doing so i have been to alot of blogs. i think we need a thread for definative speculation untill the Wii is fully shown. and allthough it may not be 3d projection (still holding a glimpse of hope) i still think its gunna be big. there r just to many 'coincidences' involving nintendo here.

[xernobyl]

1GHz = 1024MHz :awesome:

 

 

Numbers are by no means important anymore. Arguing over technical specifications on the other hand is at least in my opinion interesting.

1GHz = 1000MHz

 

Giga stands for 10^9 (or 1000000000). Not 1073741824.

 

That only happens in bytes since bytes work in base 2.

 

See this for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giga

[system_error]

1GHz = 1000MHz

 

Giga stands for 10^9 (or 1000000000). Not 1073741824.

 

That only happens in bytes since bytes work in base 2.

 

See this for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giga

 

True, but I can't stop writing in dual notation. Like kilo is 1000 - my bad sorry!

[DCK]

I've found an article that says the clock frequency of the Flipper (162 MHz) is chosen so that it can do a certain amount of work evenly divided over the frames it has to push. The 162 MHz was chosen for 640x480 at 30 fps, so suppose Nintendo's next target is 852x480 at 60 fps (like we hear a lot of developers say), that would imply a GPU clock of 405 MHz and probably a frontside bus speed of 405 MHz. If the Wii CPU keeps the same multiplier as the Gekko in the GameCube then that would mean it'd run at 1215 MHz.

 

Farfetched but interesting, no? Then we'd still know nothing but I suppose the CPU clock frequency is worth something, and with the frontside bus speed we can get to know certain things about memory bandwidth.

 

It's entirely possible for the GPU to run at that speed as ATi's mid-range laptop graphics chips (Mobility X1600) already run at 500+ MHz, with passive cooling. It all really depends on the content of the chip.

[Patch]

A speake is the opposite of a mic. It is a safe guess to assume that the speaker in the Wii-mote is capable of transmitting sound in both ways.

 

Thanks, I didn't know that. Interesting.

 

Still, it doesn't guarantee that the controller's speaker will act as a mic also.

[blender]

Thanks, I didn't know that. Interesting.

 

Still, it doesn't guarantee that the controller's speaker will act as a mic also.

 

It won't. Yes you can invert a speaker and use it as a mic --You may have done that in GCSE Physics. But the quality would be rubbish. (try plugging your headphones into the mic port of your pc)

 

Inverting requires extra circuitary for which you may as well use a dedicated quality mic.

Probably a pin size hole at the top of the remote would feature the mic. You want a decent mic for karoake.

[Hellfire]

Good find DCK. Independently of the numbers, I'm sure we'll see a very balanced and capable machine just like GC was. With the added benefit of devs already knowing its architecture, good devs can make very good looking games.

[system_error]

I've found an article that says the clock frequency of the Flipper (162 MHz) is chosen so that it can do a certain amount of work evenly divided over the frames it has to push. The 162 MHz was chosen for 640x480 at 30 fps, so suppose Nintendo's next target is 852x480 at 60 fps (like we hear a lot of developers say), that would imply a GPU clock of 405 MHz and probably a frontside bus speed of 405 MHz. If the Wii CPU keeps the same multiplier as the Gekko in the GameCube then that would mean it'd run at 1215 MHz.

 

Farfetched but interesting, no? Then we'd still know nothing but I suppose the CPU clock frequency is worth something, and with the frontside bus speed we can get to know certain things about memory bandwidth.

 

It's entirely possible for the GPU to run at that speed as ATi's mid-range laptop graphics chips (Mobility X1600) already run at 500+ MHz, with passive cooling. It all really depends on the content of the chip.

 

Interesting but bear in mind that the CPU and the GPU have to work with dynamic clock frequencies. For Connect24 the GPU/CPU have to run at a very low clockrate to accomplish the promised "lightbulb energy consumation" - so the frontside bus and multiplicators have to be chosen wisely.

[DCK]

It's likely there's some form of speedstepping. It would allow them to bring back FSB to GameCube speed for the backwards compability, and I'm pretty sure it could go back way further for small games you download from the VC.

 

I think they might use a small controller chip (maybe an ARM chip for GBA/DS interaction) in the networking to take care of Connect24. That seems way more efficient than having the main CPU on in sleep mode.

[goku21]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32208 :shock: :shock: :shock:

 

ATI shows off GPU physics

 

Computex 2006 Asymmetry and demos

 

 

By Charlie Demerjian in Taipei: Dienstag 06 Juni 2006, 08:49

 

TO THE SURPRISE of absolutely no one, ATI launched some fancy physics on its GPU technology today. Now we know what that third slot they ordered mobo makers to produce is for. Marketing terminology aside, they are supporting Havok with the Havok FX physics on the GPU API. If the numbers they showed today hold up to public scrutiny, ATI may be a day late, but they don't look to be a dollar short.

Under the banner of 'Boundless Gaming' with a fiddler crab pining for Ruby as a mascot, ATI has some compelling points to make with today's launch. First, it was an Intel/ATI launch, and the focus was Conroe and X1900, but there will be an AMD version coming soon enough. With the games that utilize it 6+ months away, it is not a big deal, just PR. ATI showed off asymmetric cards running physics on both Intel and ATI chipsets.

 

In press briefings, you generally expect a best case to be shown by the presenter, not untruths, but selective numbers. In this case, ATI showed off numbers where the a lowly RV530 absolutely spanked a G70 and G71 for physics. When you look at the performance relative to a R520 or R580, it gets even more abusive. The numbers ranged from a worst case where RV530 was 'only' 4x faster than G70 to a best where R580 spanked the G70 by 15x. They also went on to show the X1600XT as 2x faster than Ageia, and the X1900XTX being 9x faster. Whatever the numbers, they can put up a demo with a lot of rocks rolling down a hill.

 

 

 

Big grain of salt time, there is no game that runs across Havok and PhysX right now, so any numbers appear to be theoretical. Same with games that run physics across NV and ATI hardware. Because there are enough asterisks to fill a phone book, I will reserve judgment until I can get my hands on all three, and there are hard, real-world numbers out there. It looks good, but......

 

Where ATI does have a clear lead is the asymmetry. You could run a game with 3 X1900XTXs, and I am sure ATI stockholders would appreciate that, as would power companies, but you don't have to. You can plug in anything from an X1600 series GPU on up, mix and match. If you have a trust fund, go for the gold, otherwise, pick what makes sense for you. X1300 CPUs will work, but by the time the games come out, X1600 will be the bottom of the barrel, so the X1300 line is not really worth bothering with.

 

 

 

So, lets assume ATI does indeed thump NV on the same API. Why? The slides that ATI showed credits the branch prediction hardware. If an instruction stream has a branch, ATI can process it with no overhead. The resulting op after the branch takes whatever it takes. The 'green' architecture as they call it is shown to have a 6 clock overhead. Any instruction has it's latency plus 6, leading to a lot slower execution.

 

Whatever the case, ATI is in the game again, and is in it long before anything that needs GPU physics is. When the software catches up, it will be game on for real. At that point, and only then, will we see who really is the big dog, until then, it is all slideware. µ

 

 

 

 

Man this is soooo crystal clear!!! Havok! ATI! NINTENDO! How much more evidence do you want, mmmh? :bouncy:

[DiemetriX]

Good find

[conzer16]

So what does that mean exactly? (for us no tech guys........eh just me then!)

[Fierce_LiNk]

So what does that mean exactly? (for us no tech guys........eh just me then!)

 

A summary would be very nice to help non-tech people out.

[dabookerman]

Physics on the gpu

 

couldnt be anymore clearer.

[Hellfire]

I think it means that you can have complex physics without the need of a PPU or a very powerfull hardware, you can do it with the GPUs API. Or something...

Pedro!

[SpinesN]

It means physics effects can be done using the gpu power (effects physics are things like spary of water, walls crumbling etc...). Actual physics (objects interacting with each other) still has to be done on the CPU or a PPU if you have one. Basically explosions will look better.