Support NeoGAF

[xexex]

Maybe Nintendo should wait until 2008 as originally planned, then their technology will out class PS3 and XBOX2 it will make them whimper. This 2008 technology will be so advanced, and cheap to manufacture, Nintendo will reighn supreme. This is not the case of Dreamcast launching during the 64/PSX era, but rather a quantum leap. They should have tech in 2008 to double the power of the XBOX2.

only to be crushed by Xbox 3 a few years later, in 2010. :lol


no. Nintendo should launch within a month or two of PS3. before, during or after PS3's launch.

 

[maharg]

Gah gets shit for nearly everything he posts, and he definitely used to get shit for posting about sales figures. You just didn't notice because he's not you.

 

[jarrod]

Nintendo is expanding their budget, but you can't say for certain that the budget will be entirely devoted to the chipset. It's quite possible given Nintendo's own public statements that the extra $$$ will instead be allocated to other types of input possibilities for the player.

I mean look at the DS, yeah the chipset is better, but the real reason it costs beyond the regular $99 threshold is most likely because of the second LCD touch display, the WiFi, mic input, etc.

The real reason it's past the $99 threshold is because Nintendo can. They were willing to go as low as 10,000 yen initially.

Nintendo's stated they won't allow the competition any technological advantages. Given they have more time to put their machines together, capitalizing on the natural progression of chip technologies and they're expanding their budget, not to mention their historical legacy of last to market/most capable architecture... I just can't understand why you think they'll come in last on chipset performance. How much are these new interfaces going to cost? If anything, Nintendo has a track record of including old technologies (light gun, analog pad, touch interface, microphone, tilt sensor, etc) at low costs, not cutting edge new technological wonders. You're guessing this extra budget will be eaten up by something not heard of before... but more likely Nintendo will find a novel way to reuse established technology from other sectors for little cost. It's far more likely that extra $100 will be going into more RAM (a big handicap for GC), upseccing chips and adding DVD/HDD/network solutions.

I think the jump from the GCN to Revolution will be about the same as the jump between the N64 and GCN.

Why wouldn't Nintendo be happy with that? Nintendo also generally does not work on their consoles right down to the end. They usually will actually wait until the console is finalized or in mid-development before really starting software development ... case in point, the GCN chipset was complete in late summer of 2000 more or less.

I don't dispute any of this. This is all entirely possible and likely, and in no way negates the more likely possibilty that Revolution will outperform Xenon.

 

[DopeyFish]

Funny thing about that. In an interview with Orton, the man behind the ArtX team who is now the head of ATI, ArtX didn't design the 9700. The engineers at ATI already had the 9700 design completed when ArtX was acquired, but they had no idea how to market the thing. Orton described ATI as a group of very talented engineers but terrible business people.

This was posted by Tenkei in the xbox gpu specs topic. I might have been recalling this and thinking i spotted it in an interview.

 

[xexex]

I think the jump from the GCN to Revolution will be about the same as the jump between the N64 and GCN.

I think it will too. at least I hope so.

 

[CrimsonSkies]

"You're an idiot."

Well thank you for taking the mature high road with your reply.

"Businesses do not get in these fanboy wars"

But you called me an "idiot" for believing that Microsoft has and will invest more into their hardware than Nintendo. Obviously you must have some fanboy leanings, especially considering I even state that I could be entirely wrong in the very paragraph you quoted. Did I upset your loyalities in some way to Nintendo with my statement?

"and really don't give two shits about pleasing idiots on message boards."

Ah again you put your foot in your mouth.

"The Revolution will most likely get the next generation GPU that the Xbox has."

Possibly, who knows. Will it feature everything the Xbox GPU has, very unlikely.

"Will it be a mircale chip? No."

Well we agree there.

"Will it be six months to a year ahead of the Xbox? Yes."

You don't know that.

"Will we see an improvement? Yes."

Again your speculation is as good as mine in which you branded me an "idiot" for posting about. Grow up and then post please. Thanks.

 

[xsarien]

Performance wise I think it'll be ...

1.) PS3
2.) Xenon
3.) Revolution

Considering that Xenon is going to be out a full year before the other two, this list seems a bit off. Place Xenon at the bottom of the pile, between Microsoft and Nintendo, only one has actual experience in hardware optimization, I'll let you guess which one.

 

[jarrod]

"The Revolution will most likely get the next generation GPU that the Xbox has."

Possibly, who knows. Will it feature everything the Xbox GPU has, very unlikely.

It won't be the same GPU, they're being designed by different teams on diferent timescales. If anything, the Revolution GPU is most likely to be the more advanced chip.

"Will it be six months to a year ahead of the Xbox? Yes."

You don't know that.

It's not set in stone, but it's the most likely timescale. Personally I think it's likely to play out...

Xenon: November-December 2005 (North America)
PlayStation 3: March-May 2006 (Japan)
Revolution: July-October 2006 (Japan)

...Nintendo is always late with hardware, it's inevitable. I think they also expected Sony to come in a little later with PS3, and might be caught a bit off guard in their promise to launch alongside the competition. Given the silence coming from NCL, I have no doubt that Revolution is behind both PS3 and Xenon in terms of scheduling, the question is just to what degree.

 

[Shompola]

people making ridicoulous claims as the so called ArtX team is the more talented one. Who made the 9700 wich is THE chipset that saved ATI's ass from getting destroyed.
And there is a possibility that MS is spending more money on the GPU than Nintendo is even if the revolution will be released 6 months or so after the xenon.

 

[cybamerc]

people making ridicoulous claims as the so called ArtX team is the more talented one. Who made the 9700 wich is THE chipset that saved ATI's ass from getting destroyed.

The West Coast team (ie. the former ArtX).

 

[ge-man]

It doesn't matter how much is being spent if the timeframe is significant enough. But I won't argue that Nintendo will be on top techwise, all of this is just speculation based on hype.

 

[jarrod]

And there is a possibility that MS is spending more money on the GPU than Nintendo is even if the revolution will be released 6 months or so after the xenon.

It's possible, but given that Microsoft's looking to shave costs and Nintendo could be launching up to a full year later.... well, there's lots of possibilituies.

 

[Che]

You guys act like there a big difference between graphics capabilities between Xbox and GC. Games like RE4 and Rogue Squadron proove you wrong. And if ArtX built a GPU THAT good for GC while making it so cheap, imagine what they could do now considering the fact that Nintendo will invest more and Revolution's chip technology will probably be 6+ months older than Xenon. Add to that that MS has gone stingy, I'm almost certain that Revolution will be more powerful.

 

[jarrod]

You guys act like there a big difference between graphics capabilities between Xbox and GC. Games like RE4 and Rogue Squadron proove you wrong. And if ArtX built a GPU THAT good for GC while making it so cheap, imagine what they could do now considering the fact that Nintendo will invest more and Revolution's chip technology will probably be 6+ months older than Xenon. Add to that that MS has gone stingy, I'm almost certain that Revolution will be more powerful.

The flipper GPU is also a good 6-9 months older than Xbox's NV2A. Pretty amazing when you think about it, what Nintendo & ArtX/ATi managed on that timescale and budget.

 

[radioheadrule83]

You guys act like there a big difference between graphics capabilities between Xbox and GC. Games like RE4 and Rogue Squadron proove you wrong. And if ArtX built a GPU THAT good for GC while making it so cheap, imagine what they could do now considering the fact that Nintendo will invest more and Revolution's chip technology will probably be 6+ months older than Xenon. Add to that that MS has gone stingy, I'm almost certain that Revolution will be more powerful.

Exactly. Nintendo opted for lower RAM in the end, knowing what they had with the MoSys 1T-SRAM available would still be effective. And they revised the Gamecube specs before E3 '01:

CPU upgrade- 405Mhz ---> 485MHz
GPU downgrade - 202MHz ---> 162MHz
A-RAM downgrade - 100MHz ---> 81MHz

They know how to make a bottleneck free, efficient machine. I'm quite sure that if Nintendo wanted to, they could compete on power. Unless sony really are getting into the business of making affordable super computers.

 

[Red Dolphin]

Soundwave05/Unicorn5 needs to spend more time in the "social" threads.

Wait soundwave05 is the poster formally known as Unicorn5? I always wondered what happened to him as I really enjoyed reading his posts

 

[doncale]

Originally Posted by Che:

You guys act like there a big difference between graphics capabilities between Xbox and GC. Games like RE4 and Rogue Squadron proove you wrong. And if ArtX built a GPU THAT good for GC while making it so cheap, imagine what they could do now considering the fact that Nintendo will invest more and Revolution's chip technology will probably be 6+ months older than Xenon. Add to that that MS has gone stingy, I'm almost certain that Revolution will be more powerful.

Originally Posted by Jarrod:

The flipper GPU is also a good 6-9 months older than Xbox's NV2A. Pretty amazing when you think about it, what Nintendo & ArtX/ATi managed on that timescale and budget.

true.

Flipper got underway design wise no later than mid 1998. when Nvidia had TNT and was working on TNT2 and GeForce1. Flipper was complete by summer 2000.

NV2A was probably started in fall 1999 when rumors of X-Box were going around in magazines and on the internet. It's very possible that GeForce3 which NV2A is partly built opon, was started earlier than fall 1999 but I don't know the timeframe of GF3. but I do know NV2A was completed in early 2001 or no later than spring 2001.

Flipper was started at least 1 year, maybe more, before NV2A. Flipper was completed 6-9 months before NV2A was, so Flipper is that much older than NV2A like Jarrod mentioned.

Xenon VPU is said to be completed now. as of Nov-Dec 2004. I'd expect work on Revolution VPU to go on at least to the end of spring 2005, possibly into the summer/fall. but will have to be done no later than the fall.

 

[Buggy Loop]

people making ridicoulous claims as the so called ArtX team is the more talented one. Who made the 9700 wich is THE chipset that saved ATI's ass from getting destroyed.
And there is a possibility that MS is spending more money on the GPU than Nintendo is even if the revolution will be released 6 months or so after the xenon.

:lol

Someone already answered you but i just find this funny, its artX that made the R300 core, its artx's president and CEO, Dave Orton that overtook ATI's president position, restructured the fiasco that ati toronto was and made something out of it.

What ridiculous claims again? ArtX saved ATI's ass and considering what they pulled off for gamecube at the budget and price range they were given, they're the best goddamn engineering team for graphic cards on the planet. Of course, they're no longer artx, just ATI west, but you get the idea.

 

[Laurent]

Namewise, here's how quick will be able to say the full name of the next-generation consoles:

A) Xe-non
B) Play-Sta-tion-3 ~ B) Re-vo-lu-tion