Revolution specs: 104 MB of RAM - only 1.5xto 2x more powerful than GameCube
Air Raid
More Revolution Specs Uncovered
Developers come forward to reveal new performance details on Nintendo's
next-generation console.
by Matt Casamassina
December 6, 2005 - Just yesterday IGN Revolution launched with
technical details on Nintendo's next-generation console, codenamed
Revolution. And today more development sources have come forward with
both clarification and even more tech specs. The latest news begins to
paint a clearer picture of Nintendo's aim with its next platform.
We cannot stress this enough: Revolution is not being positioned as a
competitor to either Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3. Nintendo has instead
chosen to design a console that will be very affordable for consumers.
For that very reason, say developers in the know, the Big N has opted
out of filling the system with a massive supply of expensive RAM.
In yesterday's article, we wrote that Revolution would include 128MBs
of RAM, or possibly less. Developers have clarified the makeup based on
officially released Nintendo documentation. Revolution will build on
GameCube's configuration of 24MBs 1T-SRAM and 16MBs D-RAM (40MBs) by
adding an addition 64MBs of 1T-SRAM. The result is a supply of memory
in Revolution that totals 104MBs. That number does not consider either
the 512MBs of allegedly accessible (but hardly ideal) Flash RAM or the
Hollywood GPU's on-board memory, said to be 3MBs by sources.
Revolution's Broadway CPU, developed by IBM, is an extension of the
Gekko CPU in GameCube, according to official Nintendo documentation
passed to us by software houses. The Hollywood GPU, meanwhile, is
believed to be an extension of the Flipper GPU in GameCube. Since
developers have not gone hands-on with the GPU, they can only go on
Nintendo documentation, which is limited.
Exact clock rates were not disclosed, but one development source we
spoke to had this to say of the Revolution CPU and GPU: "Basically,
take a GameCube, double the clock rate of the CPU and GPU and you're
done."
We presented that description to another informed studio, which
clarified that the clock rates may even fall short of doubling those on
GameCube.
"The CPU is the same as Gekko with one and a half to two times the
performance and improved caching," said a source. "Our guys
experimented with it and think they'll be able to get about twice the
performance as GameCube."
"It's a gamble for the Big N," said another source. "It's not about
horsepower for them -- it's about innovation and gameplay."
We've also been able to unearth firm details on the storage capacity
for Revolution discs. Recent rumors suggesting that the discs can hold
12GBs of data are false. In fact, Revolution discs can store 4.7GBs of
data on a single layer or 8.5GBs when double-layered on a single-side.
This is a massive jump from the 1.5GB capacity of GameCube discs and
more than enough storage capacity for any non-high-definition game.
Readers discouraged by Revolution's seeming lack of horsepower when
compared to Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 should remember that Nintendo is
not interested in competing in the high-definition gaming arena, and as
a standard-definition console, Revolution is more than capable.
Capcom's Resident Evil 4 remains one of the most gorgeous games this
generation and it ran on GameCube, a console at least half as powerful
according to developer reports.
Software houses we spoke with also waxed on the immediate advantage to
Nintendo's approach with Revolution, which is, of course, system price.
Every developer was in agreement that Revolution should launch with a
price tag of $149 or lower. Some speculated that based on the tech, a
$99 price point would not be out of the question.
Stay tuned for more as it develops.
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
> This is a massive jump from the 1.5GB capacity of GameCube discs and
> more than enough storage capacity for any non-high-definition game.
What a load of bollocks! There are plenty of PC games which will run
cheerfully at 1280x1024 and above and come on a single CDROM. The only
aspect of hi-def gaming which will need massive storage is FMV.
Choobs
--
Sir Chewbury Gubbins <chewbury...@nelefa.org>
Knight of the Wholly Gnarly Widget
Mario Kart DS FC: 146 088 722 295
http://www.nelefa.org
Alastair Foster
<chewbury...@nelefa.org> wrote:
>On 2005-12-07, Air Raid <AirRa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is a massive jump from the 1.5GB capacity of GameCube discs and
>> more than enough storage capacity for any non-high-definition game.
>
>What a load of bollocks! There are plenty of PC games which will run
>cheerfully at 1280x1024 and above and come on a single CDROM. The only
>aspect of hi-def gaming which will need massive storage is FMV.
>
Yes but they are running from the HD, and on the CD they are
compressed. Name a recent graphically intensive game that is on 1 CD
nowadays?
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
> On 7 Dec 2005 09:54:14 GMT, Sir Chewbury Gubbins
><chewbury...@nelefa.org> wrote:
>
>>On 2005-12-07, Air Raid <AirRa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This is a massive jump from the 1.5GB capacity of GameCube discs and
>>> more than enough storage capacity for any non-high-definition game.
>>
>>What a load of bollocks! There are plenty of PC games which will run
>>cheerfully at 1280x1024 and above and come on a single CDROM. The only
>>aspect of hi-def gaming which will need massive storage is FMV.
>>
> Yes but they are running from the HD, and on the CD they are
> compressed.
True, but not really relevant. We're not talking about giant FMVs, we're
talking about texture graphics. JPGs. Which are already compressed and
therefor wouldn't take up any more space on the hard drive than they do
on the CD.
>Name a recent graphically intensive game that is on 1 CD
> nowadays?
If you strip out all of the FMV, I'd say 'all of them'.
Zomoniac
<chewbury...@nelefa.org> said:
> On 2005-12-07, Alastair Foster
> <unclechibiS...@btinternetSPAM.com> wrote:
>> On 7 Dec 2005 09:54:14 GMT, Sir Chewbury Gubbins
>> <chewbury...@nelefa.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2005-12-07, Air Raid <AirRa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> This is a massive jump from the 1.5GB capacity of GameCube discs and
>>>> more than enough storage capacity for any non-high-definition game.
>>>
>>> What a load of bollocks! There are plenty of PC games which will run
>>> cheerfully at 1280x1024 and above and come on a single CDROM. The only
>>> aspect of hi-def gaming which will need massive storage is FMV.
>>>
>> Yes but they are running from the HD, and on the CD they are
>> compressed.
>
> True, but not really relevant. We're not talking about giant FMVs, we're
> talking about texture graphics. JPGs. Which are already compressed and
> therefor wouldn't take up any more space on the hard drive than they do
> on the CD.
>
>> Name a recent graphically intensive game that is on 1 CD
>> nowadays?
>
> If you strip out all of the FMV, I'd say 'all of them'.
>
> Choobs
Where was the FMV in HL2? Or UT2004? Or FEAR?
--
Zo
GamerTag: Zomoniac (Pro Evo 5, Halo 2, PGR2, MotoGP, DOAU, Outrun 2,
Burnout 3)
Last game completed: Plump Pop (Taito Legends): Xbox - 08/10/2005
Currently playing: Kameo: Elements Of Power (Xbox 360)
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
> On 2005-12-07 14:18:54 +0000, Sir Chewbury Gubbins
><chewbury...@nelefa.org> said:
>
>> On 2005-12-07, Alastair Foster
>> <unclechibiS...@btinternetSPAM.com> wrote:
>>> On 7 Dec 2005 09:54:14 GMT, Sir Chewbury Gubbins
>>> <chewbury...@nelefa.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2005-12-07, Air Raid <AirRa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> This is a massive jump from the 1.5GB capacity of GameCube discs and
>>>>> more than enough storage capacity for any non-high-definition game.
>>>>
>>>> What a load of bollocks! There are plenty of PC games which will run
>>>> cheerfully at 1280x1024 and above and come on a single CDROM. The only
>>>> aspect of hi-def gaming which will need massive storage is FMV.
>>>>
>>> Yes but they are running from the HD, and on the CD they are
>>> compressed.
>>
>> True, but not really relevant. We're not talking about giant FMVs, we're
>> talking about texture graphics. JPGs. Which are already compressed and
>> therefor wouldn't take up any more space on the hard drive than they do
>> on the CD.
>>
>>> Name a recent graphically intensive game that is on 1 CD
>>> nowadays?
>>
>> If you strip out all of the FMV, I'd say 'all of them'.
>>
>> Choobs
>
> Where was the FMV in HL2? Or UT2004? Or FEAR?
HL2 is 3.5Gb. It runs at silly 2048 resolutions and looks beautiful.
I've not seen the other two, but I'm sure they do as well.
Why wouldn't they fit on the 8GB nintendo disk?
I said there are plenty of PC games which run at very high resolution
which come on a single CD ROM - Quake 3, Half Life, etc etc etc. Recent
PC games, like the ones you mention, are much smaller than the 8gb
quoted for the revolution.
Hence my assertion that the statement that '8gb is plenty to run
everything EXCEPT HI DEF GAMES' is bollocks.
Alastair Foster
>I've not seen the other two, but I'm sure they do as well.
>
>Why wouldn't they fit on the 8GB nintendo disk?
>
>I said there are plenty of PC games which run at very high resolution
>which come on a single CD ROM - Quake 3, Half Life, etc etc etc. Recent
>PC games, like the ones you mention, are much smaller than the 8gb
>quoted for the revolution.
>
>Hence my assertion that the statement that '8gb is plenty to run
>everything EXCEPT HI DEF GAMES' is bollocks.
>
Xbox 360 games come on 8gb disks :)
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
I didn't know that, but now that I do: PRECISELY :)
Slitheen
"Air Raid" <AirRa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133918260....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> http://revolution.ign.com/articles/673/673799p1.html
>
Capcom's Resident Evil 4 remains one of the most gorgeous games this
> generation and it ran on GameCube, a console at least half as powerful
There's the meat on the bones.
cosmo_...@rocketmail.com
storage? Obviously, the Revolution has a DVD drive (hence the 4/8gb
storage). I don't know many PC games today that require multiple DVDs!
Otis Munkborter
RE4 was hideously UGLY. It stole its color scheme straight off Quake 1,
only with the extra GC processing power managed an extra 15 million
shades of BROWN.
Rade...@yahoo.com
resolutions.
It's probably not even the limitations of the ATI Hollywood GPU. or
even the amount of RAM.
the reason Nintendo is not supporting HDTV is because it costs alot
more to design graphics for HDTV. the textures, art-assets, etc.
Nintendo wants to keep game-dev costs down. thus, Revolution games
will run at standard definitions.
Johanna K.N.
RE4 Cube vs. RE4 PS2
I think that you know, they removed some options on ps2 version, cause it
couldn't handle those like Cube.
Aquila
"Air Raid" <AirRa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133918260....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Slitheen
"Otis Munkborter"
<m2r3p...@feelinghothothotmail.dotthatsadotyoudirtylittlespambot.com>
wrote in message news:113398822...@echo.uk.clara.net...
>
> RE4 was hideously UGLY. It stole its color scheme straight off Quake 1,
> only with the extra GC processing power managed an extra 15 million shades
> of BROWN.
Surely though, Otis, that is an after effect of the pills you're taking? :\
Slitheen
<Rade...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133992102.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Which considering the fact that the vast majority of gamers will *not* own a
HDTV during the lifetime of this new generation of consoles is perfectly
reasonable. Xbox360 is there to satisfy the tech savvy, early adopters of
the whole HDTV thing. Standard definition will be perfectly acceptable for
many, many Nintendo customers. Then, when HDTV is generally more widely
used, Nintendo will make games that will utilize it, for a console that
utilizes it....for a majority of gamers that utilize it.
Nintendo are a very profitable company. People make the mistake of judging
them on their place in this 'console war' - but they arguably run a tighter
ship than the other big two. For an example or two, they tend not to sell
consoles at a loss...and they don't suffer as much piracy issues. Nintendo
make good money, simply put. Therefore I don't personally accept that
finance is their concern in this. I think it is exactly for the reasons
described above. The general demographic of the Xbox360 and Sony PS3 have a
far, far greater demand for this technology *now*. Don't get me wrong, there
are/will be Nintendo customers, I'm sure there are a few in this group, who
own a HDTV, and want this technology now...or certainly within the lifetime
of this coming generation, but they...we, rather (as I will get one next
year... perhaps), are very much a minority in the eyes of Nintendo. Nintendo
won't rush into anything too early - just look on the whole Nintendo/HDTV
issue as you would the Nintendo/online gaming issue. They will only ever
enter into something such as this when there is a near approaching or *fast*
growing demand for it.
In general, many people have splashed out hundreds/thousands on Plasmas,
Projectors and, despite plummeting prices, very expensive...but standard
definition only LCD's....only in very recent years. They will simply *not*
consign them to the local dump because of a new games console.....not
*generally* anyway. This, I personally believe, is Nintendo's reasoning
regards this issue.
Slitheen
"Johanna K.N." <johanna....@pp2.inet.fi> wrote in message
news:lTJlf.450$hZ3...@read3.inet.fi...
Simply put: The Cube version climbs a tall ladder, whips its kecks down, and
proceeds to drop yesterday's breakfast all over the PS2 version. That is not
up for debate, it's a widely known fact.
The Gamecube is a superior machine, and when they can be arsed, developers
can really show this in their games. The problem is, many don't. PJ's King
Kong reportedly looks better on PS2 - this is because it's a more profitable
machine, and they spent more attention and time on its version of that game.
Capcom don't think like that though - the 'art' and end product's quality
are, quite rightly, a bigger concern for them - and that is why, with RE4,
they proved that the Gamecube can do fancy graphics better than a PS2.
[ste parker]
> "Johanna K.N." <johanna....@pp2.inet.fi> wrote in message
> news:lTJlf.450$hZ3...@read3.inet.fi...
>
>>..and to jordan:
>>
>>RE4 Cube vs. RE4 PS2
>>
>>I think that you know, they removed some options on ps2 version, cause it
>>couldn't handle those like Cube.
>>
>
> Simply put: The Cube version climbs a tall ladder, whips its kecks down, and
> proceeds to drop yesterday's breakfast all over the PS2 version. That is not
> up for debate, it's a widely known fact.
>
Yeah, you're right! In fact, I can't wait to play it in the true 16:9
widescreen mode that's supported in my GC version! What's that? It
doesn't have one? That's only in the PS2 version? OH NO!! At least I
can play all the same game modes with all the same weapons in the GC
version, so I'm not missing out there eh? What? I AM?! etc. etc.
> The Gamecube is a superior machine, and when they can be arsed, developers
> can really show this in their games. The problem is, many don't. PJ's King
> Kong reportedly looks better on PS2 - this is because it's a more profitable
> machine, and they spent more attention and time on its version of that game.
> Capcom don't think like that though - the 'art' and end product's quality
> are, quite rightly, a bigger concern for them - and that is why, with RE4,
> they proved that the Gamecube can do fancy graphics better than a PS2.
>
Yes, the Gamecube is a superior machine, but it's also one that is a
year and a half younger than the PS2. What the PS2 lacks in power is
almost made up by the expertise the developers have in working with it.
Add to that that due to the selling power of the PS2 a substantial
amount of GC (and Xbox, for that matter) games are just lazy ports of
the PS2 versions, it means that developers rarely even need to concern
themselves with pushing the GC to it's theoretical limits. While the
PS2 version is apparently pushing the PS2 to it's limits with all manner
clever tricks being employed, it's unlikely that the same can be said of
the GC version and therefore the difference between the two games
probably isn't as pronounced as you seem to think it is. It's sad to
think that we'll probably never see what the GC is really capable of
graphically, but it's not diminished my enjoyment of it.
--
[ste]
A phone, some sims, a GBA link cable and
a couple of printed out maps on ebay:
http://tinyurl.com/6o5uu
Otis Munkborter
It's the pills I'm NOT taking you should be worried about!
Slitheen
"[ste parker]" <imag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3vrf42F...@individual.net...
> It's sad to think that we'll probably never see what the GC is really
> capable of graphically, but it's not diminished my enjoyment of it.
>
Amen to that.
But I have to disagree...if what you were saying is that the PS2 version was
better (widescreen mode or not). If you are merely just saying the Cube
version is better, but not by much....then I can't argue with you *IF* you
have played both versions. That is because I have only had a wee dalliance
with a friends PS2 and his copy, whereas I have nearly completed the Cube
version (only started playing it a couple of weeks ago). My remarks were
more based on the first impression of the graphics of the respective
systems - which are obviously superior on the Cube version.
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
> Revolution DVD discs are not what is preventing use of High-Definition
> resolutions.
That's very true, but is nothing at all to do with what's being
discussed.
Slitheen
"Sir Chewbury Gubbins" <chewbury...@nelefa.org> wrote in message
news:slrndpiqnu.q4f....@jem.yoyo.org...
> On 2005-12-07, Rade...@yahoo.com <Rade...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Revolution DVD discs are not what is preventing use of High-Definition
>> resolutions.
>
> That's very true, but is nothing at all to do with what's being
> discussed.
>
It was being discussed above!?
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
Not at all - what we were discussing was a magazine saying that the DVD
format would not allow hi-def games to run. Which is bollocks.
Choobs
--
Sir Chewbury Gubbins <chewbury...@nelefa.org>
Knight of the Wholly Gnarly Widget