Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

IBM's "Broadway" CPU is clocked at 729MHz, according to updated Nintendo documentation. By comparison, GameCube's Gekko CPU ran at 485MHz. The original Xbox's CPU was clocked at 733MHz. Meanwhile, Xbox 360 runs three symmetrical cores at 3.2GHz.

Revolution's ATI-provided "Hollywood" GPU clocks in at 243MHz. By comparison, GameCube's GPU ran at 162MHz, while the GPU on the original Xbox was clocked at 233MHz. Sources we spoke with suggest that it is unlikely the GPU will feature any added shaders, as has been speculated
Revolution will operate using 24MBs of "main" 1T-SRAM. It will additionally boast 64MBs of "external" 1T-SRAM. That brings the total number of system RAM up to 88MBs, not including the 3MB texture buffer on the GPU. By comparison, GameCube featured 40MBs of RAM not counting the GPU's on-board 3MBs. The original Xbox included 64MBs total RAM. Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 operate on 512MBs of RAM.

It is not known if the 14MBs of extra D-RAM we reported on last December are in the current Revolution specifications.


http://revolution.ign.com/articles/699/699118p1.html

"The external RAM can be accessed as quickly as the main RAM, which is a nice touch," a developer we spoke with alleged

interesting...thx 4 link

Uhhhhhh. I'm speechless.

I believe developers have been saying that the Revolution will be 2 to 3 times more powerful then the Gamecube, so those specs seem about right.

I can play games that look better than Gamecube with a really neat controller on it? Sweet!

Wow... I knew the specs wouldn't be very powerful, but this is just unbelievably low. Only 729MHz processor? 88MB of RAM?

When Iwata said it would be 2x-3x more powerful than the GC, I was hoping that he was be conservative about the specs but that doesn't seem to be the case. The only way I can think this acceptable is if the system did cost $150.

I'm not graphics whore or anything but if I'm going to be looking a game, I want to be somewhat impressed with the visuals. I wonder how Rev games will look compared to 360/PS3 games.

Originally Posted by Vinny Wow... I knew the specs wouldn't be very powerful, but this is just unbelievably low. Only 729MHz processor? 88MB of RAM? When Iwata said it would be 2x-3x more powerful than the GC, I was hoping that he was be conservative about the specs but that doesn't seem to be the case. The only way I can think this acceptable is if the system did cost $150. I'm not graphics whore or anything but if I'm going to be looking a game, I want to be somewhat impressed with the visuals. I wonder how Rev games will look compared to 360/PS3 games.

Look at Resident Evil 4. Now think of that almost 2x better.

Sound fine to me.

No one ever complained about the Xbox's graphics, and the Rev appears to be at least comparable to that. So I don't see an issue in that department.

Originally Posted by botticus No one ever complained about the Xbox's graphics, and the Rev appears to be at least comparable to that. So I don't see an issue in that department.

Well, thats partially because Xbox had the best graphics of the generation. Of course no one complained about them. But now it would be like Xbox compared to 360/PS3, which is a whole other ballgame.

My.. God.

Most of you who have seen me post know I've never said anything bad about Nintendo, but.. weaker than Xbox..?

My.. my gosh. Nintendo has ed up. Bad.

This is maybe 1/5 the power of its competitors, and that's what Sony and MS are, whether Iwata wants to admit it or not.

I'll hold on to hope keeping in mind that DS has dominated and blown-out PSP completely, in terms of both sales and product quality; optimism about Revolution is crucial to saving the big N.

(I would wait until 2007 for something around the level of Xbox 360, I might add)

Originally Posted by botticus No one ever complained about the Xbox's graphics, and the Rev appears to be at least comparable to that. So I don't see an issue in that department.

I know what you are saying, but when you compare the X-Box graphics to 360/PS3, and then compare the Revolution to those two, you would hope that the Revolution looks better than the X-Box. Having said that, I do have to admit that I am looking forward to the Revolution very much. I had a GameCube, and I was never blown away by a game on it. Not to say that I didn't enjoy any of the games - I did. Some very good games on that system. But nothing that just held me glued to the TV (except RE4 - and I didn't play it on the GC, I played it on PS2) for hours on end. With the Revolution, it looks like they are targeting everyone who feels a bit neglected by the other next-gen systems, if that makes sense. All I know is that I'll be there on day one to pick mine up!

i mean look how small the system is, its more powerful than the xbox and it is tiny as hell. Plus the graphics will be much better for first gen games because of the similarity with the hardware of the Revo and the GC. Just wait till you all see a game before you flip out.

So, how did the gamecube's graphics compare to the xbox's? Are there comparisons somwhere of the same games?

Specs are great.

Miyamato and Iwata have both said that we really have to wait to see the controller in conjunction with the software in order to understand. Yes, it's my bleeding fanboy heart on this but I'm just going to be patient until E3 rolls around.

You guys do realize that the GC's 485Mhz CPU was pretty much the same speed as the Xbox'x 733Mhz CPU right? Kind of how like an Apple G4 1ghz processor is comparable to a 2ghz pentium.

Also, the Gamecubes 24mb of ram was about even with the xbox 64mb. Nintendo used better, more speciallized parts than microsofts off the retail rack components.

The only reason the xbox generally had better graphics was harddrive caching (which not enough games used), and an edge in the videocard, and maybe just a small processor and ram advantage. (Edit: Also lazy developers and unoptimized ports).

Personally I find these numbers bogus, but if you are just going to compare something that says 25 to 75, and think the 75 is instantly better without any other kind of numbers or information, then you are the same kind of person who bought into Sony's hype about their emotion engine (read: Idiots).

Keep in mind that the 360 and PS3 have COMPLETELY new development hardware and it will take a loooong time for developers to create games that utilize all of the consoles' power.

BUT apparently the Revolution is a souped up Gamecube which means that developers can crank out beautiful looking games without wasting time re-learning how to develop for the system.

Either way, I'll have one on day one. (and probably a PS3 too)

Originally Posted by dhs odium You guys do realize that the GC's 485Mhz CPU was pretty much the same speed as the Xbox'x 733Mhz CPU right? Kind of how like an Apple G4 1ghz processor is comparable to a 2ghz pentium. Also, the Gamecubes 24mb of ram was about even with the xbox 64mb. Nintendo used better, more speciallized parts than microsofts off the retail rack components. The only reason the xbox generally had better graphics was harddrive caching (which not enough games used), and an edge in the videocard, and maybe just a small processor and ram advantage. (Edit: Also lazy developers and unoptimized ports). Personally I find these numbers bogus, but if you are just going to compare something that says 25 to 75, and think the 75 is instantly better without any other kind of numbers or information, then you are the same kind of person who bought into Sony's hype about their emotion engine (read: Idiots).

This was what I was thinking because the Gamecube isn't light years behind the XBOX. The differences are minimal graphically. Nintendo always seems to do a lot more with a lot less anyway. Take into account the overall size of the XBOX 360 and compare it with the Revolution. Where did you expect the extra horsepower to go? THE MAIN KEY again that needs to be stressed is that its not about graphics for them this gen. Nintendo has already stated this.

The main issue here is not represented in these numbers, but bus speeds, memory bandwidth, etc. These are the things that really make a difference. The Xbox could've been twice the machine it was if they had just cleared out some of the bottlenecks in the hardware. If developers can actually fully utilize all aspects of the Rev, we'll see RE4s x2 or x3.

In the end, which looks better, Mario Kart DS or Ninja Gaiden for Xbox? Which do I keep coming back to? We need to let the games do the talking, not supposed system specs nor screen shots. (Wow! Alliteration!)

My preferences lies in FPS vs. overall graphics quality. If they can keep the framerate at 60 for games, I'm in. If they look amazing, that's even better.

Man, watching people jump to conclusions and pass judgement on something based on the first mention of stats has became a great internet spectacle. <3 <3 <3

I'll agree with the framerate issue.

Years back when me and my friend had near identical computers, he never understood why I didn't max out the graphics for games. He got like 15fps but didn't care cause it looked better than mine, meanwhile I couldn't stand anything if it wasn't smooth.

I'm still the same way. Smooth, locked framerates will beat pretty graphics for me any day.