Revolution Specs

Ikohn4ever

Ikohn4ever

CAGiversary!
Feedback
5 (100%)
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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 fucked 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)
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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.
 
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)
 
[quote name='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).[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
I dont trust anything Matt Cassawhosit says at all.

I'm not completely sold on the idea that Hollywood and Broadway are merely 'extensions' of the Gamecube Hardware. I dont know a lot about what goes on behind the scenes regarding Hardware development, but Hollywood and Broadway are not ready yet, as far as I know, or at the very least, they havent been done for long, with final dev kits not going out until early Summer. Does just an 'extension' require so much R&D?

With that said, given the form factor of the thing, you couldnt realistically expect it to compete with machines 3+ times its size anyway. Nintendo is going to be packing as much as they can in what they have to work with same as anyone.

They said that they werent participating in the power arms race, and they're holding true to that.

Memory speeds, both RAM and Graphics Memory will play a big part as well, not just the raw memory size.
 
i also think the external hdd will play a big factor too, they dont have to worry about crammin in a 20 gig when you can run it through the usb port
 
Until I get an official press release (if one ever does come around) I call :bs:. He's had some discussions with "credible sources" before and they turned out false or simply off. No reason to start believing him now.
 
[quote name='dmes65']With those specs why not go and buy an xbox. Thats not a new generation console, i could be wrong.[/quote]

If you need a next generation TV to appreciate the difference in console generations, maybe people SHOULD buy an xbox. Or maybe there is something other than specs that can define the differences between generations.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']If you need a next generation TV to appreciate the difference in console generations, maybe people SHOULD buy an xbox. Or maybe there is something other than specs that can define the differences between generations.[/QUOTE]
No buy an original xbox!!
 
Dont forget about programming tricks, there is the rumored "cube mapping" feature that would help the revs graphics out greatly.
 
The specs don't matter, period. They honestly don't. If they did, then the Cube would have looked like shit next to the Xbox, when in reality it held up amazingly well and produced games that look easily as good.

Now we have a machine that is supposedly just shy of an Xbox. Doesn't matter. It's still roughly 2-3x the power of the Gamecube.

In other words, if the GC is on par with the Xbox/PS2 with less power, doubling it's power will give it comparable graphics to the next generation.

You can back this up with the fact that how much of the PS3/360's power is devoted, solely, to outputting HD games? My guess is a huge amount. There's no need to split technical hairs at this point determining which part of the system handles SD, and which part handles SD + everything else.

Furthermore, Nintendo has always specialized their hardware. This is why an on-paper weaker architecture can output graphics on the Gamecube that were amazing. It didn't matter that the core clock speed was some 30% weaker than an Xbox. Kind of like how an AMD processor smokes an Intel one if their clock speeds are identical. So if that's the case, I'm willing to bet that, in execution, the games will look brilliant. And given that they don't have to perform at insanely high resolutions, they can survive on less power.

With all of Nintendo's comments and the size of the system, I don't think anyone expected it to compare to the 360/PS3 in terms of raw power. But when you've got a streamlined interior with complicated, specialized hardware, that more than makes up for brute strength. 360 has 3 cores. 3. Do you honestly know how many of those three are being utilized? At most 2, at least right now. In a few years we might start seeing someone throttling the hell out of the system with all three.

I don't really care about specs, and I damn sure don't care about graphics. The games will look great and play great. I can reserve further judgement until we know something concrete.
 
as someone said earlier... resident evil 4 .... times 2-3. cmon, that will be great. and who cares anway, its all about the games, which nintendo can deliver.
 
Apperently you people who hate those specs have never played the Resident Evil games on the cube, I will gladly play a 2x better version of that.
 
I cant believe im saying this but, I don't think the RE4 for GC was all that great, I liked the PS2 version better due to the fact that it filled a wide-screen TV, unlike the GC version which stretched it out . There is no reason to start bashing Specs because the numbers seem low, just wait till they show games(please for the love of God Nintendo don't show games you dont intend to release) and not to mention play the games.
 
Uh, maybe this is IGN's hot April Fool's joke? They do it about the same time each year (the 29th/30th) and the fact that Matt Fat-Tits-What's-His-Name said that the specs were “Very current, trusted, 100% legit info from extremely reliable sources.” Why would he feel the need to say that, especially when he hasn't before?
Regardless, these seem a little low to me. I'd expect the actual speeds to be higher, especially since the article said those are what the devleopers have been working with to this point. Isn't that what's been said over and over, that the dev kits are currently "souped up cubes" with a corded controller prototype?
 
I’m not sure what to make of these specs, personally. A tad on the low end? Certainly, but we all knew that this system wouldn’t have the horsepower of the other two next-gen consoles. In the end I guess it does come down to the controller. If it changes the gaming experience that much, then I suppose graphics will be secondary. Only time will tell.
 
Reality's Fringe]Uh said:
I'm starting to think that it's an April Fools Joke too... I mean, first KHII gets a 7.6 and now these specs?

And even if it isn't, I feel much better about those numbers now. I saw a friend of mine play RE4 on the GC and thought if they can make games that look twice as good, then hot damn!:D Besidies, to this date, they're still only the developer who can gave me masterpieces like WW and MP.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='1modernboy']I’m not sure what to make of these specs, personally. A tad on the low end? Certainly, but we all knew that this system wouldn’t have the horsepower of the other two next-gen consoles. In the end I guess it does come down to the controller. If it changes the gaming experience that much, then I suppose graphics will be secondary. Only time will tell.[/quote]

It's not going to come down to the controller, it's going to come down to the games. So far i have been completely unimpressed with the XBOX 360 games. Rehashes and absolutely nothing original. I would play a system that looks like the sega genesis if it had original games.
 
[quote name='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.
[/quote]

I was thinking the same thing. I don't really know what all these numbers mean, but I do know not to trust the numbers and will wait to see some screenshots and videos to make a final determination. Like others have said here, RE4 x 2 or 3 makes for some damn nice visuals.
 
Like what Strell said, the Revolution is not running at super HD resolutions like the PS3 and Xbox360 are. On a standard television, the Revolution should be on par with the PS3 and 360.

And now we know why Nintendo doesn't like to throw spec sheets around...
 
[quote name='dhs odium']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).[/QUOTE]

No way, man! The Emotion Engine was sweet! Did you see that old man in those pictures?! He had so much emotion, it's not even funny! Don't insult him, because you'll see his emotion, plain as day. They've got an entire engine in there for that stuff.
 
[quote name='Doom Gaze']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 fucked 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)[/quote]

We should not forget, that Nintendo is not in a race against Sony or Microsoft in terms of specs.
They go in terms of game experience.
The Revolution is on my wishlist on the top, because i believe we will see some nice games on it.
And we should not forget, that the average buyer does not even care, what cpu is inside or how it compares to the Xbox360 or PS3.
So far, Nintendo made always good choice in productplacements. See the DS. Totally different to the PSP, but very succesful. And that, by lower specs compared to the PSP.
So yes, i think high specs are not the only issue we have to address.
 
[quote name='dmes65']With those specs why not go and buy an xbox. Thats not a new generation console, i could be wrong.[/QUOTE]

What the fuck? Do you not get it? The Revolution is going to be able to provide gameplay experiences fundamentally different and impossible than those on the other consoles. fuck graphics, THAT is next-gen.
 
[quote name='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[/QUOTE]

That's exactly right, not "kind of how." Gamecube was a PowerPC, and XBox was an Intel. Comparing clock speeds between two different CPU architectures based on Mhz #'s alone is folly, as shown by a simple, live comparison of a Gamecube and a Xbox; they're almost even.

And that's the bottom line, regardless of whether this is an April Fools Day prank or not.
 
[quote name='evanft']What the fuck? Do you not get it? The Revolution is going to be able to provide gameplay experiences fundamentally different and impossible than those on the other consoles. fuck graphics, THAT is next-gen.[/QUOTE]
People don't get it. Generations of consoles should not be looked at like generations of computers. Computers have nothing to do but get more powerful, because their sole purpose is to compute stuff. Gaming consoles should have other agendas. Additional power is not a requirement to be "next-gen". New and fun experiences qualify for "next-gen" for me. If the only way for you to have more fun is to see more realistic graphics, then I guess the Rev is not an option for you.
 
[quote name='snipegod']That's exactly right, not "kind of how." Gamecube was a PowerPC, and XBox was an Intel. Comparing clock speeds between two different CPU architectures based on Mhz #'s alone is folly, as shown by a simple, live comparison of a Gamecube and a Xbox; they're almost even.

And that's the bottom line, regardless of whether this is an April Fools Day prank or not.[/quote]
almost even?? Yes resident evil 4 looked great, but what other cube games could compare graphically to the xbox mid to high level grapical games. Not many, and if the cube installed base was larger/had consumers that supported 3rd parties, resident evil 4 would have remained exclusive to the cube.

Yes the raw numbers look weak, but it will come down to games, plain and simple. I worry most about them not the features of the rev in many games. The DS is a great, and very unique system. But few games utilize the most important parts IMO. The mic/and touchpad. Yes the DS got a great jump on the psp, but you have to keep in mind it launched first, and shortly after the psp launced, the DS started to hit its stride with top quality games being released.
 
[quote name='ryanbph']Not many, and if the cube installed base was larger/had consumers that supported 3rd parties, resident evil 4 would have remained exclusive to the cube.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for bringing irrelevant facts into the conversation.

And the point is, if RE4 looked that good on the Cube, it was possible for games to look that good, whether or not others were created. Capcom didn't make a secret deal with Nintendo to overclock the CPU when RE4 was put in the system.
 
[quote name='botticus']Thank you for bringing irrelevant facts into the conversation.

And the point is, if RE4 looked that good on the Cube, it was possible for games to look that good, whether or not others were created. Capcom didn't make a secret deal with Nintendo to overclock the CPU when RE4 was put in the system.[/QUOTE]

I don't even need to respond, now.

Thanks.
 
where's the blast processing? where's the fx chip? wil I be able to jack into the matrix? If the answer to any of these is no, then you have let me down Nintendo. And sight unseen I will not buy your new console.
 
[quote name='vherub']where's the blast processing? where's the fx chip? will I be able to jack into the matrix? If the answer to any of these is no, then you have let me down Nintendo. And sight unseen I will not buy your new console.[/quote]
ken4davatar2ly4zw.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top