-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The Last-Stop-Speak-In-Hyperbole Official Revolution Specs Thread
- Thread starter Jeff-DSA
- Start date
Maybe Nintendo came to the realization that even if you render Mario with 5 billion more polygons, he's not going to look that much more different? Is it really wise or beneficial to be able to render Mario's nose hairs, or sweat glands?
That's the problem with most of Nintendo's "cutesy" franchises. They are not meant to be realistic looking games so they don't really need, or benefit that much, from improved graphics power.
That's the problem with most of Nintendo's "cutesy" franchises. They are not meant to be realistic looking games so they don't really need, or benefit that much, from improved graphics power.
Gahiggidy
My aunt & uncle run a Mom & Pop store, "The Gamecube Hut", and sold 80k WiiU within minutes of opening.
Errr, no. But it sure would've been nice to run around Isle Delfino without having to go through "portals" that hide the loading. Or creatures and objects in the backgroud that "pop-in" and "pop-out".Lardbutt said:
I'm sure the Rev, even with its underwhelming specs, will be able to solve those problems.
I guess Nintendo felt they didn't need X360-level power for the kind of "look" they are trying to achieve for their games.
I mean, out of all of Nintendo's franchises, the only one I see being "hurt" by these weak specs, is Metroid Prime, because that's the only game that's trying to achieve a hyper-realistic "look". Even for Zelda, if they go back to cel-shading, they won't need all that power.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
Oblivion said:
how is that x360 doing in japan?
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
Yeah, that is basically what allows you do draw things at higher resolutions, but what I mean is that if you aren't in HD then you don't need as much RAM as HD machines because the textures won't have to be high res. Also since HD is more detailed, you can better use LoD to manage poly counts when you're in lower resolution. The X-Box has 64MB of memory, so 104 is nice for low-res.Gahiggidy said:
The thing I'm a bit concerned about is lighting, I love me some sweet lighting.
[Nintex] said:
I love how people make it sound like the Xbox destroyed the gamecube and was neck-to-neck with the PS2. When reality hits, you'll notice that the Xbox was neck to neck with the cube and in the end, only surpassed it by a million or two. The PS2 sold what? 5 times as much?
Nintendo simply didn't deliver on its own first party games. Something like Twilight Princess instead of Wind Waker back then, when LOTR was box office champ would have easily helped the cube surpass the xbox.
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
it basically all comes down to the controller and interface..
if they pull off the controller and games (im sure they will) and have a steady flow of good games...they are in a very good position
if the controller feels and plays gimmicky and perceived as just a gimmick.....they are left at 3rd place while still making a profit..
either way they will profit
if they pull off the controller and games (im sure they will) and have a steady flow of good games...they are in a very good position
if the controller feels and plays gimmicky and perceived as just a gimmick.....they are left at 3rd place while still making a profit..
either way they will profit
polygon count, no. (nlittle to do with memory). textures, yes/no. in theory with excellent texture compression and streaming from the disc lots of memory for textures isn't mandatory (especially with the systems super fast ram), but it never hurts.Gahiggidy said:
one thing I want to address, that I really think detractors have glossed over.. make no question about it people, this IS a big step up from this gen. Games will look MUCH better on Rev than they did on XBox. I have no question that by the end of the gen some of the Rev's best looking games will probably look better than some of PS3 and X360's worst looking games. While there will be a noticeable difference between the other two systems and Rev, I don't see Rev's graphics being embarrassing. At worst, based on all specs released, you will probably see an XBox to Dreamcast quality difference.
People that put it with its 1gig cpu and probably not bad gpu into the current gen are just helping prove the point of the thing.
If current gen includes the dreamcast as well as this "souped up xbox" then graphics can't really matter that much anymore. That's a huge spread - why complain if you can't tell the difference?
If current gen includes the dreamcast as well as this "souped up xbox" then graphics can't really matter that much anymore. That's a huge spread - why complain if you can't tell the difference?
I can't say I'm all that worried about the controller & interface.
The rev will likely launch with MP3 and I have faith that retro will at the very least demonstrate that a FPS can be done very well on the rev.
There is also bound to be other genres represented at launch, like the usual batch of racers, sports games and dare I say it 3rd party ports.
The rev will likely launch with MP3 and I have faith that retro will at the very least demonstrate that a FPS can be done very well on the rev.
There is also bound to be other genres represented at launch, like the usual batch of racers, sports games and dare I say it 3rd party ports.
now I didn't say "can't tell the difference". It's pretty easy to see the difference between an average DC game and an average XBox game. I just said it's not going to look horrible. It's like I said earlier in the thread, 3D has a minimum level of entry. good AA, good filtering, good framerate, quality textures (actual artistic quality, not necessarily size), modest poly count. you have this stuff and your game can still look good, even years and years later (look at DC launch titles).elostyle said:
Graphics have been at diminishing returns forever now. I mean think about it.. are the games with great graphics we're seeing on X360 really going to look bad, ever?
I know, I just wanted to clarify that I never said you couldn't see the difference. there is a difference, and it is noticeable at just a brief glance. I just don't think it is important enough when playing a great game, not at graphic levels at those minimum requirements.
what the fuck is highly optimized ram?
Speed doesn't help if there isn't enough room for stuff to work with in a speedy way.
In other news, the 2nd rev secret is a male port on the revolution case that allows you to plug it into your DS gba slot. That way it will function as a disc drive and ram extension for the DS. Get ready for some DVD capacity multimedia DS ownage that drains your battery in 10 minutes. It's like the second coming of 32x, only portable!
Speed doesn't help if there isn't enough room for stuff to work with in a speedy way.
In other news, the 2nd rev secret is a male port on the revolution case that allows you to plug it into your DS gba slot. That way it will function as a disc drive and ram extension for the DS. Get ready for some DVD capacity multimedia DS ownage that drains your battery in 10 minutes. It's like the second coming of 32x, only portable!
I'm kidding for those that can't tell.
In some cases it did. Rogue Leader was eaily the best looking of any last gen launch games... the problem with GameCube was more in it being rarely pushed rather than the chipset itself. In fact, it's chipset was by a wide margin the cleanest, most efficient, most optimized of the four last gen platforms with easily the best performance/cost ratio.sangreal said:
Had Nintendo planned to build a $400-500 loss taker on day one like Sony/MS (rather than a lean $200-250 break-even machine), GameCube would've spanked every other platform effortlessly. It would've been like comparing TG16 (DC), MD (PS2) or SNES (Xbox) to NeoGeo (GC).
the gamecube is a slick machine.. and I think it goes without saying that RE4 is probably in the top 3 best looking titles of the gen. as jarrod said the problem was in the typical development for the system. We already know it placed dead last in third party exclusive support, and it also placed dead last in third party multi-console priority. but when you had devs who put the time into the games.. Factor 5, Rare (ironically), Capcom, EAD, Retro, etc the system easily held its own with XBox.
and their continued use of 1T-RAM will continue to offset the lower amount of it in the system. This is what they mean by highly optimized. The faster you can pass data through the RAM in theory the less the RAM needs to store for similar performance to slower RAM.
If anything the Rev will be interesting as an exercise in cost effective computing. If the thing comes in at $99, the system you would be getting for that price will probably be the best dollar/performance value in gaming.
and their continued use of 1T-RAM will continue to offset the lower amount of it in the system. This is what they mean by highly optimized. The faster you can pass data through the RAM in theory the less the RAM needs to store for similar performance to slower RAM.
If anything the Rev will be interesting as an exercise in cost effective computing. If the thing comes in at $99, the system you would be getting for that price will probably be the best dollar/performance value in gaming.
I really think Nintendo is learning their lessons in modern day third party support. As bad as GCN was, it was still better for the most part than N64. DS support is even better (which, even though a handheld, could still be relevant given the radical departure from traditional handhelds that the DS is). I also think Nintendo has provided a minimum cost of entry to the rev thanks to revmote and dramatically lower system specs. No more lazy PS3 ports. No more rushed out rugrats games (ok, who am I kidding with this one). Developers for the Rev are going to have to do ground up development for the most part. Will this scare some off? Probably, maybe even many. But if the Rev can get millions of units out there fast, the larger publishers won't be able to stay away from the potential revenue a title on the system could generate.bigNman said:
Someone explain 1T-Ram to me please, what's special about it?
EDIT: Found some good info: http://www.icbank.com/catalogue_data/MoSys/pdf/prsn1t.pdf#search='TSRAM'
EDIT: Found some good info: http://www.icbank.com/catalogue_data/MoSys/pdf/prsn1t.pdf#search='TSRAM'
yeah. essentially it is REALLY fast RAM that is used in SoC designs (i.e. an entire system on a chip, including RAM on die). This means not only is ti fast but it doesn't have to do stupid things like travel across a northbridge or extended memory bus or anything.
like The Flash fast.
the downside with it is that it is extremely expensive and doesn't typically reach as high of densities as embedded DRAM. So while everyone is disappointed that it only has 88MB of SRAM, really it probably couldn't have included much more without the die size being unmanageable. The could have gone with more DRAM but given the two RAM pools are probably used very differently, that could create a development nightmare.
like The Flash fast.
the downside with it is that it is extremely expensive and doesn't typically reach as high of densities as embedded DRAM. So while everyone is disappointed that it only has 88MB of SRAM, really it probably couldn't have included much more without the die size being unmanageable. The could have gone with more DRAM but given the two RAM pools are probably used very differently, that could create a development nightmare.
MrPing1000
Member
This thread is far to civil
Mrbob said:
Comparable graphics? We haven't seen any screen shots of REv games. If they are both $99 how can the PS2 be cheaper? Your logic is frightening. Please don't run for political office or practice medicine, don't even drive a car! Red light means I go?
Cheaper games, the PS2 will win, except maybe for the BC downloads for the Rev.
borghe said:
Don't get me wrong, 1T-SRAM is cool and all, but I don't think this is entirely true. You're probably right if you're talking about a CPU cache that is constantly refreshed, but I think the majority of the 88MB of 1T-SRAM is going to be filled with things that are not constantly being overwritten like a scratchpad, like game assets.
It looks to me like the lack of RAM in the system hurts - it hurt the GC a lot IMHO, with only 24MB of "real" RAM.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Argyle said:
He is sort-of right in that case too... say you have got a CPU core that can hide more cycles of L2 latency than the ones you are shooting for currently and that limit your L2 cache size... is smaller and faster always better
? Locality wise, if the "clustered access" you do to RAM makes WIDE clusters you might still want more cache as you will want longer cachelines and if your code has small clusters that are wokred on over and over you might still want more cache to hold more of those clusters so to speak.Size of your scratchpad is not too important if you are streaming small chunks, but even streaming what if your independent chunks get bigger
?Of course low cache latency is important, but size is important as well (it is a matter of balancing everything)... else, I have got a PPE with a 10 cycles latency L2 that is 32 KB wide
.This is wrong.... the data doesn't need to go anywhere once it is in ram since it's vram and ram combined. Size wouldn't be a problem if the disc drive access would be as fast as ram access....
Memory access speed only helps cover up for small caches or a low cpu clock rate.
borghe said:
Just a few days ago you were trying to sell the idea that the Revolution would be doing Xbox 360 graphics just in HD. It's obvious that won't happen. Are you still selling that or are you just doing some more erroneous damage control?
Seriously.
at the time I (and most others) were saying that, no one predicted Nintendo would go this low on price and thus featureset. I (like most other rational people) truly thought Nintendo was going to go their typical route with a $199 system, which at that price could have easily matched the $300 core system graphic-wise on a 480p scene vs. a 720p scene. It's obvious that nintendo is going a different direction than even we imagined.Y2Kevbug11 said:
As to being erronous, it is only erronous if you believe I am saying that they are fine with less RAM. I am not saying nor have I ever said that. I simply said running 88MB of on-die low latency SRAM is different than running 88MB of DRAM with a bus or bridge in the way. You can use the speed AND creative programming to work around that limitation a bit. I see earlier I said that faster RAM will perform similarily to slower larger RAM.. what I meant by that (and apologize for not clarifying) is that WITH PURPOSED PROGRAMMING this can be the case.
to answer panjev, yes if streamed chunks get larger it can reduce or eliminate the effectiveness of the lower latency but as a developer you have control over that. it is possible for a developer who is coding for such a system to do so in such a way that they are typically streaming small chunks on a relatively as needed basis.
a couple of reasons unfortunatelyDrGAKMAN said:
first, the ATi chipset it is based off of more than likely won't have the peak polygon throughput of the X360. It is also sounding like it has fewer shaders and there is still the question of if they will be 3.0 capable. finally, despite all of my optomistic fast memory talk, it still has a TON less memory than either PS3 or X360. This WILL affect texture size and quality.
It won't be ugly per se, but by the time the generation is done there will be a instantly recognizable visual difference between Rev games and PS3/X360 games.
Hurricane_Chris
DDK
After playing with my 360 for a few days on my nice big HDTV and getting a taste of the future of console gaming all I can say is FUCK YOU IN THE ASS NINTENDO. Of course I'll buy a Rev eventually because I buy every game system so as to not miss out on any good games but man... For Nintendo's sake in the home console market I hope Revolution offers something so unique and amazing at launch that casuals even give it a second look...
Beer Monkey
Member
ddksanrokumaru said:
Well, you showed them!
it doesn't work like that exactly. unfortunately power isn't really quantifiable in such a manner.DrGAKMAN said:
if the Rev can't put out as many polys a second as X360 (which has nothing to do with resolution), it won't be able to have as detailed scenes. if the rev doesn't have as many effective shaders or doesn't have 3.0 shaders like X360, it won't be able to have as many or as nice of effects as X360. With less memory than X360, even with well done texture streaming Rev will likely have to have smaller or more compressed textures than X360.
Don't get me wrong. The system will have great graphics. At its peak it will still look better than anything we've gotten this gen. There will just usually be a noticeable difference between the systems in terms of visuals.
Dreamcast had some really nice looking games, but even the best Dreamcast game usually falls short of even an average quality XBox game.
borghe said:
You're right, but I think in the hands of the right creators Revolution will be just as capable...just at lower resolutions. Maybe a few things missing here and there, but on a SDTV non-gamers & casuals (the very people Nintendo is aiming for with this system) won't be able to tell the difference between the systems. Hell...people can't hardly tell the difference between systems today unless you point them out to them.
people can tell the difference typically between a PS2 and XBox, even casuals, and I guarantee you that even the most casual gamer could tell the difference between the DC and XBox.DrGAKMAN said:
I agree with you that Rev won't be hideous compared to the other two, and I also agree that it won't be a big enough difference that casual or non-gamers will care as long as the games on Rev are great and the system really is a buttload (1/4 or less) cheaper than the other systems.
AndoCalrissian
Member
I understand what you're saying about resolution, Borghe, but doesn't the scene need less overall detail if it's resolution is much lower? Less polygons, less high resolution textures, etc. Maybe everything but effects.
No, it's probably not enough to wholly make up for any graphical deficit between the Rev and 360/PS3, but it is a factor.
No, it's probably not enough to wholly make up for any graphical deficit between the Rev and 360/PS3, but it is a factor.