Matt from IGN posts Revolution Specs

New Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
423
Best answers
0
Let me say this first, i pray to god, that this is an early april fools joke, because if so, he got me good. I don't really understand numbers that well, but im sure this can't be anymore powerful then the xbox, and not by much at that.

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

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 shader features, as has been speculated.

The overall system memory numbers we reported last December have not greatly fluctuated, but new clarifications have surfaced. 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.
If this is the final specs, I would be very dissapointed because it has way less than even the 104 Mb of RAM that was rumored.

In fact spec wise it doesn't even break the 1.0 Ghz mark which means that has a processor that is weaker than my 5 year old computer. What makes it worse is that it has NO SHADER ABILITIES. Shaders are what makes Next Gen games look next gen, heck even the XBOX had them. The fact that there is no shader abilities at all means that this console will literally look like.....crap. I mean seriously, shaders are what makes games look nice. Compare a shaderless game like GTA: San Andreas to a game that uses 3 of them like DOA: Ultimate. There is a HUGE difference in graphics. Look at the water, look at the detail on the clothing and the reflections. If the revolution had half the specs of the XBOX 360 (as in 1.6 Ghz processor, 24 Pixel and Vertex Shaders and 256 Mb of total RAM) it would in most instances look better than XBOX 360 because it would be tuned for efficiency and taking out all latency. But as of right now, it can barely outclass the XBOX. Especially considering that shaders have to be programmed through software.

It better damn well be $99 at launch because it seems that Nintendo only paid that much money for the hardware. Oh well, I am still getting it. Although I will be pissed if this is the final specs. Any thoughts ?
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,960
Best answers
0
Hmm, interesting if true. To be honest, the gamecube could pull off some amazing graphics (Resident Evil 4 anyone?) so i'm not too worried. I have my amazing PC if I want to see some high end graphics.
 
Moving with Sonic Speed
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
4,532
Best answers
0
Sounds reasonable to me. Nintendo has no intention of pushing hardware and they're keeping their costs low to make the machine easier to pick up. I'll get it regardless of its specifications, I have faith it'll do what it needs to do.
 
New Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
423
Best answers
0
Sub said:
Hmm, interesting if true. To be honest, the gamecube could pull off some amazing graphics (Resident Evil 4 anyone?) so i'm not too worried. I have my amazing PC if I want to see some high end graphics.
Well that's sorta true, which is the reason for the PS3 as my other choice. But anyway i guess now, after the initial shock and denial. The power for the hardware isn't that bad i guess, especially since it will be crammed in such a small package.

I could see that there is one HUGE advantage in specs like this, famlies may buy 1 for home and one for the family van because this thing screams portability. Also with specs like this I can now easily forsee a $99-150 launch price which would make this very affordable. All I can say is that a good Nintendo lineup and great 3rd party games this time around would make me forget quite easily that this console is unbelievably, this "underpowered".

I really think a standard price of $39.99 for all games would help out greatly as well. I know if this is true, they better have alot of surprises at the upcoming E3 this year.
 
New Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2003
Messages
148
Best answers
0
This is dissapointing, but as Boyster said, Nintendo never had any intentions of pushing their hardware, so this is old news. Either way, i think people are still underestimating the power of the Rev. It will definitely be on par with the XB360 atleast, Nintendo knows what their doing.
 

L

New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Mar 31, 2004
Messages
1,069
Best answers
0
I'll probably pick it up regardless of specs.
Gamecube had some awsome games.(SSBRO's: Melee FTW)
 
The Sinister Minister
Retired Forum Staff
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Messages
3,637
Best answers
0
Sonic Boyster said:
Sounds reasonable to me. Nintendo has no intention of pushing hardware and they're keeping their costs low to make the machine easier to pick up. I'll get it regardless of its specifications, I have faith it'll do what it needs to do.
I'm in complete agreement. I'm looking for a new way to play, and I have faith that Nintendo will deliver.

Sorry, but shaders don't sell me on a game, or a system.

*returns to playing Mega Man X2*
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
1,626
Best answers
0
Ten year olds can't tell the difference, so what does it matter? Of the few games actually aimed at the older audience, graphics aren't important. My Nintendo collection ended with the 64, so I couldn't care less. If they get some decent games and the price is good (as the specs suggest), I'll pick it up. But if the games are no good (as recent memory suggests) I'll give it a miss.
 
Validated Steam Engine
🌈 Beta Tester
✔️ HL Verified
🌹 Regular Rosé
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
657
Best answers
0
It's actually official that it will only be marginally more powerful than the original Xbox. Shigeru Miyamoto claims that graphics are pretty much at the saturization point and most people wouldn't be able to see much of a difference in graphics between Zelda: Twilight Princess (and that's just the power of the GameCube) and most next gen games.

As Nintendo have always said, they go for gameplay and innovation over graphics.
 
Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 6, 2004
Messages
2,275
Best answers
0
If every game I ever play from now on looks on par with twighlight princess, I'd be a happy man, and it's on GC.

Shaders don't make or break games.
 
Validated Steam Engine
🌈 Beta Tester
✔️ HL Verified
🌹 Regular Rosé
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
657
Best answers
0
*Agrees with warren*

If graphics were everything then retro gaming wouldn't be hugely popular. :) Like, for example, all those people who use their PSPs for SNES emulators and not in fact PSP games. :p
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Feb 23, 2002
Messages
1,148
Best answers
0
I'm sure it'll be good enough. Sure, the specs are equivilent to the original Xbox, but the Gamecube was way lower and it's graphics were on par, if not better than Xbox in some games (RE4 anyone?)

I'm not trying to lie to myself, I am fully aware that both 360 and PS3 will have better graphics than the Rev, but I doubt the Rev will actually look "ugly" in comparision. It seems to be what I always thought it would be, a sizable step up from the Gamecube. It's graphics will still be good, and i'm sure they will fit in fine with next-gen graphics, but they will still easily fall behind both it's competitors, probably even more-so in the later stages of it's life. Either way, we still can't be entirely sure until we see some pictures, and i'm sure the games will still look pretty good.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
4,022
Best answers
0
As long as Nintendo continues to deliver fun, engaging gameplay, I couldn't really care less, even if the graphics were in 2D.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 3, 2002
Messages
2,490
Best answers
0
I guess now we know why they ran with their tails between their legs at last year's E3.

I'd be embarassed, too.
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,960
Best answers
0
They did that so they're the talk of the show this year. They pretty much have everyones attention as we already know what the Xbox 360 is all about and know a lot more about hte PS3 than about the revolution. It was a good move on their part I think.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
2,462
Best answers
0
Graphics are never my primary concern for a console, but I just don't want it to be gamecube with a new way of using a controller.

And get original! The Nintendo 64 had so many underdog games that were actually fun, such as Pilot Wings 64. Gamecube, infact all current-gen consoles(excluding PS2) didn't the varied game selection like the Nintendo 64.
 
Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 6, 2004
Messages
2,275
Best answers
0
SaiyanPrideXIX said:
I guess now we know why they ran with their tails between their legs at last year's E3.

I'd be embarassed, too.
Because they didn't copy microsoft and sony in the, "lets-create-the-most-retardedly-overpowed-machines-ever-competition," which nintendo would never win at?
With those specs, they would have gone into E3 knowing thier machine would be the weakest, and it would be a terribly ****ty move to release this kinda information, when both xbox and ps3 are going on about thier (I never read the specs for the machines, I couldn't give a ****). Fact is they woulda looked worse back then, than they would now, since the 'hype' of the other machines isn't so over the top.


We love you nintendo.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Feb 23, 2002
Messages
1,148
Best answers
0
I still don't think the graphics are gonna be that bad. Let's just take a step back and look. On paper, the Xbox was 3 times better than the Gamecube, yet the Gamecube's graphics were just as good, if not better than the Xbox. So now that the Rev has the same speeds on paper, it has to be AT LEAST 3 times better than the Xbox. Then you have to factor in the fact that this technology is 5 YEARS newer and is probably even MORE efficient. And then you have to remember that the Rev is outputting in STANDARD definition, not High-def.

So ya, I still believe that the 360 and the PS3 will have better graphics, but there is no way the Rev is gonna be ugly in comparision.
 
Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 6, 2004
Messages
2,275
Best answers
0
Exactly, just because the specs of a machine are good, doesn't mean the developers are going to make full use of them. Nintendo generaly do, that's why the games look so good, on a "weaker" system.

Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers...
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 3, 2002
Messages
2,490
Best answers
0
I don't doubt the graphics will be great...but this will be biting you all in the ass when it comes time for those 'console crossover' titles. Resident Evil 5 will be on PS3 (I believe--correct me if I'm wrong), for example, and it will probably use so much horsepower that a version for the Revolution will be impossible without a lot of hack tactics. So the possibility of those third party games making it to the Revolution will be even more miniscule than they are now.

I'm not going to point out the irony of naming it 'Revolution' and having it be the technological underdog of the three, because they have the controller and hopefully they will do something interesting with that. I don't think they will miss the complete lack of post DX9 graphics anyhow. The games will look at least as good as the Gamecube's--though, like I said, the issue of multi-platform release is going to be biting people on the ass.

It's no secret that I'm no fan of Nintendo, so I see this as two ways. One is good, in my opinion, because it means that the games that use all of these high end features won't be able to be ported to Nintendo, which is good news for me (meaning more people will show an interest in the other machines if the developers are favoring them). But the other part of me dreads this, because now Nintendo Revolution is going to be to consoles what dial-up modems with 16 meg video cards were to the PC a couple of years back--a substandard serving as a lowest common denominator, holding back the progress of everything else out of sheer stubbornness. What I mean is, a third party game going to all three consoles will likely only be able to work as well as its Revolution version.

Hopefully neither of these happens, and things go well on all three fronts. But I don't see how this can be wise. The machine is barely an improvement on the Gamecube...though I can see how that is financially smart. I bet they are dismantling and refurbishing excess factory-built Gamecubes right now in preparation to make Revos en masse--hence the massive cost difference.

I'm sure it'll be good...but I still think (and not out of bias, but out of sheer fact-to-fact observation) that the next 5 or 6 years are going to belong completely and utterly to the Playstation3, and these specs would certainly be somewhat of a handicap to Nintendo early in the running.

I just doubt next-gen developers are going to want to limit themselves in order to accomodate these specs. Honestly I hope they're fake...they seem that way, at least. Even Nintendo can't be that ignorant of modern console technology.

Either way I see it, it's not a very big help to them. But it keeps the price down, which will move more units, which will keep them their jobs another year or two. They should just buy Sega and let Sega make the consoles...man...then it'd crush EVERYTHING else with ease.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top