Search

[Dudu.exe]

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

This look like a april fool joke form ign .. what do you think?

Revolution's Horsepower
Studios give us the inside scoop on the clock rates for Broadway and Hollywood. How do the CPU and GPU stack up on paper?
by Matt Casamassina

March 29, 2006 - Nintendo president Satoru Iwata has said that his company is not interested in waging a technology war against Microsoft and Sony, whose next generation consoles promise more power and in turn high-definition graphics. The Big N's still-codenamed Revolution system is in contrast designed to be quiet, small and affordable. Nintendo has invested millions in an innovative new controller that has the potential to permanently change the way people play games - for the better, the company hopes. As a result, players would be hard-pressed to find any Nintendo executive willing to go on the record about Revolution technical specs. In fact, former Nintendo of Europe marketing chief, Jim Merrick, indicated in an interview last year that the company may never divulge details on Revolution's horsepower to the public.

Obviously, Nintendo is unable to take the same approach with game studios, many of whom are currently working with Revolution development hardware and in possession of finalized system specifications. IGN Revolution is in regular contact with software houses making titles for Nintendo's new generation system. Last year we relayed to our readers initial system specs based on insider reports. Today, we present updated information on Revolution's "Broadway" CPU and "Hollywood" GPU, which are provided to Nintendo by IBM and ATI respectively.

For today's report we spoke to a variety of trusted development sources, all of whom are in possession of Revolution development hardware - some more finalized than others. The studios who updated us with this information have asked to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, but we can verify that the specifications forwarded to us are current and come by way of either official Nintendo documentation or benchmark tests with working Revolution kits.

Insiders stress that Revolution runs on an extension of the Gekko and Flipper architectures that powered GameCube, which is why studios who worked on GCN will have no problem making the transition to the new machine, they say. 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.


Nintendo's Revolution console, as seen on-display at the Game Developers Conference 2006
Clearly, numbers don't mean everything, but on paper Revolution's CPU falls performance-wise somewhere well beyond GameCube and just shy of the original Xbox. However, it's important to remember that the CPU is only one part of the equation.

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.

"The 'Hollywood' is a large-scale integrated chip that includes the GPU, DSP, I/O bridge and 3MBs of texture memory," a studio source told us.

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.

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

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

Lots of numbers, but what do they all mean? The short answer is that Revolution is exactly as Nintendo has publicly stated: a console whose primary focus is not quadrupling raw horsepower, but rather a potentially gameplay-changing new controller. Nintendo's new hardware supports this innovative new peripheral and not the other way around. Looking back, it makes sense.

In early 2004, Nintendo's former president Hiroshi Yamauchi said that it was unnecessary to accelerate the release of next generation consoles; that current machines were more than adequate. The Big N announced that it would release a series of peripherals to extend the life of GameCube, but only halfheartedly supported the approach with limited microphone and bongo-enhanced titles.

Sources close to Nintendo have, however, told IGN Revolution that the company was experimenting with in-development GameCube controllers very similar to Revolution's freestyle-style unit. The problem research and development faced at the time was that these controllers encountered unavoidable latency issues, which made them nearly incompatible with fast-paced software. Apparently the Big N overcame this particular hurdle.

Whether or not Revolution is, in fact, a vehicle for the new freestyle controller or not, systems specs rarely tell the whole story. We would remind readers that during an era when polygon numbers meant everything, GameCube's polygon peaks were lower than PlayStation 2 and Xbox. However, few would disagree with the assertion that Resident Evil 4 - a title developed from the ground-up for Nintendo's system -- was one of the prettiest games of the generation.

A spokesperson for ATI had no comment, except to say that the provider was excited to be working with Nintendo on the Hollywood GPU.

IGN Revolution contacted Nintendo of America for comment, but the company did not return our query in time for publish.

[NT]

To do an April Fools joke before April 1st would just be bad taste.

[sneef]

it sounds legit to me.  but the writers make some stupid comparisons.  You can't really look at the MHz/GHz of two different processors and use that as a benchmark.  Not even close.  I mean, the difference between the type of processor the original XBox and the type of processor the Gamecube had is like night and day.  of course the Xbox had a more powerful processor, but to compare the cycles per second of the Xbox CPU with that of the Revolution's CPU is like comparing apples and oranges.  

just my two cents.  i always get riled up when Tech manufacturers play the "megahertz card".