A
Air Raid
http://revolution.ign.com/articles/699/699118p1.html
___________________________________________
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.
__________________________________
Matt Casamassina responds to the backlash:
http://blogs.ign.com/matt-ign
_____________________________________
"So we've posted an updated look at the Revolution specs and the
message boards have collectively imploded. A quick browse through some
threads shows that Nintendo fans are by and large in an uproar over the
console's power. This is an unfortunate eventuality, and also one that
stems mostly from a mentality that insists Nintendo is competing with
Microsoft and Sony, which it isn't.
As could be predicted, a few stupidly devoted posters out there refuse
to budge from their position that Nintendo can do no wrong, and have as
a result launched a counter-attack against IGN or, even better, me.
Some incredible douchebag on another forum even referred to me
colorfully as "Assamassina," which I admit is a pretty cool handle; I
have used it once or twice myself. This same person then called into
question my credibility, saying that my track record speaks for itself.
Indeed, it does. If you've read the Nintendo section of IGN for any
amount of time, you know that we have our sources, we break stories,
and far more often than not, our information is accurate. I don't need
to defend myself beyond that.
These Revolution specs should come as no surprise to most people. Back
in December we reported more or less the same thing without hard
numbers. Let's move past that, though. Nintendo's own leaders have
stated more times than can be counted that Revolution is not a console
focused on horsepower. Its executives have flat-out dismissed the
possibility of high-definition graphics on the system. When Revolution
is the topic, three words keep coming up: small, quiet, affordable.
Where does massive horsepower fit into this equation?
Even so, I want to be clear on the point that hardware specs rarely
tell the full story. We listed Xbox's CPU and GPU speeds compared to
Revolution's, but readers should not assume that they are really
comparable. These are different architectures. Fact is, GameCube's
PowerPC-based Gekko CPU and ATI-developed Flipper GPU held their own
against Xbox despite the fact that Microsoft's console's speeds were --
on paper -- dramatically faster. Further, these specs do not account
for bandwidth, RAM speed, and other important factors. I expect that
when Revolution finally surfaces, it will be a console whose strengths
are greater than the sum of the parts we've listed thus far. Please,
please keep that in mind.
At the same time, if you're still holding out for the miracle, do me a
favor and stop. It seems that every time we write anything hardware
related, there are the skeptics with the retaliatory comment, "Why does
IGN post hearsay as fact? Nobody has final development hardware!!11111"
Yes, the "1s" are there to demonstrate that these people are freakin'
morons. I did not wake up today, roll into the office and write a piece
of literary fiction for readers to enjoy in lieu of legitimate news.
This is not "hearsay" or rumor. These specs we post, they are
copy/pasted to us directly from Nintendo's latest (as in, in the last
couple of weeks) Revolution documentation. Quoted to us verbatim. And
these quotes do not come from creatures that exist inside my head. I am
talking with numerous development sources with hardware; people who
have been briefed by Nintendo about what to expect from the final
machine. Some of these people are preparing games to show at E3 2006,
which is one month away. in short, they know what to expect; they
aren't working with old materials; they aren't relaying old specs; and
we aren't posting out-of-date information.
Is everything set in stone? Nope. If history has taught me anything,
it's that hardware specs can and do change. Xbox 360 had 256MBs of RAM
during a major phase of the development cycle. That number only doubled
later in the cycle, likely after Sony relayed specs for PlayStation 3
to studios. That being true, there's always the chance that some of
Revolution's numbers may change before the system finally hits retail
shelves. I certainly wouldn't mind if the 88MBs of main RAM in the
console increased before or after E3 2006. At the same time, you're not
going to see the CPU and GPU suddenly quadruple in speeds; it just
doesn't work that way. The numbers we have now -- they're the same as
they were in December and before that. Final dev kits in June will be
reflective of that -- not in conflict with it.
GameCube saw some beautiful, epic games, and Revolution utilizes almost
twice the power. The console is going to get its fair share of gorgeous
software, I can guarantee you.
Some gamers are -- whether they have admitted it to themselves or not
-- obsessed with the notion that Revolution must compete visually with
Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. From that point of view, it's easy to look
at the console's tech specs and wonder why they are not as powerful as
the others. But I propose you take a different point of view -- one
that puts graphics in the back seat and gameplay up front. Ask yourself
why Microsoft and Sony have not advanced their controllers. Look at
what Nintendo is attempting with Revolution's free-style pointer. Look
at the technology in place there. Now, imagine the gameplay
possibilities that may await because of this new device, which is, at
least to me, fundamentally more important than any bump in graphic
horsepower. This is the driving force behind Revolution. Whether the
final system will live up to Nintendo's ambitions, I have no idea. But
I'll tell you, quite honestly, that the potential is enormous."
___________________________________________
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.
__________________________________
Matt Casamassina responds to the backlash:
http://blogs.ign.com/matt-ign
_____________________________________
"So we've posted an updated look at the Revolution specs and the
message boards have collectively imploded. A quick browse through some
threads shows that Nintendo fans are by and large in an uproar over the
console's power. This is an unfortunate eventuality, and also one that
stems mostly from a mentality that insists Nintendo is competing with
Microsoft and Sony, which it isn't.
As could be predicted, a few stupidly devoted posters out there refuse
to budge from their position that Nintendo can do no wrong, and have as
a result launched a counter-attack against IGN or, even better, me.
Some incredible douchebag on another forum even referred to me
colorfully as "Assamassina," which I admit is a pretty cool handle; I
have used it once or twice myself. This same person then called into
question my credibility, saying that my track record speaks for itself.
Indeed, it does. If you've read the Nintendo section of IGN for any
amount of time, you know that we have our sources, we break stories,
and far more often than not, our information is accurate. I don't need
to defend myself beyond that.
These Revolution specs should come as no surprise to most people. Back
in December we reported more or less the same thing without hard
numbers. Let's move past that, though. Nintendo's own leaders have
stated more times than can be counted that Revolution is not a console
focused on horsepower. Its executives have flat-out dismissed the
possibility of high-definition graphics on the system. When Revolution
is the topic, three words keep coming up: small, quiet, affordable.
Where does massive horsepower fit into this equation?
Even so, I want to be clear on the point that hardware specs rarely
tell the full story. We listed Xbox's CPU and GPU speeds compared to
Revolution's, but readers should not assume that they are really
comparable. These are different architectures. Fact is, GameCube's
PowerPC-based Gekko CPU and ATI-developed Flipper GPU held their own
against Xbox despite the fact that Microsoft's console's speeds were --
on paper -- dramatically faster. Further, these specs do not account
for bandwidth, RAM speed, and other important factors. I expect that
when Revolution finally surfaces, it will be a console whose strengths
are greater than the sum of the parts we've listed thus far. Please,
please keep that in mind.
At the same time, if you're still holding out for the miracle, do me a
favor and stop. It seems that every time we write anything hardware
related, there are the skeptics with the retaliatory comment, "Why does
IGN post hearsay as fact? Nobody has final development hardware!!11111"
Yes, the "1s" are there to demonstrate that these people are freakin'
morons. I did not wake up today, roll into the office and write a piece
of literary fiction for readers to enjoy in lieu of legitimate news.
This is not "hearsay" or rumor. These specs we post, they are
copy/pasted to us directly from Nintendo's latest (as in, in the last
couple of weeks) Revolution documentation. Quoted to us verbatim. And
these quotes do not come from creatures that exist inside my head. I am
talking with numerous development sources with hardware; people who
have been briefed by Nintendo about what to expect from the final
machine. Some of these people are preparing games to show at E3 2006,
which is one month away. in short, they know what to expect; they
aren't working with old materials; they aren't relaying old specs; and
we aren't posting out-of-date information.
Is everything set in stone? Nope. If history has taught me anything,
it's that hardware specs can and do change. Xbox 360 had 256MBs of RAM
during a major phase of the development cycle. That number only doubled
later in the cycle, likely after Sony relayed specs for PlayStation 3
to studios. That being true, there's always the chance that some of
Revolution's numbers may change before the system finally hits retail
shelves. I certainly wouldn't mind if the 88MBs of main RAM in the
console increased before or after E3 2006. At the same time, you're not
going to see the CPU and GPU suddenly quadruple in speeds; it just
doesn't work that way. The numbers we have now -- they're the same as
they were in December and before that. Final dev kits in June will be
reflective of that -- not in conflict with it.
GameCube saw some beautiful, epic games, and Revolution utilizes almost
twice the power. The console is going to get its fair share of gorgeous
software, I can guarantee you.
Some gamers are -- whether they have admitted it to themselves or not
-- obsessed with the notion that Revolution must compete visually with
Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. From that point of view, it's easy to look
at the console's tech specs and wonder why they are not as powerful as
the others. But I propose you take a different point of view -- one
that puts graphics in the back seat and gameplay up front. Ask yourself
why Microsoft and Sony have not advanced their controllers. Look at
what Nintendo is attempting with Revolution's free-style pointer. Look
at the technology in place there. Now, imagine the gameplay
possibilities that may await because of this new device, which is, at
least to me, fundamentally more important than any bump in graphic
horsepower. This is the driving force behind Revolution. Whether the
final system will live up to Nintendo's ambitions, I have no idea. But
I'll tell you, quite honestly, that the potential is enormous."
