PDA

View Full Version : GameCube 2 Rumored To Use G5


Elan0204
Jun 12, 2004, 12:58 PM
While not confirmed, IGNcube lists two current rumored system specs for
Nintendo's next console, currently codenamed "Revolution."

Q: What are Revolution's technical specs?

A: Currently unknown.

Rumors abound indicated that Nintendo could separately be working on two systems and that ultimately one would be chosen for retail. System 1 allegedly featured a 2.7GHz PowerPC G5 processor, 512MBs of RAM, and a 600MHz graphics chip. System 2 allegedly featured dual 1.8GHz PowerPC G5 processors. 256MBS of DDR Main Memory RAM, 128MBS of GDDR3 Video RAM and a 500MHz graphics chip. Both systems allegedly featured a built in 15GB hard drive. As of this time, these rumors cannot be validated.

Microsoft previously announced that they have already chosen the G5 (or at least an IBM PowerPC processor) for the XBOX 2 (MacRumors Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=45593)), and now it looks like Nintendo might too. Nintendo already has a relationship with IBM, since the current GameCube uses a PowerPC processor, so using the G5 in their next system seems logical.

Here's a link to all IGNcube currently knows about Nintendo's "Revolution." (http://cube.ign.com/articles/522/522559p1.html)

hvfsl
Jun 12, 2004, 01:57 PM
Yeah, the Xbox 2 and GC2 are both using ATI graphics and G5 or G6 chips.

johnnyjibbs
Jun 12, 2004, 02:28 PM
Yep, that's quite interesting. I'll expect I'll be picking up one of those when they're released. I love my GameCube.

2.7 GHz G5 or even dual G5s sounds quite interesting and powerful. And the amount of RAM is a huge increase. I believe the gamecube has 32MB system RAM and 8MB VRAM currently.

But I'm more interested in the fact that Nintendo appears to have something more up its sleeves besides pure grunt... :cool:

King Cobra
Jun 12, 2004, 02:34 PM
I predict that maybe a year after Revolution's release, we'll see a portable version of Revolution, sort of like the PS2 toned down to the PSP, and will carry a toned down G5 in it. Don't forget, we're talking no earlier than 2006 or 2007 for that to happen, so be looking for today's fast processors to be in mini-computers and videogaming systems "tomorrow."

johnnyjibbs
Jun 12, 2004, 02:47 PM
I predict that maybe a year after Revolution's release, we'll see a portable version of Revolution, sort of like the PS2 toned down to the PSP, and will carry a toned down G5 in it. Don't forget, we're talking no earlier than 2006 or 2007 for that to happen, so be looking for today's fast processors to be in mini-computers and videogaming systems "tomorrow."
You mean we'll see a G5 GameBoy before a G5 PowerBook? ;) :D :p :eek:

Jovian9
Jun 12, 2004, 02:48 PM
Sounds great. I love my GameCube....especially with the GameBoy Player attached.

applekid
Jun 12, 2004, 02:53 PM
40 MB of system memory. I don't remember how much VRAM though. I'd expect over 16 MB and at highest 64 MB (which I doubt).

Anyways, rumors are just that. Revolution will hopefully be a system to kill all of the others.

Nintendo Europe was yelling at Microsoft for pushing the market in the wrong direction. It was something along the lines that hardware shouldn't be top-priority, but instead, gameplay mechanics (which I've always completely agreed on.) and that they're rushing to release the X-Box 2 because of their weak market-share.

It sounds like the hardware for the Revolution is too high and the X-Box. Sure, it could be a G5, but the clockspeed sounds too high. But I could be wrong. I'm sure it'll blow us away at next year's E3.

Mord
Jun 12, 2004, 02:54 PM
the game cube dose not use the g3 it uses a PPC440 which is completely different to the 750 series.

Macmaniac
Jun 12, 2004, 02:58 PM
How'd they get 2.7ghz G5s?? I thought IBM was having a lot of trouble with the G5, and they are going to need a huge liquid cooling system if they are going to be at 2.7ghz! I want them in Powermacs!

Mord
Jun 12, 2004, 03:00 PM
How'd they get 2.7ghz G5s?? I thought IBM was having a lot of trouble with the G5, and they are going to need a huge liquid cooling system if they are going to be at 2.7ghz! I want them in Powermacs!


there pre production ibm has 3GHz chips but not in production because it's yeilds would be so low

johnnyjibbs
Jun 12, 2004, 03:01 PM
40 MB of system memory. I don't remember how much VRAM though. I'd expect over 16 MB and at highest 64 MB (which I doubt).

Anyways, rumors are just that. Revolution will hopefully be a system to kill all of the others.

Nintendo Europe was yelling at Microsoft for pushing the market in the wrong direction. It was something along the lines that hardware shouldn't be top-priority, but instead, gameplay mechanics (which I've always completely agreed on.) and that they're rushing to release the X-Box 2 because of their weak market-share.

It sounds like the hardware for the Revolution is too high and the X-Box. Sure, it could be a G5, but the clockspeed sounds too high. But I could be wrong. I'm sure it'll blow us away at next year's E3.
Actually, I think GameCube has 40MB RAM altogether - 32 system and 8 VRAM. The Xbox has 64MB shared RAM between video and system.

They sound low but that's what they are. The PS2 has 2MB VRAM I believe (which explains its shocking low-res textures).

Games consoles are much more efficient and much better programmed than computers running games.

I agree though that GC2 and XBox2 specs seem too high. Especially when it's looking a lot less likely that we'll be seeing 5-6GHz G5/G6/Pentiums, etc in a couple of years time.

Danrose1977
Jun 12, 2004, 03:42 PM
Sounds great. I love my GameCube....especially with the GameBoy Player attached.

How is that working out for you? I want one so I can play through fopur swords (zelda) and castlevania.... what are the graphics like blown up for a TV (I'm imaginung it looks like a snes, or super famicom if your from Japan!)

AdamR01
Jun 12, 2004, 04:29 PM
the game cube dose not use the g3 it uses a PPC440 which is completely different to the 750 series.

Doesn't that chip also have a partial altivec implementation too?

Elan0204
Jun 12, 2004, 04:50 PM
the game cube dose not use the g3 it uses a PPC440 which is completely different to the 750 series.

I knew the processor in the GameCube was an IBM PowerPC chip, but was not certain which one exactly. So, before posting I got my information from a Google search for "processor in nintendo gamecube" and the second link (http://www.metrowerks.com/MW/Develop/Games/GC/) was to a company selling development tools for the gamecube and they said:

NINTENDO GAMECUBE console is built on the custom IBM PowerPC 750 processor named "Gekko."

Since they develop for the GameCube, I assumed they were right about the processor being a G3 derivative. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to know where you got your info from?

Jovian9
Jun 12, 2004, 04:54 PM
How is that working out for you? I want one so I can play through fopur swords (zelda) and castlevania.... what are the graphics like blown up for a TV (I'm imaginung it looks like a snes, or super famicom if your from Japan!)

It's great. The graphics are good too. It has a border that you choose to put around the game so it does not stretch out. 3 gameboy Metroid games and now the classic series games make it well worth it.....plus over a thousand other gameboy games.

AdamR01
Jun 12, 2004, 04:58 PM
I found the article I remembered reading.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1566&p=2

It uses the PPC750CXe.

Ensoniq
Jun 12, 2004, 05:14 PM
With only a small amount of RAM, VRAM, and a 2 year old ATI graphics processor, the GameCube is an amazing game machine. This is why I don't understand why:

1 - A Mac with significantly more RAM and a better video card doesn't seem as good.

2 - Why everyone whines about 32 MB of VRAM being "unusable" for computer games when current consoles have 8-16 MB max. VRAM.

Oh well...either way, I look forward to the GameCube 2, which if using a G5 should be competely backward compatible with all the current games.

Danrose1977
Jun 12, 2004, 05:18 PM
It's great. The graphics are good too. It has a border that you choose to put around the game so it does not stretch out. 3 gameboy Metroid games and now the classic series games make it well worth it.....plus over a thousand other gameboy games.
Cool, guess I'm going to pick one up on Monday...

Chip NoVaMac
Jun 12, 2004, 06:44 PM
Given that is said that game box manufactures make nothing on the boxes themselves, but rather the games, why not work with Apple on a true gamers PM or iMac with emulation software?

applekid
Jun 12, 2004, 08:36 PM
With only a small amount of RAM, VRAM, and a 2 year old ATI graphics processor, the GameCube is an amazing game machine. This is why I don't understand why:

1 - A Mac with significantly more RAM and a better video card doesn't seem as good.

2 - Why everyone whines about 32 MB of VRAM being "unusable" for computer games when current consoles have 8-16 MB max. VRAM.

Oh well...either way, I look forward to the GameCube 2, which if using a G5 should be competely backward compatible with all the current games.

...

Games consoles are much more efficient and much better programmed than computers running games.

Which is quite true. There's no OS (or a small one in the case of X-Box and Dreamcast, but even then, the OS isn't usually loaded to play games) and there's nothing running in the background. It's basically one program for all of the hardware. Not to mention, the hardware is very well integrated. Game consoles are built with gaming in mind. Computers are not. Also, the TV resolution is much poorer than a computer monitor's. So the graphics card doesn't have to worry about huge screen resolutions. And, console games are tweaked until they are perfect since you won't any special high or low settings to guess-and-check with.

So don't be surprised when your G5 is running Halo poorly compared to that 3 year old X-Box.

applekid
Jun 12, 2004, 08:48 PM
Given that is said that game box manufactures make nothing on the boxes themselves, but rather the games, why not work with Apple on a true gamers PM or iMac with emulation software?

Why not just make games for computers in general?

Well, I e-mailed Nintendo 5 years ago with a similar question. Video games and consoles are their bread and butter. They need both. Nintendo still finds consoles to be profitable.

Also, the hardware is always the same. You don't have to worry about varying hardware and anything else crazy. Consoles are simple. Computers are not. All you need is a controller, not a keyboard and mouse. A console is cheap, but a computer is not. You also only need your TV for a console. A computer requires quite a bit of space. A monitor, the computer itself, peripherals, etc.

Console gaming is a more profitable business, now more than ever. PC games rarely get a triple-A release on their side compared to the consoles. A decent console game can easily sell over 250,000 copies. A decent PC game will sell be less than at. And a triple-A game can only reach the near-1 million mark. Console games are often able to surpass that in a short period of time.

jaw04005
Jun 13, 2004, 12:05 AM
How is that working out for you? I want one so I can play through fopur swords (zelda) and castlevania.... what are the graphics like blown up for a TV (I'm imaginung it looks like a snes, or super famicom if your from Japan!)

I have the GameBoy player for my GCN, and I think it looks fine. Nintendo places a border around the game, but you hardly notice it after awhile. They also include lots of options such as smooth, sharp, and normal filtering to enhance the GameBoy game.

Four Swords for GCN just came out.

I always heard the GC had a G3 chip also. I guess not. I love my GameCube, although some of the games are addicting... Animal Crossing.

ZildjianKX
Jun 13, 2004, 03:15 AM
Four Swords for GCN just came out.

Great game, I just got done playing it. It's probably going to be pretty boring once I beat it though.

Chip NoVaMac
Jun 13, 2004, 07:18 AM
Why not just make games for computers in general?

Well, I e-mailed Nintendo 5 years ago with a similar question. Video games and consoles are their bread and butter. They need both. Nintendo still finds consoles to be profitable.

Also, the hardware is always the same. You don't have to worry about varying hardware and anything else crazy. Consoles are simple. Computers are not. All you need is a controller, not a keyboard and mouse. A console is cheap, but a computer is not. You also only need your TV for a console. A computer requires quite a bit of space. A monitor, the computer itself, peripherals, etc.

Console gaming is a more profitable business, now more than ever. PC games rarely get a triple-A release on their side compared to the consoles. A decent console game can easily sell over 250,000 copies. A decent PC game will sell be less than at. And a triple-A game can only reach the near-1 million mark. Console games are often able to surpass that in a short period of time.

I understand where you are coming from, though I really wonder if Nintendo gets a profit from the box.

What I am talking about is a convergence product from Apple in working with Nintendo or Microsoft that would "seal" the hardware specs of the computer. Maybe a "gMac" based on the entry level eMac. For Apple it would give them a system that would not need the revisions that they currently need to maintain interest.

johnnyjibbs
Jun 13, 2004, 10:07 AM
I understand where you are coming from, though I really wonder if Nintendo gets a profit from the box.

What I am talking about is a convergence product from Apple in working with Nintendo or Microsoft that would "seal" the hardware specs of the computer. Maybe a "gMac" based on the entry level eMac. For Apple it would give them a system that would not need the revisions that they currently need to maintain interest.
Consoles are sold on the "Gillette [razor] model" which means the box is sold at a loss (even at full price when it first gets released) but they make a packet on the games.

This was a problem for Sony when they first launched PS2 in Japan. Because it was, in effect, a cheap DVD player that could already play Playstation games, they bought it but no games (because there weren't any good ones for some time to come). Hence, Sony was selling lots of loss-making hardware but no income-earning software.

Nintendo is known to produce the GameCube more cheaply than Sony and Microsoft. The Xbox has been a massive loss in terms of the hardware involved. This is why I'm skeptical of 2.7GHz G5s in the next gen Nintendo console.

Nintendo has the highest liscencing fees for its games so makes the most money from its games. Certainly, with the N64 at least, Nintendo took half the money of every game sold, but I think they have slackened this a little now to encourage more third party development for GameCube.

Most PS2 games make a loss. Same with XBox. The odd gem of a game does really well (Grand Theft Auto, Mario, Zelda, Goldeneye, etc) and can sell 10 million copies eventually. This can be a good thing as it encourages innovation.

mattthemutt
Jun 13, 2004, 12:49 PM
Sorry I'm going a little off topic. I've got a PS2 and I have no problem with it. A year or two back, I saw an article in PSM (playstation magazine) which said that the PS3 could be using organic processors of some sort. THere was also an earlier article in PSM saying that Sony had made a PlayStation that had 16 times the power of the PS2. One thing I remembered was that it had 512MB of VRAM. I know the G5 isn't organic (obviously), but is it possible that Sony would use either the G5 or the organic processors, considering that Nintendo and Microsoft are using them in their next gen. consoles?

benpatient
Jun 14, 2004, 01:13 AM
i think all these console processor speed rumors are nuts.

that "internal schematic" of the xbox 2 with 3, THREE, SAN 3.5ghz 64 bit PPC processors...that's about as realistic as when Doogie Howser got his new 3 Ghz computer back in 1990...it's just not going to happen. heck, 1 3.5ghz 64 bit processor isn't going to happen.

I can see, vaguely, the remote possibility of a 2 ghz g5-based single processor console coming out in 2005, but nothing more than that. Look at pricewatch.com for the bulk price on athlon 64 processors that are running 2.4 ghz....then consider that IBM would want more than that for their 975 or 970-based chips...

We're talking a 500 dollar console if nintendo pays for everything EXCEPT the processor...the entire remainder of the console.

It just isn't going to happen like that.

i've not read a single thing that makes me think we'll see 64 bit processors in consoles for a while...what sorts of things does a machine with a small amount of RAM really need more than 32-bit registers for? do current consoles come anywhere near using all of their theoretical memory bus bandwidth? How can a machine with 32-64 MB of RAM be hurting for memory registers on a processor that has billions of address spaces?

(to answer my own question, it can't)

basically, unless someone knows some secret thing about games that i don't, there is no reason for a console maker to even consider 64 bit at this point in the development of technology. Maybe when SHD-TV comes out and we're running TV resolutions of 19,000x10,800, well, then I'll see why a console would need 64 bits. otherwise it is just overkill...

any rumor that says they're putting a 64 bit processor in a console in 2005-2006 should be treated like a rumor that says a G6 powerbook will be released next week.

Capt Underpants
Jun 14, 2004, 10:07 AM
With only a small amount of RAM, VRAM, and a 2 year old ATI graphics processor, the GameCube is an amazing game machine. This is why I don't understand why:

1 - A Mac with significantly more RAM and a better video card doesn't seem as good.

2 - Why everyone whines about 32 MB of VRAM being "unusable" for computer games when current consoles have 8-16 MB max. VRAM.

Oh well...either way, I look forward to the GameCube 2, which if using a G5 should be competely backward compatible with all the current games.

It's simple why people say that 8-16 MB of VRAM isn't good for computer games: Resolution. I don't feel like looking up the standard Tv resolution, but I'm guessing it's no more than 500x500. Computer games are pushing the resolutions at 1600x1200, or more. You need some serious computing power for that. If it was possible to hook up a console to a computer monitor, and turn the resolution up, you'd see dog slow performance.

Danrose1977
Jun 14, 2004, 10:15 AM
It's simple why people say that 8-16 MB of VRAM isn't good for computer games: Resolution. I don't feel like looking up the standard Tv resolution, but I'm guessing it's no more than 500x500. Computer games are pushing the resolutions at 1600x1200, or more. You need some serious computing power for that. If it was possible to hook up a console to a computer monitor, and turn the resolution up, you'd see dog slow performance.

Not necesarily true.... Xbox's maximum output is 1900*1400, I output most games through a panasonic HDTV projector, most achieve 720Progressive (1024*768 output according to the projectors stats) and some games (None that I own though) take advantage of 1080Progressive.

The main reason less Ram is needed is the lack of system running on the boxes, all the console has to worry about is running the game.... no exotic devices, programs and even a streamlined OS.

amols
Jun 14, 2004, 11:35 AM
You mean we'll see a G5 GameBoy before a G5 PowerBook? ;) :D :p :eek:

Lol :D :D

amols
Jun 14, 2004, 12:08 PM
i think all these console processor speed rumors are nuts.

that "internal schematic" of the xbox 2 with 3, THREE, SAN 3.5ghz 64 bit PPC processors...that's about as realistic as when Doogie Howser got his new 3 Ghz computer back in 1990...it's just not going to happen. heck, 1 3.5ghz 64 bit processor isn't going to happen.

If you find that hard to digest, check the following site, http://www.ps3insider.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=4
It says, next PS3 can have memory as fast as 6.4Ghz, Blu-Ray DVD-R and can record TV programs. Other rumor sites can pretty much confirm the same.Personally, I think Sony with Toshiba and IBM can pull-off anything in two years. Same can be said about other console. The rumors of organic processors are long gone since they demoed cell architecture in March this year. Check out the website http://www.darksector.com/ for a QT movie which shows how the games will look on next-gen consoles. Its pre-rendered off course, but will be handled fully by in-game engine on these machines.

chv400
Jun 14, 2004, 12:49 PM
With only a small amount of RAM, VRAM, and a 2 year old ATI graphics processor, the GameCube is an amazing game machine. This is why I don't understand why:

1 - A Mac with significantly more RAM and a better video card doesn't seem as good.

2 - Why everyone whines about 32 MB of VRAM being "unusable" for computer games when current consoles have 8-16 MB max. VRAM.

Oh well...either way, I look forward to the GameCube 2, which if using a G5 should be competely backward compatible with all the current games.

Since on game consloes they know what's in it they can superoptimize everything for the hardware and it'll run very fast while on a computer they aren't able to do the same. They just do some optimizations since there are so many possible system set ups out there. With all those setups they need to make sure that it will run decently on a majority of them.

pmd
Jun 14, 2004, 02:41 PM
They sound low but that's what they are. The PS2 has 2MB VRAM I believe (which explains its shocking low-res textures).


The PS2 has 4MB of embedded VRAM (it's on the same chip as the pixel engines). It's very fast to access, and the PS2 has a very fast 128-bit bus. We upload textures during the frame to VRAM, draw with them, then upload the next set. And at the same time we're using the CPU and VU0 to run the game and prepare the next frame's rendering. That's not to say that we wouldn't like some more VRAM. :-)

It's true that some PS2 games have low-res textures, but they're just not using the hardware the way the designers intended. Check out either Primal or Ghosthunter on PS2 to see what the PS2 (and the studio I work for) is capable of (and I'd argue that they look as good or better than a lot of GC and Xbox titles).

pmd
Jun 14, 2004, 02:51 PM
i've not read a single thing that makes me think we'll see 64 bit processors in consoles for a while...what sorts of things does a machine with a small amount of RAM really need more than 32-bit registers for? do current consoles come anywhere near using all of their theoretical memory bus bandwidth? How can a machine with 32-64 MB of RAM be hurting for memory registers on a processor that has billions of address spaces?

(to answer my own question, it can't)

basically, unless someone knows some secret thing about games that i don't, there is no reason for a console maker to even consider 64 bit at this point in the development of technology. Maybe when SHD-TV comes out and we're running TV resolutions of 19,000x10,800, well, then I'll see why a console would need 64 bits. otherwise it is just overkill...


It depends what you mean by 64-bit. If you mean address space then yes, it's over kill for a console. But 64 or 128 bit busses and data registers and operations are definitely required. The PS2 has a 128-bit bus, and various processors can load/store and operate on 128-bit data.

The key thing is that you're not really using a number that's 128-bit, you treat it as 4 32-bit numbers, each one representing a component (x, y, z, w) of a homogenous co-ordinate, the basis of vector maths and 3D. Being able to add two 128-bit vectors together (and more) in one instruction gives you huge vector performance. Then you either store the result back into memory, DMA it across the 128-bit bus, or use it for more calculations :-)

I'm not sure how Altivec compares, though I assume it's similar. Except G4/G5s have a much smaller bus. ;-)

Hands up if you followed that? Sorry, you've touched on my day job :rolleyes:

jeremy.king
Jun 14, 2004, 02:52 PM
While its cool to see the potential of the G5, what does this have to do with Mac gaming? :rolleyes:

My biggest hope is that Gamecube 2 will support gamecube 1 games. A strategy of non-backward compatibleness (is that a word) that I believe helped Nintendo lose all of its marketshare in the main console market. Of course they pull a complete 180 when it comes to the GameBoy line of handhelds.

applekid
Jun 14, 2004, 03:58 PM
Consoles are sold on the "Gillette [razor] model" which means the box is sold at a loss (even at full price when it first gets released) but they make a packet on the games.

I remember reading an article on IGN a long time ago that Nintendo was able to drop the GameCube's price because ATI was able to make the graphics card cheaply with some new materials. And at that point, they were now able to profit and have still been able to.

To those Sony rumors, I just want you guys to know those Sony execs always make so much hype with their plans by leaking some false info, and it gets messy. Some of those things are just ridiculous it's funny. Not saying these Nintendo rumors are true because I'm not going into believing them much, but those Sony ones sure sound like jokes. I remember with the PS2, some execs were releasing things that haven't made it into the console in any form.

windowsblowsass
Jun 14, 2004, 05:28 PM
not sure about all the rumors

bit i know one thing the name "revelution" sounds a hellva lot better than "dolphin"
that was a bad codename

Elan0204
Jun 14, 2004, 05:43 PM
If it was possible to hook up a console to a computer monitor, and turn the resolution up, you'd see dog slow performance.

Actually, Nintendo has confirmed that "Revolution" will hook up to your TV or your computer monitor. I don't know what resolutions you'll be able to expect though, as that hasn't been announced yet.

Capt Underpants
Jun 14, 2004, 09:22 PM
Actually, Nintendo has confirmed that "Revolution" will hook up to your TV or your computer monitor. I don't know what resolutions you'll be able to expect though, as that hasn't been announced yet.

[off topic] I want a console that will hook up to a USB KEYBOARD and mouse that I can hook up to a monitor with good FPS games so I can get rid of my gaming PC. [/off topic] I know it won't happen, tho.

titanMac
Jun 14, 2004, 10:52 PM
Actually, Nintendo has confirmed that "Revolution" will hook up to your TV or your computer monitor. I don't know what resolutions you'll be able to expect though, as that hasn't been announced yet.

Where is the link to prove this confirmation?

titanMac
Jun 14, 2004, 11:04 PM
that "internal schematic" of the xbox 2 with 3, THREE, SAN 3.5ghz 64 bit PPC processors...that's about as realistic as when Doogie Howser got his new 3 Ghz computer back in 1990...it's just not going to happen. heck, 1 3.5ghz 64 bit processor isn't going to happen.

It'll be a customized 970 based chip, not the G5 a mac has. But it'll be very similar.

then consider that IBM would want more than that for their 975 or 970-based chips...

The most successful console will sell close to 100,000,000 units world wide. How long does it take Apple to sell 100,000 G5 computers? How long does it take IBM to sell 1,000 970 powered work stations? IBM would be more willing to cut MS or Nintendo a deal than Apple given how many more chips they will buy.

i've not read a single thing that makes me think we'll see 64 bit processors in consoles for a while[QUOTE]

The old N64 has a full 64bit CPU in it...

[QUOTE]do current consoles come anywhere near using all of their theoretical memory bus bandwidth?

Yes, all three current consoles could use more bandwidth for improved performance.

How can a machine with 32-64 MB of RAM be hurting for memory registers on a processor that has billions of address spaces?
(to answer my own question, it can't)

True, but as the N64 showed already we may see 64bit chips just because the best chip happens to have 64bit power. Even if it will go wasted.

any rumor that says they're putting a 64 bit processor in a console in 2005-2006 should be treated like a rumor that says a G6 powerbook will be released next week.

I can't think of a single 32bit processor that would be suitable, other than perhaps the Pentium4. Every other processor on the market is 64bit, so it'll be a 64bit processor.

titanMac
Jun 14, 2004, 11:14 PM
Actually, I think GameCube has 40MB RAM altogether - 32 system and 8 VRAM. The Xbox has 64MB shared RAM between video and system.
They sound low but that's what they are. The PS2 has 2MB VRAM I believe (which explains its shocking low-res textures).

Actually these are the specs:
GC:24meg 1T SRAM (low latency) main memory, 3megs 1T SRAM embedded (2megs frame buffer/1meg texture cache), 16megs slow sound memory.
PS2:32megs RDRAM, 4megs of 2560bit wide embedded ram, 2megs audio, 2megs extra ram for backwards compatiblity IIRC
Xbox:64megs dual channel 200Mhz DDR.

The PS2 does not have texture compression like the GameCube and Xbox. GameCube and Xbox can compress textures 4:1, 6:1, or 8:1 depending on the size of the bits of source texture. So effectivly this means that those machines have over 4x the texture memory of the PS2. Smaller textures also lead to more efficient use of memory bandwidth. This is the main reason the PS2 looks like it has lower res texture than the other consoles. It does! :)

None of the consoles store textures in the video ram. Well they do, but its better to think of it as redundent fast ram similar to your CPU's cache than additional ram for the graphics chip.

thatwendigo
Jun 14, 2004, 11:31 PM
What I am talking about is a convergence product from Apple in working with Nintendo or Microsoft that would "seal" the hardware specs of the computer. Maybe a "gMac" based on the entry level eMac. For Apple it would give them a system that would not need the revisions that they currently need to maintain interest.

It was called the Pippin, and I'm glad Apple killed it. (http://www.theapplemuseum.com/index.php?id=tam&page=misc&subpage=pippin) There was also a Sony-Apple cobranding on something code-named the "Fast Eddy," which Apple Codenames (http://www.apple-codenames.com/unreleased/) claims was a 1991 effort into a "Sony Playstation co-production "Smart Television" project."

Just for kicks, I'll note that the US release of the Pippin was under the name Bandai Pippin @World and was speced thusly:

Processor: PowerPC 603e
Processor Speed: 66 MHz
FPU: IEEE standard
Instruction cache: 8 KB
Slots: 1 "PCI like"
RAM Type: DRAM
RAM on Motherboard: 8 MB
Minimum RAM: 8 MB
Maximum RAM: 13 MB
Video RAM: 6 MB
ROM: 4 MB
CD-ROM: 4x
Aftermarket easy memory expansion cards supported (2, 4 or 8MB)
Serial printer: 1
Serial modem: 1
P-ADB: 2 (for controlers, keyboard or mice)
Video out: 1
S-Video out: 1
VGA monitor out: 1
Audio out: 1
Audio in: 1
Headphones : 1
Modem: optional internal GeoPort modem
8-bit and 16-bit Video support
Dual Frame Buffers
Supported monitors: NTSC & PAL composite, S-Video and VGA (640 x 480 pixels)
Colors: 16.7 million
Sound Input: 16 bit Stereo, 44 kHz
Sound Output: 16 bit Stereo, 44 kHz
Run time environment derived from MacOS (PippinOS)
QuickTime 2.0, QuickDraw
5 Audio CD controls
2 headphones controls
Cost: $600

It's main competitor and the one that rocked the gaming world was the Sony Playstation:

Processor: R300A RISC
Processor Speed: 33.87 MHz
FPU: ?
On-board GPU
On-bard Geometry Transfer Engine
RAM Type: DRAM
RAM on Motherboard: 2 MB
Video RAM: 1 MB
Sound RAM: 512 KB
CD Buffer: 32 KB
ROM: 512 KB
CD-ROM: 2x
Supported monitors: NTSC & PAL composite, (256 x 480 - 640 x 480 pixels)
Colors: 16.7 million
Sound Output: 16 bit Stereo, 44 kHz
Run time environment derived from MacOS (PippinOS)
QuickTime 2.0, QuickDraw
5 Audio CD controls
2 headphones controls
Cost: $299

So... One is more full-featured, more forward-looking, and a generally better machine, but suffers a lack of developers and loses the majority of the market. This sounds familiar, but the mac is still alive. ;)

Jyril
Jun 15, 2004, 12:29 AM
The "Revolution" was already said to be able to play current generation Gamecube games.

The G5 processor and ATI graphics in the Xbox 2 isn't a rumor, its something Microsoft has said itself. This has caused a bit of an uproar in the gaming community, since the current Xbox uses an Intel P3-like processor and Nvidia graphics. Lots are worried that the Xbox 2 won't have backwards compatibility with current games. Although not confirmed, it has been rumored that the Xbox 2 is NOT going to have a hard drive in it.

While the actual speed of the processor hasn't been stated yet, the rumors suggest a 2.0 - 2.5ghz G5, single processor. This seems like alot, right now, but it won't in LATE 2005 or sometime in 2006 when the console is projected to be released, just as the "Revolution" is. The 2.7ghz G5 then doesn't become all that unrealistic, when we're looking at a minimum of 1 1/2 years in the future. Plus, as someone noted, these won't be the 1+ghz FSB G5s we have right now. They'll be something a little bit more stripped down, like comparing a P4 to a Celeron.

I honestly think that either specs could be true, although Nintendo has said that they won't be focusing on power with their next console, but rather with innovation. That, to me, says the Dual 1.8ghz configuration is most likely since the production costs will be much, much less in 1.5+ years.

benpatient
Jun 15, 2004, 01:47 PM
microsoft has only said that they will be working with an IBM PPC-based processor.

they haven't said 97X and they haven't said 64bit (only the "leaked specs" that claim 3 64bit 3.5ghz PPC processors say they will be 64 bit).

for all we know, it could be a totally different framework.

i didn't think i would need to clarify this, but some points:

i was talking about 64 bit processors, not 64 bit memory bus or anything like that (we're already dealing with 256bit memory buses in graphics cards, anyway). the N64 had a 90mhz 64 bit processor that basically used the extra registers for graphics...


the xBox 2 will almost certainly (somehow) be compatible with the current one. Microsoft just announced a couple months ago a new gaming architecture that will make developing games for Windows and xBox (and clearly they wouldn't exclude xBox2 from this!) much easier than it currently is. I'm willing to bet that the PPC processor that will go into the XBox 2 will have hardware x86 emulation, which will make it able to play legacy xbox games.

and jyril, i bet you one XBox 2 that the XBox 2 will have some form of hard drive.

:)

Engagebot
Jun 15, 2004, 07:17 PM
You mean we'll see a G5 GameBoy before a G5 PowerBook? ;) :D :p :eek:

Yeah i dont see the G5 going to a console game machine before it gets to Apple's upper end laptops.

elmimmo
Jul 1, 2004, 02:23 AM
Sorry I'm going a little off topic. I've got a PS2 and I have no problem with it. A year or two back, I saw an article in PSM (playstation magazine) which said that the PS3 could be using organic processors of some sort.You are misinterpreting it. It is supposed to go with a new kind of processor technology developed by Sony, Toshiba I think, and guess who? IBM, called Cell. That term is not refered to its organic nature (which is not) but rather on its ability (in general purpose, but let's see if it is all tone down to hypeness when applied to a console) to hook up in paralell to whatever other cell processor it can have access (the one in your future Sony fridge) and work in parallel. Just like "cell" phones are autonomous entities in a networked environment.

Mord
Jul 1, 2004, 06:04 AM
[off topic] I want a console that will hook up to a USB KEYBOARD and mouse that I can hook up to a monitor with good FPS games so I can get rid of my gaming PC. [/off topic] I know it won't happen, tho.

I did that with my dreamcast and the old blue lcd apple display though s-video it was great i had a bb adapter and a bb connection playing qIII al day with my keyboard and mouse (server is down perminently though)

DarkNovaMatter
Jul 1, 2004, 09:30 PM
The reasons why consol games run on less ram,etc.-

1.- they debug the heck out of the code for the game- for computer games you can always release a patch- console you sort of can't unless you force people to re-buy the game. I think the gamecube has a special form for debugging- think of it like a normal cube-except that the dvd drice is removed and on top it has a mounting bracket and socket for attaching a enclosed hard disk that has the current game code on it.

2- development platform is verry optimized- this is why game makers complain when a console is hard to develop for, etc. Think of IBM's latest compiler that was updated for the G5.....

3- technical feats- consoles don't have to go up to the res that a standard computer has to. Yes the xbox can go up to 1024x768 (somewhere around there), but most game makers don't go that high, why? Not many people own a HDTV or a high enough resolution projector to use it- so simply why spend time on coding for something that will add more time to game development for only a small percent of people?(Japan doesn't have to worry about this- much better saturation of high res. capable displays)

Whats so nice to say is that all upcomming console systems will all have a powerPC core on them- Sony/IBM/Toshiba's Cell has ppc cores on it / Nintendo/IBM's more then likely going to have a specialized ppc chip (not just core) again- why go with a different chip? (also a G5 or further up the ladder chip will be able to run the code from the previous console- sure it would a little bit of emulation, but you can get the chip close to the capabilties of the old one) / Then finally Xbox2 is going to have atleast a ppc chip- now weather these chips are what the rumor sites say (doubtfull since of IBM's troubles, aka- only a 2.5 ghz G5 in quanity) is anyones guess. I am mostly a cube fan because of the games (Metroid prime, pikmin, etc.), also because I like Nintendo's idea of better game- instead of better graphics (sure you want good graphics- but gameplay is much more important- besides the cube has good graphics (MP and MP2) and then the gameplay aspect). One interesting thing Ninetendo did for the cube was 1 transistor video memory- why is it good? the memory only has to be fed once and retains the data- thus less bandwidth used up! Also has anyone here played Metal Arms: Glitch in the system? verry good game- comic humor, nice weapons, also good gameplay and not bad for a story,etc.

P.S.- I just thought of that- Vivendi (owners of Blizzard,Sierra,etc.) just shut down Sierra- Sierra was the company that was the producer for Glitch in the system- eck.....................

Also the xbox2 is more than likely not going to have backwards compatiability- why? considering how much you would have to do to emulate the old xbox so you have no hickups in gaming- not likely to happen- also if the Xbox2 won't have a HD it will more than likely be in an add-on kit

JNasty4G63
Jul 1, 2004, 11:15 PM
I don't doubt the specs of the consoles being talked about. If you think about it, they are all going to be trying to push for HD resolutions, and that takes big power. The Xbox can to it a little now, because it has the grunt to work with. But, in the future, if they want to run future games at 720p (1280x720) and 1080i or even 1080p (1920x1080), they will need some serious horsepower to do that. That is a lot of pixels to push around. And with games getting more and more detailed and technical, it will take some big power to do all of that at those resolutions.
Originally posted by Danrose1977
Not necesarily true.... Xbox's maximum output is 1900*1400, I output most games through a panasonic HDTV projector, most achieve 720Progressive (1024*768 output according to the projectors stats) and some games (None that I own though) take advantage of 1080Progressive.
The Xbox will do 1080i, not 1080p. There was no need to make it capable of 1080p when there were no 1080p displays at that time, aside from PC monitors. They are just now starting to trickle down to somewhat reasonable price ranges. It just wouldn't make sense to build that capability in and never have it used. And, your projector was probably telling you that resolution because thats its max resolution. I'm assuming your talking about a DLP or LCD front projector. Most of those these days are only capable of 720p. Since projectors only do progressive output, they can only do up to about 720p at best. If you have the $$$, there are some coming out now that will do 1080p, but thats big $$$$ if you want one. Most of the time, displays like that will just convert the interlaced signal to 720p, no matter what it is, so it can be displayed. For example, many Sony sets these days, claim to accept all HD signals. And it will accept it, it just converts everything to 1080i before displaying it. The CRT tube won't display a progressive signal, so it does 1080i to get HD resolution out of it.

Hilg

jdechko
Jul 12, 2004, 10:01 AM
as someone who grew up with nintendo, i am partial to it. plus there is mario, zelda and metroid... which i think have no equal... classic gaming experiences.

anyway, my thought is this... it makes a lot of sense that all 3 big console companies are looking to go with a ppc processor. think about how much easier it will be for 3rd party devs to port code to different consoles. right now it kinda sucks that cube owners have to wait for great games (splinter cell: pandora tomorrow). yeah, the developers have to address other issues (online gameplay, video/ram configurations, and controller layouts) but these things seem really minor in comparison with the basic instruction sets required for a particular processor.

its kinda the same thing with computer gaming ... mac vs pc. if both used the PPC processor, i think games would be ported a lot more than currently

Mord
Jul 12, 2004, 10:06 AM
its kinda the same thing with computer gaming ... mac vs pc. if both used the PPC processor, i think games would be ported a lot more than currently

it would make it easyer but directX is the biggest barrier if only someone could write a mac os port and added a x86-ppc compiler that would be the best thing ever (and screw mcro$oft they will try to sue you but you could distribute it via a p2p network)

the only problem with that is that it would screw over companys like aspyr and macsoft if only there was a way

jdechko
Jul 12, 2004, 10:37 AM
oh, yeah, i guess that kinda does make a bit of a deal of it. but how would direct x affect cosole gaming? is it currently implemented in consoles?

AdamR01
Jul 13, 2004, 10:00 PM
...how would direct x affect cosole gaming? is it currently implemented in consoles?

The xbox uses a form of DirectX I beleive.

Engagebot
Jul 13, 2004, 10:13 PM
i've not read a single thing that makes me think we'll see 64 bit processors in consoles for a while...what sorts of things does a machine with a small amount of RAM really need more than 32-bit registers for? do current consoles come anywhere near using all of their theoretical memory bus bandwidth? How can a machine with 32-64 MB of RAM be hurting for memory registers on a processor that has billions of address spaces?

(to answer my own question, it can't)


Thank You! There IS somebody else on this forum that knows their stuff... Did I actually find another being at macrumors that may even have a computer science degree?

Ensoniq
Jul 13, 2004, 10:26 PM
If the GameCube 2 (or any other gaming console) were to use the G5, it wouldn't have anything to do with needing 64-bit memory access. It would be for issues of power consumption and heat, relative to speed, in a small enclosure.

Debate all day about whether or not the G5 is the fastest chip available for PCs, but there is no debate about this: You're not going to get an AMD 64 or 3+ GHz Intel chip in a tiny gaming console without it overheating. The GameCube currently uses a low-speed G3 variation, and the XBox uses a 733 MHz PIII. Why? Because they fit into the consoles without burning a hole in the bottom.

The 90nm and 45nm chips that IBM will have available at the end of next year when the new GameCube/Playstation/XBox models come out will ALL be lower powered, less hot chips than their x86 based variants. They will also be smaller than their x86 brethren. THAT is why all 3 vendors announced they'd be using them in their next consoles. It has nothing to do with memory bandwidth and accessible RAM. It has to do with the IBM chips simply being smaller, cooler, and more efficient in a tight enclosure than what any other vendor is likely to offer a year from now.

AdamR01
Jul 13, 2004, 11:17 PM
The 90nm and 45nm chips that IBM will have available at the end of next year when the new GameCube/Playstation/XBox models come out will ALL be lower powered, less hot chips than their x86 based variants. They will also be smaller than their x86 brethren.

But if the new chips are only available when the console comes out, then the consoles can't use them...

Engagebot
Jul 13, 2004, 11:21 PM
That doesn't make any sense.

You can get alot more bang for your temperature-buck with an intel than you can a G5. May I remind you we still haven't seen the G5 in a notebook because of power consumption and heat related problems? We have mobile P4s now that can run with only a heatsink alone. Granted they've got more limited horsepower than an athlon64 or G5, but at least its there.

If we see anything like that its going to be the mobile athlon64. Go look at some real benchmarks. An example: pro recording studios run recording software on really high end machines. They need the most performance they can get, regardless of how they get it. The new fad recently has been to buy athlon64 mobile cpu's and pop them into desktop formfactor boards. Because of the way you have control over the power consumption and clock limiting, you can get these to crank faster than anything else on the market. And thats besides the fact that they're dirt cheap compared to their big brothers.