IGN reveals new Revolution tech specs

Well,
its a little rough on the specs
but for $149 id buy one in a sec

its all gonna come down to the games

It will be alot less powerfull then the 360 or the ps3 but it will be fun. As nintendo always makes fun games. IMHO.

I have a 360 I don't think I will be getting a ps3 at launch. But I will be getting a revolution :-)

Also its plain to see why nintendo said it would not support HD resolutions. Its a shame. but as long as the games all support widescreen 480p it will be allright in my books.

I love Nintendo, but this specs are just plain too little. I hope Nintendo isn't screwing up.

Isn't 729 Mhz a little *less* than the Xbox? They say Revolution will be "cheap", but if cheap means 200 dollars for a small Xbox (give or take) that came out 4 years after the Xbox, then I wouldn't consider that *cheap*. I'd consider it rape. I know it's not about the power, it's the games, but again, Nintendo seems to have taken the cheapest way out, so in case they fail, they still make a profit. I would say that it isn't less powerful than that because it couldn't get any cheaper than that.

Don't flame, I'm just speaking my mind, obviously.

Lets keep in mind that comparing mhz of a P3 processor to that of a PPC is completly inacurate. So saying "The "Broadway" CPU: 729MHz (approximately the same speed as the original Xbox)" realy gives no indication of the procesing power. Matt shouldn't have compared these things without big disclaimers.

And with these specs, we can definatly expect a cheep Revolution. I say the specs are fine.

I dont feel it is a right move. While the niche of being able to play older games will excite at first. It will definately wear thin, when newer next gen games come out. It isnt just about graphics with the X360 and PS3, the extra horsepower will do other things other than just "graphics".

And people saying "graphics arent everything" is getting old and stagnant excuse. While they are nto everything, they help open up a whole new immersive world, and with better graphical and physics ability out there, it opens up for more gameplay abilities.

Now I see why Rein said the Unreal 3 Engine is not pheasible on this (if these are real specs, in which they most likely are).

Also while the DS is a great machine, Nintendo has had a foothold in the market so long, that it is natural it will succeed. The dual screen is still gimmiky, and is only used cause it is there. Most of the games that are praised on it can be done without the extra screen.

In the console world, it is hard to try to innovate alien type things when you were not on top for a while. But if they are going with a "not in competition" approach like they claim, and the price is right. They will be perfectly ok I think.

I smell bulshit. In terms of power the gamecube is roughly the equal of the xbox. The revolution has been stated to be roughly 3 times as powerfull as the gamecube.
I know megahurtz don't mean shit anymore but still i have to call complete speculation on these specs.

I am by no extent a huge nintendo fan, but even I plan on buying a revolution one day if the price is right. That said, I am a little skeptical about these specs, despite what people say, the horsepower of the system DOES matter. The fact is, even if you are focusing on graphics, things such as AI, physics, and other aspects of gameplay do use up system resources. I am not saying that nintendo needs the kind of hardware the the 360 and ps3 have, they are obviously trying to carve their own little niche into the gaming market; but to release a system that is only minimally more powerful then a current gen system seems idiotic to me.

And with regards to all the nintendo fanboys who claim that you don't need a powerful system to innovate in the game market.... How does having a more poweful system HURT innovation? who says that sony and microsoft won't be able to innovate just as much if not more then nintendo in this coming generation of consoles.

I understand that nintendo is trying to move away from sony and microsoft style tactics in the console wars, but to release a system that underpowered is just stupid.

I hope for the sake of nintendo and all you nintendo fanboys that these "specs" are fake.... and if they aren't fake, the revolution had better cost $100-$150 TOPS.

Boots, the CPU on the Revo will be from IBM. The CPU on the Xbox is a version of Intel's mobile Celeron. Clock for clock, the IBM will be much faster than the Intel CPU.

Who cares, show me games.

I was expecting slightly higher specs, but as has been noted, these components have been highly optimised... As were the GameCube's components.

This hasn't really altered my stance on the Revolution.

We should be seeing games soon, E3 at the latest... so until then, we'll have to listen to a myriad of thoughts on whether or not the graphics matter, whether they'll be good, which is of course, very silly... (they're going to make us say 'wow', lol...), and what exactly is/are the final secret(s)?

Considering the majority of gamers see little or no reason to upgrade from their current Xbox means this is the right move.

Anyone approaching the Revolution coming from the PS2 will be truly amazed!

Jono,

I thought Intel processors were faster, and that *that* was the reason Mac switched to Intel.

Anyway, of course having a CPU and GPU clocked in similar numbers as the Xbox it doesn't mean it can't outperform it because it depends on a lot of factors, like architecture. The fact that it is coming much later than an Xbox may mean that it has better technology, and that it is much better optimized (after all, Nintendo's hardware is almost always optimized for gaming).

Still, I'm going to have to agree with Huey. It doesn't hurt to add some power. Hell, somewhere between 128 MB and 256 MB of RAM would have been fine, and a clock speed dual-core processor between 1 and 2 GHz would have been fine too. Something a little better for the GPU, or hell, keep it in the same range, but add a PPU and an AIPU.

Regardless of input methods and gameplay innovations, the games will probably look prior gen. The only hope I have for ever playing a gameplay innovative yet graphically stunning game will be if Sony copies the controller. lol

I'm sorry if you get tired of hearing "graphics aren't everything", as long as Nintendo keeps doing what it's doing with its games, I think the graphics will become a non-issue. I don't continue to consistantly play games because the graphics are good, i play because the game is engaging and fun. I continue to go back to Super Smash Melee, a GC launch title. Why? because it's plain fun. I think the important thing here is that the control comes through, if it does Nintendo is golden. I know I'm looking foreward to playing Super Smash Online on the Rev with the new Controller. for $250 dollars(system + game) life is gonna be good.


P.S. I'm not a N fanboy, I own a GC,PS2 and PSP.

Comparing this to the xbox isn't exactly fair. The hardware is entirely different, its like saying, my dumptruck can get up to 100Km/h, your pickup can do 110Km/h, therefore the pickup must be better.

1. The CPU is a PowerPC, the Xbox CPU is an x86 P3 era celeron. The PowerPC chip in the Revolution is specially designed for the platform (just like all the PowerPC's in the next gen systems), the celeron is a cheap desktop celeron. So there is probably quite a few tweaks with the PowerPC to leverage it for common game code.

2. GPU: The Xbox had an nvidia (geforce 3 class?) GPU, the Revolution's GPU is a custom built ATI GPU. ATI usually runs at a lower clock speed and emphasizes finesses over brute strength. Since the chip is custom built, it is built to leverage itself for common and future game code.

3. The RAM is completely different. If the story is correct the RAM in the revolution is T1 SRAM, thats RAM running at around 600MHz that is almost as fast as the cache in your CPU, it will provide absolutely wicked data rates (like the various types of memory used in the other next gen consoles.) The XBOX used PC133 RAM if I'm not mistaken, poor quality stuff at that. Compare the datarates of your new dual channel P4 with your P3 running PC133 and that will give you an idea of the differences.

Not to be a total jerk, but Ross, be careful when comparing hardware. ;p

Clock for clock, the PPC is capable of executing instruction faster than a Celeron. However, a PPC has a risc instruction set (while x86 chips use a CISC instruction set), meaning that the PPC must execute more instructions than an x86 chip to do the same amount of work.

All other things being equal, the PPC still comes out ahead mind you, but given that we only know the clockspeed of this chip it is kind of hard to say how it compares to a Celeron.

Important factors include cache size, ability to reorder instructions, branch prediction, and the presence of some sort of SIMD unit.

If it has a tiny cache, no instruction reordering, a poor/nonexistant branch prediction unit, and no VMX unit, the Celeron in the original Xbox would be faster...

If it has the features I expect, it will be roughly equivelent to a 1ghz PIII.

http://gonintendo.com/?p=1737 We already had this discussion over there. I think you'll find some of the comments... enlightening, those of little faith.

Cogboy brings up a good point. If the Revolution is 3 times as powerful as a GameCube, and the GameCube is almost as powerful as an Xbox, where does that put the Revolution?

How fast is the GameCube's clock speed? 485 MHZ?

New graphics chip, with more advanced features and shader functions go a long way to speeding up graphics. Power PC chips run faster than the MHz would lead one to believe.

The Revolution is going to smoke the original Xbox. The fact that it only has to run in standard (or enhanced) definition means the games are going to look much better than Xbox games, and THAT, my friends, is a GOOD THING (tm).

Consider that lots of the PS3's power will be 'wasted' by running things in 1080p, they wouldn't be able to do as much on screen because they are pushing resolution instead of polish and effects.

when you think that the cpu of the gamecube (400 Mhz) and the cpu of the xbox (733 Mhz) are very close in term of capacities

it's because Mhz or Ghz don't are relatives to the calcul's power but are relatives to the clock frequency !
to determinate how much a processor is powerful you have to see how much billions of instruction he can execute per seconds

for example, the amd's processors are more powerfull than the intel's at the same clock frenquecy

Mac switched to Intel due to business reason, I believed. In fact many Mac fans are wishing that that Apple re-establish relationship with IBM. And just because Apple went to Intel doesn't make Intel better. Dell also goes for Intel, but many people know that for the past two years AMD has held the performance crown.

Anyway this is all useless as I was comparing a IBM PPC core to an Intel Pentium III/Celeron core, and not their expensive Core Duos processors (which costs more than a 360).

boots said:
"I thought Intel processors were faster, and that *that* was the reason Mac switched to Intel."

the xbox used a pentium III, which was a piece of scrap and a failure for Intel. Apple switched to intel because it offered more performance per wattage (check out apples press events on their site). Also IBM was screwing them.

Also while the DS is a great machine, Nintendo has had a foothold in the market so long, that it is natural it will succeed. The dual screen is still gimmiky, and is only used cause it is there. Most of the games that are praised on it can be done without the extra screen.

Um, the touch screen provided a better way to play fps than a standard controller so I think u should shut up now

Do you think Nintendo's resistance to the "lose money on hardware / make it up on software" philosophy might be the reason to this. Even though they say they want to focus on gameplay and not graphics, I think their reluctance to slick looking HD graphics are going to turn off a significant portion of the population.

Also, while the DS is doing well, why is this a huge win for Nintendo? They've ALWAYS dominated the handheld gaming market. They are the leaders, have maintained their lead on the handheld gaming market.

Anyone with a decent HD tv is going to either go for an Xbox360 or PS3 and maybe a revolution on the side for nostalgia sake if the online service is any good.

I am no fan boy by any means. In my household you will see a 30" hdtv with my PS2, Xbox, Gamecube, SNES, Dreamcast and Genesis all hooked together in gaming harmony. I own a DS and plan on picking up a PSP when they release some more games that are worth the 200$ tag.

I think nintendo is going about this whole "revolution" absolutely the way they should. They have NEVER compromised the quality of their games for hardware. Hell, I had a virtual boy for a while and the games on that thing were GREAT. Nobody else thought so, but i bet they didn't play anything beyond Red Alarm.

ANYWAY.. Their whole plan is to subvert the current busniess model of "better hardware -> next gen versions of current games -> as much profit as we can get" to something like "hardware that plays games like no one has played games before"

they did it in 85, 96, and more recently with the DS whats stopping them from doing it again?

NOT A DAMN THING.

I just wish that we could see some games.. hardware means nothing if the games are not fun. /dead horse

Forget mhz. They mean nothing. The gamecube is current with the xbox. Think RE4 people. Its about the games. But if it was about the graphics Nintendo always has something wierd up their sleeve. Whether its magical compression techniques or gentically engineered develepors who run off caffeine. But like I said the games are what counts.

"Who cares, show me games."

Bingo...plus it's always easy to tell who the n00bs are when people start comparing the CPUs of personal computers to that of consoles.

"Now I see why Rein said the Unreal 3 Engine is not pheasible on this (if these are real specs, in which they most likely are)."

Mark Rein is NOT a true source for authority on what will and will not work on the Revolution. He obviously is a on the biased said based on stupid statements from IGN Live.

Plus lets all remember here people that this story is based on a "RUMOR"...you know...something that can't be entirely trusted as truth.

I'd say it's not an Apples to Apples comparison between the XBOX1 CPU and the new CPU. The new CPU is 1.5x as fast as the cube one, and the cube puts out graphics only slightly inferior to those on the xbox. The x86/PPC numbers don't really translate in a 1to1 fashion.

As far as RAM, keep in mind that Rev wont be doing anything that is basically more than 640x480 graphics since we're on standard def TVs here.

The GPU is a bit underwhelming... Only like 20% faster in clock rate than the 'cube CPU?

Well, for $199 or less, I'll buy one... If it's $249, it'll really make me think hard about plunking down $50 more for what will then be the 360 hard drive one.

-Kevin

jono said:
"Dell also goes for Intel, but many people know that for the past two years AMD has held the performance crown."

And AMD can do it at half the clock speed and with much less heat. Ask a pc gamer which he/she would rather have if money was no option - AMD or Intel chip.

You can't compare clock speeds.

Do I still think that this is the right move for Nintendo? Heck yeah. They'll have a market all to themselves.

I wouldn't expect it nor would I be suprised if the Nintendo Revolution sells just about as well as the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 ... Not because it is as technically impressive, but because it makes the perfect "Second System" for everyone's household. The unique controller means that it will have unique games that you won't be able to get on any other system (in addition to the Nintendo-owned franchises). You'll be able to get "Splinter Cell", and "Medal of Honor: Airborne", and many other top-notch third-party games on both PS3 and Xbox 360.

People are either going to buy a PS3 or an Xbox 360 because they will be able to play the majority of games on either system; but they probably won't buy both (unless they've got enough cash that they should be giving more to the church). People will buy a Revolution for unique game experiences. Every game will either be an exclusive title, or play differently than thier PS3 and Xbox brothers and sisters.

Nintendo's betting that a unique experience with quality software support and an attractive pricepoint will help them to reclaim a more competative position in the video game industry. I'd put my money with Nintendo. They might still be number three, but they'll be closer to the leaders with the Revolution than they are with the the GameCube.

Honestly, I wouldn't care if the revolution turned out to be (obviously it isn't) a new controller for the cube and a broadband adapter that hooks you up to the web. I mean, graphics are always an issue, but maybe this generation some people will start to realize what games are really about. Even in the good old days, there was still a push for better graphics...

An xbox with a motion sensor controller. With the price of the xbox at 150$, expect low price for the console!!

Then it will going to big problem with 3rd party publishers or devs. Normally They want to make the games to play all next-gen consoles because it will get much more profit than selling the title on one console only.
I can't see if they can able to port all new same unchange games to support all system if one is weaker.
I'm really hope not if there are some 3rd party games for PS3 or 360 might have to tweak down because of Rev.
It will be better off to have every same games designed on it own on every each consoles.

I recently upgraded from rca to an official nintendo s-video cable for my gamecube. Game like super smash brothers and metroid prime, which already looked great, now look even better. I have not seen the gamecube in progressive scan mode, but i must imagine that it would be even better. Now, with better hardware AND progressive scan, the improvement will be at least half a generation, in my opinion. And since many developers are already used to the gamecube, they will know more "tricks" to get as much as they can out of the hardware. Nintendo is making the right choice. At this point in time, HD and graphics are not as important as innovation. However, in 5 years, when WAY more people have HDTV, graphics will be important, and nintendo will deliver the goods for cheaper.

I personally own a Sony 57" HDTV and could careless about gaming in HD if they are going to focus more on graphics than overall gameplay. I owned a GC before a PS2, and XBOX due to the fact that Nintendo makes great first party software. Though I have a bigger PS2 library than the cube. Thing is I have some ps2 games I havent even opened up, I dont have one cube title in my collection that hasnt been opened.

And Nintendo owned the gaming world back then and Sony came and took it. They tried the same with the handheld but it hasnt worked out as they thought it may. Nintendo focused on games and Sony focused on graphics and entertainment. Thats what they are trying now. Will it succeed? Who knows but I sure will be owning a Revo before a PS3. It's no doubt that I will be buying a PS3 though. (have a secret spot for RPG's) It doesnt really matter who does what and who has this. I dont give if the PS3 has all this and the Revo doesnt have it. I just care about having fun. I'm sure that they will both offer entertainment.

As has been stated, PPC Mhz != (not equal to) x86 Mhz.

Additionally, it all depends on how optimized the code is, and how much can be done per clock cycle.

It works like this:

Let's say you have a 700Mhz CPU that does 2 operations per clock cycle. (Unrealisticly low, I know, but this is just for the purpose of this demonstration.)

You also have a 1400Mhz (1.4Ghz) CPU that does 1 operation per clock cycle.

These chips are then equal in performance.

In closing, it's all about the games, people. To a lesser degree, it's about the code optimization. Clock speeds don't mean a whole lot.

Yeah the spec comparisons aren't apples to apples.

Some architectures do more work per clock cycle plus the REv doesn't have to do hi-def so it doesn't need half the specs of other next-gen machines.

Anyway, Nintendo let slip before it was going to be 2 or 3x as powerful as the 'Cube and these specs spell that out. So not really much suprise. I'd guess the gpu will have a few architecture improvements over what the 'Cube gpu had.

This is not just a "4 year late xbox." Its an xbox with wireless capabilities (DS hub) and revmote functionality. That sounds pretty damn good to me. I just dont understand this underpowered talk... so the xbox looks like crap now? Should they just forget God of War 2 then, because by then that game will look utterly ancient on the even weaker PS2? And keep in mind rev will still be more powerful than the xbox even with similar specs because the hardware architecture is completely different. They have had 4 years to make a better mousetrap. Its like comparing a P4 to a celeron, the numbers are deceiving.

Well, I've got all 3 now-gen systems+ the 360 and I must say that the Cube is still my fave. Not taking away from PS2 tho, I've often felt the graphics/color resolution on the Cube is superior-very user friendly. I'd like to get the PS3 and the Rev as well. Now I'm not well versed in the tecchie stuff but I can say the Rev sounds like a heck of a deal for the price and as all others have said:"it's all about the games!"

namelessloser said:
"Thing is I have some ps2 games I havent even opened up"

can i have them?

Beginning with the N64 Nintendo has made a critical mistake with their console each generation to lose 3rd party support. On the N64 it was sticking with the cartridge format. Developers couldn't squeeze their FMV's, redbook audio or voice acting on the small expensive carts. The Gamecube had a total lack of online gameplay. Why would people buy a castrated version of a game on the GC when they could get the full featured game with online play for the PS2 and Xbox? So developers didn't bring over their big franchises. Now the Rev, underpowered and with a non standard controller. I don't see this getting a lot of support by 3rd party developers either because they can't reuse assets created for the PS3 and 360 versions. Why can't Nintendo get it all right for once? If they juiced up the power of the Rev and supported high definition the console would be an instant grand slam. Two steps forward and one step back each generation, when will Nintendo learn *shakes head*.

FACT: a Pentium ? a PowerPC.

FACT: $500 is asking too much. If you disagree, then you must be a yuppie. Go buy another iPod. Make a necklace of them. Yuppies.

FACT: graphics *aren't* everything. And if you think having the upper hand when it comes to horsepower is going to kill Nintendo, ask yourself how much of that power has to be there in order for a PS3 or 360 game to run smoothly at 1080 lines.

FACT: it is far too early to start whinging. Wait until E3 2006.

hey whats with the stars by peoples names, have they always been there?

May I remind everyone that VHS beat Betamax. Lower resolution but cheaper won out over highest-quality visuals.


Price always beats quality - that's why the Wal-Mart's of the world thrive.

Mhh if this is true, nintendo is going for very cheap. Thats a good plan, with low specs like this it could probably easily launch at $150/$175, and drop in price soon enough

But gah the specs are awfully low. Sure Mhz doesnt say everything, look at AMD that compares to intel chips but has a lower clockspeed.

But the ram is so few. Ram is so important for computers, and its not all that expensive. Here in the netherlands i can buy 1GB of ram for 62 louzy euros. Surely mr iwata would be able to afford a 256mb stick of ram for in the revo.

I think that to us, to the hardcore gamers and fanboys of any demonination are in a better position to understand and appreciate the Revolution regardless of specs. Because we all know that with or without sturdy 3rd party support, Nintendo will still make some of the greatest games in the next generation.

While we can appreciate it, the casual fool(consumer) cannot. People are not creatures of logic, and when a mom is at a EB games to buy a console for her son, I personnelly doubt that she'll understand the potential of the revmote, and buy a PS3 or Xbox 360 because it simply has more bells and whistles. And sadly that is likely the kind of mom that also will not do her homework on the ratings system and unwittingly buy him a very violent game.

The 360 and the PS3 will be using a lot of horsepower on running HD. On standard televisions, all three systems should look pretty much the same.

I just got done playing Battlefield 2 for the 360...Wow...truly freaking amazing! I haven't even put Far Cry in yet even though it just came out today cause the Battlefield 2 Demo is that good.

Who cares about the revolution.

GPU

Xbox 360 - ATI's Custom Processor at 500MHz
PS3 - RSX at 550MHz
Rev - ATI "Hollywood" GPU at 243MHz

little different

CPU
Xbox 360 - 3 cores at 3.2GHz IBM PowerPC-based CPU
PS3 - 3.2GHz IBM PowerPC-based CPU
Rev - 729MHz IBM's "Broadway" PowerPC-based CPU

Hell different.

I'm pretty sure these specs are real. Its seems quite reasonable. I'm not worried about graphical inferiority being an issue for the Revolution. I'm no tech whiz, but I did a lot of research before the last consoles came out.

I knew that on paper the XBOX and PS2 were capable of topping the GC. I took a gamble on the GC (graphically speaking) because Nintendo implied that on screen I wouldn't be disappointed.

After playing all of the systems, and comparing the graphics of games like SSBM and MP with games on other consoles, I WASN'T disappointed.

Could the graphics have been better if the games were developed for other systems? Of, course. But the difference between systems was tolerable (to me at least).

It stands to reason, then, that if a lower-spec Nintendo console was tolerable last time, it will be ok again (again, for me...each person has to decide for themselves).

We all must remember, we havn't seen a single Revolution Game yet, so we may vary well be pleasantly surprised, or completely underwhelmed.

Is this the right move for Nintendo? Probably. Look at their last console, the Gamecube. It was the same as all the other systems, it didn't bring anything that the other consoles didn't where their other consoles, most notably the N64 brought something new to the industry (The analog thumb-stick in this case) and were very successful for that reason. The Gamecube had great games, most from Nintendo but there were a few other real gems, but felt kind of bland as a whole. I think this is because they just made a more powerful system and in a three way race that wasn't enough for Nintendo. I see the Revolution as a move like the N64 before it. They're forgoing the obvious route in order to find success.

I wasn't confident that it would work, but like Nintendo I see the success of the DS as evidence that it could. All I know is that for whatever of the other two systems I end up owning (I actually caved and bought a 360 for Oblivion) that I will need the Nintendo if only for the 1st Party games and if some other masterpieces show up like on the DS that'd be great.

I really think they're looking for a different customer and I'm really curious to whether they'll find it or not. What if a game consoles were as prevalent as movie players (Of whichever type)? I think Nintendo wonders that as well. That's the idea I think and I don't think it threatens "traditional" gaming either. Anyway I'm excited.