BTW, if this Nintendo console does get released at the end of 2016 it would only be four years. At least from what I looked at, Nintendo had stuck to a 5-6 year cycle and 4 would be the quickest they had replaced the console.
And it makes sense - the tablet was such a bad idea because of the extra cost. Presumably it will be cheap ($199?), but the question then becomes what will the price be on the XBone/PS4 be in 2016?
And it makes sense - the tablet was such a bad idea because of the extra cost. Presumably it will be cheap ($199?), but the question then becomes what will the price be on the XBone/PS4 be in 2016?
I do think Nintendo needs to go x86 though so they can make it easier for the Dev's to port over games from PS4 or XBone, it's a more value added for Nintendo. They will get a larger library. I think they should do emulation software to keep "some" backwards compatibility if they wish to re-release older games for the new system.
Think apple in it's transition to intel CPUs
Think apple in it's transition to intel CPUs
Blitzvogel
Platinum Member
- Oct 17, 2010
- 2,012
- 23
- 81
:wub:
Hire the Dolphin emulator guys (however that means bye bye open source freeware!) for GC and Wii titles on the next system. To hell with the Wii U library unless they actually go with a new PPC system that's worth it's salt that could run games almost native.
Hire the Dolphin emulator guys (however that means bye bye open source freeware!) for GC and Wii titles on the next system. To hell with the Wii U library unless they actually go with a new PPC system that's worth it's salt that could run games almost native.
So long as they go a modern PPC core its fine, AltiVec/VMX has just about every instruction AVX has, so actual logic change or the need to completely rewrite code for perf issues etc should be minimal. Just compile to PPC......
Blitzvogel
Platinum Member
- Oct 17, 2010
- 2,012
- 23
- 81
Is there a readily available modern PPC core on a modern process and ready for system integration?
Especially if you're gonna do business with AMD again (likely), it's probably easier to go with an x86 APU that will have plenty of documentation, support, flexibility, and ease of integration simply because AMD has their experience with the Xbone and PS4. A PPC system likely means separate CPU and GPU dies, which means a more complicated build.
Decent APU + lots of high bandwidth memory/HBM = the way to go.
Nobody wants to deal with the eDRAM or eSRAM crap.
Last edited:
that maybe kinda hard with ibm paying glfo to take that business off their hands.
8 core 1.6 jaguar full speed in a tablet is that your argument? I dont know if you like your tablets hots, or is just a troll, but you can go to the same list as Shintai.
IBM Pays GLOBALFOUNDRIES $1.5B USD to Take Fab Business Off Its Hands - See more at: http://www.dailytech.com/IBM+Pays+G...s+Hands/article36743.htm#sthash.RuO5YQGS.dpuf
The single relevancy with a tablet did escape the auhtor of this comparison...
What people are slow to grasp is that this CPU will use 15-20W at most when gaming, hence most of the available power can be dedicated to the GPU, a CPU that would be 100% faster with the same core count, or worse with half the core count, would require 50W at least, this would yield a less performing item since the gained CPU perfs would be totaly useless to compensate for a half powered GPU, there s a balance to get the best perf/watt ratio and it s not difficult to estimate that thoses core counts/CPU frequencies/SP count/SP frequencies ratios where simply at the optimized point of all possibilities.
For thoses insisting that a Haswell would had been better the answer is a resounding no, a 8C Kabini has better perf/watt than any Haswell based solution that would have the same throughput, i dont even talk of the eventual usage of Intel s GPUs whose perf/watt ratio is terrible, such a CPU if used should had relied either on AMD or Nvidia for the GPU part, so only the AMD solution was relevant in a single die perspective.
And what exactly does that have to do with the possiblity of IBM designing a power based core for Nintendo.........
NTMBK
Lifer
- Nov 14, 2011
- 10,525
- 6,050
- 136
- IBM are actively divesting themselves of their capability to produce CPUs by selling their foundries
- They haven't produced a consumer-oriented core since Apple ditched the G5 and went to Intel; all of their recent POWER stuff is extremely server oriented with massively multithreaded, extremely wide cores
- Nintendo have just been using progressively smaller shrinks of the PPC 750 core ever since the Gamecube. They clearly don't have the appetite for a 360/PS3 style massively expensive R&D effort to develop an entirely new PPC core exclusively for their console
- There are multiple off the shelf CPU cores from Intel, AMD, ARM and Qualcomm which would suit their needs just fine
- If they really need to preserve backwards compatibility, they could even just include the Wii U's CPU in the console (or at least some SKUs of it). It's 27.73mm2 on a 45nm process; it can't cost an awful lot. The expensive part for backwards compatibility would be the Gamepad, which I suspect will be dropped for the next console anyway; it's hardly set the world alight with great gameplay innovations, even if off-screen play is a cool feature.
IBM just doesn't make sense. Why pay the company who got out of the consumer market to build you a consumer core from scratch, when you can just use an existing one from their competitor?
railven
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2010
- 6,604
- 561
- 126
Based on Nintendo/Miyamoto's most recent statements, whatever they used in the current New Nintendo 3DS is going to play a role in what will be used in their next console.
Nintendo is pushing to synchronize those two platforms. They want to reduce development cost and time from creating console games to handheld games.
The way I interpret it is both systems will have similar hardware. Since the New 3DS is based on higher spec of the older 3DS, it is most likely the new console will also be ARM based.
Nintendo is pushing to synchronize those two platforms. They want to reduce development cost and time from creating console games to handheld games.
The way I interpret it is both systems will have similar hardware. Since the New 3DS is based on higher spec of the older 3DS, it is most likely the new console will also be ARM based.
DrMrLordX
Lifer
- Apr 27, 2000
- 23,231
- 13,318
- 136
An ARM-based console for Nintendo could easily be using an AMD processor. ARM cores + GCN cores. That being said, I don't know that AMD would be able to crank out a custom chip like that anytime soon.
edit: IBM did design the Xenon processor for the Xbox360. Chronologically, did that not take place after Apple went Intel?
edit: IBM did design the Xenon processor for the Xbox360. Chronologically, did that not take place after Apple went Intel?
Last edited:
TurtleCrusher
Lifer
- Apr 20, 2008
- 10,067
- 990
- 126
If Intel, nVidia, Via, IBM, or any ARM vendor could have produced a better product or a similar product at a better price, they would've had the contract. There's no loyalty towards AMD by Sony or MS.
no they are not, Z and power performance still matter and still are first rate. By this logic AMD, nvidia or qualcomm are in no better a position.
This is nothing but hand waving, what you have listed is exactly what a console wants, low clocks/voltage ( for power consumption) , wide, threaded ,powerful core.
thats your assumption , while they have used the same core they have increased its clock and tripled the number of cores. There is no reason a 4 core power7/8 cpu could be the cpu for a next gen console.
That has nothing to do with what i said
- If they really need to preserve backwards compatibility, they could even just include the Wii U's CPU in the console (or at least some SKUs of it). It's 27.73mm2 on a 45nm process; it can't cost an awful lot. The expensive part for backwards compatibility would be the Gamepad, which I suspect will be dropped for the next console anyway; it's hardly set the world alight with great gameplay innovations, even if off-screen play is a cool feature.
backward compatibility is insane at this point, if they want to move forward it has to go at this point.
why does a core need to be built from scratch, IBM cores excel at exactly what the console market needs. That is Throughput workloads with low latency.
NTMBK
Lifer
- Nov 14, 2011
- 10,525
- 6,050
- 136
What are you smoking? A POWER8 based console would be flat our ridiculous. That is an extremely expensive, extremely power hungry CPU. A console based off it would cost $1000 and be the size of a desktop PC.
If they are ditching backwards compatibility, there is genuinely no reason for them to go with IBM.
If they are ditching backwards compatibility, there is genuinely no reason for them to go with IBM.
CHADBOGA
Platinum Member
- Mar 31, 2009
- 2,135
- 833
- 136
Nintendo hasn't cared about console brute power since the Nintendo 64 in 96, developed starting 93. Every console since then has focused on some other feature over performance. I see absolutely zero indication they intend to enter back into the silicon arms race and lose their enormous profitability subsidizing a console that's too expensive. With 64-bit ARMv8 arrived, and ARM's easy to license architecture, plus their indications to unite their existing ARM handhelds with the home console; it seems pretty likely ARM wins here. Now, which vendor is going to make the ARM chip is a more interesting question.
It's not going to be POWER based. That's pure wishful thinking.
Given how feeble the PPC 750 cores are in today's world, and how feeble ARM11 is compared to today's ARM (e.g. the processor in the old 3DS), moving to a quad ARM A57 derivative would be an upgrade for both the handheld and the set top box console. They can differentiate on the GPU + fixed function bits added on + clockspeed. Keeping the architecture the same but adding/removing certain API calls for the fixed function silicon and GPGPU functions will be a hell of a lot nicer for cross development than the current Wii U - 3DS scheme. More likely is they create a customized ARM core for each
If it really is AMD making it, then they could even keep the GPGPU architecture the same using the lowest count GCN for mobile and a higher count GCN for set top box console. All they'd have to do is their fixed function designs.
I wouldn't downplay Nintendo's chip designing capabilities. The Wii U is remarkably clever and performs surprisingly well given it's tiny size and old architectures. The fact that the Wii U can run in Wii mode without having a separate Wii SOC is pretty incredible. They built the Wii's parts into the Wii U chip (which are actually utilized by the Wii U running in Wii U mode as additional resources) while still upgrading. Very clever engineering. There's a thread on NeoGAF that goes into it in greater detail. Fascinating read.
Side note: I think there's a good likelihood the next console ends up trying to continue the Wii U tablet idea by utilizing the next Handheld as the controller. They keep trying this idea half cocked since the Gameboy and SNES so one of these generations I imagine they will go full bore on the idea. Or maybe it'll be another gen where they don't fully commit
It's not going to be POWER based. That's pure wishful thinking.
Given how feeble the PPC 750 cores are in today's world, and how feeble ARM11 is compared to today's ARM (e.g. the processor in the old 3DS), moving to a quad ARM A57 derivative would be an upgrade for both the handheld and the set top box console. They can differentiate on the GPU + fixed function bits added on + clockspeed. Keeping the architecture the same but adding/removing certain API calls for the fixed function silicon and GPGPU functions will be a hell of a lot nicer for cross development than the current Wii U - 3DS scheme. More likely is they create a customized ARM core for each
If it really is AMD making it, then they could even keep the GPGPU architecture the same using the lowest count GCN for mobile and a higher count GCN for set top box console. All they'd have to do is their fixed function designs.
I wouldn't downplay Nintendo's chip designing capabilities. The Wii U is remarkably clever and performs surprisingly well given it's tiny size and old architectures. The fact that the Wii U can run in Wii mode without having a separate Wii SOC is pretty incredible. They built the Wii's parts into the Wii U chip (which are actually utilized by the Wii U running in Wii U mode as additional resources) while still upgrading. Very clever engineering. There's a thread on NeoGAF that goes into it in greater detail. Fascinating read.
Side note: I think there's a good likelihood the next console ends up trying to continue the Wii U tablet idea by utilizing the next Handheld as the controller. They keep trying this idea half cocked since the Gameboy and SNES so one of these generations I imagine they will go full bore on the idea. Or maybe it'll be another gen where they don't fully commit
Last edited:
railven
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2010
- 6,604
- 561
- 126
If you got by all accounts, Xenon was a byproduct of Cell. Toshiba/Sony were footing the bill while MSFT cashed in on the efforts.
I can't remember exact details but went something along the lines of:
Tosh/Sony/IBM create partnership TSI (or was it STI?) Cell processor work goes under way. Sony/Tosh hyping it up.
MSFT approaches IBM, wants processor ASAP. IBM who has Cell in house shows it to MSFT. MSFT wants it, but Cell isn't done/ready. MSFT takes what Cell is at that point, or something of the sort.
MSFT gets Xenon months/year ahead of Sony getting Cell.
Google-FU FTW:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3904/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php
Last edited:
NTMBK
Lifer
- Nov 14, 2011
- 10,525
- 6,050
- 136
It wasn't the whole of Cell that they shared with MS- just the PowerPC core, the PPU. The SPUs were not designed by IBM, so they did not have the rights to share them.
If you want to know more, I recommend reading this: http://www.amazon.com/The-Race-New-G.../dp/0806531010
If you want to know more, I recommend reading this: http://www.amazon.com/The-Race-New-G.../dp/0806531010
Ugh, the 3ds hardware is already poorly specced for handhelds. If Nintendo uses something like that in a console it'd be hideous....
A high end smartphone SOC would be a better fit. Performance wise, something like the Tegra K1 is in the same ball park as the Wii U (maybe better), so it's not like the performance for a reasonable console isn't there.
Tegra K1 shows that nvidia could have played that game with an ARM core, but they had no proven track record when Sony and MS were shopping, and are probably a little late to the game. They also aren't likely to be as cheap as AMD, and didn't already have ready to go solutions that could be produced at either GF or TSMC.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter