ATI talks Rev graphics chip News
Wii News by Ellie Gibson
As those who are eagerly awaiting the arrival of the Revolution may know, technology giant ATI is currently hard at work developing the graphics chip that will power the new machine - and now they've gone on record to tell us a little bit more about it.
In a recent interview with RevolutionReport.com, ATI's John Swiminer confirmed that the Revolution chip, currently titled Hollywood, will not be based on current or forthcoming PC architecture - but he didn't say whether it is instead based on Flipper, the chip used in the GameCube.
"Hollywood is a specific design and is in no way reflective of PC technology. Even when the Flipper chips came out, people were asking that question: "Is this a spin-off of something done on the PC?", and the answer is no," Swiminer stated.
"It is designed the same as the Flipper was - from the ground up for a specific console. [It's a] totally different sort of architecture from what you might find on the PC. Certainly, there are some underlying values - you know, how you get graphics on the screen - that's there. It's not, for example, like we took a PC design and said 'oh, you know what? If we tweak this and test this, it will work in a console'."
The question still remains as to just how powerful the Revolution will be - and Swiminer didn't shed any more light on the issue, reiterating only that the focus of the design and the manufacturing of the Revolution is centred around gameplay and innovation rather than technical prowess and flash graphical functionality.
"ATI is focused, as is Nintendo, in making Revolution a great, gaming entertainment platform. I know that a lot of journalists are very focused on specs. The key thing to keep in mind is that Nintendo, with ATI's help, is trying to create a game console where you don't have to look at specs," Swiminer said.
"From a broader perspective, we share in Nintendo's position that this console will be devoted to the general gamer. When you have a game developer developing for this, the goal is to ensure that they don't have to worry about the complexity that is required to develop the games by making them 'jump through hoops.'"
"That was one of the benefits of working on the GameCube; developers were saying that it is quite easy to develop for and there are not a lot of complexities so they could produce titles easily," Swiminer continued.
"That being said, we want consumers to look at the game, play the game and be involved in it. We are doing our very best to make this Nintendo gaming experience the very best it can be."
When questioned on the completion and availability of Revolution's Hollywood graphics chip, Swiminer simply stated: "I know that Nintendo has committed to 2006 availability. Certainly, game developers need some time to start developing games for it. I can't say anything more than that."
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
|
evilashchris
16/01/06 @ 10:59
0
i hope they change the code name from 'hollywood' to 'skippy'.. oh and bloody get a move on too!
|
|
ElephantMonkey
16/01/06 @ 11:09
0
hurrah for all of you who knew about this
but some of us don't go around every news site everyday. This is the first time I've read of this so as far as I'm concered better old news than no news.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 16/01/06 @ 11:11
|
|
kangarootoo
16/01/06 @ 13:10
0
"hoorah for old news"
/slap "I'm sure I read this about a week ago on C&VG's website" /another slap
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 16/01/06 @ 13:11
|
|
0
Which is why i respect them by sticking to their guns this time and not releasing pointless meaningless bullsh*t specs.
I *do* remember a time when everyone presumed the cube was going to be less powerful than the ps2, just because it was going to be smaller and cheaper, and because nintendo had said power wasnt a major issue to them. Kinda like how things are now. But then I look to the gamecube and compare against ps2... |
|
ElephantMonkey
16/01/06 @ 15:03
0
the wireless controllers of this generation consoles will make having multiple consoles even easier!
|
|
0
Smelly, away and take your face for a shite! I own three current consoles (Xbox, PS2, NGC) and have to say the NGC is the least played of the lot!
What the feck has that got to do with the price of turnips? All I said was everyone presumed the GC was going to be underpowered when it came out (due to price, size and nintendo playing down the specs), and (when comparing it against the other two) it most certainly wasnt. |
|
0
Nah, I wouldnt say "talking out yer arse", Im much more polite than that, and i dont really understand why people get aggressively upset by such things. But the way i see it (And point i was trying - badly - to make) was summed up in yer post:
But in terms of actual muscle. Very much the wee man of last gen. Which is my point, on paper it LOOKS less powerful, in practice (especially in comparision to the ps2) it's more than capable. No doubt me saying this will upset some ps2 fans or something though. Regardless of which, my point being that the cube pretty much proved you dont need all those fancy pointless figures to actually have stunning looking games, and as such I *still* dont have any doubts that the revolution wont be as equally impressive in practice (regardless of how technically powerful, or not, on paper). If me saying this upsets anyone, then i appologise..
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 16/01/06 @ 15:54
|
|
ElephantMonkey
16/01/06 @ 15:58
0
Anyway... back to the article. I don't really see why the PC graphics chips are not good. They are made for games after all. What could a console graphics chip do different from a PC graphics chip?
|
|
0
They are made for games after all.
Yeah, but pc graphics cards have two major drawbacks: 1. They have to be compatible with previous graphics cards (regardless of whether technology has moved on). Therefor they wont be as optimised as a graphics card would be if you didnt care about backwards compat, etc. 2. They have to work in a pc (which isnt exactly designed to play games), for example the memory layout on the pc is horrid for games (which is one thing microsoft improved upon with the xbox afaik) |
|
0
Paper doesn't mean shit my friend.
aye. Seems like we're going around in circles agreeing with each other here! :-) But the fact that all three companies are lying to varying degrees is what causes the trouble... Which is my point of why i have more respect for nintnendo this time around, as they're keeping mum about all that, and not spouting the crap.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 16/01/06 @ 18:12
|
|
Carrybagma
16/01/06 @ 18:29
0
Anyway... back to the article. I don't really see why the PC graphics chips are not good. They are made for games after all. What could a console graphics chip do different from a PC graphics chip?
They are good! They're being used in PS3/360 of course. It's just that by sticking with the same chip architecture (Flipper), Rev-devs can re-use the same tools and designs, producing games a lot more cheaply and quickly than they would on a new architecture with new tools etc. Recent revisions of Porsche 911s have proved that an old design can prove better than new designs. I'm sure 'Flipper2' will do the same. |
|
0
Eh, MrT, you mention the SNES versus the Genesis/Megadrive. Now, the SNES had a 2.60 something MHz processor, while the Genesis went above 7. Now, let's have a look at SNES and Genesis games. You'd be hard pressed to find anything on the Megadrive that looked as good as the Donkey Kong Country games, especially 2 and 3. And those games didn't use any sort of special chip. Point being, specs don't have to tell you anything about the actual graphical quality of a game.
Yet you assume the Rev's games will look bad compared to the competition. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. 2 to 3 times as powerful as the Cube? We have yet to hear any info on how we should interpret that. For now, all Xbox360 games ALSO look to be about 2 to 3 times what the Cube can do. Especially if you compare it to stuff like Metroid Prime, Soul Calibur 2 or the Rogue Squadron games (while RS3 wasn't very good, you can't deny it looked unbelievable in places. Especially those forest levels...). And in fact, a few 360 games look WORSE than those Cube games mentioned, but I guess that's the developer's fault. Which brings up another point which I'm sure you've heard before. The upper limit for visual quality is fast becoming the developer rather than the hardware. Another reason why I'm convinced the Rev will look virtually identical to both its competitors. |
|
Carrybagma
16/01/06 @ 20:40
0
I think you need to do your research a bit more.
I think you need to look at what was being asked a bit more. And by who. :P |
|
Carrybagma
16/01/06 @ 21:20
0
You're both right. Rev-devs will be way up the sdk learning curve and should be producing impressive graphics early in the Rev's lifecycle. However, the Rev will lack MHz, pixels, cores, pipes, transistors, buttons, modes, flashing lights, screws etc. etc. which will mean it shall be named 'gay' and laughed at by PS360 owners.
Just as the DS was when the PSP was announced. |
|
kangarootoo
16/01/06 @ 21:22
0
@BristeCliste
Only just got back on, busy afternoon, so I'm a bit late. The slaps are people making "this is old news" comments. They are fast becoming the next "so better than Halo" comment (which I know was a joke, but it was shit one and got overused badly). ElephantMonkey summed up my thoughts precisely, so I just stuck to childish insults :) |
|
0
MrT: yes, I noticed that a while after making my post, sorry. Well, I still wanted to make those points anyway. ;)
Just as the DS was when the PSP was announced. Except the graphical difference between PSP and DS is still noticable (in 3D games anyway, 2D not really), thus providing more fanboy food. I don't think it will be that way with the next gen of home consoles. |
|
manic_mouse
16/01/06 @ 21:49
0
"Except the graphical difference between PSP and DS is still noticable (in 3D games anyway, 2D not really), thus providing more fanboy food. I don't think it will be that way with the next gen of home consoles."
Between the PS3 and Xbox 360 perhaps. But without HD support, less than 1/5th of the main RAM of the others, a significantly slower CPU and GPU (according to devs) the difference between the Rev and the other two, especially when we get further into the generation, will be night and day on a HD TV. That is if the information we've been given is correct. But then graphics were never the point of the Revolution, now, were they?
Edited 2 times,
most recently on 16/01/06 @ 21:50
|
|
SeesThroughAll
17/01/06 @ 00:57
0
Just a reminder about the old SNES/Genesis differences. In those days, Nintendo DID use comparisons between both machines to advertise their console, and DID publish both consoles specs as a selling point. I believe the SNES had a slightly different architecture (I don't remember the details exactly) that enabled it to display superior graphics, with more colors, more sprites, etc.
I hope someone can post them old specs to clarify on this, I would appreciate. Anyway, the point is, the SNES beat the Genesis with graphics, which means that Nintendo had and used a hardware advantage back then, and would be doing the same now if it was possible. Thankfully, they are now forced to cativate consumers differently. |
|
0
manic_mouse: how can you say that when some people are already having difficulty spotting the difference between some current gen titles and some nextgen titles?
SeesThroughAll: the Genesis had literally three times the processing power that the SNES did. These days, it would not have looked good on them. But they still held their own with some special hardware functions and good game development overall. |
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
