Post by: HereticPB on July 20, 2005, 03:16:31 PM
Sad, Sad, World but hey I am in GI Magazine one way or another!
HtPB
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 20, 2005, 04:23:00 PM
Post by: HereticPB on July 20, 2005, 06:43:26 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on July 20, 2005, 07:35:42 PM
Is Game Informer reporting these as factual Rev specs or just speculation? If these are the specs then HereticPB's blog might not even be the source. If these are real any valid source who knew their sh!t would have the same info.
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 20, 2005, 07:41:29 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on July 20, 2005, 07:52:35 PM
That would be acceptable. They would be able to put RE5 on there for example barring any crack influenced controller designs.
Post by: MrMojoRising on July 20, 2005, 07:58:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"I think they said that these specs are superior to those of the 360 and weaker than the PS3"
That would be acceptable. They would be able to put RE5 on there for example barring any crack influenced controller designs.
Ooh, that's a good idea! Have a crack pipe like device on the controller. You could suck on it like you're actually doing crack and then in the game mario (or whoever) will lose his job and his wife and live in a box on a street corner trading sexual favors for drugs! Too bad Nintendo is so k!ddy and they would never do something cool like that.
Post by: BranDonk Kong on July 20, 2005, 08:19:04 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 20, 2005, 09:11:48 PM
Post by: Arbok on July 20, 2005, 10:26:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Perry Bible Fellowship: "Game System", anyone? =D
I thought Nintendo already did that with the first Mario Party for the N64?
*looks at his hand where that damn tug of war game left a huge blister...*
Post by: ShyGuy on July 21, 2005, 05:52:13 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on July 21, 2005, 06:48:35 AM
Post by: hudsonhawk on July 21, 2005, 07:48:44 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Can someone with more technical knowledge explain how these specs compare to the other consoles? Comparing to IGN's Xbox 360 specs I see about a quarter of the SRAM the X360 has but about 25x the embedded DRAM. Plus the X360 has a faster CPU but the Rev has 2 CPUs or something. Is this good? Bad? What's the difference between SRAM and DRAM?
Is Game Informer reporting these as factual Rev specs or just speculation? If these are the specs then HereticPB's blog might not even be the source. If these are real any valid source who knew their sh!t would have the same info.
I think the big advantage to the Rev hardware is that developers actually understand how to use the more traditional dual G5 chip that Nintendo is using.
Developers are pretty skeptical that they'll get anywhere near the kind of performance out of these crazy new multi-core chips that's been promised. Basically, both Sony and MS are chose cheap chipsets (small die chips) that look really good on paper; but since they're so simple (no branch prediction, etc) it passes the burden onto the developers.
Nintendo could win a lot of third party support, or at least respect from the devs, for using a traditional CPU. I'm guessing the HD announcement had nothing to do with consumers, and everything to do with selling themselves as the affordable console to develop for.
See Gabe Newell's interview in Next Generation today to get an idea as to how developers feel about MS and Sony's respective CPU decisions.
Post by: vudu on July 21, 2005, 09:05:46 AM
QuoteWouldn't a regular-sized disc with a garbage top layer have ~6 GB?
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
ShyGuy: Doesn't make any sense even then, the GCs disks are dual layered, their top layer is only garbage so they are harder to rip. With usable data in there the total woulöd still be only 3 GB.
Post by: ib2kool4u912 on July 21, 2005, 09:36:39 AM
Post by: BiLdItUp1 on July 21, 2005, 11:39:10 AM
Like everyone's saying, the Dual Layered HD discs are a joke. HD-DVD starts at 15gb, and that's in a single layer. Panasonic is backing BluRay, no point creating another inferior format...
Also, there's 16x as much DRAM as the GC here, but only 5.33x the SRAM. The GC had 24MB of SRAM and 16MB of DRAM, now we have 128MB SRAM and 256DRAM. Why the sudden increase in the DRAM? Does this matter, and can someone explain what this means? Has the SRAM been relegated to being the memory for the graphics card and the DRAM become the 'main' memory? or am I talking out of my arse?
Hmm...I dunno if all this stuff is in line with Nintendo's comments about being affordable and whatnot, but hey, they downplayed the GCs graphics power also, and it turned out pretty good.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 22, 2005, 04:13:33 AM
I don't think those specs are real so I won't comment on the choices of RAM distribution. Needless to say everybody but Nintendo thinks the GC's memory was a stupid idea.
Post by: joedick on July 22, 2005, 10:20:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: HereticPB
Well, I see GI Magazine issue 148 has some specs for the REV. Hehehe. The funny part is that those specs came directly from my blog site. Yet, GI is not kind enough to print where they came from or even mention my nickname.
Sad, Sad, World but hey I am in GI Magazine one way or another!
HtPB
I don't get it. I mean, if these specs are legit, why is it assumed they were stolen from you? Couldn't they have gotten it from someone else in the know?
Post by: OptimusPrime on July 22, 2005, 11:17:04 AM
Post by: Galford on July 22, 2005, 08:16:24 PM
Post by: Arbok on July 22, 2005, 08:18:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Galford
I think Galford just pretty much summed up this whole situation...
Post by: KDR_11k on July 22, 2005, 09:02:08 PM
