Revolution: "It's like a souped up Xbox"

[Paco]

People have this idea that consoles are built just like PC's. Everyone knows that more RAM in a PC increases peformance but with a console it's simply not true, it only needs th RAM specific for the processors to organize the graphical data it has to read. So people see a # in RAM spec that is lower than an HD system and think it's going to suck.



I can understand that it wont be as powerful as the PS3 in theory, but it will be on par with the 360 (in theory). Also, multiple core CPU's do not make graphics, they are there to run compute cycles. MS opted for the triple core because the system is going to be displaying HD graphics across 200 million polygons (based on what MS says) so it needs heavy central processing to make sure everything runs smoothly. But a fast processor does not imediately grant better graphics to a system, the hardware takes the rom and spills it out and the processor has to make sense of it all. For example, if you put a slower processor in the GC, RE4 would run at a lower fps since it's trying to compute everything and is getting overwhelmed but it would not change anything about the graphical quality of the game. if the CPU was slower, a game developer would use things like the caches or other processors and caches in the GPU to get the game at an acceptable frame rate. This is the main reason why (compression ratios included), during the life of a console, the graphics improve with each game released. That 'organization' becomes more and more dynamic to the point that they can squeeze things in that normally wouldn't be available because it would chugalug trying to make sense of it all.

This is also why, if a developer chose to do so, a game running at normal resolutions on the 360 could look vastly improved (as far as polys and effects with a reasonable fps go). In other words, that is what Nintendo is doing to create a cheaper system that is capable of displaying on par graphics. To get PDZ on Revolution (480p from th ground up), you would only need half the resources of the 360 - which is basically what the Revolution is. Textures wouldn't look as sharp, but you'd only notice the difference if you had an HDTV and the proper connection anyway.

People are hearing all these grande numbers and hugely bloated system specs for 360 and PS3 and not seeing a major improvement in graphics. The games look like marginal improvements over last generation because everything is now running at full HD, not upconverted, but litteraly fed in to the rom at super high resolutions which takes ALOT of power to display. Remove the super high resolutions and suddenly that computing power can go to more important things. which is what Nintendo is thinking.

What has you thinking that the GPU's are going to be on par? From what I've read I've seen the PS3 and 360 being refered to as "monsters" and "stupidly powerful," etc. What I've read of the Revolution is "a souped up Xbox" and "double everything in the Gamecube and you have the Revoultion." The bottom line is that it's not on par, and as HDTV's become standard (and they will over the next several years) then that difference will become all the more obvious.

Not seeing the major difference yet is what you meant to say. I don't see anything of this generation that comes close to Gears of War or those shots of Too Human.

I'm not really sure what to think yet. Hell, we haven't even seen any real games for the PS3.