Nintendo's next console "Project Cafe" to be powered by AMD R700 GPU

Wow, thanks genetech for the info, I'm enlightened. *+ rep*

That actually makes sense because the 360 keeps up with Crysis 2's DX9 API and looks similar with a craptastic GPU.
 
genetech said:
@lloose: Your right it doesn't work like that, consoles don't even use DirectX. All DirectX is, is a communication system that allows hardware to communicate with other hardware and software. consoles use only what the GPU they are using has. As the link in my previous post states its called programming to metal where they program not to the direct3d software specs but to the hardware itself. Its the lack of the DX API that makes the consoles seem to keep up with PCs. its why consoles from 2005 are keeping up with PC hardware today its because as stated in the interview the GPUs are not being used to their fullest and are actually bottle necked by the DX API. no such bottle neck exists with consoles. It even states that if they made crysis on X360 then it would probably have played 5 times better than on PC
Click to expand...

I always wondered how that operated with the consoles.

I never knew the DX API was such a huge bottleneck. I guess that's one of the reasons I prefer OpenGL, but even then that would add another layer between the CPU and GPU which the consoles appear not to have.

Good to know. :cool:
 
They simply said a R700 derivative, which includes everything up to the 4890. A 4870 type GPU (800 SPUs) on 40nm with a triple core PowerPC cpu clocked higher than the one found in the xbox360 would be a pretty substantial upgrade in performance and would certainly outmuscle the PS3 and xbox360.

Still I was hoping the GPU would've been something like a 5770 which is the equivalent to the 4870 in speed and has DirectX 11 support, but I guess costs are not low enough to justify it.
 
Lorien said:
They simply said a R700 derivative, which includes everything up to the 4890. A 4870 type GPU (800 SPUs) on 40nm with a triple core PowerPC cpu clocked higher than the one found in the xbox360 would be a pretty substantial upgrade in performance and would certainly outmuscle the PS3 and xbox360.

Still I was hoping the GPU would've been something like a 5770 which is the equivalent to the 4870 in speed and has DirectX 11 support, but I guess costs are not low enough to justify it.
Click to expand...

Hell I was hoping for a die-shrinked 6870, but then I realized that it would still put out too much heat for a console. We don't need an Easy Bake Nintendo, That's what first-gen Xbox 360s are for. Above all else though, I'm hoping for better games. My favorite Generation of Games was the Dreamcast / Gamecube / PS2 / Xbox Era. I felt like developers were still innovating.

I think since the consoles were relatively similarly powered, and had some similar architectures (or ways around differences), developers were able to take more chances in games because it didn't alienate any one gamer on a particular game console. This generation though, there's a significant difference in all the consoles. This was not good IMHO. It made far too many exclusives. Some may say that's good, but I didn't see it that way. I hope from 2012 - 2015 we get that rush of good games again.

Hell, I might have mis-spoke. You could arguably say that exclusives were better back then, because you really had to have extraordinary games push a gamer to one console or another. Just my slightly educated analysis of why games suck now and why they need to get better.
 
XacTacx it doesn't have to run heavy tessellation, there are some conservative levels in which it runs ok, and there are also other instances where the DX11 path is more efficient by far than even DX10.

Also add to the fact that it doesn't have to run 1080p native. Heck the PS3 and Xbox360 do NOT run 1080p native, they run at a lower (sometimes much lower) resolution and later upscale to 1080p, for a list of actual internal running resolutions i present you:
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=333147&page=2
Click the spoiler on that thread.

From a PowerEnvelope standpoint i was hoping something 6850'ish, but i wasn't waiting it to come out right away... we shall wait and see indeed :)
 
Thanks Rev, I forgot about the efficiency improvements in DX11, the same ones that make WotLK faster in DX11. I'll check out the thread you linked, appreciate it.
 
Most Xbox and ps3 gsme nowadays are in 960x540 and are upscaled. Since ms removed the 720p min last year as a requirements.
 
WBurchnall said:
True, but the ones that have been ported have been pretty good. A good example would be RE,,,,4? The wii RE. Wouldn't you rather see a resident evil game made ground up in Dx11 than Dx9/10?
Click to expand...

RE4 while being one of the best games ever IMO was one of the worst ports ever. I had to buy a Xbox360 gamepad to play it. Really how the hell do you port a game to PC without mouse support?
 
I think the R700 architecture would be an excellent choice for a next-generation console, so long as they fix the power management that was completely broken in the 4850/70/90. The 4800 series also has a tessellation unit and architecture very similar to the 5000 series, so you're not losing much in terms of performance. Also, people forget that the R700 massively improved MSAA efficiency in the ROPs, which would remove any need for clunky eDRAM.

Perhaps grab a 4670, pair it with GDDR3/5 and you'll have extremely good 720p performance (about 2-2.5x the power of the other two consoles), in a 30-40w envelope.
 
addictedto60fps said:
Sony has yet to turn a profit on ps3 this generation. I believe the same is true for 360 as well. Wii, on the other hand, has made Nintendo billions of dollars in pure profit this generation. In terms of who has been the most successful financially this generation, Nintendo crushes both Sony and Microsoft, it's not even funny. Also, the system is going to officially be playable at E3, which takes place from June 7 - 9, so we'll know a lot more by then.
Click to expand...
Sony and MS already make a profit per console sold today, whether that makes them break even overall, I have no clue in hell; maybe via software lic costs or LIVE costs, or something.
XacTactX said:
I think this would be massively awesome. And come to think of it, if the new console used a 4770, that would be a pretty formidable machine, albeit still old by today's standards.

EDIT: Plus, you guys whining about DX11, consider this: would you really want an HD 4850 class GPU doing native 1080p with tessellation? Do you know how badly that would kill performance? It would be totally unacceptable for a console.
Click to expand...
Well, if it helps any, the HD4850 does have a tesselator, so seriously.... it could help :) AMD called the HD5870's tesselator a 6th gen tesselation engine, after all :p And the xbox360 has a tesselator :p

Ryoohki360 said:
Most Xbox and ps3 gsme nowadays are in 960x540 and are upscaled. Since ms removed the 720p min last year as a requirements.
Click to expand...
I dunno if it was ever a requirement, lol. So many MS and CoD games that never rendered at 720 :p, either internally, or via the final output.
 
Why is anyone surprised with this? When was the last time Nintendo came out with a real next gen console? They are always using old hardware with some gimmick to make it look hip.
I always hated Nintendo because of that...we have enough with better consoles not able to keep up with PCs to have Nintendo come up with even slower consoles....and dont get me the crap about gameplay over hardware cause there is NO reason to have to choose between one or the other.
 
suiken_2mieu said:
Hell I was hoping for a die-shrinked 6870, but then I realized that it would still put out too much heat for a console. We don't need an Easy Bake Nintendo, That's what first-gen Xbox 360s are for. Above all else though, I'm hoping for better games. My favorite Generation of Games was the Dreamcast / Gamecube / PS2 / Xbox Era. I felt like developers were still innovating.

I think since the consoles were relatively similarly powered, and had some similar architectures (or ways around differences), developers were able to take more chances in games because it didn't alienate any one gamer on a particular game console. This generation though, there's a significant difference in all the consoles. This was not good IMHO. It made far too many exclusives. Some may say that's good, but I didn't see it that way. I hope from 2012 - 2015 we get that rush of good games again.

Hell, I might have mis-spoke. You could arguably say that exclusives were better back then, because you really had to have extraordinary games push a gamer to one console or another. Just my slightly educated analysis of why games suck now and why they need to get better.
Click to expand...

A HD 6870 would have been an enormous step up from what they have in consoles at the moment. I suppose a R700 based GPU isn't too bad. They are quite capable in their own right and considering there will be no software layer and they will be writing to the metal.. it's actually quite respectable power IMHO.

My personal opinion is the reason that games were better on consoles were because they tried to do what consoles are good at. If you have ever tried playing Call of Duty on a console and then on a PC, the PC experience is far superior. Different games are suited towards different platforms.

The fact that consoles are nowadays budget and handicapped PC's is IMO the reason we have so many problems at the moment. The great thing about Nintendo is they work around limitations to make compelling experiences that can't be repeated elsewhere.

I've been a console and PC gamer since the 80's but I started gaming much more on the PC in the 90's. In what is in my opinion the golden era of RPG's, I was obsessed with the likes of Fallout, Half Life 1, Diablo, Warcraft 2 and Baldurs Gate amongst others.

When I bought my Nintendo 64 it was a revelation. I got the chance to experience Super Mario 64, Majoras Mask, Super Smash Bros, Banjo Kazooie.

At the moment I own all the current consoles and a decent PC. Most of my gaming is done on the PC and I have little interest in most console games. FPS games don't do it for me on a console but that is what the PS3 and 360 generally push. The 360 and PS3 genuinely feel like handicapped PC's to me most of the time.

I don't really care about first person shooters or the likes of Elder Scrolls V on "Project Cafe" but if Nintendo can make a compelling Zelda or Super Mario 64 that resembles anything like a Pixar movie then I will be a happy camper and will consider a Project Cafe console as being complimentary to my PC.

On the other hand the next generation Playstation and Xbox with Call of Duty 19? Hmm yeah not so excited for that one.
 
I think the point here for Nintendo is to leap frog over the hardware. Nintendo does not want to compete with PCs, they just want to have a nice couple years where they are the powerful console to develop for. I wonder if M$ or sony will not try to make an upgraded console as well if they start to see trouble. They had to know this was coming.

Also what kratos said is kind of true and annoying. Consoles are good at multiplayer and simple games. The best games are always best on a PC but now days you have so many console titles which do not even support split screen MP. They go online and play dumbed down versions of games that are best on a PC and leave out all the features that actually make a console different. For me I just felt like what is the point only bought a PC.
 
Another thing you have to think about is cost.
Most consoles are complete money sinks. Microsoft at one point was losing money with every 360 sold. It wouldn't make sense to install hardware that is expensive as the current hardware. Putting in a 6950 level gpu would be dumb. Even in bulk, I imagine it would cost almost half of the MSRP of the new console, not to mention that the need solid hardware that they have been working with for a while. An R700 gpu has been around for a while now and Nintendo has had time to work with it.
 
jeremyshaw said:
Sony and MS already make a profit per console sold today, whether that makes them break even overall, I have no clue in hell; maybe via software lic costs or LIVE costs, or something.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about breaking even here. Neither Microsoft nor Sony have broken even yet on their investments. Sony lost approximately $5 billion due to PS3 and most likely will never recoup that cost. Microsoft, while they're doing well now, has not broken even either. Nintendo is the only company of the 3 to be making billions of dollars in profit.
 
shaolin95 said:
Why is anyone surprised with this? When was the last time Nintendo came out with a real next gen console? They are always using old hardware with some gimmick to make it look hip.
I always hated Nintendo because of that...we have enough with better consoles not able to keep up with PCs to have Nintendo come up with even slower consoles....and dont get me the crap about gameplay over hardware cause there is NO reason to have to choose between one or the other.
Click to expand...
Jesus christ there is so much wrong with this post I don't even know where to begin. Do you people actually think this shit?

Nintendo's consoles up until the Wii were pretty competitive, graphically, although the use of cartridges instead of CDs hurt the N64. But, understand that as a PC gamer you can just buy whatever components you want to use - Nintendo however is selling the full package, and they need their consoles to be profitable. They don't have other income in like Sony or MS does where they can just run their business in the red year after year to be a loss-leader with console sales and (eventually) make it up with software licensing. So yes, when Nintendo designs a console, they do have to make sacrifices to ensure that the console will be not be so far in the red that they lose money selling it (like Sony did, selling the PS3 at launch for $500 when it cost them $800 in parts to build).

Regardless, this console will be significantly more powerful than either the XBOX360 or the PS3, and since neither MS nor Sony were planning on launching a new console until ~2015, this could hopefully drive faster turnaround, in which case PC games will start looking better as well.
 
addictedto60fps said:
I'm talking about breaking even here. Neither Microsoft nor Sony have broken even yet on their investments. Sony lost approximately $5 billion due to PS3 and most likely will never recoup that cost. Microsoft, while they're doing well now, has not broken even either. Nintendo is the only company of the 3 to be making billions of dollars in profit.
Click to expand...

I believe it was Howard Stringer, Sony CEO that said the Playstation 3 as a whole would never break even. The 360 on the other hand did make a profit one year but as a whole it is also a massive monkey sink. If Sony or Microsoft were console only companies they would have probably been bankrupt by now.

The problem with the PS3 is that it cost a lot to produce and they lost billions on selling it at a loss. The 360 was sold at a loss too but the main issue there was that Microsoft weren't making money on most software. Console games generally cost a little more than PC games, in the US I believe console games are for $60 and PC games for $$50. The reason for that discrepency in pricing is because that extra $10 goes to Microsoft or Sony, it's a sort of "tax" they collect on every game sold on their respective systems. Microsoft didn't collect that fee on the 360 in order to get more developers to develop for the system.

Nintendo on the other hand. They made money on every single system they ever sold, every single one. They had very good margins on their hardware.

To top it off Nintendo absolutely destroyed the competition in software. Not only did they sell a ton of software but some of the best selling software was first party so they profited more from every copy sold.

If you look at the average blockbuster game nowadays, the cost of making many modern games is so high that you may have to sell 3 million copies just to break even. On the other hand something like Mario Kart Wii is going to cost a lot less to make. A lot of Nintendo games wouldn't have to sell many more than a hundred thousand to break even. If Mario Kart sees profits after 100K games and went on to sell 26 million copies.. well Mario Kart has profit margins that are in a realm of its own. Many Nintendo games on the Wii have been massively profitable to a degree that nothing apart from World of Warcraft can compete in profit. Nintendo's in house Wii games have sold in the hundreds of millions and funneled incredible amounts of money into their bank.

Now top that off with how successful the DS is and Nintendo and their rivals are not really rivals at all. Nintendo in many regards is simply in a class of its own.

I think the problem is we focus too much on the wrong numbers. I mean when Modern Warfare came out and it sold 20 million copies most of us were in awe. I would highly recommend you go and look at Activisions financial reports released later that year. Even after selling 20 million MW copies they were in the red!

Having one hit game and 50 games that lose money is not a healthy way to do business. Big publishers have been genuinely in the red for years now and those were years they released big games like Modern Warfare, Grand Theft Auto 4 and many others. A lot of big publishers are in trouble which is why they are attacking piracy and second hand games instead of acknowledging the change will have to come from within.

Nintendo as a company, a hardware and software developer is massively massively profitable. Nintendo is a console only company but is overall worth more than Sony combined. Sony own 40% of Hollywood, numerous record studios and make many things yet everything they do combined is smaller than only Nintendo's computer game business.

Nintendo simply couldn't ask for more right now, the world is theirs to do with it as they please. Now here they are releasing a console that will be half the price of its competition by the time Sony and Microsoft get to the market. Shigeru Miyamoto obviously plays monopoly a lot because he couldn't get it wrong if he wanted to.
 
Nintendo is a gaming company, and has never tried to be anything else. Every piece of hardware they sell is at a profit, their first party titles are the best in the industry, and they have franchises that have lasted close to 30 years that Sony or MS could only dream of one day matching.
 
addictedto60fps said:
I'm talking about breaking even here. Neither Microsoft nor Sony have broken even yet on their investments. Sony lost approximately $5 billion due to PS3 and most likely will never recoup that cost. Microsoft, while they're doing well now, has not broken even either. Nintendo is the only company of the 3 to be making billions of dollars in profit.
Click to expand...

This is probably another reason why we wont be seeing a next gen console out of those two for a while. They are still trying to recoup cost instead of cut them.
 
I just wonder how much they will charge for the component cable for that new console =)
 
Folks, dont get it wrong: IMO, they said R700 just as the Xbox 360 has an R600: its a chip codename for consoles-only.

I don't think it will have anything in common with what we use as its use is totally different: I think it will be a custom design, and thus gets this name.
 
prava said:
Folks, dont get it wrong: IMO, they said R700 just as the Xbox 360 has an R600: its a chip codename for consoles-only.

I don't think it will have anything in common with what we use as its use is totally different: I think it will be a custom design, and thus gets this name.
Click to expand...

This is possible, but unlikely, as overly custom hardware cost a premium.
 
suiken_2mieu said:
This is possible, but unlikely, as overly custom hardware cost a premium.
Click to expand...

Well, even if the new Nintendo console sells 1/4 of what the Wii did we are talking about a dozen million consoles. Do you really think at this volume custom matters? It doesn't.
Also, they will try to build the gpu on the best possible node, so they can save every little penny off of it.
 
suiken_2mieu said:
This is probably another reason why we wont be seeing a next gen console out of those two for a while. They are still trying to recoup cost instead of cut them.
Click to expand...

True, but I'm hoping that's not the case, as we need to push graphics further. PC games have been stuck in a rut because many games are still being programmed with the lowest denominator in mind (consoles that are 5 - 6 years old). At least the successor to Wii is a step in the right direction for the advancement of graphics.
 
I would be happy if they could step up their GPU to something similar to a 4850 or 4770 (same card I'm running in my rig) and give developers two options:

Increase IQ but keep weird resolutions scaled up like the 360 and PS3 are doing
Increase resolution to 1080 levels but take a small hit in IQ (similar to playing with no AA, motion blur, etc)

or better yet, give the player of the game the option to control graphics settings between the two....


hahahaha, yeah, giving console players options... that's uh... that's rich. Sorry about that.
 
To be honest, I don't know what they need hardware wise to push their current lineup of games. If you try and get too realistic with their games it strips away part of the fun. I could never play a Mario game that had realistic graphics. I would enjoy seeing hardware that could push the boundaries of what can be done WITH the Nintendo style, but I hope they keep things cartoony and fun, like they have since the NES.

****Exception is with the Zelda series.****
The funny thing is that even though I didn't enjoy the Wii all that much, I will buy their next console regardless. I just really hope it has a normal controller instead of some weird motion based one (or any other gimmick).
 
addictedto60fps said:
Sony has yet to turn a profit on ps3 this generation. I believe the same is true for 360 as well. Wii, on the other hand, has made Nintendo billions of dollars in pure profit this generation. In terms of who has been the most successful financially this generation, Nintendo crushes both Sony and Microsoft, it's not even funny. Also, the system is going to officially be playable at E3, which takes place from June 7 - 9, so we'll know a lot more by then.
Click to expand...

360 has been making a profit and broke even in 2009 thanks to the extremely large XBL base

Next console would do well to have some dedicated GDDRX ram.. about 1/2 a gig of it would be sufficient for 1080p
 
Last edited:
genetech said:
All I can say is that Nintendo is close to a 120 years old. If they don't have the lead in the market they at least have the ultimate level of seniority.
Click to expand...

Hahahahahahaha, Nintendo 120 years old hahahahahhaha
That puts them as being formed in 1891?

Right. The first commercial lightbulb were invented in roughly 1878-1879 depending on who you believe invited it, and just a few years later Nintendo was making consoles and first party games. Hahaha. Nevermind the fact that the first binary computer made by Konrad Zuse, the Z1, wasn't made until 1936. I wonder what Nintendo did during those 40 years while waiting for anything resembling modern computers to be invented? Made 'Mario' on peices of paper and flipped them real fast?
 
WBurchnall said:
Hahahahahahaha, Nintendo 120 years old hahahahahhaha
That puts them as being formed in 1891?

Right. The first commercial lightbulb were invented in roughly 1878-1879 depending on who you believe invited it, and just a few years later Nintendo was making consoles and first party games. Hahaha. Nevermind the fact that the first binary computer made by Konrad Zuse, the Z1, wasn't made until 1936. I wonder what Nintendo did during those 40 years while waiting for anything resembling modern computers to be invented? Made 'Mario' on peices of paper and flipped them real fast?
Click to expand...

Nintendo history

Nintendo started as a small Japanese business by Fusajiro Yamauchi near the end of 1887 as Nintendo Koppai. Based in Kyoto, Japan, the business produced and marketed a playing card game called Hanafuda. In recognition of its card-playing roots, the name "Nintendo" means "leave luck to heaven". The cards, which were all handmade, soon began to gain popularity, and Yamauchi had to hire assistants to mass produce cards to keep up with demand..

Stupid, you did a great job of making yourself fit the part to a T.... btw, nintendo released their first game console back in 1977.....
 
zing !!! hopefully next gen sony/ms consoles will support dx11 , they should do a mid-cycle revamp on consoles with increased gpu/cpu specs that allow for higher res/aa levels while still being backwardly compatible in terms of software and hardware.
 
KaptainKhaos said:
zing !!! hopefully next gen sony/ms consoles will support dx11 , they should do a mid-cycle revamp on consoles with increased gpu/cpu specs that allow for higher res/aa levels while still being backwardly compatible in terms of software and hardware.
Click to expand...

Maybe they will support aero glass and have ie9 with them too.
 
Nintendo doesn't seem to care about the graphics anymore. They seem to focus on the immersion. They make pretty creative stuff e.g. their controllers and the wii motion controlls etc.. I don't expect any kind of graphics tech push by nintendo unless they change their strategy. They are probably more than happy letting microsoft and sony go all out on their consoles and have to cut prices and sell at a loss or break even, whereas nintendo more than likely profilts from each cheap to build wii sold.
 
This is why MS or Sony is going to come out with their next console next year, being behind Nintendo on the tech curve is just sad. Nintendo has to release a new console because they've lost most of their advantages (lower production cost, monopoly on the motion controller, low demand for HD consoles, etc.).

If any console company were smart, they'd drop the long cycles and come out with a new backward compatible model every year (ala the PC). This way, they wouldn't have to take losses for bleeding-edge hardware early in the cycle, nor fall behind the tech curve late in the cycle.
 
Well i was trying to find a comparison between x1950xt and a 4870, but alas i failed to find "hard" numbers.

The numbers i have seen point to 2-3 times as much power in a conservative manner, without accounting the notable increase due to much better AA algorythms and thus actual 4-5x performance with eyecandy on.

If anyone has a link to a review with those hard numbers i would appreciate it a lot.
 
Stone Cold said:
This is why MS or Sony is going to come out with their next console next year, being behind Nintendo on the tech curve is just sad.
Click to expand...

Why do you view Nintendo as inferior?

If any console company were smart, they'd drop the long cycles and come out with a new backward compatible model every year (ala the PC).
Click to expand...

They already do that. Consoles go through multiple revisions throughout the generation.
 
450 said:
Why do you view Nintendo as inferior?



They already do that. Consoles go through multiple revisions throughout the generation.
Click to expand...
I think he means with improved specifications (GPU/CPU) not just different size hard drives, smaller, etc. Most of the revisions to the consoles are to fix problems or cut costs.
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
Nintendo started as a small Japanese business by Fusajiro Yamauchi near the end of 1887 as Nintendo Koppai. Based in Kyoto, Japan, the business produced and marketed a playing card game called Hanafuda. In recognition of its card-playing roots, the name "Nintendo" means "leave luck to heaven". The cards, which were all handmade, soon began to gain popularity, and Yamauchi had to hire assistants to mass produce cards to keep up with demand..
Click to expand...

Yes, the post describes Nintendo as having ultimate senority. How exactly does Nintendo's history making card-games give them seniority in the game console market? Yes, 1977 is their first console date. After several other companies had made consoles like Sega, Atari, etc. Their senority didn't guarantee them future success or lasting success in any case. With all of Atari/Sega's current generation gaming consoles.
 
Revdarian said:
Well i was trying to find a comparison between x1950xt and a 4870, but alas i failed to find "hard" numbers.

The numbers i have seen point to 2-3 times as much power in a conservative manner, without accounting the notable increase due to much better AA algorythms and thus actual 4-5x performance with eyecandy on.

If anyone has a link to a review with those hard numbers i would appreciate it a lot.
Click to expand...

This would be a tricky comparison to make....b/c...we still have to see what Nintendo and developer's design philosophies turn out to be. While the x1950xt in the xbox 360 is noticeable less powerful in raw power than a 4xxx series gpu(note not necessarily a 4870), the x1950xt renders games at under 720p. If the 4870 attempts to render at what is often triple the resolution at 1080p, it's a lot harder on any gpu.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top