Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Revolution Specs

Apparently, in the next issue of Gameinformer, the Revolution Specs will be posted, here they are

Rev Specs:
2 G5 1.8GHZ CPUS (NOT 2XCORE)
512K L2 Cache

1200 MHZ Front Side BUS - Xbox 360’s FSB is 1000 MHz

600MHz GPU with 12MB embedded 1T SRAM – 2x Pipes 4x T read?

128MB 1T SRAM MAIN MEMORY 600 MHz (L3 Cache to CPU and GPU)

256MB 400MHZ NEC design embedded DRAM

Embedded 16-BIT HD 7.1Digital sound chip
Dedicated sound bandwidth with zero affect on CPU

6GB HD Dual Layer Panasonic Discs

When combined Rev CPUs equal 3.6 GHz. Uses copper wire for less heat and is 200MHZ faster than X360 via FSB

A 3:1 balance ratio between CPU and RAM

1:1 balance ratio between GPU and Ram


Go check out Nintendo-Centrum for complete info on the rumor.

Note: I believe this, what do you think? Post your comments

13 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

sure, it's belivable.

7/20/2005 10:03 PM  
Blogger DlphnMod said...

IBM told us that the REV CPU was very different than 360 or PS3 so it sounds believeable. I'm not so sure about the audio processor. If there is no HD, i'm not holding my breath for digital audio.

Of course that really sux.

I'm pretty sure that Game Informer is only printing this as speculation, not fact so it really makes no difference whether we see it on a blog or magazine.

We still know squat.

7/20/2005 10:13 PM  
Blogger Nomadx469 said...

DlphnMod, speculation is correct, i have the issue of GI and it nothing confirmed, but like it saids "leaked information"

7/20/2005 11:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As far as I remember those specs were released pre-E3 as a speculation of some specialist or something about what Nintendo would show. Unfortunately I don't have a link to this.

But I remember that they were posted already a few weeks ago on www.inhardware.de. Also as rumored specs and I think someone pointed out there that they were already posted. But that page is currently down :/. And in German.

7/20/2005 11:26 PM  
Blogger HereticPB said...

I believe I was the first to post them. June 13-14

7/20/2005 11:50 PM  
Blogger Praxis said...

Fake. The bus speed of a G5 processor is always HALF that of the processor. See Apple's PowerMac line for proof.

2 G5 1.8GHZ CPUS (NOT 2XCORE)
512K L2 Cache

1200 MHZ Front Side BUS - Xbox 360’s FSB is 1000 MHz


It should be 900 MHz.


"6GB HD Dual Layer Panasonic Discs"

Wait a sec. It already has been confirmed it can read dual layer DVD's. Why would the game disks be on SMALLER disks?

"When combined Rev CPUs equal 3.6 GHz. Uses copper wire for less heat and is 200MHZ faster than X360 via FSB"

Any hardware engineer knows you CAN NOT add up the processor clock speeds like that. The SMP overheads mean the performance is not equal to twice the two processors.

"A 3:1 balance ratio between CPU and RAM

1:1 balance ratio between GPU and Ram"

These 'balance ratios' are made up specs, as I have NEVER seen any system with a 'RAM balance ratio' before.


I've seen this in the past. It's DEFINITELY fake.

7/21/2005 2:13 AM  
Blogger HereticPB said...

Heard of customization? Thank you drive through.

7/21/2005 3:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hereticpb said...

Heard of customization? Thank you drive through.

lol its called a custom cpu

7/21/2005 4:26 AM  
Anonymous iMark said...

No praxis, the bus speed isn't always 1/2 the cpu speed, as a closer look at the recent Powermac specs should convince you - the base powermac features a 1.6Ghz cpu with a 600Mhz bus. Other cpu multipliers are entirely feasible and are used in most current PC's.

However, the bit shouts fake loudly is the insistence that the Revolution will feature two PowerPC cpu's as opposed a single dual core chip. I can promise you this will not be the case simply for reasons of cost. Don't forget the that Revolution is intended to be a relatively low cost machine - adding extra cpu's makes little economic sense.

And please ignore the comment that two 1.8Ghz cpu is better than the Xbox360's since 3.2Ghz. It's difficult if not impossible to infer anything about the performance of the cpu from the clock speed alone - the underlying architecture is all important. It's entirely possible that a single 1.8Ghz could outperform the Xbox360's higher clocked processor. That's not to say it that the Revolution's cpu will do so (in fact it seems unlikely given Nintendo's emphasis on cost cutting so far), but it does mean that without a deeper understanding of the underlying processor architecture numbers like the clock speed alone aren't going to tell you a whole lot.

If these specs do turn out to be accurate (and they sound in the right ball park to me), it'll almost certainly turn out to be a dual core processor (and for what it's worth the performance differentiation between a dual core and dual processor setup are likely to be relatively small in any case).

7/21/2005 9:05 AM  
Blogger Josh S said...

The specs are fake because he claims there will be 256 MB of eDRAM. Um, eDRAM is DRAM embedded on some kind of processor. The spec sheet already claims 12 MB of eDRAM on the GPU, so where's this eDRAM going to be? The CPU? And how the heck are they going to fabricate a chip huge enough to support 256 MB? Quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

7/21/2005 1:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just to comment on Praxis' opinion of the Disc Media:

It's completely plausible the machine can read DualLayer DVD9 discs (movies and such) and yet have official Rev games on some 6GB proprietary disc. The decrease in space is likely a form of Copy Protection. The vast majority of games today don't even hit the other side of a dual layer disc, and that includes big major titles.

Worst case scenario a game on two or three discs. 6 GB would be fine.

7/21/2005 7:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i got my gameinformer, it said those specs but it said that it was only a rumor.

7/21/2005 8:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Keep in mind guys that Game Informer started the rumor that the Revolution's controllers would have a touch-screen even though Nintendo denied there will be.

7/22/2005 1:25 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home