It's Real: Nintendo Confirms New Console 2012

[reprotected]

The REAL specs:
CPU: AMD Bulldozer 8-core @ 3.2 ghz
CPU2 (used out of games): AMD Sempron (K10) @ 1.4 ghz
GPU: AMD Radeon HD 78xx
GPU2 (used out of games): AMD Radeon HD 74xx
RAM: 8 GB DDR3 @ 7-7-7-19 1600 mhz (underclocks to 1066 when not gaming)
OS: Nintendo Linux w/ modified Wine to run DirectX ports

... This would be the ideal system, but nope. Sorry.

 

[nottheking]

Well, to bust a few rumors:

- Anyone that paid attention to IGN's image of the so-called "controller" will see that not only is it badly-photoshopped by combining an existing Wii Classic controller and 3DS screen, but if that screen is 6.2 inches diagonally, then the whole controller is 11.2 inches wide, several inches wider than the old Xbox "duke" controller... And with gargantuan, double-size buttons and analog sticks. Obviously 100% fake.
- All existing stats for the tech is likely fake, too. IGN never was able to back up their clock speeds before, and tests in emulation of Wii games suggest that the Wii's clock speeds weren't as IGN claimed.
- Nintendo likes to keep a tight lid on the name. Like before, I doubt we'll know the REAL name at all until they show it off at E3, or whatever convention they pick.
- We're reaching the age of diminishing returns: by now we'll see less and less payoff on the screen for differences in hardware.
- Nintendo only recently decided to go with "weak hardware;" The Ninteno64 was nearly as potent as the Dreamcast, and well more than the Saturn and PS1 combined. The Game Cube was weaker than the PS2 and Xbox, but was still more potent than the Dreamcast, and didn't lag much behind the PS2.
- Only three consoles have ever sold for a loss: the Xbox, Xbox 360, and PS3. Sony, under pressure from investors, will certainly NOT repeat the PS3's style again, likely falling back to like they did on the PS2 and PS1: investors were NOT happy the PS3 was a failure, in that it failed to dominate the market like the PS1 and PS2. Microsoft was originally buying market share, and the Xbox 360 only sold at a SLIGHT loss, that became a profit once the first die shrink hit. So going with history, don't expect Nintendo to make a loss on their console, since history has shown it's generally a stupid idea. The Xbox never turned a profit, and the PS3 only barely did profit on games.

 

[anacandor]

@reprotected
Do you really think anyone is willing to pay over $1000 for a console?
Nintendo isn't stupid, they know what will work to fit the market they are aiming for. If by losing 1 customer such as yourself that don't like the graphic capability and gaining 50 casual gamers who don't care about graphics, i'm pretty sure they're playing their card right.

 

[Th-z]

Don't underestimate console hardware, most people don't realize how much performance they can extract from a console. It's not just the overheads from OS, API and graphic driver, on consoles, performance-critical areas can be coded at low level if devs want to, something PC doesn't have the luxury. PC always has to be more powerful than consoles in order to produce something equal. Expect it to outperform PC's R700 equivalent.

 

[dalauder]

[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]The Game Cube was weaker than the PS2 and Xbox, but was still more potent than the Dreamcast, and didn't lag much behind the PS2.[/citation]Hey hey! What's with the Dreamcast bashing? It was more potent than the Gamecube. And it destroyed the PS2 in textures enough to make up for geometry deficiencies. The only think the Dreamcast lacked in was the one most important thing--quality games. Outside of the superb 2K sports games and a couple of other solid SEGA games, Dreamcast had very few great games--especially outside of the Japanese market.

You're right about selling consoles for a loss being a bad idea (unless you're Microsoft and your concern isn't whether or not you take a loss).

 

[jasonpwns]

[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]Well, to bust a few rumors:- Anyone that paid attention to IGN's image of the so-called "controller" will see that not only is it badly-photoshopped by combining an existing Wii Classic controller and 3DS screen, but if that screen is 6.2 inches diagonally, then the whole controller is 11.2 inches wide, several inches wider than the old Xbox "duke" controller... And with gargantuan, double-size buttons and analog sticks. Obviously 100% fake.- All existing stats for the tech is likely fake, too. IGN never was able to back up their clock speeds before, and tests in emulation of Wii games suggest that the Wii's clock speeds weren't as IGN claimed.- Nintendo likes to keep a tight lid on the name. Like before, I doubt we'll know the REAL name at all until they show it off at E3, or whatever convention they pick.- We're reaching the age of diminishing returns: by now we'll see less and less payoff on the screen for differences in hardware.- Nintendo only recently decided to go with "weak hardware;" The Ninteno64 was nearly as potent as the Dreamcast, and well more than the Saturn and PS1 combined. The Game Cube was weaker than the PS2 and Xbox, but was still more potent than the Dreamcast, and didn't lag much behind the PS2.- Only three consoles have ever sold for a loss: the Xbox, Xbox 360, and PS3. Sony, under pressure from investors, will certainly NOT repeat the PS3's style again, likely falling back to like they did on the PS2 and PS1: investors were NOT happy the PS3 was a failure, in that it failed to dominate the market like the PS1 and PS2. Microsoft was originally buying market share, and the Xbox 360 only sold at a SLIGHT loss, that became a profit once the first die shrink hit. So going with history, don't expect Nintendo to make a loss on their console, since history has shown it's generally a stupid idea. The Xbox never turned a profit, and the PS3 only barely did profit on games.[/citation]


You're ignorant. The Gamecube was more powerful than the PS2. Better hardware and a faster processor lead to this. Also games looked better on the gamecube than they did the PS2 when developers were actually serious...

http/www.youtube.com/watch?v=62cRZQmy0lA

Look, see. More detail on the gamecube version. Please do check your facts before speaking BS. The Wii was the first time Nintendo actually went with the lesser graphics route. The problems before then were storage mediums such as cartridges and the gamecube mini disc.

 

[dalauder]

R700 can blow the pants off the R700 we saw on PCs in 2009. It still won't impress us like the PS3 or Xbox 360 did when they were new. Considering a hacked down, but optimized R800 (modified 5850) can max most graphics on 1080p, especially without Windows overhead, I think that would be a better way to go than R700. A console's not supposed to look outdated a year after release, but R700 will.

 

[itchyisvegeta]

If it is backwards compatible like they say, then I better be able to transfer my Virtual Console/Wii Ware games, the ones I already paid for, to the new system.

 

[nottheking]

[citation][nom]anacandor[/nom]@reprotectedDo you really think anyone is willing to pay over $1000 for a console?[/citation]
As I mentioned on the PREVIOUS rumor-spreading article here on Tom's, there was just the console in history to prove this point: the Neo Geo. Adjusted for inflation, it had an MSRP of $1,070US. In 1990, it presented 2D graphics vastly exceeding the SNES or Genesis, allowing for hundreds of giant, on-screen sprites with approximately 16 times as many colors on-screen at once. It also supported massive cartridge sizes of over a gigabit.

Of course, given its high price tag (and the high price tag of such massive carts) the thing never took off. It wasn't even "ahead of its time," since it was limited to 2D graphics. It was just a vastly more expensive console, and people decided the extra power wasn't worth the cost.

[citation][nom]Th-z[/nom]something PC doesn't have the luxury.[/citation]
Actually, it's pretty much available to anyone who bothers to do a clean boot. And in the graphics department, there's no magical "overhead" the PC gets slowing it down: both the Xbox 360 and PC use the EXACT same abstraction layers, and close to the exact same DirectX specifications. It's why, say, an Xbox 360 gets 30fps on Mass Effect 2 at 1280x720 on medium-ish settings without AF, while on the PC, a 4870 can get >90fps at 1920x1200, with maximum details, DX 10, AFx8, etc.

[citation][nom]dalauder[/nom]Hey hey! What's with the Dreamcast bashing? It was more potent than the Gamecube. And it destroyed the PS2 in textures enough to make up for geometry deficiencies. The only think the Dreamcast lacked in was the one most important thing--quality games. Outside of the superb 2K sports games and a couple of other solid SEGA games, Dreamcast had very few great games--especially outside of the Japanese market.You're right about selling consoles for a loss being a bad idea (unless you're Microsoft and your concern isn't whether or not you take a loss).[/citation]
Naw, hardware-wise, the Dreamcast was exemplary of some of Sega's problems that drove them out of the industry: they tried an arcade-type architecture, but scaled it down to make it affordable. I'm sure a serious fan like you would remember that, adjusted for inflation, the Dreamcast was possible the cheapest console ever at release?

Overall, this approach, the opposite of what SNK took with their ill-fated Neo Geo, showed its flaws: the Dreamcast WAS the weakest: it had the least RAM, (26MB total, compared to 40+ on all the competitors) the weakest processor (the SuperH-4 didn't have more than a single 4-wide vector processor and only ran at a pitiful 200MHz) the least RAM bandwidth, and a GPU that was clocked far slower, and more resembled the N64's Reality Co-Processor in that it had but a single pixel pipeline with two TMUs, versus the four pipelines on its competitors. (the N64 ALSO had a single pipeline with two TMUs... And ran at almost 2/3 the clock rate)

[citation][nom]jasonpwns[/nom]You're ignorant. The Gamecube was more powerful than the PS2. Better hardware and a faster processor lead to this.[/citation]
No, I'm not ignorant, I just happen to be someone without love for any particular console, and a level of hardware understanding rare outside the likes of Intel, AMD, or nVidia. Resident Evil 4 was an anomaly here: most recognize that Capcom spent a lot of time to ensure that the GC version was optimized as much as possible.

Also, I'm convinced that the PS2's CPU was more potent: it had a lower clock rate, but unlike the Game Cube's, it had far better floating-point capabilities, thanks to the fact that it had a pair of 4-wide vector units PLUS a conventional single-issue floating-point unit... The Game Cube, on the other hand, had a single unit that could do either a single 64-bit FP operation or two 32-bit ones. That meant that in 32-bit single precision (the kind used for performance measures) the PS2 could handle 4.5 times as many per clock cycle: 18 vs. 4. (FP ops are counted in double since the most common instruction, "multiply-add" handles two operations per clock cycle. It's universal for all processors)

 

[enforcer22]

[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]No DvD/BD playback, no wii 2......[/citation]

[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]oh yea, and if it can't stream like a ps3 either....[/citation]

Its a gaming console not a VCR ffs.

 

[kartu]

Anyone could imagine what "controller with a screen" could be used for?
Probably a kind of touchscreen, with drawn buttons. Or not true at all.

[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]oh yea, and if it can't stream like a ps3 either....[/citation]
Given how much noise PS3 generates (I know it's "quiet" compared ot xbox, my condolesces to xbox users) I fail to see how that is a valid feature.

 

[kartu]

[citation][nom]GuardianAngel42[/nom]With less overhead. Don't forget that.Besides, I dare you to play Crysis 2 on an Intel chipset and an i3 and have it look as good as it did on the 360. It just won't happen.People don't seem to give enough credit to the consoles, it's not like they run anything like a netbook, ultraportable, or similarly low end PC. In most cases I think people look at spec sheets and expect consoles to run the same as a PC with exactly the same specs. Truth is Linux, OSX, and Windows all run with a crap load more overhead than the OS of a console so even with the same specs a console can just do more.[/citation]

Get a clue, please. Xbox has a card inferior to nvidia 5700. Ok? Get it? Inferior to nvidia 5700. Now for PC to have crappier image it has to be a lolport of console game to PC, or you have to spend most of the budget on CPU, instead of graphic card.

In other words: BOTH PS3 AND XBOX360 ARE FAR FAR FAR BEHIND of what is rumored to be in Wii2. They are FARbehind of 3 year old "ok" gaming PC as well.

 

[Raidur]

Hopefully MS and Sony will get the hint by 2015? Unlikely. They'll probably just come out with another bogus add-on.

Sucks for console users!

However maybe they'll get enough rap on their shitty systems/engines with the release of BF3 benefiting PC users much more than consoles, for once.

We shall see!

 

[nebun]

[citation][nom]marraco[/nom]R700 GPU it's Radeon 4xxx.In 2012, we will have Radeon 7xxx. They should use at least a new GPU, considering that the GPU will not be updated for many generations.Todays console GPU have just the power of an integrated video on an i3.[/citation]
if you are looking for graphics then Nintendo is not your friend...their graphics suck big time

 

[guardianangel42]

[citation][nom]kartu[/nom]Get a clue, please. Xbox has a card inferior to nvidia 5700. Ok? Get it? Inferior to nvidia 5700. Now for PC to have crappier image it has to be a lolport of console game to PC, or you have to spend most of the budget on CPU, instead of graphic card.In other words: BOTH PS3 AND XBOX360 ARE FAR FAR FAR BEHIND of what is rumored to be in Wii2. They are FARbehind of 3 year old "ok" gaming PC as well.[/citation]

My 1500 buck gaming PC uses a minimum of 800MB of system RAM when it is doing nothing. That is more than the Xbox has installed in total.

I gurauntee you that my Xbox can play absolutely any game and have it look better than a PC with integrated graphics at HD resolution. That is a fact that I have personally tested.

You see the hardware and forget that your operating system of choice uses more resources than the OS of a console. It would essentially be like running Crysis on a computer using MSDOS. The console doesn't have to render the desktop while it is rendering the game, it just shuts that off unlike a PC. It doesn't have to worry about a myriad of drivers co-mingling properly because it is a fixed platform. It doesn't have to worry about background services or processes because it shuts almost everything off while you are playing a game.

You cannot look at a Xbox game playing anything, whether cross platform or not, and say that it looks as bad as a game running on an Intel chipset @ 800x600.

If you had both platforms and had been exposed to the gaming performance of a crappy PC you would know that the Xbox does look better.

That was the point of the post.

Now, I will say that an Xbox 360, PS3, or Wii 2 will never come close to the power of my gaming rig. A Core 2 Quad 9550 OC'd to 3.9Ghz, a GTX 275, and 8 gigs of RAM will always outperform it but that is because it can handle the overhead of my Windows 7 OS and still have power left over.

The same cannot be said of a crappy PC like a netbook, ultraportable, or similar device. Overhead my friend, overhead.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

[citation][nom]GuardianAngel42[/nom] I gurauntee you that my Xbox can play absolutely any game and have it look better than a PC with integrated graphics at HD resolution. That is a fact that I have personally tested.[/citation]

But... can it play Crysis? I guess not!

Ok, seriously now, good point. Since consoles don't have to render the desktop and do other things that PCs do while playing a game, they can get away with crappy hardware. I really appreciate the fact some people understand that, because other tend to start flame wars over this, and the answer is actually very simple.

However, nowadays you can get many cheap builds that will easily have loads of power left "overhead". For $1500, you can get top-of-the-line stuff.

Anyway... settle down, everyone! I used to hate consoles, but seriosly, they're targeted at different people rather than gaming PCs. A gaming PC is an omnipotent machine than can also do video converting, entertainment, "serious" work (3D design, etc.) and as such it will always stand higher than any console for me. Plus I find gaming on a PC much more appealing to my taste.

But if you want to play some FPS with a bunch of friends - nothing beats a console, really. (Other than a LAN party, but then everyone needs their own comp, you need to set up LAN, this and that...) And it saves the budget, of course: you can get a console for about $400 and spend the same cash on the average PC that will only be used for movies and Internet, while a gaming PC will cost you $1000 minimum.

However, consoles ARE slowing down the progress. Compare that announced hardware from the new-gen consoles to Core i5/i7 and GTX400/500 or Radeon HD 5000/6000 series and you'll understand that consoles hardware is just pure obsolete. We could've had much better-looking games by now. And for those of you who "don't care about the graphics" - go play Wolfenstein 3D! A good FPS with almost no graphics at all. For everyone else, gameplay-graphics ratio must be at least 65:35.


[citation][nom]The same cannot be said of a crappy PC like a netbook, ultraportable, or similar device. Overhead my friend, overhead.[/citation]

That's right =) Integrated graphics = no gaming. However, I did manage to beat Morrowind on my Eee PC 900, and it didn't lag at all =) So I guess in 10 years netbooks will max out Crysis and such

 

[guardianangel42]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]But... can it play Crysis? I guess not! Ok, seriously now, good point. Since consoles don't have to render the desktop and do other things that PCs do while playing a game, they can get away with crappy hardware. I really appreciate the fact some people understand that, because other tend to start flame wars over this, and the answer is actually very simple. However, nowadays you can get many cheap builds that will easily have loads of power left "overhead". For $1500, you can get top-of-the-line stuff.Anyway... settle down, everyone! I used to hate consoles, but seriosly, they're targeted at different people rather than gaming PCs. A gaming PC is an omnipotent machine than can also do video converting, entertainment, "serious" work (3D design, etc.) and as such it will always stand higher than any console for me. Plus I find gaming on a PC much more appealing to my taste.But if you want to play some FPS with a bunch of friends - nothing beats a console, really. (Other than a LAN party, but then everyone needs their own comp, you need to set up LAN, this and that...) And it saves the budget, of course: you can get a console for about $400 and spend the same cash on the average PC that will only be used for movies and Internet, while a gaming PC will cost you $1000 minimum.However, consoles ARE slowing down the progress. Compare that announced hardware from the new-gen consoles to Core i5/i7 and GTX400/500 or Radeon HD 5000/6000 series and you'll understand that consoles hardware is just pure obsolete. We could've had much better-looking games by now. And for those of you who "don't care about the graphics" - go play Wolfenstein 3D! A good FPS with almost no graphics at all. For everyone else, gameplay-graphics ratio must be at least 65:35.[citation][nom]The same cannot be said of a crappy PC like a netbook, ultraportable, or similar device. Overhead my friend, overhead.[/citation]That's right =) Integrated graphics = no gaming. However, I did manage to beat Morrowind on my Eee PC 900, and it didn't lag at all =) So I guess in 10 years netbooks will max out Crysis and such[/citation]

Whatchatalkinaboutwillis? I got that achievement...

And yeah, I agree. I use my computer for a heck of a lot more than gaming and it was definitely worth every penny (especially since I got the GFX card as a free upgrade from the manufacturer). From video editing to audio editing to internet, homework, and movies. It will always do more than my Xbox.

And I agree, consoles are slowing down progress. As much as I applaud Mircosoft for Kinect (some of the PC based hacks are awesome) I really think they should consider making a new console soon. Besides, they can always use Kinect on the next one too, it wouldn't be that hard.

I think Crysis 2 is the best they can get out of this hardware and that game had some serious motion blur (lighting was nice though).

And I want them to come out with one soon, STALKER 2 is just around the corner and I don't want my PC version of the game to be smaller than CoP.

 

[aaron88_7]

[citation][nom]jasonpwns[/nom]You're ignorant. The Gamecube was more powerful than the PS2. Better hardware and a faster processor lead to this. Also games looked better on the gamecube than they did the PS2 when developers were actually serious...[/citation]
Don't forget it also came in purple, nothing says hardcore gamer than a cute little purple box for a console lol

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

[citation][nom]GuardianAngel42[/nom]It would essentially be like running Crysis on a computer using MSDOS.[/citation]

That is correct: I tried once over-simplifying my GUI to the point where it was almost DOS =) Killed all the processes, Windows Classic theme, visual effects off, this and that... A considerable boost in performance on Vista, a bit less on 7 and even less on XP. Certain things,like the drivers, of course cannot be switched off... a pity =)

Remember what AMD representative said about APIs such as DirectX a few weeks ago? They slow us down. If every game was made for specific hardware, we wouldn't need such powerful GPUs/CPUs. DirectX allows us to avoid compiling over 9000 versions of the same game for different hardware configurations, but also abstracts software layer from hardware layer and therefore slows everything down.

Of course, he said that was not what he meant in a day or so, probably after Microsoft called AMD and threatened to pull driver support or something People don't need to know so much details about why Windows games require better hardware... =)

 

[blubbey]

[citation][nom]aaron88_7[/nom]Don't forget it also came in purple, nothing says hardcore gamer than a cute little purple box for a console lol[/citation]
Nothing wrong with it. In fact, I'm guessing the only people that don't like it are insecure males trying to appear macho

Last thing, consoles are mass market products. That means they have to be reasonably cheap and be mass produced. To make the company money (which, lets face it, is priority number 1 for almost everyone nowadays) the product itself has to be cheap enough to make to get a low price in the first place. This means old tech is used. Stop bashing companies for not using 'current' tech when that'd not be mass market and it'd lose the company hundreds of millions (probably).