New Nintendo DS May Have GameCube-like Power

[JohnnyLucky]

They just keep finding more ways to generate additional revenue. The money involved amazes me.

 

[welshmousepk]

sounds awesome.

the GC probably has the best library of games of any console. id love to play eternal darkness, mario sunshine, zelda or RE4 on a handheld.

the DS was a disappointment, and i sold mine due to the lack of decent games being released, but if we see alot of GC ports, the DS2 may be worthwhile.

 

[anamaniac]

[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]TBH, more likely is that it'll use all-GDDR5; the higher transfer rate can be used to compensate for the narrow interface widths that consoles usually have to settle for. Remember that for the 360 and PS3, the GDDR3 had a 128-bit interface; and the PS3's XDRAM had a 64-bit one; larger interfaces would've required far steeper prices to cram more pins in a more complicated chip package, and spend much more on a more complicated PCB to hold all the leads; these are costs that Moore's Law would never reduce. Much better to instead take the more chip-heavy end, as revisions to console hardware will cut production costs much more rapidly over time.In all honesty, that's what was CLAIMED, but each handheld was actually a tad weaker, particularly later on. I'd say that perhaps the DSi is comparable to the N64, but the original DS... Was far weaker. ARM architectures tend to be less capable on a per-clock basis than ANY other architecture. Plus, the N64 not only had a more potent CPU, it had a full dedicated GPU, that was capable of handling both bilinear filtering and multi-texture blending, but also even hardware transform & lighting. The DS doesn't even really have its own dedicated GPU.The "DS2" might make this different, particularly if they opt to take a higher-end Tegra chip.[/citation]
The N64 was quite the little power house. =D

More inetrested when Sony will release a PSPgo N2000. I actually want it even smaller.

 

[miloo]

hope PSP2 come sooner~

 

[r3t4rd]

[citation][nom]Parsian[/nom]when was the last time you saw Nintendo builds a "powerful" gaming system?but then again, achieving game cube graphics is nothing so especial, Tegra can produce xbox quality graphics...[/citation]
Name the TOP selling games in the past 10yrs. They are not the most graphically and special effects games in its time. Some of those games are still highly played. Eye candy does not make a good game - example Crysis.

 

[imi2003]

I think nintendo are tring to get rid of all the gamecube cpu's and gpu's they bought, wii sale are starting to slow down, so they need somthing else to put them in.

 

[gamerk316]

For consoles, RAM is not an issue. When working with single purpose hardware, with highly optimized code, its rare you would ever need any significant amount of RAM. 64MB is actually more then enough to handle most everything you need for a game (graphical data aside).

 

[whiz]

Cool, is the ACCELEROMATOR the steampunk version of the ACCELEROMETER... maybe?

 

[r0x0r]

[citation][nom]gamerk316[/nom]For consoles, RAM is not an issue. When working with single purpose hardware, with highly optimized code, its rare you would ever need any significant amount of RAM. 64MB is actually more then enough to handle most everything you need for a game (graphical data aside).[/citation]

2 words for ya: Loading times.

 

[Ramar]

[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]
In all honesty, that's what was CLAIMED, but each handheld was actually a tad weaker, particularly later on. I'd say that perhaps the DSi is comparable to the N64, but the original DS... Was far weaker. ARM architectures tend to be less capable on a per-clock basis than ANY other architecture. Plus, the N64 not only had a more potent CPU, it had a full dedicated GPU, that was capable of handling both bilinear filtering and multi-texture blending, but also even hardware transform & lighting. The DS doesn't even really have its own dedicated GPU.The "DS2" might make this different, particularly if they opt to take a higher-end Tegra chip.[/citation]

You seem to know your stuff for the most part, but the handhelds being weaker than their counterparts isn't true at all. The Game Boy Color was more powerful than the NES, it's more like what the NES would've been designed as if they'd have known what people would attempt to do with it graphically. Did you ever see any sprite flickering? It also had a much larger color palette. And the Gameboy Advance is capable of much more than the SNES. The SNES was a 16-bit console with extremely limited 3d capabilities enabled through on-cartridge programming. The GBA had all that and much more built in to the hardware, and was 32-bit. It was capable of early ps1-level 3d. As for the DS, it's clearly as good as, if not superior to, the N64. The most notable difference is a total lack of fog, thank God.

 

[Someguyperson]

The GCN came out on September 14, 2001. If the new system is released next year, which it probably will if at all, then it will be 10 YEARS since the GCN was first introduced. If Nintendo can't make a portable version of a 10 year old console, they are complete failures.

 

[knowom]

[citation][nom]Rab1d-BDGR[/nom]The PSP graphics were only slightly inferior to the PS2 in many games. For Nintendo to only now aim at Gamecube-level seems to lack ambition. They should be aiming for more advanced pixel shading, bump matting and maybe even HDR. I want to see advanced lighting effects on the next generation of Dr Kawashima's Brain Training. :-D[/citation]

In order to take full advantage of better physical hardware the software needs to be more complex and costly as well. Nintendo is a business and they make most of the premier titles for their consoles themselves so it's wise to do things the way they have been.

 

[Guest]

I hope this is not another 'toy'. If they can't help remove that aspect from their products, at least have a black one made for all us deathly types.

 

[rooket]

Good thing Nintendo had the accelerometer before Apple did. Otherwise greedy a$$ apple would try to sue them (well they might still because they are kinda assenine) But anyway it'll be good to finally see a Nintendo handheld with good graphics but this will also kill off anything ever made to compete by any other company. PSP is already good but if Nintendo matched or surpassed their graphics, Sony would purely be best off exiting the handhelds market. Which is sad because then Nintendo would nearly have a monopoly again at that point. If nintendo is smart this time which they probably are not still... they would make it impossible for people to pirate the games.

 

[Guest]

No, Nin would not have a monopoly if Sony got out of handhelds. Like some folks have said, they still sell bazillions of DSs every month. The PSP isn't even a competitor at this point.

The biggest push behind this new hardware is iPhone/iPad and the new smartphones, which are much faster than either the DS or PSP and are only getting faster every year. Nin needs a massive hardware upgrade to stay relevant in the next 5 years, just against the smartphones and ultraportables. We haven't even seen any games that take full advantage of the 3GS or iPad-level power, which will look much like an XBox/GC level of graphics. They'll probably be a bit better due to the full shader support.

 

[grieve]

[citation][nom]descendency[/nom]So it should be able to play Wii games? Nintendo has a brilliant strategy! Unify their entire lineup so if you buy one game, you can play it on any system...[/citation]
It would be really cool if you could buy a nintendo/360game or even a ps3 game and the exact disk is usable on the handheld version of the console... 2 for 1 $$ --> NEVER

 

[nottheking]

[citation][nom]r3t4rd[/nom]Name the TOP selling games in the past 10yrs.[/citation]
Or for that matter, try guessing how many of the top-10 games period are not made by Nintendo? (the answer is zero; the best-selling non-Nintendo game is GTA: San Andreas, at #14)
[citation][nom]gamerk316[/nom]For consoles, RAM is not an issue. When working with single purpose hardware, with highly optimized code, its rare you would ever need any significant amount of RAM. 64MB is actually more then enough to handle most everything you need for a game (graphical data aside).[/citation]
Actually, it depends a lot on your design goals. With ANY hardware, if you bother to optimize, you can have huge savings. The only reason most top-shelf PC games require so much RAM is because the programmers are sloppy and indecisive, using tons of wide variables and extra objects where they don't need them, and then never really going back over and revising their code once it's finished.

The other side is that if you have some limitations on what you can't do, you don't need the RAM or processing power to support it. A big thing here is resolution; anyone who reads Toms' loads of video card reviews will know that a larger VRAM supply is only necessary with higher resolutions. Hence, the Wii doesn't need anywhere NEAR as much graphics power to give the SAME effects as on the Xbox 360, as it has 1/2.66th the number of pixels to render and store. (i.e, ~0.35 megapixels) With the original DS, it's even lower; ~98 KILOpixels, or about 10.7% of the Xbox 360.

[citation][nom]Ramar[/nom]You seem to know your stuff for the most part, but the handhelds being weaker than their counterparts isn't true at all. The Game Boy Color was more powerful than the NES, it's more like what the NES would've been designed as if they'd have known what people would attempt to do with it graphically. Did you ever see any sprite flickering? It also had a much larger color palette. And the Gameboy Advance is capable of much more than the SNES. The SNES was a 16-bit console with extremely limited 3d capabilities enabled through on-cartridge programming. The GBA had all that and much more built in to the hardware, and was 32-bit. It was capable of early ps1-level 3d. As for the DS, it's clearly as good as, if not superior to, the N64. The most notable difference is a total lack of fog, thank God.[/citation]
Well, I'll grant I didn't compare the Game Boy Color in there, as it was a bit of an anomaly; it WAS more potent than the NES, then again, it came out a whopping 13 years after the fact, and, as you noted, had a few flaws in design corrected, that were possible due to hindsight on the NES. (also, the NES's sprite flicker was due to the per-line sprite rendering, giving it a limit of 8 sprites per line)

As for the GBA, it was most assuredly weaker than the SNES; its Mode-1 raycasting drawing method may have been analogous to the SNES's Mode-7, but consumed a proportionally larger portion of its CPU power; as an example, look at Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow, where the clock tower's rooms are limited to one rotating gear apiece. The "on-cartridge programming" you mean probably refers to the add-on co-processors, most famously the FX and FX-2. They weren't necessary for 3D, but certainly made it much more powerful; hence it's a bit harder to give game-by-game examples for the SNES, since so many opted to use an add-on chip; however, it's safe to say that the SNES+FX2 was several times as potent as the GBA, as can be seen with the FX2's most popular two games, Doom, and Yoshi's Island. (particularly the latter, where the difference can be seen simply on the title screen) As for the processors, many people don't quite understand that having larger word sizes doesn't necessarily make the processor better; in the case of 2D games, most calculation is done at the 16-bit level anyway, so little is saved. Also, while the GBA is restricted to its single ARM-7 core to handle graphics, even without expansion, the SNES has a dedicated, separate GPU for handling many mapping/drawing changes that must be handled in software by the ARM-7. Similarly, the GBA handles audio in software, while one of the most famous parts of the SNES was its incredibly potent audio chip, the SPC700. The GBA's main strength over the SNES was its full 32-bit address structure, which allowed it to have some games up to 32MB, double the SNES's entire address space.

As for the DS... I already covered a lot of it, namely the N64's complete 3D GPU, featuring full texture filtering, and having hardware T&L 3 years before Nvidia would make the PC's first HT&L chip, the NV10. The "fog" you mention is merely Z-fog, which was simply an option that was over-used. (much like today's bloom and desaturation maps) A LOT of games for the N64 had very long view distances, including Ocarina of Time, Perfect Dark, and Battle for Naboo. I'd also recommend taking a look at Indiana Jones & the Infernal Machine, which I think you'd agree is WAY beyond any capabilities even the DSi could muster.