Support NeoGAF

[Kleegamefan]

I am paraphrasing what I said in THIS THREAD , but....

So we already know that Rev. video output=SD resolutions (480p)

BUT

What if ATI decides to use R520 (either 24 or 32 pixel shaders+8VS) as the GPU for Revolution!1!!!

I would say that not only could this give RSX and Xenos a run for their money but they may be FUXXORED comparitively on SD displays....

Consider

1080p on PS3=2,073,600 pixels per frame

720p on X360=921,600 pixels per frame

480p on Rev.=307,200 pixels per frame

Rev. has nearly 700% fewer pixels to push than PS3 at max res so if ATI can incorporate good Anti-Aliasing on Rev. it should look very nice on SD displays....HD or no...


Of course, one big thing to consider with next gen consoles like PS3 and X360 is how RSX/Xenos can utilize CELL/XeCPU resources for even more advanced graphic processing(this is not a new idea but X360/PS3 really seem streamlined for this sort of thing) but since all three systems will have mulicore IBM Power PC CPUs, this GPU<=> relation most likely will exist in Revolution as well (just a guess on my part)...


Yes, it *does* seem Nintendo is going for a less expensive/smaller/heat efficient solution but IMO, it may be a litte early to write them off in the graphic whore race no matter WTF Nintendo may imply...

This is just my take on things....

 

[Gek54]

Olimario??

 

[human5892]

Forgive my tech ignorance, but do you think you could elaborate on how this would make the Revolution look better than the 360 and PS3 in SD resolutions (if that's what you meant)? It would be strange if the Revolution ended up having the best graphics of next-gen as long as you weren't playing in high-def.

 

[Kleegamefan]

Think about it like a glass of water...

PS3 is powerful and can shoot out water at a great speed but it NEEDS to be poweful since in some cases it will be forced to fill a glass with SEVEN TIMES as much volume as the biggest Revolution glass to output a single frame of game video to a screen...

X360 needs to fill a water glass with 3 times the volume of the biggest Revolution water glass so it needs to be faster too....

Rev. can be 1/3 as fast as X360 and still fill the glass with as many pixels/water at the same rate...

Better?

 

[GaimeGuy]

Think about it like a glass of water...

PS3 is powerful and can shoot out water at a great speed but it NEEDS to be poweful since in some cases it will be forced to fill a glass with SEVEN TIMES as much volume as the biggest Revolution glass to output a single frame of game video to a screen...

X360 needs to fill a glass with 3 time the volume of the biggest Revolution glass so it needs to be faster too....

Rev. can be 1/3 as fast as X360 and still fill the glass with as many pixels at the same rate...

Better?

But which one provides best for your daily requirement of water consumption?

 

[Shompola]

A mobile version of the next ATi chip? Maybe... But won't that chip be pretty expensive especially if it is R520 derived.. I can't see how they could not manage a HDTV resolution with that kind of a chip...

 

[Kleegamefan]

OK....what about the R480 chip (X850 IIRC)...

This should be inexpensive enough in 2006 with 90nm or 65nm mfr. process and I would be surprised if RSX is seven times faster than R480.........very surprised...


What are the frame rates of HL2 or Doom 3 using the fastest Athlon 64 (Revolution CPU should be faster still, I would think) and X850 XT but at only 640 x 480 res???

I would expect huge numbers....

 

[Chittagong]

I'm betting that a drunk ATI engineer gave away Nintendo's approach sometime early this year when going out with some MS folks, that's when J Allard must have come up with the HD Era catchphrase.

 

[Kleegamefan]

After hearing all the crazy stories of drunken MS and Japanese game exects during the Xbox launch period, I wouldn't be surprised

 

[Christberg]

EDIT: Beaten to it and much better explained.

I've actually been thinking the same thing. It's interesting because with something like an R520 you'd be able to do pretty much whatever texture effects you wanted to at that resolution regardless because the fillrate would simply dwarf the screen resolution. 10 pass texture effects? No problemo.

Of course, HD will be preferable for stuff where you have lots of tiny things running around the screen, but I can definitely see where having a few big models at a time would be better in SD resolution.

 

[dorio]

Well, wouldn't the ps3 and 360 get free supersampling AA once things are scale down to SD resolutions thus trumping nintendo's image quality.

 

[Suikoguy]

Well, wouldn't the ps3 and 360 get free supersampling AA once things are scale down to SD resolutions thus trumping nintendo's image quality.

Damn, i'm surprised it took someone this long to post a comon sense reply!
Its likely if you have your PS3 set to SD Resolution, it will simply use AA or something rather then higher res.. this is really lame nintendo damage control.

 

[Kleegamefan]

Yes, X360 and PS3 would display SuperSampled images at SD res but of course, AA on whatever Nintendo Rev. GPU wound be able to handle FSAA with ease too, since it only has to deal with SD res...

 

[Raistlin]

I wouldn't be surprised if super-sampling is used for AA on Rev ... I'm pretty sure its the simplest way to go for most current cards.

In that case, most fill-rate advantages for the Rev GPU go out the window.

?

 

[Sapiens]

I think Nintendo is just being honest from the get-go and letting people know not to get their hopes up for earth shattering graphics.

The real innovation will be in their controller, I guess.

Revolution will be to PS3, as DS is to PSP. That much is Guaranteed.

 

[Mrbob]

A R520 derivative chip, in the size of the Revolution, priced at 199, with Nintendo who wants to profit on hardware ....suuuuuuurrrrrrrrre. Why not.

Besides, R520 style chip and no higher resolution support....what a waste. The goal for games should be 60 FPS. Not 600 FPS. Current PC cards can push 1600 X 1200 with a decent processer. Or higher. And keep a high frame rate. Let us not give Nintendo any ideas to lowball gamers.

By the way, if you look at PC card reviews nowadays of new cards like the GF 7800, they don't even test below 1600 X 1200 anymore. Because going any lower is a waste since the card is so damn powerful it doesn't make a difference in lower resolution. 720P ain't that damn taxing compared to the resolutions we've seen in the PC arena.

Good god the 7800 is getting nearly 70 FPS in Half Life 2 at 2048 X 1536 with 4XAA! It gets 120 FPS at 1600 X 1200 with 4XAA!

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2451&p=13

Now tell me how 720P is going to be so taxing on the RSX. The PS3 is going to blow away this PC setup anand used for testing since it is a dedicated gaming system. Forget about 1080P. Yeah Sony mentioned it but do you really think games will support 1080P and not 720P? Not gonna happen. Beyond that, I expect 1080P games to go the way of PS2 1080i games. There will be a couple but not too many.

 

[Slurpy]

K. Lee, ATI is not going to 'decide' anything. Nintendo is.

 

[Kleegamefan]

A R520 derivative chip, in the size of the Revolution, priced at 199, with Nintendo who wants to profit on hardware ....suuuuuuurrrrrrrrre. Why not.

Besides, R520 style chip and no higher resolution support....what a waste. The goal for games should be 60 FPS. Not 600 FPS. Current PC cards can push 1600 X 1200 with a decent processer. Or higher. And keep a high frame rate. Let us not give Nintendo any ideas to lowball gamers.

By the way, if you look at PC card reviews nowadays of new cards like the GF 7800, they don't even test below 1600 X 1200 anymore. Because going any lower is a waste since the card is so damn powerful it doesn't make a difference in lower resolution. 720P ain't that damn taxing compared to the resolutions we've seen in the PC arena.

Good god the 7800 is getting nearly 70 FPS in Half Life 2 at 2048 X 1536 with 4XAA! It gets 120 FPS at 1600 X 1200 with 4XAA!

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2451&p=13

Now tell me how 720P is going to be so taxing on the RSX. The PS3 is going to blow away this PC setup anand used for testing since it is a dedicated gaming system. Forget about 1080P. Yeah Sony mentioned it but do you really think games will support 1080P and not 720P? Not gonna happen. Beyond that, I expect 1080P games to go the way of PS2 1080i games. There will be a couple but not too many.

On one side you are a saying GF 7800 is so powerful, 720p isnt a big challange for it...then you give an example of 70fps at 2048 X 1536 resolution (more pixels than 1080p even) then you say RSX will blow away GF7800 because it in a closed platform (PS3) and can therefore exceed the performance of GF 7800 because of game optimizations that will not exist on desktop PC.....

I am 100% in agreement with you there, but if all that is true, why do you not think there will be wide support for 1080p.... isn't 720p and lower res a waste of the RSX as you say???

I mean if GF 7800 + Athlon 64 can give 70fps framerate in HL2 @ 2048 X 1536 resolution, wouldn't RSX+CELL+greater than PCI-E memory bandwidth be able to handle games at an even lower resolution? (1920 x 1080)??

Shouldn't 1080p be a walk in the park for PS3...at least for a game like HL2???

 

[Mrbob]

My idea was to give you an example of what you can do with current games on that hardware. Next gen games will be more taxing. But it seems to me you have low expectations for next gen as you make it sound like 720P is gonna be so taxing on the systems. It's evolution in design. The main problem with 1080P will be sell through of dedicated 1080P sets. It won't be substantial enough until the next next gen of consoles to make it a viable option. 720P is going to be the sweet spot next gen. A resolution every PS3 and X360 game will support.

 

[Kleegamefan]

My idea was to give you an example of what you can do with current games on that hardware. Next gen games will be more taxing. But it seems to me you have low expectations for next gen as you make it sound like 720P is gonna be so taxing on the systems. It's evolution in design. The main problem with 1080P will be sell through of dedicated 1080P sets. It won't be substantial enough until the next next gen of consoles to make it a viable option. 720P is going to be the sweet spot next gen. A resolution every PS3 and X360 game will support.

Its funny you mention this because MITSUBISHI JUST ISSUED A PRESS RELEASE today that states there may be more 1080p sources in the United States in the not to distant future:

We will be seeing many new sources of 1080 content later this year and next year," said DeMartin. "The new gaming consoles, Blu-ray/HD-DVD technologies and media center PCs will all offer HD content, and the major broadcast and cable networks will begin to transmit 1080 signals at 24 and 30 frames progressive, among the highest HDTV broadcast resolutions available. Mitsubishi 1080p DLP(TM) HDTVs will be poised to take advantage of the latest HD content and deliver it with unsurpassed picture quality."

I do know for a fact Direct TV has gone on record as saying they will broadcast 1080p video when their new MPEG4 Sattelites go online next year, but I did not know Cable and broadcast TV would also be supporting 1080p next year??

Perhaps they too will be supporting advanced video codecs like MPEG4 HP, H. 264 or VC-1???

At any rate, between HDTV broadcasts, Blu-laser movies and Blu-laser games, 1080p content is coming, it seems.....

 

[Mrbob]

Yeah and they start at 3700. Sell through will be slow at first.

 

[Kleegamefan]

But of course

 

[Monk]

I argued this point before.

It really depends if devs allow scalability on the games unlike current consoles and more like PC's. I mean if devs give the option of choosing 1080p with no (AA or AF) or 480p with (6xAA and 16x aniso), the rev is screwed. If the devs try and have both those things at 1080p there will be less power for things like bump mapping and the like, it would make the games have similar texturing to today's Xbox games. And 480p users will not get any benefit.

For the Rev there is only one option, and as such 480p users will get the most out of the Rev.

 

[Particle Physicist]

here is what i dont get. the xbox was able to pump out some games at 720p .

the rev will be newer tech. so just because nintendo wont require 720p in games, shouldnt mean that there wont be any games in that resolution. right?

it just wont be standard is all.. or am i missing something here ?

 

[Kleegamefan]

Well, in some console games (God of War, GTA:VC, GTA:SA) you do have the option to turn off the "blur" effect....dunno if its AA you are toggling on/off though....doubt it....

Yeah, it would be nice to have, seprate from PS3/X360 internal scalers, say, 3 resolution presets and the option to turn off/on AA....very basic stuff...

here is what i dont get. the xbox was able to pump out some games at 720p .

the rev will be newer tech. so just because nintendo wont require 720p in games, shouldnt mean that there wont be any games in that resolution. right?

it just wont be standard is all.. or am i missing something here ?

At this point in time, Nintendo is indicating no HD games period on Rev....

IMO it is a marketing issue rather than a technicial issue.....even a modest GPU in 2006 will be pretty damn powerful and *should* be able to handle HD resolutions with ease....

If you want to play next gen games at HD resolutions your options are: X360/PC/PS3....

 

[jimbo]

What you're talking about would only be true if Xenos and RSX weren't capable of displaying the kind of graphics that the REV GPU would at SD because they would be limited by pixel fill rate so at to be able to support HD resolutions. So far there's no indications that these cards are going to have any kind of a problem with fill rate. Xbox did it this generation, so 360 and PS3 GPUS, even though it's going to have more geometry, more textures, more everything, should have even less of a problem as the Xbox GPU to do so.

All SD res is going to do for REV, is pretty much assure that it shouldn't be a problem to see most games run at 60fps.

 

[MrSingh]

Think about it like a glass of water...

PS3 is powerful and can shoot out water at a great speed but it NEEDS to be poweful since in some cases it will be forced to fill a glass with SEVEN TIMES as much volume as the biggest Revolution glass to output a single frame of game video to a screen...

X360 needs to fill a water glass with 3 times the volume of the biggest Revolution water glass so it needs to be faster too....

Rev. can be 1/3 as fast as X360 and still fill the glass with as many pixels/water at the same rate...

Better?

next gen = watersports?

 

[DrGAKMAN]

SDTV = 480 interlaced
EDTV 720i= 480 progressive - 720 interlaced (basic PC monitor resolution, not HDTV, but much better than SDTV)
HDTV 720p= 720 interlaced - 720 progressive
HDTV 1080i= 720 progressive - 1080 interlaced (sort of the HDTV "standerd" right now)
HDTV 1080p= 1080 interlaced - 1080 progressive

I know EDTV is seen as the "basterd child" of TV's today, but literally, if Revolution is only aiming to be 480p...then that is not merely SDTV...that's EDTV! Revolution's graphics will look optimized on a SDTV, EDTV or a PC monitor and Nintendo may be "aiming low" on purpose to make something like stereo scopic 3D or wireless outputs to multiple screens throughout the house more possible. It should still look alright on HDTV's too, if some GCN games slipped thru in 480p this generation, then I don't see why some won't slip thru as 720p next.

 

[Monk]

What you're talking about would only be true if Xenos and RSX weren't capable of displaying the kind of graphics that the REV GPU would at SD because they would be limited by pixel fill rate so at to be able to support HD resolutions. So far there's no indications that these cards are going to have any kind of a problem with fill rate. Xbox did it this generation, so 360 and PS3 GPUS, even though it's going to have more geometry, more textures, more everything, should have even less of a problem as the Xbox GPU to do so.

All SD res is going to do for REV, is pretty much assure that it shouldn't be a problem to see most games run at 60fps.

All the consoles this gen had difficulties with fill rate this gen, a lot of games didn't have af(which is generally free) or aa. The best cards today(Geforce SLI 6800 SLI) can only output 75fps at 1600X1200(which is roughly the same number of pixels as 1080p). http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20050524/vga_charts-05.html

But then again why would you even want things like steep parallax mapping at 480p when you probably have enough poly power to draw tham at that res?

 

[Timen]

or Nintendo could just use the RSX and save them millions of yen on research

what about Hollywood & Broadway

 

[Kleegamefan]

What about them.....

 

[Timen]

they're not RSX. neither of them. (i'm not making sense, am I?)s

 

[mrklaw]

Yes, PS3 and X360 will also look good on SD TVs because of 'free' AA, downsampling from 720p/whatever. But bear in mind that at their planned native resolutions, they *also* have to do AA. So although x360 is doing 720p, it wants to do 4xAA as well. So you are back to square one, and I think its fair to compare base resolution in terms of fillrate.

So Nintendo could have an advantage in terms of fillrate. But is that a limiting factor these days?

Nintendo would also have an advantage with textures. Less memory needed to texture an SD screen. Or the same memory for more texture variety etc. Could be useful.

But what about polygons? You'll still want to draw the same number of those, even if you are filling them with less pixels. So suddenly you need a monster VS GPU. And those things come with fillrate to spare anyway.




TBH, I think either Nintendo shot their mouth off without thinking (wouldn't surprise me), or they are just being cheap, because they expect most Revolutions to be connected to the 2nd or 3rd TV in the house which won't be HD.

 

[sarusama]

A few things people haven't considered:

1. I don't know this as a fact, but I would refrain from directly using PC tech as a reference. The alone cards cost upwards of $400, which would limit what else you can put in your console (bleeding edge multi-core CPU). I'd be willing to wager that a lot of that is spent on achieving such nice fillrate that allows for 75fps on 1600x1200.

2. The point of Nintendo is to to save money! One of their key consumers are children that would be hard-pressed to ask their parents for a $300+ "toy". So while tech does exists that will run well on super high resolutions it's definately more expensive than tech that doesn't.

3. Vertex processing is resolution independent. The only advantage in using a lower resolution is that depending on distance you *might* not need as many polys to fake a curve.

4. @DrGAKMAN forget this wireless broadcasting to multiple TVs. 480p = 307,200 pixels. At "only" 32bits = 4bytes for each you already have 1.2MB per image. Then if you want 60fps that's 72MB per second. I don't think there's a consumer level wireless tech yet that that has that kinda of bandwidth (BTW 72MB/s = 576Mb/s)

All in all, I think the point for Nintendo, is that they need less power to produce "similar" gfx at 480p. As I mentioned in another thread, one also has to consider how the cost of hardware scales with performance, as it might not be linear: ie. 2x = $50 more whereas 3x = $200 more (purposely exagerated to make the point more obvious that it's not just $50+$50).

Also, although the RevGPU might not be powerful enough to produce x360-level images at 60fps, it might be more powerful than what would be required to produce "similar"-level images at 60fps in 480p. This "additional" power can than be used to enhance pixel-shaders possibly making the final images look better than those of the x360 at 720p shown at 480p.

Remember that x360 devs are forced to do 720p, so I assume they will allocate their ressources to producing 60pfs at 720p. So while the x360 CAN to better than the Rev at 480p it will never show, because no one is ALLOWED to make 480p dedicated games.

Now if you consider a big chunk of the Nintendo consumer base, that don't have $300 to spend on a console, they most probably also won't have an HDTV at their disposal either. Meaning even if they did plug in all 3 there would be no difference to them and possibly even better gfx on Rev.

In any case, the idea of 720p or 1080p being "free" or easy is just wrong... or definately not true when considered in relation to 480p. Considering that an live SD-feed still looks way more realistic than the best HD computer graphics game/demo, there is definately something that you can do with more power at 480p.

 

[Monk]

Remember that x360 devs are forced to do 720p, so I assume they will allocate their ressources to producing 60pfs at 720p. So while the x360 CAN to better than the Rev at 480p it will never show, because no one is ALLOWED to make 480p dedicated games.

Now if you consider a big chunk of the Nintendo consumer base, that don't have $300 to spend on a console, they most probably also won't have an HDTV at their disposal either. Meaning even if they did plug in all 3 there would be no difference to them and possibly even better gfx on Rev.

But devs may not use aa at 1080p and 8x aa at 480p at the very least, I don't think that MS would be against that.

 

[sarusama]

But devs may not use aa at 1080p and 8x aa at 480p at the very least, I don't think that MS would be against that.

I don't think I quite understood your reply. Are you meaning to say that devs might offset some of the fillrate issues by disabling AA at higher resolutions?

As for the MS 480p issue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought MS mandates games to be at least 720p (and even use some form of AA). Of course your x360 will work on a 480p display, but it will have the same performance (ie the same framerate) and a "similar" quality (complexity of shaders) as at 720p because the game code generates a 720p image that just gets correspondingly scaled before output to the TV. So devs will still have to cut back on some things (more elaborate pixel shaders) in order to get their stuff running nicely on 720p.

Again (and this is not addressed to you Monk), I'm not saying that x360 or PS3 are going to struggle with anything. Just that, when going for higher resolutions you definately use-up a good amount of power on rendering more pixels with regards to lower resolutions. Meaning with the same power you can always do better things if you go for lower resolutions instead.

 

[Monk]

I don't think I quite understood your reply. Are you meaning to say that devs might offset some of the fillrate issues by disabling AA at higher resolutions?

Exactly that.

As for the MS 480p issue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought MS mandates games to be at least 720p (and even use some form of AA).

I haven't read anything that refers to AA.

 

[quicksilv]

isn't true that a game running in 720p has a large view frustrum/camera scope and thus needs to calculate/render more vertexes compared to 420p games? most x360 games are made for 720p (internally), meaning it will almost use 100% of power at 30/60fps (if the dev could pull this off).

If the user has a SD tv they might add some extra effects as less vertexes need to be drawn (if the game would also switch to 420p resolution internally), so there might be some extra AA or whatever filtering. But a dev will most likely not redo the 3d models to take advantage of the extra fillrate available at 420p.

On the other hand the Rev will shoot for 420p games, which means there is extra fillrate available if the GPU's are equally powerfull. So the multiplatform games can be locked at 60fps more easily, and platform exclusive games can use more detailed models/worlds just because the view frustrum will have a smaller window that it needs to calculate/render.

I actually rather see this on my TV (Europe) then having less detailed models/worlds at a higher resolution. If i watch a DVD on my SD tv i see way more details compared to halflife2 at 2048xwhatever resolution. There is still a lott of room to increase game graphics on SD sets! I haven't seen a game doing toystory graphics on my tv, so as long as we haven't used 3d scenes as complex as CGI on 420p there is still room to just go more detailled 3d models.

The x360/ps3 in europe means it is waisting power as they render at 720p and then downscale to 420p. I'd rather see them spending polys on character models!

One problem nintendo might have is that multiplatform titles will be made for 720p, and devs might just port them to 420p without adding extra geometry to the models, but just add some pixel/vertex effects and lock it to 60fps

 

[AB 101]

So the Rev will be awesome in SD and the 360 and PS3 will not?

Okay. Got it.

 

[capslock]

isn't true that a game running in 720p has a large view frustrum/camera scope and thus needs to calculate/render more vertexes compared to 420p games? most x360 games are made for 720p (internally), meaning it will almost use 100% of power at 30/60fps (if the dev could pull this off).

If the user has a SD tv they might add some extra effects as less vertexes need to be drawn (if the game would also switch to 420p resolution internally), so there might be some extra AA or whatever filtering. But a dev will most likely not redo the 3d models to take advantage of the extra fillrate available at 420p.

On the other hand the Rev will shoot for 420p games, which means there is extra fillrate available if the GPU's are equally powerfull. So the multiplatform games can be locked at 60fps more easily, and platform exclusive games can use more detailed models/worlds just because the view frustrum will have a smaller window that it needs to calculate/render.

I actually rather see this on my TV (Europe) then having less detailed models/worlds at a higher resolution. If i watch a DVD on my SD tv i see way more details compared to halflife2 at 2048xwhatever resolution. There is still a lott of room to increase game graphics on SD sets! I haven't seen a game doing toystory graphics on my tv, so as long as we haven't used 3d scenes as complex as CGI on 420p there is still room to just go more detailled 3d models.

The x360/ps3 in europe means it is waisting power as they render at 720p and then downscale to 420p. I'd rather see them spending polys on character models!

One problem nintendo might have is that multiplatform titles will be made for 720p, and devs might just port them to 420p without adding extra geometry to the models, but just add some pixel/vertex effects and lock it to 60fps

If you wrote 420p one more time I would have killed you.

 

[sarusama]

Exactly that.

um... *thinks about AA*... okay, now I get it. I was thinking about AA in the wrong sense. AA is meant to remove jags that are due to poor resolution (i.e. a line would get rasterized into a kind of "saw"), so if you up the resolution you'll have less use for AA, cause the jags are going to be reduced as a result.

So, yeah, Rev will *have* to do some good AA so as to have a good picture quality, without glaring jags. Now the questions is, will the Rev's "required" AA eat-up so much fill-rate that the advantage is lost? Will not performing AA on the other consoles result is a good picture quality? How do the generated images compare: Rev 480p with high AA and remaining fill-rate (if any) used for better shaders VS x360/ps3 720p with no AA and less complex shaders.

I think "edge-blur" is very important for the image. When you're already rendering stuff that isn't real (because you just can't achieve it!) and then you have the elements sharply separated, it'll add the the "fake" look of things. Kinda like most PC games at the moment running at 1600x1200. To me it looks like bad photoshops (copy element and paste it onto a background).

 

[sarusama]

So the Rev will be awesome in SD and the 360 and PS3 will not?

Okay. Got it.

No you're not quite getting it. (if that was meant to be sarcastic). 360 and PS3 *would* look better on SD/ED *if* they made the games specifically for SD, meaning actually investing all the console's ressources into SD/ED-res. But (at least for the 360), if devs have to make it at 720p, then part of the resources are going into higher resolutions, resources that Rev could use to rather enhance a SD/ED image.

 

[AB 101]

I was being a little sarcastic.

Hard to say exactly how the two would compare.

Seems like a higher res is flat out needed for very finely detailed stuff.

 

[bigNman]

If Revolution does not support HD does that mean they could get away with only 256 MB of RAM?

 

[Vieo]

SDTV = 480 interlaced
EDTV 720i= 480 progressive - 720 interlaced (basic PC monitor resolution, not HDTV, but much better than SDTV)
HDTV 720p= 720 interlaced - 720 progressive
HDTV 1080i= 720 progressive - 1080 interlaced (sort of the HDTV "standerd" right now)
HDTV 1080p= 1080 interlaced - 1080 progressive

I know EDTV is seen as the "basterd child" of TV's today, but literally, if Revolution is only aiming to be 480p...then that is not merely SDTV...that's EDTV! Revolution's graphics will look optimized on a SDTV, EDTV or a PC monitor and Nintendo may be "aiming low" on purpose to make something like stereo scopic 3D or wireless outputs to multiple screens throughout the house more possible. It should still look alright on HDTV's too, if some GCN games slipped thru in 480p this generation, then I don't see why some won't slip thru as 720p next.

So is this true and confirmed? There really will be a way to hook revolution up to a monitor(CRT or LCD, or both?) without having to use a crappy third-party VGA box or something like that?

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

The best route for Nintendo when it comes to memory is have 512MB, this atleast would allow the devs to use high resolution textures(2048x2048)or lower for a better overall quality image.

 

[Mrbob]

The best route for Nintendo when it comes to memory is have 512MB, this atleast would allow the devs to use high resolution textures(2048x2048)or lower for a better overall quality image.

That's built in flash memory. We don't know how much internal video ram and dedicated ram the system has at the moment.

Klee forget about that Mits, have you checked this out yet?

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200302/03-008E/

The 50" model is gonna be $3999 and the 60" model $4999. Coming out October/November this year.