[angelmb]

Rumors abound indicated that Nintendo could separately be working on two systems and that ultimately one would be chosen for retail. System 1 allegedly featured a 2.7GHz PowerPC G5 processor, 512MBs of RAM, and a 600MHz graphics chip. System 2 allegedly featured dual 1.8GHz PowerPC G5 processors. 256MBS of DDR Main Memory RAM, 128MBS of GDDR3 Video RAM and a 500MHz graphics chip. Both systems allegedly featured a built in 15GB hard drive.

Mark these words:
The console is codenamed Revolution for a reason: Nintendo expects it to be revolutionary. The system will, according to Nintendo, fundamentally change how games are played -- literally. (...) Iwata in June 2004 described Revolution as a videogame machine "of a different nature that does not follow the conventional path of new game systems that increase speed and visual quality for making elaborate games." He added: "The rule of satisfying customers by increasing specifications worked once, but no longer applies now."

[MacGorilla]

I bet zelda will fly on that puppy!

[disectamac]

That can't be real. What would the cost of production per unit be for a system like that? That's some very expensive hardware even if production wouldn't start for 12+ months from now. I can see the mac mod sites with tutorials on how to buy a $200 Nintendo system and ripping the dual processors out for use in a tower.

[CharlesS]

Link?

[MindFad]

It's just rumor, so put your wanks away for now.

http://cube.ign.com/articles/522/522...html?fromint=1

[funkboy]

A PowerPC runs the GameCube now, along with ATi graphics (I think, anyway... correct me if I'm wrong, someone).

They better include a hard drive with this system... XBox's hard drive is just too useful.

And remember, the XBox 2 has a few G5s powering it.

[disectamac]

I hope that the XBox 2 and this new Nintendo thing will translate into cheaper computers from Apple.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by funkboy:
A PowerPC runs the GameCube now, along with ATi graphics (I think, anyway... correct me if I'm wrong, someone).

They better include a hard drive with this system... XBox's hard drive is just too useful.

And remember, the XBox 2 has a few G5s powering it.

You've got it right.

The odd thing is that both Nintendo and M$ are going through IBM and ATI (it appears, Nintendo hasn't made IBM official for next gen yet). This situation screams compatible game systems and/or collaboration. I have it on pretty darn good authority, though, that they aren't collaborating.

Well, at least porting will be easy. All three next gen consoles will be PPC, and two look to be G5 + ATI based.

BlackGriffen

[MacGorilla]

The PS3 won't be PowerPC based; it will still use the MIPS derived Emotion Engine.

[Rev-O]

Originally posted by disectamac:
I hope that the XBox 2 and this new Nintendo thing will translate into cheaper computers from Apple.

...or at least more game availability for the Mac...

[Eriamjh]

You sell 1 million Nintendos with G5s in them and the price will come down.

(How many are typically sold in a year anyway?)

[mitchell_pgh]

Should be selling sometime around 2009 I'm guessing...

Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft are all known for dirty tactics regarding game development.

Just before the next major release, the other two will release information about their new game systems in the hope that consumers will wait.

[disectamac]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Should be selling sometime around 2009 I'm guessing...

2009? You are being sarcastic right?

[MindFad]

2006 is the expected start of the next-generation consoles, possibly the end of 2005 (though unlikely). By 2009, we'll all be whining that the G5 is too slow.

[Powaqqatsi]

If they can get a dual 1.8 in a console case, then Apple has no excuse for not putting a G5 in a PowerBook .

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by disectamac:
2009? You are being sarcastic right?

Yes... If we are still on the G5 in 2009, I'm going to cry...

(unless it's a 500 GHz G5 )

[scaught]

Originally posted by angelmb:
He added: "The rule of satisfying customers by increasing specifications worked once, but no longer applies now."

sorta off topic..

i have personally never given a flying **** about processor specs (except to explain to my parents why i wanted a super nes "its better! its 16 bit!")

i only care about the games, and whether or not they are fun to play.

[SupahCoolX]

Originally posted by scaught:
i only care about the games, and whether or not they are fun to play.

Bingo! That's why I still play as much SNES as I do Gamecube these days. And Nintendo is really pushing that mantra now, with the DS and Revolution being more about fun, new gaming experiences than just better graphics.

[BasketofPuppies]

Originally posted by SupahCoolX:
Bingo! That's why I still play as much SNES as I do Gamecube these days. And Nintendo is really pushing that mantra now, with the DS and Revolution being more about fun, new gaming experiences than just better graphics.

Do you sleep with Nintendo or did it just brainwash you?

Do you think that Sony and Microsoft are all about old, boring gaming experiences? Sony, for example, has hinted that the PS3 will have a motion detector built-in.

Don't expect any of the next generation consoles to have hard disk drives. It's been rumored for some time that Microsoft will be dropping the HDD from the Xbox Next and Sony has talked about alternatives

[ort888]

The console is codenamed Revolution for a reason: Nintendo expects it to be revolutionary. The system will, according to Nintendo, fundamentally change how games are played -- literally. (...) Iwata in June 2004 described Revolution as a videogame machine "of a different nature that does not follow the conventional path of new game systems that increase speed and visual quality for making elaborate games." He added: "The rule of satisfying customers by increasing specifications worked once, but no longer applies now."[/B]

It's going to have 17 screens!

[Superchicken]

Sony has hinted it will have a motion detector... yey... that will make games fun how? I turn on and off our motion sensor lights... I don't find it very riveting.

Everyone knows the only people who innovate at all in the console world is Nintendo. They come up with just about every worth while idea out there. Rumbling controllers, analog control, shoulder buttons, and tons of other things. I remember when I was still a gamer Nintendo was always the first one to do the creative thing. Sony mass markets low quality crude games. They're like the whore of the video game world, they do whatever anyone wants. Microsoft... is Microsoft. Sega.. RIP... nah they're working with everyone, though it seems most of their better tittles that I'd pay are coming out for the GC.

That said... I haven't bought any games in a while, they got old for me, or I got old one of the two... either way I have my Mac, I don't need to play other people's creativity, I'll work with my own.
Nintendo still does have the most talent. Sadly Sony or Microsoft will probably buy them.

[disectamac]

I might have my facts wrong but I thought Sega had the first shoulder buttons.

[BasketofPuppies]

Nintendo was first with shoulder buttons. Sega didn't add any until years later with the Genesis 6 button controller - and it only had one shoulder button.

But saying that Nintendo is the only one that can innovate is just plain wrong. This is the company that insists on using the same characters over and over again in virtually every game it publishes. Which is why Nintendo has been suffering.

As for motion detectors, Sony's EyeToy has been plenty successful.

[nforcer]

If true, I think the dual 1.8 holds more potential. Things like AI, sound, music, physics and other code could be scheduled to use one CPU, while the other CPU and the GPU take care of the "revolutionary" new graphics. A 2.7Ghz model of the G5 likely exists, but if Apple couldn't use it in the latest round of updates it probably has really low yields and runs really hot. Although the Gamecube 2 won't ship for over a year, giving plenty of time for 2.7 problems to be worked out, I still think 1.8s should be easier for Nintendo to acquire (keeping in mind production takes time before release and Apple will likely be using 2.7s next year as well).

If true, I also think that the Gamecube 2 will be somewhat more expensive and larger than a typical console from Nintendo. They would have to accommodate for the HD, supposed networking components (since they claim to have some kind of an online plan still in the works), and additional heat produced by the CPU and GPU.

My response to some of the quotes from the article:

"I could give you our technical specs, as I'd know you'd like that, but I won't for a simple reason: they really don't matter. The time when horsepower alone made all the difference is over." That time was over when the N64 lost to the PS1. But the tech specs do matter, because it's the reason why the PS1 had crappy looking games with huge pixels and jagged edges and N64 games had smooth anti-aliased surfaces. And it's the reason now why PS2 games look really crappy compared to GC and Xbox versions of games, and why Xbox games are able to do so much more than both GC and PS2 games (things like LAN games, custom music, really nice graphics shaders, etc.)

Besides that, I think it's obvious from a business sense that releasing details now will only give MS and Sony a better idea of what to expect, and lessen the impact of the eventual official announcement of the console.

"Work on Revolution is well underway. When you see it you will be excited because you will experience a gaming revolution." The Virtual Boy was a real "revolution" as well, wasn't it? It sounds really cheesy. Like Sony and their "emotion engine" talk with the PS2. Unless I'm able to control games just by thought, I doubt it will be as much of a "revolution" as an "evolution"

[olePigeon]

So when the "Linux on Cube" project is completed for that particular console, you can run Mac On Linux and have a cheap G5.

[fireside]

Originally posted by BasketofPuppies:
But saying that Nintendo is the only one that can innovate is just plain wrong. This is the company that insists on using the same characters over and over again in virtually every game it publishes. Which is why Nintendo has been suffering.

just because they use the same characters doesn't mean the games aren innovative. look at Mario Sunshine. sure, it had staple character Mario in it, but they added a new dimension by adding in the FLUDD (thats what it was called i think).

[fireside]

Originally posted by nforcer:
The Virtual Boy was a real "revolution" as well, wasn't it? It sounds really cheesy. Like Sony and their "emotion engine" talk with the PS2. Unless I'm able to control games just by thought, I doubt it will be as much of a "revolution" as an "evolution"

Virtual Boy was a revolution, the reason it didn't sell well was because it got horrible press. "Don't buy Virtual Boy, it will make you blind!" etc.

[dzhim]

Keep in mind that almost certainly none of the next-generation consoles will be released before 2006. None of them have been unveiled yet, and most likely they won't be until E3 next year. So if Apple can put two 1.8 GHz G5s in a Power Mac and sell it at for $2000 a good profit today, certainly Nintendo will be able to put them in a (much less complex) console in two years, and sell it at $200-300 for a small loss.

I hadn't read about Sony's motion sensor hints; that idea seems interesting, but I'm not really sold on it. I saw a game that you control by waving your arms in front of an iSight. It looked like it would probably be fun for about five minutes. I'm sure Sony could come up with something more powerful than that, but I really can't think of any really good uses for it.

At any rate, I'm glad to see they're at least thinking. Both Nintendo and Sony seem to realize that the next generation of consoles won't be decided by horsepower alone. (I'm sure Microsoft realizes it too. They'll find something to do well, I'm sure.)

[ambush]

Originally posted by dzhim:
Keep in mind that almost certainly none of the next-generation consoles will be released before 2006. None of them have been unveiled yet, and most likely they won't be until E3 next year. So if Apple can put two 1.8 GHz G5s in a Power Mac and sell it at for $2000 a good profit today, certainly Nintendo will be able to put them in a (much less complex) console in two years, and sell it at $200-300 for a small loss.

I hadn't read about Sony's motion sensor hints; that idea seems interesting, but I'm not really sold on it. I saw a game that you control by waving your arms in front of an iSight. It looked like it would probably be fun for about five minutes. I'm sure Sony could come up with something more powerful than that, but I really can't think of any really good uses for it.

At any rate, I'm glad to see they're at least thinking. Both Nintendo and Sony seem to realize that the next generation of consoles won't be decided by horsepower alone. (I'm sure Microsoft realizes it too. They'll find something to do well, I'm sure.)

yo dzhim!

still @ pmd.cc?

[ambush]

Originally posted by nforcer:
If true, I think the dual 1.8 holds more potential. Things like AI, sound, music, physics and other code could be scheduled to use one CPU, while the other CPU and the GPU take care of the "revolutionary" new graphics. A 2.7Ghz model of the G5 likely exists, but if Apple couldn't use it in the latest round of updates it probably has really low yields and runs really hot.

Why is Dual 1.8 better than single 2.7?

I think it'd only cost more $ and produce more heat, therefore more noise.

I don't get your "scheduled" thing. Dual proc. isn't necessarily better than single. The kernel will take care of managing the CPU's tasks.

Sorry, I can hardly imagine a dual 1.8 + a fat ass graphic card, a HD (but it could be something like the iPod's!) and a media reader in a GameCube small enclosure

[nforcer]

Originally posted by fireside:
Virtual Boy was a revolution, the reason it didn't sell well was because it got horrible press. "Don't buy Virtual Boy, it will make you blind!" etc.

Certainly that's not the only reason (I wasn't even aware it got bad press). The lack of games was the most apparent to me when I played it. Red Alarm was my favorite, but Mario Tennis was fun, too. Beyond that, I played a few others that weren't very good, and I don't remember the rest. It had 20 games total or something?

One color limited graphical diversity in games. Well, I suppose it was two. Red and the absence of red (ie, black).

Having to lay down and look into it or lean back and hold it against my head made my neck tired after a while.

It was also pretty expensive when it came out, too. I think it was $200 or $250 and for a one color "portable", for the same price I could get a Gameboy and some games for that.

On top of that, multiplayer (which I think was possible but I never tried) required another unit and a cable, which just made it harder to do (less accessible because of cost). Compare this to a console game today where the only barrier to multiplayer is an additional $25 controller.

I'd call Virtual Boy an experiment and an interesting one at that, but I certainly wouldn't call it "revolutionary". Even today no similar systems or games exist. So it didn't cause any revolutions, or change the way any games were played.

[Will McGoonigle]

Do you think they'll sell this one with the tag line Cinema Quality Graphics? The same we've been hearing for years. How many consoles and graphics cards have been sold with that line?

[Hawkeye_a]

What what ? a nintendo thread, and hawkeye didnt spew all over it ?

I'd prefer dual 1.8Ghz CPUs. Why ?
As mentioned earlier, one could calculate physics, handle input and do the AI stuff.
While the other could be dedicated to drawing onto the screen along with a very powerful GPU.
Why not 2.7 ? simple.... yeilds of the chip at that frequency could pose a serious problem to cost and supply. the yeilds of 1.8Ghz is decent today which means prices will definately drop over the next year and supply will be consitent. Not to mention heat issues.

Eye-toy is one of the best iterations to UI ive seen since the original Mac in 1984. If done correctly, it could be a revolution on its own.

Virtual Boy, never seen or used one, only heard about what it does, and to be honest, it was a great friggon idea that wasnt done erfectly. reminds me of the Apple newton, being before its time, and not marketed well.

With promices of the Revolution being truely a new dimension to gaming, im personally really excited about what they have in store for us. As opposed to the competition, spewing specifications and clock speeds onto the public, the same way Intel, Amd and Microsoft does with computers. They mean very little.

In all, i want my immersive experience to be a feast for all my sences, not just my eyes. And i think the DS is definately pushing the envelope. i hope the revolution does the same.

Some peripheral ideas ?
-Wireless controllers. with a rechargable built in battery.(option to connect using wires when battery wears down to recharge and play games while connected using wires...(the way the iPod n firewire do it).
-An eye-Toy like device for the Nintendo console
-The ability to use some sort of virtual reality goggles with the console.can you imagine being in a racing game or flight simulator or FPS? WOW.
-obviously the ability to use the DS as a controller....wirelessly as well.


Cheers.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
Virtual Boy, never seen or used one, only heard about what it does, and to be honest, it was a great friggon idea that wasnt done erfectly. reminds me of the Apple newton, being before its time, and not marketed well.

They marketed the fcku out of the VB. There was a huge campaign with Terminator 2 like commercials, IIRC. The thing did poorly because it was a crappy game system, end of story. Bottom line is, Nintendo takes risks. Sometimes with spectacularly good results, sometimes spectacularly bad. Remember Rob, the little robot for the Famicom/NES? Flop.

That said, I hope Nintendo goes for some kind of multi-processor scheme. Why? Well, two reasons: Sony and Microsoft. The next XBox is rumored to have, what, 3 or more processors? Sony is even worse: the Cell chip is supposed to be extremely parallel. In other words, most games are going to be heavily threaded and should take full advantage of as many CPUs as Nintendo could care to throw at them. Going for a single, fast chip would hobble them in trying to get companies to release multi-platform.

That said, Sony, and to a lesser extent Microsoft are gambling next gen, too. Just how much parallelism will game developers be able to code for? It isn't easy, folks, and Sony and IBM are trying to make tools to aid in this. To what degree they'll be successful is debatable. In the meantime, Nintendo's, and to a lesser degree Microsoft's, designs will permit game designers to use more familiar tools and techniques. Whether this is necessity of the little guy or mistake on Sony's part is anybody's guess. GC and XBox were supposed to be easier to program for, but because of time to market (year+ behind PS2) it didn't do them a darn bit of good because the PS2 market was too lucrative for the devs not to learn. If they get a timely release and a more spectacular launch lineup, Nintendo and Microsoft may end up eating Sony's lunch before the devs have a chance to learn the new coding methods for Cell.

Dunno, we'll see how it all pans out. They're planning to all launch nearly simultaneously, so it will be crowded, chaotic, and anybody's guess about exactly what will happen. My prognostication:

• Nintendo and Microsoft have a quick start, leaving the PS3 in the dust at first.
• Sony should still have enough momentum from the PS2 to recover, but will be facing a real dogfight instead of a cakewalk like with the PS2.

From there, I don't know. Too much rides on whether the developers will ever be able to fully utilize Cell in a productive(sic) fashion. If they do, Nintendo and M$ will lose next gen, too. If Sony's gamble never pays off (eg, the Nintendo and/or M$ markets are lucrative enough to make continued investment in learning how to code for Cell a waste), expect the games division to limp into the generation after next while Nintendo and M$ jockey for first.

We'll see, though.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by ambush:
Why is Dual 1.8 better than single 2.7?

I think it'd only cost more $ and produce more heat, therefore more noise.

I don't buy the rumours either, but a dual 1.8 GHz G5 970FX would actually be cooler than a single 2.7.

For the 970FX:

The typical power rating of the single 2.0 GHz G5 is 24.5 Watts.
The typical power rating of the single 2.5 GHz G5 is 50 Watts.

The typical power rating of the single 1.8 GHz G5 is ~ 22 Watts by extrapolation, or 44 Watts for dual CPUs.
The typical power rating of the single 2.7 GHz G5 is ~ 54 Watts by extrapolation, assuming they don't have to increase the voltage.

Cost of the single 2.7 would be cheaper IF IBM could get good yields with chips running at that speed (the top end of G5 speed curve at the moment), but that's a HUGE if. It'd be a lot easier to get good volumes of single 1.8 GHz 970FX chips. Dual-core 1.8 GHz 970FX chips would also be a possibility, but who knows what their yields of those chips would be.

BTW, that's why I think the 1.8 GHz G5 is a good bet for the WWDC announcement for the replacement of the current iMac.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
I don't buy the rumours either, but a dual 1.8 GHz G5 970FX would actually be cooler than a single 2.7.

For the 970FX:

The typical power rating of the single 2.0 GHz G5 is 24.5 Watts.
The typical power rating of the single 2.5 GHz G5 is 50 Watts.

The typical power rating of the single 1.8 GHz G5 is ~ 22 Watts by extrapolation, or 44 Watts for dual CPUs.
The typical power rating of the single 2.7 GHz G5 is ~ 54 Watts by extrapolation, assuming they don't have to increase the voltage.

Cost of the single 2.7 would be cheaper IF IBM could get good yields with chips running at that speed (the top end of G5 speed curve at the moment), but that's a HUGE if. It'd be a lot easier to get good volumes of single 1.8 GHz 970FX chips. Dual-core 1.8 GHz 970FX chips would also be a possibility, but who knows what their yields of those chips would be.

BTW, that's why I think the 1.8 GHz G5 is a good bet for the WWDC announcement for the replacement of the current iMac.

It's the same logic Be used when selling the BeOS and BeBox. When i saw a show they put on at Carnegie Mellon, they showed a dual 601 processor when 604 were just hitting the market. The 604 high end chips were 5+ times more expensive then the 601, so a dual 601 (or even quad 601) would have been considerably cheaper and as fast, if not faster (if the os is built correctly).

Makes me wonder why we don't see quad G5 or even G4 systems.

[george68]

With those specs..... could it run OSX?

- Rob

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by george68:
With those specs..... could it run OSX?

- Rob

I don't know why not... I think it would obviously take a ton of work and it would be completely illegal to in stall the OS.

Apple should see this as an opportunity, not a threat.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
It's the same logic Be used when selling the BeOS and BeBox. When i saw a show they put on at Carnegie Mellon, they showed a dual 601 processor when 604 were just hitting the market. The 604 high end chips were 5+ times more expensive then the 601, so a dual 601 (or even quad 601) would have been considerably cheaper and as fast, if not faster (if the os is built correctly).

Makes me wonder why we don't see quad G5 or even G4 systems.

A lot of 3rd party software (and even Apple software - mostly iApps and such) cannot make proper use of even dual processors.

Anyways, the market for quad Power Macs would be exceedingly small. There is a market, but supporting this market might not be worth the costs involved, even if Apple could sell the machines at $4999 or something, especially when you can buy two complete dual G5 Power Macs for that price.

[ambush]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
I'd prefer dual 1.8Ghz CPUs. Why ?
As mentioned earlier, one could calculate physics, handle input and do the AI stuff.

Unfortunately, you know nothing about computer architecture and it does not work like that.

Even if there were 2 1.8 CPUs, one would never be limited to say, AI and "physics" and input, that does not make any sense.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by ambush:
Unfortunately, you know nothing about computer architecture and it does not work like that.

Even if there were 2 1.8 CPUs, one would never be limited to say, AI and "physics" and input, that does not make any sense.

Thanks for shedding light on that for us. we really appreciate it, we now see how wrong i am, and how right you are.

Good on you !

[ambush]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
Thanks for shedding light on that for us. we really appreciate it, we now see how wrong i am, and how right you are.

Good on you !

I know "separating jobs" for the 2 CPUs sounds cool. But it's not better.

You see, this should be decided by the programmer. It should be left to the programmer's discretion. And the kernel should decide which processor does what.

What if there's a game with no AI but mind blowing graphics.... it won't be able to use processor 2? that does not make sense, does it?

I would not say the same thing is the procs were not the exact same thing tho.

Example: Sony's PSP.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
A lot of 3rd party software (and even Apple software - mostly iApps and such) cannot make proper use of even dual processors.

Any app that is multithreaded makes use of dual processors (on OS X). Basically, any app that can perform a time-consuming task without beachballing is multithreaded.

Also, any time that you run two apps at a time, you're making use of dual processors.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Any app that is multithreaded makes use of dual processors (on OS X).

Unfortunately, many apps on OS X are not multithreaded as you know.

[MindFad]

I thought pretty much every single Mac OS X app is multithreaded.

(Why is there an ambush mooching my sigs and bandwidth?)

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
I don't buy the rumours either, but a dual 1.8 GHz G5 970FX would actually be cooler than a single 2.7.

For the 970FX:

The typical power rating of the single 2.0 GHz G5 is 24.5 Watts.
The typical power rating of the single 2.5 GHz G5 is 50 Watts.

The typical power rating of the single 1.8 GHz G5 is ~ 22 Watts by extrapolation, or 44 Watts for dual CPUs.
The typical power rating of the single 2.7 GHz G5 is ~ 54 Watts by extrapolation, assuming they don't have to increase the voltage.

Cost of the single 2.7 would be cheaper IF IBM could get good yields with chips running at that speed (the top end of G5 speed curve at the moment), but that's a HUGE if. It'd be a lot easier to get good volumes of single 1.8 GHz 970FX chips. Dual-core 1.8 GHz 970FX chips would also be a possibility, but who knows what their yields of those chips would be.

BTW, that's why I think the 1.8 GHz G5 is a good bet for the WWDC announcement for the replacement of the current iMac.

You did that extrapolation linearly, didn't you? CPU power scales quadratically, at best.

BG

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
You did that extrapolation linearly, didn't you?

Yes, but the conclusion still remains valid. A linear extrapolation benefits the 2.7 for this calculation. IOW, I might underestimating the max heat output of the 2.7, and overestimating the max heat output of the 1.8.

ie. It's quite possible the 2.7 is higher wattage than 54 Watts, and the it's also possible the 1.8 is lower than 22 Watts (or 44 Watts for 2 chips), which would make the dual 1.8 look even better for a machine power-wise as compared to a single 2.7.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Unfortunately, many apps on OS X are not multithreaded as you know.

I dunno, in my experience quite a bit of OS X apps are multithreaded. Basically, if an app can do something that takes a certain amount of time and not beachball, it's multithreaded. If an app does something that takes time and you can click a Cancel button to stop it, it's multithreaded.

[Eug Wanker]

Well, what about the iApps? Just how dual aware are they really? (And some of them do have fairly hefty CPU requirements for a good experience.)

[nforcer]

Originally posted by ambush:
I don't get your "scheduled" thing. Dual proc. isn't necessarily better than single. The kernel will take care of managing the CPU's tasks.

As CharlesS pointed out, a multithreaded app makes use of dual processors on OS X. So all Nintendo has to do is have a kernel that schedules like OS X, and then have multithreaded apps to take advantage of dual CPUs.

Currently, I believe UT 2003 & 2004 for Mac do sound processing in a separate thread (or so I have read on these forums, IIRC). So it gets scheduled on the second CPU on dual processor comps, freeing up power on the first CPU.

I don't see why Nintendo couldn't have something that schedules more of the non-graphics stuff like sound, AI, physics, etc. to a second CPU. They have complete control over things, and this is supposed to be a "revolution", right?

The key with dual processors is maximizing use on both instead of maximizing use of one and leaving the other idle at times. If they can maximize use of dual 1.8s, they have a combined 3.6Ghz of power (minus some for thread overhead). This is almost 1Ghz more to use than the single 2.7Ghz option.

And as other people have pointed out, some kind of multiprocessor setup would be better for porting games between consoles, since the Xbox 2 and PS3 are supposed to have something similar.

Originally posted by ambush:
Sorry, I can hardly imagine a dual 1.8 + a fat ass graphic card, a HD (but it could be something like the iPod's!) and a media reader in a GameCube small enclosure

Nor do I, hence

Originally posted by nforcer:
I also think that the Gamecube 2 will be somewhat more expensive and larger than a typical console from Nintendo. They would have to accommodate for the HD, supposed networking components (since they claim to have some kind of an online plan still in the works), and additional heat produced by the CPU and GPU.