So developers are supposedly starting to talk to IGN about the power of the Revolution, and there's significant evidence to suggest that what they are saying about the specs is true (I'm not going to bother detailing that evidence in this entry).  Word is that the Revolution is "about 2 to 3 times as powerful as GameCube" just as Nintendo originally stated and then later denied/downplayed. 

One part of the system is becoming clear now: the RAM.  Apparantly it's getting no larger than 128 MBs and could be even less.  One developer said the ram is 64 MBs more than GC, making 96MB total, which is (drumroll....) 3 times the RAM!  Since this is a console and not a pc, and the Rev. won't be in HD, this might actually be plenty of memory, since it won't need truckloads of memory for high res textures, and won't be running windows, with 20 processes happening in the background as on a PC. 

The Hollywood GPU is apparantly still a wild card, although the overall power of the console, again, is estimated to be around 2 to 3 times that of the GameCube.  Lets have fun with math and compute the Rev. specs!!

             GC                          REV
RAM    32    -->  x3   -->   96 MBs
CPU    485  -->  x3   -->   1455 MHz
GPU    162  -->  x3   -->   486 MHz

(note-the ram on the GC is a little more complicated than that, it has 24MBs 1T-SRAM and 16MBs D-RAM - 40MBs overall)

Of course this is ridiculously simplified, without taking into account the type of material the chips are on, what the bus's transfer speed is, what shader capabilities are in the GPU, etc.  I also think the cpu's clockspeed seems too low, I'd expect 2.0GHz at least, and the gpu seems too powerful, practically as fast as the 360.  Anywho, it doesn't look too shabby so far, I mean, Doom 3 runs great on Xbox, which has a 733MHz P3, while Rev. will most likely have twice the processing power of that in its IBM cpu, just to put that in perspective.

The developers are saying it's sort of like a souped up xbox, with the gpu being somewhat of a mystery, but I'd bet we've basically got the specs right here in front of us, now we just have to see what really matters - what the games actually look like.

Here's a thought, the Revolution having the best graphics of the next gen systems. 

True, there's no HD, but I frankly play my PC games in 480p with maxed out graphics, which ends up looking better than super-high resolutions with no antialiasing, no v-sync, no bump mapping, low-res textures, less geometry, dumbed down pixel effects, etc.  In other words, with the Revolution rendering specifically for this resolution it will have much more performance to work with and may out do the competition. 

Seriously, how bad is it to be limited to 480p?  Theoretically the Revolution's graphics could get as good as a movie like Lord Of The Rings, or Star Wars are on your regular TV.  That's not a serious limitation, in fact, that would look better than the 360 games on the market today.

Think about the graphics chips for the next-gen systems.  Although the debate between Sony and M$ goes on, as far as I can tell, the ATI chip in the 360 is somewhat better than the PS3's RSX chip.  Now, supposing that were true, and that ATI then builds a new chip (which is one year newer) specifically for the Revolution, is it so hard to imagine Nintendo's fifth system having the best graphics chip?  That, plus a brand spanking new IBM cpu, and games rendered in a resolution that doesn't slaughter visuals, and suddenly it's not so crazy to hope that Revolution will be a graphical marvel.

Funny story, a while back the head of Factor 5 mentioned how he loves how powerful the PS3 is, yet at the same time it's kind of disappointing, he said, how since they are doing it all in HD they are struggling once again to make 30 fps, yet if they stayed in standard definition, they would literally be capable of doing anything with the visuals that they wanted. That's what the man who made Rogue Squadron 1, 2, and 3 said.  Now, imagine a console that had the power to do anything with its graphics.  Imagine a Star Wars game where you are a jedi on a planet, with hundreds of capital ships in the air, and thousands of people running all around you as the surface is attacked, with dozens and dozens of landing craft coming down to invade, while having hundreds of battles going on all around you.  X-Wings in the air, Jedi in battle, troops everywhere, chaos, fire, explosions, miles of distance can be seen at once, etc.  In the words of Nintendo President Satoru Iwata, "when you turn on Revolution and see its graphics, you will say WOW".

IGN has made an excellent article detailing 10 main reasons to not get a Xbox 360 and instead to get the Revolution, which I have paraphrased here:

1-The Xbox 360 is ridiculously expensive, especially once you include all the accessories you require to fully take advantage of it.

2-The 360 has the same games that we've always had simply with prettier graphics.  PS3 will most likely have even better graphics while the Revolution will offer a totally new way to play games.

3-360 doesn't have Legend Of Zelda, nor any other Nintendo franchises, only Nintendo does.

4-Revolution is the most likely system for you to be able to play with your family, girlfriend, or grandpa with.  Playing a game of tennis with your gf vs. you playing halo and her watching.

5-360 doesn't have Metroid Prime 3, and it's important to note that Prime 3, Ubisoft's fps, and the new Final Fantasy on the Revolution are examples of games that will appeal to hardcore gamers.

6-Revolution will most likely be priced below 200 dollars.

7-Backward compatibility: Only on Revolution can you play Mario Bros from the NES, Super Mario World from the SNES, Mario 64 from the N64, Mario Sunshine from the GC, and Mario 128 from the Revolution.  360 cannot begin to compete with that.

8-Revolution is small, quiet and stylish.  The 360 is loud and clunky, and the power supply is roughly 1000 times the size of Earth.  IGN mentioned they had to turn up the volume of perfect dark zero just to drown out the sound of the 360 fan.

9-360 doesn't have Smash Bros. Online, nor does it have a free online service that allows for something as cool as a multiplayer Nintendo game; did somebody say Mario Kart Revolution Online?

10-The Revolution controller will change everything.  It will make the competition look dated and archaic.

As Microsoft bragged about how the 360 will have all games run in high definition, I began to be very suspicious.  You see, a higher resolution is great, but that also means worse frame rates, and therefore, worse graphics (to compensate) than were otherwise possible on lower resolutions.  Now, suppose you have a standard definition TV (like over 80 percent of the gaming population!!) and you play a 360 game on it.  Now, you are not getting a higher resolution, but you ARE getting the worse frame rates and worse graphics than would otherwise be possible with your 360 and standard TV.  What I'm saying is if they built games for standard resolution, the graphics could be / would be better!

Now, developers are struggling to keep 30 fps while running in 720p, and the 360 simply renders up or down to make the image fit your screen.  Well that's just great.  I told myself, "remember what they told you, 'the graphics will be great on all TV's since the system is so friggin powerful'".  I almost believed that, until the reviews came in.

I read reviews of 4 Xbox 360 games on two gaming sites and I repeatedly saw the daunting words "the graphics depend on what kind of TV you have", "The visuals only look 'next-gen' if you have the proper TV"," the incredible visuals are not noticeable on normal televisions."  So there we go, case closed.  I think I'll go find some traffic to walk into.

I've been thinking about the Revolution's hardware and it's probable amount of power.  It has occured to me that even though we don't know specifics about it, we know all that we really need to know.  I mean, when sony talks about how the PS3 can transfer 22.4 GBs per second between system memory and the graphics chip, does anyone know what kind of a difference that makes to the games graphics as opposed to 19 GBs per second?

We gamers see specs in basic units, like 360 "hmm, 3 cores are better than 2" and PS3 "oh ya, 7 thingies that process stuff".  Getting a higher level of understanding of what these spec sheets actually mean just isn't realistic.

So in crude terms we know lots about the new Nintendo system:

1)512 MBs of flash memory (plenty to save files and download old games, faster than a hard drive, and expandable too)

2)Brand new IBM Broadway processor.  Ok, has to be faster than Pentium 4 if its newer, from a better company, and is custom designed for Revolution.  Also simpler than the competitors, so maybe the processor has 2.4 GHz clock speed, 2 threads, 256 KBs total cache and I dunno, 24 pipelines.  There, that's as good as any spec sheet from Microsoft.

3)Ram will be enough.  Whatever the system needs, Nintendo will give it.  This is their fifth system, not to mention the handhelds, they know how to make a competent, bottle-neck free system, and they shall do exactly that.  Maybe 256MBs main system memory, who knows.  The memory is different for consoles than it is for PC's.  They are getting MoSys to design their Ram again like with GameCube, and that was some weird design called 1T-SRAM which worked like static ram but was as cheap as dynamic ram (for those who aren't in computer science - that's good).

4)I talked too long on that last one.  ATI is doing Revolution's graphics chip, but they are also doing Xbox 360's.  Now, obviously any effective format, architecture, shader capabilities, etc., that they learned about when designing a chip for Microsoft, they aren't just going to forget.  It will be fast with all the important bells and whistles.  I'd bet their Revolution graphics chip (called "hollywood") will have a similar clock speed as the 360, the same "unified shader architecture" that they are so proud of these days, and will feature pixel shaders, HDL lighting capabilities, vertex shaders, and whatever else a gaming machine needs.

Ok, there we go, we know as much about the Revolution hardware as we (really) do about the other systems.  Here you go, read it and weep:

System Memory:
1T-SRAM memory solution, combined 256 MBs
Storage:
512 MBs Flash Memory
CPU:
IBM Broadway CPU, 2.4 GHz with 2 threads
GPU:
ATI Hollywood GPU, 240 MHz featuring unified shader architecture

So it will definitely be more powerful than a current high end PC, otherwise Nintendo wouldn't have brand new chips made for the system, they would just throw in a pentium 3 or something.  Lest we forget the GameCube's CPU clock speed was 485 MHz, yet its games were on par graphically with many games built to run on a pentium 4 PC with 2000 MHz, so things are never quite as clear as gamers hungry for specs would want.

In closing, relax, it's Nintendo's job to make a solid system with competitive graphics.  They probably don't want to release the details for fear of people misinterpreting them "omigosh, they can only transfer 5 DVD's worth of data across the CPU to GPU, while Sony's can transfer 7! I am SO getting a PS3!!"

I figure I'll be going with the Nintendo Revolution come 2006.  Essentially it boils down to a few solid reasons why:
 
1 - it'll be the most affordable
2 - it has a crazy new controller that I just have to have (imagine dueling someone online with that thing!)
3 - it is guaranteed to have the next Zelda, Smash Bros., and Metroid Prime, all of which I can't live without.

Beyond that there are some other perks, such as brand spanking new graphics, free wi-fi out of the box, and downloadable classics that only sweeten the deal.  I suppose the competition isn't all bad either though...the XBox 360 could find its way into my collection if Halo 3 becomes a huge hit like it's predecessors, and if the PS3 has a significant advantage in visuals plus some kicking RPG's, then I might be sold on that too, assuming I get an HDTV and an extra 600 dollars that I'm not using.  I am hoping, however, that Nintendo's new system is so perfect in every way that I won't need to buy any other system, because I am SO sold on that Revolution.

I've been thinking, the four different next-gen gaming systems (PS2, GC, XBox, PC) all have certain attributes, but only the GameCube truly shines above them all. I own a GC, a reasonably up to date PC, and I'm also a proud brand new owner of an XBox, so I have little purpose for being biased for the GC. You see, if I only owned an XBox, I would have crapped myself when Nintendo showed off its upcoming Zelda 2005 since it totally brought me back to the N64 days, in fact, when I did see it, I broke out my GC ocarina of time disc and got going on it to feel prepped for the new one. Mario games all have a distinct Nintendo feel to them as well. Doesn't a PS2 gamer want to got cut himself after playing Smash Bros. Melee on a friends GC? What, with all the memorable characters, maps, and general franchise mementos inside melee, how could he live with himself? It's not like its only living in the past either, these games that bring us back are classics in themselves. And new ones are always on the way, Metroid Prime 2, Zelda 2005, Paper Mario 2, Pikmen 2, Mario Party 6, Mario Tennis, etc. Look at the PS2, what's it got? Gran Turismo and Final Fantasy RPGs, thats what. Look at the XBox, and it has great online functionality and Halo Halo Halo. But look at the GameCube and you get Mario, Star Fox, Yoshi, Metroid, Bowser, Donkey Kong, Zelda, F-Zero, Kirby (shudder), Pokemon, Link, Pikmen, Luigi, Fire Emblem, Samus, Sheik, Ganondorf, and on and freaking on. Those franchises seriously kick the crap out of the competition. I'm not just being a fan-boy here, I'm absolutely serious - no other system has anything close to it.

And it's not even like the GC has crap non-Nintendo franchise titles. Just look at Rogue Leader, Resident Evil 1, 0, and 4, Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, Tales of Symphonia, Rebel Strike, and plenty others - all exclusives. Not to mention it has Link in the Soul Calibur 2 game, the whole James Bond series, Viewtiful Joe 1, and 2, Pince of Persia 1 and 2, 5 Star Wars games, a growing RPG list (the online Phantasy Star Online games, Crystal Chronicles, Symphonia, Paper Mario, and the upcoming Baten Kaitos), and a healthy mix of all other genres such as racing (burnout 2), tactical games (Ghost Recon 2), games like Sims, Splinter Cell, and Sports games.

Add the average third party list of games to the franchise crazy titles of Nintendo and GC kicks raw hide, I'm not screwing around here.

Here we go:

1. Zelda: The Wind Waker (Nintendo - Adventure)

2. Metroid Prime (Retro Studios - Adventure)

3. Tales of Symphonia (Namco - RPG)

4. 007 Everything or Nothing (EA Games - Action)

5. Rebel Strike (Factor 5 - Action)

6. Resident Evil 0 (Capcom - Horror)

7. Viewtiful Joe (Capcom - Arcade)

8. Splinter Cell (Ubisoft - Stealth)

9. Smash Bros. Melee (Nintendo - Action)

10. Soul Calibur 2 (Namco - Action)

The next generation is nearly upon us, with the Nintendo Revolution and PS3 confirmed to be showcased at E3 2005 indicating they could be out as soon as Christmas 2005. I can't decide which one to get, although it will get much easier to make up my mind once they are released and gamelists are available of course, not to mention their official names and basic info. For now though, it seems as though PS3 will be the super powerful console, which could extend its lifecycle, not to mention there will be some incredible graphics on it. Revolution will be pretty pumped up too though, the question is how much of a difference it will be. Revolution will supposedly "revolutionize" gaming much like the Nintendo DS, so that may be the choice to go with. Now, the XboxNext has next to no info attached to the name unfortunately. I believe the Next is having troubles since Microsoft said they would be the first system out of the gates next gen. and yet they are the only company yet to announce that they will showcase their system at E3 2005, suggesting there's some stuff going badly behind the scenes... And also, should I get the first system right at launch, just to be blown away by the next graphical leap in gaming to show off to friends and myself? Or should I wait, and actually make a more educated decision about the choice? Games games games... Halo 3, Zelda 2007, Metroid Prime 3, Final Fantasy 16, what to get what to get. Those will be what it comes down to just as it always has.

It's weird how things work in the console business. The N64 and GameCube have been excellent systems. They've kept me satisfied as a gamer for nearly a decade. The N64 had the best graphics of its time, with no loading times to boot, and the GameCube is such a cool system that's 100% focused on playing games, I just love them both. And yet, it is clear that Nintendo's glory days are back with the ever popular SNES, and also with the SNES that lives on in the GameBoy Advance. Why is this? It's not graphics, or numbers of controllers, or innovation, or online gaming, so what is going on? Perhaps the competition was weaker back then and hence we all have loving memories of our dear Super Nintendo from that time. Nintendo seems to think its partly because of timing. The last two systems have been disadvantaged by bad release timing, well mind you thats actually hard to say since its debateable that GameCube and Xbox could have abruptly squashed the PS2, who could have know that Sony would hang in there and not be another Dreamcast? In any case, I believe it really comes back to the games. See, now GameCube has its Mario franchises as always, but basically its hits are Metroid, and Zelda, with the runner ups being the occasional Star Fox game or what have you. Some good memories to be had there, but not much to brag about. Xbox is no different, with lots of great games, but only one that we'll all remember: Halo. Go back to 96' and you'll see two great memories: Mario 64 and Goldeneye. Now go back to the early 90's and suddenly you are welcomed home again. Final Fantasy 3 greets you at the door of SNES world, Chrono Trigger shows you around, Super Mario World, and Yoshi's Island say hi. You feel so happy, so complete. Super Double Dragon and Contra are watching TV in the next room over, meanwhile Turtles in Time is practicing its old fighting moves for old times sakes against the infamous Street Fighter and Mortal Combat. Games like Donkey Kong country look so gorgeous and Mario Kart is too addictive to be legal. Welcome home to gaming paradise: where every game's a classic. Thats what we need again. Not just Halo, or Zelda, or Doom. We need to stop the flow of generic games and go back to having fun again. No more should we have 20 ok shooters for the GC, we should have 5 REALLY good ones. Halo should be side by side with a bunch of other "just as good" titles. Zelda shouldn't be the only game looked forward to every 2 years. We have more games than we can count, and in a consumptive manner, play many many of them. In my opinion, its time for quality, not quantity. Lets see the next 100 "ok" games turned into 20 excellent games, you can only buy so many games anyway.