Still waiting on that evidence to backup your claims. Chop chop, get to it. ;)

I disagree, not much could top the likes of Conker at the time.


Halo 2 also had moments that were visually amazing at the time, same with Riddick and it's excellent use of Normal Mapping, Morrowind showed that the Xbox was able to stretch PC-like muscle with great water effects at the time and Dead or Alive 3 had probably the best graphics on it's release.





All three consoles were pretty different that generation, all of them had capabilities that the other hadn't, that's not to say the PS2 or Gamecube were lacking, they both had games which were also impressive, but it's hard to argue that the Original Xbox didn't have the edge.

In regards to the Nintendo 64, you just need to look at Perfect Dark. Nothing on the PS1 or Saturn could match it. :P Majora's Mask and a few other titles were leading the pack too.
The 64 had many advantages that the other consoles didn't have (Texture filtering being a big one), but unfortunately there are a few issues that brought the entire package down overall, but it was still superior when programmed it's way, it just took time for developers to get there.
Perfect Dark though had great lighting, shadowing, models and geometry, translucent textures (Notable on Windows/Glass/Water), Filtering, Reflections, it was an effect powerhouse back in the day.

You missed the point of my comment. I'm not talking about how powerful the console can be, but the kind of components they will use.

Let's go back to 2014 for a second, shall we?

http://www.kitguru.net/desktop-pc/anton-shilov/amd-could-power-yet-another-gaming-device-chief-financial-officer/

AMD announced two new semi-custom design wins back in October. The design wins are expected to bring the company combined total lifetime revenue of approximately $1 billion over approximately three years starting 2016. Previously the company revealed that both semi-custom chips would integrate Radeon graphics, one would be based on ARM architecture, whereas another one would feature x86 general-purpose cores. Apparently, one of the semi-custom APUs is projected to power a “beyond gaming device”, which means that another will power a device that could fit into the “gaming” category, something AMD denied previously.

“I will say that one [design win] is x86 and [another] is ARM, and at least one will [be] beyond gaming, right,” said Devinder Kumar, chief financial officer of AMD, at the Raymond James Financial technology conference. “But that is about as much as you going to get out me today. From the standpoint [of being] fair to [customers], it is their product, and they launch it. They are going to announce it and then […] you will find out that it is AMD’s APU that is being used in those products.”

Given that neither Sony nor MSoft have shown signs of launching a new device this year, and that neither Apple or Samsung would use an AMD APU (they would use their own ARM processors), that leaves only Nintendo. That also means that we've known since late 2014 that Nintendo's new machine would launch in 2016 (and also shows how pointless the "NX will launch in 2017" threads are).

Now, with that in mind, let's take a look at Nintendo's history with the hardware on their machines: they have never used bleeding edge technology. If Nintendo is known for something, is for their "try and tested" pholosophy. Wii U? Old tech. Wii? Old tech. Gamecube? I wouldn't say old, but certainly not new. N64? The same as Gamecube. SNES and NES? Barely more powerful than a calculator .

Now, knowing both things, that the NX design was decided in 2014 and that Nintendo doesn't take risks with the hardware, tell me how likely is that Nintendo goes for a Zen based CPU (a processor that still hasn't launched to the market and that has been delayed several times) and an Artic Islands, now Polaris, GPU? Because I'd say that the chances of that are zero, which is the point I made with Pemalite.

Does it mean that NX will be underpowered? Not really. If we're talking about a home console they can still use faster Jaguar processors than those used in the PS4/X1 or even an Excavator based quad core like the one found inside their Carrizo APUs and a Tonga XT GPU to outmatch if not simply murder the competition.

Well. Zen and Polaris have taken years of designing, they were taped out 12 months ago, taped-out means that 99% of the hard work has been done. I.E It is a fully working chip.
So it's not hard to imagine it being a possibility, is it likely to happen? Probably not, history tells us that it is unlikely. - I just dislike *all* of AMD"s CPU's currently, none should be used in 2016 in any device, lol.

Yeah well, if Intel wasn't as greedy maybe we could see them used on consoles. But after what happened with the first Xbox, I guess we won't see that.

And the same goes for Nvidia after the Xbox and the PS3.

I don't think it's a case of Intel being greedy anymore (They have cheap processors like Atom and ULP Core-based chips these days.), they aren't exactly overflowing with competent GPU designs like AMD to build a competent SoC designed for gaming though. lol

nVidia (And AMD) probably could, based around ARM, Nintendo could possibly still go down that road with the NX, there were hints of an Android based OS being in play? (Which can run on x86, but that's fairly unheard of.)

If this becomes true, especially about XB1 power, then this could be more of a phablet sized device. My og prediction on this forum was Ninty's next hw as, the "N7: a 7in. 720p device".

Hopefully, consumers will have multiple devices to choose from, especially a real console that packs the proper juice. Or even, use SCDs that we saw in one of the NX patents, to bring power up to par and help cover the bases w/3rd parties.

Ok, maybe greedy is not the best description, but they are definitely not as cooperative as AMD, that can also provide a complete solution unlike Intel.

The ARM based console and the Android based OS are usual rumors, yes, and while I wouldn't mind if Nintendo goes for an Android based OS, I would prefer if they go with an x86 processor.

Heck, given they'll go with AMD and that they make both kind of processors, I'd prefer if they go with an ARM based APU for the handheld and an x86 based APU for the home console (yes, I want two devices), with the OS taking care of the shared games/apps.

I would like to see two devices also.
AMD doesn't really have a good x86 CPU that can compete with ARM in terms of performance per watt for a handheld, but they are an ARM Licensee too, so it would make sense for AMD to build a SoC for both devices, one x86 and one ARM.
...Or if Nintendo want's the handheld games to run on both devices... They could include an ARM block on the x86 Die in the Console for the mobile games and the OS. (Which AMD has been experimenting with as of late.)

It's impressive how flexible AMD can be really.

If they could include the ARM processor on the die, that would be awesome.

But I doubt Nintendo would make it, that would be an extra cost that they would like to spare if they can (like making the ARM code work on the x86 part).

Well. AMD has already done the R&D on this. (Including ARM and x86 on the one chip. - Project Skybridge.)
Intel also has a solution for executing ARM code on x86 too. (Binary Translation.)
Most games are built to the API and not the metal these days, thus hardware architecture plays less of an importance.

Transister wise... A couple of ARM Cores would probably cost 10-20 million transistors tops, the SoC could be upwards of 5~ billion, so it could be cost effective.