• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.

StarTopic Future Nintendo Hardware & Technology Speculation & Discussion |ST| (Read the staff posts before commenting!)

We only have second (or greater) hand word to go by with the statement made around comparable visuals. That said, calling Witcher 3 on Switch comparable to the PS4 version is very liberal use of the language.

I assume the explanation is one or more of the following:
  1. The system is actually surprisingly capable after DLSS in docked mode.
  2. The demo is more optimized than when it was originally demonstrated on PS5.
  3. An individual’s perception of detail could be inaccurate when games already look as good as they do. It’s the controversial diminishing returns rearing its head. I don’t think this is the same as their Witcher 3 comparison. The implication here is that, no technically it’s not as good, but it does for all intents and purposes look as good.
For all we know the demonstration was showing the two side by side, or whomever was demonstrating it made these claims to the viewers. We just don’t have those types of details.
I think all 3 of your factors probably came into play, but I sincerely doubt it was demonstrated side by side. That would only have made the differences more apparent, because then the viewer could compare the actual demo on both platforms, as opposed to their memory of the demo on PS5/ Series X.

A fourth factor is Nvidia's RT advantage over AMD. Drake punching above its weight in terms of RT could see the RT settings being comparable to the PS5 version, even if other settings are reduced.
 
0
We only have second (or greater) hand word to go by with the statement made around comparable visuals. That said, calling Witcher 3 on Switch comparable to the PS4 version is very liberal use of the language.

I assume the explanation is one or more of the following:
  1. The system is actually surprisingly capable after DLSS in docked mode.
  2. The demo is more optimized than when it was originally demonstrated on PS5.
  3. An individual’s perception of detail could be inaccurate when games already look as good as they do. It’s the controversial diminishing returns rearing its head. I don’t think this is the same as their Witcher 3 comparison. The implication here is that, no technically it’s not as good, but it does for all intents and purposes look as good.
For all we know the demonstration was showing the two side by side, or whomever was demonstrating it made these claims to the viewers. We just don’t have those types of details.
What I can't understand is simply that DF really believes that switch2 in docking mode with an 8nm process can really reach 3tflops?I think they do know a lot about hardware but the above expression makes me wonder.
 
I rewatched DF's video from last year, and they simultaneously put up the numbers that the t239 process is 8nm and floating point is 3tflops, I'm having a hard time imagining what kind of cooling technology would have to be used to do that in handheld specs
Nintendo could be using new battery technology like Graphene batteries, which can pack a bigger charge and charges now evenly compared to Lithium, yes that is a thing. There are those micro jet blowers for small form factors announced recently at a tech trade show.
 
What I can't understand is simply that DF really believes that switch2 in docking mode with an 8nm process can really reach 3tflops?I think they do know a lot about hardware but the above expression makes me wonder.
I mean it's entirely possible Switch 2 in docked mode will go higher on power consumption than Switch did. Its portable mode that will suffer the most.
 
Nintendo could be using new battery technology like Graphene batteries, which can pack a bigger charge and charges now evenly compared to Lithium, yes that is a thing. There are those micro jet blowers for small form factors announced recently at a tech trade show.
I hadn't learned about the technology and was wondering how the size and cost of that cell compares to what it would take to upgrade from 8nm to other more advanced processes?
 
0
Everybody is increasing pricing for the hardware/software products. It’s not arrogant to increase prices in this market unfortunately.
if i was Nintendo i would keep the pricing of my software at $40 to $60, and would charge my next console at $300/350, Nintendo cant charge Switch sucessor software and the console itself too much.
 
Nintendo could be using new battery technology like Graphene batteries, which can pack a bigger charge and charges now evenly compared to Lithium, yes that is a thing. There are those micro jet blowers for small form factors announced recently at a tech trade show.
graphene batteries is still too expensive compared to ion lithuim battery.


 
I mean it's entirely possible Switch 2 in docked mode will go higher on power consumption than Switch did. Its portable mode that will suffer the most.
I don't doubt that, but how much higher is higher?How Nintendo manages to keep power consumption under 15w in docking mode and reach over 3tflops of floating point with the current physics rules is something I think is very difficult to do
 
0
So on this issue I think DF is contradicting itself, we either accept an 8nm process but lower floating point or most likely some more advanced process, DF is too pessimistic on the process choice and too optimistic on the possible floating point numbers.
 
So on this issue I think DF is contradicting itself, we either accept an 8nm process but lower floating point or most likely some more advanced process, DF is too pessimistic on the process choice and too optimistic on the possible floating point numbers.
Same with MLID. He is expecting the same performance on 8nm that we are expecting on 4nm.
 
It's going to be hilarious when the Switch 2 comes out and it turns out the T239 Drake was just for an early dev board and the final console uses a previously-unknown die shrink.
 
I think at this point if the Switch 2 is just basically a Steam Deck in performance, that would be incredibly disappointing. Especially since the Steam Deck games do NOT scale well at all at higher resolutions beyond 720p. Surely Nintendo could do better then that. At least I hope so! Steam Deck is a lot lower performance then a base PS4. Honestly I wouldn't even see that as much of an upgrade on the Switch we have now to be frank. Expecting/hoping for at least a PS4 Pro in docked performance. Anything less is mediocre in my view.
If Deck is comparable to Switch 2 in any way, it will be in portable because Switch 2 will have explicit portable modes while Deck allows you to push the hardware as hard as you want at any time, even if it drops battery life to an hour. Even in such a case, DLSS will make taking advantage of the 1080p screen easier for Switch 2, and the boost of docked mode will make even higher resolutions feasible. And both Deck's and Switch 2's CPUs are running circles around PS4s.
if i was Nintendo i would keep the pricing of my software at $40 to $60, and would charge my next console at $300/350, Nintendo cant charge Switch sucessor software and the console itself too much.
They can't get away with changing things too little while their own expenses increase at the speed of inflation as everyone else's does. A $300 machine and $60 game today would be like the equivalent of GameCube launching at $172 with $34 games. Or launching Switch with $236 hardware and $47 games.
 
I think at this point if the Switch 2 is just basically a Steam Deck in performance, that would be incredibly disappointing. Especially since the Steam Deck games do NOT scale well at all at higher resolutions beyond 720p. Surely Nintendo could do better then that. At least I hope so! Steam Deck is a lot lower performance then a base PS4. Honestly I wouldn't even see that as much of an upgrade on the Switch we have now to be frank. Expecting/hoping for at least a PS4 Pro in docked performance. Anything less is mediocre in my view.
You are getting tiring at this point
 
I don't know how you are labelling "per generation", but I'm pretty sure some Wii U owners also had a 3DS. You're double counting them as "reliable Nintendo purchasers." And I'm sure a decent chunk of those 3DS users were buying special editions/New 3DSes/second units. Those only happen if the base unit manages to hit a certain level of sustained popularity.

It's easy to imagine Nintendo vastly underselling the Wii, with no disasters, just a couple of less than perfect plays and a little bad luck. We're about the enter the Second War for the Handheld Market, with a hungrier Sony and Microsoft than we're used to.
Several Wii U owners did have a 3DS, just as several Switch owners have a Lite for portability, or upgraded to OLED (although I admit that this also affects the 3DS).
And well, for me the Wii U + 3DS generation fits into a big disaster, it was the least selling desktop console and portable in the Company's history (at least after the NES), and yet they managed to push 90M hardware units out of the factories, and we know that if Nintendo hadn't made the quick course correction it did on the 3DS, everything would have gotten even worse.
 
Several Wii U owners did have a 3DS, just as several Switch owners have a Lite for portability, or upgraded to OLED (although I admit that this also affects the 3DS).
WiiU and 3DS having completely distinct libraries would imo make it more likely that there is a larger overlap than between Switch and Switch Lite. Switch is already portable, it requires a bit (a lot) of purism to replace your Switch by a Lite for portability.
And well, for me the Wii U + 3DS generation fits into a big disaster, it was the least selling desktop console and portable in the Company's history (at least after the NES), and yet they managed to push 90M hardware units out of the factories, and we know that if Nintendo hadn't made the quick course correction it did on the 3DS, everything would have gotten even worse.
WiiU was an unmitigated disaster. 3DS was a problematic system because they made it too expensive for its market appreciation and had to slash the system price and eat the cost. That's an important thing to consider as well, and furthermore 3DS ended up being quite a successful system all things considered. If Switch 2 sells 90M-100M without such troubles, it will be a lot better than those two systems.

Plus, and this should not be understated, Nintendo Switch showed extreme profitability that rivaled the Wii+DS era, even before the COVID bump and even without selling anywhere near the number of units that those two system hit combined. NSO, hardware cost, game prices and volume, and the enormous amount of digital-only titles being sold were the reasons for this. And this is likely to be the case with Switch 2. So, in conclusion, a Switch 2 selling 90M-100M will be a much bigger than the Wiiu+3ds generation results. But not as big a success as Switch 2 or Wii+DS in that case, of course.
 
Weren’t there speculation that the switch 2 will be about 30% more powerful then the steam deck in portable.

Plus the switch 2 will have DLSS, which will make it significantly better than the steam deck.
In the defense of the Steam Deck, FSR isn't all that bad on the small screen it has...

That's it. Also worth mentioning that the Steam Deck's RAM pool is likely worse than the Switch 2's regardless of if it uses 12 or 16GB, so a lot of games are just going to run and look better on the device regardless. I still don't know why people compare the two anymore tbh, the Switch 2 even on paper outclasses the Steam Deck by a huge margin anyway.
 
Realistic

Here's the original post which is written by him, also from his website.

Meanwhile here's the english translation from reddit r/gamingleaksandrumor

I'm sorry, but if I'm not mistaken this Necrolipe article is also based on the results of a discussion on the topic, not some sort of leak
 
They can't get away with changing things too little while their own expenses increase at the speed of inflation as everyone else's does. A $300 machine and $60 game today would be like the equivalent of GameCube launching at $172 with $34 games. Or launching Switch with $236 hardware and $47 games.
There's no point in using inflation on old consoles, by now consoles should cost over $700, $70 for indie games and $100 for triple-A games.
 
FSR compares less favorably to DLSS the lower the input and output resolutions are. DLSS is going to have a bigger advantage at 800-1080p than it will on a 4K screen.
Without a doubt yeah. Keep in mind, it was the lightest of defenses, and for what it is... it's pretty good... just not as good as DLSS, on a smaller screen, and also on hardware that absolutely wouldn't use it the best.

DLSS on the Switch 2 is going to look glorious in comparison.
 
In the defense of the Steam Deck, FSR isn't all that bad on the small screen it has...

That's it. Also worth mentioning that the Steam Deck's RAM pool is likely worse than the Switch 2's regardless of if it uses 12 or 16GB, so a lot of games are just going to run and look better on the device regardless. I still don't know why people compare the two anymore tbh, the Switch 2 even on paper outclasses the Steam Deck by a huge margin anyway.
I disagree. FSR is terrible at low resolutions.
 
While it may be a bit offensive, I'm sorry I don't think Necrolipe has a specific source of switch2 information, the article I read back in January and I seriously doubt it was just a collation of the results of the famiboards' discussion, so it doesn't make sense to use the article as a source of information.
 
We only have second (or greater) hand word to go by with the statement made around comparable visuals. That said, calling Witcher 3 on Switch comparable to the PS4 version is very liberal use of the language.

I assume the explanation is one or more of the following:
  1. The system is actually surprisingly capable after DLSS in docked mode.
  2. The demo is more optimized than when it was originally demonstrated on PS5.
  3. An individual’s perception of detail could be inaccurate when games already look as good as they do. It’s the controversial diminishing returns rearing its head. I don’t think this is the same as their Witcher 3 comparison. The implication here is that, no technically it’s not as good, but it does for all intents and purposes look as good.
For all we know the demonstration was showing the two side by side, or whomever was demonstrating it made these claims to the viewers. We just don’t have those types of details.
At the end of the day Switch 2 isn’t going to be near a Series S in terms of it’s CPU or SSD performance so it’s best to expect a DOOM/Witcher 3 like downgrade on most AAA third party games. Although personally I think it will be better for the sole reason of getting at least 1080p like image quality when docked due to DLSS instead of 600p…

I think 99% of the market will be more than happy with that because in 50% of cases they will be playing the game on a 7-8” screen and not a 40”+ screen which hides a LOT of the compromises especially when the person isn’t looking for them or comparing said experience to another more powerful console in the same room.
 
Just because the rest of the industry fumbled their tool development doesn't mean everyone did, game rendering can still work smarter and I trust Nintendo to give us a fair share of how that looks like.
I don't think that's necessarily the case. I think that the industry wasn't ready to leave behind the older graphics cards and gen 8 consoles.
Same with MLID. He is expecting the same performance on 8nm that we are expecting on 4nm.
Didn't someone here said that the perf boost won't be that big? Like 20%? Maybe I am doing the math wrong isn't 20% more than 3 troops would be 3.6 tflops?
 
They might as well put a disclaimer under videos for entertainment purposes only if they're taking what MLID is saying at full value.
 
WiiU and 3DS having completely distinct libraries would imo make it more likely that there is a larger overlap than between Switch and Switch Lite. Switch is already portable, it requires a bit (a lot) of purism to replace your Switch by a Lite for portability.

WiiU was an unmitigated disaster. 3DS was a problematic system because they made it too expensive for its market appreciation and had to slash the system price and eat the cost. That's an important thing to consider as well, and furthermore 3DS ended up being quite a successful system all things considered. If Switch 2 sells 90M-100M without such troubles, it will be a lot better than those two systems.

Plus, and this should not be understated, Nintendo Switch showed extreme profitability that rivaled the Wii+DS era, even before the COVID bump and even without selling anywhere near the number of units that those two system hit combined. NSO, hardware cost, game prices and volume, and the enormous amount of digital-only titles being sold were the reasons for this. And this is likely to be the case with Switch 2. So, in conclusion, a Switch 2 selling 90M-100M will be a much bigger than the Wiiu+3ds generation results. But not as big a success as Switch 2 or Wii+DS in that case, of course.
Genuine question: Does this account for inflation?
 
Imo the better argument against 8nm is the chip size doesn't seem to make sense, which this time around is entirely customised for Nintendos device.
I think a better argument against Nintendo and Nvidia using Samsung's 8N process node to fabricate T239 is that although Samsung probably only requires Nvidia to pay for working dies when using Samsung's 8N process node for fabrication, lower binned dies are still technically considered working dies.

And I don't think Nvidia wants a surplus of lower binned T239s, especially with yields for Samsung's 8N process node not being great, since I can't really see any high selling product making use of lower binned T239s. (Jetson's definitely not a consideration, since Nvidia's already using T234 for Jetson Orin, from a higher binned T234 for Jetson AGX Orin to a lower binned T234 for Jetson Orin Nano.)

And Nintendo probably has no use for lower binned T239s. In fact, Nintendo probably requires higher binned T239s, especially if Nintendo requires the CPU frequency to be the same in handheld mode and TV mode, similar with the Nintendo Switch, for the reason that scaling down the CPU frequency is very difficult compared to scaling down the GPU frequency.

With the T239, it's almost certain that the only customer is Nintendo. Not even Nvidia themselves would be using it.
I don't think that can be said definitively. I don't believe any process node, practically speaking, can achieve 100% yields.

So there's bound to be lower binned T239s, which Nintendo probably has no use for, for the reasons explained above.

So I can see Nvidia using the lower binned T239s directly (perhaps for a new Nvidia Shield TV?) or indirectly (as in provide to other companies who have uses for the lower binned T239s).

I think at this point if the Switch 2 is just basically a Steam Deck in performance, that would be incredibly disappointing. Especially since the Steam Deck games do NOT scale well at all at higher resolutions beyond 720p. Surely Nintendo could do better then that. At least I hope so! Steam Deck is a lot lower performance then a base PS4. Honestly I wouldn't even see that as much of an upgrade on the Switch we have now to be frank. Expecting/hoping for at least a PS4 Pro in docked performance. Anything less is mediocre in my view.
I can see Nintendo's new hardware being comparable to the Steam Deck in handheld mode in terms of raw performance, which is not taking into account DLSS, etc., and the fact that taking full advantage of the hardware is much easier to do in a video game console than in a PC.

And I think saying that the Steam Deck's performance's significantly lower than the PlayStation 4 is definitely hyperbolic, considering that Digital Foundry found that taking into consideration the Steam Deck runs at a lower resolution, and that the Steam Deck's more akin to a PC than a video game console, the Steam Deck's performance's indeed comparable to the PlayStation 4.

Do we know what kind of Samsung screen is likely to equip the Switch?

If we exclude QD-OLED, we are left with IPS, VA and even Micro-LED. What would be the advantages both for Samsung and Nintendo to go for either of those? And what are the features in each (HDR, VFR, local dimming, etc.) that we can expect to make the cut on Switch.
Well, rumours say that Nintendo's new hardware uses a LCD display (here, here, and here).

And Samsung stopped mass producing LCD displays almost two years ago.

So safe to say Samsung won't be providing displays to Nintendo if Nintendo's new hardware's indeed using a LCD display.

Saying that, there's an article from Bloomberg released on 11 May 2023 about Sharp CEO Robert Wu mentioning that Sharp was working with a company on a video game console during the R&D phase in an analyst call after releasing Sharp's quarterly earnings, and Sharp planning to launch pilot LCD panel production lines that fiscal year for the new video game console.

So there's definitely a possibility Nintendo uses LCD displays from Sharp.
 
Last edited:
Anecdotes can go both ways. Almost everyone I know IRL in my age group has a Switch. No exaggeration. Exactly zero of them have a Steam Deck, and most of them have never even heard of it. They know PS and Xbox, one of them has a PS5 (maybe two), and I know nobody with a Series. The only place I hear about people being dissatisfied with Switch performance and leaving it behind for other systems is in online enthusiast spaces. But outside of those, the Switch is huge.
Yeah, weird tho for me, with the people I work with, 5 have the Xbox. One has switch but mostly uses xbox. And everyone I mention my switch to thinks it's underpowered and not a great system lol.
 
Yeah, weird tho for me, with the people I work with, 5 have the Xbox. One has switch but mostly uses xbox. And everyone I mention my switch to thinks it's underpowered and not a great system lol.
For me, I casually see people consistently using their switch on public transport, where I am.

I think it depends on region and countries you living in. Like the PSP was huge in post USSR countries, meanwhile the DS was more in Western Europe and America.

But one thing for sure is that switch is huge in the Asian and Western European market. I don’t really know if the switch is big in Eastern Europe though.
 
Its impossible to compare Nintendo products with Valve products. Nintendo is aming for mass market appeal and thus have to think more about price of the system over performance. Valve only aims for hardcore gamers that are ready to buy a high cost steam deck while they already own a high cost gaming computer.
 
I don't think that's necessarily the case. I think that the industry wasn't ready to leave behind the older graphics cards and gen 8 consoles.
That'd be the case if many of these games were still arriving to PS4, they're not. Rebirth, DD2, AW2, Avatar, etc are current gen titles, one of those runs in the dated UE4 and another of those shipped with absolutely terrible NPC pathfinding... These developers either fumbled their tools or pipeline regardless of limitations, and it shows.
 
Didn't someone here said that the perf boost won't be that big? Like 20%? Maybe I am doing the math wrong isn't 20% more than 3 troops would be 3.6 tflops?
Paraphrasing: "If I just knew 8nm vs 4nm, I'd say there'd be a big difference due to how the design would differ to be optimal for each. But given we already know things like the shader core count, that's no longer in question and the end result for how fast they run it either way probably won't be huge."
 
Paraphrasing: "If I just knew 8nm vs 4nm, I'd say there'd be a big difference due to how the design would differ to be optimal for each. But given we already know things like the shader core count, that's no longer in question and the end result for how fast they run it either way probably won't be huge."
yep. Either Nvidia engineers made the most efficient 8nm ampere chip ever by far, and we're getting something a bit weaker, or we're getting 4nm and we're dead on with our performance per watt calculations.
 
Inflation has been brutal. It's getting back to acceptable levels again, but deflation isn't going to happen.
Jr0HLFj.gif
 
The problem is really inflation. $299 in 2017 is pretty close to $399 today. Inflation has been brutal. It's getting back to acceptable levels again, but deflation isn't going to happen.
Deflation is a very bad thing, it means an economic crisis usually

Pretty sure the last time there was large deflation was 2008
 
Its impossible to compare Nintendo products with Valve products. Nintendo is aming for mass market appeal and thus have to think more about price of the system over performance. Valve only aims for hardcore gamers that are ready to buy a high cost steam deck while they already own a high cost gaming computer.

And because of the mass market appeal, Nintendo can get parts that customized to their need for much cheaper and can use ARM chips which is much more efficient and important for the collaboration with NVIDIA who is far ahead of AMD in AI rendering. Not to mention, Steam Deck will be 3 years old. I fully expecting the next system to be far ahead of Steam Deck and all other handheld PC. Maybe not on papers spec, but definitely on the resulting image quality in games.
 
I dont think The Switch 2 will beat the Switchs Record but I think it will do around 70 to 80 million units which is perfectly fine. I think the people who got into the switch just to play 3rd party games will probably be on steam deck or something similar because I would say 1/4th of the people who originally got the switch only cared about like skyrim or whatever 3rd party games it had and dididnt really care for Nintendo games. Those people have left and likely wont return. So but about 3/4ths of the people who have a switch use it for just Nintendo games (me included) so thats why I think around 70 to 80 million will be the amount it sells.
Don't take this personally, my intention is not to mock at all, but this type of post is perfectly representative of the form of parallel reality constructed by the discourse around the Steam Deck, and I can't help but find it very amusing. I think well of the Steam Deck, it's an interesting and cool console. However, the vast majority of people are unaware of its existence, and even among those who do know about it and think well of it, it remains a console positioned as a niche product.

That doesn't take anything away from its success on its own scale, but it seems like a lot of people who own this console sometimes have a skewed perception of its real impact. I mean, to think that the Switch 2 is going to see its sales halved compared to the previous console because of a higher-end product that's aimed at a smaller audience sounds literally like a multiverse scenario.

My best friend is one of them and hes a Pikmin die hard like me. Instead of buying pikmin 4 for switch and getting a switch again he legit just played it on his steam deck.

I know this is just what I see in my own area but Online with youtubers you see it as something thats very common as well.
How fortunate that "preservation" allows us to access very old games like Pikmin 4, released on a console that is no longer on the market.

On a more serious note though, it just goes to show how Nintendo's main strength will always be its games, and it doesn't hurt to point this out even on a hardware-centric thread. We can talk about power, terraflops, resolution and FPS all we want, but at the end of the day, even people who denigrate the Switch have picked up a SteamDeck or other expensive hardware because "Nintendon't" end up wanting to use it to play...Zelda, Pokémon, Mario and so on.

why do i need a Switch sucessor, when i already have my Switch that did everything this console do but better
Because you want to... play games? As said above, I'm always amused to see people decoupling software from hardware. The reason the Switch 2 is exciting is that it has improved or new gaming experiences to offer. It's always about the games, not just being able to look at your new console and say "my teraflops are bigger than yours".
In fairness, DF was very clear that they are basing their assessment on rumors and the assumption that Nintendo would prioritize pricing over performance. Near the end of the segment, it was pointed out that it could be on a different node than the T234 due to the name change and the delay. Rich pointed out that there would be a slim chance of this due to Nintendo's typical approach, but concluded that this is not the same Nintendo as before, so we will have to wait and see.
I really appreciate DF's technical analyses, which are interesting, didactic and demonstrate real expertise. When you analyze data, that implies by definition that you...own the data you're analyzing. Speculation is a rather different exercise, as we well know here, since it involves, by definition, relying on information we don't have. Here, for example, the entire premise of the discussion is essentially based on the "because Nintendo" bias.

It's not uninteresting, or in any case just as interesting as the biases we all have when we discuss things here, but even when you're called DF, your hypotheses don't become any more probable than anyone else's, and I have to say that the way they are sometimes very peremptory (as they had been, wrongly, about what would equip the "NX") can sometimes be a little annoying, although the most important thing, of course, as always is that Nintendo really should use anti-alliasing. ^^

I’d be surprised if it were launched for less than $450.
High launch prices hurt both the 3DS and Wii U. Of course, there were other problems, not least the lack of games initially available, but when you're aiming for a wide audience, price is very important. Naturally, I expect the launch price of the Switch 2 to be higher than that of the Switch. Not out of "arrogance" or anything, but because inflation also affects Nintendo, which has to pass on higher costs unless it sells hardware at a loss, which won't happen. Some expected and necessary improvements will also undoubtedly increase manufacturing costs, such as a bigger screen, more RAM or even more internal storage space.

However, in my opinion, there are psychological limits that must not be crossed with consumers. You can't launch the Switch 2 at a higher price than the entry-level model of the steam deck, or the entry-level model of the Playstation 5, whose price will surely drop with the arrival of the PS5 Pro.

Yeah, their main audience (mostly PC gamers) can be very aggressive if it comes to graphics. Even if Switch 2 aligns with our most optimistic expectations, they‘d call it underpowered after 4-5 years regardless.
A certain audience will probably even consider the Switch 2 underpoweredfrom day one since you know, the "T-239 will be obsolete". Once again, it'll be "Nintendon't, but please let me pirate your games anyway".
 
Last edited:
And because of the mass market appeal, Nintendo can get parts that customized to their need for much cheaper and can use ARM chips which is much more efficient and important for the collaboration with NVIDIA who is far ahead of AMD in AI rendering. Not to mention, Steam Deck will be 3 years old. I fully expecting the next system to be far ahead of Steam Deck and all other handheld PC. Maybe not on papers spec, but definitely on the resulting image quality in games.
Well Drake is 2 years old ish, will be 3 by the time it releases. But yea. Due to custom hardware and software (nvn2), and arm it will punch above its weight compared to handheld pcs.
 
Deflation is a very bad thing, it means an economic crisis usually

Pretty sure the last time there was large deflation was 2008

Yeah, deflation is dangerous because if not handled properly by The Fed (central banking system of US), there is a real risk of deflationary spiral.

In a deflationary spiral, because of poor economy, people aren't buying, leading to lower demand and falling prices. More production lines/factories close down, creating more unemployment, leading to further falling prices because people aren't buying. Additionally, there also are people who are doing "okay" with money, but isn't buying because they know the prices are falling, so they're more incentivized to wait longer before buying at cheaper prices, leading to further falling prices, thus those holding out will continue to hold out.

All this deflationary spiral mess is a vicious self-feeding loop that is hard to get out of.

The Fed rightfully want to ensure they can do all they can to avoid any possibility of "deflation", to avoid the deflationary spiral risk. To combat deflation, The Fed will aggressively decrease the overnight rate in order to encourage borrowing and spending ("simulate the economy"), which they did after the 2008-2009 crash.
 
The problem isn't inflation per se. The problem is that when inflation applies to prices but not to wages, it means a drop in purchasing power. But deflation in itself is a very bad thing indeed. Besides, I wonder whether the fall in consumption will lead to a fall in prices, but if I have to choose, I'd rather see wages rise than prices fall.
 
I don't think that can be said definitively. I don't believe any process node, practically speaking, can achieve 100% yields.

So there's bound to be lower binned T239s, which Nintendo probably has no use for, for the reasons explained above.

So I can see Nvidia using the lower binned T239s directly (perhaps for a new Nvidia Shield TV?) or indirectly (as in provide to other companies who have uses for the lower binned T239s).
Would seem kind of odd for Nvidia to use lower binned chips for something like the a new Shield TV when with the TX1, they had used higher binned chips to hit the max clocks. I'm still under the assumption that Nintendo purposefully went with lower binned tX1 chips in their favor. But even assuming other devices could use the T239 SoC, higher or lower binned, might that pose a risk in security? What gave hackers an easy means to access Switch was from public documentation of the Shield TV's ReCovery Mode for potential bricked devices. I imagine Nintendo would NOT want anything remotely similar happen here with a custom SoC they were designing.

Now, even if Nintendo were the only user of the T239, like you said, it simply isn't practical to think that a process node could achieve 100% yield that meets the spec a customer is looking for. But I got to thinking.... is over-speccing a thing? What I mean by this is, what if Nintendo during the design phase understood they would unlikely get the yield they wanted with the exact specs they were looking for, so they end up over-speccing the SoC so they can technically bin their own chip for increased yields?
 
The problem isn't inflation per se. The problem is that when inflation applies to prices but not to wages, it means a drop in purchasing power.
Well that's basically what high inflation means. High inflation tend to mean prices are rising faster than wages are.

But deflation in itself is a very bad thing indeed. Besides, I wonder whether the fall in consumption will lead to a fall in prices, but if I have to choose, I'd rather see wages rise than prices fall.
Uh, no, deflation is very bad. That is basic, common knowledge. Maybe read this. (nvm, I totally misread, thought the part I quoted was saying the opposite)

The Fed tries to target an inflation rate of 2%, which is manageable in terms of allowing wages to slowly rise over time. When inflation rate goes higher (8%, 9% like it did in 2022), wages cannot really keep increasing as fast, so to combat that, The Fed will increase overnight rate to discourage borrowing and spending.
 
Last edited:
I say that deflation is a very bad thing. That's literally the first sentence of the post you're quoting. And you answer "no, deflation is very bad".
Sorry, for some reason I read that as "deflation in itself isn't a bad thing". My apologies. I'll edit :)
 
Please read this staff post before posting.

Furthermore, according to this follow-up post, all off-topic chat will be moderated.
Last edited:


Back
Top Bottom