• 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!)

Reader mode
Alovon11 said:
I've said it before, FSR and other upscaling methods are the future and we likely are going to enter the death of native resolution with UE5's Upsampling, FSR, and that likely will accelerate when the Dane comes out as it brings DLSS into the fold.
Click to expand...

This is definitely the metric of where graphics are heading, we are pushing plenty of triangles and pixels for everything to look beautiful enough so achieving more with less is the new frontier. I usually equate the semiconductor business to the auto industry and when car companies were in this same fight to get V6 power out of 4 cylinder engines(V8 performance from V6) turbo chargers are now mainstream because of this.

The current evolution of software/ hardware solutions remind me of that same transition period to where the end result is highlighting how efficient your product is while maintaining the same or better performance.
Dakhil said:
I wonder if Dane not being able to be taped out has anything to do with Nano Next being delayed from 2021 to 2023, considering the differences between the Jetson roadmap at around January 2020 and the Jetson roadmap at around February 2021.

Jetson_modules-Commercial_roadmap.png


Jetson_modules-Commercial_roadmap-202102.png
Click to expand...
I definitely believe that the original roll-out was for Lovelace to launch late this year(November-December)and that manufacturing volume on 8nm to be allocated for the automotive chips and future Switch "Dane" device in early 2022.
ILikeFeet said:
it does make it feel like Dane was to come ahead of Orin. but to have enough binned chips for the Jetson Nano? sounds like Nvidia didn't have too high expectations of Samsung
Click to expand...
That's my thoughts as well, Nano has always been binned TX1 chips as far as we know right?
I'm still wondering can Samsung's full 8nm capacity meet the demands of both automotive Orin and the next Switch at peak volumes...
Skittzo said:
Hearing the basis and testing for some of design decisions is fascinating. We usually don't get glimpses like this into their design methodology. Thanks for sharing.
Click to expand...
The timing of this conversation is definitely interesting and seems like it's being put out there to shows those of us(myself included)in doubt that this was a plan of theirs all along. Nintendo will never give us a full glimpse into the way they do business and many of their choices are head scratching brain benders for sure, but they will always be that company that is to difficult to put inside of a box(which is both a blessing and a curse).

It's also the reason that people get super hyped every-time a Nintendo direct is announced because they are the most unpredictable gaming company in the business and you never fully know what you're gonna get with them.
 
I’ve got my OLED Model now and hot damn it’s nice.

I really hope they don’t view this as a “premium” entry so much as the standard moving forward. The whole tablet portion is a big step up
 
karmitt said:
I’ve got my OLED Model now and hot damn it’s nice.

I really hope they don’t view this as a “premium” entry so much as the standard moving forward. The whole tablet portion is a big step up
Click to expand...
Oh man, I forgot that you live in the future.

The overall tone of the developer interview posted today suggests that they view it as the new standard too, in my opinion at least
 
@oldpuck replied to my post about Dane and Maxwell's compatibility in the General thread:
oldpuck said:
This gets quoted a lot. Switch doesn't have the NVidia HAL module that makes this possible. Drivers written without HAL won't magically work on HAL enabled hardware. You need the HAL in both Switch and Switch 2 for this solution to work. Similarly, the NVidia patent requires a special kind of microcode that can work on multiple devices. Switch game shaders just use raw Maxwell microcode.

SciresM's analysis of the problem is 100% spot on. Lots of folks around here just don't believe that it is as impossible a problem to solve as SciresM seems to think. I think that it's harder than most people want to admit, and that SciresM is wrong that Nintendo won't try and solve it.
Click to expand...
Since I'm not an expert on the subject (saying this a lot) and don't understand why the HAL is needed on both ends, I'm willing to take this at face value. So it indeed isn't an easy problem to solve, but the existence of unified driver architecture and unified assembly patent (even though may not be applicable to Switch) suggests that Nvidia understands the compatibility issue and just might have a solution for Switch.
 
fwd-bwd said:
@oldpuck replied to my post about Dane and Maxwell's compatibility in the General thread:

Since I'm not an expert on the subject (saying this a lot) and don't understand why the HAL is needed on both ends, I'm willing to take this at face value. So it indeed isn't an easy problem to solve, but the existence of unified driver architecture and unified assembly patent (even though may not be applicable to Switch) suggests that Nvidia understands the compatibility issue and just might have a solution for Switch.
Click to expand...
I think the most likely solution is some kind of universal compatibility layer. The library of the Switch is absolutely huge and full of games that don't get updates (e.g. enabling video capture), so enforcing any sort of recompilation patching is not realistic at all. Nintendo has emphasized their intimate working relationship with Nvidia since the very start, so I don't think it's unlikely that the work will be done.
 
0
NineTailSage said:
I definitely believe that the original roll-out was for Lovelace to launch late this year(November-December) and that manufacturing volume on 8nm to be allocated for the automotive chips and future Switch "Dane" device in early 2022.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about consumer Lovelace GPUs, considering that I believe Nvidia generally has followed a 2 year cadence cycle for consumer GPUs. And consumer Lovelace GPUs releasing at around Q4 2022 still fits into Nvidia's 2 year cadence cycle for consumer GPUs, since consumer Ampere GPUs were released at Q4 2020.
 
0
Raccoon said:
Oh man, I forgot that you live in the future.

The overall tone of the developer interview posted today suggests that they view it as the new standard too, in my opinion at least
Click to expand...
Didn’t like how they pointed out the power consumption going down but no upgrades to the performance. I had no problem with the OG switch battery life. But they did listen to consumer feedback so I guess that’s what consumers wanted.
 
0
I think people are unnecessarily throwing themselves into fits over the backwards compatibility thing. BC was the core tenant of the Switch dev environment and people with less resources have made such a thing work on PCs. if there's no BC, it's because Nintendo said "no", not because "it's not possible"
 
Raccoon said:
Oh man, I forgot that you live in the future.

The overall tone of the developer interview posted today suggests that they view it as the new standard too, in my opinion at least
Click to expand...

Not wrong; I’m routinely called future boy by friends in the states :p
 
0
I don't want this to be a controversial take at all or a conspiracy theory but looking at the whole compatibility issue alone when it comes to future Switch hardware and this being a potential problem and everything we know about Nvidia's hardware as a whole.

Do we think on Nintendo's front that this was by design and establishing the current Switch and software line-up in this fashion guarantees a future potential to sell new hardware owners on remastered versions of original Switch games and or patch charge upgrades(with potential new graphical/performance upgrades)?

Maybe original Switch backwards compatibility gets locked behind Nintendo Switch Online in a new tier down the road either through streaming or a download option... I bring this up because the latest discussion from Nintendo's own hardware team just reiterates to me that these companies have internal roadmaps and they discussed these things through at exhaustion!

One of the biggest avenues of contention between publishers, developers and gamers is in the big business that is the aftermarket sell of games(which is usually looked at as super anti-consumer for companies to try and restrict or control). Microsoft got burned on this with the whole DRM-gate last generation and so we know that they aren't the only company interested in this topic, as we now see Sony trying to push their games to sell at a higher price and hopefully reduce product being moved at a sale price before they get maximum profits back. We constantly discuss how Nintendo games rarely go on sale, so they have definitely been more successful in retaining precieved value in the public mindshare as software goes.

Edit: This is an avenue of where both Nintendo and Sony are probably more aligned than Microsoft are, Microsoft are giving you everything within a single purchase whether that's Gamepass or individually sold software. Nintendo I could see being even more agregious than Sony in wanting to make some kind of money off of everything from upgrade patches to full backwards compatibility...
 
Last edited:
NineTailSage said:
I don't want this to be a controversial take at all or a conspiracy theory but looking at the whole compatibility issue alone when it comes to future Switch hardware and this being a potential problem and everything we know about Nvidia's hardware as a whole.

Do we think on Nintendo's front that this was by design and establishing the current Switch and software line-up in this fashion guarantees a future potential to sell new hardware owners on remastered versions of original Switch games and or patch charge upgrades(with potential new graphical/performance upgrades)?

Maybe original Switch backwards compatibility gets locked behind Nintendo Switch Online in a new tier down the road either through streaming or a download option... I bring this up because the latest discussion from Nintendo's own hardware team just reiterates to me that these companies have internal roadmaps and they discussed these things through at exhaustion!

One of the biggest avenues of contention between publishers, developers and gamers is in the big business that is the aftermarket sell of games(which is usually looked at as super anti-consumer for companies to try and restrict or control). Microsoft got burned on this with the whole DRM-gate last generation and so we know that they aren't the only company interested in this topic, as we now see Sony trying to push their games to sell at a higher price and hopefully reduce product being moved at a sale price before they get maximum profits back. We constantly discuss how Nintendo games rarely go on sale, so they have definitely been more successful in retaining precieved value in the public mindshare as software goes.
Click to expand...
I don't think any of these ideas really pan out. I think there are two aspects to Iwata's comments about being like IOS/Android: the consumer side and the dev side. the dev side, he wants devs to continue using Switch tools that will work on Dane. that would mean that Dane would have to be BC to the switch, because developing new dev environments is something no one wants to do and the industry has moved away from. on the consumer side, starting from scratch means, people will wait until there's something to play on the new system, preventing purchases. with Dane BC with switch (and some games getting enhancements), there's no reason to wait.

locking BC behind NSO would mean there would need to be constant online checks, which breaks the portability of the system

as for the last point, paid upgrades or even next gen exclusive content (FF7R Intergrade), there's plenty of ways to milk consumers
 
0
Dakhil said:
Today, Nintendo released an interview with Ko Shiota and Toru Yamashita about the OLED model in four parts. Here are some tidbits that I've found interesting, although I need to warn everyone that it can be very long to read.
(Part 1)

(Part 2)

(Part 3)


(Part 4)
Click to expand...

There’s quite a bit about them pushing limits of what they could do with the space on this new model.

People in here more familiar with the matter, does this pose any concern for the ability to employ a brand new SoC? Let’s assume they want to adhere to all of the same constraints: current joycons, tablet thickness etc
 
karmitt said:
There’s quite a bit about them pushing limits of what they could do with the space on this new model.

People in here more familiar with the matter, does this pose any concern for the ability to employ a brand new SoC? Let’s assume they want to adhere to all of the same constraints: current joycons, tablet thickness etc
Click to expand...
nah. if anything the chip will, at worse, be the same size. and they can actually squeeze the mainboard into a smaller size, the issue will be heat density, but that also means they can fit more cooling in
 
NineTailSage said:
I don't want this to be a controversial take at all or a conspiracy theory but looking at the whole compatibility issue alone when it comes to future Switch hardware and this being a potential problem and everything we know about Nvidia's hardware as a whole.

Do we think on Nintendo's front that this was by design and establishing the current Switch and software line-up in this fashion guarantees a future potential to sell new hardware owners on remastered versions of original Switch games and or patch charge upgrades(with potential new graphical/performance upgrades)?

Maybe original Switch backwards compatibility gets locked behind Nintendo Switch Online in a new tier down the road either through streaming or a download option... I bring this up because the latest discussion from Nintendo's own hardware team just reiterates to me that these companies have internal roadmaps and they discussed these things through at exhaustion!

One of the biggest avenues of contention between publishers, developers and gamers is in the big business that is the aftermarket sell of games(which is usually looked at as super anti-consumer for companies to try and restrict or control). Microsoft got burned on this with the whole DRM-gate last generation and so we know that they aren't the only company interested in this topic, as we now see Sony trying to push their games to sell at a higher price and hopefully reduce product being moved at a sale price before they get maximum profits back. We constantly discuss how Nintendo games rarely go on sale, so they have definitely been more successful in retaining precieved value in the public mindshare as software goes.

Edit: This is an avenue of where both Nintendo and Sony are probably more aligned than Microsoft are, Microsoft are giving you everything within a single purchase whether that's Gamepass or individually sold software. Nintendo I could see being even more agregious than Sony in wanting to make some kind of money off of everything from upgrade patches to full backwards compatibility...
Click to expand...
Nah, Nintendo has historically been all about the long tail sales for their evergreen titles, and BC lets them extend that even further.

I think the most reasonable explanation for the precompiled shaders is just that it was a calculated trade-off. They got some short term improved performance at the cost of more expensive (in multiple senses of the word) BC later down the line.
 
karmitt said:
There’s quite a bit about them pushing limits of what they could do with the space on this new model.

People in here more familiar with the matter, does this pose any concern for the ability to employ a brand new SoC? Let’s assume they want to adhere to all of the same constraints: current joycons, tablet thickness etc
Click to expand...
I think it depends on Dane's die size. My guess is probably not if Dane has a die size of ≤120 mm².
 
0
Pokemaniac said:
Nah, Nintendo has historically been all about the long tail sales for their evergreen titles, and BC lets them extend that even further.

I think the most reasonable explanation for the precompiled shaders is just that it was a calculated trade-off. They got some short term improved performance at the cost of more expensive (in multiple senses of the word) BC later down the line.
Click to expand...
I wonder how really difficult is it going to be? How is binary code specific to a GPU? Is Ampere/Lovelace going to be so fundamentally different that it can't handle Maxwell shaders right off the bat?

I guess it is all about how Nvidia designed Dane in the first place.
 
Golden Darkness said:
I wonder how really difficult is it going to be? How is binary code specific to a GPU? Is Ampere/Lovelace going to be so fundamentally different that it can't handle Maxwell shaders right off the bat?

I guess it is all about how Nvidia designed Dane in the first place.
Click to expand...
there are ways around it. the most obvious is emulation. if what we suspect about dane is correct, there should be ample headroom so that 99% of the catalogue will run without (much) issue
 
0
Golden Darkness said:
I wonder how really difficult is it going to be? How is binary code specific to a GPU? Is Ampere/Lovelace going to be so fundamentally different that it can't handle Maxwell shaders right off the bat?

I guess it is all about how Nvidia designed Dane in the first place.
Click to expand...
In general, GPUs don't guarantee binary compatibility between generations like CPUs do, so some emulation will likely be required regardless. I don't know enough about Nvidia's architectures to tell you how different Dane is going to be on that front, but Nvidia's known from the outset that this chip is going to have to run Maxwell code somehow, so if there are any particularly hard to emulate details they have the ability to customize it to better handle them.
 
0
I guess the question is it custom to Nintendo or an inherent part of the architecture Dane uses? Well, the SoC has to be custom somehow since it is derived of whatever Nvidia's developing for cars, and Nintendo doesn't need any automotive stuff.

I'd just like to see the what the solution is, if only because SciresM seemingly authoritative claim kinda rubs me the wrong way. I can't believe Nintendo isn't aiming for backwards compatibility because they ended up making Switch code impossible to run natively on Nvidia's future SoCs.
 
0
I'm still not quite sure why SciresM is so insistent on that. When the topic of ease/difficulty of backwards compatibility comes up, Corralx sometimes weighs in to remind us that:
1. Backwards compatibility requires some level of work from Nintendo/Nvidia's part
2. ...but the change in GPU architectures is not the biggest hurdle here whatsoever from his perspective
And I think from a mention of NDA with Nintendo, I'm led to infer that Corralx presumably has more... direct knowledge of this specific topic (developer's perspective I take it?) than an outsider digging around/datamining.
 
I know it’s petty but that “listening to consumer” quote kind of had a bad effect on me today. The whole consumer gaming community has been asking for an updated spec switch. Them making it seem like they have us exactly what we wanted with the OLED model just hit me the wrong way. I guess PR is PR.
 
Look over there said:
I'm still not quite sure why SciresM is so insistent on that. When the topic of ease/difficulty of backwards compatibility comes up, Corralx sometimes weighs in to remind us that:
1. Backwards compatibility requires some level of work from Nintendo/Nvidia's part
2. ...but the change in GPU architectures is not the biggest hurdle here whatsoever from his perspective
And I think from a mention of NDA with Nintendo, I'm led to infer that Corralx presumably has more... direct knowledge of this specific topic (developer's perspective I take it?) than an outsider digging around/datamining.
Click to expand...
I think a big part of the problem is that most people who could really authoritatively challenge SciresM on the subject are under NDA.

Regardless, I'm not sure there's really much to do on the subject at this point except remember that his knowledge has limits and wait for Nintendo to prove him wrong.
 
Personally I think Nintendo is on the right path to be "ahead" of the competition (AKA, PS and XB). the Focusing on developing a "Power Handheld" has more room for evolution and growth than "traditional Consoles" trying to be PC, no idea what will be the sales pitch for PS6, "Native 8k 120 FPS"??
 
garf02 said:
Personally I think Nintendo is on the right path to be "ahead" of the competition (AKA, PS and XB). the Focusing on developing a "Power Handheld" has more room for evolution and growth than "traditional Consoles" trying to be PC, no idea what will be the sales pitch for PS6, "Native 8k 120 FPS"??
Click to expand...
Speaking of 8k, when DF did their piece on the PS5 port of the Touryst I was very surprised to learn that PS5 can't even output 8k despite having a big 8k logo on the box. Feels like that shouldn't even be legal.
 
Pokemaniac said:
I think a big part of the problem is that most people who could really authoritatively challenge SciresM on the subject are under NDA.

Regardless, I'm not sure there's really much to do on the subject at this point except remember that his knowledge has limits and wait for Nintendo to prove him wrong.
Click to expand...
Even then, it isn’t like Nintendo can’t have a “virtual Switch” inside the Dane model.
It’ll just end up having a better CPU and more memory bandwidth(maybe?) by virtue of Dane having it.

The issues SciresM described only limits the 2 maxwell SMs I believe.
 
0
Tron1 said:
I know it’s petty but that “listening to consumer” quote kind of had a bad effect on me today. The whole consumer gaming community has been asking for an updated spec switch. Them making it seem like they have us exactly what we wanted with the OLED model just hit me the wrong way. I guess PR is PR.
Click to expand...

No I get you. I laughed a bit at it when I read it. I'm thinking to myself how that’s quite some selective hearing they’ve got if this is the result of listening to customers.
 
0
Hi everyone!

I found the Bloomberg episode rather funny, I wonder whether it'll turn out to have been a next gen all along, although it strikes me as a bit weird that will have heard about this so early on.
 
Zedark said:
Hi everyone!

I found the Bloomberg episode rather funny, I wonder whether it'll turn out to have been a next gen all along, although it strikes me as a bit weird that will have heard about this so early on.
Click to expand...
If dev kits have been out since 2020, then this was an inevitability. The only weird part is the "early" only because it's the system that is late, comparatively
 
0
Pokemaniac said:
Regardless, I'm not sure there's really much to do on the subject at this point except remember that his knowledge has limits and wait for Nintendo to prove him wrong.
Click to expand...
This is where I'm at. It's not like he doesn't make some jumps in reasoning; he refuses to believe that dev kits have gone out (which is probably the surest thing about the unit) on the grounds that there's no support for it in the official firmware. He seems to think it's impossible Nintendo would omit it from the public branch simply because they didn't omit details about Mariko and Aula.

I'm not trying to drag him, just pointing out his logic isn't infallible. He only believes what he sees, in part because he can see more than most.
 
Dakhil said:
Today, Nintendo released an interview with Ko Shiota and Toru Yamashita about the OLED model in four parts. Here are some tidbits that I've found interesting, although I need to warn everyone that it can be very long to read.
(Part 1)

(Part 2)

(Part 3)


(Part 4)
Click to expand...
Thanks for the article!

But after reading the first question I couldn’t not think about this 🤣

5ppmqs.jpg
 
Pokemaniac said:
Speaking of 8k, when DF did their piece on the PS5 port of the Touryst I was very surprised to learn that PS5 can't even output 8k despite having a big 8k logo on the box. Feels like that shouldn't even be legal.
Click to expand...
The PS5 is currently limited to 32Gbps on its HDMI 2.1 port, its unclear if this is a physical limitation or just a firmware one; its been suggested that the PS5 has a faulty Panasonic HDMI chip with the same issue that the 2020 receivers had (required hardware fixes on the AV receivers). If its hard limited, then 8k/60 gaming is essentially not possible on PS5 (technically you can get 8k/60 4:2:0 SDR with 32Gbps..but cannot get to HDR). If its a software limitation, this is likely just a something the firmware would enable (same as VRR, ALLM, and other HDMI 2.1 features that are currently missing) to bump it up to 40Gbps which would allow 8k/60 HDR and 4k/120 RGB HDR (which it cannot do today). The rumor mill says VRR and whatnot are coming this winter (after Sony tv's get their VRR update that is starting to roll out).
 
phyl0x said:
The PS5 is currently limited to 32Gbps on its HDMI 2.1 port, its unclear if this is a physical limitation or just a firmware one. If its hard limited, then 8k/60 gaming is essentially not possible on PS5 (technically you can get 8k/60 4:2:0 SDR with 32Gbps..but cannot get to HDR). If its a software limitation, this is likely just a something the firmware would enable (same as VRR, ALLM, and other HDMI 2.1 features that are currently missing) to bump it up to 40Gbps which would allow 8k/60 HDR and 4k/120 RGB HDR (which it cannot do today). The rumor mill says VRR and whatnot are coming this winter (after Sony tv's get their VRR update that is starting to roll out).
Click to expand...
I think it's a firmware limitation, considering that Sony mentioned that in the PS5: The Ultimate FAQ that "PS5 hardware supports Variable Refresh Rate (VRR) through HDMI 2.1. After a future system software update, PS5 owners will be able to use the VRR feature of compatible TVs when playing games that support VRR."

fwd-bwd said:
OLED Model teardown by Japanese repair shop

Click to expand...

The OLED model's motherboard seems to look very similar to the Nintendo Switch's motherboard in terms of size.
JLcMScO.png
7jrM5ma.jpg
 
Last edited:
Dakhil said:
I think it's a firmware limitation, considering that Sony mentioned that in the PS5: The Ultimate FAQ that "PS5 hardware supports Variable Refresh Rate (VRR) through HDMI 2.1. After a future system software update, PS5 owners will be able to use the VRR feature of compatible TVs when playing games that support VRR."
Click to expand...
VRR is definitely a firmware update, VRR/ALLM dont require any additional bandwidth, but the jump from 32 to 40 is a bigger question on if its software or hardware as 40 would benefit the current functionality (PS5 supports 4k/120 HDR 4:2:2 (32gbps), but not 4k/120 HDR RGB like Xbox (40gbps)).
 
0
watching these Far Cry 6 on low end hardware videos, I cannot, in good faith, recommend FSR at such low resolutions. FSR+TAA+low internal res = the blurriest goddamned image I have ever seen. DLSS Performance is significantly better here, I think
 
ILikeFeet said:
watching these Far Cry 6 on low end hardware videos, I cannot, in good faith, recommend FSR at such low resolutions. FSR+TAA+low internal res = the blurriest goddamned image I have ever seen. DLSS Performance is significantly better here, I think
Click to expand...
Why do people keep ignoring Ultra Performance?

DLSS Performance Mode is freaking amazing (540p turns into arguably better than 1080p in Control for example).

Although Ultra Performance DLSS is still far better than low-res FSR.
 
Falcatops said:


Did anyone watch this? I’m at work right now and want to know if they say anything interesting
Click to expand...

Saw it pop up for me but didn’t feel the need to watch. Over the years I’m just not a fan of IGN. I don’t think it will give us any new info. Just speculation.
 
0
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
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