• 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
Radium said:
Not that I don't believe Nate, but iirc he didn't chime in on RT until after we already got a factsheet or something from Nvidia detailing Orin's RT capabilities.
Click to expand...
ReddDreadtheLead said:
That was after ORIN was found out to have RT cores.

Before that he made no mention of RT at all.
Click to expand...
And it was from information given to him about dev kits in late 2020, which is some evidence that the information given to him was accurate.
 
The bar is below hell.


RaymondBryce said:
And it was from information given to him about dev kits in late 2020, which is some evidence that the information given to him was accurate.
Click to expand...
I mean sure, but we only knew of the RT after other information came out pertaining to that. Before then it was completely MIA and even assumed to not really be present (as in, Nintendo paid to have them removed or would turn them off).
 
ReddDreadtheLead said:
The bar is below hell.



I mean sure, but we only knew of the RT after other information came out pertaining to that. Before then it was completely MIA and even assumed to not really be present (as in, Nintendo paid to have them removed or would turn them off).
Click to expand...
We did yes, but the people Nate is getting information from knew about it beforehand.

It's not definitive proof or anything but it's evidence in their favour
 
Blue Monty said:
When Nintendo has made such a thing other than for budget releases? Only case would be Gameboy light vs GBA but that was more than 20 years ago
Click to expand...
I'm just saying keep expectations in check. If it saves them money and makes the hardware that much cheaper they will not use OLED.
 
Dakhil said:
Nintendo can't avoid having hardware be compliant with USB-C and USB-PD specifications if this actually passes in the US.
Click to expand...
The EU directive regarding the common charger most likely will only have some small impacts on the future Switch models. There are four parts to the directive (comments mine):
  1. "A harmonised charging port for electronic devices"
    • A device only needs to support the baseline (5V, 3A, 15W) of USB-C charing (IEC 62680-1-3 and IEC 62680-1-2) to be compliant.
    • The existing Switch models can already be charged via a 15W USB-C power source. So no change is needed here.
    • The dock is a different story. See below.
  2. "Harmonised fast charging technology"
    • If a device supports charging beyond the baseline (5V, 3A, 15W), it is considered "fast charging".
    • A fast charging device must support the Power Delivery standard (IEC 62680-1-2:2021). Proprietary fast charging techs are not prohibited, as long as the PD support is present.
    • Although I don't have documentation to prove this, the existing Switch models can already be charged using various PD chargers and power banks, therefore I don't see any issues here.
    • The OG and OLED docks only enter the TV mode when the official and compatible chargers (15V, 2.6A, 39W) is connected. When an incompatible charger is used, the dock can still charge the console but won't output to TV.
    • I'm not a lawyer, but this doesn't seem compliant to me. The future Switch docks probably will remove that specific charger requirement.
  3. "Unbundling the sale of a charger from the sale of the electronic device"
    • This one is obvious. The future Switch boxes won't shipped with any bundled charger, not in EU at least.
    • Nintendo probably won't reduce the prices though, with the inflation and all that.
  4. "Improved information for consumers"
    • The manufacturer is required to display the power requirement on the product packaging or label.
    • If the device supports fast charging, the method(s) of fast charging should also be displayed. I.e., PD and any proprietary fast charging techs.
    • There are companies arguing that e-labeling should be allowed (e.g., showing it on a screen), but I don't know if a decision has been made by the EU.
    • We may see a disclaimer like this on the future Switch boxes:
fWZ2Vp8.png
(source)
 
ProteusRidley said:
I'm just saying keep expectations in check. If it saves them money and makes the hardware that much cheaper they will not use OLED.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it be just as if not more cost effective to reuse the oled parts (screen, battery, shell, dock) currently in mass production?
 
Serif said:
Wouldn't it be just as if not more cost effective to reuse the oled parts (screen, battery, shell, dock) currently in mass production?
Click to expand...
Depending on the situation. Do we have any potential specs, where we know they could reuse parts?

Out of curiosity of course. I don't know much about development myself.
 
0
fwd-bwd said:
The EU directive regarding the common charger most likely will only have some small impacts on the future Switch models. There are four parts to the directive (comments mine):
  1. "A harmonised charging port for electronic devices"
    • A device only needs to support the baseline (5V, 3A, 15W) of USB-C charing (IEC 62680-1-3 and IEC 62680-1-2) to be compliant.
    • The existing Switch models can already be charged via a 15W USB-C power source. So no change is needed here.
    • The dock is a different story. See below.
  2. "Harmonised fast charging technology"
    • If a device supports charging beyond the baseline (5V, 3A, 15W), it is considered "fast charging".
    • A fast charging device must support the Power Delivery standard (IEC 62680-1-2:2021). Proprietary fast charging techs are not prohibited, as long as the PD support is present.
    • Although I don't have documentation to prove this, the existing Switch models can already be charged using various PD chargers and power banks, therefore I don't see any issues here.
    • The OG and OLED docks only enter the TV mode when the official and compatible chargers (15V, 2.6A, 39W) is connected. When an incompatible charger is used, the dock can still charge the console but won't output to TV.
    • I'm not a lawyer, but this doesn't seem compliant to me. The future Switch docks probably will remove that specific charger requirement.
  3. "Unbundling the sale of a charger from the sale of the electronic device"
    • This one is obvious. The future Switch boxes won't shipped with any bundled charger, not in EU at least.
    • Nintendo probably won't reduce the prices though, with the inflation and all that.
  4. "Improved information for consumers"
    • The manufacturer is required to display the power requirement on the product packaging or label.
    • If the device supports fast charging, the method(s) of fast charging should also be displayed. I.e., PD and any proprietary fast charging techs.
    • There are companies arguing that e-labeling should be allowed (e.g., showing it on a screen), but I don't know if a decision has been made by the EU.
    • We may see a disclaimer like this on the future Switch boxes:
fWZ2Vp8.png
(source)
Click to expand...
Although I do acknowledge that most of the issues with regards to USB-C and USB-PD compliance seems to do with the dock, the tablet does violate USB-C and USB-PD specifications, as detailed by Nathan K. at Google+.
⋮
  • (4a) The Switch and Dock use a proprietary "Nintendo AltMode". This is fine. However, what's not fine is jumping the gun and entering the AltMode before even querying the Dock via a DISCover_SVID probe to see if it supports it!
  • (4b) The DISC_SVID probe exposing DisplayPort and "Nintendo" AltModes appears after the entry at (4a). This is bad because it means the Switch is assuming the presence of the AltMode merely because of the USB VID and PID in the DISC_ID above! This strongly hints the motivation was DRM, vendor-lockout, and shows poor consideration of forwards-compatibility. (Remember, Nintendo may release a different dock in the future... with different USB VID and PID! Hardcoding it is a bad idea, and instead it should rely on USB-PD commands to do it.)
  • (5) The Switch tablet itself also has the excess capacitance on Vbus and vSafe0v time problem the dock has. This is a much greater concern since it is a "Dual-Role Power" device. (It can accept power or give power.) This vSafe0v delay problem causes significant Power-Role Swap issues with safe, compliant hardware that correctly checks for 0v before swapping power. It can take up to 2 minutes for the Switch to naturally discharge Vbus.
  • (6) When the Switch finally does issue a DISC_SVID, and the dock replies, the dock messes up the reply. When you respond to a DISC_SVID request, you are supposed to "terminate" and pad the VDO message with "0000" (or "0000 0000"). Nintendo completely forgot to do that here, and tells me their chipset is bad. This noncompliant behavior means even third-party docks will have to emulate this wrong behavior to work.... which is bad for everyone, especially the ecosystem. (Race to the bottom for "compatibility".)
[Switch itself:]
  • The Switch tablet always requests 0.5a before moving on to the full amperage. I don't know why it does this. Especially since this behavior causes major errors with the Switch if the charger does a SRC_CAP re-advertisement, as mentioned in my previous post.
  • The Switch doesn't listen to the charger. (Yes, this is the same as the dock.) The charger says "I can't do Dual-Role Data", but the Switch ignores that and tries a DR_SWAP anyway. ("100 DKP minus.")
  • The Switch does not respond properly to DISC_ID requests from its port partner.
⋮
* The Switch and dock do not properly use the CAP_MISMATCH flag. Rather, they don't use it at all. This seems like the greatest oversight, since that's specifically why it's there. USB-PD has a requirement for flashing an error LED, or displaying an error, if there is a power problem. That's what the CAP_MISMATCH bit in a REQUEST is for.
Click to expand...
I personally hope the EU scrutinises the tablet and the dock. (I'm referring to future hardware here.)
 
Last edited:
Chijin_08 said:
Kinda. His name is Hidden04 while the username was HiddenCodeg.

the user definitely frequents this hardware thread since most of the leaks they posted came from here. I think it's him
Click to expand...
Hilarious, I was thinking about making a post asking who Hidden04 even was earlier but decided against it.
 
Dakhil said:
Although I do acknowledge that most of the issues with regards to USB-C and USB-PD compliance seems to do with the dock, the tablet does violate USB-C and USB-PD specifications, as detailed by Nathan K. at Google+.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info. The person claimed that 80% of the chargers he tested crashed the dock. That hasn't been my experience and I haven't heard any other similar claims either. Perhaps Nintendo quietly updated the firmware and/or replaced the PD controller ICs. To be fair, back in 2017 the PD implementation was generally a mess. The IEC 62680-1-2 standard was only published in November 2016. Those 3rd party docks that bricked the Switch didn't even have a proper PD controller chip in them.
 
0
RaymondBryce said:
And it was from information given to him about dev kits in late 2020, which is some evidence that the information given to him was accurate.
Click to expand...
Yes, in late 2020 the devkits had a limited form of RTX & was still being tested in various ways.

I've intentionally avoided specs like CPU and such because, frankly, the public don't need to know those details & such specifics would only serve to narrow in on sources.

I even spoke of things like DLSS prior to Bloomberg ever reporting them.

This is not an update but a reiteration of what has been said: dev kits are in hand of developers. The intent has been to launch by end of '22/early '23.
 
Last edited:
My deep sources tell me Nintendo plans on manufacturing Nintendo Switch this year along with new NSO releases. Further BOTW2 will be called Valleys of the Gods
 
NateDrake said:
Yes, in late 2020 the devkits had a limited form of RTX & was still being tested in various ways.

I've intentionally avoided specs like CPU and such because, frankly, the public don't need to know those details & such specifics would only serve to narrow in on sources.

I even spoke of things like DLSS prior to Bloomberg ever reporting them.

This is not an update but a reiteration of what has been said: dev kits are in hand of developers. The intent has been to launch by end of '22/early '23.
Click to expand...
Its is highly debatable wether any leaks about Nintendo products is a public service, but I get the argument about sources.
 
Hermii said:
Its is highly debatable wether any leaks about Nintendo products is a public service, but I get the argument about sources.
Click to expand...
Technically, you are right. No leak is a public service; but specs and technical details of a devkit mean little to nothing to the public sphere. Only the few who care about tech (or those wanting to use tech to start a war) will have interest in them.
 
NateDrake said:
Technically, you are right. No leak is a public service; but specs and technical details of a devkit mean little to nothing to the public sphere. Only the few who care about tech (or those wanting to use tech to start a war) will have interest in them.
Click to expand...
We all just want to be comforted Nate.
 
NateDrake said:
Yes, in late 2020 the devkits had a limited form of RTX & was still being tested in various ways.

I've intentionally avoided specs like CPU and such because, frankly, the public don't need to know those details & such specifics would only serve to narrow in on sources.

I even spoke of things like DLSS prior to Bloomberg ever reporting them.

This is not an update but a reiteration of what has been said: dev kits are in hand of developers. The intent has been to launch by end of '22/early '23.
Click to expand...
You don't have to be specific but my feel here is that 2+ years with devkits must be a near record for Nintendo 3rd parties or a partner. I was watching SMW retrospective and usually only Nintendos internal teams get this much time
 
it is absurd to doubt Switch Drake and the veracity of what Nate said in the past, when there has been a data hack in Nvidia, among the leaked data were precisely those of Switch Drake and they verified everything said by Nate.
 
NateDrake said:
Yes, in late 2020 the devkits had a limited form of RTX & was still being tested in various ways.

I've intentionally avoided specs like CPU and such because, frankly, the public don't need to know those details & such specifics would only serve to narrow in on sources.

I even spoke of things like DLSS prior to Bloomberg ever reporting them.

This is not an update but a reiteration of what has been said: dev kits are in hand of developers. The intent has been to launch by end of '22/early '23.
Click to expand...
Thanks Nate as always for your insight.

Can you maybe tell us if your NVN 2 leak discussion will be part of your upcoming podcast? Or is it still not ready for a record?

Thanks as always, most of us appreciate your insight here 👍❤️
 
0
Dekuman said:
You don't have to be specific but my feel here is that 2+ years with devkits must be a near record for Nintendo 3rd parties or a partner. I was watching SMW retrospective and usually only Nintendos internal teams get this much time
Click to expand...
Considering the 3rd party support Switch got in 2017 it shows lol
I think that they made a decision to give them early to ensure that 2017-2018 Switch didnt happen again and to get as many publishers/devs on board with the platform
 
Blue Monty said:
Considering the 3rd party support Switch got in 2017 it shows lol
I think that they made a decision to give them early to ensure that 2017-2018 Switch didnt happen again and to get as many publishers/devs on board with the platform
Click to expand...
I think a lot of publishers had no faith in the Switch if some of the public comments were accurate. With an established concept this is now different, but 2+ years with kits is something else. Doesn't sound like hurriedly porting PC/360 games like what happened with the Wii U either.
 
NateDrake said:
Yes, in late 2020 the devkits had a limited form of RTX & was still being tested in various ways.

I've intentionally avoided specs like CPU and such because, frankly, the public don't need to know those details & such specifics would only serve to narrow in on sources.

I even spoke of things like DLSS prior to Bloomberg ever reporting them.

This is not an update but a reiteration of what has been said: dev kits are in hand of developers. The intent has been to launch by end of '22/early '23.
Click to expand...
The great big question, and what matters specs for, is how does it compares to PS4/XOne S/PS4 Pro/XOne X/PS5/XSeries S/XSeries X (before thinking DLSS).

It would be possible for next Switch HW to get without too many resources spent games like RE4 Remake or Avatar? I mean games that are already aiming current gen consoles. Or we should better expect titles that aimed for PS4 HW like RDR2 or Elden Ring? (Of course, if it can run something like next Avatar, it would run RDR2). This is of course not considering topics such as budget/logistics/bias/etc.
 
Nate’s been talking about this devkit for a long time, and i feel like it just snuck up on me that there could literally be a Switch Pro/2/whatever by the end of 2022.

Time. Flies. Man.
 
LoneRanger said:
The great big question, and what matters specs for, is how does it compares to PS4/XOne S/PS4 Pro/XOne X/PS5/XSeries S/XSeries X (before thinking DLSS).

It would be possible for next Switch HW to get without too many resources spent games like RE4 Remake or Avatar? I mean games that are already aiming current gen consoles. Or we should better expect titles that aimed for PS4 HW like RDR2 or Elder Ring? (Of course, if it can run something like next Avatar, it would run RDR2). This is of course not considering topics such as budget/logistics/bias/etc.
Click to expand...
I remember for the nvidia leak, that the Switch Drake (with dlss) is like a Xbox Series S
 
0
One argument I keep seeing for Drake not being released in 2022/2023 that really doesn't make sense is, "The switch is still selling well."

This statement implies that Nintendo can do one of two things.

1. Design, manufacture and release a new console in a small time frame.

2. Suddenly delay a hardware release for over a year.

Neither are true.

When creating hardware like this is not a reactive process, console manufacturers do not see a dip in hardware sales and then start the design process. Nintendo would have had an idea of the time frame this new console was going to be released a couple years after switch launched. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the contracts between Nintendo and the companies providing the hardware for this console were signed in 2019. There are going to be entire teams of analysts providing predictive analytics that inform Nintendo of optimal release windows for games and hardware.

Dev kits have reportedly been out for two years. The developers, hardware partners, chip fabs etc are all working on different aspects of this hardware launch and will have been for years, you don't just suddenly change all that because switch hardware sales haven't dropped off a cliff. Nintendo would not be a popular business partner if they acted this whimsically.

They don't need to wait for that drop either, hardware sales only serve to bring more users to the eco system to drive more software sales, and that is where the big money is. Releasing a new system before a huge drop in hardware sales figures reinvigorated the current user base to buy more games, brings new users to the eco system and with the power of Drake, it will also make users think twice about what platform they buy third party games on.
 
LiC said:
I really, really doubt Nintendo is paying Nvidia to develop a custom ray tracing acceleration API for NVN2 to run on hardware that doesn't support it.
Click to expand...
Thinking about this a bit more, and while I don't know enough about ray tracing, but I do wonder:
what's the breadth of RT functions covered by the API, and can we glean from that information some idea of hardware-related requirements? Like to do so and so, some grunt is needed here, some there.
Does it raise the floor on raw GPU grunt? Does it establish a floor on CPU grunt? Etc. etc.
Or is the whole thing by nature sufficiently scaleable such that, no, we can't really infer lower bounds?
 
Dekuman said:
You don't have to be specific but my feel here is that 2+ years with devkits must be a near record for Nintendo 3rd parties or a partner. I was watching SMW retrospective and usually only Nintendos internal teams get this much time
Click to expand...
The amount with access in late 2020 was a small group of partners. A second wave was in late spring/early summer 2021. Nintendo is known to send preliminary kits to key partners early -- which the late 2020 kits would have been. And by late 2020... I mean very late 2020, essentially the very end of the year.
 
NateDrake said:
The amount with access in late 2020 was a small group of partners. A second wave was in late spring/early summer 2021. Nintendo is known to send preliminary kits to key partners early -- which the late 2020 kits would have been. And by late 2020... I mean very late 2020, essentially the very end of the year.
Click to expand...
Any idea what was in those early kits? Xavier? Orin? Prototypes of t239? Lower clocked desktop or laptop cards? Whatever.
 
Quoted by: LiC
1
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