• 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.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!

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

This is what I was saying. My sources told me no 4K model until next generation which will be late 2024 at the earliest. Another revision exists but it won’t be a meaningful upgrade. Thanks for all the negative messages towards me a la “don’t do these drive-by posts saying it won’t come”. It won’t come.
We know this is a lie because of Nvidia's hack. It showed the current hardware in development for Nintendo, there is only T239. Literally any other chip doesn't exist this year. T239 has DLSS, 4K, and Ray Tracing, it has a GPU 6 times bigger than the current Switch, a memory bus at 128bit on lpddr5+ and a cpu that is 3 times more performant than the current Switch's cpu per clock.

Also inside of the hack was LiC's find about a DLSS test on this GPU, the clocks gave means 2tflops handheld and 3.456tflops docked.

We are no longer really discussing specs, because this chip is already complete and ready to be put into a new Switch, we are only discussing when it comes really. Sorry about your source, but they have lied to you, there isn't multiple devices in development, on fact a chip between TX1 and T239 never has existed, the only way the midgen refresh could have existed and been cancelled is if it never got further than a concept or was TX1 on a higher clock or T239 on an older node. That's it guys, that's what the reality of the last 30 pages is, years old information causing hysteria.
 
The only thing I can think of that explains this weirdness (Zelda in mid May, a "quiet" latter H2 of 2023, the linux commits, MZuki, ND 2022-2023, SPL3/XB3 date shuffling, no E3/summer Direct) is Drake, new hardware, launching with TotK. All quiet on the Nintendo (and Zelda) front leading up to 2023 and then apparently "nothing big for a while after Zelda"...Then when else would be the best time to launch new hardware?

In my opinion, Drake is either launching with Zelda in May or its not coming in 2023 at all and the linux/Nvidia hack data could only indicate a Shield 2. No other options make sense, taking everything into account. But why would Nvidia work on a FDE for a Shield 2 and start manufacturing that product first?

Let's look at the release dates of Shield TV revisions:
- 2017: same year as Switch, notably unveiled right after the Switch presentation on 1/16/17
-2019: same year as red box switch/lite, notably unveiled 10/28/19- AFTER the launch of the lite

Now three years have passed with no updates to the brand or series. The last "Shield Tablet" was released in Jan 2017 using the old K1 chip and also has not been updated since. The "Shield Portable" was last released in 2013 with the last software update in 2016. edit: Nvidia actually did reveal a new Shield TV at the CES before the 2017 Switch presentation on Jan 4. So even if they reveal a Shield TV 2 or something else using T239/Drake at CES Jan 3...it actually would not rule out a 2023 launch for Switch 2 in May. Both could happen.

If Nvidia has shown a history of showing of a new updated Shield product after Nintendo's new hardware, then what else could T239 be gearing up for? Forget DF, Nate, Andy Robinson, Chris Dring, the 2024 analysts. What story does the hard data in front of us tell? What does Occam's Razor lead us to discern from the current information at hand?

I don't think there's a need to overthink this. If we take DF's speculation into account, then we also have to equally acknowledge the Chinese factory rumors that mass production is starting in January. Which, given that DF's podcast was recorded before January, would all still make sense.

And if we're also wondering, "Why haven't we heard anything yet if it's less than 5 months away?" have we considered the likely possibility that Drake will use the same screen as SWOLED? And likely a similar, perhaps slightly modified dock? And thus, would take manufacturing sources a bit longer to determine when exactly a new product would start mass production? And if more than a few components are shared with SWOLED, could Nintendo also not wait a bit longer than usual to start mass production? Why would Nintendo go through the trouble of creating an updatable firmware for the OLED dock if they had no plans to use it in the near future? How about the fact that much of the world is on holiday at the moment?

If Drake was canceled or delayed significantly beyond the "late 2022 or later" window, why haven't we heard about it? Wouldn't <6 months be enough time to discern that new hardware ISN'T coming mid 2023? If so, then why have there been no concrete, "There will be no new hardware releasing H1 2023" from anyone? Why are the only comments from industry people "I think" or "I don't believe" or "still waiting on some key info"? To me that indicates that any and all sources with info on Drake, still are unable to completely rule out a simultaneous launch with Zelda. That should be encouraging.

edit: What if Nintendo has only told devs a vague 2023 (say Spring to Fall) release date as of the current year to not give any full hints? If Nintendo was still being extra vague and said "maybe 2024" then wouldn't that possibility have slipped out by now? How else do we explain the high material inventory and R&D costs that continue to increase quarter after quarter, year after year?

edit 2: And maybe if it is quiet on the HW side, it could really just indicate that Nintendo is going to unveil this thing more stealthily- ala the new 3DS. If developers aren't going to have any major titles ready on launch day (and why would Nintendo even want that scenario given The Sequel to the most anticipated game, The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom is launching? Would anyone, first or third party, want to launch ANY other product within a week of TotK? Perhaps a third party showcase is coming later in the year...maybe around E3 2023 or a partner showcase where developers might want to show off their titles, kind of like those "devs want to promote their games on the new hardware ahead of or at E3" comments from Mzuki in May 2021.

There are simple answers that solve our questions. Why is T239 getting all these linux updates? Because Nvidia/Nintendo are prepping the new hardware for production. Why haven't third parties heard anything? Maybe Nintendo is going to unveil the product first in late Jan/early Feb. and not actually launch with any major/minor exclusives, so they wouldn't need to give them a concrete date yet. If Zelda alone is gonna sell this device out for a month minimum, what benefit could a major third party title add or even take advantage of? So yes, maybe third parties are coming out in the latter half of the year and are sitting and waiting for some kind of early year update in a week or so. If Nintendo told devs to get things done by the end of 2022 and said, "We'll update you on a specific 2023 date in January next year", what could anyone know? Why would Nintendo need to tell third parties a more specific timing than "2023" more than 5.5 months before release? If they tell them early/mid Jan., that should be more than enough time to prepare, submit final builds for lot check, Q&A, etc.

edit 2.5: Also, if Nate has been waiting for an update on his original info, which was late 2022 to Q1 2023, a Zelda launch would be outside of that window, correct? So even though it makes sense and would explain his third parties being unsure of an exact timing, it would explain everything. Think of it like this: Nintendo told 3P that late 2022-Q1 is the intended window. Well, now 2022 is long gone (and has been gone), so what next window can 3P assume? Q1, likely an assumed March 2023 release. But let's assume Nintendo hasn't 100% confirmed to them that Q1 2023 is or isn't on the table...and they start getting antsy. I mean, how can Nintendo be several months away from the end of Q1 2023 and not be sure? Well, if that release ends up being a small delay to say, mid Q2, would Nintendo have to tell 3P before the new year and manufacturing starts?

Nintendo saying, "hold tight until next year, we'll give you an update then" is entirely possible. It would explain how Nate or anyone else is unable to determine a solid release date and get out of this limbo: because they are in limbo.

edit 2.9: It would also explain Brainchild's, "Nintendo isn't being very open and transparent with devs" claim. If you're a 3P dev and Nintendo still hasn't given you an update since last years, "late 2022-Q1 2023", you'd start getting doubtful too right? But you still wouldn't be able to rule out a Q1 2023 release nor a potential launch with Zelda in May 2023 because it would only be a slight delay. And when Polygon and Nate said devs were briefed recently, maybe all they said was, "just hold still for a bit longer, we'll explain everything in January". Which would still make devs think Mar 2023 was possible yet also unlikely at the same time.

edit 2.95: And what if Nintendo did say prior to 2023 that "yeah, there could be slight delay", but never stated how long? You or others would assume: Geez, a delay? Well I hope it's small and it would line up with a Zelda release, but ah jinkies what if they meant a holiday 2023 delay? That kind of messaging would stride the line between making devs worry, angry, and understand/be content. I believe that is why not Nate, Mochizuki, DF, nor anyone has been able to solidly confirm or deny 2023. Nintendo told them there was a chance of a slight delay or change in plans- but devs could take that to mean spring 2023 to fall 2023. It would line up with Nate perhaps jumping in on a potential misunderstanding of John's DF podcast comments. But not to the point of being able to make a definitive statement on new hardware in 2023. Which no one has.

edit 3:Is there such a thing as "post anti-nut clarity" "post blue balls clarity"?

TLDR: I think trying to see how ALL of the current info we have contradicts each other is the wrong thought process. Rather, I argue that there are relatively simple explanations for all of our questions that not only line up with one another, but actually support a unified, consistent narrative. Essentially, nothing we know negates anything else and can reasonably, potentially mesh together in a way that makes sense.
 
Last edited:
So after watching the Digital Foundry video and skimming through the dozens of pages added in the last couple of days, I have some thoughts, which I'll try to cover in the most coherent way I can manage.

First off, to reiterate the two pieces of info from the DF video:
  1. There was as some point a mid-gen refresh of the Switch planned, which was cancelled (this was backed by conversations with developers)
  2. A couple of the DF team think a 2023 release for a next-gen Switch is unlikely (this was presented as opinion)
They don't specify what kind of hardware was due to be in this mid-gen refresh, when it was planned, or how far along it got before being cancelled. As I see it, there are three possibilities for the hardware side of things:

Mid-Gen Possibility 1: Overclocked Mariko
This seems plausible to me. We know Mariko was available since 2019, and we know it would have been able to clock higher than the original TX1 and supported faster RAM. A timeframe of 2019-2021 would make sense for a device like this, and that overlaps with Bloomberg reports that a mid-gen refresh was planned for 2021. On the negative side, an overclocked Mariko wouldn't have been a huge bump in performance. Possibly a 50% boost in clocks at the highest end of expectation, maybe with additional RAM too. It would be a noticeable improvement, but it definitely wouldn't have been capable of pushing Switch games to 4K (as Bloomberg claimed from the new device).

Mid-Gen Possibility 2: A Cancelled Chip Between Mariko and Drake
I would consider this unlikely. It's definitely possible that Nintendo and Nvidia discussed various hardware options before Drake, and some of them may have made their way into the planning stages. However, this report comes from speaking with developers, and for developers to start work on software for the new device they need an SDK which supports that new hardware in some way. The Nvidia hack from earlier this year, though, included the source code to the graphics SDK that Switch developers use, and there are apparently no references to any hardware between TX1 and Drake in there. If an intermediate chip was developed to the point of third party developers actually working on games for it, then you'd expect vestigial references to it to be littered all over the NVN source code. The lack of these makes an intermediate chip very unlikely in my view.

Mid-Gen Possibility 3: Drake
I also consider this unlikely. As I've said since the details revealed in the Nvidia hack in March, Drake is simply overkill for a mid-gen refresh. If you want hardware to run Switch games at higher resolutions like 4K, there are two options. First, just use a bigger Maxwell/Pascal GPU (say 6-8 SMs) and natively render at 4K. Second, use a smaller Turing/Ampere GPU (say 4-6 SMs) and render at ~1080p, then use DLSS to get to 4K. The former is a bit more "brute force", but keeps development simple, as the architecture is the same. The latter is probably more efficient, but requires extra work from developers to leverage. Drake is not only bigger than it needs to be to brute-force native 4K on Switch games, but it also has a new architecture with tensor cores for DLSS, full ray-tracing support, etc. I can't imagine a world where Nintendo went into a design process for a mid-gen refresh and ended up with Drake.

As a sort of possibility 3.5, I've also seen people propose that Drake has changed over time, with an earlier version of it being intended for a mid-gen refresh, then it was upgraded to a larger chip for a Switch 2. I don't personally think this is likely for the same reason as possibility 2 above; there would have been some vestigial references in the Nvidia hack to the older version of the chip. However, as far as I'm aware, there's no evidence in there that T239 was ever anything else than it currently is.

For me an overclocked Mariko seems the best guess, although I'll admit it would have been a somewhat meagre mid-gen upgrade. It also wouldn't have really aligned with Bloomberg's claims that Nintendo's plans were for a 4K device, or that they would use DLSS. It could be that his sources were referring to two different devices, one mid-gen upgrade which was cancelled, and the other being the Drake-powered Switch 2, and they got conflated into a single model.

In terms of timing, although the comments on the likelihood of a 2023 launch was only speculation on their part, it does make a H1 2023 (ie alongside ToTK) launch much less likely in my eyes, as if the new hardware were 6 months away I would assume they'd have heard of it. I still wouldn't fully rule out H2 2023, though.

I think it's worth coming back to what other info we have, though. Between the Nvidia hack, and a variety of L4T (Linux For Tegra) commits from Nvidia, we know that work started on Drake/T239 in late 2019/early 2020, and that it's a chip which is overkill for a mid-gen upgrade, but well-specced for a Switch 2. The less-capable tensor cores compared to Orin, along with the lack of DLA/PVA/etc., point to it being poorly suited for Nvidia's other SoC use-cases (ie automotive and Jetson), and with the file decompression engine it looks very much like T239 has been designed specifically for Nintendo. The presence of T239-specific code in L4T suggests that it will also be used on non-Nintendo products, similarly to how Mariko was also used on the Shield TV.

There are two more recent indications that some degree of manufacturing has started on Drake. Firstly, there have been a couple of T239-specific commits upstreamed to the Linux kernel (ie they're in standard Linux now, not just L4T). There's no iron-clad rule on this, but generally companies don't upstream this kind of thing until manufacturing has started and they're preparing to release the new hardware. Secondly, @oldpuck found a reference to T239 PCIe timings in a L4T commit. I can't remember the specifics off the top of my head, but it's the kind of thing which only makes sense if Nvidia have actual silicon on hand to work with. Neither of these are enough to prove that the chip is in full scale manufacturing, but they suggest that at the very least engineering samples are available, and full-scale manufacturing typically isn't too far away at that point.

To me, the most likely course of events for a chip like Drake is that it would be manufactured firstly for Nintendo, and then Nintendo would allow Nvidia to use it in other (probably non-competing) products after Nintendo's shipments are fulfilled. We saw this on Mariko, for example, where a new Shield TV showed up shortly after the Mariko Switch models. Nintendo accounts for 99+% of Nvidia's consumer SoC business, so manufacturing an SoC like this without Nintendo doesn't make sense for Nvidia. Meanwhile, if Nintendo get to dictate the design of the chip, and then can get a better deal by allowing Nvidia to also use the chip in some other products, they might as well do so.

The evidence that Drake is entering manufacturing is therefore important, as I don't believe this would happen without Nintendo's go-ahead. Had Nintendo decided to cancel their Drake-based model before manufacturing started, or delayed it by a year or more, then I can't see Nvidia going ahead with manufacturing. They just don't have a big enough market for a chip like this without Nintendo on board. It's technically possible that Nintendo could have cancelled or delayed the device after manufacturing had started, but that would be the worst possible time to do so, costing them a vast amount of money.

To me this still points to a 2023 launch being on the cards, although more likely late 2023 given DF's comments. Either that or Nvidia have decided to go ahead with manufacturing on T239 on their own without Nintendo, which would require a much bigger product than the Shield TV to justify. Maybe they have such a product (I'm genuinely struggling to think of one), but I personally don't see it happening without Nintendo. Ergo, I still see a 2023 release as on the table, even if DF don't.

I won't comment on NateDrake's posts yet, as I'll have to go through and read them again, but I may wait for him to post a video on it so that he can present things more cohesively.

This seems reasonable. I think the cancelled revision can only be an overclocked Mariko or Drake. With it being more likely being a an OC Mariko device, possibly to be put into what became the Switch OLED.

We haven't heard of a 3rd chip but it's possible (?). That said, there's still also an outside chance Drake chip has been cancelled and nvidia is just continuing to do work on it.

I guess for all our peace of mind, @NateDrake should see if he can confirm if a Drake based deviced is the one still being worked on.
 
Last edited:
So after watching the Digital Foundry video and skimming through the dozens of pages added in the last couple of days, I have some thoughts, which I'll try to cover in the most coherent way I can manage.

First off, to reiterate the two pieces of info from the DF video:
  1. There was as some point a mid-gen refresh of the Switch planned, which was cancelled (this was backed by conversations with developers)
  2. A couple of the DF team think a 2023 release for a next-gen Switch is unlikely (this was presented as opinion)
They don't specify what kind of hardware was due to be in this mid-gen refresh, when it was planned, or how far along it got before being cancelled. As I see it, there are three possibilities for the hardware side of things:

Mid-Gen Possibility 1: Overclocked Mariko
This seems plausible to me. We know Mariko was available since 2019, and we know it would have been able to clock higher than the original TX1 and supported faster RAM. A timeframe of 2019-2021 would make sense for a device like this, and that overlaps with Bloomberg reports that a mid-gen refresh was planned for 2021. On the negative side, an overclocked Mariko wouldn't have been a huge bump in performance. Possibly a 50% boost in clocks at the highest end of expectation, maybe with additional RAM too. It would be a noticeable improvement, but it definitely wouldn't have been capable of pushing Switch games to 4K (as Bloomberg claimed from the new device).

Mid-Gen Possibility 2: A Cancelled Chip Between Mariko and Drake
I would consider this unlikely. It's definitely possible that Nintendo and Nvidia discussed various hardware options before Drake, and some of them may have made their way into the planning stages. However, this report comes from speaking with developers, and for developers to start work on software for the new device they need an SDK which supports that new hardware in some way. The Nvidia hack from earlier this year, though, included the source code to the graphics SDK that Switch developers use, and there are apparently no references to any hardware between TX1 and Drake in there. If an intermediate chip was developed to the point of third party developers actually working on games for it, then you'd expect vestigial references to it to be littered all over the NVN source code. The lack of these makes an intermediate chip very unlikely in my view.

Mid-Gen Possibility 3: Drake
I also consider this unlikely. As I've said since the details revealed in the Nvidia hack in March, Drake is simply overkill for a mid-gen refresh. If you want hardware to run Switch games at higher resolutions like 4K, there are two options. First, just use a bigger Maxwell/Pascal GPU (say 6-8 SMs) and natively render at 4K. Second, use a smaller Turing/Ampere GPU (say 4-6 SMs) and render at ~1080p, then use DLSS to get to 4K. The former is a bit more "brute force", but keeps development simple, as the architecture is the same. The latter is probably more efficient, but requires extra work from developers to leverage. Drake is not only bigger than it needs to be to brute-force native 4K on Switch games, but it also has a new architecture with tensor cores for DLSS, full ray-tracing support, etc. I can't imagine a world where Nintendo went into a design process for a mid-gen refresh and ended up with Drake.

As a sort of possibility 3.5, I've also seen people propose that Drake has changed over time, with an earlier version of it being intended for a mid-gen refresh, then it was upgraded to a larger chip for a Switch 2. I don't personally think this is likely for the same reason as possibility 2 above; there would have been some vestigial references in the Nvidia hack to the older version of the chip. However, as far as I'm aware, there's no evidence in there that T239 was ever anything else than it currently is.

For me an overclocked Mariko seems the best guess, although I'll admit it would have been a somewhat meagre mid-gen upgrade. It also wouldn't have really aligned with Bloomberg's claims that Nintendo's plans were for a 4K device, or that they would use DLSS. It could be that his sources were referring to two different devices, one mid-gen upgrade which was cancelled, and the other being the Drake-powered Switch 2, and they got conflated into a single model.

In terms of timing, although the comments on the likelihood of a 2023 launch was only speculation on their part, it does make a H1 2023 (ie alongside ToTK) launch much less likely in my eyes, as if the new hardware were 6 months away I would assume they'd have heard of it. I still wouldn't fully rule out H2 2023, though.

I think it's worth coming back to what other info we have, though. Between the Nvidia hack, and a variety of L4T (Linux For Tegra) commits from Nvidia, we know that work started on Drake/T239 in late 2019/early 2020, and that it's a chip which is overkill for a mid-gen upgrade, but well-specced for a Switch 2. The less-capable tensor cores compared to Orin, along with the lack of DLA/PVA/etc., point to it being poorly suited for Nvidia's other SoC use-cases (ie automotive and Jetson), and with the file decompression engine it looks very much like T239 has been designed specifically for Nintendo. The presence of T239-specific code in L4T suggests that it will also be used on non-Nintendo products, similarly to how Mariko was also used on the Shield TV.

There are two more recent indications that some degree of manufacturing has started on Drake. Firstly, there have been a couple of T239-specific commits upstreamed to the Linux kernel (ie they're in standard Linux now, not just L4T). There's no iron-clad rule on this, but generally companies don't upstream this kind of thing until manufacturing has started and they're preparing to release the new hardware. Secondly, @oldpuck found a reference to T239 PCIe timings in a L4T commit. I can't remember the specifics off the top of my head, but it's the kind of thing which only makes sense if Nvidia have actual silicon on hand to work with. Neither of these are enough to prove that the chip is in full scale manufacturing, but they suggest that at the very least engineering samples are available, and full-scale manufacturing typically isn't too far away at that point.

To me, the most likely course of events for a chip like Drake is that it would be manufactured firstly for Nintendo, and then Nintendo would allow Nvidia to use it in other (probably non-competing) products after Nintendo's shipments are fulfilled. We saw this on Mariko, for example, where a new Shield TV showed up shortly after the Mariko Switch models. Nintendo accounts for 99+% of Nvidia's consumer SoC business, so manufacturing an SoC like this without Nintendo doesn't make sense for Nvidia. Meanwhile, if Nintendo get to dictate the design of the chip, and then can get a better deal by allowing Nvidia to also use the chip in some other products, they might as well do so.

The evidence that Drake is entering manufacturing is therefore important, as I don't believe this would happen without Nintendo's go-ahead. Had Nintendo decided to cancel their Drake-based model before manufacturing started, or delayed it by a year or more, then I can't see Nvidia going ahead with manufacturing. They just don't have a big enough market for a chip like this without Nintendo on board. It's technically possible that Nintendo could have cancelled or delayed the device after manufacturing had started, but that would be the worst possible time to do so, costing them a vast amount of money.

To me this still points to a 2023 launch being on the cards, although more likely late 2023 given DF's comments. Either that or Nvidia have decided to go ahead with manufacturing on T239 on their own without Nintendo, which would require a much bigger product than the Shield TV to justify. Maybe they have such a product (I'm genuinely struggling to think of one), but I personally don't see it happening without Nintendo. Ergo, I still see a 2023 release as on the table, even if DF don't.

I won't comment on NateDrake's posts yet, as I'll have to go through and read them again, but I may wait for him to post a video on it so that he can present things more cohesively.
There is another possibility for Drake to have been a "midgen refresh" this information is of course from developers, they wouldn't know how it was marketed, so the term midgen refresh should be speculation and not definitive. If Drake was originally designed on 8nm and they couldn't get the clocks they wanted out of it, they could have shrunk the design, this would have happened in the first half of 2021, but the original release timing could have been this year. We saw Zelda delayed out of this year back in March this year, this is right before oldpuck's find that leads to engineering samples being speculated in April.

With DLSS test that LiC found, showing efficiency twice as good on Drake than Orin, I think we have to at least humor that the chip is now on a newer node, Samsung 5nm is very possible at this point Imo. This would also explain why it was "canceled" but Drake continued production and is currently complete. 8nm Drake was canned, 5nm Drake was born.
 
The only thing I can think of that explains this weirdness (Zelda in mid May, a "quiet" latter H2 of 2023, the linux commits, MZuki, ND 2022-2023, SPL3/XB3 date shuffling, no E3/summer Direct) is Drake, new hardware, launching with TotK. All quiet on the Nintendo (and Zelda) front leading up to 2023 and then apparently "nothing big for a while after Zelda"...Then when else would be the best time to launch new hardware?

In my opinion, Drake is either launching with Zelda in May or its not coming in 2023 at all and the linux/Nvidia hack data could only indicate a Shield 2. No other options make sense, taking everything into account. But why would Nvidia work on a FDE for a Shield 2 and start manufacturing that product first?

Let's look at the release dates of Shield TV revisions:
- 2017: same year as Switch, notably unveiled right after the Switch presentation on 1/16/17
-2019: same year as red box switch/lite, notably unveiled 10/28/19- AFTER the launch of the lite

Now three years have passed with no updates to the brand or series. The last "Shield Tablet" was released in Jan 2017 using the old K1 chip and also has not been updated since. The "Shield Portable" was last released in 2013 with the last software update in 2016.

If Nvidia has shown a history of showing of a new updated Shield product after Nintendo's new hardware, then what else could T239 be gearing up for? Forget DF, Nate, Andy Robinson, Chris Dring, the 2024 analysts. What story does the hard data in front of us tell? What does Occam's Razor lead us to discern from the current information at hand?

I don't think there's a need to overthink this. If we take DF's speculation into account, then we also have to equally acknowledge the Chinese factory rumors that mass production is starting in January. Which, given that DF's podcast was recorded before January, would all still make sense.

And if we're also wondering, "Why haven't we heard anything yet if it's less than 5 months away?" have we considered the likely possibility that Drake will use the same screen as SWOLED? And likely a similar, perhaps slightly modified dock? And thus, would take manufacturing sources a bit longer to determine when exactly a new product would start mass production? And if more than a few components are shared with SWOLED, could Nintendo also not wait a bit longer than usual to start mass production? Why would Nintendo go through the trouble of creating an updatable firmware for the OLED dock if they had no plans to use it in the near future? How about the fact that much of the world is on holiday at the moment?

If Drake was canceled or delayed significantly beyond the "late 2022 or later" window, why haven't we heard about it? Wouldn't >5 months be enough time to discern that new hardware ISN'T coming mid 2023? If so, then why have there been no concrete, "There will be no new hardware releasing H1 2023" from anyone? Why are the only comments from industry people "I think" or "I don't believe" or "still waiting on some key info"? To me that indicates that any and all sources with info on Drake, still are unable to completely rule out a simultaneous launch with Zelda. That should be encouraging.

edit: What if Nintendo has only told devs a vague 2023 (say Spring to Fall) release date as of the current year to not give any full hints? If Nintendo was still being extra vague and said "maybe 2024" then wouldn't that possibility have slipped out by now? How else do we explain the high material inventory and R&D costs that continue to increase quarter after quarter, year after year?

edit 2: And maybe if it is quiet on the HW side, it could really just indicate that Nintendo is going to unveil this thing more stealthily- ala the new 3DS. If developers aren't going to have any major titles ready on launch day (and why would Nintendo even want that scenario given The Sequel to the most anticipated game, The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom is launching? Would anyone, first or third party, want to launch ANY other product within a week of TotK. Perhaps a third party showcase is coming later in the year...maybe around E3 2023 or a partner showcase where developers might want to show off their titles, kind of like those "devs want to promote their games on the new hardware ahead of or at E3".

There are simple answers that solve our questions. Why is T239 getting all these linux updates? Because Nvidia/Nintendo are prepping the new hardware for production. Why haven't third parties heard anything? Maybe Nintendo is going to unveil the product first in late Jan/early Feb. and not actually launch with any major/minor exclusives, so they wouldn't need to give them a concrete date yet. If Zelda alone is gonna sell this device out for a month minimum, what benefit could a major third party title add or even take advantage of? So yes, maybe third parties are coming out in the latter half of the year and are sitting and waiting for some kind of early year update in a week or so. If Nintendo told devs to get things done by the end of 2022 and said, "We'll update you on a specific 2023 date in January next year", what could anyone know? Why would Nintendo need to tell third parties a more specific timing that "2023" more than 5.5 months before release? If they tell them early/mid Jan., that should be more than enough time to prepare, submit final builds for lot check, Q&A, etc.

edit 3:Is there such a thing as "post anti-nut clarity"?
To answer that question, it’s called disgust and regret 😂
 
"This is going to sound like I'm attacking X again. And that's because I am. I prefer to be upfront about that" could become Famiboards own "Square just shot themselves in the foot..." meme.
 
"This is going to sound like I'm attacking X again. And that's because I am. I prefer to be upfront about that" could become Famiboards own "Square just shot themselves in the foot..." meme.
I didn't want to say it because I feel like I do so too often but I really hope it catches on lol
 
I think they'll go with the Xbox approach (rather than use the packaging of the lowest common denominator). So, like Xbox games have "Xbox" on them, they'll still have the Nintendo Switch logo in the corner, with a little banner, I'd bet it'll be black and rectangular, displaying the consoles supported, like how Xbox has "Xbox One - Series X" to mark games that run on both. I doubt it'll use a new logo, personally, but if it does, this logo will probably go in this banner rather than where the existing logo is.

I believe Nintendo wants a unified hardware brand going forward, for as long as possible, just like how Xbox have done it. Plus, they'll need hardware to fill the casual and lower end side of the market once the Drake Switch launches, since it'll take time, and probably a lot of time, for a console with a Drake processor to reach Switch Lite prices. While this transition is going on, I think we'll finally see Switch prices drop to "make room" for Drake. OLED dropping to 300, OG to 250 (then being discontinued), Lite to 150, maybe a new TV only X1+ model in the 99.99 range, like how Wii Mini launched around the Wii U.

They want to have their cake and eat it too. I think it's possible they can. I think it's likely they will.
 
I hate to say it but..

Told us what?

The Drake seems to already be being manufactured. Its console, the Switch 2, is rumoured to be in full-scale assembly from like, next week on.

Nothing has gone wrong.

Hidden content is only available for registered users. Sharing it outside of Famiboards is subject to moderation.
 
I don't expect TotK to run worse than BotW, a Wii U port, already does.
I know I'm being a little shit about it but I do! Gliding was the greatest stressor on Breath of the Wild's performance and Tears of the Kingdom will likely have much, much more of it
 
I know I'm being a little shit about it but I do! Gliding was the greatest stressor on Breath of the Wild's performance and Tears of the Kingdom will likely have much, much more of it

From what I've read BotW was ported from the Wii U late in development with little to no Switch specific optimizations. Link here: https://famiboards.com/threads/future-nintendo-hardware-technology-speculation-st.55/post-207093.

i have higher expectations for a Switch optimized version of the engine, considering the work they've already done to reduce loading times in the Wii U with billboarding and other LoD tricks. I still expect a dynamic 900p 30 fps target.
 
People keep saying this but I don't remember that being the case... It made references to the NX platform and Hovi IIRC but no explicit "Nintendo", right?

Still, it's beyond a shadow of a doubt related to Nintendo.
Hovi is Nintendo.

Hidden content is only available for registered users. Sharing it outside of Famiboards is subject to moderation.
Hidden content is only available for registered users. Sharing it outside of Famiboards is subject to moderation.


Again, what is with these green texts?
Hidden text (using HIDE tags) is only displayed to logged-in users. Besides the obvious, IMO its main purpose is to keep things out of search results.
 
Also inside of the hack was LiC's find about a DLSS test on this GPU, the clocks gave means 2tflops handheld and 3.456tflops docked.
Well, the clocks which we can't conclude anything from because they're are (a) not final, (b) for uncertain target hardware, and (c) unknown in relation to power draw.
 
There is another possibility for Drake to have been a "midgen refresh" this information is of course from developers, they wouldn't know how it was marketed, so the term midgen refresh should be speculation and not definitive. If Drake was originally designed on 8nm and they couldn't get the clocks they wanted out of it, they could have shrunk the design, this would have happened in the first half of 2021, but the original release timing could have been this year. We saw Zelda delayed out of this year back in March this year, this is right before oldpuck's find that leads to engineering samples being speculated in April.

With DLSS test that LiC found, showing efficiency twice as good on Drake than Orin, I think we have to at least humor that the chip is now on a newer node, Samsung 5nm is very possible at this point Imo. This would also explain why it was "canceled" but Drake continued production and is currently complete. 8nm Drake was canned, 5nm Drake was born.

I think this is another possibility that should be entertained, although I guess we should have found more proof of the two iterations in the leak? As others have already explained, the only reasonable explanations for reports of a "canned" revision are either an overclocked Mariko (which would probably have aligned with the OLED) or an 8nm Drake, which could have been planned only for this year at the earliest.
But it is not impossible that the latter could have been scrapped only recently, and given what we know that would mean something went horribly wrong and Nintendo is now scrambling to redesign it, perhaps on a smaller node as you suggest, for a much later date than we thought.
I really hope Nate can clarify what kind of information he really got because he was the only one clearly hinting to the last outcome, which might or might not be what DF was talking about.
On the other hand, he seemed a bit too much hellbent on vindicating his reporting so far (a 4K-DLSS revision targeting early 2023 max - incidentally the timing is something on which he changed version many times) so the scrapped revision HAD to be that one, leaving us a very confusing timeline and scenario as many have pointed out.

In other words, IF we entertain and try to reconcile the rumors of a canned revision leading to a full-fledged successor later in time, these are the only options I see:
  • Mariko Revision 2020/2021 (canned) -> Drake Successor 2023 (this means Nate and others had their wires crossed many times on reporting about a "4K" revision, which was always planned only for the successor, which is now almost ready)
  • Drake (8nm?) Revision 2021/2022 (canned) -> Drake (5nm?) Successor 2023/2024 (this is the scenario Zombie is describing above, although it seems unlikely that both DF and Nate would have described it in the way they did)
  • Drake (8nm?) Revision 2022/2023 (canned) -> Drake/new SOC Successor 2024/2025 (this is what Nate implied so far and it's obviously the worst scenario, because it means Nintendo is basically throwing away for whatever reason years of work and money at the 11th hour)

I still find the first scenario is the most plausible given the hard information we have, but we can't rule out completely the others.
 
This feels like a repeat of the Wii to Wii U transition and the exact opposite of what Iwata said in investor briefings in 2014-2015.

I'm not sure I buy it.
Yeah, I don't buy it all.
Even an early 2024 release after a dire year beyond Zelda would be exactly Wii from Skyward Sword until Wii U launch.
Doesn't make literally any sense.
 
0
This is one of the heaviest trafficked thread on Famiboards, and I wonder if it’s feasible/desirable to implement stricter moderation rules here. Debating opinions is fine, but should commenting on other members be allowed?
 
2D Mario is big, but it's not a system seller or a game that people will get super hyped for. I think that's probably the only decent sized title we get after Zelda.
Except it is??
The best year of Wii was the year NSMB Wii released. Super Mario Maker made Wii U have good hardware sales the week/month it came.
It's not a "decent size", it's a huge size release. The Deluxe port of NSMB U was a bigger success than every other Wii U port not named Mario Kart.
A brand new 2D Mario, with the dev time it's having, and moreso after Mario gets a movie, is one of the biggest deals Nintendo can make.
 
I wonder about the viability of Xenoblade 3's temporal upsampling for TotK so we could get a reconstructed 1080p. Maybe have a higher resolution starting point instead of 544p, if that could address the artifacts.
 
even I, king of fatuous what ifs, think humoring the idea that NVN2 isn't Nintendo is completely absurd

it's NVN2 for god's sake
 
This is one of the heaviest trafficked thread on Famiboards, and I wonder if it’s feasible/desirable to implement stricter moderation rules here. Debating opinions is fine, but should commenting on other members be allowed?
If there's specific posts you think cross the line, you should report them, but if you think the guidelines in general should be different for this thread in particular I'd take it up in the mod feedback thread
 
0
I'm trying to remember... Has Nintendo ever been so tight lipped about a successor 6 years in the console's life ? Honest question
No, not really, but we’re long past the times when they’d announce the existence of new hardware 2 years or more before it hits a shelf, if they can help it. And new president, new rules. Furukawa could have easily decided that teasing hardware several months before actually revealing said hardware is not beneficial to Nintendo and, so long as no one is forcing their hand, they won’t do it. 3DS was already going to trend toward a short announcement-to-release timetable anyways, and they allegedly announced in March 2010 (a year before release) because of impending news leaks in the Japanese press that detailed the whole kit and kaboodle ahead of their planned timetable.

Since we’re all incredibly assured this will be another hybrid, with the exterior likely being incredibly similar to Switch, leaks to the press or otherwise are likely going to inherently be few and far between. Switch stood out because of how much of a departure it was from anything they had released before, so we knew a fair bit about it well ahead of the October 2016 reveal trailer. And if Nintendo has gone out of their way to plug leaks in their supply chain and elsewhere, coupled with the new device looking remarkably similar to Switch, it can quite literally hide in plain sight for most people, which will greatly reduce leak opportunities.
 
I think they'll go with the Xbox approach (rather than use the packaging of the lowest common denominator). So, like Xbox games have "Xbox" on them, they'll still have the Nintendo Switch logo in the corner, with a little banner, I'd bet it'll be black and rectangular, displaying the consoles supported, like how Xbox has "Xbox One - Series X" to mark games that run on both. I doubt it'll use a new logo, personally, but if it does, this logo will probably go in this banner rather than where the existing logo is.

I believe Nintendo wants a unified hardware brand going forward, for as long as possible, just like how Xbox have done it. Plus, they'll need hardware to fill the casual and lower end side of the market once the Drake Switch launches, since it'll take time, and probably a lot of time, for a console with a Drake processor to reach Switch Lite prices. While this transition is going on, I think we'll finally see Switch prices drop to "make room" for Drake. OLED dropping to 300, OG to 250 (then being discontinued), Lite to 150, maybe a new TV only X1+ model in the 99.99 range, like how Wii Mini launched around the Wii U.

They want to have their cake and eat it too. I think it's possible they can. I think it's likely they will.
I doubt we see a TV only model or a Lite price drop. Both the Lite & OG are being consistently, & quietly, replaced already. The OLED model is probably gonna drop in price once the margins look a little better.
 
0
Well, the clocks which we can't conclude anything from because they're are (a) not final, (b) for uncertain target hardware, and (c) unknown in relation to power draw.
We know the hardware was T239, it wasn't done on final hardware and the obvious information on power draw was related to GPU clocks, and Ampere, unless you want to suggest Ada. We know these power consumptions at these configurations and clocks are completely unrealistic for 8nm Ampere. You can have an opinion, you can ignore your own information, but this test can literally only be Ampere and the power envelope is impossible on 8nm.

If I'm wrong, explain it to me, I've explained my position on it, poke holes in why it's wrong. How does this test exist with these numbers if it isn't a 5nm ampere gpu?
 
Except it is??
The best year of Wii was the year NSMB Wii released. Super Mario Maker made Wii U have good hardware sales the week/month it came.
It's not a "decent size", it's a huge size release. The Deluxe port of NSMB U was a bigger success than every other Wii U port not named Mario Kart.
A brand new 2D Mario, with the dev time it's having, and moreso after Mario gets a movie, is one of the biggest deals Nintendo can make.
I can sort of see the argument that 2D Mario is more casual-focused and thus maybe isn’t the best bet for a console launch, in the same way nintendogs + cats was a horrible thing to hang the 3DS launch on despite the DS original being one of the best-selling games on the system? The Wii U launched with a (fantastic!) 2D Mario game and that didn’t seem to really do anything for it.

I don’t think we have enough of a sample size to know if this is true for sure, of course. But I can see the argument. You probably wouldn’t want to launch (potentially expensive) new hardware with Animal Crossing for the same reason, even though Animal Crossing is a sales juggernaut. Or Pokémon. Those are games you roll out later alongside cheaper hardware like the Switch Lite or the 2DS.

With a new console, the primary goal is probably to get the core Nintendo audience onto the new hardware as quickly as possible and then grow from there with “blue ocean” titles (though I fully expect any new system to launch with a blue ocean tech-demo-y title like 1-2-Switch). That’s why Zelda has been so useful as a launch title for Nintendo, even more useful than Mario in recent years: the Nintendo faithful love Zelda.

Absent a new Zelda, the biggest core draw Nintendo has is Smash, which is why I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see a new Smash sooner than many of us seem to expect.
 
We know the hardware was T239, it wasn't done on final hardware and the obvious information on power draw was related to GPU clocks, and Ampere, unless you want to suggest Ada. We know these power consumptions at these configurations and clocks are completely unrealistic for 8nm Ampere. You can have an opinion, you can ignore your own information, but this test can literally only be Ampere and the power envelope is impossible on 8nm.

If I'm wrong, explain it to me, I've explained my position on it, poke holes in why it's wrong. How does this test exist with these numbers if it isn't a 5nm ampere gpu?
The test used a Windows build of NVN2. Those clock speeds were not being set on T239 hardware. I papered a dozen caveats all over my post because it simply can't be used to make concrete conclusions about clocks, power draw, or FLOPS. I appreciate all the discussion about it but it cannot be used to go around telling people "this post showed evidence of a 3.4 TFLOP GPU" or anything like that.
 
"This is going to sound like I'm attacking X again. And that's because I am. I prefer to be upfront about that" could become Famiboards own "Square just shot themselves in the foot..." meme.
We already have "how deep is the rot"
I think this is another possibility that should be entertained, although I guess we should have found more proof of the two iterations in the leak? As others have already explained, the only reasonable explanations for reports of a "canned" revision are either an overclocked Mariko (which would probably have aligned with the OLED) or an 8nm Drake, which could have been planned only for this year at the earliest.
People keep saying this (the bolded) but I'm pretty sure there's nothing to support that idea. We got info about a "pro" planning to launch in 2019, I remember as early as early 2018 there were some rumors about it.

On the other hand we had absolutely no info pointing to Aula using any enhanced clocks. Everything about Aula that was found out in early 2020 pointed to a standard XL style revision with a better screen, and nothing else. The rumors about a DLSS capable 4k Switch launching in 2021 are completely incompatible with the idea that it was supposed to be a Mariko pro.

I really think everything points to the cancelled revision being what was planned for Summer/Fall 2019, and what wound up being the redbox Mariko Switch.
 
3DS was already going to trend toward a short announcement-to-release timetable anyways, and they allegedly announced in March 2010 (a year before release) because of impending news leaks in the Japanese press that detailed the whole kit and kaboodle ahead of their planned timetable.

Since we’re all incredibly assured this will be another hybrid, with the exterior likely being incredibly similar to Switch, leaks to the press or otherwise are likely going to inherently be few and far between. Switch stood out because of how much of a departure it was from anything they had released before, so we knew a fair bit about it well ahead of the October 2016 reveal trailer. And if Nintendo has gone out of their way to plug leaks in their supply chain and elsewhere, coupled with the new device looking remarkably similar to Switch, it can quite literally hide in plain sight for most people, which will greatly reduce leak opportunities.
Not allegedly, it was an official press release, one week before the end of their FY.
We already have "how deep is the rot"
"This is going to sound like I'm port begging again. And that's because I am. I prefer to be upfront about that."
 
If there truly was a Mariko Pro revision, it must’ve been cancelled before early 2020 if Aula (OLED) was added to Horizon in April 2020
 
Here's a reason Nintendo wouldn't be worried about third parties having titles ready to go for launch. Backwards compatibility.

If we take the Switch for example, third parties had to know about it way in advance, otherwise there would literally be nothing else other than BOTW and 1 2 Switch. They needed to be able to get Minecraft by the third month or Rocket League, Doom and Skyrim by the end of 2017. But since Drake will have BC, the entire Switch back catalog will be available day one AND it'll be launching with TotK, so Nintendo would be set for at least a month...which is, hey~!, right around E3 2023! Nintendo won't need help at launch because they'll be struggling to keep the system on shelves. Thus, it is not imperative for Nintendo to try and get day one or month one ports of games like ER, RE4R, etc. But they could easily be shown off after Nintendo makes the first announcement and fill out the second half of 2023 and beyond.
 
0
Now that at least the anger levels have come down a notch, I'll weigh in. Though, I'm waiting for Nate's podcast, or John L to follow up, or some developer to come forward before I speculate too wildly.

I can totally believe the "refresh" was not an overclocked Mariko. Mochizuki said that software using 4k DLSS based dev kits was targeting 2022-2023. It seems like the cancellation of that hardware is the cancelled hardware that Nate and John are referring to. DLSS isn't viable on a Mariko. It seems likely that developers giving Mochi dates were the same ones giving him specs on devkits.

We know Nvidia altered their Orin schedule, moving Nano Next to after AGX launch, but originally having it before. Orin Nano is a floorswept AGX. It seems odd that floorswept hardware would change schedule without base Orin moving. It seems reasonable that Nano Next was, at one point, a different chip than the current Orin Nano.

Or perhaps Orin Nano was expected earlier in the year, as production samples failed to hit yields. Orin Nano 4GB is an excellent base for a mid-gen Switch, if you ignore timing. The power consumption is right in line with the base Switch, it's got 2x the SMs as Mariko, and 6 CPU cores instead of 4. You could get Mariko level batter life with a little DLSS, or extended power across the board, for a cost about the same as the existing device.

Either Orin Nano was going to be late by 6 months due to capacity issues at the fab, pushing Switch Pro back, or the existing Orin Nano is a rapid replacement for the original device. Nintendo realized what we did, that a mid-gen refresh in 2023 wasn't a great move unless it could step into as a successor. The project was pulled, and what software wasn't cancelled was either left on Mariko, or moved to Drake, and Drake was moved to N4, which neatly explains every weird question we've had about the damn thing.
 
I just realized that with the Switch Pro being scrapped years ago is probably the reason why people were finding 4K Switch game screenshots on Nintendo's server including for Hyrule Warrior's Age of Calamity. We were likely going to get to play that in 4K/60 instead of the 720p/15fps version we ended up with among other titles like Metroid Dread in 4K, etc.
 
Orin Nano 4GB is an excellent base for a mid-gen Switch, if you ignore timing. The power consumption is right in line with the base Switch, it's got 2x the SMs as Mariko, and 6 CPU cores instead of 4. You could get Mariko level batter life with a little DLSS, or extended power across the board, for a cost about the same as the existing device.
Nvidia: "Nintendo can have a little DLSS, as a treat"
 
If there truly was a Mariko Pro revision, it must’ve been cancelled before early 2020 if Aula (OLED) was added to Horizon in April 2020
Yeah like I said the only time a Mariko pro would make any lick of sense with what info we have is late 2019, launching in place of the redbox model.
 
0
I really do hope that there is new hardware that isn't a refresh/remodel this year. I'm desperately craving to see Zelda in 4K
 
I'll be honest I want this torture to be over. Nintendo can announce the Switch U and I'll accept it....

I want off the roller coaster :(
 
The test used a Windows build of NVN2. Those clock speeds were not being set on T239 hardware. I papered a dozen caveats all over my post because it simply can't be used to make concrete conclusions about clocks, power draw, or FLOPS. I appreciate all the discussion about it but it cannot be used to go around telling people "this post showed evidence of a 3.4 TFLOP GPU" or anything like that.
we know NVN2 on windows is for SDK development, the test only makes sense as estimations of T239, we also know there is no RTX GPU that can run those clocks at that power draw, there is definitely a lot of deductive reasoning going on with my statements, I admit to that, but literally that test cannot make sense on any current RTX GPU, it only makes sense on Drake if Drake is twice as efficient as Ampere, unless you know of an Ampere GPU with 6SM right?

I think my posts come across to people clearly, it's just that some don't like how conclusive I'm being, that is my opinion though, if I'm missing something in my deductive reasoning, pointing it out can be helpful, but I don't believe that information exists without it being a tool for Drake. There was also someone, maybe oldpuck who said that that test is definitely Drake, I don't really need anyone to say this, because I concluded as much. Drake is also the only NVN2 GPU right? so how is this test unrelated to it? What substitute could be put forward that would only draw 9.3w at 1.125GHz? It's also right in line with OG Switch power draw, so yeah it seems very unlikely that those numbers aren't targets for Drake, why would they test 3 different numbers if it wasn't for Drake?

I think the problem is that you believe it can't be used to make concrete conclusions, but the test's existence actually does call into question what information does it provide, and in that we can make reasonable conclusions, and that is what I've done here, you found great evidence, you can hold your position, I'm not trying to tell you that you have to have mine, but that information is now part of the discussion around Drake and that is absolutely reasonable. We have no reason to believe it is an Ada GPU used in this test from last year, we know it was done in NVN2, and that no Ampere GPU can deliver those performance numbers, so obviously it's reasonable to conclude that it is Drake, and further, those power numbers exist, the worst case is that it is just for the GPU, and that is what I've gone with. I respect that a lot of posters here want to play conservatively with speculation, but that isn't my game, my game is deductive reasoning, and anyone with a brain who isn't trying to avoid being a bit reckless maybe, should conclude that is Drake in those tests and that Drake likely shrunk...

I'd say I have multiple reasons to suspect that this is the case, given to me by 3 different sources, but because I can't talk about any of those here, I'll just say that I'm PRETTY SURE that I was right a year and a half ago when I said that Drake probably moved from 8nm to 5nm. Those who need to think I'm an insider, I'm not, but I've always shared insider knowledge that I come across, this is my big wink, I don't normally do this, and I have 3 separate sources, they could be lying, but 2 of them have been very reliable to me in the past and the other is someone I've known and talked with on this forum for years and have no reason to think they are lying... 2 pieces of this information came to me yesterday, the other I heard a few months ago... regardless I'm confident that Drake was retooled in 2021 and in early 2022 the engineering sample for Drake on a more advanced node was released, and is now ready for full scale production. I haven't heard any updates on 1H Drake release beyond what has been shared here though.
 
Now that at least the anger levels have come down a notch, I'll weigh in. Though, I'm waiting for Nate's podcast, or John L to follow up, or some developer to come forward before I speculate too wildly.

I can totally believe the "refresh" was not an overclocked Mariko. Mochizuki said that software using 4k DLSS based dev kits was targeting 2022-2023. It seems like the cancellation of that hardware is the cancelled hardware that Nate and John are referring to. DLSS isn't viable on a Mariko. It seems likely that developers giving Mochi dates were the same ones giving him specs on devkits.
Here's the thing though: John didn't say anything about the cancelled revision being DLSS capable. The only person who has said that is Nate.

There's a very simple reason to explain Mochizuki's reporting too, it's the same reason we've had for over a year. You hear from the manufacturing contacts that a new console is being assembled, you hear from the development contacts that new hardware is being developed for. You put two and two together like nearly anyone would and you wind up with what he reported last June. That, to me, is the Occam's razor explanation for that.


Is it possible that they cancelled a Drake revision? Of course. But if they did there are a lot more loose ends to explain, like why the chip has engineering samples and Linux commits ~1-2 years before it will be used in a product. Or what exactly prompted them to pivot so hard from a Drake revision to a Drake successor that it somehow invariably delays the product by 6-18 months+. Or what all the raw material they're sitting on is for.

To me the simpler answer is John was talking about a Mariko pro, meant for 2019. Nate has his wires crossed and heard about a cancelled pro, but doesn't have the timing of that down. Mochizuki simply conflated the two things like we've all happily assumed for over a year.
 
Also, when have the data and numbers ever driven us wrong?

The lite/Mariko firmware datamines. The aula OLED datamines. Now we've got literal inside Nvidia info on next-gen Nintendo APIs and a chip with linux updates...Let's just ignore the "canceled mid-gen refresh" red herring and follow the hard clues.
 
Also, when have the data and numbers ever driven us wrong?
lfnrgnabtqa51.jpg




DLSS sharpening is depreciated as of 2.5.1

 
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