Is that really the only way for prices to come down? Aren’t there other factors, like production scale(like Nintendo shifting to 16GB as the smallest card size) and new technologies? I also have to imagine there’s still room for shrinking.
I don't know how to tell you this, but yeah, it is the only way, and no, there isn't room. It's considered one of major problems in modern computing.
It's not that the process of improvement has stopped. It's that the big gen-on-gen leaps aren't possible for NAND flash anymore. Replacing NAND flash with something else is a critical goal for the industry, but no one has fully cracked it yet, and unlike in years past, there is no real guarantee it's coming.
My papa tells me it's not wise to participate in corporate espionage with strangers.
So, a release is in Nintendo’s best interest if sooner than later?
With Nintendo having only one console, its even more critical for them to avoid a hard reset where the decline of the previous console significantly outpaces the growth of the new console. As you can see there was a pretty big valley here when Nintendo had the Wii U selling very poorly and the 3DS wasnt able to carry the load. There is no way to have a hard reset with a single platform and not have a steep decline in year over year sales. That is unless the predecessor and the successor can be successful in the same year. The longer Nintendo rides out the Switch the more likely it is we see a stark decline in year over year sales. You cant drop a brand new console into the market without that being well planned out in advance. If Switch 2 is going to launch in 2023 it would have been decided at least a year ago to get all their ducks in a row for manufacturing and software preparation. The high selling platforms ever are the PS2 and the DS, right around 150 million units sold. Seems to be the number once a product has hit the point of nearly complete saturation. With Switch sitting at 120 million units sold, is it likely they can expect to maintain the yearly sales of 20 million units sold? Historically the numbers suggest that sharp decline in sales for the Switch are imminent. Consumer fatigue sets in after so many years as well and Nintendo will start to lose gamers to other platforms where they will start spending their time and money there. If you ask me, Nintendo wants to replicate the success of fiscal year 2012 and 2018. Fiscal 2012 saw both Wii and 3DS putting up solid numbers and fiscal 2018 still saw decent 3DS numbers while the Switch started to reach its stride.
Damn that was a clever idea!!
Nothing is as easy as it ever seems but the logic holds, in my opinion. The risk of cutting the original Switch’s life short is mitigated by the adoption of the new console, which would sell in conjunction.
Multiple things here, one is the fact that due to different technologies and production scales different memory technologies cost different amounts, a 32GB SD card is massively cheaper to produce than a Switch game card, they don’t use the exact same technology. Also aren’t Switch cards not NAND Flash, but rather XtraROM?
That actually was first brought a few months back in this post. There's no harm in bringing it up though! Not everybody reading this thread may have read that post before.
I think it was Dragon's Dogma that came on a 16GB card and released new for $30-40 which seemed like kind of a big deal... but that was almost four years ago now, we still almost never see 32GB game cards, and small cards with mandatory downloads are more common than year 1, so if there was a shift it doesn't seem like enough of one.
You're welcome! Going to go through your (smart) questions, one by one here
Nvidia may eventually push their full set of T239 drivers into the mainline kernel, I don't know. Right now, the one thing that refers to T239 in the mainline kernel is almost definitely because the T234 driver was already in the mainline kernel, and a change was needed for T239 to work. Either Nvidia could maintain a separate Orin/Drake driver internally, then manually clean out the Drake code every time Orin needed a bug fix, or they could push the thing up once and forget about it.
Probably because Drake hasn't been released and it's internals are still corporate secrets. At some point last year, Orin and Drake development was separated, likely so they would be ready to release one but not the other. Most of the stuff we can glean about Drake from the Linux data is from the "scars" of that separation
It might. Or it might simply be timing.
It could be. Nvidia definitely supports NVN development on Linux. I'm not sure why, but it is definitely possible that the Linux support is a side effect of some devkit and/or software arrangement for developers.
Nvidia's drivers all kind of look like each other because they've gone out of their way to deeply streamline their driver dev process. They made Linux drivers because they wanted Linux drivers.
Yes.
Sure, though it is extremely thin. Basically a single reference to T239.
github.com
You're welcome! Going to go through your (smart) questions, one by one here
Nvidia may eventually push their full set of T239 drivers into the mainline kernel, I don't know. Right now, the one thing that refers to T239 in the mainline kernel is almost definitely because the T234 driver was already in the mainline kernel, and a change was needed for T239 to work. Either Nvidia could maintain a separate Orin/Drake driver internally, then manually clean out the Drake code every time Orin needed a bug fix, or they could push the thing up once and forget about it.
Probably because Drake hasn't been released and it's internals are still corporate secrets. At some point last year, Orin and Drake development was separated, likely so they would be ready to release one but not the other. Most of the stuff we can glean about Drake from the Linux data is from the "scars" of that separation
Gonna get into the weeds a bit, bear with me?
So the Linux kernel changes internals all the time. If you make a change to, say, the virtual memory subsystem, it might require drivers to be updated to support the new version. The SOP in Linux world, then, is for hardware manufacturers (Nvidia) to push their drivers into the shared Linux kernel. That way, instead of every hardware manufacturer having to move whenever Linux changes, the developer who made the virtual memory system goes and updates all the drivers, which is usually a standard copy and paste job. That means that you can take your hardware, install a new version of Linux on it, and not worry about it working or waiting on the hardware company.
The Jetson TX1 board is designed for users to futz with the operating system, and the chip is going to be in lots of products and places where custom OSes or constant security patches are mandated.
The Shield TV is just a black box. Nvidia provides the operating system themselves, often with lots of closed source components they might not legally be allowed to distribute. The Linux kernel inside that OS will only get updated when and Nvidia developer good and wants to do so, and it only ever needs to support the hardware that Nvidia sticks in there.
In this case, while Nvidia might want to chose to mainline a Shield driver, there are also good reasons not too, and either way it is a low priority. It's the exact opposite for a chip that goes in a development board - mainline driver support makes their life easier and is a high priority.
It might. Or it might simply be timing.
It could be. Nvidia definitely supports NVN development on Linux. I'm not sure why, but it is definitely possible that the Linux support is a side effect of some devkit and/or software arrangement for developers.
Nvidia's drivers all kind of look like each other because they've gone out of their way to deeply streamline their driver dev process. They made Linux drivers because they wanted Linux drivers.
Yes.
Sure, though it is extremely thin. Basically a single reference to T239.
GitHub - NVIDIA/open-gpu-doc: Documentation of NVIDIA chip/hardware interfaces
Documentation of NVIDIA chip/hardware interfaces. Contribute to NVIDIA/open-gpu-doc development by creating an account on GitHub.
There are a couple other sources of public, official, T239 information. One is the Linux 4 Tegra source code, which is published with Git history, which is nice because you can actually rewind the code back to the date that T239/T234 development split and see (old but complete) T239 drivers. That's where a lot of the data I've churned up comes from. You can also look into the Open Source GPU driver, which refers to "T239D" which is a naming convention Nvidia uses when they need to send out the open source driver with a reference to a chip they haven't released yet,and want to keep the data internal.
Like I said, you can use layering to make flash denser at the expense of high cost or low reliability. Most SD cards have a sub 10 year life time, and I can't tell you how many dud SD cards I've bought over the years. If you got a dud Switch card - or had your copy of Mario Kart start working well before your Switch did - you'd be livid.
Oh you wouldn't. But if you've got a devkit strapped to your table it needs to run some kinda OS. Several folks here smarter than me have sort poo-pooed the idea that devkits might run Linux, but they are unlikely to run Horizon OS either.
SAME
Aren’t there two completely different kinds of Switch game cards?
I think the margins, i.e. the fact that flash will never become as cheap as optical discs, are the real reasons for why bigger game cards haven't been adopted. They must have gotten cheaper, maybe significantly so, since they're nowhere near the high end of flash density, and the industry progress to getting there (such as 1 TB microSD cards) happened over the course the Switch's life.
It definitely looks like the Linux support (which is specifically L4T support) in NVN is for internal testing. Tthere is possibly more to it, but it would require its own post to discuss. Most relevant here, it's probable that Nvidia tested NVN2 on Orin with L4T before Drake was available.
It's not just a reference to an internal chip, it's about exposing display driver support while keeping everything else proprietary. And in the cases where they do that, I think it's meant to be a permanent arrangement.
As someone who only gained access to a decent internet connection with no download limits less than three years ago, I think that physical cartridges should absolutely stick around. I'm planning to go purely digital when the Switch's successor releases, but I had to rely on physical media in 2017 and I know that there are folks out there who still need it.
Lots of places in the US have data caps still it's ridiculous. I can't download whatever I want and the data cap is so small
as a fellow bad internet haver I can totally relate
it's even worse in Canada. Telcoms are usually national security issue, monopolies/oligopolies are common.
I understand your last point - but it's akin to the liquid metal in PS5 - it doesn't need it - but it's the better option even though it costs more. You can pass on that cost to the consumer. What I mean is, going to vapor chamber cooling wouldn't eliminate the need for a active fan - I think even the next system can have an active fan, it was more or less that you don't need as LARGE of a heat sink with it to achieve a similar, if not better, cooling capacity. So the space issue is less cocerning.
With cartridges having the slowest loading time out of all the Switch's storage mediums, I wholeheartedly agree.
beyond even that, it's so wasteful
Go read a book about business they go over why they do the things they do.
Once a successor is out, Nintendo sticks with their old platforms until the momentum dissipates. The 3DS is not really an anomaly, looking at their history.
So a couple things:
www.tweaktown.com
While there is a NAND-based XtraROM, Nintendo has not been using them.
If this is the case then I wonder how much Nintendo could bring down the cost of 16GB, 32GB and 64GB cards if they only ordered those sizes, making zero orders for 8GB and lower for Switch 2, and having 32GB as the standard size and thus the one that is ordered most.So a couple things:
64GB Switch carts won't use 3D NAND, Game Cards use Macronix's XtraROM
Macronix will ship new 3D NAND modules in 2020, but Nintendo won't use them for Switch game cartridges.
While there is a NAND-based XtraROM, Nintendo has not been using them.
ASIC XtraROM has been used by Nintendo since… I think the DS? Macronix advertises this fact rather prominently. And Game Cards are only distinct from those found in the DS by the number of transistors inside. You’ll also note that each and every chip in every Game Card is coded using the same individual product code found on each Game Card.
In the photos in the linked article, the chip has product code (HAC-)AAAAA on it, which matches the BotW unique product code on the cart label, whereas in this video by Spawn Wave opening a DQH1&2 cart shows that it shares the product code BABKA on the chip and the cart label, meaning these chips are bespoke-produced for each game, which would not be required if they were utilizing NAND XtraROM, as they are advertised as a cheap alternative to PROMs (programmable ROMs), where the OEM can program them as needed after being produced.
Nintendo’s volume of orders on behalf of themselves and publishers is absolutely what helps keep them cheaper than most ROM orders (when you’re ordering over 500 million of something in a matter of 6 years, it has that effect), but higher capacities absolutely have a higher price. And depending on which node Nintendo is purchasing (as I said, can be anywhere from 32 to 48nm, which an option for a die shrink to 28nm that has yet to materialize), there is still an opportunity for cheaper XtraROM chips.
Anyone who told you Switch Game Cards were using NAND was likely fibbing or made a guess at what Nintendo was using and hoped no one would question them.
Also, the reason NAND is currently cheap is because of production over-supply and improvements to density from vertical stacking (which remains significantly cheaper than pushing into “smaller” FinFET nodes).
Sony went to $70 for PS5 games, Microsoft is doing the same on Xbox, I think it’s fair to expect Switch 2 titles to also be $70. Regardless, many games will require downloads as is the case for the 4k twins as well.
I don’t think you realize how often data is duplicated in PS4 games. Crash N Sane Trilogy was more than a fourth of the package size on Switch compared to PS4. Even with higher quality textures, that is not sufficient to explain that kind of gap.
TLOU Part 1 is 80 gigs, despite being a PS5 exclusive. Ratchet and Clank, while much smaller, is still over 40GBs. Not having redundant stuff obviously helps, but I think it’s more along the lines of a game being 80GB instead of 100.
To this day publishers still don't want to have games in 32GB carts. PS5 uses similar decompression techniques as the rumoured Switch 2. And even still you got games like GTAV that are huge. I seriously doubt a publisher can fit GTAV on a 16GB cart. Honestly it doesn't bother me as I'm from the UK so downloading isn't an issue for me. I'm just thinking of other countries where this maybe an issue. I think cartridges are basically going to be like keys/verifying but majority of games will be downloads going forward. I swear I read somewhere some pretty large Switch games even come in 8GB carts.
switch having smaller size probably has more to do with reducing asset quality than just compression. reduced animation data, smaller textures, etc, in addition to ocmpressed video and audio
ASIC Xtra ROM is Nand flash with a rom header. It’s clear both from their press releases about the tech and any breakdown of the cards. True mask ROM has a shelf life of infinity years, ASIC XtraROM does not. Because it’s flash storage with ROM to enforce read only behavior, eliminating the need for a memory controller and extending the life span.So a couple things:
64GB Switch carts won't use 3D NAND, Game Cards use Macronix's XtraROM
Macronix will ship new 3D NAND modules in 2020, but Nintendo won't use them for Switch game cartridges.
While there is a NAND-based XtraROM, Nintendo has not been using them.
ASIC XtraROM has been used by Nintendo since… I think the DS?
Here is a good breakdown of the Switch game card but “Game System XtraROM” is clearly Macronix selling the 3DS/Switch tech to other parties and you can glean its nature from their documentation and press releases.
That's generally not true. The performance CPU cores on smartphone SoCs generally only run at higher frequencies in short bursts of time.
I don't believe that's actually true with respect to TV mode. The Tegra X1's GPU thermal throttled to 614 MHz when the Tegra X1's CPU's running at 2 GHz on the Nvidia Shield TV (2015). And even if the Tegra X1's CPU's running at 1 GHz, the Tegra X1's GPU can still thermal throttle down to 768 MHz depending on the Tegra X1's CPU's workload on the Nvidia Shield TV (2015). So I don't think a vapour chamber is really going to prevent the Tegra X1 from thermal throttling in that scenario.
No, since PlayStation 4 games were designed to run on the internal HDD on the PlayStation 4, which has sequential read speeds roughly between 80 MB/s - 100 MB/s. So UHS-I microSD cards should be fine for ports of PlayStation 4 games.
Either way it doesn’t sound like it’s just typical NAND Flash, so it may have lots of room to improve in terms of manufacturing cost compared to a typical NAND Flash solution. With it being a proprietary technology of Macronix it would also make sense that larger orders of higher storage sizes would in turn help bring cost down.Here is a good breakdown of the Switch game card but “Game System XtraROM” is clearly Macronix selling the 3DS/Switch tech to other parties and you can glean its nature from their documentation and press releases.
Encoding a whole game as ROM would likely cost 10x as much as a flash based solution.
Nintendo Switch Cartridge - EPROM or MASKROM?
does anyone know if Switch game cartridges are EPROM or MASKROM? the images above shows 2 types of configuration for these game carts; one that looks like a NAND chip and the other is a wafer sized flash memory chip that closely resembles to what's found inside a PS Vita cartridge. Thanks for tak...forums.atariage.com
PS4 games aren’t really that relevant in that regard, what’s more important is Nintendo’s and 3rd parties’ needs. Exclusives and ports of PS5/Xbox Series games might need them.
The game card slot can't cost much, and they'd likely need to increase the storage to make up for that which would wind up probably making the thing more expensive.
In the short term? Very unlikely, but who knows how the situation will change in the future.
