A lot of the GDC discussion will be subject to "frien-da" but some details may be permitted.GDC is next week, so hopefully we start to hear rumblings from developers. Between Jeff Grubb and @NateDrake, we should get some idea of what is going on in the Nintendo camp. Even if it ends up being 2024 hardware, its getting to the point where at least some developers should have access to the hardware.
To help calibrate pessimism/optimism, Nvidia was adding Linux support for T239 as late as mid-November.
So can T239 theoretically support DisplayPort 2.1?/** @brief DisplayPort link rate, T239 valid: 1620, 2700, 5400, 8100, 2160, 2430, 3240, 4320, 6750 */
Were people ever using Splatoon 3: Side Order to gauge a rough timeline for [REDACTED] along with the 2nd wave of S&V’s DLC?
Because a new Splatoon 3: Expansion Pass ad from Spain has it dated to 2024 vs. the US reveal where no timeline was given
this has me so excited...this drought is unbearable.A lot of the GDC discussion will be subject to "frien-da" but some details may be permitted.
Don't get your hopes up too high. We might not hear anything.this has me so excited...this drought is unbearable.
Hope for news has been zero for months. Only way to go is up from here.Don't get your hopes up too high. We might not hear anything.
You're sure losing a lot more than zero detail. If anyone can find an example of 1080p DLSS Quality looking worse than any 720p version, I'd be surprised but interested to see. Maybe if it was a game made up 90% of ghosting motion errors, but that's an unrealistic scenario. And the ghosting motion errors might affect DLAA anyway since it's basically the same thing? Unsure.I'm not sure you can definitively say that for all people. It would be one thing if you were losing half the detail, but you're not.
*by 2024-12-31I don't think Splatoon DLC and hardware have anything to do with each other. But frankly I don't think this Spanish ad is revealing actual info, it's probably just a bad adaptation of the "by 12/31/24" placeholder date which the DLC currently has on the eShop.
The update for support for Drake, as in the physical upgrade, isn’t that big. They can keep the other parts the same and change the board.This is a really random thought, but I noticed on Nintendo's website today that they're selling refurbished 3DS AC adapters, and apparently they started as the DSi adapter. I vaguely recall some talk that there are technical reasons that the OLED dock wouldn't be appropriate for Drake, but if that weren't the case there's a precedent for a revision introducing a new peripheral that carries forward.
That being said, I suspect that the Switch AC adapter will move forward as is anyway!
Well, recalling the rumor that there was a Switch Pro, and it was cancelled, maybe the OLED dock would have been backwards compatible with the cancelled Pro? Because wasn’t there some data mined info that said the OLED dock was 4K compatible? But then the successor, Drake, being more powerful might need it’s own specially designed dock.This is a really random thought, but I noticed on Nintendo's website today that they're selling refurbished 3DS AC adapters, and apparently they started as the DSi adapter. I vaguely recall some talk that there are technical reasons that the OLED dock wouldn't be appropriate for Drake, but if that weren't the case there's a precedent for a revision introducing a new peripheral that carries forward.
That being said, I suspect that the Switch AC adapter will move forward as is anyway!
why would it need a specially designed dock? in theory it could work with even the launch switch dock, but just be limited to 1080p. the OLED dock might has just been a supply thing, with new display chips going up in minimum specWell, recalling the rumor that there was a Switch Pro, and it was cancelled, maybe the OLED dock would have been backwards compatible with the cancelled Pro? Because wasn’t there some data mined info that said the OLED dock was 4K compatible? But then the successor, Drake, being more powerful might need it’s own specially designed dock.
I was going off the assumption that Drake might need a different fan or air flow setup for cooling than a Switch Pro would. But maybe it could use the OLED dock and just output 1080p.why would it need a specially designed dock? in theory it could work with even the launch switch dock, but just be limited to 1080p. the OLED dock might has just been a supply thing, with new display chips going up in minimum spec
I dunno, not my area of knowledge! Since it’s a controller integrated into the SOC, I would assume it would be 1.4 same as Orin, but I’m ignorant hereSo can T239 theoretically support DisplayPort 2.1?
It's actually the AC adapter from an obscure Wi-Fi router Nintendo released ages ago, the DSi was also reusing it. Nintendo is known to carry forward random peripherals from time to time when they have no reason to change it. You can what something was originally do by the prefix in its model number.This is a really random thought, but I noticed on Nintendo's website today that they're selling refurbished 3DS AC adapters, and apparently they started as the DSi adapter. I vaguely recall some talk that there are technical reasons that the OLED dock wouldn't be appropriate for Drake, but if that weren't the case there's a precedent for a revision introducing a new peripheral that carries forward.
That being said, I suspect that the Switch AC adapter will move forward as is anyway!
here's 720p > 2160p in motion. you immediately forget you're looking at 720p, to the point I thought the settings didn't apply or something
oooooof
it'll be towards the end of the game's support, then. that kinda blows
Output resolution is 4k, but DLSS Ultra Performance mode upscales a 720p input to hit that 4k.Am I missing something? In the settings the resolution was 4k
Interesting so whenever you use DLSS ultra performance the input will anyways be 720p? Or is there a separate setting to choose input resolutionOutput resolution is 4k, but DLSS Ultra Performance mode upscales a 720p input to hit that 4k.
Choosing your mode chooses your resolution. By choosing Ultra Performance Mode you are choosing 720p as your input resolution.Interesting so whenever you use DLSS ultra performance the input will anyways be 720p? Or is there a separate setting to choose input resolution
here's 720p > 2160p in motion. you immediately forget you're looking at 720p, to the point I thought the settings didn't apply or something
Choosing your mode chooses your resolution. By choosing Ultra Performance Mode you are choosing 720p as your input reoslution.
It's a proportion, yes. So if you set the resolution to 4K, then choose Ultra Performance Mode, you are selecting 720p rendering. This changes with different output resolutions. DLSS can even support dynamic resolution scaling, where the internal resolution scales to try and match a set framerate while DLSS takes whatever that number is up to the target resolution.So performance is 4x and ultra performance is 8x (from native to dlss resolution). But is the goal always 4k? When we see videos coming from 360p, how they choose this resolution for native? Does it depend on the monitor's native resolution?
Is dynamic resolution DLSS the version used when putting to "DLSS: Auto"?It's a proportion, yes. So if you set the resolution to 4K, then choose Ultra Performance Mode, you are selecting 720p rendering. This changes with different output resolutions. DLSS can even support dynamic resolution scaling, where the internal resolution scales to try and match a set framerate while DLSS takes whatever that number is up to the target resolution.
Doesn't sound like it makes much sense honestlyChoosing your mode chooses your resolution. By choosing Ultra Performance Mode you are choosing 720p as your input reoslution.
Nice congrats on the PC! Enjoy it! Also I wouldn't say 3060ti is humble considering most of the population still uses a 1060 or equivalent card like a 980Oh, ok. So you can choose the final resolution, and choosing the DLSS mode is like choosing the multiplier.
I see many comments (elsewhere) saying it doesn't make sense to use DLSS to hit 1080p. I'm going to build my new PC today (with a humble 3060 ti) and I want to run some tests with DLSS and see how it works, and if it could be ok in a 7" screen coming from 360p (for 720p) or 540p (for 1080p).
Which is great considering where Drake lands in terms of CUDA core count...Nice congrats on the PC! Enjoy it! Also I wouldn't say 3060ti is humble considering most of the population still uses a 1060 or equivalent card like a 980
The GBASP charger was also shared with DS Phat.This is a really random thought, but I noticed on Nintendo's website today that they're selling refurbished 3DS AC adapters, and apparently they started as the DSi adapter. I vaguely recall some talk that there are technical reasons that the OLED dock wouldn't be appropriate for Drake, but if that weren't the case there's a precedent for a revision introducing a new peripheral that carries forward.
That being said, I suspect that the Switch AC adapter will move forward as is anyway!
The named standards work as such, in a single dimension.Interesting so whenever you use DLSS ultra performance the input will anyways be 720p? Or is there a separate setting to choose input resolution
3060Ti buddies. DLSSing to 1080p is fine, though preferably not starting from as low as 360p. But it's also usually the case that any RTX GPU can already run most games decently at 1080p, so throwing DLSS at it can seem overkill. Until I upgraded from a 1080p60 to 4K120 screen I felt like my GPU was mostly being wasted. Something as small and low power as Drake in portable mode is a whole different ballgame, though.I see many comments (elsewhere) saying it doesn't make sense to use DLSS to hit 1080p. I'm going to build my new PC today (with a humble 3060 ti) and I want to run some tests with DLSS and see how it works, and if it could be ok in a 7" screen coming from 360p (for 720p) or 540p (for 1080p).
3060Ti buddies. DLSSing to 1080p is fine, though preferably not starting from as low as 360p. But it's also usually the case that any RTX GPU can already run most games decently at 1080p, so throwing DLSS at it can seem overkill. Until I upgraded from a 1080p60 to 4K120 screen I felt like my GPU was mostly being wasted. Something as small and low power as Drake in portable mode is a whole different ballgame, though.
Here's something I did a few months back, comparing a few 360->720, 360->1080, 540->1080 shots for the same game in the same areas. It's definitely true the lower you start the worse the result is, but the output of 360->1080 still looks a lot better than just being stuck at 360.Yeah, I imagine the 3060 ti will handle most games just fine in 1080p. But most comments I read were saying there's not enough pixels to work with [for the reconstruction], and that with such a low resolution it would have a lot of artifacts and ghosting. So the first thing that came to my mind while reading this was switch 2 lol
Here's something I did a few months back, comparing a few 360->720, 360->1080, 540->1080 shots for the same game in the same areas. It's definitely true the lower you start the worse the result is, but the output of 360->1080 still looks a lot better than just being stuck at 360.
It’s Nintendo…. It’s possibleI like your theory as I’ve been recently thinking about that as well. It would be quite a clout for Nintendo to have. Question is how well it will be implemented. Is it reasonable to fear that Nintendo could somehow gimp DLSS for this new hardware for reasons? Or is this just not possible.
I’ve never really liked this reasoning because it isn’t a reasonIt’s Nintendo…. It’s possible
I agree, it doesn't constitute an argument.I’ve never really liked this reasoning because it isn’t a reason
Why not?I’ve never really liked this reasoning because it isn’t a reason
Well, Orin's max DP version seems to be 1.4a, so if it does, it would be a notable departure from existing models on the same architecture.So can T239 theoretically support DisplayPort 2.1?
Isn't the switch missing the Ethernet port too?Why not?
This is the company that removed the Ethernet port to save a few pennies from the GameCube, forcing people in later consoles to buy singles to get a wired connection, that pioneered analogue triggers them dropped them from every future console, that gave a revolutionary console (Wii) a clock speed bumped previous generation cpu and gpu. You can go on and on but as much as we love Nintendo, their history of strange or disappoint cost-cutting decisions is very long. Why this insistence on believing they’re somehow a different company now? Based on their entire history, Switch 2 is likely to be puzzlingly gimped in some way or another.
Oh I'm sure there will be some areas where the Switch will be limited. My prime candidates would be the internal storage being 64-128 GB only and/or expandable storage being ill-fit in terms of access speed or crazily expensive.Why not?
This is the company that removed the Ethernet port to save a few pennies from the GameCube, forcing people in later consoles to buy singles to get a wired connection, that pioneered analogue triggers them dropped them from every future console, that gave a revolutionary console (Wii) a clock speed bumped previous generation cpu and gpu. You can go on and on but as much as we love Nintendo, their history of strange or disappoint cost-cutting decisions is very long. Why this insistence on believing they’re somehow a different company now? Based on their entire history, Switch 2 is likely to be puzzlingly gimped in some way or another.
Even the TX1 was a good chip for the time, although it was an a shitty process node. If they had launched with Mariko and clocked it thereafter, it would have been more or less the best anyone could have asked for.Oh I'm sure there will be some areas where the Switch will be limited. My prime candidates would be the internal storage being 64-128 GB only and/or expandable storage being ill-fit in terms of access speed or crazily expensive.
However, in this case we are discussing about the T239 chip. Assuming that this is indeed the chip that will be in the Switch 2, then it already comes equipped with the capacity to do DLSS. Making it incapable of running DLSS would only be in any way conceivable if it incurs a significant overhead in power consumption, but so far we have had little indication for that I think. In fact, DLSS might actually enable the 'because Nintendo' line of thinking: since DLSS allows for efficient rendering at lower resolution, it could give a reason for Nintendo to contend themselves with a relatively low clock profile since DLSS allows for the hardware to push above its weight. So they can have their cake and eat it, too.
Of course, if you disagree with the assumption that Nintendo are using the T239 'because it would be too advanced for Nintendo to go with', then that's a different story, of course. But at least the GC had a good chip inside of it, so it is at least not unprecedented for Nintendo to have a strong chip.