• 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.

Rumour Eurogamer: "Nintendo demoed Switch 2 to developers at Gamescom ahead of widely-expected launch next year."

Reader mode
JoshuaJSlone said:
That would be a little TOO literally the same. "Here's a very popular Xbox 360 game."
Click to expand...

It’s also a popular ps5 game 🤣 RDR and GTA trilogy have done good numbers on switch and finally having the last main gta could be an important signal for the market imho.
 
0
My Tulpa said:
No goalpost moving here. I’m saying there are a bunch of multiplats that publishers didn’t feel would have enough demand on the Switch to bother with porting resources…and there will be a bunch of multiplats that will treat this new model the same way. All these multiplats are within the same goalposts lol
Click to expand...
Because Skyrim didn't sell on Switch? Because Larian didn't port Divinity: Original Sin II to Switch? Give me a break. Paid exclusivity aside, publishers are going to want these games on Switch if they can possibly make it happen.

Machrider said:
And I'm sure even to get just that, Nvidia got paid a fortune.

If you want to go really exotic, crazy hardware with a bespoke design these days it is way beyond the price tag a company like Nintendo would be comfortable with.

Apple transitioned to making their own silicon where they call the shots on everything and everything is made to their design philosophy and needs, but they are a monster company.

The days of console manufacturers I think having heavy, heavy sway over their chip designs are largely over because it's not economically feasible to do wacky shit like "hey lets let Ken Kutaragi make some random CELL processor for our next Playstation!" or "lets make a Gamecube where Nintendo basically litigates to Art-X every problem they had with the N64 and attempt to fix it with a totally custom design".

Those days are long, long gone and I think the influence of console makers is only getting less. AMD only allows Sony/MS the leeway they do because they can't afford to lose that business. Nvidia's stock price would be through the roof with or without Nintendo.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree. Nintendo is probably no longer elbow-deep in the design process as they once might have been, but they certainly aren't just sitting around waiting to see what Daddy NVidia gives them, either. It's a collaborative relationship.
 
I just realized we will get a new Switch logo jingle after the satisfying click from the og Switch. What would it be this time?

Unrelated: I can't get wowie zowie out of my head
 
kvetcha said:
Because Skyrim didn't sell on Switch? Because Larian didn't port Divinity: Original Sin II to Switch? Give me a break. Paid exclusivity aside, publishers are going to want these games on Switch if they can possibly make it happen.


I don't disagree. Nintendo is probably no longer elbow-deep in the design process as they once might have been, but they certainly aren't just sitting around waiting to see what Daddy NVidia gives them, either. It's a collaborative relationship.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong even if that was the case. Being foolishly stubborn when you don't have to be doesn't make you smart.

If like a friend of yours is friends with LeBron James and he is willing for fun to join your 5 on 5 mens league team for a Sunday at the gym, maybe you don't need to tell him what plays to run, maybe you just shut the fuck up and let them do what they do, lol.

Or telling a master chef what dish you want and then expecting to have input on how its made. Even if you're paying for the catering, like, dude, just tell them what you want and what time it's supposed to be ready and for how many people. Let them make it how they feel is best, they don't need to be told by you how to cook the food unless there is some pressing need to do so.
 
My Tulpa said:
No goalpost moving here. I’m saying there are a bunch of multiplats that publishers didn’t feel would have enough demand on the Switch to bother with porting resources…and there will be a bunch of multiplats that will treat this new model the same way. All these multiplats are within the same goalposts lol
Click to expand...
is not actually this, some games can be ported to Switch due to it hardware limitations, i sure with it sucess, many developers would love to release they games on Switch, but due to it hardware limitations, they cant do that
 
Machrider said:
There's nothing wrong even if that was the case. Being foolishly stubborn when you don't have to be doesn't make you smart.

If like a friend of yours is friends with LeBron James and he is willing for fun to join your 5 on 5 mens league team for a Sunday at the gym, maybe you don't need to tell him what plays to run, maybe you just shut the fuck up and let them do what they do, lol.

Or telling a master chef what dish you want and then expecting to have input on how its made. Even if you're paying for the catering, like, dude, just tell them what you want and what time it's supposed to be ready and for how many people. Let them make it how they feel is best, they don't need to be told by you how to cook the food unless there is some pressing need to do so.
Click to expand...
NVidia is good at what they do, but I think you are overselling their design mastery a bit. GPU side, yes, they are class leading, but they are still using off-the-shelf ARM CPU cores and aren't doing anything particularly exciting in terms of raster performance, which has remained essentially static for years. DLSS is their real magic, and that's far more about software than about chip design. The processors Apple is designing are much more novel.
 
It's gonna be surreal having a new standard of fidelity for Nintendo after over a decade, the jump between Wii U and Switch was minimal in comparison to what we're gonna get next year.
 
kvetcha said:
NVidia is good at what they do, but I think you are overselling their design mastery a bit. GPU side, yes, they are class leading, but they are still using off-the-shelf ARM CPU cores and aren't doing anything particularly exciting in terms of raster performance. DLSS is their real magic, and that's far more about software than about chip design. The processors Apple is designing are much more novel.
Click to expand...

Apple is really probably the only company that could teach Nvidia's designers a few things and Apple has a monstrous market cap and war chest to be able to afford to do that. The R&D bill on the M1/M2 chips is so enormous I wouldn't even want to know what it is.

A company of Nintendo's size really lecturing them on anything graphics design related ... I mean, lets be honest in 2023 it's not that likely. Nvidia can give Nintendo a chip that will run all their franchises just fine.

Nvidia has become so big that much of the stock gains that the S&P500 has made this year (basically the entire top end of the stock market) is from Nvidia, lol.

Also I wouldn't be that stunned if Nvidia starts to make their own CPU cores (leaving ARM behind). They tried to buy ARM and got blocked, but they have so much money now they could afford to make their own CPU designs.

I would say I'm probably not overrating them at all. You don't become a trillion dollar company by accident.
 
Machrider said:
There's nothing wrong even if that was the case. Being foolishly stubborn when you don't have to be doesn't make you smart.

If like a friend of yours is friends with LeBron James and he is willing for fun to join your 5 on 5 mens league team for a Sunday at the gym, maybe you don't need to tell him what plays to run, maybe you just shut the fuck up and let them do what they do, lol.

Or telling a master chef what dish you want and then expecting to have input on how its made. Even if you're paying for the catering, like, dude, just tell them what you want and what time it's supposed to be ready and for how many people. Let them make it how they feel is best, they don't need to be told by you how to cook the food unless there is some pressing need to do so.
Click to expand...
if Lebron ain't the squad leader, then he doesn't make the calls. that's not how basketball works

do you think MS and Sony just lets AMD make something for their hardware? remember, Sony and MS don't do chip design, just like NIntendo
 
Machrider said:
Apple is really probably the only company that could teach Nvidia's designers a few things and Apple has a monstrous market cap and war chest to be able to afford to do that. The R&D bill on the M1/M2 chips is so enormous I wouldn't even want to know what it is.

A company of Nintendo's size really lecturing them on anything graphics design related ... I mean, lets be honest in 2023 it's not that likely. Nvidia can give Nintendo a chip that will run all their franchises just fine.

Nvidia has become so big that much of the stock gains that the S&P500 has made this year (basically the entire top end of the stock market) is from Nvidia, lol.

I would say I'm probably not overrating them at all. You don't become a trillion dollar company by accident.
Click to expand...
You keep talking about Nintendo 'lecturing' or 'teaching' NVidia. When has anyone ever suggested that's happening?

Both Nintendo and NVidia are deeply invested in this partnership working well. For the original Switch, Nintendo used essentially off-the-shelf Tegra hardware, but NVidia spent an enormous number of manhours designing a custom API for Nintendo's use. With T239, Nintendo is clearly making pretty detailed requests and working closely with NVidia to hit performance targets within a desired power envelope, and NVidia is clearly wanting to bring their A-game and produce the most impressive gaming SOC they can for the price. This is and has always been an intimate collaboration.

It is not a situation where Nintendo's just sitting at the foot of the table waiting for NVidia's design scraps. This chipset would not have a reason to exist without Nintendo's involvement.
 
Mekanos said:
It's gonna be surreal having a new standard of fidelity for Nintendo after over a decade, the jump between Wii U and Switch was minimal in comparison to what we're gonna get next year.
Click to expand...
Yes. We're getting something expected to produce base PS4 visuals in handheld mode, at least.

Base PS4 is nothing to sneeze at.

33xhl3axtjx11.png

god-of-war-ragnarok-ps4-4.large.jpg




Hard not to feel hyped.
 
kvetcha said:
You keep talking about Nintendo 'lecturing' or 'teaching' NVidia. When has anyone ever suggested that's happening?

Both Nintendo and NVidia are deeply invested in this partnership working well. For the original Switch, Nintendo used essentially off-the-shelf Tegra hardware, but NVidia spent an enormous number of manhours designing a custom API for Nintendo's use. With T239, Nintendo is clearly making pretty detailed requests and working closely with NVidia to hit performance targets within a desired power envelope, and NVidia is clearly wanting to bring their A-game and produce the most impressive gaming SOC they can for the price. This is and has always been an intimate collaboration.

It is not a situation where Nintendo's just sitting at the foot of the table waiting for NVidia's design scraps.
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be a collaboration?

Is Breath of the Wild that much sweeter on the Wii U knowing that Nintendo had 20x more input most likely than on the Tegra X1? lol, I don't care frankly.

Nvidia is the top 1-2 companies in the world at what they do, I think it's just fine if Nintendo doesn't have all that much say in the chip design and chip philosophy.

It's actually if anything a good thing. Nintendo doesn't really need to stick their nose in areas where it's not needed, in their history of doing things like that it quite often backfires anyway. Just stick to making games, like sure I'm sure they'd told Nvidia what kind of power/budget envelope they're looking for but past that I suspect Nvidia's designers are the ones making the calls on how to make that happen based on their know how and their way of doing things.

Which is great. Why would you not want that? They have the best graphics engineers in the world (or at least outside of Apple), let them do what they do.

It isn't even like SGI in the 90s that had cutting edge graphics tech but they had like zero experience with home consumer products and sorta needed Nintendo to hold their hand in that regard. Nvidia is the no.1 supplier of consumer GPUs in the world and is an 1 trillion dollar company (something Nintendo or Sony could never dream of being) doing that.
 
I could see $450 with a $400 digital only version.

It's key to remember that PS5 and XBSX cost more than what they charge for meanwhile Nintendo typically never sells at a loss, so the prices between them could be a lot closer than we think.
 
0
Machrider said:
Why does it have to be a collaboration?

Is Breath of the Wild that much sweeter on the Wii U knowing that Nintendo had 20x more input most likely than on the Tegra X1? lol, I don't care frankly.

Nvidia is the top 1-2 companies in the world at what they do, I think it's just fine if Nintendo doesn't have all that much say in the chip design and chip philosophy.

It's actually if anything a good thing. Nintendo doesn't really need to stick their nose in areas where it's not needed, in their history of doing things like that it quite often backfires anyway. Just stick to making games, like sure I'm sure they'd told Nvidia what kind of power/budget envelope they're looking for but past that I suspect Nvidia's designers are the ones making the calls on how to make that happen based on their know how and their way of doing things.

Which is great. Why would you not want that? They have the best graphics engineers in the world (or at least outside of Apple), let them do what they do.
Click to expand...
This is...incredibly misguided.

Nintendo is designing the console. It is their concept. It is their hardware. It is their philosophy. NVidia provides one (very) major component, the SOC, which is designed and manufactured to Nintendo's requirements, because it has to fit their vision of the console. Nintendo is the customer. NVidia is the vendor.

Nintendo wants the most robust, versatile SOC they can get within cost and power budget. NVidia wants to sell hardware (marginally important) and ensure wide adoption of DLSS (very important). Of course it is a collaboration! How could it not be? Both parties benefit from a successful product. Of course NVidia is responsible for figuring out how to get it done, but you're very wrong if you think Nintendo is not all up in their business the whole time seeing how things are progressing.
 
Machrider said:
Why does it have to be a collaboration?

Is Breath of the Wild that much sweeter on the Wii U knowing that Nintendo had 20x more input most likely than on the Tegra X1? lol, I don't care frankly.

Nvidia is the top 1-2 companies in the world at what they do, I think it's just fine if Nintendo doesn't have all that much say in the chip design and chip philosophy.

It's actually if anything a good thing. Nintendo doesn't really need to stick their nose in areas where it's not needed, in their history of doing things like that it quite often backfires anyway. Just stick to making games, like sure I'm sure they'd told Nvidia what kind of power/budget envelope they're looking for but past that I suspect Nvidia's designers are the ones making the calls on how to make that happen based on their know how and their way of doing things.

Which is great. Why would you not want that? They have the best graphics engineers in the world (or at least outside of Apple), let them do what they do.

It isn't even like SGI in the 90s that had cutting edge graphics tech but they had like zero experience with home consumer products and sorta needed Nintendo to hold their hand in that regard. Nvidia is the no.1 supplier of consumer GPUs in the world and is an 1 trillion dollar company (something Nintendo or Sony could never dream of being) doing that.
Click to expand...
thats-not-how-this-works-thats-not-how-any-of-this-works.gif
 
kvetcha said:
This is...incredibly misguided.

Nintendo is designing the console. It is their concept. It is their hardware. It is their philosophy. NVidia provides one (very) major component, the SOC, which is designed and manufactured to Nintendo's requirements, because it has to fit their vision of the console. Nintendo is the customer. NVidia is the vendor.

Nintendo wants the most robust, versatile SOC they can get within cost and power budget. NVidia wants to sell hardware (marginally important) and ensure wide adoption of DLSS (very important). Of course it is a collaboration! How could it not be? Both parties benefit from a successful product. Of course NVidia is responsible for figuring out how to get it done, but you're very wrong if you think Nintendo is not all up in their business the whole time seeing how things are progressing.
Click to expand...

The chip is Nvidia's design and design philosophy and it's not even probably a new one. It's derived directly from Orin chips (T234) that Nvidia has already made without Nintendo.

Of course Nintendo will say hey we need it to be in this power envelope and roughly this cost, and then Nvidia presents them with options they think will fit there.

But it's not a collaboration in a sense of Nintendo engineers working hand in hand with Nvidia designers to make a chip or even dictating the hardware design philosophy.

It's just that when these chips get talked about it, it's like "Nintendo made this!" or "Nintendo would never make that!" ... well they're not. These products are in anything a showcase of Nvidia's designers and Nvidia's design philosophy on GPUs. It's not 1999 anymore and it's not like Nintendo is working with some rag tag group of designers from San Jose making a GameCube and listing out every design decision it needs to adhere to because they hated the N64 hardware. That's not how things work in 2023.

And that's probably a good thing anyway. Not sure what about that idea is that offensive. Oh noez, the best graphics engineers in the world are making the chip, how terrible, lol.

The real collaboration is probably moreso on the software dev kit side, likely Nvidia is fine tuning a kit where for example DLSS is automatically implemented and fine tuned right out of the box for lower resolutions as an example. That's probably where the collaboration really is.
 
Machrider said:
The chip is Nvidia's design and design philosophy.

Of course Nintendo will say hey we need it to be in this power envelope and roughly this cost, and then Nvidia presents them with options they think will fit there.

But it's not a collaboration in a sense of Nintendo engineers working hand in hand with Nvidia designers to make a chip or even dictating the hardware design philosophy.

It's just that when these chips get talked about it, it's like "Nintendo made this!" or "Nintendo would never make that!" ... well they're not. These products are in anything a showcase of Nvidia's designers and Nvidia's design philosophy on GPUs. It's not 1999 anymore and it's not like Nintendo is working with some rag tag group of designers from San Jose making a GameCube and listing out every design decision it needs to adhere to because they hated the N64 hardware. That's not how things work in 2023.

And that's probably a good thing anyway.
Click to expand...
I don't understand what point you're even trying to make.

Of course NVidia is doing the SOC design grunt work. No one ever suggested otherwise. But they are nevertheless doing it to Nintendo's requirements. This isn't the TX1, where Nintendo is taking a pre-existing chipset and building a console around it as best they can, hardware security flaws and all. This is NVidia making a bespoke product for Nintendo. Yes, it's an Ampere+ GPU. It's also an ARM-designed CPU. And another company will make the RAM. And still other companies will make the various chips and controllers that manage all the other functions of the console. But it's all ultimately to achieve Nintendo's vision, not NVidia's. NVidia architects the processor, but Nintendo is architecting the console.

So yes, 'Nintendo made this' is completely apt. When Maserati makes a car, and the engine comes from Ferrari, we still say Maserati made the car.
 
kvetcha said:
I don't understand what point you're even trying to make.

Of course NVidia is doing the SOC design grunt work. No one ever suggested otherwise. But they are nevertheless doing it to Nintendo's requirements. This isn't the TX1, where Nintendo is taking a pre-existing chipset and building a console around it as best they can, hardware security flaws and all. This is NVidia making a bespoke product for Nintendo. Yes, it's an Ampere+ GPU. It's also an ARM-designed CPU. And another company will make the RAM. And still other companies will make the various chips and controllers that manage all the other functions of the console. But it's all ultimately to achieve Nintendo's vision, not NVidia's. NVidia architects the processor, but Nintendo is architecting the console.

So yes, 'Nintendo made this' is completely apt. When Maserati makes a car, and the engine comes from Ferrari, we still say Maserati made the car.
Click to expand...

Unless of course there was a time when Maserati used to make their own engines and their engine design philosophy was sometimes very eccentric and weird (hello Wii U hardware).

So when people say "Nintendo made this" they are saying it in a way like "I can't believe Nintendo would make a system that powerful, no way" because they are referencing against Nintendo's history of hardware like GameCube, Wii, Wii U, etc. where they probably did actually have a ton of say on the chip design process and philosophy of the hardware was probably almost entirely their thought process on what a game chipset should be.

But that isn't really the case with these Nvidia chips, sure Nvidia will take note of what their vendors need, but ultimately it's Nvidia's design philosophy that's being showcased. Even things like the choice of CPU I would bet is Nvidia saying "this is the CPU design we think will work best for you and this is something we can make from the Orin design", not Nintendo saying "oh can you slap some ARM A78 cores on there instead?".

Maybe Nintendo would never make a hybrid console that could run The Matrix Awakens demo for example if they were working on the chip like it's 2005. But 2023 ... with Nvidia ... you bet your ass that's a kind of chip they would make. Nvidia doesn't design their processors just on the basis of "what does the next Mario game need?" ... and frankly that's a good thing.
 
Machrider said:
But it's not a collaboration in a sense of Nintendo engineers working hand in hand with Nvidia designers to make a chip or even dictating the hardware design philosophy....That's not how things work in 2023...

....The real collaboration is probably moreso on the software dev kit side, likely Nvidia is fine tuning a kit where for example DLSS is automatically implemented and fine tuned right out of the box for lower resolutions as an example. That's probably where the collaboration really is....Not sure what about that idea is that offensive. Oh noez, the best graphics engineers in the world are making the chip, how terrible, lol.
Click to expand...
I'm hoping that no one here is actually taking offense (it's not like anyone works at Nintendo or Nvidia), but I think the pushback comes from the reactive/passive role you've outlined for Nintendo.

That's not how these type of things work for multi-billion dollar capital purchases. Nvidia is the most critical vendor and Nintendo is 100% working with them on every step of the design process. Initially you're right that both parties would've started with whatever off the shelf chips Nvidia had, but the tweaking and customization that will make the Super Switch unique is going to involve proactive steps by Nintendo that will dictate hardware design.
 
Also as this new console will have mainline possible it’s literally impossible for it to fail, regardless of its price.
 
0
Didn’t Sony and Microsoft work closely with AMD on their hardware as well? And in the end, even though there are similarities, there are a lot of small differences.

I don’t think AMD made the CPUs and GPUs differently just because they wanted to try different approaches. The differences arise from the input and collaboration of their clients, Microsoft and Sony.

So why is it so difficult to accept that Nintendo is collaborating with Nvidia on the SoC? Even if they’re only 10% to Nvidia’s 90%, it should still be called a collaboration.

EDIT: but honestly, this is just semantics and largely unimportant for us consumers. It only matters if someone wants to argue Nintendo is terrible at delivering good hardware, because for some reason that’s relevant for online discussions I guess?
 
Seems to me that Switch 2 is probably a project of some importance to nVidia. Seems also that Nintendo's probably a significant client or them coming off the back of the Switch.

Seems also to me that Wi U had processor designed by IBM.
 
0
kvetcha said:
It is not a situation where Nintendo's just sitting at the foot of the table waiting for NVidia's design scraps. This chipset would not have a reason to exist without Nintendo's involvement.
Click to expand...
This is a tangent, but today with the Charles Martinet video and the Switch 2 rumors I've noticed this strange enmity towards Nintendo. (Mostly... elsewhere). Nintendo is seen as this this wacky, unpredictable and incompetent company that releases weak hardware just because, will definitely name the Switch something stupid because that's totally something they would do, and will most certainly shoot themselves in the foot with some zany gimmick like smell-o-vision. At the same time they are malicious, greedy, and shady and definitely forced Charles into the ambassador role because they want to replace him with AI while keeping him on a leash.

I'm not really interested in 'defending' corporations of all things and I acknowledge many of their decisions as bone-headed. And I will never pass up a chance to roast the Wii U. At the same time, this strange personification of Nintendo and framing of their decisions comes off as immature or low-level console warring. It just makes it difficult to actually discuss why they make decisions and what we can reasonably predict. It gets tiring reading the same baseless, reality-detached argument over and over, like how their track record with BC is 'terrible', and trying to refute it is responded with "Nintendo is unpredictable" or being called a corporate bootlicker. "Because Nintendo" is not an actual argument.
 
Last edited:
Heruderu said:
Didn’t Sony and Microsoft work closely with AMD on their hardware as well? And in the end, even though there are similarities, there are a lot of small differences.

I don’t think AMD made the CPUs and GPUs differently just because they wanted to try different approaches. The differences arise from the input and collaboration of their clients, Microsoft and Sony.

So why is it so difficult to accept that Nintendo is collaborating with Nvidia on the SoC? Even if they’re only 10% to Nvidia’s 90%, it should still be called a collaboration.
Click to expand...
I was gonna mention this as well. Mark Cerny is not unique in that both Microsoft and Nintendo don't also have a team of people doing the same job. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to make the things that they do.

They would also be completely beholden to external expertise, which would be very risky.
 
ILikeFeet said:
thats-not-how-this-works-thats-not-how-any-of-this-works.gif
Click to expand...

Except that is literally how the Switch works. Nintendo didn't customize shit on that chip.

Why? Because they probably took a look at the bill of what it would cost if they wanted a custom chip built with their R&D putting their nose into everything and VERY WISELY said "nah, we ain't doing that, we'll take the Tegra X1 thank you and goodnight".

The more customization you want or the more Nvidia has to invest in R&D time to accommodate specific requests, the higher the R&D bill gets for Nintendo because Nvidia doesn't do anything for free. It's not in Nintendo's interest to do that, the only reason to do that is if Nvidia doesn't know what they're doing or needs help, which is highly unlikely.

Nvidia has likely known for a long, long time exactly how many CUDA cores, what types of clock speeds, even what would be the best ARM CPU choice for the Switch successor based on a Switch form factor and based on the chip they've already developed (Tegra T234). These aren't amateurs they are the best in the world at doing this of course they had probably already mapped out way in advance what they could do in a Switch successor even as far back as 2017/2018. If anything they probably had to explain to Nintendo that the DLSS and Tensor Cores can really help out a hybrid system and had to show them what it can do.

That's probably where the chief "collaboration" is, DLSS is so good, you don't probably just want it as a bonus feature, wouldn't surprise me if its integrated directly in to the Switch 2 software kit right off the bat, as in Nintendo may just want devs to use it as standard. Why render at even 1080p if you don't have to.
 
Last edited:
Machrider said:
GameCube
Click to expand...
The GameCube was the most powerful console during that generation other than the Xbox though. So much so that its hardware architecture directly influenced the Xbox 360. It doesn't detract from your point (I guess you could argue that "How could Nintendo make such a powerful console" is slightly less of a thing) but just wanted to mention it.
 
Last edited:
Eclissi said:
This would be a relevant topic: what is the price threshold that would make the console less desirable. But it is different from the discussion "for me it will cost 349" "for me 399" "for me 349"..
Click to expand...

let's start listing some ambassador games we'd like to see.
 
Machrider said:
Except that is literally how the Switch works. Nintendo didn't customize shit on that chip.
Click to expand...
no shit they didn't customize that chip. it was a general purpose chip that was made for many different use cases. didn't even get used in those use cases

Drake ain't that chip. they have Orin and it's successor for that

Machrider said:
Nvidia has likely known for a long, long time exactly how many CUDA cores, what types of clock speeds, even what would be the best ARM CPU choice for the Switch successor based on a Switch form factor and based on the chip they've already developed (Tegra T234).
Click to expand...
they did not. the T234 is a balls to the wall chip in size and power consumption. until nintendo tells them what they want to target, Nvidia does not know what the size of the chip will be, the power consumption, or even what node it will be on

Machrider said:
These aren't amateurs they are the best in the world at doing this of course they had probably already mapped out way in advance what they could do in a Switch successor even as far back as 2017/2018.
Click to expand...
because Nintendo told them what their goals might be. you can't predict clients. Nvidia did that before, that's why the TX1 was on a piece of shit node that everyone including Nvidia abandoned. Nintendo saved that dumpster fire

Machrider said:
If anything they probably had to explain to Nintendo that the DLSS and Tensor Cores can really help out a hybrid system and had to show them what it can do.
Click to expand...
temporal upscaling has been a thing for a while. it's not new to Nintendo
 
Machrider said:
Unless of course there was a time when Maserati used to make their own engines and their engine design philosophy was sometimes very eccentric and weird (hello Wii U hardware).

So when people say "Nintendo made this" they are saying it in a way like "I can't believe Nintendo would make a system that powerful, no way" because they are referencing against Nintendo's history of hardware like GameCube, Wii, Wii U, etc. where they probably did actually have a ton of say on the chip design process and philosophy of the hardware was probably almost entirely their thought process on what a game chipset should be.

But that isn't really the case with these Nvidia chips, sure Nvidia will take note of what their vendors need, but ultimately it's Nvidia's design philosophy that's being showcased. Even things like the choice of CPU I would bet is Nvidia saying "this is the CPU design we think will work best for you and this is something we can make from the Orin design", not Nintendo saying "oh can you slap some ARM A78 cores on there instead?".

Maybe Nintendo would never make a hybrid console that could run The Matrix Awakens demo for example if they were working on the chip like it's 2005. But 2023 ... with Nvidia ... you bet your ass that's a kind of chip they would make. Nvidia doesn't design their processors just on the basis of "what does the next Mario game need?" ... and frankly that's a good thing.
Click to expand...
T239 will show Nvidia's (and ARM's, Nvidia doesn't really make console-ready CPU cores yet) design philosophy just like GCN, Wii, and Wii U showed IBM and ATI/AMD's design philosophy. It's possible that some of Nintendo's simpler graphics processors were fully bespoke (or at least, their design isn't typically attributed to anyone else), but their involvement in chip design has probably remained mostly static over the years. Switch was a bit of an aberration at launch, but even then, they only stuck with that design for a couple years before switching to a custom version of the chip more suited to their needs and there was at least one non-SoC chip they had a very significant hand in designing (the cart controller).

Also, I think you're really overestimating how bespoke a lot of Nintendo's older hardware is. The GCN CPU, for example, is a pretty lightly customized PPC 750 (used by the G3 Macs), and there was even a variant of it later on called the 750CL that was pretty close to the exact configuration used by the Wii.
 
Eclissi said:
This would be a relevant topic: what is the price threshold that would make the console less desirable. But it is different from the discussion "for me it will cost 349" "for me 399" "for me 349"...
Click to expand...
I once said $399 was my line in the sand for Nintendo hardware.

I’m lying to myself. While $399 is absolutely not my line in the sand, I kind of feel like it is for the general consumer.
 
3D Mario fans: next game might look like a pixar movie!
Zelda fans: next game might look like a Ghibli movie!
Pikmin fans: next game might look like real life itself!
Pokémon fans: next game now might look and perform like an Xbox 360 game! :D
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom