GPKs3
Koopa
Another fake leaker making rounds, the blurry pics strikes again, bro didn't even try
Oh look! The typical “cell phone pics taken secretly, thus the blur and out of focus” leaks. Have fakers really not moved past this?
Another fake leaker making rounds, the blurry pics strikes again, bro didn't even try
Another fake leaker making rounds, the blurry pics strikes again, bro didn't even try
Metroid Prime 4 will make everyone question, does Switch can really run this game? Retro Studios tech wizardy, will make Metroid Prime 4 look like a PS4 game, specially if the Xbox Era Nick Baker rumors is true(game look visually unbelievable/incridedable, will be open ended, but not open world
Another fake leaker making rounds, the blurry pics strikes again, bro didn't even try
Kind of irrelevant again imo since power and everything doesn't matter. Every console on the market is outdated the moment it releases technically and every product goes through a lifecycle of possibly being the most powerful on the market and then being in the middle power wise, eventually being one of the weakest in the market. The games are all that matter and we should keep that attitude. Namely given the fact that it will take devs a while to be able to take fully advantage of the hardware too (like how Luigi's Mansion 3 and Pikmin 4 impressed everyone, to the point where some didn't believe it was on Switch). Not to mention every single handheld will always be not as powerful as those stationary huge power sucking beasts that people have in their houses! So we'll always get those "haha your hardware is weak!" comparisons. Especially on multiplats, doesn't matter to them if the hardware is efficient and punches above it's weight. They just want to drive-by concern troll and leave for fun.this thing should be roughly competitive with other handhelds of its class for like a year or two, right? like, it probably won't be demolished by something until the steam deck 2?
I would genuinely love it so much if it had 2 screens. I would genuinely get close to crying and I'm not emotional. Dual screen gaming is just that good.I could imagine MP4 having amazing graphics, but 540p and 25-30fps on Switch. They would get away with this by having it be a cross-gen Switch 2 launch game, with the proper way to play being on Switch 2 at 60fps with all that sweet DLSS help.
I want this, as long as it has a third screen that displays games when closed, and rude gestures to passers-by when open.
your guess is as good as mineHow does that make sense, when 1 runs on dedicated hardware and the other one runs on shader cores?
we need to know how the game is made first. is it relying on baked lighting like MP1R did or are they going with dynamic lights?Metroid Prime 4 will make everyone question, does Switch can really run this game? Retro Studios tech wizardy, will make Metroid Prime 4 look like a PS4 game, specially if the Xbox Era Nick Baker rumors is true(game look visually unbelievable/incridedable, will be open ended, but not open world
Just tempering expectations since some may be expecting actual PS5 performance. We know realistically it's PS4+ with DLSS.Imran posted this on the VGC/Eurogamer thread on Era:
I’m wondering, if the above is true, what’s the point of the tech demo shown to the developers?
I'm still team H2 2024, it makes too much sense. Feel free to roast me if I'm wrong. I'd even do an avatar bet on it heheI have my doubts that Nintendo would be showing off their hardware if it wasn't finalised or at least very close to completion. Considering the other bits and pieces we've heard, Nintendo is likely ready to start the mass productions but are waiting for both it's initial announcement and the launch year of games.. probably, i'm not too sure on that.
I stand on the hill that the reveal can come as early as October, but that doesn't really matter. Nintendo is almost there when it comes to producing the console. We're ready... almost.
your guess is as good as mine
here's Starfield with the two about what and what
we need to know how the game is made first. is it relying on baked lighting like MP1R did or are they going with dynamic lights?
I'd think mid 2024 makes the most sense, and the article that leaked gamescom stuff stated that Nintendo were aiming for a release earlier than late 2024, which points more to mid 2024.Just tempering expectations since some may be expecting actual PS5 performance. We know realistically it's PS4+ with DLSS.
I'm still team H2 2024, it makes too much sense. Feel free to roast me if I'm wrong. I'd even do an avatar bet on it hehe
$100 more for OLED seems too much.Say if Nintendo did two SKUs for the Switch 2
Switch 2 LCD 512gb = $399
Switch OLED 512gb = $499
Would you buy the OLED model?
$50?$100 more for OLED seems too much.
Another fake leaker making rounds, the blurry pics strikes again, bro didn't even try
your guess is as good as mine
here's Starfield with the two about what and what
@oldpuck @ILikeFeet @Thraktor and others, how do you guys know so much about hardware stuff like SoCs, chiplets etc...? Is it your job? I genuinely find the area so fascinating and am interested to hear how you guys got into it. Maybe PC gaming? Are one of you guys secretly Mr. Furukawa in disguise?I saw a few Reddit posts referencing Famiboards when it came to hardware speculation.
You guys really are at the core of all the hardware talk.
Ilikefeet, Thraktor, oldpuck, Zombi3. There are more of you too and I am sorry if I didn't mention. You all are killing it lol.
EDIT: bonus me at my 9-5 software engineer job trying to understand you guys talking about hardware:
I wouldn't be surprised if BoTW is released as a remaster with better textures, lighting, resolution, and performance bundled in with all the DLC. While ToTK gets a big next-gen patch as you said. I could also see ToTK get a remaster down the line but I feel that it makes more sense for BoTW at the moment since it was a Wii U port.
I think it makes more sense to hold the OLED back for a premium revision.Say if Nintendo did two SKUs for the Switch 2
Switch 2 LCD 512gb = $399
Switch OLED 512gb = $499
Would you buy the OLED model?
Sounds like good news to me.Another very interesting thing, French "Walmart" retailer selling the New Mario Red Edition Switch OLED only for $270 instead of $350
Price drop incoming ?
HEY I see you targeting me! Lol in all seriousness we'll see if I'm right as time goes on... maybe my fangirl-ism is taking over!Tempering expectations is not a bad thing, we already have posts stating that PS5 and Series X are completely redundant. However, this one seems a bit pointless.
We already mostly know the specs though there isn't much that we aren't aware of. Even the most conservative clocks and tuning would still be insanely good. People's reluctancy to acknowledge that a mobile/portable device can do what Switch 2 is doing is what makes me think it will change the industry a lot. Portables are absolutely the future and I would bank money on it. We've seen it in the personal computing sector where a lot of people don't even own laptops anymore (I think this is actually a bad idea personally, but it's better when it comes to gaming).Hit the nail on the head right there.
Granted, for a lot of casual consumers... yeah I don't think they'll care much about the PS5 or Series X as long as they can play the games decently. "redundant" though? That's a bit silly.
There's also the people who are arguing that the Switch 2 (even at 1080p) will hold back the generation even more than the Series S but that's just... dumb.
I feel like people need to understand that we should wait until we get actually get a video about the tech demos before we pour full judgement on how the Switch 2 will "shake-up" the current console landscape. For all we know, it might not change anything that substantially.
I would genuinely love it so much if it had 2 screens. I would genuinely get close to crying and I'm not emotional. Dual screen gaming is just that good.
$50?
Love my Switch, but I'm more attached to what it does and its ecosystem, than the physical product. I'm still on OG because while i game portably, its just not important enough for me despite OLED being tempting.
That's why probably BC is my #1 thing. The 2nd most important thing is it has adequate power to deliver the games I want, which is much more than just Nintendo games. I love playing 3rd party games on it, especially strategy and live service.
Don‘t get me wrong I agree with you. I just experience with many friends that they don‘t even realise that Switch really has reached its potential. One of them didn’t understand it all, when I told him that we likely won‘t get another 3D Mario on Switch.i love Switch, my second favorite Nintendo console behind GC, but i dont first party and third party been held back by the console, i feel Switch has reached all it potencials, now is time for it sucessor
Digital first more seems to be the desire to take advantage of the benefits of being able to shadow-drop these games as well as release them physically, without having to deal with the fact that any physical game is going to leak if its announce the day it releases.Nintendo very much wants you to buy digitally as much as possible (because they get a much bigger cut) so I would assume they wouldn't want to do a model with less storage.
People are looking at the mobile pricing model, but the incentives are hugely different in the console space. There's a reason why Nintendo is starting to do digital first launches for its games aimed at small and dedicated audiences and why they brought back vouchers. They very much want you to buy digitally.
Is the quality worse? Absolutely. But I don't think devs or the audience will care that much.
I don't think comparing high end cards necessarily makes sense, because the upscaling runtime becomes more negligible the more high end card you have. Its at the lower end (Series s vs Drake) the upscaling runtime becomes a more significant factor.
I think the high end is mainly reaching a pipeline bottleneck.
There's the Latency for DLSS equalizing with the cost of FSR2 on these cards.
In a lower end system where resources can be better addressed, it likely would have a notable difference.
If not, the effective gain would be better because DLSS can scale Far more flexibily than FSR2 with a good resolve
googling and reading shit@oldpuck @ILikeFeet @Thraktor and others, how do you guys know so much about hardware stuff like SoCs, chiplets etc...? Is it your job? I genuinely find the area so fascinating and am interested to hear how you guys got into it. Maybe PC gaming? Are one of you guys secretly Mr. Furukawa in disguise?
This probably overstates the importance of things leaking, not every fan is plugged in to the direct leaks. Digital is just more convenient for them and more profitable. Physical takes time to manufacture/ship etc and they have to time both to launch simultaneously. The fact that fans get a nice surprise is a nice bonus.Digital first more seems to be the desire to take advantage of the benefits of being able to shadow-drop these games as well as release them physically, without having to deal with the fact that any physical game is going to leak if its announce the day it releases.
But the fact that they are willing to do that now when they weren't before for full on remasters certainly underlies your point.
Ew, ew, EWWW. Multiple console SKUs at launch, NO THANK YOU!Say if Nintendo did two SKUs for the Switch 2
Switch 2 LCD 512gb = $399
Switch OLED 512gb = $499
Would you buy the OLED model?
If it isn't in the OP, it's nothing to be worried about.Three pages behind. What'd I miss while I was asleep?
I agree to a certain extent, but I've also never seen Nintendo once say "and its in stores now!" for a physical game, even 3D All Stars. Leak was a strong word, but Nintendo also doesn't seem keen to announce a physical product the day its in stores, its less to do with not wanting people on forums to get their corporates secrets (which, clearly, even games releasing months from now aren't immune to already). Remasters could definitely be a test-bed for digital first releases, but the fact that they have done this twice and both times was a shadow drop (vs. a digital release a month from now, physical release two months from now) for a remaster (yes they've done that with digital games before like Snipperclips), I think warrants notice. But there is also a certain extent that digital sales are important to them now to the degree that they would be willing to even do this now, I dont think they'd have dared release a Metroid Prime remaster digitally only in 2017. I feel both are definitely factors, and without being in the room when they decided these things, I can't imagine there weren't other possible reasons as well. I'm just very much on team "lets get more shadow-drops".This probably overstates the importance of things leaking, not every fan is plugged in to the direct leaks. Digital is just more convenient for them and more profitable. Physical takes time to manufacture/ship etc and they have to time both to launch simultaneously. The fact that fans get a nice surprise is a nice bonus.
Ah so that's why the thread moved overnight. I just woke up, so I'm a little too tired to get hyped, lol.The song of my birds shall sing soon.
The price increase seems too much just for an OLED screen, but I'd still buy it because I would want the better model.Say if Nintendo did two SKUs for the Switch 2
Switch 2 LCD 512gb = $399
Switch OLED 512gb = $499
Would you buy the OLED model?
Are you one of those who have a birthday every week?My birthday tomorrow so i hope it's a good week!
I'm gonna actually try and answer this question, so buckle up
TL;DR: Nvidia bet on features, AMD bet on power. Features won in the market, which left AMD spending their extra power to simulate those features, leaving them with less power to go around, and features that aren't as good.
Every big bump in resolution roughly doubles how much detail a human eye can pick up, but roughly quadruples the number of pixels. And because it quadruples the pixels, it quadruples the amount of power it takes to put that stuff on screen. If you think about that for more than a minute, the problem becomes obvious - this shit can't go on forever.
And that resolution leap doesn't include making this pixels prettier. Not just advanced details but advanced effects, like higher quality lighting, reflections, etcetera. So you need to quadruple performance just to stand still. You need to do better than that to advance.
In every field except the GPU, those advances in performance have become extremely difficult. At some point, making CPU's faster got really hard, which is why they put more and more cores in every generation. GPUs happen to scale very well with adding more cores, so GPUs have dodged the wall that other system's have been hitting. But that won't last forever.
Both Nvidia and AMD clearly saw this writing on the wall. Neither of them (or Intel, in fact, but that's a tangent right now) misunderstood the problem. What happened next is that they tried two very different solutions.
AMD is a secondary player in the desktop space, with a lot of their core consumers being budget players. They absolutely dominate consoles, and have for the last 2 decades. They're a strong player in the data center, and they have a CPU product that dominates the industry, and is based on a technology called "chiplets" where they can mix and match parts from different foundries. That lets them rapidly customize products, while also manufacturing performance critical chunks of a chip with the most advanced but expensive tech, and less performance critical chunks on cheaper tech.
AMD's strategy was this - keep pursuing that classic gen-on-gen power, by iterating on their core design. Keep it backwards compatible for their console customers. Keep their data center and consumer segments different, but invest heavily in bringing their chiplet tech to GPUs. That will allow them to very quickly adapt products to the market without having to design new hardware from scratch each time, while also keeping costs down.
AMD saw the wall coming, laid down the gauntlet and said, fuck it, we're going to bust straight through that thing. It was smart and aggressive.
That... is not what Nvidia did. Nvidia decided that the only winning move was not to play. Nvidia decided that instead of pursuing more and more power they would pursue features. Nvidia added Ray Tracing, which doesn't make More Pixels, but does make Prettier Pixels. And because it's a relatively new tech for the consumer space, there is a much much longer road of innovation ahead of them, betting they can deliver huge leaps on the RT side while the traditional rasterization side slows down.
They didn't pursue chiplets, instead deciding to just make their datacenter designs and their consumer designs the same to reduce design costs. That meant putting AI hardware on consumer products, AI being another feature where huge leaps are still possible. And that meant finding a use for that AI hardware in the first place.
Which lead to AI assisted upscaling, and DLSS in the first place.
Early on, it looked like AMD had pulled it off. Low RT powered device couldn't deliver much, and few games took advantage of it without Nvidia throwing money at it. AMD figured out how to add basic RT to their hardware with minimal modification, instead of the huge investment Nvidia made. At "traditional" rendering, AMD was delivering better performance, and AI upscaling wasn't just bad, it invented new kinds of bad no one had ever seen before. Bad upscaling would miss detail, and just create blurrier images. DLSS 1.0 was instead finding detail that didn't exist and looked wrong adding bizarre details to images that made no sense. And it was expensive requiring a supercomputer to train an custom AI model for each game that wanted to use it.
Then 2020 happened. Control was out, and people started to see RT could really do, and because AMD had at least minimal support, RT modes started to become common in games, which of course ran better on Nvidia. And then came DLSS 2.0 which was a generic solution, easy to implement, that didn't have DLSS 1.0's problems and actually delivered on the AI promise - and that only worked on Nvidia cards.
DLSS 2.0 and RT actually don't interact super well with each other, but Nvidia very smartly figured out how to make them seem like they did. Instead of selling DLSS 2.0 as a way to make resolutions higher, it sold it as a way to make frame rates higher - as a tech that could recover the performance "lost" by enabling RT. So even though the two technologies actually fight each other a little bit under the hood, Nvidia managed to find a way to make them seem tied at the hip.
So Nvidia had features, but arguably, AMD had power and cost. But it was about to get worse for AMD. Even with the power of advanced GPUs, developers were having trouble pushing all those damn pixels with 4k everything, and so they started to use temporal upscaling - the same class of tech as DLSS 2 - everywhere. AMD released a best-in-class upscaler (FSR 2) which delivered similar results to DLSS without the tensor cores.
On paper that's great - it is great! - but it meant that all that extra power AMD had bet on was being used to replicate Nvidia features. Game X might run better on AMD than Nvidia out the gate, but then enable DLSS 2.0 and NVidia runs much better. AMD brings out FSR2 to match, but FSR2 itself eats the extra power that gave AMD the advantage in the first place. And it doesn't look quite as good without that AI to help.
Then came the RTX 40, and jaws dropped. Prices were awful because the advanced foundry nodes that GPUs had been rushing to for decades were getting more and more expensive, and without chiplets, Nvidia was carrying that cost on every single square millimeter on their new chip. This was exactly what AMD had expected, and why they invested in chiplet designs.
Months later and the RX 7000 series was revealed and prices... were just as bad. AMD had pulled it off, they had managed to build a chiplet GPU. But it turned out to be a very different problem than a chiplet CPU, and because of that, very little of the GPU could be built on a cheaper node, and thus, very little cost savings on this first version of the design.
And there were other problems with RX 7000 as well. AMD updated their cores to have some of Nvidia's advantages that made DLSS/RT fast - like dual issue compute, and accelerated matrix instructions. But the commitment to backwards compatibility was showing it's age, with lots of complexity in the front end making utilization of these features fall way short of their theoretical max.
But Nvidia does have chickens coming home to roost. AMD might not have nailed it, but they weren't wrong. Chiplets are the future, and Nvidia has to get there. Nvidia didn't skip the chiplet investment, they just delayed it. And in this time of surging AI products, AMD's chiplet design is paying off. They're able to put together custom data center products that combine several of their technologies extremely quickly.
When it comes to backwards compatibility, Nvidia and Nintendo have likely invested huge quantities of money to make it happen, and will probably have to do so again in 5 years. If their BC is emulation driven, then Nvidia is developing the software that make it possible for Nintendo to go to a different vendor in the future. AMD has gotten said BC nearly for free, and has locked in the other two console makers likely for a couple more generations.
AMD is also innovating, with the recent previews of Frame Gen technology that works in legacy games without patches. That's potentially a huge win for the PS6/Next Box, allowing 120fps modes for everything but also potentially a major win for those handheld PCs whose value proposition is often around being able to run last gen games in your hand.
And AMD is likely to dominant in the handheld PC space not just because they have top-tier PC CPU, but because again, this is a place where their chiplet tech has huge potential to pay off, with AMD able to deliver customized APUs extremely quickly, and with a low enough design cost that a customized APU is affordable even for products that don't sell millions of units.
It remains to be seen if AMD can deliver on the potential of chiplets, and can catch up on the feature space. But it also remains to be seen how much further Nvidia can take DLSS, with Frame Gen and Ray Reconstruction being the obvious evolutions of the tech. Nvidia has got a big roadblock with their move to chiplets, but AMD actually already has top-class machine learning hardware in their server offerings, and could catch up rapidly if they decide to go that path.
May you live in interesting times!
4K 60Fps even with DLSS seems like a lot of battery being used I don't know how realistic that is
Respect to anyone who can drink tequila definitely not for me
Wii U tech demo coming soon to Switch.
Nope. I leave my Switch docked over 90% of the time as it is, I wouldn't really benefit from an OLED screen.Say if Nintendo did two SKUs for the Switch 2
Switch 2 LCD 512gb = $399
Switch OLED 512gb = $499
Would you buy the OLED model?
One of them is Mark Cerny in disguise.@oldpuck @ILikeFeet @Thraktor and others, how do you guys know so much about hardware stuff like SoCs, chiplets etc...? Is it your job? I genuinely find the area so fascinating and am interested to hear how you guys got into it. Maybe PC gaming? Are one of you guys secretly Mr. Furukawa in disguise?
They will attack X Offices and take back Twitter maybe?Some insider said "birds" might do something on Monday maybe.
I hear they're coordinating efforts with Nintendo Ninjas so that Direct announcements don't get fucked over by someone's giant ego causing the place to "totally normally and maximum user seconds" implode.They will attack X Offices and take back Twitter maybe?
You sure that's not just one of your own profiles? Fits your past mock-up posting habits to a tee, uses the same spoof concepts posted in here over the last few days, and you found it almost as soon as it was uploaded on a brand new account with no hashtags or anything that would draw attention to the profile
It would probably just be impossible logistically to shadowdrop a physical release. It's out of Nintendo's hands and they cant control retailers. Leaks would go crazy, but they also have to take into account retailers getting the product ready to put on shelves/the site. Plus Directs air at the same time globally, so "In stores now" could mean 3:00 AM in some countriesI agree to a certain extent, but I've also never seen Nintendo once say "and its in stores now!" for a physical game, even 3D All Stars. Leak was a strong word, but Nintendo also doesn't seem keen to announce a physical product the day its in stores, its less to do with not wanting people on forums to get their corporates secrets (which, clearly, even games releasing months from now aren't immune to already). Remasters could definitely be a test-bed for digital first releases, but the fact that they have done this twice and both times was a shadow drop (vs. a digital release a month from now, physical release two months from now) for a remaster (yes they've done that with digital games before like Snipperclips), I think warrants notice. But there is also a certain extent that digital sales are important to them now to the degree that they would be willing to even do this now, I dont think they'd have dared release a Metroid Prime remaster digitally only in 2017. I feel both are definitely factors, and without being in the room when they decided these things, I can't imagine there weren't other possible reasons as well. I'm just very much on team "lets get more shadow-drops".
Another fake leaker making rounds, the blurry pics strikes again, bro didn't even try
Another fake leaker making rounds, the blurry pics strikes again, bro didn't even try
hey P4bl0, just a heads up: release is a transitive verb. the subject in "releasing" would be the party doing the releasing, while the switch 2 or squared or whatever you call it next time is the object. hope this helps
please do not ruin the process for the rest of usHave a lovely day and do not forget to Trust the Process