davec00ke
Octorok
The wii u did not have an soc. The IBM cpu and Amd gpu did not cost more than the ps4 apu, that was made up crap on gafSomehow Nintendo payed more for the Wii U soc than Sony payed for the ps4 apu.
The wii u did not have an soc. The IBM cpu and Amd gpu did not cost more than the ps4 apu, that was made up crap on gafSomehow Nintendo payed more for the Wii U soc than Sony payed for the ps4 apu.
Nintendo would be paying for the board, I assume. if they're gonna use a similarly sized tablet body, then there's not too much point in a dense boardI wonder if nVidia will utilize some sort of dense packaging to make the overall chip smaller. Or they’ll have a large chip perhaps and a dense board. Though, ORIN fits in a card form factor so it isn’t out of question, just that I’m unsure of it.
Nvidia had nothing to do with the boardNintendo would be paying for the board, I assume. if they're gonna use a similarly sized tablet body, then there's not too much point in a dense board
I wonder if they did that on purpose, outside of saving money. Sticking to 1.5x GPU instead of 2-3x. We would have gotten something closer to an x bone x upgrade in a power jump..Being bound on the 3ds was a rarity. And the GPU didn't see much of an upgrade. There's not much you can do to make a set of fidelity modes
I imagine that this may have been influenced by a desire to make LunchPack development easier, but that's just my guess.Yeah, Nintendo really put retrocompatibility too high on its priority list.
Surely this was at least in part due to battery life, but I agree that I don't think Nintendo wanted to support a (dare I say) Dane-like product successionI wonder if they did that on purpose, outside of saving money. Sticking to 1.5x GPU instead of 2-3x. We would have gotten something closer to an x bone x upgrade in a power jump..
Technically it had a multi chip module (mcm). Do you have a source on the price?The wii u did not have an soc. The IBM cpu and Amd gpu did not cost more than the ps4 apu, that was made up crap on gaf
It was probably a balance thing. Old 3DS is heavily CPU-bound, so that's the component that needed to be focused on.I wonder if they did that on purpose, outside of saving money. Sticking to 1.5x GPU instead of 2-3x. We would have gotten something closer to an x bone x upgrade in a power jump..
.Having a handheld Wii would have been awesome. Imagine a 480p screen too, and being able to play Xenoblade that looks identical or even better than the Wii in some cases. though that would put the Wii u at a weird spot. Would have brought up the price by a lot though.
So Nintendo managed to sell Wii U at a launch price of $299 with a fucking tablet compared to the PS4 $399. Yet your saying the wii u had more expensive chips.Technically it had a multi chip module (mcm). Do you have a source on the price?
You’re comparing the MSRP price to what people are referring to as part of the BoM price of one component. An MSRP that includes a 500GB hard drive and several times the amount of RAM modules than the Wii U had.So Nintendo managed to sell Wii U at a launch price of $299 with a fucking tablet compared to the PS4 $399. Yet your saying the wii u had more expensive chips.
This is off, if I’m not mistaken the Wii U was sold at a loss for both models, but this pricing doesn’t indicate anywhere near what would be loss territory.For reference, Chipworks (now TechInsights) also made a quick estimate on Wii U's BOM in their teardown analysis.
https://www.techinsights.com/blog/nintendo-wii-u-teardown
The WiiU was not sold at a loss which allowed Nintendo to not lose that much money because of its failure.You’re comparing the MSRP price to what people are referring to as part of the BoM price of one component. An MSRP that includes a 500GB hard drive and several times the amount of RAM modules than the Wii U had.
The two aren’t really Apples to Apple comparison.
This is off, if I’m not mistaken the Wii U was sold at a loss for both models, but this pricing doesn’t indicate anywhere near what would be loss territory.
Are you sure? After googling it Iwata said it was sold below the manufacturing price for every Wii U sold:The WiiU was not sold at a loss which allowed Nintendo to not lose that much money because of its failure.
The 3DS post price cut was sold at a loss.
Even that wouldn't be true, because (as I remember it, could be wrong) they didn't sell through their original production run until a year and a half into Wii U's lifespan. So they produced it higher than MSRP and sold it at that same production price for at least the entire first year or so, plus likely had to pay a penalty for lower overall production volume than what they anticipated (costs money when you book a production line that doesn't move at the expected rate), which inevitably meant costs did not decrease as one would expect.Are you sure? After googling it Iwata said it was sold below the manufacturing price for every Wii U sold:
Nintendo Wii U to be sold at loss - BBC News
Nintendo says its forthcoming Wii U games console will be sold at a loss, reversing its previous strategy.www.bbc.com
Unless you mean that, due to it failing so badly, they didn’t really lose much.
(The translation's done by Deep.L Translator.)Industry sources say that TSMC's requirements for the top three customers such as Apple, MediaTek and AMD are low and do not require much upfront deposit for stable capacity, while customers like NVIDIA need to make huge upfront payments in advance to get 5nm capacity orders.
According to NVIDIA, they paid $1.64 billion upfront in the Q3 quarter and will pay another $1.79 billion in the future, while the overall long-term order advance is a whopping $6.9 billion, well above last year's level.
It's not certain what proportion of this $6.9 billion order is Samsung vs TSMC, but looking at the process upgrade direction, it's clear that finding TSMC to buy 5nm capacity accounts for the majority of this, so it's safe to say that for next year's RTX 40 series graphics cards, NVIDIA is paying real money for this wave as well.
The bolded part is interesting in regard to the eventual transition from Mariko to Dane (assuming nothing comes in between!)Even that wouldn't be true, because (as I remember it, could be wrong) they didn't sell through their original production run until a year and a half into Wii U's lifespan. So they produced it higher than MSRP and sold it at that same production price for at least the entire first year or so, plus likely had to pay a penalty for lower overall production volume than what they anticipated (costs money when you book a production line that doesn't move at the expected rate), which inevitably meant costs did not decrease as one would expect.
I think the original plan was to sell the original production run at a much faster pace than what ended up happening.Even that wouldn't be true, because (as I remember it, could be wrong) they didn't sell through their original production run until a year and a half into Wii U's lifespan. So they produced it higher than MSRP and sold it at that same production price for at least the entire first year or so, plus likely had to pay a penalty for lower overall production volume than what they anticipated (costs money when you book a production line that doesn't move at the expected rate), which inevitably meant costs did not decrease as one would expect.
Yeah they had a solid core concept (off TV play) which they bungled incredibly hard by adding a ton of other ideas and features that were entirely unnecessary. I remember reading that they only decided to add a touch screen to the tablet like a week before E3 2011, previously it was simply just going to be a non-touch screen designed for off-tv play.The Wii U chipset was bad but what really killed it was the tablet which appealed to no one, added a bunch of unnecessary cost, and contributed to the confusion over the Wii U being a new console. In retrospect we can see the aspects of the console which were better realized in the Switch, but the implementation in the Wii U was inconsistent and half-assed; see the off-screen play which was potentially neat, but couldn't work with games which required two screens, and there was no dedicated button or switch for off-screen play so you had to figure out how to do it for each individual game. The battery life when just using it as a controller was atrocious as well.
Do you mean the first part or the second part of my quote?Even that wouldn't be true, because (as I remember it, could be wrong) they didn't sell through their original production run until a year and a half into Wii U's lifespan. So they produced it higher than MSRP and sold it at that same production price for at least the entire first year or so, plus likely had to pay a penalty for lower overall production volume than what they anticipated (costs money when you book a production line that doesn't move at the expected rate), which inevitably meant costs did not decrease as one would expect.
Why would it be made up? The Wii U used an MCM design and had a large amount of on die memory, had more cache to it for the CPU, had an extra ARM processor that wasn’t originally present, and included essentially a virtual Wii inside the machine. The Wii U had a more complex design than the PS4 APU, despite being much weaker than the PS4. The XBox One APU is what would be more expensive than both the PS4 and Wii U innards.The Wii U chipset was not great but it did not cost more/same as the the PS4 that was made up crap at gaf
Because only one person made that claim without providing any evidence. The Wii u did not have a more complex design. MCM are not complicated and not exspensive either.Do you mean the first part or the second part of my quote?
Why would it be made up? The Wii U used an MCM design and had a large amount of on die memory, had more cache to it for the CPU, had an extra ARM processor that wasn’t originally present, and included essentially a virtual Wii inside the machine. The Wii U had a more complex design than the PS4 APU, despite being much weaker than the PS4. The XBox One APU is what would be more expensive than both the PS4 and Wii U innards.
You know MCM is still expensive and sort of complex now right?Because only one person made that claim without providing any evidence. The Wii u did not have a more complex design. MCM are not complicated and not exspensive either.
Because only one person made that claim without providing any evidence. The Wii u did not have a more complex design. MCM are not complicated and not exspensive either.
Demo is based on simulation/emulation and is representative of the achievable performance and quality of IMG CXT.
The Snes and ps one has MCM back in the 90's. Thats how they reduced the costsYou know MCM is still expensive and sort of complex now right?
Imagine how complex it would be back in 2012
Yeah, but that is more or less MCM Gen 1.The Snes and ps one has MCM back in the 90's. Thats how they reduced the costs
The Snes and ps one has MCM back in the 90's. Thats how they reduced the costs
….what? You are using a comparison from the early 90s to try and claim that the MCM of the 2010s was cheap and wasn’t complex?The Snes and ps one has MCM back in the 90's. Thats how they reduced the costs
Second part.Do you mean the first part or the second part of my quote?
I'm not aware of there being an MCM in either of those systems. For something to be an MCM, the dies have to be in the same package, not just on the same board.The Snes and ps one has MCM back in the 90's. Thats how they reduced the costs
I have to wonder if you're a time traveller as all your references to Nintendo are always from the 1990s.The Snes and ps one has MCM back in the 90's. Thats how they reduced the costs
Yeah, maybe that was called an MCM in the past, but that sure as heck isn't a modern MCM layoutI have to wonder if you're a time traveller as all your references to Nintendo are always from the 1990s.
I am also unaware of SNES or PSOne being MCM.
- Here's the SNES board, the CPU and PPU are separate discrete chips on the motherboard quite far apart. Source: https://www.copetti.org/writings/consoles/super-nintendo/
-Here's the PSX Board, the MIPS CPU and Geometry engine are separate chips on the board not even close on the same package.
Source: https://www.retroreversing.com/playStation-architecture
I don't think the R button is a good place to house the IR sensor since I think the fingers usually rest on the R button when holding the Joy-Cons, at least when attached to the Nintendo Switch, based on my personal experience, which I think could be very problematic for games that heavily rely on the IR sensor.Think it’s possible to have the R shoulder button also house an IR sensor?
I don't expect Nintendo to ever go back to IR aiming. While it could technically be more accurate than gyro, gyro is "good enough" in almost every case, and IR aiming introduces lots of potential complications, as in the infamous Skyward Sword demo.Think it’s possible to have the R shoulder button also house an IR sensor? And the dock house the receiver or maybe via USB add-on for more accurate motion controls from both joycons?
Or would that be too complex a design?
Didn't Nintendi went on record that they were lossing money with the Wii U at $350?
IF they wanted IR, I imagine they could put the IR camera in the strap, or maybe replace it with a grip, depending on how much space they need.Think it’s possible to have the R shoulder button also house an IR sensor? And the dock house the receiver or maybe via USB add-on for more accurate motion controls from both joycons?
Or would that be too complex a design?
Nintendo officially made no mention which model is being sold at a loss. But the article from Gamesindustry.biz mentions that the Basic Set was being recalled and retailers were only selling the Deluxe Set. So Nintendo's likely selling the Deluxe Set at a loss.Didn't Nintendi went on record that they were lossing money with the Wii U at $350?
No, they said that when bought with a game, the transaction was profitable. I would suggest that nobody bought a games console, let alone the Wii U, without any games to play on it, and before someone cracks a "Wii U had games?" joke, millions of people are playing the Wii U right now, in the form of enhanced ports.Didn't Nintendi went on record that they were lossing money with the Wii U at $350?
This seems like a pedantic argumentNo, they said that when bought with a game, the transaction was profitable. I would suggest that nobody bought a games console, let alone the Wii U, without any games to play on it, and before someone cracks a "Wii U had games?" joke, millions of people are playing the Wii U right now, in the form of enhanced ports.
Since we won't get numbers and this thread needs something new, remember this in 5 months. With next year's forecast that Nintendo will announce for Switch you can write off from now even the small chances there were for a November 2022 Switch 2 launch. Jan-Mar 2023 could also be out of the window.
Nintendo's 2022 forecast isn't out and won't be out until mid next year where they do their FY2022/23 meeting with investors. He's making an educated guess aka speculation like the rest of us. He's just saying this to set expectations based on what he believes. He doesn't know anything of the sort beyond what we knowI don't know how reliable Chris1964 from the Install Base Forum is, but Chris1964 believes that Nintendo won't be launching the DLSS model* in holiday 2022 and potentially early 2023 since there's apparently no mention of new hardware in Nintendo's 2022 forecast.
He doesn't have inside info, he's making assumptions from the same info we areI don't know how reliable Chris1964 from the Install Base Forum is, but Chris1964 believes that Nintendo won't be launching the DLSS model* in holiday 2022 and potentially early 2023 since there's apparently no mention of new hardware in Nintendo's 2022 forecast.