D36
#WOHOYHASAWAKENED
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I've been having trouble keeping up with this thread. What happened now?Ok now I’m getting really worried about the system
I've been having trouble keeping up with this thread. What happened now?Ok now I’m getting really worried about the system
Literally nothing.I've been having trouble keeping up with this thread. What happened now?
Ah, alright. I was skimming a bit and saw that we might not be getting Drake or something. Seems like it's nonsense.Literally nothing.
I think a similar timeframe will be used but I expect the price and release date to drop alongside the reveal so they can open pre-orders. Nothing better than a holiday you can have casuals buying discounted current gen and hardcore players steadily pre-ordering next gen.If we're assuming a similar launch date as the Switch, I believe the Switch didn't get a price reveal until January 12. And that's the blowout reveal.
a bunch of known liars opened their mouths.I've been having trouble keeping up with this thread. What happened now?
Not if it's Mediatek developing the chip using Nvidia's IP.Wouldn't there be some kind of trail of Nvidia activity or internal information surrounding a new dedicated SoC that could reasonably be assumed to be intended for a portable device like the NG if this was the case though? Unless there's a T239+ running on the 4nm process when previously it was in fact the assumed 7-8nm?
Nintendo already has input on SDe
I wouldn't really expect exciting new information, just a recap of the same tech demos we've already been discussing, and some opinions about how they might have been running and the significance of that. Educated guesses/informed speculation are all well and good but we've kind of already covered all that in this thread. The juicy underlying info seems to have already been shared.I’ve… never been excited for a Monday before. This is an odd feeling…
So, what would you say is the minimum speed for getting the Matrix demo running? Would a Sata 600MB/s suffice?The discussion about expandable storage is definitely more interesting in light of the Matrix demo, as there's no way that's going to run off a 100MB/s MicroSD card. Of course for the demo it would have been running off internal storage, but when you're telling developers that your console is going to be able to pull off the fast asset streaming your competitors can do, they'd be pretty pissed off to later find out it only applies to built-in storage.
The more I think about it, the more sense CFexpress Type A makes. The spec was just updated to support PCIe 4.0, meaning up to 2GB/s read speeds for Type A, with new cards expected next year. The cost to implement from Nintendo is near zero, with it being a straight-forward single-lane PCIe setup. T239 already has PCIe 4.0 lanes to spare, so just wire one up to the card slot and you're done. The cards themselves are just M.2 NVMe drives in a plastic case, so they can rely on existing R&D to drive increased sizes and reduced costs over the generation. It's also, importantly, the only card format faster than 300MB/s that has actually achieved any meaningful market share.
SD Express is dead in the water, with no indication that it will ever see widespread support, given the camera industry has committed strongly to CFe. It's also technically worse than CFe in almost every way. Devices need to support both the old SD modes and SD Express's PCIe interface, which means Nintendo would need to add an extra I/O chip which would add cost and complexity and take up motherboard space. On the card side, this means the SD Express cards need custom controllers, they can't use off-the-shelf NVMe controllers like CFe cards do. This means they're manufactured at far lower volumes, therefore being more expensive, and are made on older manufacturing processes, so they'll consume more power. The only SD Express controller I'm aware of on the market is manufactured on 28nm, while most NVMe controllers are on TSMC's 12nm process, and Samsung's newest entry-level OEM SSD uses a controller manufactured on their 5nm process.
SD Express doesn't even win on backwards compatibility. It breaks compatibility with UHS-II cards, which have been reasonably common in the camera market. This is part of the reason there's no interest in adopting them in that industry. Meanwhile, Sony is shipping cameras with combo CFe Type A & UHS-II SD slots, which have better backwards compatibility with SD cards than an SD Express slot would.
UFS cards would be nice, but I feel like the time has passed. They have many of the benefits of CFe, being an existing standard in a plastic case, but there's no movement on the standard, and CFe Type A now has a decent performance advantage on the (unreleased) v3.0 cards, with 2GB/s vs 1.2GB/s. It would require a bigger push than I can imagine from Nintendo, particularly as the only thing they'd need to do with CFe is get a manufacturing partner on board to have reasonably-priced branded cards available at launch.
Speaking of which, one thing I've noticed is that Sandisk, who have traditionally been Nintendo's partner on these cards, don't currently sell CFe Type A cards, despite being probably the biggest manufacturers of Type B cards. This means there wouldn't be any conflict of selling low-margin cards to Nintendo customers while trying to keep selling high margin cards to pro photographers. They could enter the Type A market at much lower margins with the guaranteed sales volume to justify it, while still charging crazy mark-up on their Type B line to pros who are willing to pay that much.
This isn't true. They are a "General Member" of the SD Association, which entitles them to use SD cards, but doesn't give them voting rights on specifications.
There's no reason to be. What we know already paints a pretty positive picture and coupled with Eurogamer/VGC and others report, things have been quite rosy.Ok now I’m getting really worried about the system
In a handheld? That's an awful lot of space.CFexpress Type A
Nate did say that he knew some things that the articles didn't mention, but he also said that he was unsure if he would talk about it at this time. So if he decides to talk about it we could get some more details at least tomorrow.I wouldn't really expect exciting new information, just a recap of the same tech demos we've already been discussing, and some opinions about how they might have been running and the significance of that. Educated guesses/informed speculation are all well and good but we've kind of already covered all that in this thread. The juicy underlying info seems to have already been shared.
I hope they don't use it. I went to Amazon and the cheapest and lowest capacity CFExpress A card with 80GB costs 99 dollars. The cheapest 260GB card costs 199 dollars and only achieves a peak of 800MB/s reads. That's way too expensive for that amount of storage and speed.The discussion about expandable storage is definitely more interesting in light of the Matrix demo, as there's no way that's going to run off a 100MB/s MicroSD card. Of course for the demo it would have been running off internal storage, but when you're telling developers that your console is going to be able to pull off the fast asset streaming your competitors can do, they'd be pretty pissed off to later find out it only applies to built-in storage.
The more I think about it, the more sense CFexpress Type A makes. The spec was just updated to support PCIe 4.0, meaning up to 2GB/s read speeds for Type A, with new cards expected next year. The cost to implement from Nintendo is near zero, with it being a straight-forward single-lane PCIe setup. T239 already has PCIe 4.0 lanes to spare, so just wire one up to the card slot and you're done. The cards themselves are just M.2 NVMe drives in a plastic case, so they can rely on existing R&D to drive increased sizes and reduced costs over the generation. It's also, importantly, the only card format faster than 300MB/s that has actually achieved any meaningful market share.
SD Express is dead in the water, with no indication that it will ever see widespread support, given the camera industry has committed strongly to CFe. It's also technically worse than CFe in almost every way. Devices need to support both the old SD modes and SD Express's PCIe interface, which means Nintendo would need to add an extra I/O chip which would add cost and complexity and take up motherboard space. On the card side, this means the SD Express cards need custom controllers, they can't use off-the-shelf NVMe controllers like CFe cards do. This means they're manufactured at far lower volumes, therefore being more expensive, and are made on older manufacturing processes, so they'll consume more power. The only SD Express controller I'm aware of on the market is manufactured on 28nm, while most NVMe controllers are on TSMC's 12nm process, and Samsung's newest entry-level OEM SSD uses a controller manufactured on their 5nm process.
SD Express doesn't even win on backwards compatibility. It breaks compatibility with UHS-II cards, which have been reasonably common in the camera market. This is part of the reason there's no interest in adopting them in that industry. Meanwhile, Sony is shipping cameras with combo CFe Type A & UHS-II SD slots, which have better backwards compatibility with SD cards than an SD Express slot would.
UFS cards would be nice, but I feel like the time has passed. They have many of the benefits of CFe, being an existing standard in a plastic case, but there's no movement on the standard, and CFe Type A now has a decent performance advantage on the (unreleased) v3.0 cards, with 2GB/s vs 1.2GB/s. It would require a bigger push than I can imagine from Nintendo, particularly as the only thing they'd need to do with CFe is get a manufacturing partner on board to have reasonably-priced branded cards available at launch.
Speaking of which, one thing I've noticed is that Sandisk, who have traditionally been Nintendo's partner on these cards, don't currently sell CFe Type A cards, despite being probably the biggest manufacturers of Type B cards. This means there wouldn't be any conflict of selling low-margin cards to Nintendo customers while trying to keep selling high margin cards to pro photographers. They could enter the Type A market at much lower margins with the guaranteed sales volume to justify it, while still charging crazy mark-up on their Type B line to pros who are willing to pay that much.
This isn't true. They are a "General Member" of the SD Association, which entitles them to use SD cards, but doesn't give them voting rights on specifications.
they're the same size as a switch game cardIn a handheld? That's an awful lot of space.
Well, it isn't true that they get to vote on specifications.This isn't true.
Membership with the SD Card Association does not confer rights to use the SD logos, essential patents or other technology. These rights are only granted through appropriate license agreements, such as, but not limited to the CLA or HALA.
But aren't CFexpress Type A cards incredibly expensive? What we don't need is a Vita scenario going on for Nintendo.The discussion about expandable storage is definitely more interesting in light of the Matrix demo, as there's no way that's going to run off a 100MB/s MicroSD card. Of course for the demo it would have been running off internal storage, but when you're telling developers that your console is going to be able to pull off the fast asset streaming your competitors can do, they'd be pretty pissed off to later find out it only applies to built-in storage.
The more I think about it, the more sense CFexpress Type A makes. The spec was just updated to support PCIe 4.0, meaning up to 2GB/s read speeds for Type A, with new cards expected next year. The cost to implement from Nintendo is near zero, with it being a straight-forward single-lane PCIe setup. T239 already has PCIe 4.0 lanes to spare, so just wire one up to the card slot and you're done. The cards themselves are just M.2 NVMe drives in a plastic case, so they can rely on existing R&D to drive increased sizes and reduced costs over the generation. It's also, importantly, the only card format faster than 300MB/s that has actually achieved any meaningful market share.
SD Express is dead in the water, with no indication that it will ever see widespread support, given the camera industry has committed strongly to CFe. It's also technically worse than CFe in almost every way. Devices need to support both the old SD modes and SD Express's PCIe interface, which means Nintendo would need to add an extra I/O chip which would add cost and complexity and take up motherboard space. On the card side, this means the SD Express cards need custom controllers, they can't use off-the-shelf NVMe controllers like CFe cards do. This means they're manufactured at far lower volumes, therefore being more expensive, and are made on older manufacturing processes, so they'll consume more power. The only SD Express controller I'm aware of on the market is manufactured on 28nm, while most NVMe controllers are on TSMC's 12nm process, and Samsung's newest entry-level OEM SSD uses a controller manufactured on their 5nm process.
SD Express doesn't even win on backwards compatibility. It breaks compatibility with UHS-II cards, which have been reasonably common in the camera market. This is part of the reason there's no interest in adopting them in that industry. Meanwhile, Sony is shipping cameras with combo CFe Type A & UHS-II SD slots, which have better backwards compatibility with SD cards than an SD Express slot would.
UFS cards would be nice, but I feel like the time has passed. They have many of the benefits of CFe, being an existing standard in a plastic case, but there's no movement on the standard, and CFe Type A now has a decent performance advantage on the (unreleased) v3.0 cards, with 2GB/s vs 1.2GB/s. It would require a bigger push than I can imagine from Nintendo, particularly as the only thing they'd need to do with CFe is get a manufacturing partner on board to have reasonably-priced branded cards available at launch.
Speaking of which, one thing I've noticed is that Sandisk, who have traditionally been Nintendo's partner on these cards, don't currently sell CFe Type A cards, despite being probably the biggest manufacturers of Type B cards. This means there wouldn't be any conflict of selling low-margin cards to Nintendo customers while trying to keep selling high margin cards to pro photographers. They could enter the Type A market at much lower margins with the guaranteed sales volume to justify it, while still charging crazy mark-up on their Type B line to pros who are willing to pay that much.
This isn't true. They are a "General Member" of the SD Association, which entitles them to use SD cards, but doesn't give them voting rights on specifications.
That's true, but it's also going to be true for ANY format Nintendo goes with. The power consumption is pretty much in line with their other options, the main concern would probably be where to fit it, since it's a non-trivial footprint next to MicroSDe. The problem of course is that MicroSDe... does not presently exist, and CFe Type A does.But aren't CFexpress Type A cards incredibly expensive? What we don't need is a Vita scenario going on for Nintendo.
That's true, but it's also going to be true for ANY format Nintendo goes with. The power consumption is pretty much in line with their other options, the main concern would probably be where to fit it, since it's a non-trivial footprint next to MicroSDe. The problem of course is that MicroSDe... does not presently exist, and CFe Type A does.
It's a rock and a hard place problem. Though, depending on the dimensions of the console, they could go with a New Nintendo 2DS type solution, placing the expandable storage reader right next to the Game Card reader, either stacked or side by side. Still an extremely difficult situation.
PS5 has expandable storage, though, even if it didn't support it at launch.Do we really need external storage if this thing has 512gb internal storage? What if nintendo goes with a fixed storage this time similar to PS5
The discussion about expandable storage is definitely more interesting in light of the Matrix demo, as there's no way that's going to run off a 100MB/s MicroSD card. Of course for the demo it would have been running off internal storage, but when you're telling developers that your console is going to be able to pull off the fast asset streaming your competitors can do, they'd be pretty pissed off to later find out it only applies to built-in storage.
The more I think about it, the more sense CFexpress Type A makes. The spec was just updated to support PCIe 4.0, meaning up to 2GB/s read speeds for Type A, with new cards expected next year. The cost to implement from Nintendo is near zero, with it being a straight-forward single-lane PCIe setup. T239 already has PCIe 4.0 lanes to spare, so just wire one up to the card slot and you're done. The cards themselves are just M.2 NVMe drives in a plastic case, so they can rely on existing R&D to drive increased sizes and reduced costs over the generation. It's also, importantly, the only card format faster than 300MB/s that has actually achieved any meaningful market share.
SD Express is dead in the water, with no indication that it will ever see widespread support, given the camera industry has committed strongly to CFe. It's also technically worse than CFe in almost every way. Devices need to support both the old SD modes and SD Express's PCIe interface, which means Nintendo would need to add an extra I/O chip which would add cost and complexity and take up motherboard space. On the card side, this means the SD Express cards need custom controllers, they can't use off-the-shelf NVMe controllers like CFe cards do. This means they're manufactured at far lower volumes, therefore being more expensive, and are made on older manufacturing processes, so they'll consume more power. The only SD Express controller I'm aware of on the market is manufactured on 28nm, while most NVMe controllers are on TSMC's 12nm process, and Samsung's newest entry-level OEM SSD uses a controller manufactured on their 5nm process.
SD Express doesn't even win on backwards compatibility. It breaks compatibility with UHS-II cards, which have been reasonably common in the camera market. This is part of the reason there's no interest in adopting them in that industry. Meanwhile, Sony is shipping cameras with combo CFe Type A & UHS-II SD slots, which have better backwards compatibility with SD cards than an SD Express slot would.
UFS cards would be nice, but I feel like the time has passed. They have many of the benefits of CFe, being an existing standard in a plastic case, but there's no movement on the standard, and CFe Type A now has a decent performance advantage on the (unreleased) v3.0 cards, with 2GB/s vs 1.2GB/s. It would require a bigger push than I can imagine from Nintendo, particularly as the only thing they'd need to do with CFe is get a manufacturing partner on board to have reasonably-priced branded cards available at launch.
Speaking of which, one thing I've noticed is that Sandisk, who have traditionally been Nintendo's partner on these cards, don't currently sell CFe Type A cards, despite being probably the biggest manufacturers of Type B cards. This means there wouldn't be any conflict of selling low-margin cards to Nintendo customers while trying to keep selling high margin cards to pro photographers. They could enter the Type A market at much lower margins with the guaranteed sales volume to justify it, while still charging crazy mark-up on their Type B line to pros who are willing to pay that much.
This isn't true. They are a "General Member" of the SD Association, which entitles them to use SD cards, but doesn't give them voting rights on specifications.
We disclose stuff that was not shared by EG/VGC.I hope so.
I just don't think there will be any new relevant information, in which case it'll be just speculation which we have been doing over here since the articles came out.
And frankly, specially when it comes to hardware, some people here are at least as much creditable IMO.
... unless there is new info ...
I mean, it's what Xbox does. The cost of doing business (running modern software), unfortunately.Or maybe Nintendo don’t care and we’ll all just be buying £200 storage…
I mean, it's what Xbox does. The cost of doing business (running modern software), unfortunately.
so it's moreso a slightly detailed version of what we heard from EG/VGC that you'd share in the podcast?We disclose stuff that was not shared by EG/VGC.
It never existed, it never didn't, it'll never come out, it'll never not.Not the “Drake cancelled” discourse again
Schrodinger's cancelled chipIt never existed, it never didn't, it'll never come out, it'll never not.
Does it include anything else besides the BOTW demo running on 4K/60fps through DLSS?We disclose stuff that was not shared by EG/VGC.
I don't think he's going to disclose the contents of his podcast that is releasing tomorrow until his podcast releases tomorrowDoes it include anything else besides the BOTW demo running on 4K/60fps through DLSS?
Yes.Does it include anything else besides the BOTW demo running on 4K/60fps through DLSS?
Surprisingly... maybe not. Xbox Expandable Storage uses Compact Flash Express, but only cards that have been vetted and "blessed" by Microsoft will actually work without workaround hardware. Thing is, Xbox Storage Storage Expansion Cards are usually cheaper per gigabyte than their non-proprietary lookalikes. A lot cheaper! The vetting and blessing process from Microsoft also makes sure they make thermal contact with the cooling system of the console, which is a plus.Tbf in the xbox case that was entirely self-inflcited imo, could've just allowed a plug-in m.2 card
This is quite common even post reveal. Although they could and maybe should show things off on real hardware, at the moment the final hardware might still be having its clock speed adjusted, even as production begins, and that happened to Switch, too, so it's nothing to worry about. But what it means is using "real hardware" could give inconsistent performance, while using a simulation (or... emulation) gives you the IDEA of what it's going to be like, but is much easier to work with.A detail that I find odd ...
VGC mentioned the demos were "running on target specs for its next console" and not on final hardware.
If t239 has been tapped out over a year ago, why would they simulate it?
What are those devkits made of?
We disclose stuff that was not shared by EG/VGC.
Correction, it wasn't me, it was someone else in here that we all know and love, but yes they did that.It’s great to see people actively sourcing info, so the following is to continue to conversation and not to discourage anyone from posting content.
- The Twitter user Connor is not reliable. Z0m3le tested her by feeding her some objectively incorrect info, and she tweeted it out without any vesting or examination.
- MediaTek and Nvidia collaborated on a Chromebook project with an MT SoC and an NV discrete GPU. There was never an MT SoC with integrated NV GPU cores.
- MediaTek and Nvidia are collaborating on upcoming automotive SoCs. No one has seen or even leaked these SoCs yet. What’s more, these MT SoCs supposedly will be using Nvidia’s new GPU chiplets, and (you guess it) no one has seen these chiplets either.
- As oldpuck pointed out, the CPU config suggested by RGT is designed for burst computing on a phone. However for a game console you want sustained performance, therefore the T239 design most likely will perform better in the real world than this imaginary “monstrous” SoC.
- Dakhil also brought up the important point of 32bit incompatibility.
- RGT and Notebookcheck are content mills that employ little journalism standards. In this day and age, it’s crucial to be discerning with the source of info. Mis/disinformation paddlers like to sow distrust of journalism/journalists so that they’d be on equal footing with organization/people who do more trustworthy reporting. But we know better.
But still, the price for how much space is on these Type A card is ridiculous for a all-age gaming system that you're also buying games for. Folks would probably rather stick with current microSD as non-runnable storage for Drake games where they'd need to copy to internal.That's true, but it's also going to be true for ANY format Nintendo goes with. The power consumption is pretty much in line with their other options, the main concern would probably be where to fit it, since it's a non-trivial footprint next to MicroSDe. The problem of course is that MicroSDe... does not presently exist, and CFe Type A does.
It's a rock and a hard place problem. Though, depending on the dimensions of the console, they could go with a New Nintendo 2DS type solution, placing the expandable storage reader right next to the Game Card reader, either stacked or side by side. Still an extremely difficult situation.
It's a countermeasure to avoid leaks in advance. I must say the final chip remains a mystery, though... It has to be Drake, and these shady rumors about even better ones are unlikely to change that.A detail that I find odd ...
VGC mentioned the demos were "running on target specs for its next console" and not on final hardware.
If t239 was tapped out over a year ago, why would they simulate it?
What are those devkits made of?
the pricing is sorta artificial. the market for those cards, so far, are cameras, which are niche and expensive. so they can mark up pricesBut aren't CFexpress Type A cards incredibly expensive? What we don't need is a Vita scenario going on for Nintendo.
Well to name a fewA detail that I find odd ...
VGC mentioned the demos were "running on target specs for its next console" and not on final hardware.
If t239 was tapped out over a year ago, why would they simulate it?
What are those devkits made of?
I believe Switch emulators employ heuristics to try to find the necessary memory locations automatically, but obviously Nintendo isn't going to have their consoles doing that. I think they'll probably favor developer patches over mods for any actual changes to game files. I don't think they'll include much in the firmware besides a list game IDs (below the first SDK version with full Switch 2 support) that they've tested to be functional at the full clocks for native games.I wonder. How much modding work would it take to uncap a Switch game that was forced to limit itself below the Switch's 1080p60 max (720p60 max portable)? Just wondering because what if the Switch 2 could make such modifications if it knew where to look? If it were something simple, like set memory locations in the games, then maybe as part of the system's base FW, it included a list of ALL (or most sought after) current Switch physical game releases. Switch game is loaded, and alterations are made based on the information for that game in the list. FW updates could include more physical games to this list. For digital games and game updates, this information could be downloaded, focusing only on the latest versions and clearing out old versions.
Just a thought.
The market that they're targeting is fairly high end. I don't think it's obvious the prices would hold with a more mainstream device using them.But aren't CFexpress Type A cards incredibly expensive? What we don't need is a Vita scenario going on for Nintendo.
"specs" and final hardware are not mutually exclusive. It could have been running on Drake, with non final clocks, that are unlikely to change much. But could be minor adjustments.A detail that I find odd ...
VGC mentioned the demos were "running on target specs for its next console" and not on final hardware.
If t239 was tapped out over a year ago, why would they simulate it?
What are those devkits made of?