Don't mind me, a bit behind on the thread.
Like I said, they want Nintendo to go the way of Sony.
People basically want to follow the itterative nature and structure that Sony typically releases every new generation, hyping graphics and visualfidelty, with very little disruption on current trends, unless that means including a new optical media player of some sort.
In other words, they want Nintendo to release something that could be considered "cutting edge" in this console war argument, with no disruptive innovations that could be labeled as "gimmicks".
But it always has been a console war. Pretty much Nintendo competes with everyone in the entertainment space, so simply following the same formula as Sony's will not do.
I'm not saying Nintendo shoouldn't pursue a powerful console, but rather they need to make enough differenciation between playing on the successor versus playing on the base (OLED) Switch, that people would be incetivised to upgrade, and not just because of some intenral tech spec upgrade.
This myth-making that Nintendo spurns or de-prioritizes tech advancement without it serving some bold new direction as a means of necessary differentiation from Sony and MS is frankly a coping mechanism from the Wii years (when it was lambasted for its less-performant CPU/GPU and Nintendo fans collectively chanted that performant innards were entirely unimportant when compared against novelty), which has evolved to a point where some Nintendo fans have turned it into an outright dogmatism, where any tech advancement that's not also tied to some bold new vision for a new paradigm of gaming every hardware cycle is a betrayal of the Iwata mission statement and any proponents of more performant hardware in the seeming absence of said new paradigm must be shamed for allegedly wanting Nintendo to be a facsimile of Sony.
However, there’s a few key things to note:
First, it’s not an either/or situation by necessity as it has been framed. One can want some new paradigm of gaming that does not sacrifice more performant hardware. It’s not terribly relevant to this discussion, but it’s still important to keep in mind overall.
Second, one must note that there is a difference between this "differentiation". Wii, DS and Wii U relied on input and display variation (2 screens, touch screen, wildly altered input methods) typically at the expense of an out-of-box standard one-screen and controller experience, whereas Switch relies almost entirely on use case differentiation (a device that allows multiple gaming use cases rather than locking the experience to one) while leaving standard input and and presentation methods alone, with any additional differentiation not compromising that primary experience. That’s why Ring Fit and Switch Sports can exist alongside very standardized console gaming experiences, because the hardware differentiates without replacing or superseding a standard gaming experience, while offering a device that conforms to the user’s lifestyle rather than their lifestyle conforming to the device’s singular use case. I think it’s absolutely fair to say that many people are OK with more differentiation, so long as it does not impose itself on a standard core gaming experience and is instead additive to it; part of Switch’s appeal is how it can walk that line of offering both of those things without one compromising the other. It's also fair to say that people may prefer use case differentiation to those that rely on wildly new input methods, for example.
And lastly, I think it is absolutely fair for some people to reject the notion that substantive differentiation MUST occur in each hardware cycle when no one (or no one worth talking about
yeah, Steam Deck and Ayaneo aren't even in the same ballpark) has followed Nintendo's lead and is thus still differentiated as is and, based on current Switch sales, consumers aren’t tired of that differentiation that Nintendo has already offered. It seems entirely reasonable to suggest that the hybrid design of Switch still has a lot more juice to be squeezed out of it and there is no rush to make any sort of wild design changes. Nor is it unreasonable to suggest Nintendo won’t want to be in a rush to do so, as this hardware cycle is Nintendo’s most profitable years in their entire history (even outdoing the Wii and DS years by a fair amount).
So all of that said, "more of the same" for consumers who clearly haven't had enough, but with more performant internal hardware to meet the ambitions of more developers and maybe some new ideas at the margins that do not interrupt or impose on the core of what has made Switch a success being boiled down to "OMG, people want Nintendo to make hardware like Sony does" can end now. Nintendo is allowed to change its mind about what its priorities are, more performant hardware is not some betrayal of vision, anything one might read into having stronger hardware for this go-round serves nothing except a certain kind of Nintendo fan dogmatism.
Oxford English Dictionary defines 'cutting edge' as
"at the newest, most advanced stage in the development of something".
Drake by definition is not cutting edge.
Outside of
inheriting Orin's AV1 encode support (which is
not present on consumer Ampere GPUs) and
Orin's Optical Flow Accelerators (OFA) (which I believe are different from the OFA on consumer Ampere GPUs), and having a feature exclusive only to Drake called the
File Decompression Engine (FDE), which Nvidia
indirectly said is for video games, Drake's GPU, architecturally, is exactly the same as consumer Ampere GPUs, from
having the same gen and same type of Tensor cores, to
having the same gen RT cores. And Ampere was officially introduced in
1 September 2020, and is the predecessor to Nvidia's current architecture, Ada Lovelace, which was introduced on
20 September 2022. And
Ada Lovelace has significantly larger L2 cache, larger Tensor cores (similar to
Orin's double-rate Tensor cores?) with
added FP8 support, and larger RT cores with more hardware features.
The Cortex-A78 was officially introduced on
26 May 2020. And the Cortex-A78C was officially introduced on
2 November 2020. (Drake's very likely to use the Cortex-A78C for the CPU since
Nvidia mentioned that Drake uses 8 CPU cores in a single cluster, and
the Cortex-A78C happens to support up to 8 CPU cores per cluster.) The Cortex-A78 is the predecessor to the Cortex-A710, which was officially introduced on
25 May 2021, which also happens to be the predecessor of the Cortex-A715, which was officially introduced on
28 June 2022.
So assuming Nintendo's new hardware equipped with Drake is launching on Q2 2023 (April - June 2023) at the earliest, the CPU and GPU technologies inside Drake is going to be ~2 to ~3 years old (and longer when including R&D).
Is Drake
"withered tech"? No.
Is Drake cutting edge? Also no.
Is Drake really advanced technology? Yes.
In some instances, not using cutting edge technology is actually beneficial.
The Cortex-A78, for instance, is actually more performant and power efficient compared to the Cortex-A710, regardless of if TSMC's or Samsung's process nodes were used for SoC fabrication. (Unfortunately, there aren't really benchmarks for the Cortex-A715 since the SoCs using the Cortex-A715 launched very recently.)
I think, as I mentioned before, "lateral thinking with withered technology" can absolutely be applied to Drake, when we consider what that phrase is actually supposed to mean and what we consider "technology". If Nvidia is designing SoCs coincidentally using Yokoi's famous design principle (as I have previously proposed), then it means Nintendo doesn't have to do the heavy lifting all by itself to do so.