Question is whether the shrunk Tegra would really cost less than an Ampere chip when factoring in economy of scale and the need to have two different assembly line.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Based on how tech has progressed since the Switch, how powerful could a Switch Pro in early 2021 actually be?
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
It's going to be hard figuring this one out. I was always presuming Nintendo would keep selling the original models at a lower price but the discussion moving to Samsung changed everything.
4K output? yes
native 4K rendering? no
4K with DLSS? also no
if you're at this point, then it's time to reevaluate things. these are just toys at the end of the day. it's fine to be disappointed by whatever Nintendo does, but this is a little much
From what I understand, DLSS won't be possible on a TX1++ since you need tensor cores.
4K output is feasible on TX1++ (though natively rendering at that resolution would be a challenge, to say the least). DLSS is not possible.
Time is finite and if you're spending time on something it makes sense that you are emotionally involved. This isn't really unique to games, it's how people are with hobbies in general. Whether it's sports, or music, or reading or games, it's natural that people have connections to them. It's how human beings work.
The condescending "lol why are you so serious about this thing" attitude is always weird when it comes anything. People are serious about their passions because... that's how humans are hardwired.
Just pointing out those aren't good examples for what you're arguing. Sony and MS didn't make PS4PRO and X1X to be premium products (well, at least not more than base consoles). They were there as replacements, which costs the same as the consoles launched, while the base consoles moved to budget options.
The difference is that Nintendo has already a budget option and is still selling everything they can make at the current prices. There's no need to offer current Switch as a budget option or price drop the Lite. Keep selling them for $300/200 and just upgrade the hardware so they don't have to price drop any time soon.
The only advantage in not replacing them is Nintendo potentially making a lot more units to meet demand and good profit margins per unit. Moving to Samsung hurt those a lot though.
Errr ... what?
The PS4 Pro and XBX1 are the very definition of adding a premium product line ... they didn't replace anything they were a more expensive additive model to the existing base models.
The opposite of what you're talking about would like the DS Lite replacing the original DS. If Nintendo is going to make some premium model with much higher end components, of course they are going to expect the consumer to pay more, just like Sony and MS do.
Do you believe Apple has been adding a premium product line every year?
Because to me, they replaced the 3G with the 3GS and offered the 3G as a budget option. Next year, the 3GS became the budget option while the iPhone 4 replaced it. Then 4s, then 5, etc. And the new premium product line only came when they started offering plus/max/whatever.
PS4 launched for $400, XB1 for $500. When they were becoming outdated, then PS4PRO launched for $400 and 1X for $500, while the base got price dropped into budget prices.
If the difference is literally only 4k or not 4k (ie: cpu power is the same and it's the gpu side that's different), one way you can do it with one design is to have the premium model being the full chip and the normal model being a cut down version of it, like how desktop CPU and GPUs are (well, kind of; they come up with multiple dies, but each die gets used for multiple SKUs).
For example, let's say the premium model is whatever-CPU and like... I dunno, let's say 8 Ampere SMs at X clock. The normal model can then be 6 SMs at X (or less than X) clock, thus either planning for 2 defective/disabled SMs. And extra bad dies with like 2 or 4 functional SMs go towards the next generation of Nvidia Jetson. Or premium is 6/normal is 4/Jetson is 2.
Maybe sanity wasn't the right word, I'm not really all that invested in this product (especially since I play Switch handheld only so 720p native would be lovely for me) but all of the speculation and discussion is fun and very educational for me. The problem then is that when we spend too much time discussing possibilities that don't pan out (like spending several threads assuming the Switch would be 16nm Pascal) it feels kinda like wasted effort and time.
I just want to keep everyone (and possibly more myself) aware of the distinct possibility that it's gonna be TX1 again, which would mean like all 219 pages of this thread were meaningless.
Unless it's a straight up Switch 2, which i would still consider is still 'premium' over the old Switch, next year's model has to be more 'premium' than what we have.
there's a chance it will be the same price, with the older models dropping in price.
I just struggle to see this scenario where OG switch just goes away in 2021 and is replaced by these new models. I feel like the news about TSMC ending TX1 fab is throwing people in for a loop, it doesn't necessarily mean the new chip won't use TX1 or they won't use two chips or that maybe Nintendo is exempted and will continue to get its TX1 from TSMC that people don't know about.
But the conclusions now are so far from the 'accepted' view that both Pro/2 with co-exist with the OG models for some time (1-2 years) just a few weeks ago, I have to put on the breaks. Dropping OG makes no sense. I'll say it.
there's a chance it will be the same price, with the older models dropping in price.
I just struggle to see this scenario where OG switch just goes away in 2021 and is replaced by these new models. I feel like the news about TSMC ending TX1 fab is throwing people in for a loop, it doesn't necessarily mean the new chip won't use TX1 or they won't use two chips or that maybe Nintendo is exempted and will continue to get its TX1 from TSMC that people don't know about.
But the conclusions now are so far from the 'accepted' view that both Pro/2 with co-exist with the OG models for some time (1-2 years) just a few weeks ago, I have to put on the breaks. Dropping OG makes no sense. I'll say it.
WUST was fun despite that ending in a rather glorious wreck, so I definitely jumped back on that train for the Switch Pro
PS4 and XB1 were below those price points for a long time before the PS4 Pro and XB1X arrived though.
I know nothing of this tech shit but it's way too early for a Switch 2.
It'll be a revision.
I'll take a New 3DS XL type deal but hope for a bit more.
I hope the form factor is noticeably slicker.
It'll be a revision.
I'll take a New 3DS XL type deal but hope for a bit more.
I hope the form factor is noticeably slicker.
finally, a portable xbox!
www.bloomberg.com
Microsoft Designing Its Own Chips for Servers, Surface PCs
Microsoft Corp. is working on in-house processor designs for use in server computers that run the company’s cloud services, adding to an industrywide effort to reduce reliance on Intel Corp.’s chip technology.The world’s largest software maker is using Arm Ltd. designs to produce a processor...
www.bloomberg.com
Probably the weirdest part of this new info for me is the idea that the Switch and Switch Lite are going to be replaced at the same time. Previously my assumption was that they'd ride out the current Lite for a couple years while waiting for a die shrink of their new Switch 2 chip. Even if they could actually manage acceptable battery life in the Lite form factor from day one this time, I figured that they'd probably want to still keep the current Lite alive for a a while as a cheaper way to get into the Switch platform for the type of audience that tends to pick up a platform when it's mature and things are cheap. If it actually becomes prohibitively expensive to produce a TX1+ or "TX1++" style chip, then I can see why they might decide not to ditch it earlier, but I would not rule out the possibility of a TX1++ at this point just to keep the Lite alive. Even if it costs a lot to design the chip, they'd probably be able to produce and sell a lot of them.
And I guess we'd finally get to see AMD's mobile GPU (I'm not talking about GPUs for gaming laptops) outside of Samsung?finally, a portable xbox!
Microsoft Designing Its Own Chips for Servers, Surface PCs
Microsoft Corp. is working on in-house processor designs for use in server computers that run the company’s cloud services, adding to an industrywide effort to reduce reliance on Intel Corp.’s chip technology.The world’s largest software maker is using Arm Ltd. designs to produce a processor...
And maybe we'll see another handheld and/or hybrid console from Sony?
Phone cycles are just one year long. Consoles doesn't have this luxury. It would be quite risky of them to release a new console just 1~2 years in.
Depending on their actual stock of Mariko chip, they could keep the current Lite for quite some time after the standard Switch is replaced.
Ooh, server chip. And on the same day that Anandtech put up a review of the Ampere Altra. Come on MS, go big. 80+ core or bust!finally, a portable xbox!
Microsoft Designing Its Own Chips for Servers, Surface PCs
Microsoft Corp. is working on in-house processor designs for use in server computers that run the company’s cloud services, adding to an industrywide effort to reduce reliance on Intel Corp.’s chip technology.The world’s largest software maker is using Arm Ltd. designs to produce a processor...
The lite audience aren't your usual power users anyways. It makes a lot of sense to keep the current model around and push it closer to $100 price point as a kid or family friendly device or a secondary device
I feel like we're in a weird space right now where the rumors and the conventional wisdom are diverging pretty drastically. Historically that's been a bit of a red flag, but with the ways the console industry in general has been shifting lately, I sort of feel like we really could be in for something a bit different this time.
Their portable strategy seems to be more "streaming to phone" oriented right now, but I have some pretty severe doubts about literally any strategy that involves phone + controller, and I wouldn't be surprised if Xbox is fully ARM within the next 5-10 years or so with how things are going regardless.finally, a portable xbox!
Microsoft Designing Its Own Chips for Servers, Surface PCs
Microsoft Corp. is working on in-house processor designs for use in server computers that run the company’s cloud services, adding to an industrywide effort to reduce reliance on Intel Corp.’s chip technology.The world’s largest software maker is using Arm Ltd. designs to produce a processor...
This is also a fair point, although I'd be surprised if they could manage that for more than a year or so.
The Switch is selling everything being produced. There's no point in a price drop if you're not selling more units as results.
Replacing both also transmits the message that they're not price dropping any time soon and might even replace them with the successor without ever price dropping it. That's a tactic they love to use on software, to make people buy now instead of wait for better deals.
They could leave that $100 price point for the used market, which will be flooded by all the people upgrading their consoles.
And just to be clear, I'm not saying that's what they're going to do, just explaining why it would make sense if that's the plan.
It will be interesting to see in the long term how it plays out.
MS might just favor the approach of streaming as 5G adoption will become so widespread that you'll be able to play the highest end games at visual fidelity beyond a PS5/PS5 Pro/PS6 whatever on your phone or tablet.
I've never seen lites sold out. Its the hybrid in high demand
I think we're at a point where we can't use history to predict the future. chip development has changed alot since the 3DS and Wii U. hell, the Wii U was a dinosaur in its design when it was even released in that it had a separate cpu and gpu. other than shrinking the TX1, or just clocking it higher (and the rumor of the production getting killed isn't true), I can't see any avenue where they're not using a newly design chip that has a good bit more power than the current one
Check Amazon US. The Lite, while less attractive than the hybrid, is sold out and did sell out several times this year in several places.
Yes, Nintendo's platforms are heavily first party dominated, but their games sell regardless of platform. Mario 64 would have been just as much of a hit on any platform. Like, that's just the result of the market making it's choices. Nintendo isn't secretly plotting to have software dominance of their own platforms as some kind of nefarious scheme to keep third parties in their place (after, uhh.. signing them up in the first place?)
I feel your language choice is creating a set of mutually exclusive attitudes. Nintendo is certainly not beholden to "big ticket third parties," but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about whether they are even trying and whether they would "lose sleep." They are trying, with most developers/publishers, and I bet they get disappointed and possibly frustrated when they don't snag something (especially dealing with (seemingly) idiotically stubborn companies like Falcom,) but they don't torture themselves as night for not being able to do so. They would prefer that all third parties support their platforms, in addition to selling many copies of their own software as well. Nintendo does care about third parties. Maybe not enough to dismantle themselves and spend all of their money for a drop of support, but they do. That's why they license them in the first place.
If Nintendo makes more money on their platforms with their own games... why even have third parties to begin with? There has to be some reason, right? The answer is Nintendo's games aren't plucked from the video game tree. They actually have to fund and develop them, over time, and as mighty and amazing Nintendo is at managing their teams and getting incredible output, they aren't supermen. Good, quality third party games can take the heat off their teams a little and brings in revenue that Nintendo doesn't have to develop personally, which can ease financial tension.
The first party/third party percentage split is meaningless without the total number of software units sold. For example, third parties dominated on the Vita, and of course there Nintendo goes again, deliberately dominating their own popular platform again by making anticipated, quality games for it, causing rapid adoption of the platform, after they were given specific instructions not to. But the 3DS sold staggeringly more copies of software than the Vita. The top 3rd parties for the Vita even supported the 3DS more despite having a smaller share of the overall 3DS market. Little did they know they fell right into Nintendo's trap!
Their "choice" of Tegra X1 doesn't reflect anything, as they were convinced by nVidia to choose it over Tegra K1, and convinced by Capcom to add RAM to it. Which, I dunno is a pretty... well... tsundere way to go about being completely flippant to third party support. ("I-I'm not adding this RAM because I like you or anything!")
It's not either/or. Nintendo wants their first party revenue and the license fees from third parties.
I'll put it this way -- I don't think Nintendo will release an entirely new model (especially when the existing models they have are selling red hot) primarily for 3rd party ports.
If there is a performance boosted Switch coming it's likely first and foremost because Nintendo themselves have things they want boosted, ie: perhaps they're not happy with the performance of games like Xenoblade or they look at the adoption rate of 4K TV and want to support that some how or they want to do VR after experimenting with Labo VR but that requires more power and higher screen resolution to do.
As far as the 3rd party support they have now, I think Nintendo is fairly content with it. They have the three big 3rd party IP that they really want I think ... that is Dragon Quest, Monster Hunter, and Minecraft. On top of that they have a smattering of Western 3rd party IP like Overwatch, Fortnite, Witcher 3, DOOM, FIFA, Mortal Kombat, NBA 2K. Past that they have a new developer revenue stream that really wasn't there in the same way before -- the massive indie market.
I don't think the fact that they don't have COD or GTAV but are enjoying near record profits really is really bothering them much at all.
the biggest issue Nintendo has with 3rd parties is consistency. stuff like Minecraft and Fortnite are games that make money by being literally everywhere. but Doom, Witcher, Mortal Kombat, etc are things that aren't guaranteed to continue after one game. they all did well enough to continue, but their dev schedules leave Nintendo hardware in the dust.
I see this as a point that irks Nintendo, but it's a product of their own choices. hopefully the Switch Pro is the beginning of them rectifying that
It's not just hardware that's been changing. Console games have become hardware agnostic enough that we've finally gotten to the point where consoles are achieving a more PC-style BC where they can run the old games using more or less the full strength of the new hardware. That sort of compatibility obviously doesn't come for free, but when it's gotten as achievable as it has, to the point where you can ship a singly SKU that fully supports both the new and old models, the need to make these weird half-step machines that are faster, but otherwise basically the same, starts to melt away.
That's fair, i'm just basing my comments off of media create sales where Hybrid model is clearly always in demand, and my local walmart supercentre which i visit regularly for groceries. They never run out of Switch Lites.
Amazon can sometimes skew results because of arbitrage sales. ie: local stores are sold out, so they go to Amazon. Or consumers go straight to amazon without checking local availability. I've noticed for example it's top sellin games don't reflect actual NPD rankings.
I believe the technology that Nintendo may have ultimately strived for (portability, flexibility on controller input, reasonably priced, and reasonable power) is finally available for them to utilize, so that may make a significant difference.
Last edited:
Yeah I agree this new info really does throw up a bunch of new confusion especially regarding the business and marketing side of a revision.
Does Thraktor still post here? I'd love to get his take on all of this.
The biggest question for me will come down to battery life. The Base Switch battery life... sucked. But the revision finally allowed me to play the Switch like I wanted to. I get at minimum like 4 hours on even the most demanding of games. If the revision doesn't have that, it's going to make the decision much harder.
That and do I want to spend 900-1000 dollar on Switches in one generation?
That and do I want to spend 900-1000 dollar on Switches in one generation?
As I said on the podcast, I've had numerous bits of information pass my desk. Talk of an A78 came my way several months ago. 4K functionality, of some sort, is the only key bit I can back with confidence. In which form will 4K be achieved? I remain uncertain. There's a lot of information circulating but very little that can be verified at the moment.
The idea of DLSS is very realistic and well within the realm of possibility.
The idea of DLSS is very realistic and well within the realm of possibility.
it's worth it so Monolith Soft's games aren't a blurry mess
Oh, I'm sure they'll find a way. They seem to be incapable of making a game that's not at least a little bit overly ambitious for the hardware it's releasing on.
Last edited:
Have you seen the recent rumor that the Mariko chips are ceasing production in early January? I'm curious what you make of that, that's been really throwing us for a loop lately in terms of how they'll position this new model and how will they replace the Mariko models.
I think it irks enthusiast Nintendo fans, I don't think it really irks Nintendo's decision makers in Japan nearly as much.
Like I don't think anyone at Nintendo's board of directors lost a wink of sleep over the likelihood that the next Elder Scrolls/Skyrim game won't be on the Switch because of the Bethesda deal, I think that was more like a "eh whatever", but to Sony that was probably ground shaking when they got that news.
Because they can. And imagine this little nugget: each of those options plays the whole current Switch library of games, but better. Games are already built to scale resolution. And certain titles can get DLSS patches enabling 4K. I fully expect updates to the main Nintendo switch tent poles.
They were pretty old on 3ds but they went from dual core ARM 11@ 268Mhz to a quad core ARM 11@804Mhz. The gpu went from 133Mhz to 204Mhz, so yes it was still a ways off from the Vita.
Nintendo will want to keep chip manufacturing to a minimum when it comes to variations.
It's much easier to add more storage, a better screen, larger battery and quality build materials vs having a different SoC for 2 different models. It really becomes a fast food assembly mentality, keep your most expensive product neutral and make variations by changing the condiments around.
I think when it comes to this topic we have to just take the president of Nintendo at his word,
Furukawa said that "other software publishers plan to release a wide variety of titles for Nintendo Switch going forward. There are many genres of games that we cannot make on our own and their providing these kinds of titles enriches the Nintendo Switch gaming experience, so we are very grateful for that."
This would become a mess to manage, 1 SoC just streamlines production lines in not needing to stock and supply 2 different architectures for one platform.
This has more to say about Nintendo probably not touring and listening to their developers wants and needs early on in the hardware development cycle than anything else. Go to your top Technically demanding development teams and develop solutions for eliminating as many bottlenecks as possible.
A lot of these teams started making ambitious games on WiiU, so projections could have dictated what hardware was needed to go on to the next level.
Last edited:
Yeah but that doesn't really say anything pro/con towards a new model. We know for example next year the Switch will get 2 new Monster Hunter games, Bravely Default 2, Resident Evil Revelations 3/Outbreak, Hitman III, and we know RE2/3/7/Village are also coming via Cloud without being tied to a new Switch system per se.
I don't see how they don't. they are limited by what they want the form factor to be. if they were making a console, then they'd have more room to push boundaries
- Status