He only talked about the Aula thing, right? Which wouldn't be a scoop, but repackaged old info about something unrelated to a revision (because it's still the Mariko Switch with nothing added).
He only talked about the Aula thing, right? Which wouldn't be a scoop, but repackaged old info about something unrelated to a revision (because it's still the Mariko Switch with nothing added).
And that's what I was thinking. If the talkis about Mariko being discontinued are true, they would have to take that into account by booking enough supply of this new chip as the replacement for standard Mariko.A mobile SoC should be relatively high volume in output due to its size and the resulting number of working chips from a platter.
It would also avoid the main reason for current moment GPU shortages which is crypto miners.
Then again a successful Switch Pro/2 launch would likely require a lot of supply to satisfy demand.
So the question is had NV and/or Nintendo booked enough capacity beforehand at Samsung or whereever they are planning to produce the SoC.
I expect 128GB but not 256GB, as that is possibly enough for the Nintendo games, meanwhile expandable option for the very large third parties like Bioshock on the switch for example, or NBA2Kin the context of similar devices, I don't think it is. the largest thing phones are storing is either games and photos/videos shot with the camera. and the games are more comparable to Nintendo's at the top end
Worse as in, "we have this, let's cut back now to save costs", that is not how that works. They would detail what they want after a few years, not make something and intentionally pull back. What they want after a few years of naturally aging.
That's completely backwards to go with a new thing and pull back, they detail first what they want, not after it is already done.
I already told you, spending on a product then deciding the price. That is not it.It works something like this "lets see what we want/need and how much that cost", if it's more expensive than they want offocurse they will cut some things, and if they have room for higher cost with targeted selling price point and profit, they can make it stronger than initially planned.
Nintendo hardware depends from potential selling price point (they dont want higher selling price point) and profit (they want profit from day one on hardware).
What backward you talking about?
We dont know for sure what Nintendo wanted/wants for this revision, we still speculate based on rumors, we still don't have official infos.
Yeah, and based on what we know of Orin S, available ARM CPUs and RAM Configurations able to be produced on Samsung 8nm, and how DLSS, and at least Ampere works, we can tell if they those terms wereI already told you, spending on a product then deciding the price. That is not it.
Also no..
They have the set planned price of the product and set the profit margins and the margins they want after x amount of time on the market. You have it backwards, it's not "let's see what we want and how much it costs" it is "built within this constraints that leads to this likely outcome in the end. What you are describing is not real.
Nintendo isn't effectively making the SoC, Nvidia is. They are going bang for buck.
It is "we want the most powerful within this price range, that we are selling at this P amount and that the cost of manufacturing lowers to this Q amount after X amount of time on the market" not "we want a 10 TFLOP machine with 16 GB of RAM, super fast SSD and a desktop class CPU for this price" (for example sake). After is when they negotiate and work out further business aspects of this that would raise the price or lower it if they so choose it is necessary for what they need. Billing everything at once for what it can be for what it can do. Not what it can do for a price they think it'll cost.
It is always bang for buck first and foremost, not the other way around.
I already told you, spending on a product then deciding the price. That is not it.
Also no..
They have the set planned price of the product and set the profit margins and the margins they want after x amount of time on the market. You have it backwards, it's not "let's see what we want and how much it costs" it is "built within this constraints that leads to this likely outcome in the end. What you are describing is not real.
Nintendo isn't effectively making the SoC, Nvidia is. They are going bang for buck.
It is "we want the most powerful within this price range, that we are selling at this P amount and that the cost of manufacturing lowers to this Q amount after X amount of time on the market" not "we want a 10 TFLOP machine with 16 GB of RAM, super fast SSD and a desktop class CPU for this price" (for example sake). After is when they negotiate and work out further business aspects of this that would raise the price or lower it if they so choose it is necessary for what they need. Billing everything at once for what it can be for what it can do. Not what it can do for a price they think it'll cost.
It is always bang for buck first and foremost, not the other way around.
So if the Mariko model's power consumption is the rough target (and thus, just entirely skip a die shrunk 2023 model), my quick and dirty way to guestimate would be...My main issue is really just the battery life estimate. I get the feeling they'll try to keep it around the Mariko model's official estimates (4.5-9 hours), especially if the revision is an outright replacement for it. Don't really know how it'd effect the specs or performance, but I do believe that's what they're going for.
But the big thing here is we are talking about a system at the level of the 8 year old Xbox One S in GPU power when docked, and pushing to PS4 level when accounting the CPU.I think we dont understand each other (at least I have problem folow you) or simple we dont agree,
In any case my main is that Nintendo with their hardware dont want higher selling price point and that they want profit on hardware from day one,
so people should have that point on mind when they talk about possible power and price point of this Switch revision.
Seriously, are we having hot takes in this thread as well? Geez...The difference is Nintendo is more volatile. They are one company; VR is an entire industry. So of course Nintendo has a higher chance of dying.
Yeah, they could make money forever off of the Zelda and Mario Franchises alone, even by licensing them out to other developers/studios .etcSeriously, are we having hot takes in this thread as well? Geez...
Nintendo being one company didn't stop them from becoming the longest surviving soley-video-game-entertainment out there. Also they have several other industries that they are now involved in.
consoles are exempt if I remember correctlyEdit: Another thing to consider would be the import tariffs for electronics...
So what happened with Thugstas prediction for this week? Did something happen?
Edit: Another thing to consider would be the import tariffs for electronics...
Whatever it ends up looking like, I fully expect you to do a peer review of my tech analysis of the game 😜
No seriously though I do appreciate your (and others') feedback on my last analysis for the first game. It really highlighted how difficult it can be to distinguish rendering approaches that achieve similar effects.
A full 4*A77+4*A55 cluster is 12mm2 on 7 nm. I would expect a 8*A78 to be only 30~40% bigger due to A78 being smaller than A77.Thanks for the answers, for some reason I thought A78 cores were relatively large, so cutting down two of them would save a non trivial amount of money.
TX1 cores have the same clocks due to it using the first Big.LITTLE implementation. DynamIQ cores can run at different clocks.I'm guessing that since all of the CPU cores on the Tegra X1 on the Nintendo Switch seem to run at 1.02 GHz, I think he's making an assumption that the all CPU cores on the next Nintendo Switch model's SoC are going to run at the same frequency.
Exynos 9820 was ~600 GFLOPS on galaxy S9. It was the first 8LPP SOC. It is actually the only real high end SOC on this node as it is the only > 100 mm2 SOC (127mm2) compared to E880/S690/S750 that are way smaller SOCs with only 2 big cores. While the E9820 has 2 big A75 cores and 2 way bigger M4 cores (easily 3 or 4 times bigger than the 2 A75).So we don't have many devices on 8nm to compare to, but this Exynos 880 is interesting because it's made on the Samsung 8nm process in 2020 and has an 8 core CPU(2xA77+6xA55), 8GB of LPDDR4x RAM, 576Gflops of GPU performance, UFS 2.1 storage, 1080p display and the entire phone draws 7w.
Looking forward to it, I can't promise anything but I'll see what I can do!Whatever it ends up looking like, I fully expect you to do a peer review of my tech analysis of the game 😜
No seriously though I do appreciate your (and others') feedback on my last analysis for the first game. It really highlighted how difficult it can be to distinguish rendering approaches that achieve similar effects.
Sorry for the old quote. Do you have a link to your analysis?
I'm very excited to see what Nintendo can achieve when targeting Switch instead of Wii U for BotW 2.
Looking forward to it, I can't promise anything but I'll see what I can do!
Nothing specific as I said and not related to the hard... software related...The something was never for this week, it was supposedly around next week.
Nothing specific as I said and not related to the hard... software related...
Trademark ..
NSO ...
Collections ...
😂😂Spoken in riddles like a true prophet. Whatever happens, that thread has been a great time killer.
Not sure if you are serious, but botw 2 will run like a charm on this no matter what.
Nothing specific as I said and not related to the hard... software related...
Trademark ..
NSO ...
Collections ...
The only way to get 8 homogeneous Cortex-A78 cores is go for the octa-core configuration of the Cortex-A78C.Either way, a One S level Ampere/Lovelace GPU with 8 A78 or A78C cores (As they are the ones that can be used by NVIDIA on Samsung Fabs) Clocked in a manner for 7 usable higher performance cores with a weaker lower clocked core for OS Functions, 8 GB of either LPDDR4 or LPDDR5, and 128gb of emmc or UFS 2.1 storage likely is within a reasonable margin for Nintendo and NVIDIA.
Yeah, I was meaning 7 clocked at like say 1.5 ghz when docked and the other clocked at ~1.0ghz for the OSThe only way to get 8 homogeneous Cortex-A78 cores is go for the octa-core configuration of the Cortex-A78C.
2 clusters of the 4 Cortex-A78 cores and the 4 Cortex-A55 cores configurations will also give 8 Cortex-A78 cores, but in a heterogeneous configuration rather than a homogeneous configuration.
Yes.I assumed Zelda was what you were discussing for a while but I didn't want to speak for you.
Still think it's likely next week or around there?
No worry....Awesome, can't wait.
Like Zakatana says, whether you're right or wrong this will be a fun ride.
March Switch 2021 reveal confirmed.No worry....
things can change
But the starting point is the NSO
Cannot talk bout that. Just wait and real infos are incoming
😂😂March Switch 2021 reveal confirmed.
Would line up with Nintendo seemingly hyping the Anniversary of the Switch in advertising.
Was making a minor joke, because of
😉
It cool, often have that problem too sometimes lol
Even at work and you send an email .... people always take it as a harsh one 😂😂😂
What do you mean? They give the price they want the product to be to make, and want the most out of that price(can be specified in what areas need improvement but not a literal exact spec), in a way that after a certain amount if time the profit made per unit that they are selling increases. The partner presents config, they are all estimated to be the same price or around the same and are different in actual spec. N decides from there and thats history on that.I think we dont understand each other (at least I have problem follow you) or simple we dont agree,
In any case my main point is that Nintendo with their hardware dont want higher selling price point and that they want solid profit on hardware from day one,
so people should have that point on mind when they talk about possible power and price point of this Switch revision.
What do you mean? They give the price they want the product to be to make, and want the most out of that price(can be specified in what areas need improvement but not a literal exact spec), in a way that after a certain amount if time the profit made per unit that they are selling increases. The partner presents config, they are all estimated to be the same price or around the same and are different in actual spec. N decides from there and thats history on that.
that's literally it.
But what you said doesn't make sense because that's not really how that happens.
But what you said doesn't make sense because that's not really how that happens.
I wouldn't say that they made a solid profit on Switch sold from day one tho. Profit margin was pretty thin in March 2017.But thats how Nintendo operates and those are some ofe their goals when they releasing hardware, again,
Nintendo with their hardware dont want higher selling price point and that they want solid profit on hardware from day one.
I wouldn't say that they made a solid profit on Switch sold from day one tho. Profit margin was pretty thin in March 2017.
No worry....
things can change
But the starting point is the NSO
Cannot talk bout that. Just wait and real infos are incoming
Switch BOM was 257$ at launch:Yes, we dont know how big profit were made with Switch on day one, but its certain they are making quite solid now when they were selling with profit from day one. My point is that Nintendo would want to have solid profit with this revision from day one like they having with current models.
For instance, when Switch Lite was launched in 2019. Nintendo said they have similar profit margin with Like like they have with main Switch model.
Switch BOM was 257$ at launch:
Nintendo Switch costs $257 to make, won’t line Nintendo’s pockets suggests report - KitGuru
Despite a number of teardown sites already having published complete guides on the Nintendo Switch,www.kitguru.net
Factoring in the retailer's cut and distribution costs, Nintendo made very little profit day one on the console.
As a comparison, PS4's BOM was 381$ (399$ retail price) and was sold at a loss at launch.
Nintendo itself said they are selling Switch hardware with profit from day one, but based on that BOM estimate that profit wasnt big..
Nintendo itself said they are selling Switch hardware with profit from day one, but based on that BOM estimate that profit wasnt big..
Switch BOM was 257$ at launch:
Nintendo Switch costs $257 to make, won’t line Nintendo’s pockets suggests report - KitGuru
Despite a number of teardown sites already having published complete guides on the Nintendo Switch,www.kitguru.net
Factoring in the retailer's cut and distribution costs, Nintendo made very little profit day one on the console.
As a comparison, PS4's BOM was 381$ (399$ retail price) and was sold at a loss at launch.