Support NeoGAF

[Thraktor]

Knowing the chip designer tells you nothing about its performance. I'd *hope* something so much newer would look down on the Vita from a mountain, but just knowing it's Nvidia isn't proof of that.

Actually, it sort of does. The only two architectures used in Tegra thus far which support Vulkan are Kepler used in the TK1 and Maxwell used in the TX1. In the case of Kepler, the TK1 is actually the smallest possible configuration (1 SM, 192 "cores"), and even clocked down to absurdly low levels would significantly outperform the Vita. The TX1 uses two Maxwell SMs (each 128 cores), so would be able to be chopped in half, but again even half of the TX1 clocked extremely low would still outperform Vita by a massive degree. A Pascal-based Tegra could in theory be produced with just one SM (64 cores), but then you're on 16nm, and even the most stringent TDP imaginable should be able to get a reasonable clock out of it.

No, but that isn't really a great analogy. Nintendo's consoles have been trending down for a while, and now you will give consumers another reason not to get it. You certainly cannot assume that if it works for the iPhone/iPad, it will work for Nintendo. If what you predict is true, the amount of people who want to play their NX handheld games on a TV so badly that they would pay an additionally ~$300 will be less than the amount of people who got a Wii U IMO.

You're assuming everyone's happiest playing games on a handheld. Some people want to play games on a handheld, some people prefer to play them on a TV. Nintendo would accommodate both while giving them the largest possible games library by releasing a console and handheld which share the same library.

 

[LordOfChaos]

Actually, it sort of does. The only two architectures used in Tegra thus far which support Vulkan are Kepler used in the TK1 and Maxwell used in the TX1. In the case of Kepler, the TK1 is actually the smallest possible configuration (1 SM, 192 "cores"), and even clocked down to absurdly low levels would significantly outperform the Vita. The TX1 uses two Maxwell SMs (each 128 cores), so would be able to be chopped in half, but again even half of the TX1 clocked extremely low would still outperform Vita by a massive degree. A Pascal-based Tegra could in theory be produced with just one SM (64 cores), but then you're on 16nm, and even the most stringent TDP imaginable should be able to get a reasonable clock out of it.

Does the article verify that it is indeed a Tegra, and not something semi-custom?

 

[Thraktor]

Does the article verify that it is indeed a Tegra, and not something semi-custom?

As far as I know the article says Tegra, but my point is that even a semi-custom chip would have to be based on one of those architectures, and even the smallest possible configuration of each of those architectures at the lowest conceivable clock speed would still significantly outperform Vita.

 

[blu]

Ok, that was a busy week, so I'm still gathering my thoughts on all the info we got these days.

A couple of notes on this NV rumor.

1) While NV might not have been 'salty' about the whole console segment, they did try do keep nintendo until the very last moment with the 3ds act, and failed. That, along with Tegra's, erm, ever rising popularity, may have made NV extra generous towards nintendo a generation later. The thing is, nintendo have much to gain and not that much to lose in a hypothetical NV relationship - nintendo have demonstrated they can drop NV late into the design cycle, and I'm sure there have been other candidates this time around, willing to offer a SoC or two. For NV the situation has been much more dire - they need a large, high profile customer for the Tegra, and automotive infotainment can get you only so far (you think consoles have low margins? heh), 'car AI on GPGPU' and other such pies in the sky aside.

2) Thraktor's thoughts about potential obligations with TSMC 20nm are an interesting supposition, but it might need some further pondering. Whatever NV did buy fabtime for originally, might have been well consumed. Remember back in 2012 when NV openly stated they considered 20nm worthless? I can't imagine they overbooked heaps of 20nm fab time, just to release 1 product* on it. NV simply rejected 20nm, as openly as NV have ever been in public, and used that node solely for a product they had literally no other option for (imagine a TX1 that is not suitable even for tablets, coming off the chromebook TK1..). So I just can't imagine NV got themselves so deeply involved with TSMC's 20nm, given they never believed in the node in the first place. TX1 was essentially a 'dedication demonstrator', showing to prospective customers what NV could do on a next-gen fab node. So they are ready now to reap their next-gen rewards. Which takes us back to (1) - enter nintendo ; ]

* TX1 is the sole 20nm NV product.

 

[bachikarn]

You're assuming everyone's happiest playing games on a handheld. Some people want to play games on a handheld, some people prefer to play them on a TV. Nintendo would accommodate both while giving them the largest possible games library by releasing a console and handheld which share the same library.

and you are assuming there are enough people who prefer to play them on a TV (and pay a premium for it) for it to be a good idea.

 

[ozfunghi]

...

That's basically what i'd been hoping for (and actually i had foreseen something like this two generations ago, lol) but now, if the console is actually not outperforming PS4/XBO, yet the handheld is more powerful than expected... we still have the patent of the "add-on" hardware (forgot the name). Any chance the "powerful" handheld might "help out" the less amazeface console as described in the patent?

 

[Proelite]

As far as I know the article says Tegra, but my point is that even a semi-custom chip would have to be based on one of those architectures, and even the smallest possible configuration of each of those architectures at the lowest conceivable clock speed would still significantly outperform Vita.

Handheld with 256 Pascal core 500mhz clock.
Console with 512 and 1000mhz clock.

Sounds reasonable?

 

[Maztorre]

I just don't see much value in the console if this is the case. If the handheld can do everything the console can do, I am going to imagine most people will just buy the handheld.

That's exactly the point, buying either device is a win-win for Nintendo since they are running the same games. This is like saying the iPad is somehow devalued because it runs the same software as an iPhone.

Now I'm not saying it won't be the case, but that strategy is all but getting out of the console space IMO.

They would be 100% right to get out of the "traditional" console space and create their own ecosystem, where either a handheld or a console purchase is a win for them. There is no room for Nintendo to release a me-too device copying PS4/XB1's model, when even Microsoft seem to be transitioning the Xbox business model to general computing devices rather than dedicated hardware.

and you are assuming there are enough people who prefer to play them on a TV (and pay a premium for it) for it to be a good idea.

How does the customer's preference between handheld/console matter whenever either purchase is a win for both them and Nintendo? Both form factors would receive the same library, the customer isn't missing out on Fire Emblem for a generation because they bought the home console this time.

 

[Kimawolf]

That's basically what i'd been hoping for (and actually i had foreseen something like this two generations ago, lol) but now, if the console is actually not outperforming PS4/XBO, yet the handheld is more powerful than expected... we still have the patent of the "add-on" hardware (forgot the name). Any chance the "powerful" handheld might "help out" the less amazeface console as described in the patent?

Supplemental Computing Device.

The patent stated you can use any computing device.

 

[geordiemp]

No, but that isn't really a great analogy. Nintendo's consoles have been trending down for a while, and now you will give consumers another reason not to get it. You certainly cannot assume that if it works for the iPhone/iPad, it will work for Nintendo. If what you predict is true, the amount of people who want to play their NX handheld games on a TV so badly that they would pay an additionally ~$300 will be less than the amount of people who got a Wii U IMO.

Does it matter to Nintendo if customer buys handheld or console hardware ? Its still a hardware sale.

And if the games work on both, as long as the software sells in good numbers, Nintendo would be happy.

If in a few years there are only 7 Nx million consoles and say 50 million Nx handhelds, and Nintendo sell 30 million Mario which works on both and there is no software drought...then it does not matter.

The end goal is to make money on software numbers. without paying royalty ?

 

[Proelite]

Ok, that was a busy week, so I'm still gathering my thoughts on all the info we got these days.

A couple of notes on this NV rumor.

1) While NV might not have been 'salty' about the whole console segment, they did try do keep nintendo until the very last moment with the 3ds act, and failed. That, along with Tegra's, erm, ever rising popularity, may have made NV extra generous towards nintendo a generation later. The thing is, nintendo have much to gain and not that much to lose in a hypothetical NV relationship - nintendo have demonstrated they can drop NV late into the design cycle, and I'm sure there have been other candidates this time around, willing to offer a SoC or two. For NV the situation has been much more dire - they need a large, high profile customer for the Tegra, and automotive infotainment can get you only so far (you think consoles have low margins? heh), 'car AI on GPGPU' and other such pies in the sky aside.

2) Thraktor's thoughts about potential obligations with TSMC 20nm are an interesting supposition, but it might need some further pondering. Whatever NV did buy fabtime for originally, might have been well consumed. Remember back in 2012 when NV openly stated they considered 20nm worthless? I can't imagine they overbooked heaps of 20nm fab time, just to release 1 product* on it. NV simply rejected 20nm, as openly as NV have ever been in public, and used that node solely for a product they had literally no other option for (imagine a TX1 that is not suitable even for tablets, coming off the chromebook TK1..). So I just can't imagine NV got themselves so deeply involved with TSMC's 20nm, given they never believed in the node in the first place. TX1 was essentially a 'dedication demonstrator', showing to prospective customers what NV could do on a next-gen fab node. So they are ready now to reap their next-gen rewards. Which takes us back to (1) - enter nintendo ; ]

* TX1 is the sole 20nm NV product.

Hey Blu we need your input in the Emily Rogers rumor thread.

 

[KingSnake]

and you are assuming there are enough people who prefer to play them on a TV (and pay a premium for it) for it to be a good idea.

And the case of shared library it doesn't really matter. It's also like a safety net. If indeed Nintendo consoles are not popular enough to surive they will die naturally, but Nintendo won't take the hit for it in the same way like with Wii U. They will have an unified install base to sell games to.

But I would not underestimate the appeal of a cheap console that provides good value for the money (decent performance and full fledged games library) by Nintendo.

 

[Thraktor]

Ok, that was a busy week, so I'm still gathering my thoughts on all the info we got these days.

A couple of notes on this NV rumor.

1) While NV might not have been 'salty' about the whole console segment, they did try do keep nintendo until the very last moment with the 3ds act, and failed. That, along with Tegra's, erm, ever rising popularity, may have made NV extra generous towards nintendo a generation later. The thing is, nintendo have much to gain and not that much to lose in a hypothetical NV relationship - nintendo have demonstrated they can drop NV late into the design cycle, and I'm sure there have been other candidates this time around, willing to offer a SoC or two. For NV the situation has been much more dire - they need a large, high profile customer for the Tegra, and automotive infotainment can get you only so far (you think consoles have low margins? heh), 'car AI on GPGPU' and other such pies in the sky aside.

2) Thraktor's thoughts about potential obligations with TSMC 20nm are an interesting supposition, but it might need some further pondering. Whatever NV did buy fabtime for originally, might have been well consumed. Remember back in 2012 when NV openly stated they considered 20nm worthless? I can't imagine they overbooked heaps of 20nm fab time, just to release 1 product* on it. NV simply rejected 20nm, as openly as NV have ever been in public, and used that node solely for a product they had literally no other option for (imagine a TX1 that is not suitable even for tablets, coming off the chromebook TK1..). So I just can't imagine NV got themselves so deeply involved with TSMC's 20nm, given they never believed in the node in the first place. TX1 was essentially a 'dedication demonstrator', showing to prospective customers what NV could do on a next-gen fab node. So they are ready now to reap their next-gen rewards. Which takes us back to (1) - enter nintendo ; ]

* TX1 is the sole 20nm NV product.

Well, my theory on the 20nm commitments was more idle speculation on why Nvidia may be willing to sell at a loss. Of course SA may be accurate on the handheld using Tegra without being accurate about it being sold at a loss.

and you are assuming there are enough people who prefer to play them on a TV (and pay a premium for it) for it to be a good idea.

I don't get what you're arguing here. If Nintendo can make one game and sell it to both the set of people who own their handheld and the set of people who own their home console, then they'll make more money off that game than if they sold it just to the people who own the handheld or just the set of people who own the home console (which is what they do now). Even if one of the install bases is small (in fact, especially if one of the install bases is small) they're going to be more profitable making games that run across both devices than attempting to support two separate software ecosystems.

Handheld with 256 Pascal core 500mhz clock.
Console with 512 and 1000mhz clock.

Sounds reasonable?

In theory, I suppose. I would have assumed the home console to stick with 28nm, but with relatively large-die Pascal chips out soon (albeit at high prices) and the console pushed back to March 2017, who knows?

 

[ozfunghi]

Supplemental Computing Device.

The patent stated you can use any computing device.

Right, but i can imagine that if the handheld is truly that powerful, that it would make sense to be able to hook it up directly.

 

[onQ123]

For some reason I expect this to get debunked

 

[James Scott]

I just don't see much value in the console if this is the case. If the handheld can do everything the console can do, I am going to imagine most people will just buy the handheld. It is not too far off from the hybrid idea if you ask me.

Now I'm not saying it won't be the case, but that strategy is all but getting out of the console space IMO.

The thing is that with that strategy if everyone got the handheld it wouldn't really be that much of a bad thing.
The Wii U suffered a similar issue where people like the 3DS and had their Nintendo fill with just that but Nintendo still had to spend a lot of money trying to "save" it and creating software that could've gone to making more profitable 3DS software.
And they can create multiple types of devices appealing to multiple markets which just broadens their reach.

 

[Thraktor]

2) Thraktor's thoughts about potential obligations with TSMC 20nm are an interesting supposition, but it might need some further pondering. Whatever NV did buy fabtime for originally, might have been well consumed. Remember back in 2012 when NV openly stated they considered 20nm worthless? I can't imagine they overbooked heaps of 20nm fab time, just to release 1 product* on it. NV simply rejected 20nm, as openly as NV have ever been in public, and used that node solely for a product they had literally no other option for (imagine a TX1 that is not suitable even for tablets, coming off the chromebook TK1..). So I just can't imagine NV got themselves so deeply involved with TSMC's 20nm, given they never believed in the node in the first place. TX1 was essentially a 'dedication demonstrator', showing to prospective customers what NV could do on a next-gen fab node. So they are ready now to reap their next-gen rewards. Which takes us back to (1) - enter nintendo ; ]

* TX1 is the sole 20nm NV product.

Just to follow up on this, but Nvidia didn't actually use the word worthless anywhere in the article you linked to. Extremetech used it, but they don't seem to be quoting Nvidia. Rather it seems to be a reference to Nvidia claiming that 20nm (and 14nm) would offer little to no improvement in cost per transistor over 28nm. Which is, of course, true, but if a node provides higher clocking headroom, then you can still get better performance per dollar out of it than an old node, even if you're not getting more transistors per dollar. Hence why Nvidia is about to release GPUs based on a 7.2B transistor 16nm chip to replace an 8B transistor 28nm chip.

Nvidia actually still had 20nm GPUs on their roadmap when this article was posted, targeting 2014. Reports of Nvidia dropping 20nm altogether for GPUs didn't arrive until 2014, by which point chips like the A8 were already in full production. Again, this is just idle speculation, but it's possible that even the TX1 was only on 20nm to use up their wafer commitment (for the first six months of its life it was literally only used on Nvidia's own Shield TV, so they hardly put it into production based on massive demand).

 

[~Cross~]

For some reason I expect this to get debunked

Yeah, nvidia has some insane margins on their equipment. They aren't going to walk into a bad deal because their "feelings got hurt" when they are making so much money out of enthusiasts and professional market.

 

[wowzors]

I don't see this happening if NX is rumored to be using AMD it does not make sense for the handheld which is presumably to be used in conjunction to be based on Nvidia.

 

[fritolay]

If Nintendo is not using AMD, then what about AMD stating they had what 3 new contracts or something? I wonder besides MS and Sony then is in the works.

 

[McHuj]

If Nintendo is not using AMD, then what about AMD stating they had what 3 new contracts or something? I wonder besides MS and Sony then is in the works.

Did they specifically say it's for three console chips? Or just three custom designs?

They could always be providing something for a Chinese company for the Chinese market.

 

[bachikarn]

I don't get what you're arguing here. If Nintendo can make one game and sell it to both the set of people who own their handheld and the set of people who own their home console, then they'll make more money off that game than if they sold it just to the people who own the handheld or just the set of people who own the home console (which is what they do now). Even if one of the install bases is small (in fact, especially if one of the install bases is small) they're going to be more profitable making games that run across both devices than attempting to support two separate software ecosystems.

I'm saying it is not that far off from them abandoning the console space completely. It is very close to the hybrid idea.

I'm pretty sure Nintendo's goal is to sell more NX console than Wii U's. I think this strategy will not do that, and would probably make it worse. I agree that if their goal is not to do that, it won't matter. But I think in that scenario the console would be a niche product, and there would be a good chance of them just eliminating it in the future.

 

[maxcriden]

Has anyone corroborated this yet? And, what is the general consensus in the thread, how are people feeling about this? Oh, and, what does this mean in layman's terms for what we should expect from the system? Thank you.

 

[Thraktor]

I'm saying it is not that far off from them abandoning the console space completely. It is very close to the hybrid idea.

I'm pretty sure Nintendo's goal is to sell more NX console than Wii U's. I think this strategy will not do that, and would probably make it worse. I agree that if their goal is not to do that, it won't matter. But I think in that scenario the console would be a niche product, and there would be a good chance of them just eliminating it in the future.

Under this scenario home console owners would get about twice the 1st party game output they do now, and I believe (as argued on the last page) that they would actually end up with much better third party support as well. I can't see a console with a substantially larger catalog of games doing worse than Wii U, and in fact even if it did, it would still end up more profitable than Wii U, as Nintendo wouldn't have to pump half their game development budget into it to keep it afloat.

 

[maxcriden]

And the case of shared library it doesn't really matter. It's also like a safety net. If indeed Nintendo consoles are not popular enough to surive they will die naturally, but Nintendo won't take the hit for it in the same way like with Wii U. They will have an unified install base to sell games to.

But I would not underestimate the appeal of a cheap console that provides good value for the money (decent performance and full fledged games library) by Nintendo.

You said "but," but how is your second paragraph mutually exclusive from your first? Both make perfect sense to me and it seems they could co-exist as concepts. (Maybe I misunderstood the particular use of the word "but" here, though.)

 

[James Scott]

I'm saying it is not that far off from them abandoning the console space completely. It is very close to the hybrid idea.

I'm pretty sure Nintendo's goal is to sell more NX console than Wii U's. I think this strategy will not do that, and would probably make it worse. I agree that if their goal is not to do that, it won't matter. But I think in that scenario the console would be a niche product, and there would be a good chance of them just eliminating it in the future.

Hybrid=Wii U but you can take the gamepad everywhere. It will likely result in a very expensive and/or weak system that would appeal to no one.
Increases work since you have to make games for both the handheld and the console.
Best to forget about that.
This strategy makes specific hardware sales not matter in the traditional sense.
Nintendo's goal is to increase profits with a system that breaks even and a large installbase to buy their software.
Also, it being more powerful would be a selling point to people actually being able to run AAA multiplatform titles if it gets those. And if it doesn't it'll still have a lot of exclusives that appeal to people like the 3DS

 

[axisofweevils]

I'm saying it is not that far off from them abandoning the console space completely. It is very close to the hybrid idea.

I'm pretty sure Nintendo's goal is to sell more NX console than Wii U's. I think this strategy will not do that, and would probably make it worse. I agree that if their goal is not to do that, it won't matter. But I think in that scenario the console would be a niche product, and there would be a good chance of them just eliminating it in the future.

I'd actually be amazed if they even differentiate between them. You're more likely to hear "We sold x NX hardware units". The traditional difference between handheld and console no longer applies. Similarly, Nintendo tends to call the 2DS/3DS/3DS XL/New 3DS/New 3DS XL "The 3DS Family".

 

[Pyrokai]

Is there a chance the games will literally be the same on the console and handheld? Pretty much making it one platform with different form factors and no differentiation?

 

[ozfunghi]

I can still see a HYBRID as a possibillity, but not like most are expecting:
Home console sold seperately
Handheld sold seperately
Hook the handheld up with the homeconsole as supplemental computing device to boost performance of the home console... it would be some form of Hybrid, looking at it like that.

If the handheld is indeed about 1/4th as powerful as the console, it might be enough to bump the combo over the PS4. Customers that buy both not only get a nice shared library, but are rewarded by a more powerful home experience.

 

[darkinstinct]

Looks down from a mountain.

Until the battery runs out. The Shield is exceptionally bad that way, a handheld Nintendo device likely has a smaller design and smaller battery. Tegra is a great chip but if you actually use it for games you run out of juice within an hour and a half. That's not what I want from a handheld device.

 

[Eolz]

I can still see a HYBRID as a possibillity, but not like most are expecting:
Home console sold seperately
Handheld sold seperately
Hook the handheld up with the homeconsole as supplemental computing device to boost performance of the home console... it would be some form of Hybrid, looking at it like that.

Yeah, I wouldn't call an hybrid indeed, but I can see why some would.
That would be quite the impressive "gimmick"...

edit:

Is there a chance the games will literally be the same on the console and handheld? Pretty much making it one platform with different form factors and no differentiation?

No, apart from some smaller games not really pushing the console.

 

[James Scott]

Until the battery runs out. The Shield is exceptionally bad that way, a handheld Nintendo device likely has a smaller design and smaller battery. Tegra is a great chip but if you actually use it for games you run out of juice within an hour and a half. That's not what I want from a handheld device.

What resolution is the Shield?
I imagine a lower res screen could last longer

 

[bachikarn]

Under this scenario home console owners would get about twice the 1st party game output they do now, and I believe (as argued on the last page) that they would actually end up with much better third party support as well. I can't see a console with a substantially larger catalog of games doing worse than Wii U, and in fact even if it did, it would still end up more profitable than Wii U, as Nintendo wouldn't have to pump half their game development budget into it to keep it afloat.

yeah, but by doing this, you have gotten rid of one of the main differentiators of the console, and have introduced a very viable alternative. You have made the handheld more enticing, but also made the console less enticing.

I imagine there is a very significant overlap between Wii U owners and 3DS owners. Now NX handheld owners have less of a reason to buy an NX console. It doesn't give them anything special besides better IQ and ability to play on a TV. Again, I'm sure there will be a lot of people who would own both, but I doubt that amount would surpass Wii U sales.

Then you have the people who never bought a 3DS or a Wii U. They are either trying to decide between PS4/XB1/NX handheld/NX console. My guess NX console would be their last choice. If they want power, they go with PS4. If they want a Nintendo library with third parties, they go with NX handheld..

 

[bachikarn]

Hybrid=Wii U but you can take the gamepad everywhere. It will likely result in a very expensive and/or weak system that would appeal to no one.
Increases work since you have to make games for both the handheld and the console.
Best to forget about that.
This strategy makes specific hardware sales not matter in the traditional sense.
Nintendo's goal is to increase profits with a system that breaks even and a large installbase to buy their software.
Also, it being more powerful would be a selling point to people actually being able to run AAA multiplatform titles if it gets those. And if it doesn't it'll still have a lot of exclusives that appeal to people like the 3DS

I'm specifically referring to the idea that the NX handheld would be very powerful, and the NX console would be relatively weak. That way they play the exact same games, but NX handheld runs them at 540p and the NX console at 1080p. They scenario is very similar to a hybrid. In a hybrid, you'd have a very strong handheld that would somehow be able to stream the games to the TV potentially through an SCD allowing for a higher resolutions.


I think the console will do more than just play handheld games at a higher resolution. There will be some gimmick that can't be done on the handheld, and I would hope the graphics would be better than simply an up res. In that scenario there could still be a shared library, but it would not be 1:1.

 

[ozfunghi]

yeah, but by doing this, you have gotten rid of one of the main differentiators of the console, and have introduced a very viable alternative. You have made the handheld more enticing, but also made the console less enticing.

I imagine there is a very significant overlap between Wii U owners and 3DS owners. Now NX handheld owners have less of a reason to buy an NX console. It doesn't give them anything special besides better IQ and ability to play on a TV. Again, I'm sure there will be a lot of people who would own both, but I doubt that amount would surpass Wii U sales.

Then you have the people who never bought a 3DS or a Wii U. They are either trying to decide between PS4/XB1/NX handheld/NX console. My guess NX console would be their last choice. If they want power, they go with PS4. If they want a Nintendo library with third parties, they go with NX handheld..

In the contrary. The homeconsole becomes a lot more enticing, because it will get a lot more 3rd party support which was previously excluded to the handheld (plethora of RPG's, even FIFA was released on 3DS after it was canned on WiiU etc), but also because the combination of releasing games for two devices is suddenly much more appealing to devs that never released games on WiiU/3DS at all. It also makes the combo much more interesting for owners of both handheld and home console due to the shared library.

Obviously some games will still be more suited to play on the go, some will be more suited to play at home. But now you can chose. And If Nintendo has to make only one Mario Kart instead of two, that means that dev team has now time to make en entirely new different game... which will also release on both handheld and home console.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

If Nintendo was using a modern Tegra or even AMD chip that's less powerful than the PS4/Xbox One, would it be one of those situations like the Wii U and PSP (compared to PS2) where even if it was lacking in raw power, more modern hardware feature sets and APIs will cause the graphics in some ways to actually look better than the Xbox One and PS4?

 

[KingSnake]

I don't see this happening if NX is rumored to be using AMD it does not make sense for the handheld which is presumably to be used in conjunction to be based on Nvidia.

How is NX rumored to be using AMD? By whom?

You said "but," but how is your second paragraph mutually exclusive from your first? Both make perfect sense to me and it seems they could co-exist as concepts. (Maybe I misunderstood the particular use of the word "but" here, though.)

Maybe I used it wrongly, I was just thinking that in the first paragraph I was going forward with the theory that the Nintendo console might die and still be fine and in the second I was just stating my opinion that it won't actually die.

 

[Eolz]

In the contrary. The homeconsole becomes a lot more enticing, because it will get a lot more 3rd party support which was previously excluded to the handheld (plethora of RPG's, even FIFA was released on 3DS after it was canned on WiiU etc), but also because the combination of releasing games for two devices is suddenly much more appealing to devs that never released games on WiiU/3DS at all. It also makes the combo much more interesting for owners of both handheld and home console due to the shared library.

Obviously some games will still be more suited to play on the go, some will be more suited to play at home. But now you can chose. And If Nintendo has to make only one Mario Kart instead of two, that means that dev team has now time to make en entirely new different game... which will also release on both handheld and home console.

Yep.
I can easily see SMTV or MonHun being on both platforms for example this time.

 

[ozfunghi]

Yep.
I can easily see SMTV or MonHun being on both platforms for example this time.

Right! And i'd also still prefer to play games on a 50" screen instead of a 5" screen.

 

[Easy_D]

Yep.
I can easily see SMTV or MonHun being on both platforms for example this time.

Yep and then they can release souped up versions exclusive to the console later on for extra moneys.

 

[jroc74]

Until the battery runs out. The Shield is exceptionally bad that way, a handheld Nintendo device likely has a smaller design and smaller battery. Tegra is a great chip but if you actually use it for games you run out of juice within an hour and a half. That's not what I want from a handheld device.

I think this is one of the reasons why Tegra and phones didnt get along. Either that or something about the phone parts not getting along.

Nintendo better research battery life or do something to counter it if battery life really is an issue.

 

[Eolz]

Yep and then they can release souped up versions exclusive to the console later on for extra moneys.

Or even the reverse if it's for japan

 

[ozfunghi]

Yep and then they can release souped up versions exclusive to the console later on for extra moneys.

Which would defeat the purpose because the best thing about the shared library is that they only have to develop one version, and most people will already own that version. Buying the souped up version would also be exclusive to the home console and you wouldn't be able to take it along with you on the handheld. Meaning they would put more resources into the better looking games, and get less revenue from it.

 

[wachie]

If this is true, it gives a new meaning to "Nvidia salty" meme.

I personally always thought they were genuinely salty.

 

[MuchoMalo]

Has anyone corroborated this yet? And, what is the general consensus in the thread, how are people feeling about this? Oh, and, what does this mean in layman's terms for what we should expect from the system? Thank you.

I personally don't trust the source, but if this is true it blows Vita completely out of the water, and even may beat Wii U.

 

[ozfunghi]

I personally don't trust the source, but if this is true it blows Vita completely out of the water, and even may beat Wii U.

In that case it would very likely beat the WiiU for all intended purposes, because it would also be pushing a lower resolution, very likely. Even if it gets downclocked or trimmed.

 

[DCharlie]

The Shield is exceptionally bad that way

huh? the Shield or the Shield Tablet?

 

[Culex]

This would be a huge disappointment, if the NX is mobile, as PowerVR is better in nearly every way.

 

[LeleSocho]

Until the battery runs out. The Shield is exceptionally bad that way, a handheld Nintendo device likely has a smaller design and smaller battery. Tegra is a great chip but if you actually use it for games you run out of juice within an hour and a half. That's not what I want from a handheld device.

What you said means nothing, on parity with power envelope TX1 is still miles and miles ahead of the SoC in the Vita.

This would be a huge disappointment, if the NX is mobile, as PowerVR is better in nearly every way.

wha?

 

[krizzx]

YES! I was waiting for Nintendo to do this. It just never sat well with me that all of the companies getting the their hardware from the same company, especially when said company was outright favoring one over the others. Its about time Nintendo dumped AMD with the way they were pandering and promoting its competitors hardware.

Things are looking far better than they used to to.

Then add to the fact, as least a far as I am concerned, that Nvidia offers the better performance vs energy draw which has always been important for Nintendo. If they managed to acquire a good Nvidia deal, this is the best new possible for their next systems.

Though, I see so much mention of the NX handhelad and console as different things. Did everyone forget the patent of a machine that would enhance the performance of a another when put in to close proximity, or the constant mentions of the next system as a hybrid device, something that doesn't fit the normal console-handheld scheme? I am of belief that there will be no NX console, but one devise that will be able to have it performance increased near the right supplementary device, if that is possible as I still have trouble wrapping my head around that one. No console, per se, at all.