magnumpy
Member
that's exactly what nvidias business model has always been. they develop the technology, and AIB partners develop and sell the cards: MSI, ASUS, EVGA, ZOTAC, PALIT, and now Nintendo apparently
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Emily Rogers: NX Not Using x86 Architecture - Won't Blow Away Current Gen Consoles
- Thread starter dancrane212
- Start date
- Status
that's exactly what nvidias business model has always been. they develop the technology, and AIB partners develop and sell the cards: MSI, ASUS, EVGA, ZOTAC, PALIT, and now Nintendo apparently
Nvidia getting Nintendo on board with their GPU's helps their business, and it'd allow them to get more people on their Shield stuff, which is something Nvidia also wants. Whether or not Nintendo wants it probably isn't up to them if Nvidia deems it necessary to push.
Schnozberry
Member
Denver would be the darkest timeline for an Nvidia design. The performance advantage never really materialized for general purpose code. In order to get the most from it you have to have code that resembles a non branching loop that can be broken down into micro ops to take advantage of the code morphing capabilities of the chip.
You could probably design threads to run on it if you built games for it from the ground up, but it really wouldn't help at all in facilitating Nintendo's need to get ports from the Xbox One and PS4.
In a handheld, because it determines battery life and thermal output (and size/weight, given that a larger power draw will require a larger battery/more cooling).
In a home console the same is somewhat true but not quite as important. Especially for Japan, Nintendo typically likes their home consoles to be small/quiet/low power consumption. Battery life is not really an issue, nor is portability, but I doubt the Wii would have been so successful if it was the size of an Xbox One.
Thanks for explaining
Ok so that means that power consumption is the last most important thing for home consoles.I'm not sure if this is still a thing in Japan, also they need to get the west market too.
Theanine3D
Member
I just hope regardless of what the GPU ends up being, the controller itself is much more energy-efficient than Wii U's was...
Wii U was a complete contradiction in its design - they intentionally weakened the console to keep power consumption low, yet then made a controller for it that used so much power it even required its own AC cord. It's absurd. They shouldn't repeat that mistake again.
Wii U was a complete contradiction in its design - they intentionally weakened the console to keep power consumption low, yet then made a controller for it that used so much power it even required its own AC cord. It's absurd. They shouldn't repeat that mistake again.
Agreed.
I think Denver natively executes code in order; PS4 and XBox One changed to out of order processors and Nintendo has been using out of order CPUs for many years already.
No way developers would be happy having to write code for Denver's ISA.
What is Nintendo doing?
Plus it helps Nvidia sell its branding on android if the emulator idea is still part of the plan.
iPaul93
Member
cireza
Member
I... never said this.
Spyder_Monkey
Banned
If it means paying $250 to play Zelda and not $399 I'm all for it.
I wouldn't call a console within the PS4-XB1 ballpark as weak. Granted, it won't tangle with the PS4K, but it doesn't really have to. The PS4K is still bound to the limitations of the PS4 (due to Sony's rules about PS4K support). So as long as the PS4 & XB1 receive a game, the NX Console will follow suit.
Would you pay $399 for a Nintendo console?
Cid Highwind
Banned
I am what you would call somewhat behind on all this. Who is Emily Rogers and "Trev" and should anything either of them say be taken with anything more than a spoon of imaginary salt?
We don't know if it's true, but if:
If it could output ps4 gfx, wouldn't that be ok?
You know ps4k would almost not been used for that extra power (outside psVR maybe).
Also even with xboxone, we alsmost doesn't notice the differents when comparing both games.
Nintendo is best in creating amazing gfx on lower power consoles
Lets wait on the first screens before judging
Sylverstone14
Member
We still had some amazing experiences on Wii U despite the perceivable lack of power.
At this point, the power struggle is only a matter rooted in third-party relations and their middleware.
Also, just to remind you, these are all still rumors.
ecosse_011172
Junior Member
You really don't know this....
Sure, it's speculation. But you can see enough that's going on to know where certain things are gonna lay. When you combine Nintendo's attitude about power consumption, durability/reliability, and shared architectures with games being playable on the go or at home, you really narrow down the possibilities of what they're going to do.
nx console might strangely get a fairly decent exclusive library out of japan considering the rumors surrounding ps4k's support of both resolution types and microsoft's ridiculous stance on parity and minimum order quantities.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Autovectorization largely depends on the compiler, the formal vectorization guarantees you can provide in your code, and the phase of the moon - even different minor versions of the same compiler can perform differently on the same or effectively-same code. But you're generally right that even when some code seems prone to intrinsics, there are alternative techniques like autovectorization and generic vectors (both of which are architecture-agnostic), that can achieve the same effect. Just not always - some code is still best written in intrinsics. For instance, I use all such techniques, including inline assembly, in the dense matrix multiplication microbenchmark, because of the bunch of compilers and (u)architectures I've targeted with that test. Without having looked at the innards of a commercial game engine for the past few years, I'd expect they still do the same, just because they have to use the same compilers as everybody else.
Lets take the witcher 3 as example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tdG7xC4SLc
It's pc vs ps4 vs xbox one. I don't notice the different's.
Even on pc it should be much better because pc is still better as ps4k.
But still I don't see any differents.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tdG7xC4SLc
It's pc vs ps4 vs xbox one. I don't notice the different's.
Even on pc it should be much better because pc is still better as ps4k.
But still I don't see any differents.
Kikorin
Member
I've recently had the chance to play Smash Bros in 8 players and I thought Nintendo really don't need all that power to make masterpiece. Also Pikmin 3, Mario Kart 8, Mario 3D World, ecc... lot of games looks stunning to me on Wii U. If they are going with a powerful machine (about the level between X1 and PS4) will be only to try to take third party back, that it's fine and would be cool, but I hope they find the right formula to have a nice price and the right power.
fabricated backlash
Member
Even on my pc which isn't high end by any means, the difference is huge. The frame rate alone is day and night, let alone stuff like Shadow Draw distance and texture Resolution.
Thats because you are using a youtube video to compare. Witcher 3 looks wwwaaaaay better on a high end PC and that will be maily due to the higher framerate and resolution. keep in mind the console versions have much shorter draw distances and cities have less npc's in them than they do on the lowest settings on pc.
X1: http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/7/5/6/6/2/1/XO_000.bmp.jpg/EG11/quality/90/format/jpg
PC: http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/7/5/6/6/2/1/PC_000.bmp.jpg/EG11/quality/90/format/jpg
But it does beg the question: how will Nintendo convince people to buy their successor machines if not for prettier graphics? We saw the Wii effect where a large part of the audience wasn't enticed by a prettier version of Wii Fit or Nintendogs. I'm sure it's a question Nintendo asks which is why they keep looking for unique selling propositions.
PdotMichael
Banned
Nintendo doesn't have a history of better Japanese third party support on consoles.
Outside of Monster Hunter all relevant IPs and franchises are already announced for the Playstation 4 already, the NX can reach parity at best.
Bots are better than you
Banned
Imo, this parity would be a great improvement for Nintendo, and at least a satisfying situation for the japanese 3rds, simply for having another viable option for games distribution between them and the growing mobile trend.
Let's be honest, being exclusive to a platform, without the platform holder paying for a game being exclusive or funding development, isn't really that common anymore.
it really doesn't matter if the nx support is on both handheld and console side. they get the 3ds developers and the lower-tier vita developers who don't want to do mobile and can't support the crazy-if-true demands from sie for ps4 neo support. i'm mainly looking at japan here, where a lot of ps4 support comes with a vita game attached (hinting at the vita version being a base sku).
in the west that effectively means those kinds of games that might be vita/ps4 turn into vita/steam or vita/nx/steam, or some other variety or standalone version of those.
and microsoft support is right out. those guys are nuts with their moq and parity requirements.
I think a really important question about NX is how much work has to be done to put a single game onto (presumably) 2 NX devices, i.e. a console and a handheld?
I do think the PS4K demands (assuming they're true, and if it's on a different CPU) is a bit crazy.
Kikorin
Member
If they would share the library between handled and home console and make the games really easy to works on both for developers (like in the mobile field), probably the install base of the two consoles will be big enough to appeal third party developers too.
Also, would be possible to make deals like: buy the handheld version for 45 or pay 69 for both.
Also, would be possible to make deals like: buy the handheld version for 45 or pay 69 for both.
By having a constant flow of 1st party games without long droughts and without filling it with poor quality low budget spin-offs.
It's also going to mean no more doubling up on software lines, so you get more diversity.
No 2 Smashes, no 2 Mario Karts, no 2 NSMB games, no 2 Mario Tennis games, etc.
Game cost is a big question for me, though.
Mr. Pointy
Member
What's this about? Is there more than 1080p minimum, higher framerate and feature parity on the PS4K list?
People are talking like the PS4K is going to run a different CPU architecture than the one in PS4.
At least, that's my understanding.
Is it really noticeable?
I believe it could look better on pc, but it's also a smaller screen + it would have more framerates ofcourse.
But still, if you can't see it on youtube even in hd res, does it really matter that much?
I'm sure xbox owner enjoy the game as much as the ps4/pc owners does.
We are talking on small details that even after 5min playing, you wouldn't even notice the small details anymore.
If so, we even could just buy a pc and forgot about the console market.
You realize that you can hook up PC's to TV's nowadays, right? I do it myself.
And TV size has nothing to do with framerate. What's different about Witcher 3 is texture quality and draw distance. That does affect framerate, as does giving you the ability to put more NPC's on-screen.
What's the point of buying a Sony or MS console if you can hook your pc on TV?
If you are that much into gfx, you always go with the pc version instead because in your eyes the console versions aren't good (gfx wise)
Herb Alpert
Banned
these are these things called exclusives though.
Well than you buy the console to play exclusives and pc for all the multiplatform games.
I mean i never saw a lot of bad comments on xbox exclusives that the gfx were underpowered or that the visuals were bad because of the hardware...
Its throwing salt for nothing here.
The point of buying a console vs. buying a PC is somewhat lost on Sony/MS nowadays, unfortunately.
1 - Cost
2 - Simplicity, which...if you have to install the game and download a huge ass patch for on Day 1 (that you can't pre-load if you go retail), isn't all that simple.
Another point is that Sony/MS for the last 2 gens have been 'GRAPHICS GRAPHICS GRAPHICS' so they're literally pushing people to go to PC to get the best graphics because they're short-sighted into thinking their consumers won't notice.
Still we are talking about small details.
Why would you buy games on ps4 or xbox1 that are also available on pc?
Check the sales, many games of them are available on pc but still purchased on consoles.
Thats why people doesn't care to play games with missing a few details.
If someone care so much about GRAPHICS (even if the differences are almost not notible imo) would buy a PC for those 3th party games. Else you don't mind to have gfx that are between xbox one & ps4. What's even worse is that all those ps4 & xbox one owners will be screwed because sony already releasing a new system with better hardware, but that's another discussion. So yeah i didn't heard much noise within the launch year of xbox one that the console is (like some would say) by far underpowered compared to ps4.
nah, but doing the 1080p minimum thing is the hassle that might turn some devs off to ps4, especially if they're used to ps vita or 3ds, or if they were going to do 720p instead.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll