Thesuffering79
Banned
Yea, sure.. better RT than PS5 and XsX/S but only if we ignore the laws of physics.
They are talking about cost-effective RT. ST on NVidia graphics cards comes for cheaper by IIRC 30%. SMH.
Yea, sure.. better RT than PS5 and XsX/S but only if we ignore the laws of physics.
They are talking about cost-effective RT. ST on NVidia graphics cards comes for cheaper by IIRC 30%. SMH.
Its still gonna be a decent upgrade over the og Switch, but not really able to handle this gen big console games its just a Pro revision after all. 'Hardcore' gamers are always talking about how Nintendo lags behind the competition because they don't like their hardware but the reality is they have been doing everything right with the Switch, hardware, design,marketing,price, software its an incredibly successful product if the market thought it was too weak or lame they wouldn't be buying it in 2021.Normally i would agree that raw horsepower is not the Nintendo way...but smartphones and tablets keep getting more and more powerful and don't take 5 years between iterations. If i was Nintendo in such a complex marketplace and on the back of massive Switch revenues i would differentiate myself with innovative tech that smartphones just wont use and invest in R&D on a bespoke chipset with my silicon partner to ensure that power wise my hardware is relevant to the conversation of what else is out there....
I sincerely doubt we will get ps4pro level performance unless this is a complete hardware revision. Base XB1 is more realistic even though I think DLSS magic rather than raw horsepower will achieve it.
Have people forgotten that switching to a new arch doesn't necessarily tell you anything about power. Would probably be a nice uptick at 5nm, what level of performance could realistically be expected at the 10-15w range?
That would probably be enough. I'm just wondering aloud if they would hit PS4 levels of native performance.Hopefully 50-100% more than they could with a chip designed in 2012 that isn't running at it's top clock speed.
Yeah, I'm keeping my expectations really low.Yeah, when I see certain Twitter users as a source, immediate head shaking starts.
4k, dlss, nintendo fans keep dreaming, with soc shortages, there is no way, nintendo is paying top dollar for these new chips, hardware revision, with small increse in performance using same soc, is what's gonna happen.
4k, dlss, nintendo fans keep dreaming, with soc shortages, there is no way, nintendo is paying top dollar for these new chips, hardware revision, with small increse in performance using same soc, is what's gonna happen.
That would probably be enough. I'm just wondering aloud if they would hit PS4 levels of native performance.
I remember the rumors of the Switch being more powerful than PS4 and Xbox OneIn reality Nintendo hardware like always will be much worse of what rumors say.
Yup it’s Nintendo .. even Game boy was underpowered ..I remember the rumors of the Switch being more powerful than PS4 and Xbox One
I'm still of the opinion that we'll see the Xavier NX in the new version.Yup it’s Nintendo .. even Game boy was underpowered ..
They go for proven hardware for their systems .. we will get Tergra 2
Yup it’s Nintendo .. even Game boy was underpowered ..
They go for proven hardware for their systems .. we will get Tergra 2
I think it is possible, they have even additional machine learning accelerator cores on top of the Tensor Cores, but I bet Nintendo will just shut them off in firmware to save power like they did for the big.LITTLE feature in the current Tegra.I'm still of the opinion that we'll see the Xavier NX in the new version.
It ticks most of the boxes.
- Relatively old tech that's being superseded and phased out in modern hardware
- Available in quantity, sold as a separate board and as a devkit/enthusiast kit since early last year
- Makes for a measurable upgrade over the current Switch hardware
- Does have Tensor cores for 'deep learning acceleration applications'
- Same board footprint as the Tegra X1, same low TDP
Jaguar cores actually had excellent perf/watt, one of the best back then, even rivaling Intel's mobile chips, close to Atoms, who actually beat many of that time ARMs at it.A modern ARM core will certainly be more performant than a Jaguar Core clock for clock, which was a poor performer even when it was current market technology.
Because they failed last time they will fail again? OK. Clearly the next thing they release will not be cutting edge, but there is no reason to think that a more powerful next gen Switch can not be successful. It is the only portable / dockable gaming platform out there and it plays Nintendo games. They can make a next gen version successful if they don't fuck it up.It's going to flop. No one buys a Switch for cutting-edge graphics. Nintendo doesn't do well following up on a popular product since the SNES. They need to just do a minor spec refresh and release something different next time.
Nope. It means Orin would be using Lovelace. It's up to Nintendo what SoC they use....What does this mean? Switch will be using a custom Orin with a GPU based on Lovelace?
And why would he post under a Switch Pro rumor then?Nope. It means Orin would be using Lovelace. It's up to Nintendo what SoC they use.
you don't know shit about DLSS then.I wouldn't raising hopes about Nintendo hardware. Even with DLSS.
I don't think it was possible to create a handheld console in 2012 as powerful as the Switch. If it were, the Vita would have had that level of power.But the OG Switch is using an ARM Design from 2012, and not even at it's full clock speed.
It doesn't have to be Apple's latest core to be a significant improvement in both performance and power consumption.
Those rumors only existed because "LOL nVidia > AMD"I remember the rumors of the Switch being more powerful than PS4 and Xbox One
Because it's interesting to speculate that Nintendo will be using the latest version of Orin. It doesn't mean he has any insider information about this.And why would he post under a Switch Pro rumor then?
Interesting, , but 1080p on a handheld is a waste when 720p is the limit, but this DLSS for Pro and next gen Switch would solve the iq issue once and for all, no need to render that many pixels natively even 540p would look very good,720p great if upscaled.you don't know shit about DLSS then.
DLSS is what Switch needs. it's a perfect fit. a game like Witcher 3 which runs at 540p undocked today would be able to run at 1080p in handheld mode on a Switch Pro which would put it at a similar level of performance as the PS4 version. in docked mode it could go up to 1440p. now remember that Witcher 3 is one of the worst performing games on Switch.
Breath of the Wild could run at 1440p in handheld and 1800p docked. Of course it would make no sense to run BOTW at 1440p in handheld because the screen will still only be 720p. imagine what Nintendo could do if they made BOTW2 run at 540p and upscaled to 720p. instead of rendering those 180 vertical pixels they could use that power in other areas of the game. DLSS does have an overhead but it's not much. it's basically free performance. to run it at "4K" they'd only need to render at 1080p. they can do 900p with BOTW1 so it's really not gonna take them much to hit "4K".
if you think DLSS sucks imagine how hard it would be for nintendo to cram in the hardware to push games at native 4K. it ain't happening.
Jaguar cores actually had excellent perf/watt, one of the best back then, even rivaling Intel's mobile chips, close to Atoms, who actually beat many of that time ARMs at it.
"modern ARM core" is too vague a statement. We have tiny-whinnies and then we have M1, which is bigger than Renoir Zen3 core.
Eh that isnt how it works, that kind of scenario was purely because of Iwata because when Yamauchi(NES-GC) was president the tech was standard. Maybe the new guy brings higher-end tech. He stated as much in the past.General rule I've found for Nintendo is what ever the average rumoured specs are, regress it about 7.23 years in core hardware and factor in one component that might have only been around in the last 2 years.
One has to hope, but in the end as Switch is showing... Nintendo can make a good amount of successful games, Indies seem to find it a fertile ground, and with some efforts the biggest of the big third party games find a home there.Eh that isnt how it works, that kind of scenario was purely because of Iwata because when Yamauchi(NES-GC) was president the tech was standard. Maybe the new guy brings higher-end tech. He stated as much in the past.
One has to hope, but in the end as Switch is showing... Nintendo can make a good amount of successful games, Indies seem to find it a fertile ground, and with some efforts the biggest of the big third party games find a home there.
I would want a modern feature set and the possibility to enjoy more performance modes (maybe RT) when docked on the Switch Pro.
What are you talking about? I'm among very first who tried DLSS and beilived in it. Follower you may call.you don't know shit about DLSS then.
DLSS is what Switch needs. it's a perfect fit. a game like Witcher 3 which runs at 540p undocked today would be able to run at 1080p in handheld mode on a Switch Pro which would put it at a similar level of performance as the PS4 version. in docked mode it could go up to 1440p. now remember that Witcher 3 is one of the worst performing games on Switch.
Breath of the Wild could run at 1440p in handheld and 1800p docked. Of course it would make no sense to run BOTW at 1440p in handheld because the screen will still only be 720p. imagine what Nintendo could do if they made BOTW2 run at 540p and upscaled to 720p. instead of rendering those 180 vertical pixels they could use that power in other areas of the game. DLSS does have an overhead but it's not much. it's basically free performance. to run it at "4K" they'd only need to render at 1080p. they can do 900p with BOTW1 so it's really not gonna take them much to hit "4K".
if you think DLSS sucks imagine how hard it would be for nintendo to cram in the hardware to push games at native 4K. it ain't happening.
What are you talking about? I'm among very first who tried DLSS and beilived in it. Follower you may call.
I mean it's Nintendo - so hardware can be worse than everybody thought.
The situation and market realities of a Switch premium revision in 2021 are different from a Nintendo launching the Wii or DS in the mid-00s.General rule I've found for Nintendo is what ever the average rumoured specs are, regress it about 7.23 years in core hardware and factor in one component that might have only been around in the last 2 years.
What are you talking about? I'm among very first who tried DLSS and beilived in it. Follower you may call.
I mean it's Nintendo - so hardware can be worse than everybody thought.
This is true however when Nintendo does pay up for their "gimmicks" everything else seems to suffer. There is always some type of drawback but with the success of the Switch I would hope that they splurge a bit more on the next product overall.There's a few grains of truth in that statement. There is a wildcard or two in play, though, which is that Nintendo seems to pony up top dollar on a gimmick or two. The Switch has HD rumble, which is just an expensive rumble feature that is kind of cool. The Wii U was built around an expensive gamepad with a touch screen. These are not cheap gimmicks, mind you. A significant chunk of the console cost goes to these gimmicks. I consider $25 for HD rumble to be a premium price. I also believe that Nintendo had always chosen a gimmick or two in each of its consoles. SNES's big gimmick was mode 7. N64's gimmick was 3D with controls to match. GameCube's gimmick was expensive 1T-SRAM, which they managed to do a lot with even if it hamstrung third party developers.
Switch has a few tricks, indeed, but DLSS seems like a perfect match for a company working in a certain niche form factor that requires punching above their weight while not matching home console competitor prices.
That, and at this point there's so much smoke that there's bound to be a fire. These fires don't always make it to market, though. There was a much more powerful Wii on the drawing board that would have more closely matched the competition, but given their position and the gamble they were taking Nintendo wisely hedged their costs by going with the less expensive Wii.
This is true however when Nintendo does pay up for their "gimmicks" everything else seems to suffer. There is always some type of drawback but with the success of the Switch I would hope that they splurge a bit more on the next product overall.