What are you looking at? I keep finding just vague buzzword reads that say nothing on specs. Same things they said about the One. Lol
Thinking it will be a flop just like the pro but who knows
This may be true based on the console itself... could be like printers where the actual device gives very little/no profit but cartridges/toner, games in this case, earns the real money. Exclusive titles give people incentive to buy the console and then keep buying games.
1 Like
No.
The consoles sony and microsoft are designing and selling are meant for gaming at home. Power consumption is a "don´t care" and heat is a "look at the shelfs" thing (pc tower coolers anyone?).
Nintendos toy tablet on the other hand needs to keep power consumption and heat output in check. As both lead to higher prices anyway, and Nintendo is not known to make "future headed" moves, they went and locked themselfs in with Nvidia.
Developers who develop for consoles know AMD hardware as they have been working with it for years. It is the same on Sony and Microsoft (more or less).
Why Nintendo needs to be the kid that needs special attention, no clue. (Skyrim for 60 bucks anyone?)
1 Like
Ya my understanding is that consoles are sold almost at cost,and games/access to multiplayer are indeed the money makers
Just don't know how much amd is selling/making from their contributions, as one reason that amd is all over that market.
The switch will be an interesting Nintendo product, but it is not new and is based on a failed idea (I have the og shield and love it) but green team has moved on from that idea more or less
You know the Uncharted and the last of United States? Yeah, this is where the planetary division makes it's profits. As well with Kullzone and horizons zero dawn... PSN taxes etc.. 12$ per console and then 5$ every month for Internet and then 60$ for internally developed game... Oh, they're making money off of your other purchases.
You know the psvr? T
You need move controllers with it... 90$ a pair... Enjoy...
Well, i find the core of this post, about Nintendo's decision to go with Nvidia as being an omen for AMD's demise is just daft. So i'm obviously not gonna praise you for it.
Nvidia scoring a contract with Nintendo for their handheld console isn't exactly groundbreaking, and it's not really something to be worried, or super excited about.
1 Like
Microsoft are supposedly looking at something in the 6-7 TFlops range for under 500 bucks. 8 cores, 12Gb of RAM and a top of the line GPU in a complete system for less than 500?
Nintendo and Nvidia might be the ones in trouble.
well with the 480 being 5 it will be interesting to see if this is true or not
The rest is meh. We will see if it is good or not, ps4 pro is weak and iirc the One was a next gen console as well........
Just hope the switch has more good games than the wiiU
Seems like this is leading up to a rehash of "more slower cores" vs "fewer faster cores" (at least if AMD prices it "correctly"). The biggest difference that I can see is that GPU work is already pretty parallelizable, and DX12/Vulkan should make it easier for multi-GPU systems to fully exploit their computational power.
This.
And, its not like AMD was even trying to compete in mobile-console-esq gaming stuff like this. Nvidia was pushing this with the Shield Tablet and Shield Controller(thing). It only makes sense Nintendo would go Nvidia for a device like this. They've already made similar products, and have chips already made that are custom designed to go into devices in this form factor. AMD doesn't have an equivalent to the Tegra line, the only competition to the Tegra line are Qualcomm offerings, which are not really on the same graphics output level.
1 Like
Put me in the "no" category.
ARM CPU's still have the best watt to performance ratio out there, and it really only makes sense from a Nintendo POV to go with this architecture for a higher-end handheld system with the ability to dock to a power base for higher clockrates and such.
Nintendo has been using a PowerPC/ AMD (or Ati back then) combination in their home consoles since the Nintendo GameCube was released in 2001 (same generation as the OG Xbox and PS2). The Wii uses basically the exact same architecture as the GameCube, but the PowerPC core and the ATi GPU were upclocked to 1.5X speed and the system was given twice as much RAM (88MB). The Wii-U's CPU is also based on the same PowerPC 750 that is found in the Wii and Gamecube. But it is set up in a triple core configuration running at 1.4Ghz and has a larger L2 cache. Nintendo also ditched the GPU from the GameCube/ Wii and replaced it with a Radeon 5XXX of some kind. They also upped the memory to 2GB.
They have more or less been hanging on to the same hardware for over 15 years and just can't use it any longer. Engines like UE4 don't even support PPC.
Nintendo really wants to try and merge their handheld and home console market this generation. AMD doesn't offer anything comparable to Tegra in power efficiency, and I doubt Intel has anything that could fit this build. The Tegra all in one solution was really their best fit.
Nintendo has also been working with ARM since the Game Boy Advance, which was released in 2001. The GBA, Nintendo DS, and Nintendo 3DS all use ARM CPU's, which would give Nintendo's own programmers a huge advantage as they do have a lot of experience with the architecture. ARM also support engine like UE4.
As others have mentioned I think the decision is all about ARM. From what I gather Nintendo is basically making a gaming tablet and I don't know of any AMD ARM chips?
The future of gaming surely lies on the cutting edge? Nintendo have been doing their own thing for a while now so I hardly think this is a huge loss for AMD.
But the strange thing is AMD doesn't put their branding on their console game counterpart like you would see this on every PC game that's optimized for their gpu.
You ask any console exclusive players out there and they wouldn't probably know who AMD is because of this. Then again, the PS3 did have a Nvida GPU and Nvidia's "The Way It's Meant to Be Played" isn't slapped on to every game, thank god.
Nintendo choose Nvidia for the same reason Microsoft and Sony choose AMD.
Because they had what was needed.
1 Like
FTFY ;)
But you get a free game if you pay...
1 Like
Repeat those words, very slowly.
2 Likes
Well duh...
If you subscribe to Geforce elite subscription you get a free game. But you need to pay subscription fee. To get a free game. After you pay a subscription fee.
It's like the humble bundle monthly subscription. It's just they don't tell you "free game for 12$"...
I think Nintendo's plan for a paid online subscription is a strange one when Nintendo's two strengths seems to be it's back catalogue of games and mobile gaming. When the system is undocked Nintendo reduced performance to save power but you have to power the modem for gaming on the move.
Who are Nintendo using to carry the data? might be a cheap way to get a good deal on a sim. Hacked switch and tethered phone?
During the original PS4 and Xbone days there was actually a bidding war between Nvidia and AMD to get into the consoles. I believe AMD ended up selling to Sony and M$ near cost, something Nvidia wasn't seemingly willing to do. I don't think AMD had a bid in the race this time, they've not shown anything similar to the Tegra series really.