JustBeingReal said:
Your entire thread is about the A9X and it being what Nintendo will use in NX, it's the topic you keep bringing up all of the time, either when you make a new thread or when you comment about NX, so actually that is what you've been saying all of the time. FYI Carrizo basically offers a CPU with very close levels of performance to PS4 and XB1, also most curret gen 3rd party games are 1080p, with the levels of effects we've been seeing. In some cases XB1 is achieving 1080p with a 1.31TFlop GPU and pretty lacking memory system, an 819GFlop GPU, with a more modern feature set, more efficient, modern architecture would easily allow for that level of games at 900p. Nintendo can have a SOC with a far superior CPU to both competing platforms, along with a GPU with less compromises than XB1's for a lower level of power consumption, basically we're talking about at least 50% less power consumption, for similar levels of performance compared to PS4 and XB1, very attractive IMO for Nintendo and they could easily have a box that's a little over half the size of PS4. It's a pointless comparison, an A9X style chip isn't what Nintendo will use, you can maintain whetever you like, doesn't make it true. The visuals produced by that Apple chip isn't anywhere near to achieving Wii U levels of performance in it's power range and it's certainly not comparable to Carrizo, even if it was scaled up. It's most definitely not achieving XB1 levels of performance in a 35 watt package, Carrizo seems more efficient. Nintendo didn't really try, they didn't produce the kind of games to appeal to a western audience, didn't have titles with the same level of diversity as Sony did or even does now. Sony had presence in Japan, with their overall tech image, they came out with games that no one had seen before and they targeted a portion of the market that had a whole in it, with a lack of content in that area. Hell Gamecube missed the mark when it comes to lacking DVD and Nintendo refused to make that standard on their platform, like I said they didn't really compete, they just let Sony provide for the masses and focused on their niche and over time that niche has shrunken. They got lucky with the Wii and managed to expand through a gimmick, but it was a one trick pony for most of the 70M+ plus people that would never have bought into a games console if it hadn't had such a feature that was unique to it, at such a cheap price.
It's a unified platform because the whole thing has been designed to be that. So what if the handheld sells more copies? The API and architecture make it so that you're building your games for the whole and the whole idea is that you're giving the platform userbase freedom to take their games anywhere across either system, you think developers making Apps for Apple products or Android cares that one platform has more than the other? No they just make the code accessible to all, then they gain whatever sales are available across all platforms. The handheld can still handle the same basic level of experience the home console can and there aren't any roadblocks making it hard to put games on both, it's easy. The whole point here is that the hardware is just a vessel to accomodate the games, if more people choose the weaker system because cost is substantially cheaper it's not prohibiting the console from having a better experience for those people that want to have that. The handheld would have plenty of grunt to achieve current gen level gameplay and graphics, just at 480p, with a few reductions in effects, but it's still the same core game. As for cost, I did say it could be $300 for the console, tbh this level of tech would be more mature and less expensive next year, so it could even be less expensive than that for the home console and if the core processing tech is cheaper in the console, then the handheld would be cheaper to make, since it's a piece of silicon that has the same tech, but with reduced quantities of that. If the SOC in NX console costs $100, then the one in the handheld would be less than $20. $200 for the handheld and $300 for the console, with a package of both at $450 seems about right IMO.
You have to remember that Sony isn't reducing the price of PS4 because they don't really have to in order to keep getting huge sales, Nintendo on the other hand are trying to appeal more to the market which they've lost, costs need to be appealing and the level of hardware involved in this hypothetical NX wouldn't have a cost beyond that. |
I don't think a $20 processor gets you PS4/XB1 graphics, not even scaled down at 480p resolution. RAM would have to be $30 at least probably more. Unless Nintendo is using a shit screen again that's $50 at least for your touch panel. Sensors/NFC/WiFi is another cost. NAND Flash. And you're going to need a huge battery to power the thing too.
I have doubts they can sell that at $200 without taking a loss. Like I said the mentality here is too much of "well just design the console first and then we'll slap together whatever for the handheld". For a unified platform, particularily where the handheld is more likely to be 4:1 the best seller, you can't have that approach.
I think they have to build the portable chip first, then it's easy to scale that up, but that's not workable IMO using desktop PC components or even laptop components that have the benefit of being cooled internally by a huge casing and a fan.
I don't see Nintendo magically eating $50 of the hardware cost if you buy both either. What's in it for them to take $50 less on the hardware (that likely is already being sold at margin/loss) just because you want to buy both?
