| dongo8 said: Regarding all this real quick - there is a new article with Nintendo News (and they have only been reporting on things AFTER sourcing to make sure pretty legit) that the NX IS going to use the Tegra X2 (Codenamed Parker) and if that is true, it is more powerful than the Xbox One and the PS4
Edit, sourcing: http://segmentnext.com/2016/08/17/report-nintendo-nx-is-using-tegra-x2-chip-more-powerful-than-x1/ https://mynintendonews.com/2016/08/17/rumour-nintendo-nx-to-use-tegra-x2-chip/ |
More powerful than the Xbox One and Playstation 4? Hows about No.
| archbrix said: I don't think the Scorpio and Neo power levels are that important because software still has to run on the vanilla versions of their respective counterparts. That is, as long as that vision stays true; we'll see how long Sony and Microsoft stick to those plans if their new systems take off, but that would tick off a lot of people if Scorpio/Neo start receiving exclusive games too soon. |
They are important.
There isn't a dramatic feature difference between the Xbox One and Scorpio and Playstation 4 and Neo, not from a graphics standpoint anyway, so things should be able to scale pretty easily.
But the main difference is how many effects can be run at once and how they can also all be dialed up to 11.
| Soundwave said: I had plenty of fun with my XBox and PS3, if there were design flaws with those machines it was Sony and MS' fault, Nvidia just gave them what they were contracted to give. I'm pretty sure Nintendo did vet Samsung, Qualcomm, and ARM (though Nvidia's Tegra SOC already uses ARM) ... Nvidia looks like they gave Nintendo the best overall package. It's quite possible for GAMING purposes Nvidia provided the best performance as Nvidia also has know how in dedicated graphics GPUs strictly for gaming, whereas Qualcomm doesn't really. And sure Nintendo's technology head having a pre-existing relationship with Nvidia probably didn't hurt negotiations, he likely knows a lot of people over there and if he vouched for Nvidia, it could have pushed their bid to the top of the pile. |
nVidia also priced their GPU higher which likely contributed to the Playstation 3's higher prince on and after launch.
Converesly... Where-as AMD was more than happy to work with IBM to integrate it's GPU technology in combination with IBM's processor technology to create a single chip... nVidia never allowed for Sony to do the same, so the Playstation 3 was always a dual-chip console, that adds to heat and costs.
Now it could be argued that because Tegra is a flop and has hardly any design wins, they might be willing to throw away some margins, but I highly doubt it.
| Soundwave said: Why do people even think Nvidia is some bad way to go? They have probably the best graphics engineers in the business (helps not being broke like AMD is, so you can pay your staff). Nvidia is a good partner for Nintendo, their experience with the Tegra line will be invaluable and their Pascal tech is fantastic and ready to roll. Also Nintendo's technology head was former director of engineering at Nvidia. |
Because of Price/Performance, at every performance level, AMD is cheaper. You get more performance for every dollar you spend with AMD.
Consoles are cost-sensitive devices, every dollar counts.
Tegra is a horrible chip for AAA gaming.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
