| Soundwave said: Getting a 2015 SoC in a 2016 (intended) Nintendo system is about as good as you're gonna get, mate. Not sure what exactly you thought was going to happen, you were never getting a 2017 chip in a 2017 Nintendo system, you should know better than that if you know anything about the industry. They'll probably use the X2 for the first round of Switch revisions in fiscal year 2018-19. |
Pascal isn't a 2017 chip. Volta is. Launching Q4 this year.
| Miyamotoo said: It seems you don't get it and you missing point, I talking about current 6.2" screen and current chip, not how would that look at 8" screen powered buy more efficient chip. |
If you think opting for a smaller, more power hungry, lower resolution screen is actually a good thing... Then I am not sure you could be convinced of anything with facts.
| Miyamotoo said: Again you are that dont get it, lower power screen doesn't mean that will Switch use so much less power that will be able to run at higher clocks needed for 1080p and that battery life will remain same. |
I am not saying just a lower power screen am I? I am also saying in conjunction with a higher performance, more energy efficient SoC... Like something based around Pascal.
Plus, you obviously haven't been paying attention to Notebooks, Tablets, Phones and other battery powered mobile devices with a screen. - What happens when you turn down the brightness? You can save a ton of batter power.
Screens are massive power hogs, more than you realise.
| Miyamotoo said: You don't know if that will be some amount of power, hardly that Amoled screen could cover GPU power needed going from 307MHz to 756MHz. Also Amoled screen has more higher price than IPS so that also could effect on final selling Switch price. |
Which is why I have stipulated in using a more modern SoC to go along with it.
| Miyamotoo said: Disagree, and actually we had infos that Nvidia 16nm yields are not good. |
Evidence?
| Miyamotoo said: Not to mention you would need to find production capacity and we already know that all 16nm productions capacity are very buked. |
There is plenty of capacity. And no. They don't have to only go with TSMC.
| Miyamotoo said: You do realise that demonstration and availability for market are not same things, you will see when this last Tegra chip will be used, we even got 1st Tegra X1 devices in 2015. despite "Tegra X2/Parker was being designed as far back as 2013", and we still dont have one single Tegra X2 product on market. |
I am well aware of the differences. The point I was trying to make there... And which has once again gone over your head... Is that these chips spend years in the planning and design, nVidia had a time frame for when Pascal Tegra would be ready. And that was in early 2016.
| Miyamotoo said: Also we got finals specs of Tegra X2 at end of Avgust 2016. not in 2013, 2014. or 2015. |
I suggest you read the links I provided within their intended context.
| Miyamotoo said: What you feel about cost is very subjectively, objectively Nintendo was aiming at more affordable price point off around $300 because and they chased best parts that will fit in that price point while they still making profit on evre sold Switch unit. |
Irrellevant. That doesn't place Nintendo above criticism.
Not only that, it's not $300 world wide.
| Miyamotoo said: Yes they could make bigger Switch, bigger resolution, Amoled or some bette screen, more RAM, maybe even somehow X2 chip...but fact is that those things would raise selling price of Switch and you can bet that Switch wouldn't be so popular and great sales if had price point that is $350 or higher. |
Or. They could simply sell the system at a loss, recoup that money with licenses and fees. Or pick better parts suppliers.
The price isn't my problem. Not sure how I could convey that any clearer.
| Miyamotoo said: Tegra X2 is 16nm not 20nm. |
Fabrication is not an argument you will ever win with me. You clearly haven't looked into 16nm/14nm processes properly.
If you think 16nm is actually a true 16nm process, then you have been well and truly fooled.
| Soundwave said: I think one of the things people are going to have to learn with Switch is it's not like any Nintendo hardware line before it. It is the first Nintendo system made to function in the world of smartphones and tablets, which is a very, very different world for Nintendo. |
I do agree with this.
| Spindel said: On Switch in handheld mode you won't notice any difference between 720P and higher resolutions while playing a game. You maybe would notice it when you pause the game and just look for a long time on a still image. |
I would notice. In-case you werent aware there are a few Nintendo games that do not use *any* kind of anti-aliasing technology. Aliasing can look extremely prevelent on Switch and Wii U titles at 720P. Higher Resolutions do mitigate that.
The fact is... The human eye can resolve more pixels than 720P at 6.2". That's a fact.
Plus... The Human eye can exceed 20/20 vision as well, so just because you won't notice a difference... Doesn't mean someone sitting next to you will not notice.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
