By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Lonely_Dolphin said:

But why does Nintendo want to go so cheap though?

Why not? There is a reason why Nintendo/Sony have multiple consoles at different price points.
Not everyone can afford higher priced electronics.

Lonely_Dolphin said:

Removing a desired feature may reduce price but it also reduces value, while removing an undesirable feature lowers cost without decreasing value much if at all, that's the difference.

Value is subjective, you cannot assume everyone has the same needs/wants/desires as yourself.
If a user is going to use the Switch permanantly like a fixed console... Then there is no value in having the Display, 3 batteries, Acceleromoter, Gyroscope, Display, Dock and all the other bits and pieces that makes it portable.

But they would find a device that forgo's all that at a much reduced price a more valued prospect.

Lonely_Dolphin said:

Course the 2DS made the mistake of also getting rid of the clamshell design, so despite being the cheapest model it sold worse than the regular, atleast iirc. Really don't see Nintendo repeating this mistake.

It still appealed to some consumers.
Nintendo did release a successor to the 2DS with a clamshell design.

Lonely_Dolphin said:

I didn't say they couldn't cut cost, only that they don't need to.

To be fair, Nintendo doesn't have to do anything.

trent44 said:

So will the future revisions of Nintendo Switch come with an X2, or X3, or a custom die shrunk of the X1, or whatever they end up revising the hardware with?

Entirely up to nVidia.
Even before the Switch released however... There was already a successor to the chip found in the Switch which is significantly more energy efficient and ISA compatible.
That is likely the chip revision Nintendo will go for.

But die-shrinks in general is entirely up to nVidia, considering Nintendo is using off the shelf components, the older 20nm fabrication process is going to be cheap.

trent44 said:

Going for a higher resolution, CPU/GPU clocks, etc. would increase cooling and battery costs, and would limit how much the price could drop.

Not exactly. It depends on a ton of other factors.
For example, you can take the Nintendo Switch's tegra chip... And with aggressive binning... Have chips that hit higher clock speeds with lower voltages, so you get more performance with less power consumption.

trent44 said:

Even a "premium model" XL SKU would probably focus on extending battery life and reducing the size of the bezel and having a 7 inch 720P screen; a TV only model would probably focus on going ultra low price, etc.

I hope 720P goes away.
1080P IPS isn't that expensive, it's 2018, almost 2019.

mutantsushi said:
About the only thing that makes sense is using APU that can deliver docked performance in hand-held mode.
Probably as option you can turn off, in favor of better battery life.
Really there is huge room for improvement because they didn't even use standard 14nm process even cheap Androids do.
That process alone offers ~30% power/performance benefit from my understanding, which along with other updates
could probably allow same performance as docked while in hand-held mode (if resolution isn't increased, even more easily).

14nm is based on 20nm anyway, with a sprinkling of Finfet and a few other improvements.
The Tegra chip in the Switch is 20nm Planar.

--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--