Today is Nvidia's Hot Chips conference, where they'll talk about Tegra Parker/X2.

Maybe we'll get a hint about a new console using the new chip or the X1.

Ahhh, if only! Looks like we could know something as early as 2-2:30 ET today if there is anything to know. I'll definitely be watching for news, thanks for the heads up!

If Nintendo does indeed go with Nvidia, that would be a great place to reveal it, leaving Nvidia all the work of detailing the tech details that Nintendo usually doesn't care/want to share with us.

I do understand that different allocations of the Floating Point Operations could theoretically slow down or speed up a build. BUT, isn't the processing of FLOPs dependant on the card, and not the FLOPs themselves? The programming of said FLOPs is the real slow down or expedition, I don't believe that it is the type. Like for instance, if a FLOP is programmed to be executed in 10 processor cycles, than it would be slower than a process that would need only 5. So the efficiency of programming plays a huge part in it, no? Also, what if the card has a parallel cycle running at the same time? It could theoretically do these processes in half the time that a single cycle processor could, right? This is all theoretical because from what I gather the load on the processing also plays a big part, if there are too many things running through that processor at the same time it creates a workload that is too heavy and it slows down the normally speedy processing.

So I understand for the most part how FLOPs work, but as for a speed benchmark for a computer since it depends heavily on how each FLOP is programmed I would say that using FLOPs is silly. Not only that, but it is nearly impossible to gauge since it depends on how efficiently each FLOP is programmed. HOWEVER, I stand by my original point, FLOPs are FLOPs because theoretically each processor is gauged by the same parameters. Yes, each FLOP is programmed differently, but when the processors FLOPs processing is determined they use the same theoretical vacuum. So it SHOULD be as it says. I definitely understand where you are coming from though.

Thanks for posting!

With the same 256 "cores", I don't think it will be much powerful than the current X1 in games.

From NeoGaf is seems like the Parker Tegra (aka: Tegra X2) is 625 GFLOP (FP32) performance (vs 500 GFLOP for the Tegra X1) with a nice boost in CPU power and double the memory bandwidth to 50GB/sec. 

This is great for a portable, though likely it would have to be underclocked. 

However, it's not really that great for a console. 

This also probably explains why DQXI on the NX has to be a custom version ... it likely cannot run the PS4 version. 

There's no way Nintendo will be able to fit Tegra Parker inside a handheld when it'll blow the power budget ...

Instead of the big.LITTLE CPU configuration they went for big.big which is even worse for power consumption and they also doubled the memory interface width which will also increase power consumption ...

If Nvidia did win the contract for Nintendo's new portable console, I'd expect it to be a semi-custom design rather than an existing one since there's no chance this thing is getting into very small form factors ...

While Nvidia remained hush on anything NX related, one interesting tiny blip did come out of the Hot Chips conference aside from just a general idea of what the Tegra Parker (X2) can do. This slide mentions "sufficent thread count for automotive and gaming applications" for the upcoming Tegra X2/Parker ... now we know they're not making more Shield consoles, so likely this is referring to the Nintendo NX. 

That's a stretch ...

How do you know that their not referring to other small form factor devices like a tablet ? 

Just because their not making SHIELD products anymore doesn't mean they can't go into products other than gaming consoles ...