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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nvidia employee acknowledges Tegra 239 SoC rumored to be powering Switch 2

Pemalite said:
padib said:

You said "Stop. Beleving. Rumors."

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9407699

But when SMG showed you rumors that ended up being true, you said:
"we will -never- be able to ascertain which rumors are fact and which rumors are fiction before an official announcement."

So it's either a shift of goalpost, or you are just plain wrong to say "Stop. Believing. Rumors.", because some may be true, so it would be right to believe them.

Just remember I listed more rumors that were false, than rumors that were true.

It's not a shifting of the goal post.
Because it doesn't matter how many rumors end up being true or false, the fact there is always false rumors means you never should trust rumors. Period.

Hence my point... Stop. Believing. Rumors.

padib said:

Here are the possible outcomes:

A - We can believe a rumor and it ends up being true. GOOD
B - We can believe a rumor and it ends up being false. BAD
C - We can not believe a rumor and it ends up being true. BAD
D - We can not believe a rumor and it ends up being false. GOOD

This is all irrelevant. Because you don't know if a rumor is true or false until months/years later when a product is officially announced.

padib said:


So by never believing rumors, we are wrong on outcome C. By always believing rumors, we are wrong on outcome B.

So the best is to inspect rumors and look for patterns, to Fit into A & D as much as possible.

Easy, no black and white necessary, just use your logic and filter the rumors according to a few criteria.

This is much more constructive than flat out discrediting all rumors as you're suggesting. So stop.

You are literally arguing for people to support false information and the propagation of it... Based on the remote possibility of it might being true?

This is why the saying "Even a broken clock is right twice a day" exists.



If you make 10 "rumors" it is possible and even likely that 1 will be close to truth. And we do know some "insiders" make several time stamped rumors on their sites, them delete the wrong ones, keep the right ones to them claim they have knowledge.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:

If you make 10 "rumors" it is possible and even likely that 1 will be close to truth. And we do know some "insiders" make several time stamped rumors on their sites, them delete the wrong ones, keep the right ones to them claim they have knowledge.

100%.

It's like if there was a rumor for the Switch, one that said the console will have 4GB of Ram and the other 8GB, how to we know which one is true?
We don't, until the specifications are revealed.

So both rumors should be discarded until empirical evidence is presented.



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

I quite enjoy all the rumors and rumor articles (don't discard any). Gives plenty to speculate about and I enjoy all the back and forth. The best part is when the truth is revealed to see all the omelet faces.



...to avoid getting banned for inactivity, I may have to resort to comments that are of a lower overall quality and or beneath my moral standards.

Manlytears said:

Using Ampere based GPU, also Cortex A-78!?
This shit will be expensive, not looking like Ninty stuff.

Expensive now but not when they release the next platform which is looking likely to be 2024 or 2025.



Its not going to be released 2024 or 2025.  Nintendo isn't going to release the new Zelda without the new hardware.  Why do you think we've seen so little of it?



Around the Network

New hardware in 7 months... not buying it, at least nothing more than a minor upgrade at best.



Wyrdness said:
Manlytears said:

Using Ampere based GPU, also Cortex A-78!?
This shit will be expensive, not looking like Ninty stuff.

Expensive now but not when they release the next platform which is looking likely to be 2024 or 2025.

Yeah. Price on this stuff will come down, it's a decent chipset in 2022, but will start to show it's age in a few years, mobile technology moves quickly.



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

Yeah considering we're at least a full two years away from any next gen Switch hardware coming out the price that chips cost right now is not a concern. Everything will be much cheaper once they are actually mass producing the system in two years.



Good tech doesn't have to be expensive.

The N64 and GameCube had very powerful hardware for their time and they weren't expensive, the Tegra X1 was available in the Nvidia Shield at launch in 2015 which wasn't expensive either (only $199.99) and in 2015 it most certainly was top of the line mobile chip tech, a T239 should be 8 years newer than the Tegra X1 and certainly a full generation+ leap in performance. Nothing too crazy about that. 

This idea that powerful must = expensive isn't true, it's a load of crap that was pushed primarily during the Wii and DS era as a phony gospel truth, Nintendo has had affordable and powerful hardware before.

Besides, Nintendo doesn't have to position the next Switch as some kind of bargain basement cheap product, that's what the Switch Lite is for. Switch OLED is $350, the next system will almost certainly start at $399.99 and co-exist with cheaper OG Switch models for people who can't afford that initially. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 23 October 2022

Soundwave said:

Good tech doesn't have to be expensive.

The N64 and GameCube had very powerful hardware for their time and they weren't expensive, the Tegra X1 was available in the Nvidia Shield at launch in 2015 which wasn't expensive either (only $199.99) and in 2015 it most certainly was top of the line mobile chip tech, a T239 should be 8 years newer than the Tegra X1 and certainly a full generation+ leap in performance. Nothing too crazy about that. 

This idea that powerful must = expensive isn't true, it's a load of crap that was pushed primarily during the Wii and DS era as a phony gospel truth, Nintendo has had affordable and powerful hardware before.

Besides, Nintendo doesn't have to position the next Switch as some kind of bargain basement cheap product, that's what the Switch Lite is for. Switch OLED is $350, the next system will almost certainly start at $399.99 and co-exist with cheaper OG Switch models for people who can't afford that initially. 

Actually the Nintendo 64 had very expensive hardware.

Where Nintendo actually managed to save money was ironically by not having an optical disk drive, I think people forget that optical disks drives fetched a premium even on PC back in the 90's.
And having everything as an accessory, even an increase in Ram helped alleviate cost pressures.

The Gamecube also had a cost advantage over Microsoft as well by not including a hard drive and relying more heavily on accessories... Plus due to the lack of DVD playback, they saved money by not having to pay DVD royalties. The IBM+ATI/AMD/ArtX combo definitely commanded less of a premium over Intel+nVidia.

So Nintendo did have expensive hardware, it's just they managed to "cut costs" on other corners rather intelligently.

And if I recall, Nintendo actually lost money on the Gamecube for a fair while, but don't quote me on that as I didn't take the time to double check..

The Switch or any handheld for that matter however has different cost pressures these days that Nintendo can't really work around compared to other home consoles like a battery and display... Internal storage and the dock are potential places for cuts to save a buck or beef up the SoC, we saw that with the Switch Lite.



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