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

Jumpin said:
bowserthedog said:

Would love to hear your rationale. 6 years is a long time for Nintendo to go without any new chipset be it console or handheld.  

He’s repeating his earlier points hoping that if he came back to repeat it later people would forget he’d already been refuted.

Given new hardware hasn't been announced my position hasn't been refuted.  Not sure why you think your opinion refutes another's opinion.  Time will tell.  I could see a minor upgrade, those wanting a switch 2 (or pro) are going to be disappointed.



Around the Network
Quailman1342 said:
Soundwave said:

Not necessarily. 

It would be very stupid for Nintendo to tank their holiday sales for a product that won't be available until 6 months from now or when ever really. They have product to sell in the here and now and a holiday season ahead of them. 

I've said it before but in today's day and age, announcing hardware 6+ months in advance is just stupid unless your existing hardware is basically dead like the Wii U was and even then Nintendo really did not start any actual promotion/unveiling for the Switch until just about 4 months ahead of launch, Switch Lite and Switch OLED were also only announced about 3 months prior to launch. 

I agree with soundwave here, the only reason why the Switch was announced 8 months before release...because the Wii U was a dead console. There as no hype in the holidays and hardly any new games released during the holiday 2016. It was better move for Nintendo to prepare and create hype for the switch. Since the Switch has become a huge success, it wouldn't make sense for the switch 2 (there will not be a pro) to be announced before the holiday season. If the Switch 2 was announced...you're effectively killing switch sales.  It would make more sense for an announcement to be during the end of the holiday season like late December or early January. 

People tend to forget we live in a modern day, we don't need announcements years before a launch of a device anymore. Social media has made advertising easier to reach the masses compared to prior methods of advertisement. Things can go viral worldwide within minutes of an announcements. Advertisements, videos, presentations, and so on can reach the masses compared to 20+ years ago when a commercial will take time to even reach syndication or even putting ad in the paper/magazine used to take time. Now all it takes to post an ad on facebook, twitter, youtube or other internet platform is a click of a button (just simplifying the process). This is why we have seen releases of some devices happen within 6months rather than announcing a product that will release in 1 to 1.5 years. 

Switch was actually only officially announced as a real product (not a codename) a mere 4 months prior to launch. It wasn't even 8 months. 

The unveil was late October 2016, the system launched the first week of March 2017. That's basically four months and some change. 

Prior to that there was basically zero promotion or actual hard information on the system period, Nintendo just announced "NX" at the event they announced they would be making iOS/Android games to assure stockholders that they weren't exiting the hardware business. But there was literally no information given on the product and zero promotion, zero marketing, zero game announcements, and even zero hardware details until basically October 2016 from Nintendo themselves.

Switch basically already showed all you need is 4 months of promotion and time for retailers to prep for a major hardware launch. Could honestly probably even be less than that (3 months would likely work just as well like Switch OLED). Apple launches the biggest consumer electronic products every year like only 3-4 days before release because they don't want to slow existing iPhone sales, it's a non-issue. 

The whole "they're gonna announce Switch 2 like 18 months before launch! Right ... right guys?" thing is not gonna happen I don't think. It would accomplish nothing but slow sales of the exist Switch for months for no good reason. That type of thing is from a bygone era.

Last edited by Soundwave - on 24 October 2022

The question isn't can Nintendo do it, the question is should they do it. The switch, and software are selling amazing and there is a chip shortage.... inflation is hitting so people have less disposable income.... I say it isn't happening, but I'll accept being wrong if indeed I am.



Chrkeller said:

The question isn't can Nintendo do it, the question is should they do it. The switch, and software are selling amazing and there is a chip shortage.... inflation is hitting so people have less disposable income.... I say it isn't happening, but I'll accept being wrong if indeed I am.

I think their likely dilemma is the chip is ready and has to be paid for. 

If they just sit on the chip, likely they stand to lose money, because Nvidia is going to expect to be paid either way. 

And it's probably not an insignificant cost either, you're talking about years of R&D into this thing. 

These things have to be planned for years in advance, just how hardware development works, you can't just decide one day you need new hardware now and have it delivered to your door like an Amazon package. It takes years of hardware development to make a console generally speaking. 

If that's what has happened then I would guess they will release it sooner than later just as a higher end model. For people who can't afford that, well that's not Nintendo's problem, they're a business not a charity. Not everyone can afford the newest highest end iPhone either, but plenty can so Apple knows they have a market. Nintendo will probably sell out of this new system so long as the software pipeline and design for it are appealing (ie: like not doing something stupid like betting the entire launch on Nintendogs 2). 



Soundwave said:
Quailman1342 said:

I agree with soundwave here, the only reason why the Switch was announced 8 months before release...because the Wii U was a dead console. There as no hype in the holidays and hardly any new games released during the holiday 2016. It was better move for Nintendo to prepare and create hype for the switch. Since the Switch has become a huge success, it wouldn't make sense for the switch 2 (there will not be a pro) to be announced before the holiday season. If the Switch 2 was announced...you're effectively killing switch sales.  It would make more sense for an announcement to be during the end of the holiday season like late December or early January. 

People tend to forget we live in a modern day, we don't need announcements years before a launch of a device anymore. Social media has made advertising easier to reach the masses compared to prior methods of advertisement. Things can go viral worldwide within minutes of an announcements. Advertisements, videos, presentations, and so on can reach the masses compared to 20+ years ago when a commercial will take time to even reach syndication or even putting ad in the paper/magazine used to take time. Now all it takes to post an ad on facebook, twitter, youtube or other internet platform is a click of a button (just simplifying the process). This is why we have seen releases of some devices happen within 6months rather than announcing a product that will release in 1 to 1.5 years. 

Switch was actually only officially announced as a real product (not a codename) a mere 4 months prior to launch. It wasn't even 8 months. 

The unveil was late October 2016, the system launched the first week of March 2017. That's basically four months and some change. 

Prior to that there was basically zero promotion or actual hard information on the system period, Nintendo just announced "NX" at the event they announced they would be making iOS/Android games to assure stockholders that they weren't exiting the hardware business. But there was literally no information given on the product and zero promotion, zero marketing, zero game announcements, and even zero hardware details until basically October 2016 from Nintendo themselves.

Switch basically already showed all you need is 4 months of promotion and time for retailers to prep for a major hardware launch. Could honestly probably even be less than that (3 months would likely work just as well like Switch OLED). Apple launches the biggest consumer electronic products every year like only 3-4 days before release because they don't want to slow existing iPhone sales, it's a non-issue. 

The whole "they're gonna announce Switch 2 like 18 months before launch! Right ... right guys?" thing is not gonna happen I don't think. It would accomplish nothing but slow sales of the exist Switch for months for no good reason. That type of thing is from a bygone era.

It is like when someone go to ask Sony if they are working in PS6, so early in the gen they don't say much (but they sure are) but 2 or 3 years before the launch they will say something along working on the next gen system, that isn't an announcement. The proper announcement will be something like 4-12 months before official depending on their strategy. I would expect similar from Nintendo.



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:
Soundwave said:

Switch was actually only officially announced as a real product (not a codename) a mere 4 months prior to launch. It wasn't even 8 months. 

The unveil was late October 2016, the system launched the first week of March 2017. That's basically four months and some change. 

Prior to that there was basically zero promotion or actual hard information on the system period, Nintendo just announced "NX" at the event they announced they would be making iOS/Android games to assure stockholders that they weren't exiting the hardware business. But there was literally no information given on the product and zero promotion, zero marketing, zero game announcements, and even zero hardware details until basically October 2016 from Nintendo themselves.

Switch basically already showed all you need is 4 months of promotion and time for retailers to prep for a major hardware launch. Could honestly probably even be less than that (3 months would likely work just as well like Switch OLED). Apple launches the biggest consumer electronic products every year like only 3-4 days before release because they don't want to slow existing iPhone sales, it's a non-issue. 

The whole "they're gonna announce Switch 2 like 18 months before launch! Right ... right guys?" thing is not gonna happen I don't think. It would accomplish nothing but slow sales of the exist Switch for months for no good reason. That type of thing is from a bygone era.

It is like when someone go to ask Sony if they are working in PS6, so early in the gen they don't say much (but they sure are) but 2 or 3 years before the launch they will say something along working on the next gen system, that isn't an announcement. The proper announcement will be something like 4-12 months before official depending on their strategy. I would expect similar from Nintendo.

Yup. It's even more useless today not only for the fact that you're just needlessly destroying sales for your existing hardware but because hardware transitions aren't what they used to be anyway. 

In the old days if your new console had old games from the previous system as key software it would be unthinkable (ie: imagine the SNES launched with ... a high res version of Super Mario Bros. 3 instead of Super Mario World or PS2 launched only had basically PSOne games for the first 2-3 years of its product cycle). 

Because cross generation releases for several years is basically now the standard normal, you don't really need to announce a new console years in advance, it is pointless. You're not ending software development for existing hardware any time soon, God of War Ragnarok launches on PS4 this month for example, 2 years after the PS5 launched, I don't think Switch-Switch successor is going to be any different either. Nintendo can just position it as an additive model for a couple of years and just keep making games that run on both systems at different display resolutions without much fuss. 

So for people saying "well you can't end the Switch product cycle now" ... well ... who says you have to. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 24 October 2022

DonFerrari said:
Soundwave said:

The Super NES was also reasonable hardware for its day (1990), yes maybe people were miffed they cheaped out on the CPU clock speed, but it was a capable piece of hardware for the time better than most anything else on the market unless you wanted to spend like hundreds of dollars more on a Neo Geo. 

By 1996, Nintendo probably could have put a  CD-ROM in the N64 if they really wanted to and sold it for $250, which was supposed to be the original launch price anyway (Nintendo lowered the price to $199.99 even before the system released). CD drive prices were dropping fast by '96, this is why Playstation was able to cut its price to $199.99 as well in 1996 to match the N64's price tag. 

The Tegra X1 in the Switch while cutting edge for 2015 was never that expensive even in 2015. The Nvidia Shield released in spring 2015 for $199.99. 

Display and batteries are much cheaper today as they're hugely mass produced in so many devices (phones, tablets, etc.) unless Nintendo is planning to use some kind of ridiculously high resolution display, a 720p or even 1080p display is going to be cheap and so will a 4800-6000 MaH battery. These are not expensive components. They could probably really just keep the same 720p OLED panels they use in the Switch OLED model as its probably fairly cheap as Nintendo keeps ordering millions of them by 2023-2024 etc. it will be a dirt cheap component. 

A Tegra made for 2023 should be easily 5-6x more powerful than a Tegra X1 made in 2015 and modern Nvidia architectural features like DLSS via Tensor Cores is not really that big of a deal either, it's part of the package with modern Nvidia processor. There's nothing mind blowing about that. 

Nintendo also doesn't price hardware for the lowest common denominator any more, all the hardware makers have learned that premium pricing tiers are attractive as they yield higher profit margins over time. I don't think the Switch successor is going to be less than $399.99 when it launches and unless Nintendo makes stupid design or software decisions it will likely be sold out for a while. 

Probably 2 years after Super Switch/Switch 2 releases you'll get a cheap model option in the Super Switch Lite or Switch 2 Lite for like $249.99 maybe but by then the component costs will really have shrunk anyway. 

Not sure what you are calling premium on other manufacturers because both Series X and PS5 with disc lose money for MS and Sony just lose less than Series S and discless PS5.

Also if you want to pay cheaper for the chip yes you have to get things that are far from top tier.

Nope, not the Disc PS5 anymore



"Quagmire, are you the type of guy who takes 'no' for an answer ?"
"My lawyer doesn't allow me to answer that question"

PSN ID: skmblake | Feel free to add me

Soundwave said:

By 1996, Nintendo probably could have put a  CD-ROM in the N64 if they really wanted to and sold it for $250, which was supposed to be the original launch price anyway (Nintendo lowered the price to $199.99 even before the system released). CD drive prices were dropping fast by '96, this is why Playstation was able to cut its price to $199.99 as well in 1996 to match the N64's price tag. 

Keep in mind that back then CD Rom Drives were still like $100+ AUD back then.
And Sony was building it's own optical drives, where Nintendo wasn't.

And even if we fast forward to today, Microsoft and Sony are selling consoles without optical drives with a chunk of change off the MSRP.
It's a cost.

Soundwave said:

The Tegra X1 in the Switch while cutting edge for 2015 was never that expensive even in 2015. The Nvidia Shield released in spring 2015 for $199.99. 

nVidia tends to charge a premium for it's parts, even when they offer less performance.

Soundwave said:

Display and batteries are much cheaper today as they're hugely mass produced in so many devices (phones, tablets, etc.) unless Nintendo is planning to use some kind of ridiculously high resolution display, a 720p or even 1080p display is going to be cheap and so will a 4800-6000 MaH battery. These are not expensive components. They could probably really just keep the same 720p OLED panels they use in the Switch OLED model as its probably fairly cheap as Nintendo keeps ordering millions of them by 2023-2024 etc. it will be a dirt cheap component. 

Still a cost you won't have associated with the Playstation or Xbox.

The components themselves are also only part of the equation, building the power delivery, routing, PCB and controllers all costs as well.

Soundwave said:

A Tegra made for 2023 should be easily 5-6x more powerful than a Tegra X1 made in 2015 and modern Nvidia architectural features like DLSS via Tensor Cores is not really that big of a deal either, it's part of the package with modern Nvidia processor. There's nothing mind blowing about that. 

Agreed.

Soundwave said:

Nintendo also doesn't price hardware for the lowest common denominator any more, all the hardware makers have learned that premium pricing tiers are attractive as they yield higher profit margins over time. I don't think the Switch successor is going to be less than $399.99 when it launches and unless Nintendo makes stupid design or software decisions it will likely be sold out for a while. 

Probably 2 years after Super Switch/Switch 2 releases you'll get a cheap model option in the Super Switch Lite or Switch 2 Lite for like $249.99 maybe but by then the component costs will really have shrunk anyway. 

Inflation is reducing the purchasing power of a dollar the world over, higher prices is likely something we need to get used to.
Commodity parts like NAND and Ram are all over the shop... And TSMC/Samsung still has production bottlenecks to resolve.

A cost reduced variant would make economical sense, smaller/inferior display, no dock... That sort of thing.

Good console for the kids in the back of the car each.

DonFerrari said:

I believe Ninty lost money when they cut the price aggressively to compete with PS1 not long after launch.

But there is no magic, performance cost money.

100%.

It's about investing in performance to get the most bang for buck for your budget...

I.E. The Playstation 4 and Xbox One had similar budgets in terms of transistors and costs, the Playstation 4 didn't spend transistors on eSRAM which meant it could have more GPU pipelines, they then fed that with higher speed DRAM, which meant for similar component costs, the Playstation 4 was superior.

Nintendo has made a few flops in this aspect in the past, but also some rather smart choices.

Chrkeller said:

Likely we discussed this before and we simply disagree.  If BotW2 were launching with a substantial hardware upgrade, Nintendo via PR would br hyping it by now...  or at least announcing it.  If there is an upgrade, it will.be minor.

The trailer does showcase some engine upgrades like volumetrics... But that could be due to not designing the game around the WiiU hardware feature set.



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

Soundwave said:
Chrkeller said:

Likely we discussed this before and we simply disagree.  If BotW2 were launching with a substantial hardware upgrade, Nintendo via PR would br hyping it by now...  or at least announcing it.  If there is an upgrade, it will.be minor.

Not necessarily. 

It would be very stupid for Nintendo to tank their holiday sales for a product that won't be available until 6 months from now or when ever really. They have product to sell in the here and now and a holiday season ahead of them. 

I've said it before but in today's day and age, announcing hardware 6+ months in advance is just stupid unless your existing hardware is basically dead like the Wii U was and even then Nintendo really did not start any actual promotion/product reveal for the Switch until just about 4 months ahead of launch, Switch Lite and Switch OLED were also only announced about 3 months prior to launch. 

You're correct. It wouldn't be that big a deal to announce it 6 months early if they were launching during their peak selling period. But Nintendo isn't going to announce it now and suffer lost sales during the holiday season.   Its not like its a normal console launch where they have a new concept that requires extra development time or a completely foreign chipset. Typically you announce it at the last possible moment before widespread dev kits go out. But in this case they can hold off on widespread dev kits for a while. Key devs will have them but only ones who can keep it a secret. It will be acceptable to early on to release lower key games on it that don't benefit from the new hardware and patch them later.  And there will be very few exclusives for the system that don't appear on the original switch at least early on. Probably there will be some 3rd party ports that run only on the new system but Nintendo will release cross gen for some time. So there's no rush to announce it. I expect it to release the same day Breath of the Wild 2 comes out. So if they announced in January and show a playable form of Breath of the Wild 2 running on the new hardware at that time i think that would be sufficient. 



Soundwave said:
DonFerrari said:

It is like when someone go to ask Sony if they are working in PS6, so early in the gen they don't say much (but they sure are) but 2 or 3 years before the launch they will say something along working on the next gen system, that isn't an announcement. The proper announcement will be something like 4-12 months before official depending on their strategy. I would expect similar from Nintendo.

Yup. It's even more useless today not only for the fact that you're just needlessly destroying sales for your existing hardware but because hardware transitions aren't what they used to be anyway. 

In the old days if your new console had old games from the previous system as key software it would be unthinkable (ie: imagine the SNES launched with ... a high res version of Super Mario Bros. 3 instead of Super Mario World or PS2 launched only had basically PSOne games for the first 2-3 years of its product cycle). 

Because cross generation releases for several years is basically now the standard normal, you don't really need to announce a new console years in advance, it is pointless. You're not ending software development for existing hardware any time soon, God of War Ragnarok launches on PS4 this month for example, 2 years after the PS5 launched, I don't think Switch-Switch successor is going to be any different either. Nintendo can just position it as an additive model for a couple of years and just keep making games that run on both systems at different display resolutions without much fuss. 

So for people saying "well you can't end the Switch product cycle now" ... well ... who says you have to. 

I agree with you. I don't see Nintendo ending the Switch lifecycle but rather adding a next gen Switch that will be sold along side the original switch for a time and after a while they will only sell New Switch and Switch lite before eventually replacing the Switch Lite with a New Switch Lite.