So Nintendo's NX is a tablet, and it's going to feature the X1 or X2?!?

[DrMrLordX]

https://mynintendonews.com/2016/08/17/rumour-nintendo-nx-to-use-tegra-x2-chip/

waaaat

I'm surprised nobody in here is talking about this news, especially when so many were expecting AMD to pick up business from Nintendo thanks to the NX. A few shockers here (well maybe not entirely shocking on all of them but still):

1). Nintendo shifting away from standard consoles to a tablet-like device that can maybe kinda sorta be used as a console if you link controllers to it? I guess? View this in light of Nvidia cancelling the next generation of Shield products.

2). Nintendo going anywhere near Tegra for anything, which seems criminally insane. Even a gimped Carrizo TDP limited to 15W would be preferable to an X1. Unless Nvidia is just giving the things away, what's the incentive to go Nvidia here? Is this a foundry preference thing or what? Surely AMD could fab some chips at TSMC if it was that big of a deal. They have before.

As for the X2 . . . it isn't a known quantity yet, but with Zen/Raven Ridge coming up, going with the X2 just seems goofy as hell.

3). WTF would Nintendo want to go big.LITTLE for a gaming platform?

 

[Sweepr]

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/nintendo-nx-is-powered-by-nvidia.2481278/

'Gimped' Carrizo + platform is probably not low power enough to fit inside a handheld device like the NX is rumored to be, and would perform worse than a custom Tegra part at similar TDP.

 

[dark zero]

So Nintendo decides to create this Dreamcast to end their console adventure? Because I can't see it a futureproof product. It might last a year in the best case since newer products will likely catch it up and leave it behind.

 

[nathanddrews]

So Nintendo decides to create this Dreamcast to end their console adventure? Because I can't see it a futureproof product. It might last a year in the best case since newer products will likely catch it up and leave it behind.

People have been dogging Nintendo since the N64 was surpassed by the Playstation, yet they make new hardware constantly and that hardware has consistently been "meh". Nintendo is making a specific device for a specific niche with the NX. They'll release Mario Title Sequel and Zelda Title Sequel on it and it will be just as successful as it needs to be. If you're not used to Nintendo's bifurcated approach to gaming by now... then you're just not old enough to remember. </getoffmylawn>

 

[Yakk]

The Nintendo tablet just isn't exciting. They should just release their games on Android & iOS.

 

[poofyhairguy]

So Nintendo decides to create this Dreamcast to end their console adventure? Because I can't see it a futureproof product. It might last a year in the best case since newer products will likely catch it up and leave it behind.

Who else is coming out with a portable console? The Vita is a flop and MS never cared about that market.

It makes a lot more sense when you realize its a 3DS successor as much as it is a Wii U successor.

 

[dogen1]

No idea why they would use crappy A57 cores. I'd even prefer A53s just for the battery life benefit. They could clock them way higher and still save power.

 

[dark zero]

No idea why they would use crappy A57 cores. I'd even prefer A53s just for the battery life benefit. They could clock them way higher and still save power.

That is what I said... A57 is a failure for mobile....

 

[Qwertilot]

https://mynintendonews.com/2016/08/17/rumour-nintendo-nx-to-use-tegra-x2-chip/
2). Nintendo going anywhere near Tegra for anything, which seems criminally insane. Even a gimped Carrizo TDP limited to 15W would be preferable to an X1. Unless Nvidia is just giving the things away, what's the incentive to go Nvidia here? Is this a foundry preference thing or what? Surely AMD could fab some chips at TSMC if it was that big of a deal. They have before.

As for the X2 . . . it isn't a known quantity yet, but with Zen/Raven Ridge coming up, going with the X2 just seems goofy as hell.

Now this really isn't at all strange or odd GPU based choice rather than CPU - just look how far ahead Pascal is in terms of performance/watt! Someone like Qcom could have been closer than AMD, no idea if they'd have been interested though.

 

[Elixer]

Thought this would be better in Mobile Devices & Gadgets, since this isn't really CPU related, but, I just don't see where Nintendo is going with a tablet.

From what I read, the tablet will fit into some kind of a dock for the controllers, and unless it has some really cool feature that can't be done on another tablet, I just don't see this going anywhere.

 

[Chiropteran]

The word "tablet" doesn't show up in the linked article. Where did you get that from?

Couldn't this still be a set top box, like a FireTV?

 

[Thala]

No idea why they would use crappy A57 cores. I'd even prefer A53s just for the battery life benefit. They could clock them way higher and still save power.

There is no reason to go with A57 these days except lower royalties compared to A72 or A73.

 

[DrMrLordX]

The word "tablet" doesn't show up in the linked article. Where did you get that from?

Couldn't this still be a set top box, like a FireTV?

https://www.engadget.com/2016/07/26/report-nintendo-nx-is-a-tablet-with-detachable-controllers/

Take it for what it's worth.

People have been dogging Nintendo since the N64 was surpassed by the Playstation, yet they make new hardware constantly and that hardware has consistently been "meh". Nintendo is making a specific device for a specific niche with the NX. They'll release Mario Title Sequel and Zelda Title Sequel on it and it will be just as successful as it needs to be. If you're not used to Nintendo's bifurcated approach to gaming by now... then you're just not old enough to remember. </getoffmylawn>

*shrug* I remember the N64. The Playstation never really "surpassed" it in terms of hardware:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=491693&page=1

PSX won thanks to cheap storage media that offered more space than those carts. And the memory architecture on the N64 was wonky. Didn't help that N64 also had texture blur in a lot of games.

The shockers in my mind are that Nintendo is potentially using a deprecated piece of hardware instead of something custom for their own needs and that they are apparently abandoning the living room altogether.

I have always considered Nintendo to be fairly conservative when it came to their approach to selling hardware and software to consumers. It seems here like they are jumping on the tail end of a flagging fad (read: mobile, specifically tablets) instead of producing a logical successor to the Wii U.

It's like they are saying: "We sold too few Wii U units because our focus was wrong", not "We sold too few Wii U units because we failed to make the product compelling and interesting for what it was". Maybe the Japanese hardware market is ultimately shaping their decision.

But, according to my understanding of "the Nintendo Way", this NX product should have been a replacement for the 3DS XL, not the Wii U.

Carrizo power levels: how much more platform does Carrizo really need to operate in a custom tablet-like device? The FCH is on-die, there just isn't that much support hardware needed by the unit that wouldn't also be needed by X1. Or am I missing something? Plus it would be a semi-custom job so AMD could and would change things here and there. It's not like there would be a 8700P dropped straight into the NX.

X1 being GPU-heavy instead of CPU-heavy: I still don't see how this is an advantage for Nintendo? Maybe the X2 will be worth using for somebody, but based on what Sony and MS have been able to accomplish with their consoles, it certainly seems as though a GCN product would have been a better call? Maybe Nintendo is seeing power savings from a decision to go with Maxwell/Pascal instead of looking at GCN?

If Nintendo is going to use X1 though, they're just buggered in the head. And I doubt X1 would ever outperform a PS4, which is one of the rumours about the sum total of its capabilities (read: it may marginally outperform a PS4).

 

[poofyhairguy]

It's like they are saying: "We sold too few Wii U units because our focus was wrong", not "We sold too few Wii U units because we failed to make the product compelling and interesting for what it was". Maybe the Japanese hardware market is ultimately shaping their decision.

I think it is more them saying "we can't keep up with what it takes to make an AAA console game" along with "we are sick of making two versions of each game (console one and portable one)."

The writing has been on the wall for years. First add this quote:

"We just don't care too much about what other companies are doing or are trying to do," Satoru Iwata said. "Our primary focus is to think about and actually carry out something which [another] company's hardware can never realise.

"We are trying to provide consumers gaming experiences that can only be available on Nintendo platforms."

Plus this quote:

"When it comes to the scale of software development, Wii U with HD graphics requires about twice the human resources than before," Miyamoto said. "Please allow me to explain that we may have underestimated the scale of this change and as a result, the overall software development took more time than originally anticipated just as we tried to polish the software at the completion phase of development.

Tells you why they are giving up competing with MS and Sony directly. They simply can't keep up and they know it.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Poor old Nintendo can't run with the big dogs eh. Oh well!

What's funny is that they also seem to be setting themselves up to abandon some lucrative products like Skylanders, Disney Infinity, Lego Dimensions, etc. Maybe I'm wrong to assume that, but . . .

 

[NTMBK]

I really hope that the X1 isn't the final hardware. I would prefer to see a 16nm chip with quad A73 cores, and the Maxwell GPU shrunk down.

 

[R0H1T]

I really hope that the X1 isn't the final hardware. I would prefer to see a 16nm chip with quad A73 cores, and the Maxwell GPU shrunk down.

Maxwell, I thought this was gonna have Pascal according to some of the posts in the other thread? Also anything less than A72 is gonna suck, period

 

[NTMBK]

Maxwell, I thought this was gonna have Pascal according to some of the posts in the other thread? Also anything less than A72 is gonna suck, period

Eh, Maxwell, Pascal, what's the difference Tegra X1 already has double rate FP16 (unlike desktop Maxwell, but like Pascal GP100), has different ratios of registers to shaders, and so on... it's not really Maxwell as we know it. Pascal as seen in the GTX 1080 is closer to desktop Maxwell than the X1's "Maxwell" is. Basically, some sort of shrunk and mobile-focused Maxwell/Pascal variant would be fine.

 

[nathanddrews]

*shrug* I remember the N64. The Playstation never really "surpassed" it in terms of hardware:

I wasn't referring to technical capabilities, but rather sales. Playstation reached ~103 million consoles while the Nintendo 64 got ~33 million. Technically, I believe the N64 was better, but the forced AA and lack of audio storage certainly didn't help.

 

[zinfamous]

Who else is coming out with a portable console? The Vita is a flop and MS never cared about that market.

It makes a lot more sense when you realize its a 3DS successor as much as it is a Wii U successor.

Is it because the portable space overall is a flop? I don't know, actually, but wondering if that is the underlying reason for lack of success with anything that isn't Nintendo. I'm guessing that the only way portables really work (actual marketshare), is licensing for pokemon and similar games? I have this idea in my head that portables are only popular for one specific age group with their particular preference for games, but of course I could be wrong. If this were the case, then that means only Nintendo could be successful, anyway.

I recognize that the they are huge in Asian markets and Asia is, well, huge--so maybe that's where they are putting the majority of their eggs with this long-term focus on portables that they have had? I mean, it's probably enough, right? I would think Nintendo has enough of a western fanbase that will buy anything they make, thus extra sales in NA/SA and Europe are just gravy on top of their Asian popularity.

 

[Cozarkian]

View this in light of Nvidia cancelling the next generation of Shield products.

Nintendo denies it will run an Android OS, but I wouldn't be surprised if they have a deal with Nvidia for Game stream and their subscription service.

 

[R0H1T]

Is it because the portable space overall is a flop? I don't know, actually, but wondering if that is the underlying reason for lack of success with anything that isn't Nintendo. I'm guessing that the only way portables really work (actual marketshare), is licensing for pokemon and similar games? I have this idea in my head that portables are only popular for one specific age group with their particular preference for games, but of course I could be wrong. If this were the case, then that means only Nintendo could be successful, anyway.

I recognize that the they are huge in Asian markets and Asia is, well, huge--so maybe that's where they are putting the majority of their eggs with this long-term focus on portables that they have had? I mean, it's probably enough, right? I would think Nintendo has enough of a western fanbase that will buy anything they make, thus extra sales in NA/SA and Europe are just gravy on top of their Asian popularity.

Nah it isn't huge in Asia either but if it's priced right it could still be a hit, think it'll need multimedia capabilities close to the PS4/XB1 when docked or that of an Ipod touch when it's on the move, to better compete with smartphones/tablets & please if anyone says that it's just a console (& doesn't compete with other portable devices) one more time

Nintendo denies it will run an Android OS, but I wouldn't be surprised if they have a deal with Nvidia for Game stream and their subscription service.

It'll only dilute the Nintendo brand, if that's true of course.

 

[zinfamous]

Nah it isn't huge in Asia either but if it's priced right it could still be a hit, think it'll need multimedia capabilities close to the PS4/XB1 when docked or that of an Ipod touch when it's on the move, to better compete with smartphones/tablets & please if anyone says that it's just a console (& doesn't compete with other portable devices) one more time

I agree. A portable gaming device is a portable gaming device. The capabilities and guts of each specific device are really quite irrelevant when you are considering that you are targeting the people that want to play games on the go. By and large, the people in that market are going to want to do this on their phones: see, well, the last 8 years and how mobile gaming has been dominated by these little apps. That is the only relevant market now, and those type of players are going to look at a device that only plays games (mostly games that they don't care about, and have to pay a premium for), and their phone or tablet which does far more than just play games, and make the quick and obvious decision.

I think people that want to make the argument that these are wildly different markets that are not competing for the same customers now are woefully naive about how that corner of the industry has been moving for many years now.

Sure, there is probably some remaining and ever-shrinking segment of hardcore gamers that are too l33t to play candy crush and must have their premium dedicated portable gaming device, but there is a glaringly obvious reason that all of these devices fail--that group of people is vanishing.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Is it because the portable space overall is a flop?

I don't know if I would go that far, Nintendo has had a lot of success in that space. They are the only ones though, the market of protables consoles is filled with dead carcuses.

If Nintendo puts the Wii U Zelda on the new console, it's a must buy day 1 for me.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I wasn't referring to technical capabilities, but rather sales. Playstation reached ~103 million consoles while the Nintendo 64 got ~33 million. Technically, I believe the N64 was better, but the forced AA and lack of audio storage certainly didn't help.

Nintendo's 3rd party licensing policies didn't help either. They were (and arguably still are) rather inflexible about a number of things.

Is it because the portable space overall is a flop? I don't know, actually, but wondering if that is the underlying reason for lack of success with anything that isn't Nintendo. I'm guessing that the only way portables really work (actual marketshare), is licensing for pokemon and similar games? I have this idea in my head that portables are only popular for one specific age group with their particular preference for games, but of course I could be wrong. If this were the case, then that means only Nintendo could be successful, anyway.

I recognize that the they are huge in Asian markets and Asia is, well, huge--so maybe that's where they are putting the majority of their eggs with this long-term focus on portables that they have had? I mean, it's probably enough, right? I would think Nintendo has enough of a western fanbase that will buy anything they make, thus extra sales in NA/SA and Europe are just gravy on top of their Asian popularity.

Nintendo is heavily concerned with their popularity in the local Japanese market where portable is now king. So that alone could explain why they're producing a common successor to the 3DS XL and the Wii U. The only way this amounts to a step backwards is if the NX proves less-capable at something than the Wii U.

Nintendo denies it will run an Android OS, but I wouldn't be surprised if they have a deal with Nvidia for Game stream and their subscription service.

They're already diluting their brand by using commodity hardware. That being said, they must be tempted by the success of Pokemon Go.

Still, it's a dangerous road for them.

I think people that want to make the argument that these are wildly different markets that are not competing for the same customers now are woefully naive about how that corner of the industry has been moving for many years now.

Look at Wii U sales vs. 3DS sales as of June 30th 2016:

https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/sales/hard_soft/

For a year-by-year breakdown of 3DS sales:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_3DS_sales

Total sales through June 30th 2016 for the Wii U amounted to 13 million units, while the 3DS (in its various incarnations) managed to rack up approximately 29 million sales in 2012 alone. You can see where things are going (and have been for some time now).