Reddit [verified] User shares NX info: x86 Architecture, Second screen support etc.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thraktor said:
There are numerous reasons why AMD would be strongly assumed to provide the GPU (and hence SoC) for the NX home console:

...

Including both the GPU and CPU on the same die (i.e. in a SoC) is by far the most sensible for Nintendo. Not only does it allow for a high-bandwidth low-latency connection between the CPU and GPU, but it's actually quite a bit cheaper than using two separate dies*. That being the case, if AMD is providing the GPU, the CPU would have to be one which AMD could include on-die with it, which limits things to either AMD's in-house cores or ARM reference designs.
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to how close the NX's SoC might be to AMD's Zen APUs. There's precious little concrete information on either, of course, but I'd like to think that Zen is good enough that Nintendo went with x86-64 instead of ARM. Hopefully AMD also has something low enough power for portable use. :/
 
Really cant trust anyone right now, even LCGeek, i don't even trust him.........
Really need to wait till month end to see this NX.......
These fakes are getting too real :(
 
Rodin said:
PS4 already uses less power in its newer models compared to D1, i think it's around 115W now. Nintendo will never use GDDR5, DDR3/4/LPDDR4 and a SoC with GCN 1.2+ARM use a lot less power than what the PS4 has. Then there is all that speculation about them using game cards, and that makes another huge difference compared to a blu-ray player.

They can cut a lot of corners to have a sub-100W console that outperforms PS4.
Click to expand...

PS4 is ~140 watts iirc.

In order for Nintendo to create a more powerful console than PS4 without using polaris and 14nm, they would have to use more CUs, meaning a bigger GPU than PS4 currently has, the power savings of AMD's GPUs in GCN aren't very good over the PS4 variant, not enough to shrink the console to say sub 80 watts. Nintendo has access to 14nm, I don't think they wouldn't use it over the alternative. Remember that Wii U is actually a 75watt TDP console that uses about half that, Nintendo would be making a 150watt TDP casing for their ~80watt console, they have done this for 3+ generations now. I think it is simply easier for them to use 14nm, probably cheaper too, considering they can use a 12-14CU GPU rather than a 20CU or more.
 
z0m3le said:
Also, until it is cement, I don't think Nintendo would use x86 if they are trying to build a single architecture, they have 1 team that is making 2 or more devices. They would want to be able to make the software for these devices such as OS and drivers, compatible across the handheld and console. To do that, you'd have to use the same CPU architecture, it is possible that Nintendo went crazy and decided that they should just work harder to not do these things, but it isn't likely IMO.

TL;DR: NX is likely ARM because the handheld has to be.
Click to expand...

they could be designing there games and OS to work the same way as windows 10 & UWA work. that way they could have x86 in the console and ARM in the handheld whilst still using the same code.
 
emag said:
I'm curious as to how close the NX's SoC might be to AMD's Zen APUs. There's precious little concrete information on either, of course, but I'd like to think that Zen is good enough that Nintendo went with x86-64 instead of ARM. Hopefully AMD also has something low enough power for portable use. :/
Click to expand...

It's almost certain that they would avoid x86 because the handheld is more important than the console for Nintendo and having a single software ecosystem would benefit Nintendo far too greatly, especially after the Wii U OS disaster.

Ganondolf said:
they could be designing there games and OS to work the same way as windows 10 & UWA work. that way they could have x86 in the console and ARM in the handheld whilst still using the same code.
Click to expand...

Nintendo isn't an OS company, they make games, I just don't think they have the right tools to do something like this.

Edit: Also Nintendo using Puma is the alternative, this all leads back to 28nm, which puma @ 2ghz+ like it would have to be to match up with LCgeek's arrows, would be hot, the console would be uncharacteristically big and power hungry for Nintendo, with no real benefit as ARM + 14nm is a much better option.
 
Saoshyant said:
Impossible. Completely different architectures. There would be no point to devkits if the actual hardware would be that massively different.
Click to expand...

Really though? It's unlikely at the moment there'll be any coding to the metal surely and the 3ds did change from tegra in the early devkits to pica though yes the CPU in those cases were both ARM but it was a completely different kind of gpu
 
z0m3le said:
Nintendo isn't an OS company, they make games, I just don't think they have the right tools to do something like this.
Click to expand...

I have to agree this is a big concern for me. if they did try to replicate how windows 10 UWA's works if would be a hell of a job and Nintendo struggled to the wii u OS out in time for launch..

EDIT: How may watts would you guys say they would save by removing the disk drive and replacing it with a gamecart slot & also not having a hard drive again.
 
Friend codes are still a thing
Click to expand...
lol One advantage of the Wii U not selling well is a lot of people apparently don't know friendcodes were retired with the 3DS.

That's not to mention the very recent launch of the new Nintendo accounts.

Pack it up.
 
z0m3le said:
Edit: Also Nintendo using Puma is the alternative, this all leads back to 28nm, which puma @ 2ghz+ like it would have to be to match up with LCgeek's arrows, would be hot, the console would be uncharacteristically big and power hungry for Nintendo, with no real benefit as ARM + 14nm is a much better option.
Click to expand...

I agree that Puma would be a poor choice, but the problem with 14nm is the yields unless Nintendo has stumbled upon or has been hiding a lot of production, or is paying a pricey sum.
 
Guys. Do you think all these leaks will affect sales of WiiU?
 
Ganondolf said:
I have to agree this is a big concern for me. if they did try to replicate how windows 10 UWA's works if would be a hell of a job and Nintendo struggled to the wii u OS out in time for launch..
Click to expand...

There is very little reason for them to go with x86, it just doesn't make sense for Nintendo considering their handheld and history with the ARM architecture. Their goals are also clear enough from Iwata's many statements that for them to be like brothers in a product family, makes sense that they would share a single OS and use the same ARM based CPU. (IMO)
 
z0m3le said:
There is very little reason for them to go with x86, it just doesn't make sense for Nintendo considering their handheld and history with the ARM architecture. Their goals are also clear enough from Iwata's many statements that for them to be like brothers in a product family, makes sense that they would share a single OS and use the same ARM based CPU. (IMO)
Click to expand...

the main reason I would assume that Nintendo would go with x86 is to make it easy for third parties to port their games across at little cost.
 
Vena said:
I agree that Puma would be a poor choice, but the problem with 14nm is the yields unless Nintendo has stumbled upon or has been hiding a lot of production, or is paying a pricey sum.
Click to expand...

If there was a real problem with production, we wouldn't be seeing china manufactures start to use it.
 
I like a good leak as much as anyone but man all this grasping at straws (I don't think it's even worth calling it speculation) is getting exhausting to read.

I'm quite the Nintendo fan but after the last couple of generations I've come to get quite accustomed to Nintendo being behind tech-wise. I just want a nice, smooth place to play my Nintendo games, none of that early Wii U jank and loading times.

This thing's reveal is going to be epic. I think you guys are being overly optimistic and the meltdowns area gonna be hilarious.
 
Vena said:
I agree that Puma would be a poor choice, but the problem with 14nm is the yields unless Nintendo has stumbled upon or has been hiding a lot of production, or is paying a pricey sum.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no way will Ninetendo be first to the 14 nm APU, it will be expensive due to yields and a fancy new process which can command margins.

Nintendo like to go for profit in their hardware, cant see them doing a loss leader for latest 14 nm tech. Heck the ps4k w14 nm with the better CPU is rumoured at $ 499 on that GAF thread. Cant see Nintendo doing that for their base console unless its heavily subsidised or expensive (for a console).

z0m3le said:
If there was a real problem with production, we wouldn't be seeing china manufactures start to use it.
Click to expand...

Is everyone going 14 nm ? That would be something....
 
Someone explain this to me: it seems like some people are saying both are true

1) The console doesn't need to be x86 as it is not a big deal to port games designed with x86 in mind to ARM
2) the console and handheld need to both be ARM to have cross play

By the logic in 1), can't Nintendo easily make ARM and x86 versions of their games and thus have cross play?
 
Vena said:
I agree that Puma would be a poor choice, but the problem with 14nm is the yields unless Nintendo has stumbled upon or has been hiding a lot of production, or is paying a pricey sum.
Click to expand...

This may be true at the moment, but with the usual console cycles this would be a bit shortsighted IMO.
 
bachikarn said:
Someone explain this to me: it seems like some people are saying both are true

1) The console doesn't need to be x86 as it is not a big deal to port games designed with x86 in mind to ARM
2) the console and handheld need to both be ARM to have cross play

By the logic in 1), can't Nintendo easily make ARM and x86 versions of their games and thus have cross play?
Click to expand...

Your question is entirely possible. It just complicates things greatly. Myself and another member were talking this same scenario earlier (aka lost) in this thread.

It's either:
A) Nintendo would need to ship/make available BOTH versions (x86 + ARM) on physical media and the store.
OR
B) Ship/make available a "universal binary" that will compile upon install.

There are severe pros and cons of each solution. Easiest way would be to avoid the need to do it entirely.
 
Damn, these leaks are starting to get to me. Just had a dream that the NX was revealed and it had no buttons and the games just looked like 3DS games. Think I woke up in a cold sweat lol
 
atbigelow said:
Your question is entirely possible. It just complicates things greatly. Myself and another member were talking this same scenario earlier (aka lost) in this thread.

It's either:
A) Nintendo would need to ship/make available BOTH versions (x86 + ARM) on physical media and the store.
OR
B) Ship/make available a "universal binary" that will compile upon install.

There are severe pros and cons of each solution. Easiest way would be to avoid the need to do it entirely.
Click to expand...

Cross play doesn't seem worth it if it's going to cause all those problems.
 
Could someone tell me why/if 4k is important?

I'm having a Big 4k curved TV, but I never saw any 4k video's on it (beside some short youtube 4k demo's).

http://www.vandenborre.be/lcd-led-tv-80-cm/samsung-ue55ju7500


- It looked nice, but sure isn't that special from the video's that I've watched, it looked a bit more realistic.
- Most people doesn't have it.
- Games aren't playable in 4k.

Just wondering why it would be a big deal.
 
diaspora said:
You don't need two completely different OS' for different CPUs, that's fucking absurd.
Click to expand...
Well you do, x86 doesn't run ARM code natively same is true for ARM running x86 code, they have to be compiled for the different architectures, the real problem though is an os is built around a kernel and that isn't something that is easy to get around. I don't make OSes, so my understanding is limited but AFAIK you simply can't run an os for one cpu architecture on another because of timings and how they process data.
lightchris said:
It was in the first revision, later they reduced it to ~115 Watts: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-playstation-4-cuh-1200-c-chassis-review
Click to expand...

Just a 28nm process node performance increase or is there something else going on? Still not sure why 14nm isn't easier, the industry is producing millions of chips a month, especially with Samsung s7's selling faster than expected. Not sure how a Nintendo home console would possibly break the 14nm's back.
 
Peterc said:
Could someone tell me why/if 4k is important?

I'm having a Big 4k curved TV, but I never saw any 4k video's on it (beside some short youtube 4k demo's).

- It looked nice, but sure isn't that special from the video's that I've watched, it looked a bit more realistic.
- Most people doesn't have it.
- Games aren't playable in 4k.

Just wondering why it would be a big deal.
Click to expand...

I mean, on some level if we ask that question, we might as well ask why 1080p matters. Why not just do everything in 720p? Lower? At some point, games will take advantage of 4k to improve image quality, and certainly video will well before that. It's impossible to know when true adoption of it will begin, but if people intend to have a console that lasts, they'll want to ensure that it can function at least on some level with 4k. Increased resolution offers a definitive benefit to image quality, that's all. Whether that's a selling point or not is unclear.
 
BRocknRolla said:
I mean, on some level if we ask that question, we might as well ask why 1080p matters. Why not just do everything in 720p? Lower? At some point, games will take advantage of 4k to improve image quality, and certainly video will well before that. It's impossible to know when true adoption of it will begin, but if people intend to have a console that lasts, they'll want to ensure that it can function at least on some level with 4k. Increased resolution offers a definitive benefit to image quality, that's all. Whether that's a selling point or not is unclear.
Click to expand...

Doesn't all current AMD gpus support 4k?
 
BRocknRolla said:
I mean, on some level if we ask that question, we might as well ask why 1080p matters. Why not just do everything in 720p? Lower? At some point, games will take advantage of 4k to improve image quality, and certainly video will well before that. It's impossible to know when true adoption of it will begin, but if people intend to have a console that lasts, they'll want to ensure that it can function at least on some level with 4k. Increased resolution offers a definitive benefit to image quality, that's all. Whether that's a selling point or not is unclear.
Click to expand...

You say:
At some point, games will take advantage of 4k to improve image quality
-> But when ps4k is released, how the games will take advantage of it? It can only stream 4k when the console is powerful enough and that is something I think we still need to wait about 10years. Only 0.1% maybe has 4k TV's that another problem.

So I would say, expensive tech that "looks like" a waste of money

What res can ps4 currently output? 1080p 30frames/sec?
while 4k res:

res-sizes.png
 
XenodudeX said:
Cross play doesn't seem worth it if it's going to cause all those problems.
Click to expand...

My point wasn't about shared library; it was about having a shared library across CPU architectures. It's why you only see Android doing it; it's a tough nut to crack. And even then, they invest a LOT of time and money into getting ART to run across various architectures.

The simpler and easier way is to just maintain the same architecture for all devices.
 
z0m3le said:
Doesn't all current AMD gpus support 4k?
Click to expand...

If not all the current ones (I don't know the full breadth of the market) it must be close. I'm certain it would be the standard for everything going forward. There is more tech involved than just the GPU though.

Peterc said:
You say:
At some point, games will take advantage of 4k to improve image quality
-> But when ps4k is released, how the games will take advantage of it? It can only stream 4k when the console is powerful enough and that is something I think we still need to wait about 10years. Only 0.1% maybe has 4k TV's that another problem.

So I would say, expensive tech that "looks like" a waste of money

What res can ps4 currently output? 1080p 30frames/sec?
while 4k res:
Click to expand...

It isn't just games though. There are already 4k on certain series for Netflix, so if you're looking for a device that can be a 4k media player, the PS4k could provide (Or theoretically any console in the future that provides 4k support).

Even with just games though, it isn't like 1080p30fps is a maximum for the PS4. It can do 60fps, and I'm sure it can do resolutions higher and then down-sample with the right tech. Is Bloodborne going to use that? No, of course not. And I'm sure a lot of the big games won't use anything above 1080p even on the PS4k, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be possible. Games that are smaller in scope could certainly use 4k if they were designed as such. Will many devs use it? Probably not unless 4k adoption becomes the norm for consumers, but they'll just funnel that power to other areas of their tech if they aren't using a 4k resolution.

You saw the same thing last gen with the PS3 and Xbox 360. There were very few games that used 1080p, but the console was capable of it and video playback certainly used it. Only at the end of the lifecycle was 1080p the norm for a lot consumers.

Edit: I'd argue Nintendo probably thought that "HD" was too expensive and unnecessary because it wasn't commonly adopted during the Wii generation and therefore stuck with SD figuring it wouldn't be important. They created relatively low power hardware to go along with that. While they sold a bunch, their games library really suffered for it, and those ripples are still being felt in third party relations. If Nintendo looks at the power required for 4K and says, "Nah, we don't need that," the fear would be that we may end up seeing the same thing this gen if Nintendo doesn't create something powerful enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Baldur's Gate 3 Patch 8 brings Xbox Series S split-screen support
45
3K
Mr Reasonable replied
The Switch 2 is rumored to have a 120hz LCD screen with VRR and HDR support
Rumor Platform  2 3 4
198
13K
tkscz replied
Warhammer 40,000: Rogue Trader - Lex Imperialis (Second Expansion) and Second Season Pass Announced
0
44
Sept Terrion Of Nothing replied
Redditor has had physical access to a non-powered on Switch 2 (mod verified)
3 4 5 6 7
335
27K
RoadHazard replied
  • Poll
An idea: $399 RISC-V PS6, $499 PS6 Portable. $899 PS6 Pro (x86)
2 3
128
6K
Mibu no ookami replied
Top Bottom