Nintendo GOing Forward.

[Deleted member 86764]

The problem with the Wii U is that the crappy hardware got in the way

That's quite true, but Nintendo only matched the PS360 because they went for an expensive pad. If they avoided creating that Gamepad and instead included better processors for the same or a similar cost, they could have easily blown the PS360 out the water. They hoped that the Gamepad offered a unique selling point, which obviously it didn't.

If they realise this and simply package an updated Wiimote with much better hardware in the box, then I believe they would make something that's more powerful than either the PS4 or Xbox One. It just depends on whether they feel they've a strong enough alternative unique selling point. I doughnut shaped pad is not it.

I'd wish they would create hardware that's similar (x86 CPU), but that's roughly twice the power so that they could mandate 60fps for all their multiplatform games. It won't happen of course, but a guy can dream.

 

[AlNom]

They said that one design win is "beyond gaming", so I'm assuming it's not about gaming. They claim one is x86 and the other is ARM. Very recently, AMD showed their ARM "Hadoop" platform for servers up and running, hence the assumption that the non-gaming design win is the ARM SoC.
Which, if correct, would mean the x86 custom SoC order is not the beyond gaming part.

Nintendo phone?

 

[Nesh]

That's quite true, but Nintendo only matched the PS360 because they went for an expensive pad. If they avoided creating that Gamepad and instead included better processors for the same or a similar cost, they could have easily blown the PS360 out the water. They hoped that the Gamepad offered a unique selling point, which obviously it didn't.

If they realise this and simply package an updated Wiimote with much better hardware in the box, then I believe they would make something that's more powerful than either the PS4 or Xbox One. It just depends on whether they feel they've a strong enough alternative unique selling point. I doughnut shaped pad is not it.

I'd wish they would create hardware that's similar (x86 CPU), but that's roughly twice the power so that they could mandate 60fps for all their multiplatform games. It won't happen of course, but a guy can dream.

http://www.forgetthebox.net/rumor-wii-u-price/

I thought the pad was expensive but.....

Mind you this article was in 2012.

 

[liolio]

That's quite true, but Nintendo only matched the PS360 because they went for an expensive pad. If they avoided creating that Gamepad and instead included better processors for the same or a similar cost, they could have easily blown the PS360 out the water. They hoped that the Gamepad offered a unique selling point, which obviously it didn't.

You try to pass your opinion as a fact, Nintendo never stated anything on the matter aside that according to their projection the hardware should be fine for a while (/PR bullcrap).
Looking at their silicon budget and the overall estimated BOM if something prevented them to release something better it is BC and power consumption.

I hope Nintendo manages in the future to provide more bang for buck in hardware and also actually manage to ship cheaper hardware, they need to extend their reach looking at their positioning being affordable is pretty critical.

 

[Deleted member 86764]

You try to pass your opinion as a fact, Nintendo never stated anything on the matter

That $50 could easily have been spent on a decent (for the time) CPU, while combining the space offered by the current CPU/GPU into one larger GPU.

 

[liolio]

That $50 could easily have been spent on a decent (for the time) CPU, while combining the space offered by the current CPU/GPU into one larger GPU.

Knowing Nintendo without the gamepad they would have sell the system at lower cost, actually making a profit
It is not really the topic anyway, forward

My take on Nintendo going forward is actually that they push their view of themselves, aka a toy company, further and in an age where decent SOC, screen, etc are commodity they push products with a more appropriate pricing.

After the Wii experiment it would also be beneficial if they realize that their games needs actually no gimmicks to be good and so that no gimmick should constrain their hardware designs.

Go on Nintendo, make great games, design good simple toy and you may keep a healthy niche for yourself.

 

[Fourth Storm]

They said that one design win is "beyond gaming", so I'm assuming it's not about gaming. They claim one is x86 and the other is ARM. Very recently, AMD showed their ARM "Hadoop" platform for servers up and running, hence the assumption that the non-gaming design win is the ARM SoC.
Which, if correct, would mean the x86 custom SoC order is not the beyond gaming part.

I would be very surprised if Nintendo went for an x86 processor. AMD still have server parts with x86, and "beyond gaming" is a difficult phrase to figure out. Does that mean it includes some gaming but can also do more? I know there are low power x86 parts and that the Cortex A57 is actually a very robust core, but I still am inclined to think that the power consumption on the ARM design is lower. I also wonder if Nintendo are looking at 3DS BC and if the A57 is strong enough to emulate the quad core ARM11 in the New 3DS. I have to imagine 3DS BC will be a thing in their next handheld, considering it has been a pretty popular device.

I am curious to see what Nintendo comes up with for the Unified OS. If Nintendo added a thicker abstraction layer so that future compatibility between consoles was assured, does anyone have an estimate as to how much CPU performance would be sacrificed?

 

[Deleted member 13524]

The Cortex A57 has a performance per clock that is around 3.5x higher than an ARM11. The Cortex A53 is around 2x faster per clock too.
Even if there are 4*ARM11 cores @268MHz in the new 3DS, I think they could be comfortably replaced by a single Cortex A53 @ 1GHz.. let alone a Cortex A57.

ARM11 emulation using x86 cores has been around for ages. It shouldn't be hard to get a fairly low-power x86 (i.e. a couple of 1.6-2GHz Puma cores) to emulate four ARM11 cores at a measly 268MHz.


Nintendo would gain immensely in 3rd party support by going x86 for their next generation.

 

[liolio]

Asserting that third party support would be improved if Nintendo chooses X86 is disputable.
Those devices are not coded for directly, it is close to the metal yet, the PS4 is different from the Xb, the OS are different, the API(s) are different, shader language different, etc. The software environment are more different than the hardware looking at those 2 systems.

Sales is what affects third party support foremost I would think. Hardware and software environment will impact the quality of the ports.

 

[Sonic]

Surely the quality of ports will effect the sales as well right? And I would imagine that x86 is actually quite nice for devs making multi-platform games this generation. With three platforms being x86 it actually makes sense for Nintendo to get on board with it as well as they will be able to reap those benefits as well. Just because the tools and OS are different across the platform doesn't mean there aren't advantages to having the same basic CPU architecture to program for across the three platforms. If it's cost effective and will make devs lives easier then it's a no brainer as far as Ninty is concerned.

But liolio is right. Sales ultimately effect the amount of 3rd party support a platform will have. But in that case the onus is on Nintendo to create an environment that will foster that initial 3rd party development and proactively work on making those 3rd party games sell on its platform. Having competent hardware and software tools before launch would go a long way in getting that initial 3rd party development. And actually marketing the console as a place where gamers can not just purchase the standard Nintendo franchises, but also hit 3rd party games as well. And the important thing they need to do is actually act on this and not just talk a big game and fail to deliver.

And that's just one of the things the company needs to do if it wishes to grab a mainstream audience again. Online system as has been discussed is highly important. Broadening their own horizon of the types of games they make is important. And designing desirable hardware is super duper important. I'm not sure Nintendo has what it takes any more to actually pull off all of these in the same way MS and Sony can. I'm not sure they can go at it alone.

 

[Syferz]

Nintendo is no longer making individual platforms for their devices, the handheld and console are going to be a single platform with multiple form factors. Nintendo has over 50m devices sold in the market this gen, they are not nearly in as bad of shape as the market likes to paint. The reason I point this out is that they can push whatever hardware specs they want, if the console sells 5m units and the handheld sells 50m+ then there is no real issue with it, especially if the console is sold for a small profit.

As for specs, it comes to cost, I think Nintendo is going to drop the gamepad as the standard controller for the console and go with a pro controller or gamecube revised controller, putting wiimote in the box is still a good idea and only costs them a few bucks, but this might be a premium sku. If you assume that Mario's next game is going to be there for launch and they are pushing graphics, it sounds like a 2017 launch for the console, though I could be wrong I feel 4 years is about the most time they would ever need for a Mario, even if it's a sandbox m64 style game.

Performance being beyond PS4 is pretty easy to guess at isn't it? I mean PS4 launched at 120watts with GDDR5, 28nm and a hdd among other things, Nintendo will likely go with stacked memory (they are always willing to spend heavy on memory and recently said that they want to continue to focus on fast memory as their legacy) Puma is far more power efficient than jaguar and AMD will likely offer a newer core anyways. 16nm to 14nm is most likely and as for keeping costs low, going with something that match's PS4's GPU will cost less than the PS4 GPU, fairly obvious why right? higher clocks, less die size, more performance from newer generations. I'd say the minimum for a $299 Nintendo console in 2017 is:
AMD APU 8 core (Nolan's successor) 2ghz - 2.5ghz, 1280 ALUs 20cu @ 1GHz (2.56TFLOPs) and 8GB stacked ram. This will allow 3rd parties to develop games for launch and give the perception of superiority as this device would have a much faster CPU which holds the PS4 back, also a faster GPU allowing for 1080p/60fps ps4 ports. Nintendo's Wii U has already shown a sharp shift in focus from casuals to core Nintendo fans, they will fight the casual market on their handheld form factor and push the console as a core gaming device. Seriously the specs I listed are cheaper than PS4's, very little reason they couldn't put this out at even 199-249, though I assume they will launch it for profit and sell the handheld at $199.

Marketing is important, they need the handheld and console to share marketing budget/games and name. They will have to use something like NES and NES-portable.

Remember the console is just marketing, perception, it matters very little how it sells because both form factors will play the same games with different effects/resolution/fps(in some cases) the console existing at all is more about perception than anything else. The way this thread injects a sense of bias towards Nintendo is odd, they are very hard to predict, going conservative with a prediction doesn't make you more right, I just don't see them adding an expensive gimmick, something cheap, sure but because these devices must work for the same games, I don't see big gimmicks being a thing... head tracking could be more than enough. I don't see Nintendo chasing the casual market next gen, they have already abandoned it this gen.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You contradict yourself.

Performance being beyond PS4 is pretty easy to guess at isn't it?
...
Remember the console is just marketing, perception, it matters very little how it sells...

Given that Wii U wasn't beyond PS360 despite launching soooo much later with so many more technological advances to draw upon to be faster, and given you believe the console is just marketing and doesn't really serve a purpose, why would it obviously be faster than PS4? Make it about the same speed, maybe slower, and save a lot of cash. Isn't that more sensible for a product that's basically just a promotion of the handheld?

 

[liolio]

Beating that generation is nothing special given a sane silicon and power budget, especially the CPU.
Now I don't think Nintendo will anywhere near the same amount of transistors or power that either MSFT or Sony did.
Would it be cheap to beat the ps4 or the Xb1? New process/lithography no longer means cheaper chips or it is no longer as clear.
We have no idea how much those stack RAM will cost and when they are going to be available.

Ot with mobile being the main driver for R&D I've the feeling that we won't see those new type of ram for a while, the focus will be on avoiding data movement from the SOC to the RAM, using more compression etc. Moving data is costly.

 

[Syferz]

You contradict yourself.
Given that Wii U wasn't beyond PS360 despite launching soooo much later with so many more technological advances to draw upon to be faster, and given you believe the console is just marketing and doesn't really serve a purpose, why would it obviously be faster than PS4? Make it about the same speed, maybe slower, and save a lot of cash. Isn't that more sensible for a product that's basically just a promotion of the handheld?

No, the handheld and console would be priced differently, you wouldn't want to release both a handheld and console at $199 for instance, PS4 is sold at a profit afaik, this is in 2014 @ 399 with all those expensive components I listed versus what Nintendo is likely to use. I pointed out that Nintendo using the 2017 equivalent of that chip would have much faster CPU cores and allow for a higher GPU clock thanks to being on a smaller process node such as 16nm. Even if Nintendo wanted to cut corners, they would still be looking to release a $299 product as to create clear difference in their form factors. Putting out an AMD APU without a gamepad controller for $299 even with a 33watt TDP, you are looking at a 16-20CU GPU with 1GHz clock (2TFlops - 2.56TFLOPs)

The other factor is how much the CPU bottleneck's the PS4's performance, AI is an issue because jaguar 8 cores is junk, the cores AMD would give Nintendo would be newer and higher clocked with reduced wattage (Puma drops wattage quite a bit from jaguar) so again you are looking at a pretty obvious power boost from Nintendo barring their gimmick costing too much for this performance @ $299.

My assumption here is basically that Nintendo has made a drastic shift to their core base from their casual one (mostly because the latter doesn't exist)

 

[Shifty Geezer]

No, the handheld and console would be priced differently, you wouldn't want to release both a handheld and console at $199 for instance, PS4 is sold at a profit afaik, this is in 2014 @ 399 with all those expensive components I listed versus what Nintendo is likely to use. I pointed out that Nintendo using the 2017 equivalent of that chip would have much faster CPU cores and allow for a higher GPU clock thanks to being on a smaller process node such as 16nm. Even if Nintendo wanted to cut corners, they would still be looking to release a $299 product as to create clear difference in their form factors. Putting out an AMD APU without a gamepad controller for $299 even with a 33watt TDP, you are looking at a 16-20CU GPU with 1GHz clock (2TFlops - 2.56TFLOPs)

You haven't explained why Nintendo would want to do this. You state that the console doesn't really serve a purpose other than mindshare. Ergo, why make a more expensive, more powerful machine? If the console is only going to run handheld ports in higher res, the power requirements will be fairly low. No reason at all to trump PS4. Go with lower power, lower cost to manufacture, higher profit margins.

Putting it another way, putting in more powerful hardware is going to cost Nintendo more. So what would they gain for that added expense? Will a 20 CU Mii&U at a profit of $0 per box make Nintendo lots more money in the long run than a 12 CU Mii&U at $25 a box profit? The only reason to go with more power is to attract core gamers wanting the best COD and EA Sport experience, but that market is basically dead to Nintendo and it seems unlikely they can recover it, nor that N. want to recover it. Hence the cheapest possible hardware that'll provide an upgraded experience for Wii U users and a console experience for Nintendo's handheld users seems the straight-forward choice.

 

[Syferz]

You haven't explained why Nintendo would want to do this. You state that the console doesn't really serve a purpose other than mindshare. Ergo, why make a more expensive, more powerful machine? If the console is only going to run handheld ports in higher res, the power requirements will be fairly low. No reason at all to trump PS4. Go with lower power, lower cost to manufacture, higher profit margins.

Putting it another way, putting in more powerful hardware is going to cost Nintendo more. So what would they gain for that added expense? Will a 20 CU Mii&U at a profit of $0 per box make Nintendo lots more money in the long run than a 12 CU Mii&U at $25 a box profit? The only reason to go with more power is to attract core gamers wanting the best COD and EA Sport experience, but that market is basically dead to Nintendo and it seems unlikely they can recover it, nor that N. want to recover it. Hence the cheapest possible hardware that'll provide an upgraded experience for Wii U users and a console experience for Nintendo's handheld users seems the straight-forward choice.

Ah, I see that you misunderstood my statement about marketing and perception, releasing the most powerful console has a draw, even if it's only for a year or two, putting out a console that can do 60fps / 1080p of PS4 games is attractive and a mistake that Wii U didn't have this. Where do you get the (frankly quacky) idea that Nintendo doesn't want 3rd party support? they make money on the games sold on their platforms, and if customers are going to buy CoD/Madden, it's better for Nintendo if they do it on Nintendo's platform. I'm not going to discuss foil hat conspiracy theories so if your idea is that Nintendo wants to limit what their customers can buy, I'll simply say that it isn't logical since those gamers are going to buy the games somewhere else and Nintendo won't see any profit.

$299 for a console that runs faster than PS4 in 2017 by 200-800gflops isn't going to break any banks, especially since Nintendo would have a cheaper APU (more modern) otherwise identical to PS4's, the only difference being a higher clock that simply comes from moving down to 16nm. AMD is doing all the work here, not Nintendo, and considering Nvidia's recent desktop releases, AMD is going to have to meet serious power draw limitations to compete.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Beating that generation is nothing special given a sane silicon and power budget, especially the CPU.
Now I don't think Nintendo will anywhere near the same amount of transistors or power that either MSFT or Sony did.
Would it be cheap to beat the ps4 or the Xb1? New process/lithography no longer means cheaper chips or it is no longer as clear.
We have no idea how much those stack RAM will cost and when they are going to be available.

Ot with mobile being the main driver for R&D I've the feeling that we won't see those new type of ram for a while, the focus will be on avoiding data movement from the SOC to the RAM, using more compression etc. Moving data is costly.

In 2017, Nintendo could even match or surpass the PS4 with a SoC carrying less transistors. Both consoles use rather conservative clocks even for 28nm (in no small part because they're huge chips).
At a mature 20nm or 16nm, Nintendo could make a 6-core Puma at 2.5GHz with 12 CU GCN 2.0 at 1.3GHz, together with HBM. This would be a smaller chip with less transistors but a bit faster than the PS4.

The other factor is how much the CPU bottleneck's the PS4's performance, AI is an issue because jaguar 8 cores is junk, the cores AMD would give Nintendo would be newer and higher clocked with reduced wattage (Puma drops wattage quite a bit from jaguar) so again you are looking at a pretty obvious power boost from Nintendo barring their gimmick costing too much for this performance @ $299.

I'm sorry, you lost me at the "8 jaguar cores is junk for AI".
Do you have any studies/benchmarks that back this claim?

 

[liolio]

In 2017, Nintendo could even match or surpass the PS4 with a SoC carrying less transistors. Both consoles use rather conservative clocks even for 28nm (in no small part because they're huge chips).
At a mature 20nm or 16nm, Nintendo could make a 6-core Puma at 2.5GHz with 12 CU GCN 2.0 at 1.3GHz, together with HBM. This would be a smaller chip with less transistors but a bit faster than the PS4.

The console use conservative clocks because of power concerns.
Honestly why are you so bent on AMD and X86?
It does not really make sense for Nintendo to go with 2 different architectures, even them stated that they want convergence.

Wrt to the consoles CPU we are unlikely to see benchmarks, I don't know for AI but it is clear that those CPU have pretty weak single thread performances, the way the 2 clusters are stuck together seems to be quite awful too.
A jaguar compute cluster by self looks OK but what is in the next gen looks a lot like a hack job.
I wish one manufacturer swallowed the extra wattage and went with richland CPU but that is another matter.

 

[Cjail]

Where do you get the (frankly quacky) idea that Nintendo doesn't want 3rd party support?

Nintendo probably wants 3rd party but they don't need nor want the WiiU.
Third party developers/publishers simply don't make money on WiiU so, honestly, why should they invest on it?!

 

[function]

PUMA isn't going to match arm for perf/watt in handhelds, so they couldn't use a common architecture. 1.3 gHz GCN would be toasty hot for the performance it cranked out.

Xbox one is silent but huge. PS4 is smaller but spins up like a hoover. Both spend more on cooling that Nintendo would ever contemplate.