nVidia Project Th-.. Shield (Tegra4)

[Shifty Geezer]

Then again, the Shield appears to use 3 high-capacity AAA batteries.

Where do you find that? The large capacity can only be achieved with a lithium pack AFAIK. Googling suggests prices of around $50 retail. I expect Shield's battery to cost more than Vita's because it is larger to power the machine for longer, assuming power consumption is somewhat similar. Cost will be a factor of capacity and density. Shield can afford lower density for its capacity due to larger form factor.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Where do you find that? The large capacity can only be achieved with a lithium pack AFAIK. Googling suggests prices of around $50 retail. I expect Shield's battery to cost more than Vita's because it is larger to power the machine for longer, assuming power consumption is somewhat similar. Cost will be a factor of capacity and density. Shield can afford lower density for its capacity due to larger form factor.

In the video, at 0:23s:

I actually meant AA but it's not that either.
It's actually three 18650 batteries with a capacity 3400mA.h and 3.7V output.
3.4A.h*3.7V*3 batteries = 37.74W.h, hence the 38W.h numbers.

The 18650 are batteries that one can find in a hardware shop for lanterns. One can find these made by Panasonic at retail for about $13 each, in packs of 50.
A large-scale order of several thousands of these batteries should lower the price of each battery to some $10 or less, so don't count on much more than $30 for the three batteries.





EDIT: Scratch those prices. A trip to alibaba shows that those same panasonic batteries can be found for less than $5 when bought in hundreds, and other brands can go for lower than that.
nVidia is probably spending between $10 and $15 on the batteries.
And they didn't even have to spend R&D money on them. It was just there in the market.
Brilliant.

 

[Pressure]

Why worry about the price of those batteries?

It is clearly obvious that they are not going to be user-replaceable looking at that assembly video.

A bit weird they didn't opt for a prismatic pouch cell, as every other OEM has done.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Why worry about the price of those batteries?
It is clearly obvious that they are not going to be user-replaceable looking at that assembly video.

Read the post and see the pic. These are the batteries that go inside the Shield.
Why the "user-replaceable" comment, and what does that add to the issue at hand?

Some people were arguing that one of the main factors for increasing the Shield's BOM would be the battery.
Knowing that it actually uses off-the-shelf batteries and their price, we know it won't be such a significant part of the BOM.

A bit weird they didn't opt for a prismatic pouch cell, as every other OEM has done.

Because the Shield's design isn't focused on being thin so they can fit cylindrical batteries, which can be bought off-the-shelf for cheap and still offer a comparatively huge capacity.

 

[liolio]

I do agree that the device could be a tad costly. I kind of share the same feeling as with the PSV, it is over specced.
I would have interest in seeing some low cost companies take on the concept, Chinese are doing a great job, the Honda devices mentionted in that Anandtech article doesn't seem to cut too many corners wrt built quality.
By the way whereas Nvidia has to use a tegra based device and we don't know either the price and the kind of sale targets they have for the device, the aforementioned products let me in a dreamy state looking at the choice made by Sony on the PSV or MSFT for Surface.

I feel like some R&D department (but also marketing and strategy folks...) in big "occidental" (I put Japan in it) corporations are dysfunctional in some ways. Too much money or use to have to much money? Not clear enough guidance? Too high salary costs? I don't know but I would swear that Honda for example would have make a "better" surface (the pro seems fine) than MSFT team for example. There would have been trade off, but they could have ship something that perform as well or better possibly @199$, it is not a tough bet that reception for Windows 8 RT would have been better.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

It's Onda, not Honda.
Honda is a japanese automotive brand. Or a japanese family name.

 

[liolio]

It's Onda, not Honda.
Honda is a japanese automotive brand. Or a japanese family name.

Oops stupid mistake, I did not confuse the brand though.
Speaking of which I would like to see Honda (re)introduce "something" in between their CBR250R and their CBR600R. At some point in time there was 400cc sport oriented bikes and they were mostly 'reserved' to the Japanese market for some reason.

I think that 350/400cc would be perfect, with an engine not optimized toward high rpm and high speed. Such an engine would provide more torque than the CBR250.

I always dream to have a sport bike, but honestly those 600cc, and more, motorcycles are monsters, you can't get close to tap their power without massively breaking the law 9/plenty of risks not only wrt law), it is quiet some power to tame. Big macho may find that is fine, but I would prefer something more manageable

Sorry for the OT, other than that Honda is also the name of a famous Sumotori

 

[gkar1]

It's perhaps more pertinent to compare the Shield to Vita regards cost, price and features.

And as a sales forecast
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/01/09/vita-sales-low.aspx

 

[ams]

NVIDIA has done some excellent work with Project Shield. The differences in form factor alone between Project Shield and Playstation Vita provide some key advantages for Shield. By using a full sized controller, Shield is able to make use of full size analog sticks/buttons/D-pad (rather than the significantly smaller analog sticks/buttons/D-pad used in Playstation Vita); Shield is able to seamlessly fit three high capacity and cost-effective standard cylindrical Li-ion batteries (rather than lower capacity and more expensive Li-ion batteries designed for small form factors used in Playstation Vita); Shield is able to seamlessly incorporate an internal heat sink to enhance performance and to help prevent throttling during heavy gaming sessions (whereas Playstation Vita has no internal heatsink and needs to keep GPU clock operating frequencies more limited in comparison to keep heat under control); Shield is able to seamlessly incorporate a bass reflex speaker design for extended low frequency response and lower distortion (whereas Playstation Vita needs to use a sealed speaker design with higher distortion and less wide dynamic range). Shield also has hardware that is one year newer in comparison to Playstation Vita, and is fabricated on a smaller and more advanced silicon fabrication process.

At the end of the day, Shield is rated for 5-10 hours of continuous gaming, while Playstation Vita is rated for 3-5 hours of continuous gaming. Shield is rated for 14 hours of continuous HD video playback, while Playstation Vita is rated for 5 hours of continuous video playback. Shield uses up to four A15 CPU cores for gaming (with a fifth battery saver core for non-gaming light workloads), while Playstation Vita uses up to three A9 CPU cores for gaming. Shield has a GPU with 72 total pixel/vertex shader execution units operating at a clock frequency above 520MHz, while Playstation Vita has a GPU with 64 total shader execution units operating at a clock frequency of 200MHz. Shield has a 5" touchscreen with 1280x720 720p HD resolution at 294ppi, while Playstation Vita has a 5" touchscreen with 960x540 qHD resolution at 220ppi. Shield is able to play PC games that are streamed from a Kepler-equipped PC (GTX 650 or higher on a desktop, and GTX 660M or higher on a laptop), while Playstation Vita is unable to play PC games. Shield has an HDMI output to output video to a big screen TV, while Playstation Vita has no video output. Shield uses a pure Android Jellybean operating system and is able to perform every function that any other Android Jellybean tablet or phone can perform, while Playstation Vita uses a proprietary non-Android operating system and has much more limited functionality in comparison. Shield uses a standard MicroSD memory card, while Playstation Vita uses a proprietary memory card that must be purchased separately or specially bundled as a package. Shield games are free, free-to-play, and very inexpensive games from Google Play, TegraZone, etc., while Playstation Vita games are only available on relatively expensive proprietary game cards.

I do think that Playstation Vita was impressive and innovative for it's time, but there is no doubt that Shield will provide a more powerful and flexible gaming/video/email/web browsing/social networking experience, while still allowing one to have all the benefits of a pure Android device that is synced with any other Android phone or tablet in one's possession.

 

[tuna]

I do think that Playstation Vita was impressive and innovative for it's time, but there is no doubt that Shield will provide a more powerful and flexible gaming/video/email/web browsing/social networking experience, while still allowing one to have all the benefits of a pure Android device that is synced with any other Android phone or tablet in one's possession.

Well, we do not know the price and there are very few games announced.

 

[Gerry]

NVIDIA has done some excellent work with Project Shield. bla bla bla

That read like a promotional pitch.

The two things that stand out about Shield at the moment are a) the fact it is incredibly ugly and b) the fact we have no idea how much it'll cost.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

That read like a promotional pitch.

The two things that stand out about Shield at the moment are a) the fact it is incredibly ugly and b) the fact we have no idea how much it'll cost.

And that read like an anti-product marketing plot.

Honestly, for anyone interested in portable gaming (which the product is obviously directed at) I'm pretty sure the looks would be at the bottom of things that stand out.

Games library, software price, portability & ergonomics, display & audio quality, battery life and screencast features would obviously stand out a lot more than looks (which BTW are extremely subjective).

If OTOH one is mostly preoccupied if the device looks as sterile as an ipad and worries either the people around him/her will create some sort of prejudice because of how the device looks, then that person should obviously look for an ipod touch instead of Shield.

 

[ams]

It is what it is, and those are the just the facts. One year newer technology in a different form factor with a different OS are what give Shield most of those advantages. As for looks, it is simply a handheld controller where the screen flips open or closed. With the screen open, the aesthetics are reasonably clean on the controller. With the screen closed, the aesthetics are cleaner. Pricing is unknown at this time, but do keep in mind that Vita is close to $300 with some much needed accessories (such as a memory card), and games for the Vita can easily be $30-$40+. Since the Android market reaches so many more people in comparison, games and other apps can be sold there for a much lower cost. Now, the success of Shield in terms of sales volume is completely unknown because this is a niche market, but the purpose of Shield is pretty clear: to showcase new NVIDIA Tegra technology and to provide a more flexible gaming experience for Android users.

 

[ams]

there are very few games announced.

True, but as long as Android gaming continues to evolve and improve (and I do think that is the clear trend with the evolution of TegraZone and with gaming engines such as Unreal Engine 3 being available for Android), then any Android product such as Shield will benefit from that. So the next important question is, why go with Shield when one already has an Android phone and/or tablet? The reason to go with Shield is for those who want a more flexible and/or powerful Android gaming experience, without the awkwardness or battery drain of gaming on a smartphone or tablet, while still having the benefits of being in sync with any other Android device.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

The two things that stand out about Shield at the moment are a) the fact it is incredibly ugly and b) the fact we have no idea how much it'll cost.

We do have at least a general "sense" of its cost. It will NOT be cost competitive with consoles or handhelds when it is launched. That was stated quite clearly by an Nvidia representative in one of the bits about Shield.

And while no specifics were given, the general tone of the reply to the question about cost seemed to imply that it would be significantly more expensive than whatever handhelds and consoles are out at the time of launch.

Which isn't surprising as Nvidia are likely to be aiming for 50%+ margins (as a company they are VERY focused on high margin products, their stock took a dive the last time their overall margins went below 40%). Retailers aren't going to want to subsidize it so they also have to build in decent margins for retailers in order to get them to sell the product (say 30%+) as there won't be any software for the retailers to sell to make a profit. Of course, they could just limit sales to online sales through Nvidia themselves, but that would just guarantee that it'll be a marginal product at best.

Regards,
SB

 

[tuna]

The reason to go with Shield is for those who want a more flexible and/or powerful Android gaming experience, without the awkwardness or battery drain of gaming on a smartphone or tablet, while still having the benefits of being in sync with any other Android device.

That sounds like a much smaller target audience than even the Vita's....

 

[Gerry]

We do have at least a general "sense" of its cost. It will NOT be cost competitive with consoles or handhelds when it is launched. That was stated quite clearly by an Nvidia representative in one of the bits about Shield.

And while no specifics were given, the general tone of the reply to the question about cost seemed to imply that it would be significantly more expensive than whatever handhelds and consoles are out at the time of launch.

Which isn't surprising as Nvidia are likely to be aiming for 50%+ margins (as a company they are VERY focused on high margin products, their stock took a dive the last time their overall margins went below 40%). Retailers aren't going to want to subsidize it so they also have to build in decent margins for retailers in order to get them to sell the product (say 30%+) as there won't be any software for the retailers to sell to make a profit. Of course, they could just limit sales to online sales through Nvidia themselves, but that would just guarantee that it'll be a marginal product at best.

Regards,
SB

Well indeedy. $400 seems to be the best guess at the moment, although I've seen people trying to convince themselves that nVidia will sell it for $299 or even $249, which sounds massively optimistic.

I think it's an intriguing device albeit it with a split personality. It's the streaming of PC games that's interesting IMO. If I ever delve back into PC gaming it's something I'd certainly look at, but price would be a huge factor. I couldn't see myself spending something like £300 for the privilege. It could well be a device that could drop in price quite quickly though I guess.

But it IS ugly.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Well indeedy. $400 seems to be the best guess at the moment, although I've seen people trying to convince themselves that nVidia will sell it for $299 or even $249, which sounds massively optimistic.

I think it's an intriguing device albeit it with a split personality. It's the streaming of PC games that's interesting IMO. If I ever delve back into PC gaming it's something I'd certainly look at, but price would be a huge factor. I couldn't see myself spending something like £300 for the privilege. It could well be a device that could drop in price quite quickly though I guess.

But it IS ugly.

The streaming from PC aspect is also going to be a potentially limiting factor. As you'll need a decent PC with a current Nvidia GPU in order to stream. At least from what has been mentioned thus far. As long as you have the supported hardware, it is a pretty nice feature to be able to then game on any TV in the house.

I'm not sure how feasible streaming games through an online service will be. Nvidia mentioned that streaming at 720p/30 FPS will require ~5 Mbps of bandwidth while streaming at 1080p/60 FPS will require ~15-20 Mbps.

That could pose problems for some users. In my area for example, most people are still limited to 7-12 Mbps. And the higher speed grades have "fair use" terminology built into the contracts. There's no hard caps, but they will send warnings and eventually terminate service for excessive bandwidth consumption.

And that's not to mention that input latency will become a problem. Nvidia's streaming game service (based on Gaikai) has a network latency of ~160 ms. That takes me all the way back to analog modem gaming days. Not something I want to revisit.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 13524]

The streaming from PC aspect is also going to be a potentially limiting factor. As you'll need a decent PC with a current Nvidia GPU in order to stream. At least from what has been mentioned thus far. As long as you have the supported hardware, it is a pretty nice feature to be able to then game on any TV in the house.

You don't need a nVidia graphics card to stream games between Shield and a PC.
You'll need a GeForce to use nVidia's own streaming app that makes use of the Geforce 6's dedicated video codec hardware.

Since that thing uses plain Android, you can just install Splashtop which uses software encoding or Intel QuickSync, and play games using an older Geforce or a Radeon.
Just as you would with any other Android device.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

You don't need a nVidia graphics card to stream games between Shield and a PC.
You'll need a GeForce to use nVidia's own streaming app that makes use of the Geforce 6's dedicated video codec hardware.

Since that thing uses plain Android, you can just install Splashtop which uses software encoding or Intel QuickSync, and play games using an older Geforce or a Radeon.
Just as you would with any other Android device.

Yes that is true. But for the low latency gaming that Nvidia is touting, you'll need a current Nvidia GPU. Although that of course, could be subject to change in the future.

Regards,
SB