Topic unico voci/notizie nextgen Nintendo (Switch2 o come la chiameranno)

[Turrican3]

L'Online?

Su quello ci vorrebbe un miracolo, non un investitore.

PS: Il tuo Mii Turry, non so perché ma ti immaginavo proprio così

O quello o Yoda, non avevo molte alternative. C'è anche la variante per le recensioni, aspetta che vedo se riesco a recuperarla.

[Turrican3]

[Bombainnescata]

Geniali

[Bombainnescata]

Intanto oggi ARM presenteva A78 e la nuova microarchitettura X1, il che mi fa pensare al futuro di Nintendo, chissà cosa sceglieranno di montare su Switch 2

[Turrican3]

Dipende da quando Nintendo decide di rilasciare la nuova/e macchina/e.

Se è l'anno prossimo di sicuro non mi aspetto questi gingilli.

[Bombainnescata]

BOOM

[Turrican3]

http://www.emsodm.com/html/vip/temp/2020/08/24/1598239179207.html

Ancora una voce, stavolta da Taiwan, su un possibile nuovo modello/revisione di Switch che potrebbe arrivare nel 2021.

[Bluforce]

Turry la pagina dà errore 404.

Ho visto in giro comunque che si parla di un dispositivo 4K. Mi pare eccessivo.
Sarebbe meglio puntare ad un buon dispositivo 1080p.

Leggevo pure che non ci sarà DLSS 2.0 perché non supportato dal chipset.

[Turrican3]

Azz avranno rimosso di già?!

Vabbè ne parla pure Bloomberg:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-25/nintendo-plans-upgraded-switch-console-and-major-games-for-2021

Riguardo il 4K boh, come al solito vuol dire tutto e niente. La cosa che davvero conta a mio parere è la strategia che hanno in mente in quel di Kyoto.

Bisogna capire se cioè lasciano in vita il supporto a Switch e semplicemente tutto gira meglio (in che termini? tutto lascia pensare come minimo ad una risoluzione maggiore) come aveva anticipato il povero Iwata oppure se i piani sono cambiati e la generazione è nuova di zecca, al più assicurando che i vecchi titoli continuino a girare, MA chiudendo immediatamente o comunque in tempi stretti lo sviluppo per l'attuale macchina.

Visto l'andazzo globale (ma anche quello specifico di Nintendo, unito alle già citate "anticipazioni" di Iwata) io scommetterei senza indugio sulla prima, poi la forma del nuovo hardware è relativamente ininfluente.

Vedremo™

[Bluforce]

Difficilmente il supporto a Switch verrà tagliato. Sarebbero pazzi

[Bombainnescata]

Hanno il mio interesse 

[Bombainnescata]

https://twitter.com/AestheticGamer1/status/1308915667924590592

[Bluforce]

Troppa gente parla di questo Switch pro.
Difficile non esista.

[Turrican3]

It's important to note that when people talk about Gflops or Tflops, they're talking about them as a proxy for real-world performance (or at least they should be). The actual performance of a GPU (ie the speed at which it renders a given frame) is going to be limited by a number of potential bottlenecks, including floating point performance, integer performance, memory bandwidth, TMU performance, ROP performance, register memory, cache, etc., etc. Even within the rendering of a given frame, those bottlenecks could change, so for example one millisecond it could be integer-limited, the next it could be ROP limited. As such, the actual render time for a frame is going to be dependent on a number of different bottlenecks impacting different parts of the rendering pipeline.

So when I compare, say a 1Tflop Turing GPU to a 2Tflop Turing GPU, I'm really comparing the first GPU to one where every bottleneck is doubled, because alongside those extra FP ALUs in the added SMs, there's twice the ROP performance, twice the TMU performance, etc. (Bandwidth isn't strictly linked to the number of SMs and clock like this, but you would expect any GPU designer would avoid a bandwidth-limited design if at all possible.) So the second GPU isn't twice as powerful as the first because it's capable of 2Tflops, it's twice as powerful because a whole range of bottlenecks have been doubled, just one of which is the floating point performance. We just use the floating point performance as a proxy because it's a relatively simple and straight-forward measure. It's also generally a very big number (in the trillions these days), so it's a useful advertising tool for GPU makers.

The issue with using flops as a measure of relative performance is that it only really makes sense when comparing two GPUs on the same architecture. If you compare a 1Tflop Maxwell GPU to a 1Tflop Turing GPU, they're not going to have the same level of performance, because the new architecture includes changes to many of those other bottlenecks which haven't scaled linearly alongside the floating point performance. We would only expect the two GPUs to have the same performance in a game which is entirely floating-point bottlenecked 100% of the time, which is never the case in the real world.

What makes this even less useful for Ampere is the way they changed the shader ALUs in the Ampere SMs over Turing. In a Turing SM there was one bank of floating point ALUs ("cores") and one bank of integer ALUs which could operate simultaneously. The integer ALUs weren't being very heavily utilised, so Nvidia changed the bank of integer ALUs to one which could either operate on integers or floating point numbers. So, assuming no integer workloads, an Ampere SM could operate at double the theoretical floating-point performance of a Turing SM. However, this was a relatively isolated change, and Nvidia didn't double everything else in the Ampere architecture alongside this. What this means is that you can't make any meaningful comparisons of floating point performance between Turing and Ampere. In fact, it's likely that Ampere will basically never be floating-point limited, which means using Tflops as a measure of an Ampere GPU's performance at all is rather pointless.

This is why I'm talking about SMs and clock speeds rather than "cores" and Gflops/Tflops when I talk about any potential Ampere-powered future Nintendo device. An Ampere GPU with a given number of SMs at a given clock should outperform a Turing GPU with a similar configuration, but the comparison gives you a much better idea of the real-world performance than comparing theoretical Tflop counts. When I suggested a 6 SM Ampere GPU at 1.3GHz in docked mode would be needed to facilitate DLSS at 4K/60, if I had said a 2Tflop Ampere GPU it would have given a very unrealistic expectation of performance compared to any existing non-Ampere GPU. In reality it's a GPU that's 50% "bigger" than the one in the original Switch, running on a newer architecture and at a higher clockspeed. Certainly a decent jump in performance over the original model, but nothing as crazy as 2 Tflops would imply if that were the only thing you were looking at.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/based-on-how-tech-has-progressed-since-the-switch-how-powerful-could-a-switch-pro-in-early-2021-actually-be.168144/post-46697750

Stava in una discussione riguardante le speculazioni sui futuri Switch, ma in realtà una buonissima parte dell'intervento è di carattere generale quindi penso vada benissimo qua.

[Turrican3]

Troppa gente parla di questo Switch pro.
Difficile non esista.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/based-on-how-tech-has-progressed-since-the-switch-how-powerful-could-a-switch-pro-in-early-2021-actually-be.168144/post-41177043

Qua ulteriori indizi risalenti a luglio, che mi ero perso.

In soldoni, Nvidia aveva cercato del personale (l'annuncio non è più attivo) con diversi indizi potenzialmente "nintendosi":

- "work on next generation graphics & AI technologies for gaming consoles and AI edge devices"
- c'erano riferimenti al DLSS, al momento non presente nella linea Tegra
- si parlava di API grafica proprietaria

Chiaro che nulla di tutto questo implica obbligatoriamente un Tegra in ottica Switch, ma la probabilità c'è ed è non nulla per dirla in termini statistici.