Exactly, same architecture means nothing if it only draws a fraction of the power, eg from a battery and not mains. Not only that, but size and cooling constraints mean with our current tech, it’s impossible to have a small handheld as powerful as current gen consoles
Honestly the biggest barrier is nintendo’s policy of making profit on hardware. Microsoft loses $100-$200 per console and the XSX still costs $500. Is nintendo really ready to charge $600 or even $700 for a console that matches what was released 3 years ago? 4 probably by launch?
The biggest barrier is that Nvidia has shown no capability to make a CPU that isn’t unconditional dogshit for gaming, and the CPU is the Switch’s problem.
The only company that’s made an ARM CPU remotely interesting is Apple.
They’re proud of “withered technology” as a philosophy.
My point is that even if they changed, it doesn’t matter. The fact that it’s nvidia means that it can’t get close on real world performance with anything that uses the CPU meaningfully. Even if they did match graphics benchmarks for some reason, it would be way off from actually playing most current gen games at a reasonable level.
It’s not going to be, it’s (from what I’ve seen) simply the same architecture. It’ll probably be what’s essentially a very cut down and underpowered (as in literally uses less power) version of it. Still a massive step up from the switch, which was already well outdated when it launched, but it’s not going to touch PS5 performance
Didn’t it tuen out that it was literally just the same architecture? Doesn’t really mean shit
Exactly, same architecture means nothing if it only draws a fraction of the power, eg from a battery and not mains. Not only that, but size and cooling constraints mean with our current tech, it’s impossible to have a small handheld as powerful as current gen consoles
Honestly the biggest barrier is nintendo’s policy of making profit on hardware. Microsoft loses $100-$200 per console and the XSX still costs $500. Is nintendo really ready to charge $600 or even $700 for a console that matches what was released 3 years ago? 4 probably by launch?
The biggest barrier is that Nvidia has shown no capability to make a CPU that isn’t unconditional dogshit for gaming, and the CPU is the Switch’s problem.
The only company that’s made an ARM CPU remotely interesting is Apple.
deleted by creator
They’re proud of “withered technology” as a philosophy.
My point is that even if they changed, it doesn’t matter. The fact that it’s nvidia means that it can’t get close on real world performance with anything that uses the CPU meaningfully. Even if they did match graphics benchmarks for some reason, it would be way off from actually playing most current gen games at a reasonable level.
deleted by creator
@Alto @Fubarberry @spiderkle @BolexForSoup on the same lever as a PS5??? Dang. You had curiosity but now you have my attention
It’s not going to be, it’s (from what I’ve seen) simply the same architecture. It’ll probably be what’s essentially a very cut down and underpowered (as in literally uses less power) version of it. Still a massive step up from the switch, which was already well outdated when it launched, but it’s not going to touch PS5 performance