5 ms·

>Considering the new developments in the ARM world, why did Nintendo ultimately choose an awfully slow ARM9 combined by an even slower ARM7, instead of a faster

>Considering the new developments in the ARM world, why did Nintendo ultimately choose an awfully slow ARM9 combined by an even slower ARM7, instead of a faster ARM9 (or even a StrongARM)? Nintendo's core philosophy for hardware has always been to use old hardware and develop one really unique feature with it, especially for its handhelds. N64 is an exception to this. The also tend to hold on to something from the previous generation, leading to some pretty strange architectures. They are fun to read about though, and there's something about this formula that seems to hold up over time better than the other consoles. The switch, using an Nvidia SOC is a real departure from this, since it's using very standard hardware and its main new feature is a kind of convergance of the Wii U's components. It's a bit sad in a way, but at least Switch gets a lot more ports than previous generations.

christkv 6y ago
I would argue that the Gamecube was pretty state of the art when it came out and in some ways ahead of its competition at the time.
- XMPPwocky 6y ago
  And it was the worst-selling of the Big 3 consoles that generation.
  - christkv 6y ago
    I’m going to make a crazy assertion. Since the wii was just a souped up GC the GC platform was the best selling platform over two generations of consoles.
- DCKing 6y ago
  Nintendo has been state of the art with the Nintendo 64 and GameCube and probably the Game Boy Advance in the same era. It was an era where - with clever engineering - you could be on the cutting edge and still sell your consoles for cheap. With Nintendo, it's always about cost control. They learned that being on the cutting edge does not help them sell more hardware or games, as the N64 and especially GameCube sold below expectations. They have not been on the cutting edge since then - nor were they really before. The Switch is pretty great because although it was not really on the cutting edge it had relatively up to date hardware at launch "for Nintendo" - especially compared to its 3DS and Wii U predecessors.
  - mumblemumble 6y ago
    I remember there being distinct periods where: - Genesis was out but we were still mostly playing NES games. - Playstation was out but we were still mostly playing SNES games. - PSP was out but everyone stuck to GBA. - I was on hiatus from video games when Wii happened, but I was aware that most my friends had one, even if you wouldn't know it, because ps and xbox were more popular with (the minority of) people who want to talk about video games all the time. My guess is that Nintendo has a few key parts of their strategy: More casual gamers don't actually care about having the best graphics (corollary: more casual gamers won't spend an extra $100 on better graphics), you need something that feels new & novel to attract the attention of more casual gamers and motivate them to buy, and technical constraints foster the kind of creativity that does that. Perhaps even more so than clever hardware gimmicks.
- wk_end 6y ago
  The Famicom and SFC were both the most powerful consoles on the market in most regards when they came out, too. I'd say that rather than the N64 being an exception, this strategy only really solidified after the back-to-back quasi-failures of the N64 and the GC.
  - cmrdporcupine 6y ago
    Hm, but couldn't you say the hardware in the SNES fits the description above; the 65816 was essentially last-generation 8-bit hardware with some modifications for 16-bit/24-bit addr support. They went this direction while most everyone else was going 68000. Remember this is the era of the Amiga and the X68000 and many arcade games were going 68000 based. They then bolted that to some pretty good video hardware but again it wasn't the kind of bitmap addressable blitter supported hardware that was out there on more advanced systems. It was still sprite/tile based stuff, with specific hardware support for common character-movement/scrolling/sprite/tile management, basically a more advanced version of what early 80s gaming systems had done.
    - wk_end 6y ago
      The SNES was built to be a dedicated 2D gaming powerhouse, and in 1990 nothing came close to it. Yes, it was basically a more advanced version of what early 80s gaming systems had done - but it was the most advanced version of what they'd done. Its direct competition was the PC Engine and the Mega Drive, and it smoked both of them. Comparing it to arcade machines and computers isn't really fair - totally different price points and market segments. But outside of high-end workstations nothing could spit out the kind of visuals the SNES was in 1990. The Amiga 500 was, what, like $500 in 1990? At least double the price? And that could display a mere 32 9-bit colours on-screen, two background layers, no alpha, no scaling or rotation. PCs were starting to come with VGA cards standard, but you'd need to spend at least 10x as much on one to get a CPU that could do much with it. And that's not even getting into the sound hardware! The 65816 was an unorthodox choice to be sure, but you're doing it a bit of a disservice: it's still a fully 16-bit CPU internally, and even at ~1/2 the MHz the performance delta between it and the 68k is generally overstated (because the 68k is such a cycle hog), especially for the kind of calculations 2D games tend to do. Anyway - weaker CPU + powerful video hardware (that gets outmodded by home computers within the next two-three years) has been, with few exceptions, the model for high-end game consoles since, well, at least the SNES. It's true of the PS4/XB1, it was true of the Xbox 360 (and the PS3, sort of, the whole Cell thing is complicated), it was true of the GC...CPU is rarely the bottleneck for games, so as a rule console designers don't get too spendy there. Exceptions might be the N64 and the Xbox, although even they had CPUs that could best be described as mid-range for their release dates.
klelatti 6y ago
It's become known as a "Blue Ocean" strategy - effectively find a part of the market where you are not competing directly with other players on their terms (i.e. cpu and graphics power). https://www.blueoceanstrategy.com/teaching-materials/nintendo-switch/ https://www.blueoceanstrategy.com/teaching-materials/nintend...
- Polylactic_acid 6y ago
  You also can't compete on speed anymore. Both Sony and Microsoft are buying the best parts available from AMD for the price so the only way to win this battle is to buy more expensive parts or to design your own that beat what AMD can make.
SarikayaKomzin 6y ago
It’s a remnant of Gunpei Yokoi’s philosophy: lateral thinking with withered technology. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpei_Yokoi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpei_Yokoi I find it refreshing that Nintendo has such strong opinions about these types of things, even when it’s to their detriment. This philosophy is a part of why their products always feel like “toys” and inspire all the feelings that come along with that.

christkv 6y ago

I would argue that the Gamecube was pretty state of the art when it came out and in some ways ahead of its competition at the time.

XMPPwocky 6y ago
And it was the worst-selling of the Big 3 consoles that generation.
- christkv 6y ago
  I’m going to make a crazy assertion. Since the wii was just a souped up GC the GC platform was the best selling platform over two generations of consoles.
DCKing 6y ago
Nintendo has been state of the art with the Nintendo 64 and GameCube and probably the Game Boy Advance in the same era. It was an era where - with clever engineering - you could be on the cutting edge and still sell your consoles for cheap. With Nintendo, it's always about cost control. They learned that being on the cutting edge does not help them sell more hardware or games, as the N64 and especially GameCube sold below expectations. They have not been on the cutting edge since then - nor were they really before. The Switch is pretty great because although it was not really on the cutting edge it had relatively up to date hardware at launch "for Nintendo" - especially compared to its 3DS and Wii U predecessors.
- mumblemumble 6y ago
  I remember there being distinct periods where: - Genesis was out but we were still mostly playing NES games. - Playstation was out but we were still mostly playing SNES games. - PSP was out but everyone stuck to GBA. - I was on hiatus from video games when Wii happened, but I was aware that most my friends had one, even if you wouldn't know it, because ps and xbox were more popular with (the minority of) people who want to talk about video games all the time. My guess is that Nintendo has a few key parts of their strategy: More casual gamers don't actually care about having the best graphics (corollary: more casual gamers won't spend an extra $100 on better graphics), you need something that feels new & novel to attract the attention of more casual gamers and motivate them to buy, and technical constraints foster the kind of creativity that does that. Perhaps even more so than clever hardware gimmicks.
wk_end 6y ago
The Famicom and SFC were both the most powerful consoles on the market in most regards when they came out, too. I'd say that rather than the N64 being an exception, this strategy only really solidified after the back-to-back quasi-failures of the N64 and the GC.
- cmrdporcupine 6y ago
  Hm, but couldn't you say the hardware in the SNES fits the description above; the 65816 was essentially last-generation 8-bit hardware with some modifications for 16-bit/24-bit addr support. They went this direction while most everyone else was going 68000. Remember this is the era of the Amiga and the X68000 and many arcade games were going 68000 based. They then bolted that to some pretty good video hardware but again it wasn't the kind of bitmap addressable blitter supported hardware that was out there on more advanced systems. It was still sprite/tile based stuff, with specific hardware support for common character-movement/scrolling/sprite/tile management, basically a more advanced version of what early 80s gaming systems had done.
  - wk_end 6y ago
    The SNES was built to be a dedicated 2D gaming powerhouse, and in 1990 nothing came close to it. Yes, it was basically a more advanced version of what early 80s gaming systems had done - but it was the most advanced version of what they'd done. Its direct competition was the PC Engine and the Mega Drive, and it smoked both of them. Comparing it to arcade machines and computers isn't really fair - totally different price points and market segments. But outside of high-end workstations nothing could spit out the kind of visuals the SNES was in 1990. The Amiga 500 was, what, like $500 in 1990? At least double the price? And that could display a mere 32 9-bit colours on-screen, two background layers, no alpha, no scaling or rotation. PCs were starting to come with VGA cards standard, but you'd need to spend at least 10x as much on one to get a CPU that could do much with it. And that's not even getting into the sound hardware! The 65816 was an unorthodox choice to be sure, but you're doing it a bit of a disservice: it's still a fully 16-bit CPU internally, and even at ~1/2 the MHz the performance delta between it and the 68k is generally overstated (because the 68k is such a cycle hog), especially for the kind of calculations 2D games tend to do. Anyway - weaker CPU + powerful video hardware (that gets outmodded by home computers within the next two-three years) has been, with few exceptions, the model for high-end game consoles since, well, at least the SNES. It's true of the PS4/XB1, it was true of the Xbox 360 (and the PS3, sort of, the whole Cell thing is complicated), it was true of the GC...CPU is rarely the bottleneck for games, so as a rule console designers don't get too spendy there. Exceptions might be the N64 and the Xbox, although even they had CPUs that could best be described as mid-range for their release dates.

klelatti 6y ago

It's become known as a "Blue Ocean" strategy - effectively find a part of the market where you are not competing directly with other players on their terms (i.e. cpu and graphics power). https://www.blueoceanstrategy.com/teaching-materials/nintendo-switch/ https://www.blueoceanstrategy.com/teaching-materials/nintend...

Polylactic_acid 6y ago
You also can't compete on speed anymore. Both Sony and Microsoft are buying the best parts available from AMD for the price so the only way to win this battle is to buy more expensive parts or to design your own that beat what AMD can make.

SarikayaKomzin 6y ago

It’s a remnant of Gunpei Yokoi’s philosophy: lateral thinking with withered technology. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpei_Yokoi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpei_Yokoi I find it refreshing that Nintendo has such strong opinions about these types of things, even when it’s to their detriment. This philosophy is a part of why their products always feel like “toys” and inspire all the feelings that come along with that.