Nintendo Switch Spec Thread

sjmartin79

White Phoenix of the Crown
I wonder if the Switch will be difficult to get ahold of at launch like the Wii or be overstocked like the Wii U...

You guys have any particular plans for secure a unit at launch?
I've never been able to secure a pre-order for a new console, so for Wii and Wii U, I just got in line at a Target/Wal-Mart about 7 hours early, and just waited.
Will probably do the same. Thankfully it will be Spring this time when waiting outside, and not mid-November.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
I may preorder online if possible directly following the reveal. I know this would likely mean I wont have my Switch on launch day, seeing as they typically launch on Sundays, but I can live with getting it a day late if I can rest easy on January 13th knowing I have one.
 
I will very likely be lining up for it at Nintendo NY, depending on the release date. I dont think Ive ever preorderd a console. I might drop 5 dollars at a local Gamestop just in case, some insurance for myself if launch day is too cold or inconvenient.
 

tekshow

Active Member
On the 13th of Jan I will be standing at my Gamestop door to put down my money for preorder.
That's what I plan to do. Been bugging my local GS and they keep saying as soon as a date pops up from the event they'll have it in the system.

If I preorder, I'll do it the 21st century way, and do so online.
What's the most reliable place to do that? I always feel like if I go somewhere in person and have a physical receipt it's a stinger guarantee. I'd want to be sure I have the thing truly preordered. Don't even mind if it's late a day, just wouldn't want it to slip to backordered status or something like "sorry valued consumer we received a lower than expected allotment of Switches for you bitches."
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
That's what I plan to do. Been bugging my local GS and they keep saying as soon as a date pops up from the event they'll have it in the system.



What's the most reliable place to do that? I always feel like if I go somewhere in person and have a physical receipt it's a stinger guarantee. I'd want to be sure I have the thing truly preordered. Don't even mind if it's late a day, just wouldn't want it to slip to backordered status or something like "sorry valued consumer we received a lower than expected allotment of Switches for you bitches."
Amazon, Newegg, Target, Gamestop, Bestbuy, etc might be your best options.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
An interesting thing from Laura Kate Dale, the dev kits that a lot of info was based on are the July dev kits. More powerful dev kits went out in October.

http://gamingbolt.com/nintendo-switch-new-devkits-are-more-powerful-than-older-ones-insider-reveals
So if I understand this correctly, the latest info we've been hearing is all from the July Dev kits, and not the final ones, even though Eurogamer seemed to indicate just that? I honestly don't know what to believe anymore.
 

sjmartin79

White Phoenix of the Crown
So if I understand this correctly, the latest info we've been hearing is all from the July Dev kits, and not the final ones, even though Eurogamer seemed to indicate just that? I honestly don't know what to believe anymore.
Yeah, I'm more confused on that now as well.
My question on the whole thing is if the EG report was on final dev kits, then more powerful dev kits coming out in October should not be news, right?
But if EG was based of July dev kits and not the final ones in October (that may be closer to final product), then this is a big deal.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
Yeah, I'm more confused on that now as well.
My question on the whole thing is if the EG report was on final dev kits, then more powerful dev kits coming out in October should not be news, right?
But if EG was based of July dev kits and not the final ones in October (that may be closer to final product), then this is a big deal.
So looking through the report that DF put out, they do not indicate the dev kits are from October, or if they do, they don't use the month of October in their report. In fact, a quick search found that the word, "October" is nowhere found in both DF's article, or Venturebeat, which is where DF has been getting some of their info.

Now, looking through the article again word by word, DF indicates that their sources tell them these are what they say as of "recently." Well, what does recently mean? It could be last week, last month, or perhaps even a couple months. They say the clock speeds are "revealed," but there is nothing to indicate that those clock speeds, or the rest of the specs for that matter, are anything but revealed. It's all simply rumors based on their sources.

Now to be fair and all that, they have a good track record right now concerning the rumors with the Switch, but sources are not 100% infallible. There's always a possibility of false rumors going around intentionally by Nintendo in order to figure out who has been leaking information. Unlikely, yes, but a possibility nonetheless, given how secretive Nintendo generally are.

Despite what we are thinking though, I doubt Nintendo will honest give us some concrete specs, clock speed, cores, bandwidths and all come Jan 12th. nVidia are more likely to post that information via a Blog post.
 
Indeed. When has Nintendo ever given specs? Even post-launches are absent of specs, I find it funny people expect any news on this front. Dont know if nVidia will share anything concrete either.

The speeds and specs DF revealed were identical to the ones revealed ages ago. Either means nothing really has changed or they are basing their claims on old specs or this current rumor is wrong or whatever.
 

mattavelle1

IT’S GOT A DEATH RAY!
Moderator
How are you guys not internet detectives? How is it so much common sense dwells here but the internet as a whole devoid of it when it comes to Nintendo.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
Eurogamer was so dead on with their July report that I do not want to dismiss their article, but I agree that it seems like the article was not necessarily written as if they had newly discovered information, but instead were finally comfortable releasing the info they had been hearing from their sources. So when these clock speeds came to Eurogamer is a very important piece of the puzzle. I could very much see Nintendo lowering clock speeds to make sure even while playing the Switch in Las Vegas outside when its 110 degrees out, the Switch will not overheat. With that said, did they initially go very conservative until they had adequate time to test final silicon? Either way, I don't see the overall performance of the system being nigh and day difference because of a couple hundred Mhz. Faster is better for sure, but if its basically a Tegra X1 slightly modified, its not competing with Xbox One and PS4 head to head. In all the multi plat shootouts, the Switch is going to come in last every time. Either with performance or tons of graphics settings being scaled back, its going to be a distant third.

The reveal will tell us so much more about the hardware capabilities than a list of specs. I heard a rumor today that Laura K Dale backs up that the next Assassins Creed is going to hit the Switch at the same time as the other versions next year. We are talking about one of Ubisofts most technically demanding games, and if the Switch can run it, then there pretty much isn't a third party game that the Switch cant run. Lower settings and resolution are likely, but honestly people buying Switch wont be your consumer looking for the best hardware to play Assassins Creed on, but instead Ubisoft will be looking to sell to that Nintendo audience.

In the end I just don't see how a down clocked Tegra X1 could get Bethesda onboard, a developer that was always vocal that Nintendo hardware just wasn't powerful enough for their games. Rumors about Dark Souls running on Switch with good performance is another conundrum when linking Eurogamers clock speeds to a more or less stock Tegra X1. These things just don't seem to line up. January 13th is going to be very interesting.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
I heard a rumor today that Laura K Dale backs up that the next Assassins Creed is going to hit the Switch at the same time as the other versions next year. We are talking about one of Ubisofts most technically demanding games, and if the Switch can run it, then there pretty much isn't a third party game that the Switch cant run. Lower settings and resolution are likely, but honestly people buying Switch wont be your consumer looking for the best hardware to play Assassins Creed on, but instead Ubisoft will be looking to sell to that Nintendo audience.
This is what I have been saying for ages when people freak out about nintendo not having enough power
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member


I was pretty shocked when I first saw Eurogamers clock speeds, but I probably shouldn't have been, at least for the CPU cores. The code that runs on the CPU must remain constant, game logic doesn't change when going from 720p to 1080p. Physics and AI are independent of the graphics rendering pipeline, so Nintendo had to settle on a single clock speed for the quad A57 cores that was acceptable for their needs. If you look at power consumption for quad A57 cores at 1.9Ghz, we are talking nearly 8 watts. This is a lot of juice for a mobile product, probably more than the entire Switch system can pull if they want the battery to last more than a couple hours. Switch is the size of a small tablet. This isn't a 10-12" tablet that cost $500+, the battery in the Switch will be rather modest in comparison. As you can see from the graph above, dropping the clock speed to 1Ghz brings the four cores down to 1.83 watts, far more acceptable for good battery life. You can see that a single A57 core running at 1.9 Ghz pulls more juice than all four at 1 Ghz, so the power consumption doesn't scale in a linear way, it ramps up pretty aggressively after 1.6Ghz. Most mobile products like phones and tablets operate in a "sprint to sleep" manner. They are typically asked for work hard for a few seconds, and then back to sleep. A gaming product operates full tilt, for potentially hours at a time.

The good news is the A57 cores greatly improved their IPC (instruction per clock) performance over the older A15 cores, and the A15 cores already outperformed the AMD Bobcat cores that the Jaguar cores derived from. Jaguar cores are only used in the PS4 and X1, so you cant get good benchmarks for them, but comparing the Bobcat cores to the A57 cores gives a pretty good edge to the A57 cores in IPC performance. Benchmarks in SIMD code showed drastic improvements for the A57 cores over the older A15. The Jaguar cores are clocked higher on the PS4/X1, but actual performance per core is probably pretty comparable to the lower clocked A57 cores, at least in arms reach at the very least.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
I was certain that a Tegra X1 had to be crippled by its meager 25GB/s bandwidth, but after seeing benchmarks for the Tegra X1 compared to the newer Tegra Parker, I no longer think that's the case.

Tegra X1

https://gfxbench.com/compare.jsp?be...=gl&hwtype1=GPU&hwname1=NVIDIA(R)+Tegra(R)+X1

Tegra Parker

https://gfxbench.com/resultdetails.jsp?resultid=hqNQqQ6fR0yzfqdvNKT97w

For a processor clocked a lot higher and double the memory bandwidth, I would have expected the Parker to beat the X1 by a far larger margin. On average, the Parker best the X1 by about 35%.

I also believe that Nintendo may opt for the more cost effective 28nm HPC+ process. Its the cheapest process for sure, and the refined 28nm HPC+ process brings power consumption very close to the 20nm process the Tegra X1 is manufactured on. The lower clock speeds that Nintendo has reportedly decided would only make this even easier. The chip size would go up a bit, but would still be very small, well within what is reasonable for a device the size of the Switch. Nintendo wants a mass market price, and doesn't want to lose money. I really think a custom Tegra X1 manufactured on 28nm HPC+ process gives them the most economical choice available. Nobody else uses 20nm, and 16nm FinFet is more expensive by quite a bit than 28nm HPC+. On paper, these specs are disappointing, and that's why I am pretty sure they will pan out to be true. LOL
 

mattavelle1

IT’S GOT A DEATH RAY!
Moderator
I was certain that a Tegra X1 had to be crippled by its meager 25GB/s bandwidth, but after seeing benchmarks for the Tegra X1 compared to the newer Tegra Parker, I no longer think that's the case.

Tegra X1

https://gfxbench.com/compare.jsp?benchmark=gfx40&did1=26084812&os1=Android&api1=gl&hwtype1=GPU&hwname1=NVIDIA(R) Tegra(R) X1

Tegra Parker

https://gfxbench.com/resultdetails.jsp?resultid=hqNQqQ6fR0yzfqdvNKT97w

For a processor clocked a lot higher and double the memory bandwidth, I would have expected the Parker to beat the X1 by a far larger margin. On average, the Parker best the X1 by about 35%.

I also believe that Nintendo may opt for the more cost effective 28nm HPC+ process. Its the cheapest process for sure, and the refined 28nm HPC+ process brings power consumption very close to the 20nm process the Tegra X1 is manufactured on. The lower clock speeds that Nintendo has reportedly decided would only make this even easier. The chip size would go up a bit, but would still be very small, well within what is reasonable for a device the size of the Switch. Nintendo wants a mass market price, and doesn't want to lose money. I really think a custom Tegra X1 manufactured on 28nm HPC+ process gives them the most economical choice available. Nobody else uses 20nm, and 16nm FinFet is more expensive by quite a bit than 28nm HPC+. On paper, these specs are disappointing, and that's why I am pretty sure they will pan out to be true. LOL
So at the end of all this is what's your saying. Basically there is no hope of graphics at all?
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
So at the end of all this is what's your saying. Basically there is no hope of graphics at all?
No, not at all. Just the idea that Switch was going to be within arms reach of X1/PS4 is out of the questions. Ports, assuming there are ports, will likely be similar to the cross gen titles. Tomb Raider on 360 compared to X1 is an example of what to expect. Switch is really more Wii U in terms of performance than X1/PS4.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

mattavelle1

IT’S GOT A DEATH RAY!
Moderator
No, not at all. Just the idea that Switch was going to be within arms reach of X1/PS4 is out of the questions. Ports, assuming there are ports, will likely be similar to the cross gen titles. Tomb Raider on 360 compared to X1 is an example of what to expect. Switch is really more Wii U in terms of performance than X1/PS4.

Sent from my SM-G360V using genital warts
Switch, we barely knew you :mcry:
 

Laer_HeiSeiRyuu

Well-Known Member
Parker is not ready for consumer devices yet guys. Pascal is basically a stop gap thats being switched out for the VOLTA in Nvidia's Cars

20nm and 16nm are basically the same and you can get a 28nm processor preforming better than most 20nm level processors

Switch games wont be like cross gen titles at all because those games have limited feature sets and are running on architecture several generations behind.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
Feature sets aren't that much different. GPU Compute is probably the biggest change this gen compared to last gen.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
The libraries are the same, there isn't anything that the PS4/X1 can do that that Tegra processor cannot also do. With that said, just because it can do it, doesn't mean it can do it fast enough. The Lego analogy comes to mind, the Switch has the same pieces of Legos, just in fewer quantity. If PS4/X1 have a thousand Lego's to work with, Switch will have about 400.

@mattavelle1 asked me last night what my opinion was concerning the performance of the Switch, and honestly I am having trouble making a definitive opinion on the matter. Once Eurogamer leaked the clock speeds I knew my early speculations were far to optimistic. All signs point to the processor being a custom Tegra X1, with some speculating the customizations may be nothing more than lowered clock speeds and a custom API. So clock speeds do tell us a lot, odds are we have four A57 CPU cores and 256 CUDA Maxwell GPU cores. A portable Xbox One the Switch is not.

Some of it should have been more obvious, the CPU clock speed had to be consistent between portable and console mode, and there is no way a portable can have a CPU sucking 8 watts of power, thats what four A57 cores would pull at max clocks. Battery life would be less than two hours even with a decent battery. Still, even with a quad core A57 at a meager 1Ghz clock speed, this processor drop kicks the performance of PS3/360 CPU's. Cell was very good at specialized operations, but general CPU code it was terrible. As far as the CPU goes, the quad A57 cores bridge the gap between last gen consoles and current gen. It sits comfortably in the middle.

Memory, now memory I actually believe may the biggest advantage over previous gen consoles. Developers really had to manage memory in order to manage the meager 512MB of memory the 360/PS3 were equipped with. Rumors suggest that Switch has 3.2GB for games, and 800MB for the OS. PS4 and X1 have about 5.5GB for games. Switch has six times as much memory as previous gen consoles, and more than half what PS4/X1 have. This is an area that I chalk up as a win for Switch. Its within arms reach of the newer consoles, and far superior to last gen consoles.

Its hard to really nail down how I would position the Switch, but if I had to do it, I would reference a comparison between the Dreamcast and the original Xbox. Switch is certainly superior to previous consoles, but some categories are far better, and some are much more modest.

It really all comes down to games and how do the specs impact the feasibility of seeing third party ports. In my opinion, the Switch will not see the majority of Western Published games unless the system takes off like a rocket. EA and Activision are going to take a wait and see approach. We have seen before, where the gap was much larger, and the development environment was completely different, the Wii was receiving ports of games despite being far inferior hardware.

If the question revolved around any given game being possible on the Switch, just know the answer is absolutely YES! That's doesn't mean it will happen, business is business, but there is absolutely no game on the market that couldn't be ported to Switch. Compromises wouldn't certainly have to be made, but how many people will really notice the shadows and lighting being mostly static instead of real time? Again, its not about having the best/prettiest version of these third party games, its about having them at all. From what I can gather, Switch multi plats should hold up much better than they did on Wii compared to 360/PS3.

Switch is dead center between previous gen consoles and current gen. That is my final conclusion on performance leading up to the reveal. Seeing how games like Skyrim perform on Switch should be very telling of where the consoles abilities lye.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
Ok, so a dude over at Gaf has been running some benchmarks on his Shield TV, and the results have been interesting. Ever since the clock speeds were leaked by Eurogamer, I began to question if the Shield TV did actually run max clock speeds. My curiosity only went higher when I was unable to find any material from Nvidia that actually listed clock speeds for the Shield TV. Everyone assume that because the Shield TV has unlimited power supply, and has active cooling that it must run at max clock speeds. Assumptions, we all know how that can work out. To add fuel to my curiosity, the Nvidia Jetson TX1 development kit that can be purchased by anyone runs the Tegra X1 at max clocks, but, and this is a big but, the Jetson kit has a nice fat heat sink on the processor with a nice size fan bolted to the top of it. Things weren't adding up, but I didn't have any definitive proof that the Shield TV doesn't run full tilt.

Until yesterday, when Dave over at Gaf has been running various test for the last 48 hours. The Shield TV can indeed run max clock speeds, but doesn't sustain them. The consensus seems to be that the heavy load on the CPU causes the chip to throttle down the clocks on the GPU, and also vice versa. Testing shows consistent throttling down to 768 Mhz for the GPU. Sound familiar? It should, that's the rumored clock speed for the GPU. The Shield TV doesn't have impressive active cooling, its no better than what I expect the Switch to have. After the clock speeds were leaked, there was a lot of criticism that the Switch was even less powerful than the Shield TV, and as it turns out, the Shield TV actually throttles down significantly. It acts more like a tablet/phone than a console.

So what this all tells me, is that the Tegra X1 is indeed the best chip Nvidia had to offer Nintendo within the from factor of the Switch. Switch isn't much smaller than the Shield TV, and will use a similar cooling fan setup. They are very comparable in many ways. Where the Switch will have a clear cut advantage is in the API. Android is a thick API that doesn't allow developers to code to the metal. Switch will have far better hardware utilization. Nvidia mentioned the custom physics engine. Anyone heard of PhysX? I'm guessing this is a customized version of PhysX tailored to the Tegra processor, and will give developers a quick and easy solution to GPU accelerated physics.

I really feel like Nvidia created the Tegra line of processors all these years without realizing they were already working for Nintendo. The Tegra chips priorities seem to line up perfectly with Nintendo's hardware priorities. Cost, power consumption, and performance are all very Nintendo. I feel like the odds of Nintendo using a more or less stock Tegra X1 is actually very likely. The custom part wont really be the hardware, but the API and software that Nvidia provides. The Tegra X1 hasn't seen many wins in terms of buyers, and Nintendo opting for the X1 for Switch just makes so much business sense. Normally Nintendo would be forking out a big check for a custom processor, but seeing as how Nivida already had what Nintendo needed sitting on their shelf, everyone wins.

Another member at Gaf ran some benchmarks to compare a modern Maxwell GPU to an older AMD HD4**** GPU, and flop for flop, a Maxwell GPU has a 30% advantage. Combine this with the ability to use FP16 shaders, and yea, the Switch will outperform the Wii U even in portable mode. In docked mode, well.....The reveal is going to be shock to many on just how close the Switch comes to bridging the gap with current consoles.
 

mattavelle1

IT’S GOT A DEATH RAY!
Moderator
Ok, so a dude over at Gaf has been running some benchmarks on his Shield TV, and the results have been interesting. Ever since the clock speeds were leaked by Eurogamer, I began to question if the Shield TV did actually run max clock speeds. My curiosity only went higher when I was unable to find any material from Nvidia that actually listed clock speeds for the Shield TV. Everyone assume that because the Shield TV has unlimited power supply, and has active cooling that it must run at max clock speeds. Assumptions, we all know how that can work out. To add fuel to my curiosity, the Nvidia Jetson TX1 development kit that can be purchased by anyone runs the Tegra X1 at max clocks, but, and this is a big but, the Jetson kit has a nice fat heat sink on the processor with a nice size fan bolted to the top of it. Things weren't adding up, but I didn't have any definitive proof that the Shield TV doesn't run full tilt.

Until yesterday, when Dave over at Gaf has been running various test for the last 48 hours. The Shield TV can indeed run max clock speeds, but doesn't sustain them. The consensus seems to be that the heavy load on the CPU causes the chip to throttle down the clocks on the GPU, and also vice versa. Testing shows consistent throttling down to 768 Mhz for the GPU. Sound familiar? It should, that's the rumored clock speed for the GPU. The Shield TV doesn't have impressive active cooling, its no better than what I expect the Switch to have. After the clock speeds were leaked, there was a lot of criticism that the Switch was even less powerful than the Shield TV, and as it turns out, the Shield TV actually throttles down significantly. It acts more like a tablet/phone than a console.

So what this all tells me, is that the Tegra X1 is indeed the best chip Nvidia had to offer Nintendo within the from factor of the Switch. Switch isn't much smaller than the Shield TV, and will use a similar cooling fan setup. They are very comparable in many ways. Where the Switch will have a clear cut advantage is in the API. Android is a thick API that doesn't allow developers to code to the metal. Switch will have far better hardware utilization. Nvidia mentioned the custom physics engine. Anyone heard of PhysX? I'm guessing this is a customized version of PhysX tailored to the Tegra processor, and will give developers a quick and easy solution to GPU accelerated physics.

I really feel like Nvidia created the Tegra line of processors all these years without realizing they were already working for Nintendo. The Tegra chips priorities seem to line up perfectly with Nintendo's hardware priorities. Cost, power consumption, and performance are all very Nintendo. I feel like the odds of Nintendo using a more or less stock Tegra X1 is actually very likely. The custom part wont really be the hardware, but the API and software that Nvidia provides. The Tegra X1 hasn't seen many wins in terms of buyers, and Nintendo opting for the X1 for Switch just makes so much business sense. Normally Nintendo would be forking out a big check for a custom processor, but seeing as how Nivida already had what Nintendo needed sitting on their shelf, everyone wins.

Another member at Gaf ran some benchmarks to compare a modern Maxwell GPU to an older AMD HD4**** GPU, and flop for flop, a Maxwell GPU has a 30% advantage. Combine this with the ability to use FP16 shaders, and yea, the Switch will outperform the Wii U even in portable mode. In docked mode, well.....The reveal is going to be shock to many on just how close the Switch comes to bridging the gap with current consoles.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. YOUR a beast!:msrs:
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member

Everything screams Tegra X1 here. The inability to get to 1080p with Zelda BoTW, and having framerate dips during heavy alpha and depth of field effects line up pretty well with a processor restricted by 25GB/s of memory bandwidth. The fact that Zelda runs nearly flawless in 720p portable, but then in docked cant make the jump to 1080p screams memory bandwidth bottlenecks, something that is a much smaller issue at lower rendering resolutions like 720p. Mario Kart 8 is able to make the jump to 1080p, but racers are typically far easier to optimize with far more predictable work loads. Splatoon is currently running at 720p even when docked. Splatoon 2 doesn't come out until summer, so I would expect that to improve to at least 900p, and 1080p isn't out of the question. The lack of AA in both MK8 and Splatoon 8 also support the limited memory bandwidth.

So far I am really getting the vibe of a Wii U 2.0, or two Wii U's duct taped together. In portable mode the Switch can match or slightly outperform the Wii U thanks to having a far superior CPU and a lot more memory. In docked mode, the Tegra chip seems to be capable of handling Wii U's best looking games at 900p and sometimes 1080p. Increased texture seems likely, but perhaps not to the extend you might think if memory bandwidth really is the bottleneck that I suspect it is.

Surpassing or even matching a Wii U in portable mode is pretty darn impressive. Don't let the morons claiming such and such phone or tablet is more powerful than a Switch. Peak performance of a mobile device is meaningless for a dedicated gaming device. The Google Pixel C used the Tegra X1 clocked at 850Mhz, higher than the Switch, however, after 20-30 minutes of heavy use, the Pixel C throttles down to around 400Mhz. Phones and tablets are designed for sprinting, and then going back to sleep. They cannot sustain their peak performance. Also, Switch as a low level API allowing for far superior hardware utilization, meaning that even at the same clock speed, the Switch is able to do more work, and thus creates more heat. Switch is the most powerful mobile gaming platform coming to market, its just not on the same level as the space heater PS4 and Xbox One. :)
 

EvilTw1n

Even my henchmen think I'm crazy.
Moderator
So far I am really getting the vibe of a Wii U 2.0, or two Wii U's duct taped together. In portable mode the Switch can match or slightly outperform the Wii U thanks to having a far superior CPU and a lot more memory. In docked mode, the Tegra chip seems to be capable of handling Wii U's best looking games at 900p and sometimes 1080p. Increased texture seems likely, but perhaps not to the extend you might think if memory bandwidth really is the bottleneck that I suspect it is.


Nah, really. I am. The power difference between Wii U and XBone/PS4 (or even PS3/360), ain't the gaping chasm generational leaps used to be. No, the Switch isn't and never was going to be as powerful as the competition. But it's basically a device that sips 1/10th the wattage and spits out Breath of the Wild while you're sitting in a Starbucks bathroom.
 

Cubits

Well-Known Member
Just for perspective, 3 hours of BOTW is pretty solid performance. 2.5-6 hours of capacity is basically what the original 3DS did, and considering the YAWNING CHASM in power difference, with barely any development in battery technology in that time, that's pretty fucking impressive!

For instance, a thousand dollar smartphone, running a gaming benchmark, would also wither in about 3 hours.

You'd be hard pressed to find a 3 hour gaming laptop at any price point.

The PS Vita is also good for about 3 hours of full-tilt gaming (the slim got a bit better). The 3G enabled version of the Vita had the exact same launch RRP as the Switch (pre-correction for inflation, so it was actually a touch more expensive), and only ONE GIGABYTE of internal storage, which disabled when a card was inserted. The proprietary memory cards were also breathtakingly expensive (the 64GB card was well over 100 USD at launch!). A base model, wifi Vita with a 32 gig card would have set you back about 315 USD.

For that money now, in the switch, you're doing a hell of a lot better in terms of hardware. Several times the RAM, significantly more processor grunt, and way more hardware options built right in.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
Just for perspective, 3 hours of BOTW is pretty solid performance. 2.5-6 hours of capacity is basically what the original 3DS did, and considering the YAWNING CHASM in power difference, with barely any development in battery technology in that time, that's pretty fucking impressive!

For instance, a thousand dollar smartphone, running a gaming benchmark, would also wither in about 3 hours.

You'd be hard pressed to find a 3 hour gaming laptop at any price point.

The PS Vita is also good for about 3 hours of full-tilt gaming (the slim got a bit better). The 3G enabled version of the Vita had the exact same launch RRP as the Switch (pre-correction for inflation, so it was actually a touch more expensive), and only ONE GIGABYTE of internal storage, which disabled when a card was inserted. The proprietary memory cards were also breathtakingly expensive (the 64GB card was well over 100 USD at launch!). A base model, wifi Vita with a 32 gig card would have set you back about 315 USD.

For that money now, in the switch, you're doing a hell of a lot better in terms of hardware. Several times the RAM, significantly more processor grunt, and way more hardware options built right in.
this is soemthign I have been laughing about.. cannot even say the number of impressions from major sources like game informer that are saying "the switch battery life is a real problem and something unfamiliar to Nintendo portables with much better battery life like the 3ds

short memories I tells ya
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member

Going mostly unnoticed, the Switch build of the demo is actually missing some of the lighting effects implemented in the Wii U build. From what I can tell, its mostly a lack of bloom lighting that stands out the most, but there is actually some lighting missing completely.

I'm not reading too much into this just yet, seeing as how the final 2-3 months of a games development are crunch time, with optimization and polish being priorities at this point. But I cant lie, if DF were to have review copies ahead of time, and the Wii U build were actually superior in many respects, and the framerate had been ironed out......I don't know, I may have to rethink Switch day one. Its all about Zelda, and although I like the idea of being able to play Zelda on the go, it will mostly be at home that I play, so having anything short of the definitive version on my brand new hardware would be devastating for me.
 

simplyTravis

Lamer Gamers Podcast Co-Host
Well, it is official. The Switch CPU will be an Arm Cortex 4 x A57 according to ARM's own Facebook post.

upload_2017-2-7_16-0-41.png

So, are you happy or wish Nintendo would have put some more bang into the system's cpu?

Edit:
After reading a little more on this chip, it is still completely possible that we are going to see a Pascal system. According to this article: http://www.fudzilla.com/news/proces...skipping-cortex-a57-what-are-the-implications the CPU is really a better fit for a hefty GPU (comparitively) than what it would normally be paired with. Maybe this CPU really is a perfect fit for the Switch after all since it would be capable of fitting a beefier GPU than most phones would allow.
 
Last edited:

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
Well, it is official. The Switch CPU will be an Arm Cortex 4 x A57 according to ARM's own Facebook post.

View attachment 3321

So, are you happy or wish Nintendo would have put some more bang into the system's cpu?

Edit:
After reading a little more on this chip, it is still completely possible that we are going to see a Pascal system. According to this article: http://www.fudzilla.com/news/proces...skipping-cortex-a57-what-are-the-implications the CPU is really a better fit for a hefty GPU (comparitively) than what it would normally be paired with. Maybe this CPU really is a perfect fit for the Switch after all since it would be capable of fitting a beefier GPU than most phones would allow.
the real thing we need to know about is the gpu... which is likely 256 cuda cores
 

simplyTravis

Lamer Gamers Podcast Co-Host
the real thing we need to know about is the gpu... which is likely 256 cuda cores

HOLD THE PRESSES! It looks like that ARM post is gone. I went to find it for that Androidpit article thinking they had very accurate info if ARM would post it themselves. They posted about 256 cuda cores too. I wonder what all this means. Hmmm...

Found the article. https://www.androidpit.com/nintendo-switch-review

ARM post still missing.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
Speaking of that ARM post, a guy supposedly from Foxconn "leaked" a bunch of information, including dev kits for a SCD.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=229879660&postcount=836

And then one of their more tech-savvy posters added his thoughts:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=229901092&postcount=858

A lot of information here, especially with the SCD concept that would put the power level of the Switch beyond even the PS4Pro. That sounds a lot less likely, but we shall see. It is certainly possible for Nintendo to launch a SCD for the Switch a year or so after launch as a separate add-on (and a REAL add-on compared to what most thought was the Wii U), but I have my doubts.
 

sjmartin79

White Phoenix of the Crown
The VR thing wouldn't have the legs it does if Nintendo themselves would stop talking about it, but all recent interviews have someone from Nintendo saying that the Switch can do VR, but they want to work on a way that people can play it for longer periods without side effects.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
so we have our 3rd piece of solid system spec info

first was that it was tegra, then that it had 4 a57 cores

now that it has more than 2gb of ram, OR has more of the 2gb available to developers than the wii u had

"Yabuki says the extra ram allowed his team to experiment with holding multiple items at once. (all 12 characters can hold 2 items at a time)"

http://gonintendo.com/stories/27361...producer-on-where-switch-s-extra-power-came-i

may seem tiny.. but this is the first news we have had on this
 

Koenig

The Architect
so we have our 3rd piece of solid system spec info

first was that it was tegra, then that it had 4 a57 cores

now that it has more than 2gb of ram, OR has more of the 2gb available to developers than the wii u had

"Yabuki says the extra ram allowed his team to experiment with holding multiple items at once. (all 12 characters can hold 2 items at a time)"

http://gonintendo.com/stories/27361...producer-on-where-switch-s-extra-power-came-i

may seem tiny.. but this is the first news we have had on this
I am legitimately confused as to how holding an extra item per character would take up so much ram that it was not possible on the Wii U but is on the Switch.
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
I am legitimately confused as to how holding an extra item per character would take up so much ram that it was not possible on the Wii U but is on the Switch.
I'm thinking it's the fact that you have to account for those extra 12 items to possibly be used at the same time. Imagine that every character has two sets of 3 red shells each, and may pick up more from an item box while using their current items. That's potentially 72+ red shells moving around the map, tracking opponents and causing them to tumble over on hit. Or imagine that some of these items are lightning bolts, bullet bills, bombs, and whatever else. It could get hectic, and could be a source of massive slowdown on the Wii U.

But I'm not a programmer and don't really know how items would be implemented in a game like this, so I'm purely speculating.
 

DarkDepths

Your friendly neighbourhood robot overlord
I'm thinking it's the fact that you have to account for those extra 12 items to possibly be used at the same time. Imagine that every character has two sets of 3 red shells each, and may pick up more from an item box while using their current items. That's potentially 72+ red shells moving around the map, tracking opponents and causing them to tumble over on hit. Or imagine that some of these items are lightning bolts, bullet bills, bombs, and whatever else. It could get hectic, and could be a source of massive slowdown on the Wii U.

But I'm not a programmer and don't really know how items would be implemented in a game like this, so I'm purely speculating.
I actually just posted about this topic in the CT, because I didn't know there was a convo about it here.

I basically just said "no... that's literally nothing," but in reality, I suspect you are closer to the truth. That said, it's still not really a RAM problem in my opinion... Even 72 red shells will use up almost nothing.

Unless they were really down to optimizing out Byte by Byte, I really can't see it...
 
Top