• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Rolling Stone: DOOM on Switch will render the same both handheld and docked, at 720p

They never said that. They made a guess looking at a compressed Youtube video.

And it was only for one frame!

Yeah I really don't get why this is being repeated so much. The only actual info we've heard so far is 720p, all this 540p and even the dynamic resolution scaling is purely speculation. Let's wait for DF to actually get the finished game.
 
Yeah I really don't get why this is being repeated so much. The only actual info we've heard so far is 720p, all this 540p and even the dynamic resolution scaling is purely speculation. Let's wait for DF to actually get the finished game.
Man you're really an optimist. Look forward to seeing your Doom dreams crushed again :p
 
Wasn't the DF PC CPU running at 2GHz while the Switch CPU is running at 1GHz?

If the Switch CPU was running at 2GHz (which it can't because of battery life) then a ton more PS4/XB1 ports would be in development imo.

The CPU seems to be the bottleneck for a lot of multiplatform development as I think Blu said it performs at around 70% of the Jaguar CPU in PS4 and we all know how "weak" that is according to the internet.

It doesn't do it just now but it wouldn't surprise me that in the future Nintendo releases a firmware update which lets the CPU run at 2GHz when docked which will mean "docked only" games that just aren't possible with the downclocked handheld mode specs. There are already "handheld only" games on the console so I don't see the issue if certain games don't fit the hybrid rules of the system.

Hopefully when Nintendo release the "New Switch" the CPU is much improved much like in "New 3DS".

I imagine the next Switch hardware upgrade will have a TX2.
 

Asd202

Member
Hopefully when Nintendo release the "New Switch" the CPU is much improved much like in "New 3DS".

By that time there will already be new consoles so the gap will only widen. You will not get comparable version perfomrance/grhapics wise of bigger 3rd party games on Switch.
 
By that time there will already be new consoles so the gap will only widen. You will not get comparable version perfomrance/grhapics wise of bigger 3rd party games on Switch.

Depends when new systems launch. A Switch+ mid 2019 is possible wiyh new systems launching in fall 2019 or even 2020. There are actually a lot of things Nintendo can do to improve the Switch's CPU today that they didn't opt for.
 

Polygonal_Sprite

Gold Member
Correct.

CPU at 2 ghz, GPU at 620 MHZ near Switch speeds but with 384 CUDA cores instead of the 256.


Let's keep this in track. A person claimed that the CPU is so tapped out that it can't do the trivial calculations that Gyro aiming needs. Wasn't Kinect far more demanding and that amounted aprox. 10 at max? What % the far simpler Gyro aiming would be then?

Im not sure how technically sapient you and the person making the claim are, i just fallow logic and what i' ve seen. i think i heard more complains in regards to the Wii U CPU against the 7th generation ones (which BTW were more CPU based than the 8th gen); yet Wii U ran something like Assassins Creeds quick ports which have a lot more NPCs to track and more varied behavior than Doom monsters. These NPCs had to navigate open environments which are maybe more complex than the Doom ones.

So how exactly is Doom a taxing game CPU wise? i made this question in my previous post.

In regards to Switch CPU upcloacking when docked. i' ve made the same comments in the past, but the best way to ascertain how possible it would be is to see the Tegra X1 throtling under heavy usage. A person did made the test and concluded that it were about the same clocks the Switch uses when docked. But i don't remember if he tested the same GPU clocks with higher CPU speeds.


Well this confirms my suspicions regarding Doom CPU use:



Upon concrete evidence is shown it is better to not even mention the thing about gyro support and just assume is not one of the dev priorities and leave it at that.

The more useful thing to do is politly ask for the feature to Panic or Bethesda themsleves.

Apologies I didn't make myself more clear. I wasn't talking about the CPU in relation to adding any type of motion control but more that a 4 core CPU clocked at 1GHz will be a huge limiting factor for current gen multiplatform ports, especially open World games which a lot of them are.

I'm more than happy with my Switch and have a PS4 Pro / 4k HDTV for any graphical intense multiplatform games I want to play.
 
I believe we've been going off of Eurogamer leaks for clock speeds, which indicated all power profiles utilized the same CPU speed. This makes sense in all honesty, as some games initially built to target docked mode just wouldn't be able to run in handheld if the CPU downclocked.
Again please consider the context of the discussion we are having before replying. To be clear:

A person said certain control feature is missing because there's not enough CPU processing available. With that in mind it was brought up about a potential CPU overclock for docked mode, in which case the game would totally work in handheld mode while still supporting "the feature" in a mode where the CPU is overclocked above 1 GHZ. That's it.

However, and going off what i am discussing, either an X1 revision or succesor employed on a new model of Switch would imply newer performance modes. So people should have this on the back of their minds.

Apologies I didn't make myself more clear. I wasn't talking about the CPU in relation to adding any type of motion control but more that a 4 core CPU clocked at 1GHz will be a huge limiting factor for current gen multiplatform ports, especially open World games which a lot of them are.
No problem Polygonal.

But my only intervention in this thread was in regard to that aspect. So you quoted me when we discussing different things XD
 

jamonbread

Neo Member
I hope they can at least target a fixed 720p docked with a perfectly locked 30fps.
I can't imagine they'd do nothing with the extra GPU grunt that's available to them in docked mode.

I know the appeal of the Switch version is mainly for handheld gaming on the go, but for people who travel a lot the Switch can easily be hooked up to any available TV screen.
 
Again please consider the context of the discussion we are having before replying. To be clear:

A person said certain control feature is missing because there's not enough CPU processing available. With that in mind it was brought up about a potential CPU overclock for docked mode, in which case the game would totally work in handheld mode while still supporting "the feature" in a mode where the CPU is overclocked above 1 GHZ. That's it.

However, and going off what i am discussing, either an X1 revision or succesor employed on a new model of Switch would imply newer performance modes. So people should have this on the back of their minds.
Wait, I saw that comment, but I didn't think that was part of this conversation.

*checks reply chain*

It wasn't. :p Well, it might've been, but the initial comment I replied to that started the chain simply mentioned they wondered that the bottleneck is; I don't think the gyro was part of the conversation anymore. I also agree with the notion that the CPU is too tapped out is completely ridiculous, for the record.
 

matthewuk

Member
I wonder if the bottleneck is bandwidth. The Wii u had crap CPU, and a gpu that was possibly better than the 360s , but it's edram pulled plenty of punches and allowed 60fps or 1080p when it counted. The switch has a way better CPU but it's nerfed by clock speed, a much better GPU but just plain old laptop DDR.

A next iteration of the switch could easily go with a 128bit bus 16nm but leave everything else as is and I'm sure we would see more consistent performance without breaking games.
 
This thread is exhausting. Surely no-one ever expected the Switch to run Doom at anything higher than 720p/30fps? It's a tablet.

Instead of all this feigned shock at the low resolution and framerate, I think the debate should be about whether this port should have been made in the first place (if it really will be as terrible to play as people suggest- I've never played Doom myself).
 

Caelus

Member
Instead of all this feigned shock at the low resolution and framerate, I think the debate should be about whether this port should have been made in the first place (if it really will be as terrible to play as people suggest- I've never played Doom myself).

The response to this and the hands-on previews suggest yes, this port is a perfectly ok thing to exist. Enough people are willing to dip into a portable version of DOOM - and I mean genuinely portable. My XPS 13 with integrated graphics can run both DOOM and Skyrim at 1080p with 40-60 fps, but it's not exactly my form factor of choice for portable gaming.
 
Apologies if this is beating a dead horse, buuut... am I the only one who just can't see themselves bothering with this game if it doesn't have Splatoon-esque motion controls?

I just really feel like it's bordering on ridiculous at this point for those sort of gyro controls to not be absolutely standard as an option in ALL shooters by now. It feels like some kind of injustice or something, because I just have such a strong love of the way Splatoon controls.

Speaking as an old fart dad who grew up playing shooters (such as DOOM and Quake) on the PC with a mouse and keyboard, I had essentially given up on the idea of ever playing shooters again without building a new PC (which is currently not feasible due to financial and family/time reasons) - but then Splatoon happened, and I'll be damned if I didn't have a near-emotional reaction to the kinds of experiences which that game's controls have allowed me to experience again.

I'm very grateful to Nintendo for showing me that shooters can still be a thing for me as a gamer, and it genuinely bothers me that not everyone has had the joy of connecting with those controls. Call me hyperbolic, but it means a lot to me - and I wish other developers would take it seriously and by doing so perhaps benefit the entire industry going forward.
 
Apologies if this is beating a dead horse, buuut... am I the only one who just can't see themselves bothering with this game if it doesn't have Splatoon-esque motion controls?

I just really feel like it's bordering on ridiculous at this point for those sort of gyro controls to not be absolutely standard as an option in ALL shooters by now. It feels like some kind of injustice or something, because I just have such a strong love of the way Splatoon controls.

Speaking as an old fart dad who grew up playing shooters (such as DOOM and Quake) on the PC with a mouse and keyboard, I had essentially given up on the idea ever playing shooters again without building a new PC - but then Splatoon happened, and I'll be damned if I didn't have a near-emotional reaction to the kinds of experiences which that game's controls have allowed me to experience again.

I'm very grateful to Nintendo for showing me that shooters can still be a thing for me as a gamer, and it genuinely bothers me that not everyone has had the joy of connecting with those controls. Call me hyperbolic, but it means a lot to me - and I wish other developers would take it seriously and by doing so perhaps benefit the entire industry going forward.

Amen to that. I just cannot play console shooters other than Splatoon as I physically don't have the dexterity to aim presicely with analogue sticks. Would love to play Doom, but as I don't have a PC I can't.

That said, I really don't think we can expect gyro controls on Switch ports of multiplatform shooters. If gyro takes off, it will be something that will come to all consoles.
 
I wonder if the bottleneck is bandwidth. The Wii u had crap CPU, and a gpu that was possibly better than the 360s , but it's edram pulled plenty of punches and allowed 60fps or 1080p when it counted. The switch has a way better CPU but it's nerfed by clock speed, a much better GPU but just plain old laptop DDR.

A next iteration of the switch could easily go with a 128bit bus 16nm but leave everything else as is and I'm sure we would see more consistent performance without breaking games.

Even at 1GHz, Switch's CPU is likely still around or over 3x of the Wii U's. The Switch does not have EDRAM, but Maxwell's TBR is there to help it perform above its weight. That is 'invisible' to devs, though, and we haven't heard any devs praising or complaining about the memory setup.

This thread is exhausting. Surely no-one ever expected the Switch to run Doom at anything higher than 720p/30fps? It's a tablet.

Instead of all this feigned shock at the low resolution and framerate, I think the debate should be about whether this port should have been made in the first place (if it really will be as terrible to play as people suggest- I've never played Doom myself).

The first part is simply not true. There was quite a few that expected 60fps prior to the other day. In fairness, people probably also expected the game to look worse than what we are seeing. It appears to have no reduction in geometry per screen and maintained all of the current-gen effects at a lower setting.

As for the second part, people who played it have generally been positive about the port.
 

Si2k78

Member
I hope they can at least target a fixed 720p docked with a perfectly locked 30fps.
I can't imagine they'd do nothing with the extra GPU grunt that's available to them in docked mode.

I know the appeal of the Switch version is mainly for handheld gaming on the go, but for people who travel a lot the Switch can easily be hooked up to any available TV screen.

I'm wondering the same thing. For such a technically advanced game, you'd think it would be obvious the devs take advantage of every ounce of power on the switch. From 307.2MHz in mobile to 768MHz in docked mode, the game should at least hit 900p in docked IMO.
 

matthewuk

Member
Even at 1GHz, Switch's CPU is likely still around or over 3x of the Wii U's. The Switch does not have EDRAM, but Maxwell's TBR is suppose is there to help it perform above its weight. That is 'invisible' to devs, though, and we haven't heard any devs praising or complaining about the memory setup

Oh I agree the switches CPU is definitely an improvement, clock for clock it's faster than the jaguars. But the clock is kind of low non the less, but that's more to do with practical constraints. The TBR helps but I don't think it is enough to compete against hardware solutions. That's said getting doom on the switch shows that it means business.
 
Man you're really an optimist. Look forward to seeing your Doom dreams crushed again :p

Like I said before I expect pretty low dips but we currently have no proof of any. For all we know cutting the framerate in half and lowering some settings let them get 720p maintained at all times in handheld mode and they don't have enough time to optimize for docked mode before launch.

It's just so many people acting like sub native has been confirmed that's annoying, regardless of how likely it may be.

They dont even sell 720p tvs in 2017 , hell barely sell 1080p

I'm sorry but this may be the single most out of touch statement I've ever seen here.
 

OryoN

Member
Doesn't matter that much to me, but it's a curious decision. It doesn't help that they didnt give us any details on how the extra GPU power is used. Keep in mind that that it was stated that optimization is still pending, so that could explain why we have no concrete details on how dock mode would affect performance. This should make an interesting DF analysis when the times comes.

Also not sure what all the CPU bottleneck comments have to do with anything concerning Switch's docked mode. The CPU generally couldn't care less whether the game is rendering @ 4K or 4p.
 
Nah, I'm glad Splatoon is the only one really pushing that.

Can you elaborate? Why do you feel it's a good thing for Nintendo to be the only ones pushing for something akin to mouse/keyboard level of control on console?

Also, how familiar are you with Splatoon's motion controls? Even if I didn't personally care much for it, I think I would still always err on the side of giving players more control options just inherently being a good thing - and something we should be pushing for overall, especially considering the arguably larger issue of accessibility options for players.
 

BigDug13

Member
If you want to play the game on your TV, buy the 60fps version on another system. I'm getting this to play it on the go.

This honestly makes me think the portable version very rarely even hits 720p with its dynamic scaling.
 
Like I said before I expect pretty low dips but we currently have no proof of any. For all we know cutting the framerate in half and lowering some settings let them get 720p maintained at all times in handheld mode and they don't have enough time to optimize for docked mode before launch.

It's just so many people acting like sub native has been confirmed that's annoying, regardless of how likely it may be.

I watched the GameSpot footage closely on my PC monitor today, in 1080p and full screen, and the image on the Switch screen looked a lot blurrier than I'm used to when it's native 720p... Yes compressed video and off-screen footage caveats and all. But if I was a betting man I would say it's running below native a lot of the time from what I can see. Have you watched it on a larger screen (not your phone)?

But even if this preview demo was dipping below 720p often, it could still improve before release. But the more I see, hear and read about this port and this developer, the less confident/optimistic I become about the final outcome.
 

EDarkness

Member
In the entire history of PC, handheld and 8th gen console gaming i can't recall a similar case. Specially nowadays we would have heard something in those terms by now.

Can you cite examples?

I'm only speculating, but when doing port work there are costs involved as well as man hours. A proposal is made at X spec with performance targets. Working with more than one spec can increase the number of man hours required to get there and if some company doesn't want to pay, then they may settle for a baseline and be done with it.

I can't speak for everyone else, but just my experience in trying to secure port work. We don't know what their contracts are like and what they've negotiated with Bethesda. Maybe they're cheap and the reason they're cheap is because of this. Again, just speculation as to why both of the games they're working on only target handheld spec and not docked. Don't see this with other companies, so there must be something about how they do things as to why it's that way.
 

Cerium

Member
I watched the GameSpot footage closely on my PC monitor today, in 1080p and full screen, and the image on the Switch screen looked a lot blurrier than I'm used to when it's native 720p... Yes compressed video and off-screen footage caveats and all.
I think the CoinOpTV footage looks better personally and regardless, off screen footage on Youtube can't tell us shit about the resolution. What we do have are numerous hands on impressions, including from GAF posters, praising how the game felt and how crisp it looked. I know you've seen them. Do you think they're just lying or something?
 
I think the CoinOpTV footage looks better personally and regardless, off screen footage on Youtube can't tell us shit about the resolution. What we do have are numerous hands on impressions, including from GAF posters, praising how the game felt and how crisp it looked. I know you've seen them. Do you think they're just lying or something?
No I haven't seen those numerous impressions, haven't been keeping up with all the Doom threads much. GAF moves too fast for me.

Call me skeptical, but if Nintendo themselves couldn't get Zelda, a port from the Wii U, to run at native 720p on Switch without dynamic resolution in handheld mode, I'm not holding my breath for a small developer to achieve that with current gen game like Doom and what appears to be a short development time. I'll be glad to be wrong as I love the Switch and I love Doom.
 

Cerium

Member
No I haven't seen those numerous impressions, haven't been keeping up with all the Doom threads much. GAF moves too fast for me.

Apologies for the assumption then; I've seen you reply on the same page as this one:

A bit late but my impressions on playing DOOM was beyond my expectations to be honest.

Upon the setup, we were given the pro controllers to play with as the joycons themselves were charging with the system. That said, rather than play through the story mode, I actually opted to play Arcade mode. Chose Beginner as I'd not played this version of DOOM before and jumped right in.

Using the Pro Controller was pretty much second nature, I never had to glance at the cheat sheet for the controls while melee was extremely satisfying due to the HD rumble funny enough. Despite the game running at 720p undocked, everything was pretty crisp and vibrant on the screen and the only time I noticed any FPS dips was when there was a lot of stuff onscreen - but even then, it was really minor and I knew the build wasn't fully optimized. I was able to pull of headshots with my pistol despite the enemies being 3 floors below me in the canyon and got to play around with all the other weapons offered in Arcade mode.

Only got to play for like 20-25 minutes (as we were pulled to wait for our turn to play Evil Within 2) but after playing the demo, I was pretty much sold on buying the game whenever it came out.

And a couple from the press:

IGN
The most important thing for a Doom port to get right is that sense of speed - sprinting through martian facilities with grace and fluidity as you tear demons limb from limb - and the Switch version nails that side of it. Simply put, it feels exactly like Doom should, just in a much smaller package.

Even so, it still looks great. Bethesda has been tight-lipped on the resolution, and I'm sure certain graphical settings have been tuned down to compensate for the Switch's weaker hardware, but it was genuinely hard for me to tell what, if anything, was scaled down when playing undocked. It just looked like the lovely, gory Doom I remembered playing on my PC.

Engadget
The same fast-paced, demonic shooter action that embodied the spirit of the classic game is there, and it still feels great. Sprinting through corridors of the UAC facility or performing stylistic "execution" glory kills on the spawn of hell is as satisfying as ever. The controls feel right. The complete experience translates. Still, the question that hung in everyone's mind during the game's announcement is the same one that lingered as I played through Bethesda's portable Doom demo: Can the Nintendo Switch really handle this game?

At first blush, the answer seems to be yes.

Now to be clear I'm sure it will go below 720p at times and it might do so frequently in handheld mode, but even Splatoon 2 does the same when undocked and that game still looks fantastic on the Switch screen. My point is that it's too early to pass any kind of judgment.
 
Apologies for the assumption then; I've seen you reply on the same page as this one:



And a couple from the press:

IGN


Engadget


Now to be clear I'm sure it will go below 720p at times and it might do so frequently in handheld mode, but even Splatoon 2 does the same when undocked and that game still looks fantastic on the Switch screen. My point is that it's too early to pass any kind of judgment.

Yes I had read the first one, thanks for sharing the rest.
 
Did we really get to "Doom on a laptop is technically portable so there" levels of discussion here? Disappointing.

I hope we end up getting a classic Doom port on the Switch. The two eras of Doom are so distinct!
 
Note that the Switch version of Rocket League, also handled by Panic Button, also renders at 720p both handheld and docked.
Hm it seems it's more a problem with developers, if they do the same on this port as rocket league it's like they are just aiming the portable mode without bothering with docked mode. We'll see if it's really in dynamic resolution or not.
 
Hm it seems it's more a problem with developers, if they do the same on this port as rocket league it's like they are just aiming the portable mode without bothering with docked mode. We'll see if it's really in dynamic resolution or not.
Sorry but how on earth do you know it's as straightforward as them "not bothering"? :/
 
Based on what though? Rocket League and Doom are both current gen titles which the Switch wasn't expected to run.
Based on other ports taking advantages of the docked mode, using the power to increase the resolution for example, for these two games it seems this is not the case. So we will see why when these games will be released.
 
I watched the GameSpot footage closely on my PC monitor today, in 1080p and full screen, and the image on the Switch screen looked a lot blurrier than I'm used to when it's native 720p... Yes compressed video and off-screen footage caveats and all. But if I was a betting man I would say it's running below native a lot of the time from what I can see. Have you watched it on a larger screen (not your phone)?

But even if this preview demo was dipping below 720p often, it could still improve before release. But the more I see, hear and read about this port and this developer, the less confident/optimistic I become about the final outcome.

Yeah I've watched most of them on PC and they look exactly like I remember on my PC. I can't notice much blurriness at all outside of the seemingly increased motion blur and DoF effects which help mask the lower texture resolution. I'm certainly not the best judge of resolution but all I can say is it look consistently great to me.

I'm only speculating, but when doing port work there are costs involved as well as man hours. A proposal is made at X spec with performance targets. Working with more than one spec can increase the number of man hours required to get there and if some company doesn't want to pay, then they may settle for a baseline and be done with it.

I can't speak for everyone else, but just my experience in trying to secure port work. We don't know what their contracts are like and what they've negotiated with Bethesda. Maybe they're cheap and the reason they're cheap is because of this. Again, just speculation as to why both of the games they're working on only target handheld spec and not docked. Don't see this with other companies, so there must be something about how they do things as to why it's that way.

It could also very easily be that this port (and maybe Rocket League too) was greenlit with very short notice and they only had time to optimize for a single target spec. I wouldn't blame the developer without knowing the other circumstances behind the port.

Also the article mentions that Panic Button is working with id, so I think Bethesda is taking this quite seriously.

But I do agree with you that I'd sooner believe there is some issue with the developer optimizing for docked mode than them actually using the docked mode clocks to their maximum capacity. There just aren't any other games that do this outside of Minecraft, and that has already been fixed.

Based on other ports taking advantages of the docked mode, using the power to increase the resolution for example, for these two games it seems this is not the case. So we will see why when these games will be released.

Actually, now that you mention it, I wonder if they might use more AA in docked mode rather than bump up the resolution. I don't know why they would do that when no one else does, but I guess we really have no clue yet.
 
Actually, now that you mention it, I wonder if they might use more AA in docked mode rather than bump up the resolution. I don't know why they would do that when no one else does, but I guess we really have no clue yet.

I never thought about more AA in docked mode, this is a good guessing and it could be the reason why it still in 720p in docked mode but as you said we really have no clue yet.
 
Top Bottom