• 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.

Confirmed: The Nintendo Switch is powered by an Nvidia Tegra X1

Status
Not open for further replies.

orioto

Good Art™
That's exactly what I said in the later parts of my post?

Just that they're not industry leading but they're on par on tech wizardry with what they got.

No you said they hide limitations with art direction.
Nintendo are amazing coders, on par or better than the best western ones.

Donkey Kong to be developed by Naughty Dog confirmed.
"Guerilla", mon cher Orioto :p.

Ha yeah, that makes more sense indeed lol
 

killatopak

Member
No you said they hide limitations with art direction.
Nintendo are amazing coders, on par or better than the best western ones.


Exactly. They hide it with art directions. When's the last time Nintendo made a realistic game?

You don't think Sony/MS doesn't do the same as well?

They are great at working with what they have on hand but they do not make things technically that other devs follow and I mean newer forms of AA and such. What they do is see the available techniques on hand and refine them as much as possible.
 

lutheran

Member
Cool. This was just the closest mobile game I could find to Fast RMX and was interested in the comparison to it.

And truth be told the game those pics came from must look fantastic on a phone. Everyone is going crazy in this thread but damn having a game that looks like Zelda or Fast RMX that you can play perfectly fine on the road as well as home is a fantastic achievement. Most of the games I play on XB1 or PS4 do not look all that much better than Zelda does TO ME. I don't need 100 percent realistic graphics to enjoy games or to think they look fantastic.
 
This. It's a modern PSP with a novel video out. People should definitely view this as a portable first, console second type deal. In that regard, it's a damn awesome little machine. Nintendo is trying to have the "console experience" on the go nonsense branding that did nothing for Sony.

I know you're speaking in defense of the Switch here, but there is a sizable difference between what the Switch does and what the PSP could do. Sure, if you write out a list of bullet points between the two systems, you can make them look really similar, but the truth is that the Switch was designed to be a hybrid from the ground up, and it really shows, where as the PSP was not.

There is a difference between 'console on the go' and 'console you can take on the go'.

Consider the Tegra X1. The other notable system which that powers isn't a portable either. It's the Shield TV, which is absolutely a console, even if it isn't as powerful as PS4 or the Xbox One. It's a proper console with proper console games like Tomb Raider and Resident Evil 5 and what have you.

You *can* dock the PSP, but it always offered a less than optimal experience. It couldn't compete with the IQ of PS2 games. It didn't offer the same control options when portable as it does docked. The controls damaged the experience of playing PSX games on the go, and the video quality damaged the experience of playing PSP games on the big screen.

With the Switch, sure, it's 'only' pushing out better visuals than the 360, Wii U and PS3, (just as with the Shield TV) but it is clearly designed around easily going from one way of playing to the other, seamlessly and basically instantly.

I don't think we have to fit it into a pre existing category to either make it look more powerful or to make it look less powerful.

It's the Surface Pro of gaming systems. It's the first system that delivers on the potential only hinted at by systems like the PSP and the Shield Tablet that offered the same functionality, but in a way that wasn't central to their design.

I don't judge the Surface Pro line as either a tablet or a laptop. Sure, you can buy keyboards for other tablets and technically do a lot of the same things... but it never felt central to the experience.

The Switch isn't a handheld that had a dock added as an afterthought. It's a hybrid. It's internals were chosen accordingly. Which other dockable handheld can push a higher resolution and uncompressed surround sound when hooked up to a TV? What other dockable handheld can instantly switch resolution and control type and seamlessly go from playing one way to another?

The switch is the first console designed from the ground up to be a hybrid. Given that, I think it's internals, it's controls and it's outputs all make sense.

Other systems had hybrid functionality, but it was secondary. This is the first proper gaming hybrid. More will follow and improve on it, I'm sure. But like the Surface Pro, it's really a third category, even if there's a lot of overlap between it and other categories.
 
Not easily. An iPhone 7 isn't that much weaker gpu wise and doesn't throttle much.

Ok, if you say 7s.

Sure at the full 512 ALU cores (iPhone has 384) running at full speed full fp16 it runs at 1TF like the X1. However it's feature set, and architecture are leagues behind the X1. IIRC the architecture dates back to 2007 and supports up to a DX11 feature set.

So sure in mobile benchmarks yeah its close. If were talking about running something like Zelda we're talking about building dev tools, api's, customising the architecture porting middle ware engines like MTFramework, IDTech, and UE4.

If we're going down that path of customisation and essentially rearchitecting the chip, you could do the same with an X1 or just the Pascal Cores and stomp any other possible design. So yes as a mobile GPU, stock off the shelf, X1 is simply the top of the line. Especially when trying to run console quality games built on, not mobile, engines.
 
Zelda had to be cutback from it's E3 debut in various ways. While it's performance does better people have shown like any other game all it takes is the right nudging to tank it's performance. Mentioning zelda's physics when people have made clear examples of how it simple events or being in towns drops the performance easily makes that as bad as pop up you mention for GTA5.

However the idea the scope is the same is wrong. GTA5 in various sections that cannot be found in BOTW in terms of geometry is unmatched by any other openworld title that has basically come out sans Second Son on PS4 or stressing it on a PC. If zelda had similar lighting, textures and density I'd say it would be superior but it doesn't that's a technological fact.

The few things GTA5 does better is why when comparison come up like these I'm quick to remind people of what happened when crysis tried to come in from the pc and had one of the worst hack jobs done to it. Just like xenoblade there are some things zelda is good at but because of it's simplistic look or lighting its able to get away with quite a bit where as GTA5 on those consoles show it's better to work with your limits.

Sure.

But it looks substantially better than the first playable footage of it we saw at the 2014 Game Awards. There is way more geometry detail in the final game than the 2014 footage.

And GTA5 also dropped framerates all over the place when it first came out, so I don't see how you can point to the framerate drops in specific areas of BOTW as a negative when compared to it.
 
And actually that's wrong i think. It's not said enough how BotW, beyond the scale and teh physics etc.. is doing next gen things graphic wise in many occasions. It's not said enough how the lights from link weapon are reflected in the shrine's wall. I remember this kind of thing was actually really impressive in Kill Zone Shadow Fall, but on PS4.. I remeber to that everyone was impressed by the reacting grass in UC4, which is in BotW. The game is doing many next gen things on a last gen hardware.

And yeah, Nintendo is amazing and absolutely in Naughty Dog / Gorilla tier regarding graphic tricks, i can tell you. People don't notice it cause they are always using late hardware, but what they do with it is insane. And i can go back to a certain Wave Race on N64. MK8 was doing some crazy next gen shit with light and color rendering to.

I was admiring the reflective real time lighting last night. It's absolutely everywhere in the World. You can drop a blue energy sword in a river and its colour illuminates the water around it. All the weapons have actual weight when you drop them reacting differently to different surfaces. I noticed the other night that after freezing an enemy on a hill that running into them made them slide down the hill lol.

The grass really is amazing whether it's the short nicely textured or long fully movable kind.

I'm really surprised Digital Foundry hasn't done an in depth video on all the cool little details it has going on which is especially impressive considering it's running console hardware 20x less powerful than PS4 Pro.
 
I know you're speaking in defense of the Switch here, but there is a sizable difference between what the Switch does and what the PSP could do. Sure, if you write out a list of bullet points between the two systems, you can make them look really similar, but the truth is that the Switch was designed to be a hybrid from the ground up, and it really shows, where as the PSP was not.

There is a difference between 'console on the go' and 'console you can take on the go'.

Consider the Tegra X1. The other notable system which that powers isn't a portable either. It's the Shield TV, which is absolutely a console, even if it isn't as powerful as PS4 or the Xbox One. It's a proper console with proper console games like Tomb Raider and Resident Evil 5 and what have you.

You *can* dock the PSP, but it always offered a less than optimal experience. It couldn't compete with the IQ of PS2 games. It didn't offer the same control options when portable as it does docked. The controls damaged the experience of playing PSX games on the go, and the video quality damaged the experience of playing PSP games on the big screen.

With the Switch, sure, it's 'only' pushing out better visuals than the 360, Wii U and PS3, (just as with the Shield TV) but it is clearly designed around easily going from one way of playing to the other, seamlessly and basically instantly.

I don't think we have to fit it into a pre existing category to either make it look more powerful or to make it look less powerful.

It's the Surface Pro of gaming systems. It's the first system that delivers on the potential only hinted at by systems like the PSP and the Shield Tablet that offered the same functionality, but in a way that wasn't central to their design.

I don't judge the Surface Pro line as either a tablet or a laptop. Sure, you can buy keyboards for other tablets and technically do a lot of the same things... but it never felt central to the experience.

The Switch isn't a handheld that had a dock added as an afterthought. It's a hybrid. It's internals were chosen accordingly. Which other dockable handheld can push a higher resolution and uncompressed surround sound when hooked up to a TV? What other dockable handheld can instantly switch resolution and control type and seamlessly go from playing one way to another?

The switch is the first console designed from the ground up to be a hybrid. Given that, I think it's internals, it's controls and it's outputs all make sense.

Other systems had hybrid functionality, but it was secondary. This is the first proper gaming hybrid. More will follow and improve on it, I'm sure. But like the Surface Pro, it's really a third category, even if there's a lot of overlap between it and other categories.

It is a hybrid no doubt, but the system is working around the limitations of mobile technology. It's modular in design to make it more like a home console, but you're really just adding inputs to a smartly designed system. Imagine if you will that the Vita could take a dual shock 4 input, and dock to TV out.

Yes the dock nets you a resolution bump, and possibly a franerate boost, but assets will be designed around the handheld version.

People are ragging on the switches graphics capabilities from the perspective that it's competing with the PS4/Xbone, which I think is just flawed logic. The ps4/bone are not mobile in any capacity and as such don't fall on the limitations.

The switch should be viewed through its limitations as mobile hardware, not it's shortcomings as a console.

In that regard the switch is a beast lol.
 

orioto

Good Art™
Exactly. They hide it with art directions. When's the last time Nintendo made a realistic game?

You don't think Sony/MS doesn't do the same as well?

They are great at working with what they have on hand but they do not make things technically that other devs follow and I mean newer forms of AA and such. What they do is see the available techniques on hand and refine them as much as possible.

I'm not the best guy to talk about it but i'm pretttty sure, from reading about it many times, that Nintendo actually creates all sort of specific techs to do what they want in their games. This is really not just an art thing. I'd be curious to know how some of the BotW stuff like the light reflection on walls with some raytracing aspect works. I'm pretty sure it's not just generic stuff you do on WiiU or X1 lol. I'm also pretty sure it would be hard to find any of that shit in any game on similar hardware.
 

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
I don't believe that's true. Nintendo does call it a console, but all of the advertisements showcase its portable hybrid nature. It is also ridiculously small for a console.

If you think about it, Switch is the natural evolution of the Wii U concept.

Wii U had limited portability because the hardware was still in the box that connected to your TV. Your range was very restricted. Now the hardware is built inside the gamepad, so you have the total freedom Wii U lacked.
 

killatopak

Member
I'm not the best guy to talk about it but i'm pretttty sure, from reading about it many times, that Nintendo actually creates all sort of specific techs to do what they want in their games. This is really not just an art thing. I'd be curious to know how some of the BotW stuff like the light reflection on walls with some raytracing aspect works. I'm pretty sure it's not just generic stuff you do on WiiU or X1 lol. I'm also pretty sure it would be hard to find any of that shit in any game on similar hardware.

I'd have to dive deep into DF threads for that lol. Let's just agree that Nintendo are Wizards.
 
Sure, if you ignore the control limitations. Run at sub native resolution, ignore throttling, tolerate 1 hr battery life. Obviously the a57 has been outclassed handily by both Apple ARM chips and others like A72. However, when it comes to GPU performance, X1 still easily holds the mobile crown.

But does the GPU performance of the Switch undocked beat the iPhone 7 since it is not using the full performance of the X1?
 
It is a hybrid no doubt, but the system is working around the limitations of mobile technology. It's modular in design to make it more like a home console, but you're really just adding inputs to a smartly designed system. Imagine if you will that the Vita could take a dual shock 4 input, and dock to TV out.

Yes the dock nets you a resolution bump, and possibly a franerate boost, but assets will be designed around the handheld version.

People are ragging on the switches graphics capabilities from the perspective that it's competing with the PS4/Xbone, which I think is just flawed logic. The ps4/bone are not mobile in any capacity and as such don't fall on the limitations.

The switch should be viewed through its limitations as mobile hardware, not it's shortcomings as a console.

In that regard the switch is a beast lol.

I'd imagine assets aren't really going to be limited by the handheld version. Presumably that's going to have more to do with memory, which doesn't change between docked and not docked. I don't know for certain, obviously, but I'd imagine memory is going to be the primary bottle neck there, vs CPU and GPU clocks, and certainly I think both the handheld and docked modes of Breath of the Wild could push better assets were it not for the Wii U version of the game.

The bottlenecks in BOTW seem to be primarily alpha effect (grass, particles, etc) related, and that's generally a fillrate bottleneck. Fillrate dependent stuff, game logic (AI, physics, etc), shading effects, those are the kind of things that the handheld mode will likely bottleneck.

So, the notion that games will have to be designed around handheld mode's capabilities is certainly true. I just think assets aren't where we'll see it.
 

orioto

Good Art™
By the way i'm always seeing the Switch has 3 gigs of ram for the game, Swich is way more than the WiiU, or even more than the PS360.

But..

I just realized, aren't a big part of those 3g reserved for the 1080p rendering ? I mean it must be needed to output 1080p instead of 720p, in term of memory right ? I don't know how much more, maybe 2,25 more ?

So basically that would mean the devs have to work with less ram than that, in portable mode, which is the main target for their game. No ? So that means compared to a WiiU at same resolution, the Switch doesn't have that much more ram maybe..
 
By the way i'm always seeing the Switch has 3 gigs of ram for the game, Swich is way more than the WiiU, or even more than the PS360.

But..

I just realized, aren't a big part of those 3g reserved for the 1080p rendering ? I mean it must be needed to output 1080p instead of 720p, in term of memory right ? I don't know how much more, maybe 2,25 more ?

So basically that would mean the devs have to work with less ram than that, in portable mode, which is the main target for their game. No ? So that means compared to a WiiU at same resolution, the Switch doesn't have that much more ram maybe..

The Wii U had several 1080p games...

Meaning, I don't think resolution has a straight correlation to RAM amount like you're suggesting. As always it'll be up to developer priorities.
 
By the way i'm always seeing the Switch has 3 gigs of ram for the game, Swich is way more than the WiiU, or even more than the PS360.

But..

I just realized, aren't a big part of those 3g reserved for the 1080p rendering ? I mean it must be needed to output 1080p instead of 720p, in term of memory right ? I don't know how much more, maybe 2,25 more ?

So basically that would mean the devs have to work with less ram than that, in portable mode, which is the main target for their game. No ? So that means compared to a WiiU at same resolution, the Switch doesn't have that much more ram maybe..

Your framebuffer size, sure. And that can vary depending on what you're doing, but it's not a huge chunk of memory. Plus I don't think developers are required to output games at a higher resolution when docked, so I don't think it's going to prevent someone using however much memory isn't system reserved when in portable mode.
 

LCGeek

formerly sane
Sure.

But it looks substantially better than the first playable footage of it we saw at the 2014 Game Awards. There is way more geometry detail in the final game than the 2014 footage.

Playable footage vs trailers is exactly what I'm commenting on to begin with it took downgrades in certain areas. My issue isn't geometry either I'm just comparing it to other notable titles that have earned their credit. I take more offense to fidelity of the tech demos that never seem to make it on to the same architecture in a final game, though I'm quite aware tech demos don't have to concern themselves with physics. Thanks for the vid it's interesting to see various changes especially the cliff and woods bit.

And GTA5 also dropped framerates all over the place when it first came out, so I don't see how you can point to the framerate drops in specific areas of BOTW as a negative when compared to it.

They both suck is more of my point for different reasons when it comes to frames. People want to act as if it's flawless when its not. While it's good for 90% of the time there are clear times or situations which will choke the system. It's this simple cause I say it all the time for pc games I don't care what a title is 99% of the time it's working I care what it performs like when it goes to crap. Neither are impressive in that respect. Lets be real. switch performance is so so, in mobile it's the best, and docked it inconsistent when it shouldn't be. That's on no one but nintendo regardless of other games. Vs some of their own products or competitor products they could step it up a little especially considering their own history in actually having good frame pacing usually.
 

Pancake Mix

Copied someone else's pancake recipe
Something like Killzone: Shadow Fall or Horizon: Zero Dawn is coded to the metal on PS4 and beyond the Switch's capabilities.

Hell, the former runs at like 35-50 FPS on an OG PS4 at 1080p somehow, while the latter runs at a nearly solid 30 FPS on the same device despite a large upgrade beyond that.

There are games out there for home consoles that Switch just wouldn't be able to do.
 

senj

Member
I just realized, aren't a big part of those 3g reserved for the 1080p rendering ? I mean it must be needed to output 1080p instead of 720p, in term of memory right ? I don't know how much more, maybe 2,25 more ?

A 1080p framebuffer, at 32 bits per pixel, takes 7.9 MB. Double or triple that for double- or triple-buffering. RAM size is, relatively, nothing.

Increasing resolution does tend to increase RAM usage because it tends to cause devs to want to use larger, more detailed textures. but the resolution doesn't really force that, and things like texture compression and Tile Based Deferred Rendering help with the memory and bandwidth costs.

So basically that would mean the devs have to work with less ram than that, in portable mode, which is the main target for their game. No ? So that means compared to a WiiU at same resolution, the Switch doesn't have that much more ram maybe..

No. The Switch has 2.25 GB more RAM available to games than the Wii U. Resolution doesn't change that, and anyway the Wii U had a number of 1080p games.
 

bomblord1

Banned
By the way i'm always seeing the Switch has 3 gigs of ram for the game, Swich is way more than the WiiU, or even more than the PS360.

But..

I just realized, aren't a big part of those 3g reserved for the 1080p rendering ? I mean it must be needed to output 1080p instead of 720p, in term of memory right ? I don't know how much more, maybe 2,25 more ?

So basically that would mean the devs have to work with less ram than that, in portable mode, which is the main target for their game. No ? So that means compared to a WiiU at same resolution, the Switch doesn't have that much more ram maybe..

Framebuffer for a 1080p image with no AA is only a few MB.

I feel like people are forgetting the PS2 had some games output in 1080i (basically half 1080p) with 32MB of RAM it's always down to if the developer wants to make the necessary sacrifices to get the game at a target resolution.
 

AmyS

Member
Something like Killzone: Shadow Fall or Horizon: Zero Dawn is coded to the metal on PS4 and beyond the Switch's capabilities.

Hell, the former runs at like 35-50 FPS on an OG PS4 at 1080p somehow, while the latter runs at a nearly solid 30 FPS on the same device despite a large upgrade beyond that.

There are games out there for home consoles that Switch just wouldn't be able to do.

True.
 

oti

Banned
Something like Killzone: Shadow Fall or Horizon: Zero Dawn is coded to the metal on PS4 and beyond the Switch's capabilities.

Hell, the former runs at like 35-50 FPS on an OG PS4 at 1080p somehow, while the latter runs at a nearly solid 30 FPS on the same device despite a large upgrade beyond that.

There are games out there for home consoles that Switch just wouldn't be able to do.

Thanks for stating the obvious?

3199076-img_8820.jpg
 
Mobile tech is nothing to sneeze at. Both fast and botw could probably be ported to an iPhone 7 if you see past control limitations, the switch uses 2 year old mobile tech,
Especially considering there have been pretty big leaps in performance per watt. I don't even recall the X1 being lauded for it's efficiency during it's release but rather the pure horsepower.
 

Xellos

Member
X1 seems like a good chip and a nice step up from Wii U. Maybe not cutting edge but not a poor choice by any stretch. Nvidia's help with development tools and documentation is the more important part of the package. Nintendo needed that more than cutting edge power. Remember the Digital Foundry article on the early days of Wii U development?
 
The whole iPhone 7 thing is moot because devs have to support a bunch of older iPhones before that, even my "old" iPhone 4S, meaning they can't support its full capabilities anyway, especially since mobile games aren't nearly as flexible as PC games in terms of visual fidelity and such, meaning devs have to optimize for the lowest common denominator. Switch devs won't have this problem.

The Switch isn't a PS4/Xbone level system, by any stretch. What it is, however, is an absolute monster of a handheld. I guarantee that Nvidia are already working on a Volta-based Tegra that will be PS4+ hardware for a future Switch iteration/successor, especially if their partnership with Nintendo works out very well for them, and there's good indications that it could very well do so. If this gen takes long enough like last time, a PS4+-level Switch 2 with an established install base could be a nasty stumbling block for any attempts to proceed with a next-gen leap for the competition.
 
Something like Killzone: Shadow Fall or Horizon: Zero Dawn is coded to the metal on PS4 and beyond the Switch's capabilities.

Hell, the former runs at like 35-50 FPS on an OG PS4 at 1080p somehow, while the latter runs at a nearly solid 30 FPS on the same device despite a large upgrade beyond that.

There are games out there for home consoles that Switch just wouldn't be able to do.

"Coded to the metal"
Lol. This ugly myth rears it's head again.

X1 seems like a good chip and a nice step up from Wii U. Maybe not cutting edge but not a poor choice by any stretch. Nvidia's help with development tools and documentation is the more important part of the package. Nintendo needed that more than cutting edge power. Remember the Digital Foundry article on the early days of Wii U development?

It's a cutting edge mobile chip.
 
The whole iPhone 7 thing is moot because devs have to support a bunch of older iPhones before that, even my "old" iPhone 4S, meaning they can't support its full capabilities anyway, especially since mobile games aren't nearly as flexible as PC games in terms of visual fidelity and such, meaning devs have to optimize for the lowest common denominator. Switch devs won't have this problem.

The Switch isn't a PS4/Xbone level system, by any stretch. What it is, however, is an absolute monster of a handheld. I guarantee that Nvidia are already working on a Volta-based Tegra that will be PS4+ hardware for a future Switch iteration/successor, especially if their partnership with Nintendo works out very well for them, and there's good indications that it could very well do so. If this gen takes long enough like last time, a PS4+-level Switch 2 with an established install base could be a nasty stumbling block for any attempts to proceed with a next-gen leap for the competition.

Sony would have released a PS5 a long time ago before a 2TF handheld is even in reasonable range.
 
Something like Killzone: Shadow Fall or Horizon: Zero Dawn is coded to the metal on PS4 and beyond the Switch's capabilities.

Hell, the former runs at like 35-50 FPS on an OG PS4 at 1080p somehow, while the latter runs at a nearly solid 30 FPS on the same device despite a large upgrade beyond that.

There are games out there for home consoles that Switch just wouldn't be able to do.

Are we talking about games that can't be run on the Switch without considerable compromises, or that the game can't be run at all? The latter is not true.. but there would be

For Killizone, I recall being impressed with the trailers background city, but I don't think it's well beyond the Switch now that I see how the Wii U can handle Zelda. A game like Horizon would much harder to port down, though. It would probably look closer to XCX and Zelda than its current form.
 
Sony would have released a PS5 a long time ago before a 2TF handheld is even in reasonable range.

That's hardly certain - the 8-year generation length might end up being the new normal. Who knows how powerful a Volta-based Tegra might be on the GPU side... Though its CPU would shit all over the Jaguar. And possibly be competitive with AMD's newer stuff. Who knows, now that Nvidia has more incentive to really deliver. The next few years are gonna be fun to watch.
 

Pancake Mix

Copied someone else's pancake recipe
Are we talking about games that can't be run on the Switch without considerable compromises, or that the game can't be run at all? The latter is not true.. but there would be

For Killizone, I recall being impressed with the trailers background city, but I don't think it's well beyond the Switch now that I see how the Wii U can handle Zelda. A game like Horizon would much harder to port down, though. It would probably look closer to XCX and Zelda than its current form.

Way, way too much work. That city background ran in real-time in-game. Games like that and Horizon are just too far gone to really be easily scaled to Switch, even if they were third-party games that could be. Lot of work, if it's even possible to get environs like that running.
 
Way, way too much work. That city background ran in real-time in-game. Games like that and Horizon are just too far gone to really be easily scaled to Switch, even if they were third-party games that could be. Lot of work, if it's even possible to get environs like that running.
I know that about Killzone. That was why I was impressed. That is also why I said that if the Wii U can pull off Zelda, the Switch should be able to do the city with a reduction in details and such. I don't believe that those type of modifications for a game like Killzone would be difficult to do.

Horizon is a very different story, though.
 
If you think about it, Switch is the natural evolution of the Wii U concept.

Wii U had limited portability because the hardware was still in the box that connected to your TV. Your range was very restricted. Now the hardware is built inside the gamepad, so you have the total freedom Wii U lacked.
its a shame you can't play portable and docked in the same time though.
 

Astral Dog

Member
By the way i'm always seeing the Switch has 3 gigs of ram for the game, Swich is way more than the WiiU, or even more than the PS360.

But..

I just realized, aren't a big part of those 3g reserved for the 1080p rendering ? I mean it must be needed to output 1080p instead of 720p, in term of memory right ? I don't know how much more, maybe 2,25 more ?

So basically that would mean the devs have to work with less ram than that, in portable mode, which is the main target for their game. No ? So that means compared to a WiiU at same resolution, the Switch doesn't have that much more ram maybe..
I think its more about bandwith than RAM capacity...
 

Astral Dog

Member

Something like Killzone: Shadow Fall or Horizon: Zero Dawn is coded to the metal on PS4 and beyond the Switch's capabilities.

Hell, the former runs at like 35-50 FPS on an OG PS4 at 1080p somehow, while the latter runs at a nearly solid 30 FPS on the same device despite a large upgrade beyond that.

There are games out there for home consoles that Switch just wouldn't be able to do.
Uh i don't think we should be even questioning if the PS4 is more capable than the Switch at this point .or,since the reveal.

We can question if you find the graphics of the Swktch acceptable. Taking the Wii U Nintendo games as a base
 
X1 seems like a good chip and a nice step up from Wii U. Maybe not cutting edge but not a poor choice by any stretch. Nvidia's help with development tools and documentation is the more important part of the package. Nintendo needed that more than cutting edge power. Remember the Digital Foundry article on the early days of Wii U development?

This will be very important in the long run. That article was absolutely fascinating.
 

solaaire

Neo Member
X1 seems like a good chip and a nice step up from Wii U. Maybe not cutting edge but not a poor choice by any stretch. Nvidia's help with development tools and documentation is the more important part of the package. Nintendo needed that more than cutting edge power. Remember the Digital Foundry article on the early days of Wii U development?

Agreed, "just an out of the box Tegra X1" posts significantly downplay the importance of dev tools and documentation that a partnership like this might provide. The article makes it abundantly clear that Nintendo did not possess the resources to support 3rd party developers, especially Western devs, on the Wii U in a number of categories. It is obviously difficult to know what exactly Nintendo's partnership with NVIDIA entails (is NVIDIA on the hook for maintaining drivers, providing dev support, keeping documentation up to date, etc? presumably yes) but we can already see that working with NVIDIA has made a significant difference in 3rd party developers ability to understand the toolchain and deploy software on Switch. Certainly some will view this merely as a byproduct of Nintendo finally utilizing modern architecture, but that alone represents a paradigm shift in Nintendo's thinking between the Wii U and Switch.

A tad off topic, but the blurb in that article about Nintendo Network's issues at launch might provide some insight as to why Nintendo made a substantial investment in their partnership with DeNA. It is another case of Nintendo management recognizing that they are out of their depth, this time in the realm of back-end networking and infrastructure. It is very telling that Nintendo Network, launched in 2012, is already reduced to a login API for their new Nintendo Account system, which is presumably crafted or co-developed by DeNA.

From what I can glean, Nintendo's willingness to co-develop titles with other studios increased significantly during the Wii U era as well. To weave this back into Tegra talk, I think Nintendo's willingness and effort to court partnerships has improved dramatically since the launch of the Wii U, and sincerely doubt Nintendo's relationship with NVIDIA ends at "thanks for purchasing our silicon, suckers!"
 
Switch docked is roughly 400GFLOPS going by Eurogamer's clockspeed of 768GHz. Switch's NVIIDA architecture is also newer and more efficient than AMD'S per flop. Who knows exactly how much, as some have said 1.3 to 1.4x. Even if we don't factor that in, mixed fp precision mode could bring it to +600 GFLOPS easily. 40-60% of Xbone with mixed precision and architectural efficiency is really not that big of a deal. From a technical perspective, GPU and CPU are up there, and 4GB of RAM on a cartridge with +3GB for games isn't so bad. But working around the bandwidth and using tile based rendering will be interesting.

Again, we've seen games like I am Setsuna, Dragon Quest. Identical outside framerate being cut in half, and some minor lighting and texture(mainly on Dragon Quest) downgrades. 2-3x power discrepency isn't that big of a deal, particularly for ports, if developers aim for 720p on switch--while the leading platform will most definitely be 1080p, which requires 2.25x the power.

Its already capable of decent ports. When it comes down to it, all depends on how much the devs take advantage of it. Fast Racing RMX(great resolution and framerate upgrade from the wii u version) and ARMS look amazing.
Arms-Nintendo-Switch-Screenshot-Ribbon-Girl-Side-Steeping-Dodging-Attack.jpg

I think the thing that bothers me the most, regarding the Switch graphical output:

Springman's right shaoulder brace, plus the curves of the coils - are not perfectly spherical. Square jagged corners on things that should be round.

Also apparent in Zelda.

Most apparent on the top curved portions of lightposts in New Donk City, Mario Odyssey.

Is the Switch not powerful enough to actually render enough polygons for round surfaces? Too weak you have distinctly flat edges?
 

Lord Error

Insane For Sony
And actually that's wrong i think. It's not said enough how BotW, beyond the scale and teh physics etc.. is doing next gen things graphic wise in many occasions. It's not said enough how the lights from link weapon are reflected in the shrine's wall. I remember this kind of thing was actually really impressive in Kill Zone Shadow Fall, but on PS4.. I remeber to that everyone was impressed by the reacting grass in UC4, which is in BotW. The game is doing many next gen things on a last gen hardware.
I wouldn't really call those next gen effects. Screen space reflections were used on PS3 and X360 (in Crysis 3 for example). Movable grass in BOTW looks similar to what was being done in MGS3 or at best Flower on PS3 - bendable plants in UC4 are doing a more complex deformation. BOTW features very nice sets of interconnnected systems - but not really something I'd call "next gen" visual effects.
 

Rodin

Member
I wouldn't really call those next gen effects. Screen space reflections were used on PS3 and X360 (in Crysis 3 for example). Movable grass in BOTW looks similar to what was being done in MGS3 or at best Flower on PS3 - bendable plants in UC4 are doing a more complex deformation. BOTW features very nice sets of interconnnected systems - but not really something I'd call "next gen" visual effects.
"Game does several things together that many other more limited games did one at a time so it ain't impressive"

And no, "movable grass" isn't the point. The fact that you can cut it, burn it and that it reacts to wind, explosions and characters (in an open world filled with it) is.
 
I wouldn't really call those next gen effects. Screen space reflections were used on PS3 and X360 (in Crysis 3 for example). Movable grass in BOTW looks similar to what was being done in MGS3 or at best Flower on PS3 - bendable plants in UC4 are doing a more complex deformation. BOTW features very nice sets of interconnnected systems - but not really something I'd call "next gen" visual effects.

It does a few things at the same time in a very big world, and we shouldn't forget it's a Wii U game, that#s direct X 10 level of effects, a bit more modern than old PS3 and X360. So for a last gen powered console it's good i think. I think switch will be capable of a bit more if coded to the metal.
 

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
simply put, the Switch's iteration of tegra X1 is the strongest chipset to ever exist in a handheld configuration by a factor of almost 10x, and docked only allows it to reach its full potential.

There should be no wringing of hands
 

Narroo

Member
Agreed, "just an out of the box Tegra X1" posts significantly downplay the importance of dev tools and documentation that a partnership like this might provide. The article makes it abundantly clear that Nintendo did not possess the resources to support 3rd party developers, especially Western devs, on the Wii U in a number of categories. It is obviously difficult to know what exactly Nintendo's partnership with NVIDIA entails (is NVIDIA on the hook for maintaining drivers, providing dev support, keeping documentation up to date, etc? presumably yes) but we can already see that working with NVIDIA has made a significant difference in 3rd party developers ability to understand the toolchain and deploy software on Switch. Certainly some will view this merely as a byproduct of Nintendo finally utilizing modern architecture, but that alone represents a paradigm shift in Nintendo's thinking between the Wii U and Switch.

A tad off topic, but the blurb in that article about Nintendo Network's issues at launch might provide some insight as to why Nintendo made a substantial investment in their partnership with DeNA. It is another case of Nintendo management recognizing that they are out of their depth, this time in the realm of back-end networking and infrastructure. It is very telling that Nintendo Network, launched in 2012, is already reduced to a login API for their new Nintendo Account system, which is presumably crafted or co-developed by DeNA.

From what I can glean, Nintendo's willingness to co-develop titles with other studios increased significantly during the Wii U era as well. To weave this back into Tegra talk, I think Nintendo's willingness and effort to court partnerships has improved dramatically since the launch of the Wii U, and sincerely doubt Nintendo's relationship with NVIDIA ends at "thanks for purchasing our silicon, suckers!"


It also points out another issue as well: Nintendo has an odd obsession with power efficiency and quietness ever since the Wii. Yes, those are important features to consider; people have been complaining about the Turbo-Pump PS4, but at the same time it's secondary. No one cares how quiet the system is, or how energy efficient it is, if it doesn't work well. Backwards priorities.

With the Switch, they actually do have an excess to indulgence in their efficiency fantasies now since it's portable, so hopefully it'll work out better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom