ACHTUNG: Does anybody remember the "feature" that was supposedly included in the (false) rumored Polaris based GPU, that had the fake dev insider who fed 10k his bullshit, recognize the chip as "Polaris" because it had this "capping" ability, to only render what was in the view of the player (and not render what was left/right/below/above the screen view)?
What was this called again? It was something the PS4 and XBO did not have. Does the Tegra X1 have something similar?
Primitive Discard Accelerator. The PS4 Pro has one, and presumably Scorpio. They cull triangles to keep things from being rendered that aren't shown on screen.
The X1 has tile based rendering, which is actually more efficient in this regard.
Primitive Discard Accelerator. The PS4 Pro has one, and presumably Scorpio. They cull triangles to keep things from being rendered that aren't shown on screen.
The X1 has tile based rendering, which is actually more efficient in this regard.
Saying a device would have no issues with this chip at a certain speed, is not the same as stating it's the best option, is it? Surely that's a rational argument?
Primitive Discard Accelerator. The PS4 Pro has one, and presumably Scorpio. They cull triangles to keep things from being rendered that aren't shown on screen.
The X1 has tile based rendering, which is actually more efficient in this regard.
The video was honestly more of a "hey Internet. Shut up" display than anything else. They showed the device exists and confirmed speculation but had no intent of actually detailing anything.
Where have I claimed to be a voice of authority? I didn't even bring that point up and asked for quite the contrary. Thanks for your vacuous meta-commentary, though.
So bringing up your job description was purely coincidental, not intended to give your opinion on the matter more legitimacy? Considering what you've posted since that info drop, you could have fooled me. But perhaps you weren't the best example, just the most currently-prevalent one.
Where have I claimed to be a voice of authority? I didn't even bring that point up and asked for quite the contrary. Thanks for your vacuous meta-commentary, though.
Why would I need to argue against something that doesn't contradict my opinion?
As far as arguing against something you yourself posted. Well you posted Shield TV power consumption earlier on. A system that runs 4x A57 cores at 2Ghz plus the Maxwell GPU. The whole system on 20nm was 19.4w during demanding gameplay. TSMC's 16nm process reduces power consumption by 60% compared to 20nm, which could put the same system on 16nm down in the 7-8w range.
So bringing up your job description was purely coincidental, not intended to give your opinion on the matter more legitimacy? Considering what you've posted since that info drop, you could have fooled me. But perhaps you weren't the best example, just the most currently-prevalent one.
Back then (during LOLaris speculation) it was also said it could be done through software, but it would always be more taxing than if hardware supported it. And since XBO/PS4 don't support it, Switch having it, would always be an advantage. How ever small.
With ~half the RAM and GPU capability, seems like Switch getting ports from Xbox One would be nearly as impossible as, say, getting an Xbox game to run on PS2.
With ~half the RAM and GPU capability, seems like Switch getting ports from Xbox One would be nearly as impossible as, say, getting an Xbox game to run on PS2.
A better comparison would be Xbox One getting ports from PC, which is pretty common and fairly easy to do. All engines and middleware can run fine on the Switch and it's modern SoC.
Why exactly did the Wii U take an entire 1GB of its ram for the OS? Was it the suspend feature? It feels barren and completely lacking even compared to the Xbox 360.
Partly due to history, partly due to leaving themselves an out if they wanted to ship a feature later and needed the RAM, partly because of what happened after. Everyone was watching how Sony was stuck without stuff their competitors had because they didn't reserve enough RAM on PS3.
Originally the PS4 early on had 2GB of RAM. Coming from 512 that was a lot. Then it went to 4GB and very late in the game, like right before the reveal they bumped it to 8 (with only 5 available to devs)
When they were sketching out the Wii U, 2GB to stay near the then prototype PS4 probably sounded like a good idea. Then Sony had the advantage of shipping later and Cerny going "but what about more RAM?" and they jumped way the fuck far ahead.
My guess was Nintendo thought Sony was going to go to 2GB, they hedged their bet with 2GB and 1GB reserve because Sony was likely to do the same. Later Wii U got abandoned by third parties and there was no pressure or incentive to free up any of the OS's RAM to games because only Nintendo was pushing the hardware at that point.
You could see on 3DS where there was active third party support, Nintendo did free up some of their reserve.
With ~half the RAM and GPU capability, seems like Switch getting ports from Xbox One would be nearly as impossible as, say, getting an Xbox game to run on PS2.
Yes, if you ignore every verified insider on this board that has shared information about the Switch and its ability to receive ports from PS4/XB1, then it would be nearly as impossible.
Partly due to history, partly due to leaving themselves an out if they wanted to ship a feature later and needed the RAM, partly because of what happened after. Everyone was watching how Sony was stuck without stuff their competitors had because they didn't reserve enough RAM on PS3.
Originally the PS4 early on had 2GB of RAM. Coming from 512 that was a lot. Then it went to 4GB and very late in the game, like right before the reveal they bumped it to 8 (with only 5 available to devs)
When they were sketching out the Wii U, 2GB to stay near the then prototype PS4 probably sounded like a good idea. Then Sony had the advantage of shipping later and Cerny going "but what about more RAM?" and they jumped way the fuck far ahead.
My guess was Nintendo thought Sony was going to go to 2GB, they hedged their bet with 2GB and 1GB reserve because Sony was likely to do the same. Later Wii U got abandoned by third parties and there was no pressure or incentive to free up any of the OS's RAM to games because only Nintendo was pushing the hardware at that point.
You could see on 3DS where there was active third party support, Nintendo did free up some of their reserve.
Nope, i believe Nintendo wanted from the very beggining to stay around the circle of PS3 and Xbox 360 performance, they were just not focused on having competitive specs instead of low energy consumption , BC and easy (for them) development . Wii U has more RAM but still around the double, those are not conservative estimations but deliverate.
And if Wii U would have been more powerful they would not have been able to outpace it with a handheld of all things. so fast with improved ports.
Yes, if you ignore every verified insider on this board that has shared information about the Switch and its ability to receive ports from PS4/XB1, then it would be nearly as impossible.
My too-subtle implication was that in retrospect they seem very similar and it's hard to look at most Xbox exclusives and say "That clearly couldn't exist on PS2."
Yes, if you ignore every verified insider on this board that has shared information about the Switch and its ability to receive ports from PS4/XB1, then it would be nearly as impossible.
My too-subtle implication was that in retrospect they seem very similar and it's hard to look at most Xbox exclusives and say "That clearly couldn't exist on PS2."
I guess I was being too subtle, too. I was playing along and adding to your quote for those who keep insisting on ports not being possible. No harm was meant at all. I find the whole ports discussion humorous when we have qualified people saying otherwise, yet people keep coming in the thread, seeing the numbers, and jumping to conclusions.
I swear to God every time I see you say "jmon" at the end of a post I laugh out loud. I just spit out some soup. Why is that so funny?
On topic - I've seen some people suggest that SCDs could be one way for Nintendo to make up for memory restrictions, but I'd assume not since not everyone will have access to networks or the cloud. Wouldn't Nintendo want a consistent playing experience for everyone across the board? I know I'm talking like a layman, because I am one, but do yall get what I'm asking? Am I even thinking about this correctly?
Wouldn't SCDs being used for processing or memory make for unlevel playing field? It'd be like some people having a PS4 while others get a PS4 Pro.
My too-subtle implication was that in retrospect they seem very similar and it's hard to look at most Xbox exclusives and say "That clearly couldn't exist on PS2."
No way. A lot of the big PC/Xbox and Xbox exclusive titles wouldn't work on PS2 in any form.
Just look at stuff like Half-Life 2, Dead Or Alive 3, either Halo, and Conker: Live and Reloaded. Hell, maybe even include stuff like either Blinx and Jet Set Radio: Future.
Don't go into this expecting loads of high-end PS4/XB1/PC ports to Switch. You're wasting your time.
I swear to God every time I see you say "jmon" at the end of a post I laugh out loud. I just spit out some soup. Why is that so funny?
On topic - I've seen some people suggest that SCDs could be one way for Nintendo to make up for memory restrictions, but I'd assume not since not everyone will have access to networks or the cloud. Wouldn't Nintendo want a consistent playing experience for everyone across the board? I know I'm talking like a layman, because I am one, but do yall get what I'm asking? Am I even thinking about this correctly?
Wouldn't SCDs being used for processing or memory make for unlevel playing field? It'd be like some people having a PS4 while others get a PS4 Pro.
I do it too and I think it's because I picture Pooh reading his posts.
As for SCDs, beyond the fact that we have no leaks about them, they also complicate development since you are essentially adding a whole other development target for every game. That's happening anyway with PS4Pro and Scorpio so it's definitely possible, but at this stage we don't really have any reason to expect it soon.
I do it too and I think it's because I picture Pooh reading his posts.
As for SCDs, beyond the fact that we have no leaks about them, they also complicate development since you are essentially adding a whole other development target for every game. That's happening anyway with PS4Pro and Scorpio so it's definitely possible, but at this stage we don't really have any reason to expect it soon.
Make that three people who regularly chuckle at FZZ posts.
I think that if the SCD patent is ever realized in hardware form, it will be down the road as a way to maintain an established platform while increasing performance via additional SCD devices.
Honestly Vern hasn't been vetted yet officially by any mod as far as I saw. The fact that he hasn't been banned it's not vetting. Maybe no mod has seen his posts.
And he threw out some pretty far-fetched theories about Switch. So I want to see that mod OK before considering him insider.
I am trying to catch up with the thread, been away for awhile. Not gonna quote everybody but saw some talk on this.
I was not vetted. Prior to when I entered this thread and confirmed the specs and mentioned a few other things, I did PM a mod and told him i had some info i wanted to share anonymously. I was then sent to another mod for discussion. I was told they don't want to get involved and post on a user's behalf. I do have some proof I would have been willing to share under the right circumstances. But those circumstances obviously didn't work out so I just instead chose to come in here and confirm basically what's already known, as well as a few other details.
Not sure which theories are far fetched. I have said to think simple, like Nintendo. Other people are coming up with wild things like RAM streaming and who knows what else, I haven't read it all yet.
Take what i say as rumor since I have no way to prove it now and if an "anon" poster suddenly did come out with some info it would obviously be me. I can say that since I confirmed the 4gb, and Natedrake also said to expect that, a day or two later now Emily is also saying it. It doesn't prove anything and we could all be talking out of our butts, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Take what i say as rumor since I have no way to prove it now and if an "anon" poster suddenly did come out with some info it would obviously be me. I can say that since I confirmed the 4gb, and Natedrake also said to expect that, a day or two later now Emily is also saying it. It doesn't prove anything and we could all be talking out of our butts, but I wouldn't bet on it.
What we're really interested right now is RAM bandwidth limitations, since the current specs put the NS at a huge bottleneck, but I don't know if you have anything to share there!
Lol not trying to make you guys guess. Just assume it doesn't need much RAM for other tasks. I mean, you've already got a browser and presumably a few of them. Think of other ways that Nintendo can utilize apps.
I think a lot of people will make a big deal out of it, but to me I think it's smart and shows Nintendo is really confident in this system and its appeal. It's very focused.
Since the last post is about the "something else" Nintendo hasn't said about the system, it's probably a stretch its inclusion here. Still, I thought the possibility of it being related to how that part of the RAM is used justifies it.
What would be "thinking outside the box like Nintendo", "other ways of using apps", and possibly "smart, showing confidence and very focused"?
My hypotesis is that he's talking about the Miiverse. Not the Miiverse we know, though, but a different, evolved, version of Nintendo's own social network.
Think of it as Miiverse + Discord + streaming/video and pic sharing functions. I'll try to explain as much as possible what I thought.
Imagine the base as the current Miiverse, with pre-made discussions created specifically for games, special events, apps. You can post through the console or through the mobile / PC version of Miiverse. However, there would be far more possibilities of interactions for users and between users: first of all, every user could create public groups in a specific sub-cathegory of this new Miiverse (call it "users' contribution" sub-cathegory), where different people can join and they can organise multiplayer sessions for specific or multiple games (so, it would be different than the game-specific Community option for Mario Kart games). The title, the banner, the amount of users accepted...there would be several options to personalise the discussions. Moreover, users could create private discussions, that are actually Whatsapp / Telegram / Discord-like private groups where people can talk privately about everything, not mainly (or not just) gaming.
Another big evolution for this Miiverse would be in how fast it would be possible to interact with others: on 3DS and Wii U, using the app requires to wait for several seconds of loading, whether you want to ask something or you just want to share a "cool gaming moment" in the sense of a screenshot. Here, instead, it would be much easier and quicker. My take on the matter is that, when you're on the go, similarly to how Whatsapp allows you to give fast answers to single notifications on iOS devices at least, you can receive notifications (you can also turn them off) from your own private group / groups and answering them by using the on-screen keyboard appearing for the occasion. Function present when playing at home as well, even if working slightly differently due to touchscreen v.s. controller differencies. Public conversations / pre-made discussions would only notify you when you're quoted / you get a Yeah for your post (you can disable these notifications as well). The other major difference in that sense is that there would also be the possibility to directly view your private discussions at any time by pressing the Home button: alongside all the options of the classic Home menu, there would be the possibility to "snap" a window for the "Miiverse" private groups you're in, something useful if there's no mobile device near you.
The last major improvement for this renewed Miiverse would be, of course, in the sharing functions: by simply tapping the Record button, you take a single photo. In the Home menu, a captures option would appear, allowing you to decide where to share them (Miiverse - possibility of selecting where to share it, public or private conversations or both - , Facebook, Twitter) and the caption to include, while keeping it pressed for two seconds would start recording your own gaming sessions for a specific amount of time (several settings would available in the Record options, including the recording time), with then the possibility to slightly edit the footage and send it through Miiverse/Youtube and, by pressing the button for 3 seconds, a live streaming (based on the settings the users would've set earlier, including where to live stream) would start.
My idea includes also ideas like a bigger integration of Art Academy lite-like tools in the drawing option for messages from the get go, but I suppose the main aspects of this new Miiverse are what I tried to portray in this post (don't know how well I did it, though): basically, an extremely focused social approach for games and gamers themselves, whether they want to play games or just chat with each other.
Of course, this will NOT be what vern was alluding to, but at least I tried
What we're really interested right now is RAM bandwidth limitations, since the current specs put the NS at a huge bottleneck, but I don't know if you have anything to share there!
No I get that, its not going to change drastically regardless of what the final unit may be using (even on a 16nm shrink, the best it will get up to is 51.2GB/s), but the reason we're curious is because such a bottleneck on RAM is very un-Nintendo. They tend to favor small, high-speed RAM somewhere on the die to serve as the buffer to a bigger, slower RAM pool.
But right now we only know of the latter and not of the former, making this device and this specific bottleneck very unusual.
Make that three people who regularly chuckle at FZZ posts.
I think that if the SCD patent is ever realized in hardware form, it will be down the road as a way to maintain an established platform while increasing performance via additional SCD devices.
My main issue with the scds is that I don't see it being carried around with the Switch in handheld mode. Would be awkward to carry and it will drain even more battery. However, I would prefer an SCD to make it as powerful as a PS4 or more than having to buy a mid gen console upgrade.
No I get that, its not going to change drastically regardless of what the final unit may be using (even on a 16nm shrink, the best it will get up to is 51.2GB/s), but the reason we're curious is because such a bottleneck on RAM is very un-Nintendo. They tend to favor small, high-speed RAM somewhere on the die to serve as the buffer to a bigger, slower RAM pool.
But right now we only know of the latter and not of the former, making this device and this specific bottleneck very unusual.
I'm not a tech guy i think I said before, but my source said 25.6 gb/s.. I beleive that's what we are talking about.
As I was posting earlier i texted with that person a bit and I was told nothing has changed yet with regards to the specs. If and when things change that person said they will let me know.
I'm not a tech guy i think I said before, but my source said 25.6 gb/s.. I beleive that's what we are talking about.
As I was posting earlier i texted with that person a bit and I was told nothing has changed yet with regards to the specs. If and when things change that person said they will let me know.
25GB/s would be lower than even the Wii U, no? As has been pointed out many times in this thread Nintendo has never really skimped on RAM so I would very much expect that number to change for final retail units.
That would be an insane, unnecessary and highly out of character bottleneck.
25GB/s would be lower than even the Wii U, no? As has been pointed out many times in this thread Nintendo has never really skimped on RAM so I would very much expect that number to change for final retail units.
That would be an insane, unnecessary and highly out of character bottleneck.
It would be pretty easy to overcome with some cache layout changes. It's something I doubt Nintendo would overlook unless they were reasonably sure that they can feed 2 SM's adequately with that much bandwidth. You have to remember that a lot of the reasons for the extra bandwidth on the higher end cards is because of the sheer numbers of shaders that need to be fed a constant stream of new instructions.
I'm not a tech guy i think I said before, but my source said 25.6 gb/s.. I beleive that's what we are talking about.
As I was posting earlier i texted with that person a bit and I was told nothing has changed yet with regards to the specs. If and when things change that person said they will let me know.
If you have the opportunity to ask him, could you enquire if there is anything more to the memory setup. Slower memory than WiiU, which was already considered slow 5 years ago doesn't make sense. Unless you stumbled upon 10k's old source
25GB/s would be lower than even the Wii U, no? As has been pointed out many times in this thread Nintendo has never really skimped on RAM so I would very much expect that number to change for final retail units.
That would be an insane, unnecessary and highly out of character bottleneck.
It sounds so far exactly like a Tegra X1 at full speed. Also matches up with the dev kits using TX1 with active cooling.
Nvidia do have some delta compression (2:1) tech to help with the bandwidth so that helps to some degree, not sure if AMD do something similar that this makes it a moot point.
EDIT: Yeah AMD don't. I did a quick comparison of specs between the GTX 980 and R9 390 as they were the top cards of their time from both companies, and are very comparable cards to each other.
R9 390: 512 bit memory bus
GTX 980: 256 but memory bus
25GB/s would be lower than even the Wii U, no? As has been pointed out many times in this thread Nintendo has never really skimped on RAM so I would very much expect that number to change for final retail units.
That would be an insane, unnecessary and highly out of character bottleneck.
Well it would be twice the DDR3 bandwidth they had with the WiiU, but there is still the question of whether there is some sort of additional faster RAM solution, ala WiiU's 32MB eDRAM, to go along with that. Presumably there is, but who knows.
Well it would be twice the DDR3 bandwidth they had with the WiiU, but there is still the question of whether there is some sort of embedded RAM to go along with that. Presumably there is, but who knows.
There would seemingly have to be for this configuration to work, and unfortunately vern isn't a direct source so its hard to get deeper (no fault of his own).
It would be utterly crazy to go from the WiiU 32GB/s DOWN to 25GB/s while also gaining at least three times the graphical power and a substantially improved CPU that will be much more demanding on calls.
No I get that, its not going to change drastically regardless of what the final unit may be using (even on a 16nm shrink, the best it will get up to is 51.2GB/s), but the reason we're curious is because such a bottleneck on RAM is very un-Nintendo. They tend to favor small, high-speed RAM somewhere on the die to serve as the buffer to a bigger, slower RAM pool.
But right now we only know of the latter and not of the former, making this device and this specific bottleneck very unusual.
It would be pretty easy to overcome with some cache layout changes. It's something I doubt Nintendo would overlook unless they were reasonably sure that they can feed 2 SM's adequately with that much bandwidth. You have to remember that a lot of the reasons for the extra bandwidth on the higher end cards is because of the sheer numbers of shaders that need to be fed a constant stream of new instructions.
Right, it clearly won't need nearly as high a bandwidth as the PS4, but limiting it in this way just doesn't make sense. I agree that we could again see an extra cache like with the Wii U, though it would probably need to be a low power solution due to the handheld form factor.
Basically, either there's more to the story that no one has reported or I (and some other people) are greatly overstating the need for higher memory bandwidth with the current Switch specs.
It just makes no sense, even by Nintendo standards, to cripple a system in terms of third party support like this, so it's not something I believe is happening.
From what I understand, there's just something really custom in that Tegra revision that we just don't know yet. Wouldn't be surprised if we don't discover that until after release, just like how we had to wait for the WiiU chip last time...
Most people should probably wait until specs are provided about the RAM Memory Bandwidth. We didn't even get the RAM Memory Bandwidth for the Wii U's DDR3 RAM until there was a teardown right?
At this point, there's too little information and not enough confirmation of things.
It helps if there is someone to corroborate on Vern's claims of 80% of the RAM being used only for games and the Bandwidth being claimed to be exactly the same as in a Jetson TX1.
Also, everyone should be taking Vern's claims with a huge grain of salt. He couldn't get his source verified by mods so that source could be a complete phony. One of 10k's sources for rumours claimed that the NX was going to have Polaris architecture and 10k came out saying Trevelyan9999 aka SuperMetalDave64 was 10k's source for that Polaris rumour.
It died well before that. Almost immediately after launch, as evidenced by the near complete Crysis 3 port EA canned. EA killing Wii U support was entirely market based decision.
There had been rumors at that time that something went wrong between EA and Nintendo, probably because EA wanted more control over WiiUs online shop, and Nintendo denied. So the unprecedented partnership ended abruptly.
The smallest EDRAM that ever got to full scale production was 28nm. It's not an option here. They'd have to use ESRAM or tweak the cache sizes (Larger L2 and add an L3 pool, most likely).
You mean that piece of hardware that no one cares? (Now seriously, if in 2017 they couldn't even surpass 2011 hardware, that would be really something else.)
I don't think that's an issue generally. If devs want to do ports they can do them. The architecture will be far more similar to the FHD twins than Wii U was, and the power as well. Its just a matter of how much your willing to cut.
Nintendo recognizes this. So they figure they can go their own way, combine their development houses and third party 3DS partners together while at the same time getting some western third party support.
THink about it. Wii was way less powerful compared to 360 and PS3 than Switch will be to PS4 and XB1, and it got plenty of ports(pared down but still pretty decent versions, like Cod.
Yes, I am aware of the fact that they want to unify development on only one platform, because they're completely screwed in the home console space without something really different (aka Wii), and they still want to maintain some presence in that space.
I'm sure it will get a lot of watered-down ports, but that's hardly the point for me. Power is not Nintendo's philosophy, and the Switch doesn't seem any different. I understand the point of the Switch for Nintendo, and it's their best move in YEARS.
I was just making a comment on how some people are expecting some crazy stuff... I mean, it's not a surprise, but it's still funny seeing it.
