The Last One
Member
I have a Switch but I don't understand why it's more powerful in docked mode. It's because of its battery? Like, in undocked mode the Switch runs in lower clock speeds to save battery?
-
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.
How much more powerful is the Switch vs Wii U?
- Thread starter DOT DASH DOT
- Start date
Yes battery life and heat.
While docked they can increase the GPU clockspeed as battery life is not an issue.
As far as I know CPU clockspeed remains the same regardless.
Skittzo0413
Member
Someone correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not that knowledgeable on FIFA modes but isn't the Journey heavily dependent on online features and microtransactions, rather than dependent on some engine? If so I would imagine it being left out has more to do with Nintendo's online services being very bare bones currently. EDIT: Yep I'm wrong, thanks Jaded Alyx.
In the context of this thread (discussing relative power and how that can affect third party ports) I would say that online capabilities are far, far more of a problem for developers than hardware power is. Steep for example was rumored to be having porting difficulties specifically because of the online focused nature of the game.
Yup, that's pretty much exactly it. Battery life and heat like OCD Guy said. I'd also add that (possibly) it running hotter in handheld mode would cause the fan to spin faster, and having a fast spinning fan in handheld mode when the Switch is being moved around is more likely to cause mechanical failure than when it's standing still in a dock.
Jaded Alyx
Member
Yes. It also doesn't have to render in 1080p undocked.
Nope. The microtransaction heavy part of FIFA is FUT and that's present in FIFA 18 Switch.
Zombegoast
Member
People here bringing up Botw when the Switch version is like
The Last One
Member
I see, thanks guys. But how does the docked mode improve the cooling system?
Skittzo0413
Member
Ah that's right, I guess I mixed the two of them up. Then what exactly is the Journey? Is it something that's somehow hardware power intensive?
Beyond running the fan at a higher RPM it doesn't, Nintendo just doesn't want you to be holding a tablet that gets too hot. When it's docked you're not holding it.
Jaded Alyx
Member
The Journey is just the story mode. A bunch of real-time cutscenes in between training and matches. They would likely have to create them all over again in whatever engine they're using on the Switch.
Well the official response from EA is that The Journey is only possible in Frostbite, but I think it's bullshit.
That game mode could be made with worse graphics. The core gameplay would be the same even if the character models look worse in cut scenes, or the match gameplay was different/looked worse.
It doesn't improve the cooling, but the fan could spin quicker, and any increased heat wouldn't really be an issue as you're not holding the device.
With regards to the fan, I'm not even sure if it spins quicker while docked. Maybe there have been tests done. I've not even taken the dock out of the box.
But if I play Zelda while charging the fan get's really loud, and the device can be hot to touch.
BasedKiliK
Member
It doesn't. It gets noticeably hotter when docked because it can draw so much power, but it'll also rev up the fan to remain within temperature thresholds.
In portable mode, while there is a pretty big hit to performance, it renders no higher than 720p, sometimes dynamically, so the overall performance when docked or undocked scales pretty well.
The Last One
Member
Ok, that makes sense. I did notice that when I take my Switch off the dock right after have played a game on it it's indeed way hotter than when I play it in handheld mode.
Thanks for the answers everyone.
Handheld it's basically an upclocked Wii-U, give or take. Multiply that by 2-3 if you put it in the dock. Considering it's form factor, that's impressive. Considering what other consoles are pushing, it's disappointing. It's all a matter of perspective.
I don't get why this discussion is even going. We can see with our own eyes what the thing is capable of now. The numbers mean very little.
I don't get why this discussion is even going. We can see with our own eyes what the thing is capable of now. The numbers mean very little.
except it's not people still act like one of nintendo best teams did a bang up job on BOTW Switch when they have declared how they didn't at all. I will be fair to some it's not GTA4 or Arkham Knight pc or Skyrim PS3.
I think with the api, their talents, switch OS alone they need a year and could do amazing things. Other teams working vulkan have flexed what they can do in 1:1 spec situation say opengl vs vulkan, doom easily being the best example there's a ton to be done by inexperience yet talented nintendo in this api on maxwell architecture. Their HD jumps have been ungodly and this comes from someone who fell in love with their arcade machines not their consoles. The magic these days comes from a holistic balance and this is easily the first device since cube that can even come close to that claim. I'm pumped unlike others be it devs or consumers and plenty of titles have shown we are in for a treat at times.
Just putting ya on blast nintendo, waverace physics and reflections better be on point considering blue storm had cube maps spammed everywhere and held a decent fps with progressive scan. They could stomp on the tech demo graphics of waverace from the 2000 video with what we have now and do the franchise with higher fidelity and assets to boot.
I have posts in the fifa topic, fifa this year vs any other say since cube is much different. Their efforts are far more of a company that wants the title to get something done vs sending it to fail as they usually do. Fair enough.
In response to the journey comment that hold as much weight as microsoft saying that new Direct X api can only be done on newer versions of windows. I would respect EA if they were honest about it being an effort problem cause it's not power.
Tegra uses Nvidia's Maxwell core design which launched in 2014.
Same for the Radeon core in the Wii U that's supposedly R700ish, which means watered down high end from 2008
You can try and quote unverified numbers all you want, but the proof will very much be in the pudding. Grab me when that FF7 remake port happens.
DOT DASH DOT
Member
The Wii U and Switch are completely different architectures, with the latter being based on a mobile chipset essentially; trouble is it's not that easy to compare the two, which is why I asked the question, also with very few built for Switch only titles to get our teeth in too doesn't help.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
See, this is where you confuse me. On one hand you mention that switch can't compete with the x1 as if it's reasonable to expect a tablet that weighs two-thirds of a pound to do so, and then on the other hand you admit that the Switch is powerful for a handheld and it is indeed a handheld soooo... I don't quite understand your qualms.
Also, I don't know what Nintendo calling the Switch a portable would have to do at all with the 3rd party response to it. I think 3rd party developers are capable of recognizing that the Switch is a portable/works as a portable without that being dictated to them by nintendo.
I also disagree that the Switch is going to lose ports as a matter of not being able to handle the games. In some instances, sure, but in a number of instances I think we'll see that plenty of games will work on switch if you just lower the resolution and eliminate some shader/lighting effects. It's exactly what was done for Snake Pass. Not exactly my definition of a "gimped" port but YMMV. It's nothing like the Wii where a "port" essentially required developing a conpletely different game with new models, textures, etc.
Jaded Alyx
Member
What do you think DQXI on Switch will be? 3DS port, downgraded PS4 port, or something else entirely?
Skittzo0413
Member
Oh you're talking about architecture, that makes more sense. Thanks for clarifying.
What does FF7R have anything to do with this? I said it will get some ports, probably not even that many, in response to you saying it'll get none. It already has several announced.
anothertech
Member
Yep. Definitely over 9000.
Still, the proof is in the pudding. If you expect games that are 'built for switch' to look massively better than what you've got right now, then you'll likely be disappointed.
No I said it'll probably get no triple a ports, and if it does they'll be heavily gimped. Learn to read.
It really doesn't. The lighting inside the levels seems to be a major step up from Zelda and Mario Kart.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Looks far less impressive than BotW from what we've seen so far, and has been pixel-counted to run at 720p docked unless I'm mistaken? That could change though, I guess. And sure, it runs at twice the framerate, but still.
Don't get me wrong, I will play the hell out of that game, I'm just not very impressed by it visually.
Jaded Alyx
Member
You say that like that's some inconsequential thing.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
It also has tiny, not all that detailed worlds compared to what BotW is doing in its massive open world. That game very much does impress me. All the detail everywhere, the vegetation, etc.
frankie_baby
Member
Splatoon 2 ran at 720p docked until recently but launched at mostly 1080p
I heard this during the GC era and after Starfox Adventures, Rogue Squadron, RE4 and Rebel Strike did their achievements haters still spewed their ignorance. So yes to that but I'm going to put the spin on especially when it comes to a tech topic at this site on a nintendo's platform specs vs what we see. It's a maxwell tegra capable of crysis 3 and everything else we have seen so far, so unless a dev is well beyond that I don't want to hear rubbish like certain UE4 dev team tried to pull. If you want to make the argument how nintendo gets devs to utilize their platforms you have my sword.
That is a meaningless comment in asking how powerful or capable a device is over it's predcessors. One of them is based potential the other is what you do with it. I've said it before expecting AAA publishers to max this device and spend time isn't happening, as they don't do that for nintendo consoles or any console that isn't earning their place at the table.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
The things is, you can afford to go wild with your main sprites when your most demanding fx are essentially for free.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Yep, which is why I said it might change for Odyssey too. Splatoon 2 is an enhanced version of the original Wii U game though (tech-wise, not talking about content or saying it's a port), while Odyssey is a brand new title that might not be as easy to optimize that much before launch We'll see. I wouldn't be surprised to see 900p, as with BotW.
FearlessBelgian
Member
In dock : Better than Wii U ( but a bit ) , in handled mod : largely weaker than Wii U ... ( 150+ Tflops vs 300 for WII U ... )
Gotdatmoney
Member
DF put it at mostly around 900p for the sp with no drops.
Nope
Nope
Hell no.
frankie_baby
Member
Bullshit
Wii U is 176 gflops
Handheld switch is 196 gflops and performs much better per flop
Skittzo0413
Member
I figured AAA was implied in my post, since it already has several AAA ports announced but a hell of a lot of other non-AAA ports released.
First off, you said it probably won't get any. Like I said above, there have been several actually announced, depending on your definition of AAA. We have Steep, FIFA and NBA2k so far, and probably a few others I'm forgetting.
Secondly, you said they would be "heavily gimped, barely recognisable and will be criticised for it, primarily by us." So let's look at the one we actually have footage of, FIFA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2GcZ0XU0i0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGFRCL66tEc
Just from these videos all I can tell is the Switch footage is all off screen but besides that causing lines to appear (versus the direct footage of the PS4 version) it looks pretty much the same to me. It obviously has a lower resolution, being on the Switch screen but that barely makes a difference at first glance.
Compare that to COD 4 on Wii and 360:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOT2FmsztYg
You can immediately notice the lower resolution, far lower poly count, almost no effects, basically no shadows, and a whole host of other differences. This is why I'm saying the gap between the Switch and XB1/PS4 is way smaller than that between the Wii and 360/PS3. Obviously the gap still exists and any AAA ports will obviously need to be downgraded, but not nearly to that same extent.
I apologize if this is a bit off topic.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Are you familiar with the term Pascwell and how it came into existence?
Jaded Alyx
Member
Jesus Christ, stop spreading nonsense please.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Don't you think that BotW running at 720P on both Wii U and Switch handheld, but having a vastly more stable frame rate on Switch, would disprove your theory that it's "largely weaker" than Wii U when undocked? Feel free to explain why the weaker system is running the same game at the same resolution but with a much smoother frame rate, because I don't follow the logic.
Gotdatmoney
Member
I meaan I dont get the point people are trying to make with gimped ports. Well yeah they have to be cut down. We are looking at a system that at best is 1/3 an X1 in its most powerful form. In it's weakest form its like 1/6 to 1/7. Of course ports will be lesser. Why are people so concerned about it? Getting the ports is more important than whatever arbitrary definition of gimped is.
LordKasual
Banned
I don't need a switch to play any of those games though...
I would hope that EA likes the Switch compared to the WiiU? It would be a problem if they didn't.
Developers who verbally and publicly complain about the horsepower of the platform should be few, and far between. But actions speak louder than words, and actions in this case would be ports of newer titles. And seeing as I was actually looking forward to playing the newest Monster Hunter game on my Switch only to learn that it isn't being ported....yeah, i've seen this situation before.
Literally anything that calls itself a real gaming device releasing in 2017 should support Unreal Engine 4. That is not an achievement, it is a standard.
If EA intends to use its engine, it will need to be customized to work on the console, again this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone...unless they just expected it not to run on the hardware. And it should go without saying, but just because a platform supports an engine doesn't mean that it can run all of the games that use it. My older PC "supported" Cryengine yet couldn't break more than 18 frames when running Crysis.
Anyway, yeah the Switch is in a much better situation than the Wii, but that's mainly because the majority of Wii games just looked fucking ugly compared to any of its competition. The Switch is not so far behind the Xbone/PS4 that it produces comparatively ugly games. But that's a benefit of releasing the console in 2017, when all the hardware developers are now pushing their specs to support 4k and VR. 1080p has never been a cheaper target.
Vulkan API is not some runic language that's going to squeeze magical spec numbers out of the hardware. Though i suppose it's more important for the Switch than most other systems, since they'd be working with less resources.
Other than that, i'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. Again, Vulkan and Dx12 are the latest and best APIs released for the current generation of gaming. To not support them would be stupid, but the mere act of supporting them isn't much of a surprise given that the console just released less than 5 months ago...it would be more of a surprise if it didn't.
The PSP was not attempting to chase the PS3, i guess you're talking about Vita? It actually did a pretty good job of that TBH, outside of nobody buying the damn thing. The Switch isn't really "chasing" the HD giants as much as it's staying a strategically safe distance behind them...which for the first time actually yields decent results, but it would be a mistake to compare them because they are nowhere close to eachother. Just go look at a screenshot thread and that becomes obvious.
Comparing the 3DS to the Switch is actually not a joke at all...in fact what i'm actually questioning is whether or not devs will view the Switch as a continuation of the 3DS...which is something that I personally believe would be the best thing FOR the switch. As a console directly competiting with the library (and coming library) of the PS4/Xbone, the Switch just isn't a very appealing console in games or features, and no amount of indie or enhanced ports is going to change that.
However, if Switch becomes the new platform for releases like Pokemon, Monster Hunter (too late), Fire Emblem, traditional one-shot RPGs like Golden Sun or Bravely Default...or even cannibalize the library of would-be PSP titles like Dissidia, Gravity Rush, Metal Gear Solid, Kingdom Hearts, Valkyria Chronicles, ect....the system would be loaded like fuck in a few years.
Which is why I said it really depends on how developers view the hardware. But I really dont care about indie ports or enhanced ports of already released games.
ecosse_011172
Junior Member
Please learn some shit before posting nonsense,
FearlessBelgian
Member
ThisIsMyDogKyle
Banned
lol no, BotW runs at the same resolution in handheld as Wii U does but with a significantly better frame rate, not to mention this is after 4 years of optimization for the Wii U and 1 for Switch.
also MK8, one of the Wii U's most impressive games, runs at 1080p on Switch which means that docked the Switch is at a bare minimum 2.25 times as powerful docked, likely far more.
FearlessBelgian
Member
Because more ram with better speed ... CPU a bit better too.
Skittzo0413
Member
This information is incorrect. It's been perpetuated for years on the web but the flop number for the Wii U here has been doubled from the actual number. We know for a fact it's 176. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1175838&page=1 -
Welcome to 238 pages of figuring it out we did way back when.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=511628
99% sure its 176, wikipedia was just edited by a hopeful. It was just slightly fatter than it should be which threw some people, but the fabrication plant differences account for it. As well as any other changes per shader they did.
8 x 20 shader units = 160ALUs, 550mhz = 176GFLOPs. The chance of it packing double the shader units through magic is negligible.
The gradual letdown was sadly hilarious. "600Glfops, worst case scenario. They can't even order a part under 300...That, uh, looks...Shit."
that's why I'm not letting myself expect anything for NX. Nintendo can always be Nintendo Special.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Right, and yet you said the Switch undocked is "largely weaker" than the Wii U. So why are you now arguing against your own point?
FearlessBelgian
Member
OPTIMIZATION and im not sure the handled version are better and have better graphics than the WII U version...
Handled version have resolution scale , not WII U version. ( maybe why the switch port look more smooth ... )
frankie_baby
Member
At best its closer to 2/3 xbone, simple flops numbers dont provide the full story
Hah, you're undoubtedly Dutch, trying to soil our good name! Your post makes no sense.
ThisIsMyDogKyle
Banned
Again proving you don't know what you're talking about, the Wii U version DOES in fact run on a resolution scale, the exact same one as the Switch in handheld mode in fact and is known to dip to the lowest option far more often than the Switch in handheld mode, and are you seriously arguing that the Switch version is more optimized? you realize they were working on the game faaar longer for Wii U than for Switch right? it stands to reason that the Wii U version would have more optimization work done.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...h-of-the-wild-uses-dynamic-resolution-scaling