Support NeoGAF

[PeterLegend]

Nintendo releasing impressive hardware? What year is this 2001? lol

I think you guys are getting your hopes up, the old Nintendo of really good hardware comparable to Xbox/Playstation is over.

 

[Dekuboy]

I still don´t understand how this thread is up? It´s not like this person is/was a valuable source.

I mean s/he said that there is no Nvidia tech in the Switch, before the announcement. Emily and Eurogamer were the only ones who were right at this point.

 

[ElTorro]

These leaked specs are also an argument from authority (supposedly reliable insiders), as they've yet to be confirmed by an official source.

That is true, but we also have a good idea of what is currently possible in a mobile package with usable battery life, and it's still not what you got for a TDP of ~100 watts in late 2013.

I am not saying that the statement is completely untrue, but I am pretty sure that it is missing some significant and important qualification and additional information.

 

[ShadowFox08]

Gloom time!

http://gonintendo.com/stories/267660...a-architecture

https://d15mj6e6qmt1na.cloudfront.net/files/images/0051/9265/noyphh_1_.jpg

 

[Zedark]

I know I'm always the optimist when it comes to Nintendo, but maxwell architecture is far superior to r700 architecture inside Wii U, a direct raw flops to flops comparison without architecture adjustments puts x1 at 3 times as powerful as Wii U. Maxwell handles its performance much better than even GCN and sees those peak performances much more often, and contributes to the ~33% better performance than gcn found in XB1. 720p requires only about 600gflops to match xb1 at 1080p in the same architecture, considering 16fp is perfect for most post processing and maxwell is a better architecture hitting its theoretical performance more often than gcn, even the 512gflops number could be enough to match xb1 at 720p and then we get into dynamic resolutions and checkerboard rendering, it is too early to say what this hardware can do but it can definitely get current gen ports targeting 720p on this device.

Having said the above, don't expect 1:1 comparisons with xb1, it will be noticeably slower than xb1 but thanks to the cpu being faster and the ram being comparable, it should be fine. It really only has to find its place in the market, pokemon will help with the raw numbers but gamers are going to have to buy ports and Nintendo is going to have to push for the mature market.

So, let's see: 4: 3 advantage for Nvidia would mean they need 450 GFLOPS of NVIDIA flops, which would in turn mean that a standard Parker chip would run at 60% clock speed. Would that be a reasonable clock speed for the chip in the handheld on the go?

Also, Xbox One has a sizeable portion of games running at 900p (some even 720 p). Going by the same metric, you would need a resolution 540p-720p for those 900p games and 480p for those 720p games. Won't that compromise the IQ of those games quite a bit, seeing as their assets are made for 1080p/900p?

 

[Fourth Storm]

I know I'm always the optimist when it comes to Nintendo, but maxwell architecture is far superior to r700 architecture inside Wii U, a direct raw flops to flops comparison without architecture adjustments puts x1 at 3 times as powerful as Wii U. Maxwell handles its performance much better than even GCN and sees those peak performances much more often, and contributes to the ~33% better performance than gcn found in XB1. 720p requires only about 600gflops to match xb1 at 1080p in the same architecture, considering 16fp is perfect for most post processing and maxwell is a better architecture hitting its theoretical performance more often than gcn, even the 512gflops number could be enough to match xb1 at 720p and then we get into dynamic resolutions and checkerboard rendering, it is too early to say what this hardware can do but it can definitely get current gen ports targeting 720p on this device.

Having said the above, don't expect 1:1 comparisons with xb1, it will be noticeably slower than xb1 but thanks to the cpu being faster and the ram being comparable, it should be fine. It really only has to find its place in the market, pokemon will help with the raw numbers but gamers are going to have to buy ports and Nintendo is going to have to push for the mature market.

You have valid points re: architecture, although the real world results have yet to be seen. If RAM bandwidth is really only 25.6 GB/s, I hate to use strong words, but that's pathetic. Worse than Wii U w/ it's eDRAM pool used efficiently. We'll see what they can do with tiling and a small pool of on-die SRAM perhaps. Bandwidth may very well be the bottleneck the poster on anandtech was speaking of. This is all rumor, of course.

 

[Eolz]

I still don´t understand how this thread is up? It´s not like this person is/was a valuable source.

I mean s/he said that there is no Nvidia tech in the Switch, before the announcement. Emily and Eurogamer were the only ones who were right at this point.

It just became the unofficial Switch HW discussion, most people agree that the OP was talking about an old devkit at best.

 

[Cow Mengde]

I know I'm always the optimist when it comes to Nintendo, but maxwell architecture is far superior to r700 architecture inside Wii U, a direct raw flops to flops comparison without architecture adjustments puts x1 at 3 times as powerful as Wii U. Maxwell handles its performance much better than even GCN and sees those peak performances much more often, and contributes to the ~33% better performance than gcn found in XB1.

The problem is, AMD's GCN architecture ages like fine wine, while Nvidia's cards quickly drop off. Not sure if this will hold true in the console space, but for PCs, the r290x is still a viable option after all these years. The Kelper Titan, not so much. Of course that's Kelper, so let see how well Maxwell ages.

 

[_PsiFire_]

There's no way a mobile chip is anywhere near the memory speed of PS4 or even XB1.

Where did I say the cartridge speed was faster than memory?

I said faster than Bluray and quite possible HDD's.

 

[The Last One]

I was speaking of Switch as a "home console," the same way Nintendo have referred to it. For a home console, it does not even come close to matching the much-decried Xbox One. As a home console, it is roughly comparable to the jump from Gamecube to Wii. That absolutely killed the potential 3rd party support Wii could have sported. Now, from what we hear of the architecture, it's very modern, so the scenarios aren't exactly the same. Still, it is looking like Switch may be running multiplatforms at sub-HD resolutions in a year when Sony and MS are moving on to 4k. That's...horrible.

As a handheld, as I've said, it's quite nice. The problem there is that every statistic shows the handheld market shrinking, and quite drastically at that. I'm also interested in seeing how the Japanese audience will respond to the size/battery life of Switch. I am expecting good indie support, support from the likes of Atlus, Square Enix, and Capcom, but that did not save the Wii U or allow 3DS to sell as well as the DS.

At the very least, Switch looks to be a good foundation to build on if Nintendo have built the OS properly.

- Switch is not a home console, neither in its foundation, nor in its purpose. The marketing behind the product does NOT define its nature.

- Whatever "killed the third party support" on Wii didn't stop it from being the most selling home console in Nintendo's history. And yet, yes, despite it's weakness, the Wii did has a HUGE third party support, driven almost exclusively by sales.

- Your PS4 Pro/Scorpio and Switch comparison makes no sense. First, because we really don't know if the devide supports 4k (even though it supports the most recent techs out there). Second, and most importantly, you are putting three completely different natures into the same bottle and expecting them to react equally. That's not gonna happen. Or Nintendo isn't delivering the kinda product you want, or you are nursing a impossible desire from a improbable system.

I really think jan. 12 is gonna blow some people's mind.

 

[TyMiles2012]

Plus, vern hinted in a deleted post that Nintendo's big secret for Switch is that it has some other mysterious way of handling the RAM differences. My theory is that it is related to Nintendo's patent about utilizing home PC networks and other hardware to handle some of the load.

Wouldn't that add complications? People just simply want to buy the Switch and play. They don't want to deal with networks and other hardware. Network bandwidth is nowhere near fast enough for that yet.

EDIT: Scratch the impossibility part. We do have Crackdown coming out eventually and it's supposed to be doing that with server driven physics. But still, it would require an internet connection. What about people who want to play on the go where there's no wifi? Plenty of people can't even get faster than 5Mbit download speeds in rural areas. That's going to really hurt the system.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

The odd thing about the Wii U is that its production must have been pretty costly for what it was in the end. I have no idea what went wrong here behind the scenes.

If Nintendo were to directly compete with Sony they'd have to play the same game. Repackage PC hardware into a smaller case and position it as super ultra high end video game machine. That's just out of Nintendo's capabilities at this point. That's not what they want to do. It's a highly competitive field between multimedia giant Sony and OS monster Microsoft. The funny thing is that even the PS4 doesn't do that hot in Japan. Add in that you'd need some serious resources to build up a robust enough online structure to support something like FIFA or Call of Duty. Again, I don't see Nintendo even trying to achieve this. They want to make Mario and sell you toys.

If this elusive Nintendo PS4 were to flop, that could be way worse than Wii U. Way worse.

Makes sense, thanks. Nintendo combining development efforts between console and handheld should also help dramatically.

 

[ASIS]

I was speaking of Switch as a "home console," the same way Nintendo have referred to it. For a home console, it does not even come close to matching the much-decried Xbox One. As a home console, it is roughly comparable to the jump from Gamecube to Wii. That absolutely killed the potential 3rd party support Wii could have sported. Now, from what we hear of the architecture, it's very modern, so the scenarios aren't exactly the same. Still, it is looking like Switch may be running multiplatforms at sub-HD resolutions in a year when Sony and MS are moving on to 4k. That's...horrible.

As a handheld, as I've said, it's quite nice. The problem there is that every statistic shows the handheld market shrinking, and quite drastically at that. I'm also interested in seeing how the Japanese audience will respond to the size/battery life of Switch. I am expecting good indie support, support from the likes of Atlus, Square Enix, and Capcom, but that did not save the Wii U or allow 3DS to sell as well as the DS.

At the very least, Switch looks to be a good foundation to build on if Nintendo have built the OS properly.



Correct, but it's clear Nintendo have no intentions in 3rd party games matching the resolutions of their PS4 counterparts. Switch is very much a portable device that can output to the tv despite what Nintendo's marketing claims. That is, unless your expectations for a home console begin and end with Wii U.

No I'm not expecting PS4 levels of performance with the Switch, much less the PS4 Pro. That's an asinine expectation to begin with. But what I'm interested in is the competitiveness of it compared to the other consoles. I'm fine with games being a little less cleaner if it meant I can take them with me wherever I go, but the discussion currently suggests that the Switch is very much getting into a Vita situation, namely getting watered down 3rd Party titles to the point where they don't really offer much of the same experience. This thing is exactly what people feared when they saw the "hybrid" rumors all the way back in August. But it seems to lean even more on the handheld side than the home console one.


Now before you guys start badgering me, let me say this: 3rd Party support is important, don't kid yourself. I'm not talking about the battlefields or the Titanfalls or the GTAs, I'm talking about the 3rd party games that are not AAA. I'm talking games like Dark Souls (despite me not liking the game), The Witness, etc. These games will enrich the library of the Switch and it is absolutely Nintendo's responsibility to provide the correct ecosystem that makes porting these games, while retaining as much of the initial experience as possible, as seamless as possible. I've heard that the new architecture make scaling things easier but the current discussion around the specs does not bode well for those titles ever seeing the light of day on the Switch, simply because it seems more of a hassle than they are worth.

I'm still excited for the Switch, particularly for two reasons:

1. Flexibility of inputs: you can choose to have Wiimote+Nunchuck style, or a classic controller, or touch screen controls, hell you can have touch screen controls while sitting in your couch if the rumors are to be believed. Personally I'm in love with this idea.

2. Nintendo's Software output all in one system: Self explanatory. It's going to be amazing.


But.. I don't know... I still wished there was a bit more, you know?

 

[Cow Mengde]

Wouldn't that add complications? People just simply want to buy the Switch and play. They don't want to deal with networks and other hardware. Network bandwidth is nowhere near fast enough for that yet.

Yeah, that sounds ridiculous. One of my tablets wifi doesn't work very well if I'm upstairs. You want RAM connected wirelessly?

 

[TyMiles2012]

Yeah, that sounds ridiculous. One of my tablets wifi doesn't work very well if I'm upstairs. You want RAM connected wirelessly?

That's what I'm saying. It just won't work well. Where I play games is almost a deadspot. I get 3 bars out of 5 and the router is literally just a room over and cutoffs if the router is downstairs below the room it's in right now, which is where the modem is. The rest of the house is fine.

 

[Donnie]

Eh... the statement—or at least its interpretations—don't pass my smell test. At the very least, there is more to the story.

Even if the currently discussed specs would turn out to be lower than what is actually in the system, unless one assumes significant redevelopment efforts and downgrades in every area of performance-pushing PS4/XBO games, I don't see how a device constraint by the power and temperature requirements of its mobile mode could run straight ports of these games.

Well obviously in mobile mode the resolution would be significantly lower. Which would require significantly less GPU power and so less heat and power requirements.

The specs in the op are already more than possible in a mobile device of Switches size (in fact more is possible given its power and heat requirements). Which would be enough to produce lower resolution versions of XBox One games.

 

[KingSnake]

You have valid points re: architecture, although the real world results have yet to be seen. If RAM bandwidth is really only 25.6 GB/s, I hate to use strong words, but that's pathetic. Worse than Wii U w/ it's eDRAM pool used efficiently. We'll see what they can do with tiling and a small pool of on-die SRAM perhaps. Bandwidth may very well be the bottleneck the poster on anandtech was speaking of. This is all rumor, of course.

Actually, if you read what Zlatan wrote on Anadtech forum, what he's saying is that Switch is using Pascal architecture, as he's stating that Switch is 1/3 slower than Xbone and X1 is actually 8-10 times slower than Xbone. So I guess he's talking about 50GB/s. At least this is my understanding.

Edit: Here, here and here.

 

[ElTorro]

Plus, vern hinted in a deleted post that Nintendo's big secret for Switch is that it has some other mysterious way of handling the RAM differences. My theory is that it is related to Nintendo's patent about utilizing home PC networks and other hardware to handle some of the load.

Nah, won't happen. Leaving technical possibilities aside, if there is one thing that software engineers, working under tight deadlines and budgets, do not appreciate, it's arcane and complicated platforms. Especially distribution is something that you cannot hide easily and transparently behind APIs. But that would be a minimum requirement if you want developers to use a feature that only one platform provides.

Well obviously in mobile mode the resolution would be significantly lower. Which would require significantly less GPU power and so less heat and power requirements.

But CPU and memory performance (relative to what the GPU needs for a target resolution) cannot differ between mobile mode and TV mode.

The specs in the op are already more than possible in a mobile device of Switches size (in fact more is possible given its power and heat requirements). Which would be enough to produce lower resolution versions of XBox One games.

The specs in the OP are the theoretical maximum for docked mode and do not take the power and temperature limitations of mobile mode into account. In addition, the FLOPS figure is based on FP16 operations and misleading.

 

[Rodin]

Actually, if you read what Zlatan wrote on Anadtech forum, what he's saying it's using Pascal architecture, as he's stating that Switch is 1/3 slower than Xbone and X1 is actually 8-10 times slower than Xbone. So I guess he's talking about 50GB/s. At least this is my understanding.

Edit: Here, here and here.

Nah, he' just full of shit. Nothing he says makes remotely sense.

 

[Fourth Storm]

- Switch is not a home console, neither in its foundation, nor in its purpose. The marketing behind the product does NOT define its nature.

- Whatever "killed the third party support" on Wii didn't stop it from being the most selling home console in Nintendo's history. And yet, yes, despite it's weakness, the Wii did has a HUGE third party support, driven almost exclusively by sales.

- Your PS4 Pro/Scorpio and Switch comparison makes no sense. First, because we really don't know if the devide supports 4k (even though it supports the most recent techs out there). Second, and most importantly, you are putting three completely different natures into the same bottle and expecting them to react equally. That's not gonna happen. Or Nintendo isn't delivering the kinda product you want, or you are nursing a impossible desire from a improbable system.

I really think jan. 12 is gonna blow some people's mind.

You don't seem to be following my argument much.

-I myself have stated a post or two ago that Switch is very much a portable that can output to tv. Nintendo is marketing it as a home console. That is what they are telling consumers, at least for now. That carries certain expectations.

-Wii received third party support in a different time than today. Third parties aren't going to blow money on exclusive spin offs and the like. Indie and mobile/3DS/Vita franchises will be its saving grace, but I'm predicting that's not going to be enough. I also said in a previous post that while I like the concept of Switch, it is unlikely to light the world on fire as Wii did. I can tell you that via personal anecdotes and also by the market reaction. Youtube views=/=sales. I may be wrong, and I think it will sell better than Wii U, but it's not gonna be a Wii or a DS. I think it will sell between 20 and 40 million units, personally. Btw, I am a Nintendo fan with a Wii U and 3DS, and while I have an interest in tech, I don't need 4k graphics to enjoy a game. I'm just reading the signs.

-Nintendo will be competing for consumers' money next year with Sony and MS so any comparisons are valid. It all comes down to features. What will consumers value more: portability or cutting-edge graphics? Everything we have seen from the core gamer thus far points to the latter. Will Nintendo have a breakout software title to once again pull in vast swaths of casual gamers? We will have to wait and see.

Actually, if you read what Zlatan wrote on Anadtech forum, what he's saying is that Switch is using Pascal architecture, as he's stating that Switch is 1/3 slower than Xbone and X1 is actually 8-10 times slower than Xbone. So I guess he's talking about 50GB/s. At least this is my understanding.

Edit: Here, here and here.

That was my interpretation as well up until Vern stepped in and lent credence to the specs in the OP of this thread. It's all rumor, as I keep saying. 50 GB/s would make much more sense to me. It would still be a potential bottleneck, but it would fit more reasonably within the context of the other specs.

 

[Deadbeat]

People worrying if it will handle third party ports fine, its not going to get the long term support where these issues will crop up. Its going to get shovelware coverage if at that.

 

[FutureProtagonist]

Nah, he' just full of shit. Nothing he says makes remotely sense.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...x-12-benchmarks.2462951/page-23#post-38040357

February 18, 2016

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10067/ashes-of-the-singularity-revisited-beta

February 24, 2016

He's not full of shit, he might be wrong sometimes, but he is a developer.

 

[antonz]

Actually, if you read what Zlatan wrote on Anadtech forum, what he's saying is that Switch is using Pascal architecture, as he's stating that Switch is 1/3 slower than Xbone and X1 is actually 8-10 times slower than Xbone. So I guess he's talking about 50GB/s. At least this is my understanding.

Edit: Here, here and here.

Zlatan was talking about 25gb/s and comparing a whole bunch of numbers that do not compare in how he was trying to compare them.

Xbox One has 68GB/s Bandwidth from its Main Ram pool. It then has a 133gb/s 32mb pool of ESRAM.

Switch could be as low as 25gb/s if they opt to stick with the 64bit memory interface or they could go with the 128 bit memory interface they have put with pascal tegra which would offer 50GB/s. We have no idea if Switch will have any special pool of fast ram though Nintendo has been doing so for years now so it seems possible.

 

[EDarkness]

I'm hold on to the belief that the absolute best way to play NS games is docked. I wouldn't even put it past devs to look at docked performance first (this is what I would do) and let the system do the necessary adjustments instead of compromising the game as a whole. This is why Nintendo may say it's a home console first.

 

[Donnie]

Nah, won't happen. Leaving technical possibilities aside, if there is one thing that software engineers, working under tight deadlines and budgets, do not appreciate, it's arcane and complicated platforms. Especially distribution is something that you cannot hide easily and transparently behind APIs. But that would be a minimum requirement if you want developers to use a feature that only one platform provides.



But CPU and memory performance (relative to what the GPU needs for a target resolution) cannot differ between mobile mode and TV mode.



The specs in the OP are the theoretical maximum for docked mode and do not take the power and temperature limitations of mobile mode into account. In addition, the FLOPS figure is based on FP16 operations and misleading.

Of course memory performance can differ between mobile and docked mode but why should it need to? Same goes for CPU, 4x A57 cores are hardly power hungry or a problem for heat disapation.. Also there is no firm indication that the specs mentioned are for docked mode, let alone a theoretical maximum.

Forgetting these specs for a moment, what you said is that based on its heat and power requirements a device like Switch couldn't offer the kind of performance required to run a Xbox One port in mobile mode. I'm just pointing out that in reality that kind of performance is possible in a mobile device of Switch's size.

I'm aware that the flops figure mentioned is fp16, it it was fp32 I wouldn't even be talking about a need to reduce resolution. A game rendered at 720p requires only 45% of the processing power of a game rendered at 1080p, and that's forgetting the fact that its possible to translate some fp32 operations at fp16 in order to save processing power.

BTW I don't think the CPU would need

 

[KingSnake]

That was my interpretation as well up until Vern stepped in and lent credence to the specs in the OP of this thread. It's all rumor, as I keep saying. 50 GB/s would make much more sense to me. It would still be a potential bottleneck, but it would fit more reasonably within the context of the other specs.

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.

Zlatan was talking about 25gb/s and comparing a whole bunch of numbers that do not compare in how he was trying to compare them.

Xbox One has 68GB/s Bandwidth from its Main Ram pool. It then has a 133gb/s 32mb pool of ESRAM.

Switch could be as low as 25gb/s if they opt to stick with the 64bit memory interface or they could go with the 128 bit memory interface they have put with pascal tegra which would offer 50GB/s. We have no idea if Switch will have any special pool of fast ram though Nintendo has been doing so for years now so it seems possible.

Yes, he adds up the bandwidths on Xbone for some reason. But he doesn't say Switch has 25/GB. Read the posts I linked.

 

[Soundslike]

This is gafs halloween-thread

 

[ElTorro]

Of course CPU and memory performance can differ between mobile and docked mode and there is no firm indication that the specs mentioned are for docked mode, let alone a theoretical maximum.

Only if a developer would choose to make a game that only runs in TV mode, if Nintendo even allows that, which I doubt. It would render the concept of the console ad absurdum. You cannot scale down things like world complexity, gameplay or physics as easily as resolution or effects.

By the way, as a reference, the Vita's Cortex-A9 CPU is rated at a maximum of 2Ghz, yet Sony clocked it at 444mhz to keep battery life usable.

 

[EDarkness]

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 think he said he contacted the mods, they checked him out, but he wanted them to leak the info, but they didn't want to do it. If that is the case, then that would explain why they haven't banned him.

 

[Mokujin]

I was looking at which was the ratio between Bandwidth and cuda cores in the GTX 1000 series, and at 25.6 Gigabytes/sec the Tegra X1 SoC it's bad but it's not as terrible as I thought, seems like using the latest Parker at double speed could put that ratio in more than wealthy position

|  gtx TitanX  |  3584 cuda  |  480  G/sec  |  0.134  |
|  gtx 1080    |  2560 cuda  |  320  G/sec  |  0.125  |
|  gtx 1070    |  1920 cuda  |  256  G/sec  |  0.134  |
|  gtx 1060    |  1280 cuda  |  192  G/sec  |  0.15   |
|  gtx 1050    |   640 cuda  |  112  G/sec  |  0.175  |
|  Tegra X1    |   256 cuda  |  25.6 G/sec  |  0.1    |

I don't know if this is a proper way to look at reasonable bandwidth levels, but intuitively it doesn't seem a bad way too look at it. One extra thing to take into account is that recently it was discovered that the latest Nvidia architectures use pseudo-tile rendering that seems to help with bandwidth problems.

 

[KingSnake]

I think he said he contacted the mods, they checked him out, but he wanted them to leak the info, but they didn't want to do it. If that is the case, then that would explain why they haven't banned him.

Anybody can say that, no?

 

[McHuj]

Everybody can say that, no?

I'm sure the mods are watching this thread. This is the thread that needs to be monitored the most.

 

[MacTag]

By the way, as a reference, the Vita's Cortex-A9 CPU is rated at a maximum of 2Ghz, yet Sony clocked it at 444mhz to keep battery life usable.

It's actually clocked at 333 MHz standard. 444 MHz is an overclock that automatically disables WiFi and some other system functions.

 

[K.Jack]

That's what I don't understand. The infos seems to be contradictory. On one hand you have some people who claims that there shouldn't be any problems in porting PS4/XBO games, and on the other hand the specs says otherwise.

Seems based more on hope, than anything technical.

I know people want 3rd party support (ports) to be true, but the specs say it's going to be very difficult.

 

[EDarkness]

Anybody can say that, no?

Sure, but you and I have been on this board long enough to know that stuff like this would have been taken care of long time ago if there wasn't some truth to what he's saying. He wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes otherwise.

 

[Cow Mengde]

Seems based more on hope, than anything technical.

I know people want 3rd party support (ports) to be true, but the specs say it's going to be very difficult.

Paper specs or real world performance?

We were just discussing this in the DF Retro thread, but Sony and MS consoles always use theoretical limit, and not real world numbers.

I'm not saying it will or won't work, but sounds like we're comparing theoretical specs to non-existent specs.

 

[KingSnake]

I'm sure the mods are watching this thread. This is the thread that needs to be monitored the most.

This thread, like the one closed earlier today, is based on a tweet and yet this still lives, so I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Oregano]

Seems based more on hope, than anything technical.

I know people want 3rd party support (ports) to be true, but the specs say it's going to be very difficult.

I don't think either of the two posters who have claimed that Switch is perfectly capable of handling PS4/XBO ports(Matt & OsirisBlack) are particularly partial to Nintendo. They're not hoping anything.

 

[Donnie]

Only if a developer would choose to make a game that only runs in TV mode, if Nintendo even allows that, which I doubt. It would render the concept of the console ad absurdum. You cannot scale down things like world complexity, gameplay or physics as easily as resolution or effects.

By the way, as a reference, the Vita's Cortex-A9 CPU is rated at a maximum of 2Ghz, yet Sony clocked it at 444mhz to keep battery life usable.

They could easily have less cores running in mobile mode with the requirement of less OS features (so only gaming cores run) and increase memory speed in docked mode to support the higher resolution. But that's about the only time I could see them changing.

I mean why would you need to reduce memory or CPU power to the point where it would effect world complexity or gameplay? You're talking about CPU and RAM that run cool and consume very little power at 2Ghz in mobile devices far smaller than Switch.

 

[KingSnake]

Seems based more on hope, than anything technical.

It's actually based on two well known insiders. There's no insider claiming it's a pain in the ass, like the specs in the OP would suggest.

 

[ElTorro]

I mean why would you need to reduce memory or CPU power to the point where it would effect world complexity or gameplay? You're talking about CPU and RAM that run cool and consume very little power at 2Ghz in mobile devices far smaller than Switch.

Not with sustained clock speeds.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

vern, who has apparently been vetted by mods, claimed so:

What has he been right about before? What proof do we have he was actually "vetted?" And what's the extent of the "vetting" process?

Sure, but you and I have been on this board long enough to know that stuff like this would have been taken care of long time ago if there wasn't some truth to what he's saying. He wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes otherwise.

10k's still around

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

accidental dp

 

[Cow Mengde]

accidental dp

How do you get into an accidental double penetration?

Spoiler

Sorry, been saving this up for a long time.

I mean why would you need to reduce memory or CPU power to the point where it would effect world complexity or gameplay? You're talking about CPU and RAM that run cool and consume very little power at 2Ghz in mobile devices far smaller than Switch.

Maybe for mobile mode. While docked, the dock could feed it power, and also help cool the device.

 

[Donnie]

Not with sustained clock speeds.

With a sustained clock speed of 2Ghz that CPU would still run fine in a device of switch's size. Its much bigger than your standard smartphone, and even those can run that CPU at sustained speeds of 2Ghz for a few hours when gaming.

EDIT: That chart you've posted is for a whole SoC thoug, not just 4x A57 and memory. Its also on 20nm which is unlikely for Switch's SoC.

 

[ElTorro]

With a sustained clock speed of 2Ghz that CPU would still run fine in a device of switch's size. Its much bigger than your standard smartphone, and even those can run that CPU at sustained speeds of 2Ghz for a few hours when gaming.

From the source of the figure that I posted.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8718/the-samsung-galaxy-note-4-exynos-review/6

Alas, it doesn't look as good for the new cores. On a pure per-core basis it seems the A57 is about twice as power hungry. This is a significant figure that is quite worrisome. Investigating the voltages of the big cores on both SoCs reveals that the 5433 increases the voltage on the A57 cores by a rough 75mV across most used frequencies. We're averaging 1175mV at 1800MHz across the various speed bins, and reaching up to 1262mV on the worst speed bins at 1.9GHz. This results in some very high figures for the stock speeds of the 5433, being able to momentarily reach over 7W load on the big cluster. The thermal management doesn't allow this state to be sustained for more than 10 seconds when loading four threads, with the frequencies quickly dropping to the first thermal throttling levels.

 

[KingSnake]

What has he been right about before? What proof do we have he was actually "vetted?" And what's the extent of the "vetting" process?

That's also a good point. Vetting means that he could have access to info, not necessarily that the info provided is true or actual.

 

[EDarkness]

What has he been right about before? What proof do we have he was actually "vetted?" And what's the extent of the "vetting" process?



10k's still around

Who knows what goes on behind closed doors. The Mods make that decision, but that doesn't change the fact that they check this stuff out. Also, I remember 10k getting banned as well.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

Who knows what goes on behind closed doors. The Mods make that decision, but that doesn't change the fact that they check this stuff out. Also, I remember 10k getting banned as well.

That's my point. Not only do we not know if we was even vetted (as far as well know), but we don't even know what that means.

Yet people are taking his info as gospel.

 

[KingSnake]

Who knows what goes on behind closed doors. The Mods make that decision, but that doesn't change the fact that they check this stuff out. Also, I remember 10k getting banned as well.

I don't remember Ideaman being banned during WUST either.