The_Intruder
Member
They are Wii U games, ARMS is a better example for what the system can do.
-
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.
What is the actual power of the Nintendo Switch?
- Thread starter BlackBanditSho
- Start date
BudokaiMR2
Member
I also desperately need this answer.
Can someone add Switch to this image so that I can understand?
Can someone add Switch to this image so that I can understand?
But they are developed for x64 architectures (basically PC), not for a NVIDIA-ARM one (tablet designed).
This make everything difficult.
kruis
Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
If any customizations were made to the Tegra X1 for Nintendo then it would immediately show in the design of the chip. The fact that the dies of the X1 and Switch chips are 98% identical mean they're indeed identical. It's direct proof, not PR talk.
Stop burying your head in the sand willfully.
the CPU instruction set is completely irrelevant
fabricated backlash
Member
But Cerny Senpai told us that X86 is the bees knees, so who's right?
invaderzim69
Member
From what I remember the Nintendo Wii was at least 1.5 to 2x times more powerful than the Gamecube, but not as powerful enough as the XBox 360 and PS3. It was way behind graphically in than that.
The Switch seems to be a little bit more powerful than the Wii U, but not as way behind graphically than the XBox One or the Ps4. At least from what I've seen from the ports so far. Granted we don't have some of the bigger AAA titles on the Switch, but it looks like those titles won't suffer as much if they were ported over to the Switch. Just my opinion on that.
The Switch seems to be a little bit more powerful than the Wii U, but not as way behind graphically than the XBox One or the Ps4. At least from what I've seen from the ports so far. Granted we don't have some of the bigger AAA titles on the Switch, but it looks like those titles won't suffer as much if they were ported over to the Switch. Just my opinion on that.
MilkyJoe
Member
KratosEnergyDrink
Member
dampflokfreund
Banned
We have to wait for some big Third Party games at E3, to compare it to the other consoles.
Right now, its a Wii U + in handheld mode and 2,25x stronger in Docked Mode, allowing for 1080p in some games.
Right now, its a Wii U + in handheld mode and 2,25x stronger in Docked Mode, allowing for 1080p in some games.
llien
Member
I only recall blizzard explicitly meh-ing about switch performance (and that in Overwatch context, which ain't a demanding game by any standard)
Blizzard hints Nintendo Switch may not be powerful enough for Overwatch
sixteen-bit
Member
similar to nvidia shield, right?
primasaurus
Member
Interestingly XB1 is about 2.5x more powerful than the Switch (according to some)
But the Switch only can use about 11 Watts of power Vs 120 Watts for the XB1, that's about 11x the power difference
so
Switch to XB1 is about 2.5x the power output
Switch to XB1 is about 11x the power usage
The Switch has a very modern and efficient architecture to say the least
If Switch could use the 120 watts of power that the XB1 uses the Switch would be 3x times more powerful than the XB1
But the Switch only can use about 11 Watts of power Vs 120 Watts for the XB1, that's about 11x the power difference
so
Switch to XB1 is about 2.5x the power output
Switch to XB1 is about 11x the power usage
The Switch has a very modern and efficient architecture to say the least
If Switch could use the 120 watts of power that the XB1 uses the Switch would be 3x times more powerful than the XB1
Wii-U to Switch looks almost exactly the equivalent jump from GC to Wii.
Seriously. It's actually shocking how Nintendo seems to have followed nearly the exact same playbook:
- 2.2X jump on RAM for GC > Wii, 3X jump from Wii-U >Switch
- 1.5X jump on GPU for GC > Wii1.4X jump from Wii-U > Switch
- 1.5X jump on CPU for GC > Wii1.3X jump from Wii-U > Switch
The only possible thing that makes this jump better than what happened with GC > Wii is that unlike that situation, Nintendo seems to be using completely different architecture for the CPU and GPU compared to its predecessor. And even then, that's not guarantee that it makes it a substantial jump in any way (it could be possible that the newer architecture simply does things that Wii-U's CPU/GPU did in a different, but not particularly more efficient manner).
Ignoring specs, and letting the games do the talking, there is not a single game on the Switch that makes one think it is significantly more powerful than Wii-U. Super Mario Odyssey looks about as improved from SM3DW as Super Mario Galaxy did from Sunshine. And it should be pointed out that even with SMG, as much as I loved that game and think it looks gorgeous (for a Wii title), part of its visual improvement was due to the additional power of Wii, but ALSO due to the fact that it was a completely different style of game than Sunshine which made it look more impressive than it would have. Galaxy probably could have ran on GC with minor downgrades here and there, just fine. Similarly, I wouldn't be surprised if SMO's different design style from SM3DL might give the illusion of it being more impressive and pushing more of the hardware than it's actually doing.
So until I have evidence otherwise, Switch is basically a Wii-U turbo.
Seriously. It's actually shocking how Nintendo seems to have followed nearly the exact same playbook:
- 2.2X jump on RAM for GC > Wii, 3X jump from Wii-U >Switch
- 1.5X jump on GPU for GC > Wii1.4X jump from Wii-U > Switch
- 1.5X jump on CPU for GC > Wii1.3X jump from Wii-U > Switch
The only possible thing that makes this jump better than what happened with GC > Wii is that unlike that situation, Nintendo seems to be using completely different architecture for the CPU and GPU compared to its predecessor. And even then, that's not guarantee that it makes it a substantial jump in any way (it could be possible that the newer architecture simply does things that Wii-U's CPU/GPU did in a different, but not particularly more efficient manner).
Ignoring specs, and letting the games do the talking, there is not a single game on the Switch that makes one think it is significantly more powerful than Wii-U. Super Mario Odyssey looks about as improved from SM3DW as Super Mario Galaxy did from Sunshine. And it should be pointed out that even with SMG, as much as I loved that game and think it looks gorgeous (for a Wii title), part of its visual improvement was due to the additional power of Wii, but ALSO due to the fact that it was a completely different style of game than Sunshine which made it look more impressive than it would have. Galaxy probably could have ran on GC with minor downgrades here and there, just fine. Similarly, I wouldn't be surprised if SMO's different design style from SM3DL might give the illusion of it being more impressive and pushing more of the hardware than it's actually doing.
So until I have evidence otherwise, Switch is basically a Wii-U turbo.
Yeah, it probably can run them. My 2013 Ivy Bridge ultrabook can also run them. Just not at a playable resolution/framerate.
Toadthemushroom
Member
Digital Foundry's Lego City comparison answers that question. Pretty much all the modern features and visual effects - that the Wii U is just too old to do - made it to Switch, and it does it all at 1080p.
Shadow resolution up, physically based rendering, much more modern lighting and shading, normal maps, higher quality assets, higher resolution textures, improved draw distance.
Switch's graphics architecture is basically modern. From what I understand its featureset is that of a Maxwell graphics card, but its lower number of CUDA cores, memory bandwidth and GPU clock rates will hold it back on certain titles, there will be more bottlenecks.
This is false. GC to Wii was the exact same architecture boosted up, Switch has a drastically more modern featureset than Wii U, and is capable of far more than a Wii U when docked.
Better comparisons of a GC to Wii boost would be something like the DSi, which got an upclocked CPU and more RAM, which didn't lead to any major boosts. Even the New 3DS is a bigger jump from 3DS than Wii was to GC - double the RAM, more VRAM, three more CPU cores, triple the max CPU clock, and two extra co-processing units (for face tracking).
Basically this.
Shadow resolution up, physically based rendering, much more modern lighting and shading, normal maps, higher quality assets, higher resolution textures, improved draw distance.
Switch's graphics architecture is basically modern. From what I understand its featureset is that of a Maxwell graphics card, but its lower number of CUDA cores, memory bandwidth and GPU clock rates will hold it back on certain titles, there will be more bottlenecks.
This is false. GC to Wii was the exact same architecture boosted up, Switch has a drastically more modern featureset than Wii U, and is capable of far more than a Wii U when docked.
Better comparisons of a GC to Wii boost would be something like the DSi, which got an upclocked CPU and more RAM, which didn't lead to any major boosts. Even the New 3DS is a bigger jump from 3DS than Wii was to GC - double the RAM, more VRAM, three more CPU cores, triple the max CPU clock, and two extra co-processing units (for face tracking).
Basically this.
Toadthemushroom
Member
*accidental double post*
Mr.Deadshot
Member
Someone post those ultra-low settings for Witcher 3 where it looks like a PS1 game, haha.
Year one of PS4/XBO pretty much the whole forum was about users wishing game X to come to PS4/XBO. It was fine then to be excited about your new console and wanting as much support/games on it as possible...PS2/PS3 games getting HD Remasters and new version on PS4 wasnt frowned up on.
I believe it a both sides issue were some troll just started to bring up Switch in every discussion announcement threads, to rile up some community members, creating the situation we have right now were people just feel incredible offended if the System is even brought up.
Well lets hope it slows down after e3...and people realize what we can expect from the system. Right now we are still in the Honemoon phase.
You'll notice that I pointed this out in the original post, SIR.
Toadthemushroom
Member
How close is the Switch's GPU to the custom one in the original Surface Book? That was Maxwell based, and similar to a 940M. I would be wary to compare games running on a Surface Book to the Switch since Nvidia and Nintendo's libraries and APIs are going to produce better performance than what you'd get out of Windows.
But those points about it having a drastically more modern featureset completely rule out any possibility of it being a GC > Wii-style upgrade, and the games speak for themselves if you look at the upgrades made to Lego City and Mario Kart 8 in so little time. You wouldn't be able to upgrade GC games to that extent on the Wii.
Also I don't think the ratios for CPU/GPU are accurate - four x Core A57 @1Ghz wipe the floor with the Tri-Core PowerPC 750s in the Wii U, and the GPU is a lot more capable, particularly with its clocks up to 866Mhz.
But those points about it having a drastically more modern featureset completely rule out any possibility of it being a GC > Wii-style upgrade, and the games speak for themselves if you look at the upgrades made to Lego City and Mario Kart 8 in so little time. You wouldn't be able to upgrade GC games to that extent on the Wii.
Also I don't think the ratios for CPU/GPU are accurate - four x Core A57 @1Ghz wipe the floor with the Tri-Core PowerPC 750s in the Wii U, and the GPU is a lot more capable, particularly with its clocks up to 866Mhz.
geordiemp
Member
Switch bandwidth is similar to the 360 / ps3, and even with Nvidia compression means the way I see it
1. Games that are not large world triple AAA, say Injustice 2, would punch close to Xb1 / Ps4. See Snake pass / racing game / fighter etc
2. Games like Assassins creed or say GTA5 will run closer to 360 / ps3 last gen.
Probably wont see them on Switch IMO.
..
1. Games that are not large world triple AAA, say Injustice 2, would punch close to Xb1 / Ps4. See Snake pass / racing game / fighter etc
2. Games like Assassins creed or say GTA5 will run closer to 360 / ps3 last gen.
Probably wont see them on Switch IMO.
..
I can't speak for Lego City, but MK8 on Switch looks nearly identical to the Wii-U version. Didn't someone from Nintendo basically say they didn't change/add anything aside from a resolution bump?
866 Mhz for the GPU? Isn't it 786?
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Electricity I think.
PS3 had cell processor that was literally 3x or more powerful then what wiiu had as cpu.
also none of wiiu games near close to ps3 in technically and graphically
GhostTrick
Banned
I Wanna Be The Guy
U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
Meh, even if it did have the power it still wouldn't get those ports. Power really isn't the issue there.
Porting games from xbox one where they barely run stable 30 FPS and power is not an issue? Alrighty then
Toadthemushroom
Member
Mario Kart 8 DX is indeed a quick port with nothing else but 1080p and fixing the frame pacing issue. The LODs are still the same, which is disappointing in multiplayer, as in split-screen non-player characters are rendered with less detail. It's particularly obvious in two player.
As for Lego City:
friskykillface
Banned
Tien is 🐐
But based on that ranking I'd say it's accurate
But where is lord Beerus 🤔
We should be judging the Switch by its undocked mode, because undocked will always hold docked back. In terms of development time devs will always go for something simple like a resolution or frame rate upgrade. It makes no sense to make the games substantially different in the different modes, and its against what Nintendo wants. A seamless experience.
I don't understand why people feel the need to act as mini marketing departments for Nintendo (and by that I mean spouting meaningless bullshit that doesn't relate to real world application). The Switch is an incredible piece of hardware, not just as a handheld but as a console. We don't need to pretend its "nearly as powerful as an xbox one". Be real.
About Switch's power there's a lot of confusion because people don't understand that the "power" that really matters is the one of the undocked mode, the power of the docked mode doesn't really count, why?
Simple, think of undocked mode as Vita and docked mode as PS4, there are many multis between Vita and PS4(God Eater, Toukinden, Digimon and so on) and obviously they are way better on the PS4, but if the PS4 was forced to play only games that runs also on Vita the PS4 couldn't play games like Horizon even if the PS4 is actually able to run them because they wouldn't run on Vita.
In the same way even if the docked mode is able to play heavier games it's forced to be limited to games that can run in docked mode.
Another way to see this is to think of undocked mode games as the original games and docked mode games as remasters of undocked games, PS2 remasters are cool and all but the PS3 can do more than those, PS3 remasters are cool and all but the PS4 can do more than those and so on.
That said the undocked mode seems more or less close to the WiiU and docked mode more powerful than the WiiU but way behind the XB1.
Switch should be able to get PS360 games.
Simple, think of undocked mode as Vita and docked mode as PS4, there are many multis between Vita and PS4(God Eater, Toukinden, Digimon and so on) and obviously they are way better on the PS4, but if the PS4 was forced to play only games that runs also on Vita the PS4 couldn't play games like Horizon even if the PS4 is actually able to run them because they wouldn't run on Vita.
In the same way even if the docked mode is able to play heavier games it's forced to be limited to games that can run in docked mode.
Another way to see this is to think of undocked mode games as the original games and docked mode games as remasters of undocked games, PS2 remasters are cool and all but the PS3 can do more than those, PS3 remasters are cool and all but the PS4 can do more than those and so on.
That said the undocked mode seems more or less close to the WiiU and docked mode more powerful than the WiiU but way behind the XB1.
Switch should be able to get PS360 games.
basicly this
but hey seems like for some people incredible piece of hardware is not enough. Its almost like the secret sauce thing wie xbox one release where people conjured a power increase from nothing
Toadthemushroom
Member
It should really be a comparison between PS3 and Vita. PS4 ports are stretching the Vita thin, at a time when Vita's followup should have arrived. But the Vita, released at the tail-end of 2011, was comfortably able to recreate a lot of PS3 titles to varying degrees.
Interestingly however, the gap between Switch and PS4 is less than that between Vita and PS3, due to the Switch's Maxwell featureset.
In the jump to Vita, for instance, Need for Speed: Most Wanted 2012 was missing many features just because the Vita's PowerVR GPU couldn't do them: Deferred shading was chopped in favour of a forward renderer, for example. That was in addition to the game running at 1/4 of the resolution (360p), having simplified lighting and shadowing, simpler geometry and lacking many effects.
Yes, i wasn't saying that the gap between undocked mode and docked mode is comparable to PS4 and Vita, it was just an example to explain the concept.
I disagree that the gap between Switch and PS4 is smaller than the one between Vita and PS3 though, either flops-wise or visually, you should compare one of the best games of one platform with one of the best games of the other, the best looking Vita game Killzone Liberation is comparable to Killzone 3 that's one of the best looking PS3 games, Zelda BOTW is nowhere near comparable to Horizon.
Always-honest
Banned
It's a really powerful handheld, disguising that it's actually a really weak homeconsole.
Toadthemushroom
Member
Nice misleading cherrypick.
Why are you comparing Killzone to Killzone, and then Zelda to Horizon?
Not to mention that Vita Killzone was tailor-made for Vita over a three year period, and even then it isn't actually comparable in visuals to Killzone 3. Tech wise Killzone on Vita is more like an original Xbox game.
protomouse
Member
It smokes PS4 and Xbox One in terms of performance-per-watt, but obviously comes up quite short in absolute performance. Nvidia's tech is quite impressive - particularly considering the TDP of this thing.
Because a CPU that was hard to develop for is basically everything that is needed to outdo another console, right? Let's forget the much more powerful GPU and the fact that the Wii U literally had eight times more RAM. That's completely irrelevant, right?
The only reason that Nintendo didn't have a powerhouse like The Last of Us is that they didn't have any IPs that would fit for the realistic art style. A game like Xenoblade X or Breath wouldn't have been possible on the PS3, just going from the RAM alone. Wii U was stronger than the 7th gen except for the CPU, that's not difficult due to the console coming out when PS3 and X360 were basically done for. But that's not the right thread to discuss such things anyways, so...
It is powerful enough to run a game as beautiful as Mario Kart 8 at 60fps 1080p, which is a port of a wiiu game.
Once they start pumping out games built from the ground up for the switch we will truly know what its capable of.
Developers struggle with Xbone specs already, so don't expect red dead redemption 2 on switch anytime soon though
Once they start pumping out games built from the ground up for the switch we will truly know what its capable of.
Developers struggle with Xbone specs already, so don't expect red dead redemption 2 on switch anytime soon though
In fact i could have posted this:
and said that Vita is as powerful as the PS3, but i didn't because Virtua Tennis 4 isn't one of the most advanced PS3 games.
That's why you should always take some of the most advanced games for a fair comparison.
You are free to think that Killzone Mercenary wasn't comparable to Killzone 3, but you are in minority, also Mercenary used a modified version of Killzone 3 engine, just saying.
Well sure you implied that but you contradicted yourself 1 second later and 3 seconds previously exactly like Donald Trump...
Anyway. Your assertion that the Switch ports haven't looked drastically different from Wii U level games is already proven false by third parties.
Fast Racing series compared to the Wii U version, Dragon Quest Heroes compared to the ps3 version already shows distinct graphic features not capable on either relatively closer hardware platform because the Switch has the right feature sets.
Toadthemushroom
Member
You were literally talking about PS4-to-Vita ports, and how that should be the benchmark for comparison. You can't make that point and then proceed to compare Vita (and Switch) games with something completely unrelated to what you just said.
Killzone Mercenary isn't even based on a PS3 game. It's its own separate game made specifically for Vita over a three year development period and even then despite being bespoke, there are obvious limitations compared to the PS3 games anyway. It has more in common with an original Xbox game technically speaking.
Borderlands 2 and Need for Speed: Most Wanted are the best representations of how ambitious console games can be scaled to Vita. They are impressive ports but with obvious compromises.
Currently on Switch we have Lego City Undercover, which is leaps beyond the Wii U version while maintaining competitive with PS4 and Xbox One. There is also Snake Pass which is (according to DF) a technically demanding game running on Unreal Engine 4. Snake Pass was ported in two months to the Switch.
But it's too early to say for now...I guess there's Cars 3 in July, and Nights of Azure 2. Note that Switch has yet to receive its own "Killzone Mercenary" either. It's only been out for two months, and we haven't seen any big budget Switch exclusives that have been in development for Switch hardware specifically for three years.
Virtua Tennis 4 is a great port, but who's trying to say Vita wasn't or was as powerful as PS3? Killzone Mercenary isn't even a good example to use for that case either. I'm just saying that Switch is more conforming to the current gen featureset than Vita was to last gen hardware. That is all.