-
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.
Nintendo Switch Dev Kit Stats Leaked? Cortex A57, 4GB RAM, 32GB Storage, Multi-Touch.
- Thread starter Robert at Zeboyd Games
- Start date
- Status
That's the MS view of hardware/OS production and it damn near killed them. You can't do walled garden in the 21st century, playing nice with users existing ecosystems is expected.
If Nintendo can't out compete mobile they're screwed anyway. It's not like kids won't know Android games exist unless Nintendo put them on the switch. And anyway, Nintendo release games on Android.
I don't get what you're saying, are you suggesting that Nintendo should be using Android and Google Play Store on the Switch?
StereoVsn
Member
Nah, that won't happen. However using forked Android like Amazon is doing would make sense making it easier for devs to import mobile apps. This is Nintendo though so it won't happen.
That's what i thought. The fact that the SoC is on 28nm, and delivers +/-850GF with such claimed battery life was raising my left eyebrow.
Do you know what the battery life is on that Windows handheld/minilaptop thing? And how it compares to the rumored Switch specs?
EDIT: found it
They claim 6-8h online gaming with a 6900 mAh battery.
It would also make piracy almost trivially easy. Android is not a good OS for platform holders who want to sell their own games.
It'd be good to know what middleware most mobile developers are using.
If they are using Unity which Switch is
I doubt it'd be excruciatingly difficult for devs to port the game over.
Unity themselves claim it's easy:
https://unity3d.com/unity/multiplatform
I see that Switch is listed there under supported platforms.
Edit:
Also this:
I don't understand why forking android is a good idea either. Aside from the vulnerabilities to piracy, isn't it that Android as an OS has a lot of overhead when using resources like RAM?
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Assuming LiPo @ 3.77V, 6.9Ah * 3.77 = ~26Wh. So the device must be drawing between 4.35 and 3.25 Watts, which is perfectly viable for a 2W SDP part + screen + radio.
When something looks to good to be true...
The GPD XD uses 10w (I guess maxed) and has about 4hrs battery at a guess.
specs:
ARM Cortex-A17 1.8GHz Quad-Core
ARM Mali-T764
5 Inch H-IPS Hard Screen; 1280*720px
2GB DDR3 RAM
Android 4.4.4
6000mAh
About the size of a 3DSXL
the switch will be more powerful and bigger but gives us an idea of what's is currently available (from a gaming unit).
specs:
ARM Cortex-A17 1.8GHz Quad-Core
ARM Mali-T764
5 Inch H-IPS Hard Screen; 1280*720px
2GB DDR3 RAM
Android 4.4.4
6000mAh
About the size of a 3DSXL
the switch will be more powerful and bigger but gives us an idea of what's is currently available (from a gaming unit).
RowdyReverb
Member
I wonder how robust the suspend feature will be on this. It would go a long way towards making the experience seamless if I didn't have to worry about the thing dying while it's in my bag before I can dock it at home.
calc84maniac
Member
I imagine if they're ditching Streetpass it could be much, much better than 3DS.
Skittzo0413
Member
What makes you think they're ditching Streetpass? I really don't know either way, I'm just curious why you think they are (if you do).
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Ehh, ditching StreetPass wouldn't really improve it over 3DS, since you could just turn it off on 3DS anyway.
calc84maniac
Member
I didn't say they are, just an if. But I dunno, just with the way they're pushing the home console aspect of it makes me think they might not reimplement that feature.
Cow Mengde
Banned
Meep.
This is not a good sign for battery life. Then again, the Switch might draw less power with a newer and different chipset than the GPD Win.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Correct. And those Cherry Trails neither.
Why are all you guys getting juniored?
Anyway, the Switch will also be bigger than a 3DSXL, so hopefully there'll be room for a larger battery as well.
Ah, thanks. I have no idea how to judge these intel chips compared to the Switch CPU/GPU. Funny enough, the GPD is supposed to play PC games iirc. Games that won't end up on Switch due to not powerful enough, lol.
I really don't know what you guys really expect from this thing.
It's not like Nintendo suddenly found some new battery technology that will power their system for 10+ hours.
It's also not fair to compare it to tablets/phones when those don't (won't) do even 1/4 of what Switch will be capable of.
4 hours is not ideal, sure, but it is also far from being a deal breaker.
Schnozberry
Member
It was a big deal for Iwata, so I'd assume they'd try to get it in if they can technologically make it happen.
I can "boot" PC games. Whenever they will be playable is another question. I still don't have my GPD Win, but on my surface 3 (same soc), not even the indies 2D graphics games are assured to have good performance on the device, and anything that has 360 level of 3D graphics you are looking at big compromises. Re4 wasn't playable for me at low settings @720p and someone else reported that RE5 ran at 30fps at lowest settings at 800x600.
Now, the CPU should be comparable to the Jaguars (Am I wrong, blu)?
Astral Dog
Member
The 3DS was awful on this the battery droped on half a day
Oh, then... what's the appeal of the device? It has a screen the same size as my 150$ phone (it's currently 130 actually), lower resolution, and it's seemingly not much faster than my phone (4xA57+AxA53). Doing real office work on it, doesn't seem easy (due to the screen) and else the only advantage seems to be the keyboard? Which i can just buy for my phone as an addon.
The main appeal is that is the only x86 device on its class.
Ok, thanks.
Actually... if they went with the A73 in the CPU, would it still make sense to include the A53 (see chart)?
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
You're right. Silvermont has worse IPC than Jaguar, but at the same time can turbo-boost to higher clocks*, so for some scenarios it will be better and for some notably worse than Jaguars.
* Subject to batteries, housing's thermal design and SDP** settings.
** Gosh, I hate this term.
I don't know. If the rumor is true, there's 3.2 GB RAM available for games, which is more than half of that of the competition. I think many games nowadays are very scalable. Due to mobile tech having boomed like it has the past 8 or so years, i think this is less of a problem, because many devs and middleware are prepared for it. In fact, how many games did the PS2 miss out on, because it had less than half the memory of the Xbox? This is not like the gap between the Wii and the 360.
Also, we have an insider and a dev here on Neogaf claiming that the hardware would not be the reason why it misses out on games, should 3rd parties decide not to support the platform.
The question has been raised here before, if the fact that the Switch uses cards instead of optical media, would reduce the strain on memory or not. I'd like to read some comments from Blu or Thraktor on this. Maybe if seek and read speeds from the cards are faster, that content doesn't have to be stored in memory as soon/long as with optical media?
About the price... i have no idea. At first glance you would think the cost wouldn't be that much higher, but maybe adding RAM, might complicate the memory lay-out, in turn making the overal design much more expensive than just the expense of the RAM. But this is beyond my knowledge.
AtomicShroom
Member
This is a given. Since data can be streamed much faster than from a disc, you can segment your game in a way that smaller chunks of data are loaded more frequently as needed.
The best example I can think of is Peach's castle in Super Mario 64: Only the room you're in is loaded in RAM at any given time, with buffer for an additional room when you get close to a door. When you get near the door, the room behind gets loaded instantaneously thanks to cart speed. It allowed the game to swap rooms in and out at will. If the game had been on CD, you would have had to either 1) Load large castle areas at once, requiring way more RAM, or deal with very painful loading prompts each and every time you got near a door.
This is what i would imagine, but the question has been raised in this thread before, with others claiming it would not make a difference. I'm not an expert, so... But it does make sense.
I think DrTr81 or something, among others, asked the question as well.
calc84maniac
Member
Well first of all, it's not really a "cartridge" in the N64 sense where it's directly connected to the memory bus, it's just a memory card. And secondly, games on current-generation consoles are all installed to the hard drive to get around slow disc speeds.
The speeds of the two options are probably pretty comparable, though Switch has the advantage of not requiring an installation.
Cow Mengde
Banned
I rather sacrifice resolution for better battery life. I don't need a 720p screen. I'll settle for 540, or even 480p in handheld mode if it'll give me 8 hour battery life.
Wouldn't say they're comparable, not if we're talking about standard HDD's.
You're never going to get 8 hour battery life no matter what screen resolution is used, as certain parts of the hardware (which will need to be reasonable powerful as a console) won't be able to decrease in power much if at all when removed from the dock (CPU, RAM for instance). Considering its not purely a handheld I'd rather not sacrifice too much in console mode for the sake of such long battery life in mobile mode. I mean the purpose of the device is to sit in a dock and be played at home (where it will constantly charge anyway), and be taken out to continue play when needed, not played purely as a portable.
Schnozberry
Member
The screen ain't the problem. You want to render console games on the go, you're going to thrash some batteries.
calc84maniac
Member
You do realize that microSD cards typically have a much faster read speed than write speed, right? Read speed is what's important for load times. (I'm not considering whatever custom technology Nintendo might use for the Game Cards, just digital games running off a microSD card since that's something we actually know about.)
Let's take a look at microSD sequential read benchmarks from 2014. You can see a not insignificant number of cards with sequential read speeds exceeding 90 MB/s.
Now let's look at Eurogamer's benchmark of the HDD included in the PS4. They're claiming 116.5 MB/s sequential read speed.
So I'd say yes, it's certainly comparable. And Flash memory tends to be much more consistent with random access, but whether that's leveraged or not might depend on the game.
I think Donnie is arguing game cards to be better than standard HDD's for this purpose.
Looking at the above specs people need to lower their expectations. Also remember Nintendo usually have crap batteries that are not as big. Nintendo can't afford to have a large capacity battery as well as decent spec as they don't want to be priced foo high.
I reckon Switch will be severely underclocked when undocked and allow a 3 to 4 hour battery life.
It would be nice if you decided what resolution you wanted the game at while in handheld mode on the fly...720...or 540....and maybe 480. Options are always good
Spyder_Monkey
Banned
That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.
brochiller
Member
Just saw these Tweets. Has this been discussed yet? It's just some analysts prediction but this journalist does seem to have connections to oretty knowledgeable people.
https://twitter.com/mochi_wsj/status/794727595078103040
https://twitter.com/mochi_wsj/status/794727595078103040
Not really, Takashi noted it was that analyst's speculation.
On the inevitability someone asks about the game cards using serial transmission and what it means.
Thraktor said:
http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=217383659
ShadowFox08
Member
As many have pointed out already, screen resolution is low in the list of things draining this console's battery.
Nathan Drake redeemed!!!
Also, isn't 14/16nm like.. too good?
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Did Nate need redeeming?
That's still speculation, just from an analyst.
And 14/16nm is a bigger deal than Pascal/Maxwell.
Switch won't use a standard memory card for its games, it'll use a game card with serial transmission which should offer transfer speeds around 3 times that of a standard HDD and random access times on another planet to a standard HDD. Lower latency is always an advantage. Of course the advantage is far more significant with lots of small files being transferred. But even for larger it's still an advantage when you need to load something into RAM quickly.
Wasn't Tegra X2 pascal and also 16nm? I'm still not convinced the Switch uses Tegra X2, tho, but would love to see that.
Just saw these Tweets. Has this been discussed yet? It's just some analysts prediction but this journalist does seem to have connections to oretty knowledgeable people.
https://twitter.com/mochi_wsj/status/794727595078103040
Even if it's just an analyst prediction it lines up with the bits of info and reliable rumours that we have.
Tegra Parker (Pascal based) is running on TSMC 16nm FinFET process. That's like the strongest argument that me and others were using to support that having a Pascal based Tegra is the most likely options, as the 20nm process (that X1/Maxwell uses) had issues and was quickly abandoned by almost everybody, especially in the mobile world.
- Status