Support NeoGAF

[darkstar0155]

Agreed. They could have included the fan in the originally filed patent to cover their bases and later in development remove it if headway was made towards not using it.

I only had one class (as in one day of class) about patents in my engineering degree... but the impression I got from that class was doing this would pretty much make the patent application get rejected since it doesn't accurately describe the device at that point.

 

[th3sicknness]

This was pretty much my main argument (from the tech side). I was like "dude, it would need to be as big as a gaming laptop, and the battery would last 2hrs max" He was all "I disagree, they could do it with the advancements in battery tech, and sell it at a loss for 500$ and sell like crazy" I think I literally smacked my head against my desk lol.

There havent been any advancements in battery tech (only in the hardware that draws from it).. If there was the iphone 7 would last more than just 1 day.

I think one of the dumbest assumptions people are making is that if Nintendo had created a PS5 or an Xbox 1.5 that Nintendo would be saved. Even with power Nintendo would still lack the things necessary to compete with the other consoles. Nintendo doesnt make Halo, Gears of War, Forza, God of War, Uncharted, Bloodborne, and Gran Turismo and so on... Nintendo is going to be behind on online infrastructure no matter what and we dont even know if they will have achievements and party chat.. Hell they dont even support bluray movies.

If it was a psx1 clone why would anyone buy it over the other consoles? People have clearly stated that Nintendo games alone wont change their mind, which leaves the decision to how people decide between the x1 and ps4...

 

[MuchoMalo]

Couldnt you say that about Nintendo as well? With the Wii U failing and the timing they were boxed in? The architecture that Nvidia is providing is uniquely perfect for the concept Nintendo was pushing.

No, you can't say it for Nintendo because they're the ones footing the bill for everything. Also, Nvidia isn't the only one that could have provided the chip. It might have taken a bit more work or even money, but AMD, DMP, PowerVR, and Qualcomm could have all done it, perhaps at the expense of some performance.

Look, I understand how you feel, but Nvidia isn't going to try to strongarm Nintendo like that when they probably had to outbid AMD and DMP for that contract in the first place. AMD even hinted at wanting to put a chip in a handheld a few years back, so they were most likely on the table at some point. If they try to create an ultimatum, they'll fail unless they put their own money on the table.

 

[AzaK]

I dont think this is the case to be honest. If the Switch got Rocket League and had decent online integration, local multiplayer, and or cross play I would buy it hands down no questions asked regardless of what it looked like. Also this could be an INDIE developers dream. It could run pretty much any indie game out there at close enough graphics fidelity to not bother anyone with added portability.

Also factor in that 3rd party games are costing MORE and MORE money every year to develop and the sales arent getting better. COD , BF1, TFALL, and HALO are all experiencing franchise fatigue so there are less and less heavy hitting 3rd party games. People are also forgetting pricing as well.. How is Nintendo going to price out games for this machine? Are we going to get 29.99 to 39.99 for DS type games or 49.99 to 59.99 for Wii U type games? Maybe to compensate for power we get pricing and portability?

Indies don't make a platform, not even close really unless it's Minecraft. And sure if it got Rocket League then Nintendo fans could play it but why would anyone buy a Switch for that if they have another console. Handheld play on a 6.2 inch screen? I wouldn't think so.

 

[Skittzo0413]

I only had one class (as in one day of class) about patents in my engineering degree... but the impression I got from that class was doing this would pretty much make the patent application get rejected since it doesn't accurately describe the device at that point.

As someone who works with patents for a living your impression is 100% wrong. Whether or not a patent gets granted has absolutely nothing to do with whether the final product fits the patent perfectly. In fact, the majority of patents I see never become products (or anything) in the first place.

 

[darkstar0155]

As someone who works with patents for a living your impression is 100% wrong. Whether or not a patent gets granted has absolutely nothing to do with whether the final product fits the patent perfectly. In fact, the majority of patents I see never become products (or anything) in the first place.

Well, I never said I paid attention in class ha

 

[th3sicknness]

Indies don't make a platform, not even close really unless it's Minecraft. And sure if it got Rocket League then Nintendo fans could play it but why would anyone buy a Switch for that if they have another console. Handheld play on a 6.2 inch screen? I wouldn't think so.

I was simply stating that the indie demo is something the switch will succeed in.

Rocket league would be a massive success because people could play at home or on the the go. Local multiplayer and online co-op would be amazing for rocket league. Also a screen size of 6.2 is plenty for any game... Smaller than 6.2 seemed to be just fine for 60 million 3ds owners...

The point is you can play the game anywhere which would be a huge plus to a game like rocket league.

 

[EatChildren]

in a discussion with a friend, he was saying the Nintendo should just go all out with the switch and design it to be as powerful as a ps4 pro and take a huge loss (hahah). Ignoring the obvious economic and business reasons why this would be a horrible idea, is this even technologically possible in a handheld form factor? And if so, about what price would something like this be? Just sorta curious.

No. Not without mangling the battery, increasing the thickness of the device, and upping the price so significantly the device would be DOA.

What we know about the Switch is that it's very thin, must balance performance with mobile battery life, and will likely be priced at a rate to appeal to the mass family friendly market.

Expectations should be adjusted accordingly. Unfortunately the technologically illiterate sometimes seem to believe gaming hardware is made out of magic and dreams and expect far too much from the device.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

Is having embedded memory on the GPU the best way Nintendo can make porting WiiU titles easier as well as assist in them absorbing the WiiU architecture?

 

[ggx2ac]

That's the epitome of a rhetorical question.

Haha

Well, we're still in the dark on what Nintendo are doing and that we'll probably not know the specifics until a teardown happens.

I doubt they'll reveal any meaningful specs during next weeks Switch presentation.

______

For those freaking out about 28nm, again TSMC have refined their process resulting in newer generation nodes which Thraktor highlighted 28nmHPC+ as being very close in comparison to 20nm with regards to power consumption although 28nm has a bigger die size although that's not a big deal regarding how big the Switch is.

Your only worst case scenario as someone else pointed out is that Nintendo didn't choose 16nmFF and put in 1-2 extra SMs to make it 50% to 100% more powerful which means they'd probably have to double the LPDDR4 RAM bandwidth to 50GB/s etc etc

Anyway, 9 days to go until the Switch presentation.

 

[jdstorm]

Not really a tech guy. But a portable as powerful as an Xbox one when docked with an improved CPU was a realistic scenario for the Switch at a 300USD Price range.

The biggest issue would have battery life. (Potentially sub 1 hour as a portible) so Nintendo went in a different direction. (RANT)

Spoiler

and are passing off a 100USD level smartphone as a 250 USD Gaming device because no one at Nintendo thought to include a removeable battery, can use a powerbrick, or has had the forethought to sell a clamshell portible case with a built in battery to extend battery life to 3-4 Hours away from a charger.

But that device is what the Switch should be. (Its not too late to up the clock speeds nintendo)

 

[Hermii]

Haha

Well, we're still in the dark on what Nintendo are doing and that we'll probably not know the specifics until a teardown happens.

I doubt they'll reveal any meaningful specs during next weeks Switch presentation.

______

For those freaking out about 28nm, again TSMC have refined their process resulting in newer generation nodes which Thraktor highlighted 28nmHPC+ as being very close in comparison to 20nm with regards to power consumption although 28nm has a bigger die size although that's not a big deal regarding how big the Switch is.

Your only worst case scenario as someone else pointed out is that Nintendo didn't choose 16nmFF and put in 1-2 extra SMs to make it 50% to 100% more powerful which means they'd probably have to double the LPDDR4 RAM bandwidth to 50GB/s etc etc

Anyway, 9 days to go until the Switch presentation.

All of that sounds like sensible things to do.

 

[Sesuadra]

Not really a tech guy. But a portable as powerful as an Xbox one when docked with an improved CPU was a realistic scenario for the Switch at a 300USD Price range.

The biggest issue would have battery life. (Potentially sub 1 hour as a portible) so Nintendo went in a different direction. (RANT)

Spoiler

and are passing off a 100USD level smartphone as a 250 USD Gaming device because no one at Nintendo thought to include a removeable battery, can use a powerbrick, or has had the forethought to sell a clamshell portible case with a built in battery to extend battery life to 3-4 Hours away from a charger.

But that device is what the Switch should be. (Its not too late to up the clock speeds nintendo)

can you please break it down for me how that was in anyway a realistic scenario?

 

[Velocity:Design:Comfort]

Not really a tech guy. But a portable as powerful as an Xbox one when docked with an improved CPU was a realistic scenario for the Switch at a 300USD Price range.

The biggest issue would have battery life. (Potentially sub 1 hour as a portible) so Nintendo went in a different direction. (RANT)

Spoiler

and are passing off a 100USD level smartphone as a 250 USD Gaming device because no one at Nintendo thought to include a removeable battery, can use a powerbrick, or has had the forethought to sell a clamshell portible case with a built in battery to extend battery life to 3-4 Hours away from a charger.

But that device is what the Switch should be. (Its not too late to up the clock speeds nintendo)

You only get those smart phones for 100 because you get them with a plan. They are actually worth way more than 100. (The S7 unlocked is 600-700) Also that is really just a poor comparison; the only game that looks anything like the full fledged games we will get on Switch is Bravus Exevius whatever where you can't even move your character around.

 

[th3sicknness]

Not really a tech guy. But a portable as powerful as an Xbox one when docked with an improved CPU was a realistic scenario for the Switch at a 300USD Price range.

The biggest issue would have battery life. (Potentially sub 1 hour as a portible) so Nintendo went in a different direction. (RANT)

Spoiler

and are passing off a 100USD level smartphone as a 250 USD Gaming device because no one at Nintendo thought to include a removeable battery, can use a powerbrick, or has had the forethought to sell a clamshell portible case with a built in battery to extend battery life to 3-4 Hours away from a charger.

But that device is what the Switch should be. (Its not too late to up the clock speeds nintendo)

You don't even know what it is yet and you are saying they don't have foresight....Do you not realize there is no announced price yet?!?

How many tablets out there do you see playing Mario kart 8 or Breath of the Wild???

 

[UnemployedVillain]

Not really a tech guy. But a portable as powerful as an Xbox one when docked with an improved CPU was a realistic scenario for the Switch at a 300USD Price range.

The biggest issue would have battery life. (Potentially sub 1 hour as a portible) so Nintendo went in a different direction. (RANT)

Spoiler

and are passing off a 100USD level smartphone as a 250 USD Gaming device because no one at Nintendo thought to include a removeable battery, can use a powerbrick, or has had the forethought to sell a clamshell portible case with a built in battery to extend battery life to 3-4 Hours away from a charger.

But that device is what the Switch should be. (Its not too late to up the clock speeds nintendo)

You have no idea what you're talking about and it's embarrassing

 

[Schnozberry]

All of that sounds like sensible things to do.

It seems they prioritized hitting a mass market price. I'm sure they have all the market research on their side, but it's still a bit disappointing when we could have had a much slicker piece of kit for an extra $50.

 

[z0m3le]

Haha

Well, we're still in the dark on what Nintendo are doing and that we'll probably not know the specifics until a teardown happens.

I doubt they'll reveal any meaningful specs during next weeks Switch presentation.

______

For those freaking out about 28nm, again TSMC have refined their process resulting in newer generation nodes which Thraktor highlighted 28nmHPC+ as being very close in comparison to 20nm with regards to power consumption although 28nm has a bigger die size although that's not a big deal regarding how big the Switch is.

Your only worst case scenario as someone else pointed out is that Nintendo didn't choose 16nmFF and put in 1-2 extra SMs to make it 50% to 100% more powerful which means they'd probably have to double the LPDDR4 RAM bandwidth to 50GB/s etc etc

Anyway, 9 days to go until the Switch presentation.

Honestly 16nm and 2sm is still possible. The 28nm answer is glaringly incomplete with fitting the puzzle of a better battery life and being more powerful than July devkits, thrakor is one of my favorite posters, but he thought Nintendo should use 12 A53 cores instead of higher single performance cores, arguing that parallel process would perform the same for less wattage, and I had to argue with him about higher single threaded performance being more important, and while he even said he didn't think they would ultimately go with what he was speculating, he thought it would be a good idea. It's fine for more parallel applications than gaming, but gaming is single threaded territory, yes there is parallel processing but taking Intel extreme 8 core CPUs, against higher clocked 4 core CPUs, the Intel 4 cores don't need double the cycles to crush the 8 core chips in gaming benchmarks.

Xb1s and ps4 pro just released 6 months before switch with 16nm chips that are far larger than what is in switch, still able to lower the price of manufacturing and volume hasn't been an issue, Switch is probably 16nm but what everyone here needs to get over is that doesn't mean anything when it comes to performance, it could end up being 32nm in bizarro world and it wouldn't change the end product's speculated performance of ~160gflops portable and ~400gflops docked. The people here arguing over what process they used, it's actually much cheaper to use 16nm than 20nm because the package can shrink from 11x11 to say 7x7 meaning far more chips per wafer, the 28nm version of this chip would be over 3times larger, even if the wafer was twice as expensive (it's not) it would still benefit Nintendo to go 16nm, not to mention that the production isn't a single run, meaning that the already mature process would only get more mature during production, meanwhile 28nm would get more expensive.

Finally, it really comes down to the October kits being more powerful and longer battery life. 28nm would literally drop the ball on at least 1 of those two, and would almost certainly actually be no change from the X1 kits, meanwhile both factors got better, it's probably 16nm and again it only academically matters, you're getting the same device either way.

P.S. Xb1s chips would be much more expensive to produce, yet xb1s is cheaper than xb1 to make, it is comparable in cost at worst to 28nm.

 

[ShadowFox08]

Haha

Well, we're still in the dark on what Nintendo are doing and that we'll probably not know the specifics until a teardown happens.

I doubt they'll reveal any meaningful specs during next weeks Switch presentation.

______

For those freaking out about 28nm, again TSMC have refined their process resulting in newer generation nodes which Thraktor highlighted 28nmHPC+ as being very close in comparison to 20nm with regards to power consumption although 28nm has a bigger die size although that's not a big deal regarding how big the Switch is.

Your only worst case scenario as someone else pointed out is that Nintendo didn't choose 16nmFF and put in 1-2 extra SMs to make it 50% to 100% more powerful which means they'd probably have to double the LPDDR4 RAM bandwidth to 50GB/s etc etc

Anyway, 9 days to go until the Switch presentation.

By that do you mean more SMS and 50% more powerful from eurogamer leak?

 

[ggx2ac]

By that do you mean more SMS and 50% more powerful from eurogamer leak?

Just saying the difference between a standard TX1 with 256 CUDA Cores and increasing the number of CUDA Cores by 50% to 100% to increase the FLOPS by the same proportion.

As in, something that is heavily customised that it's unlike a TX1.

 

[Hermii]

By that do you mean 50% more powerful from eurogamer leak?

2 SM: what we assume
3 SM: 50% more than we assume
4 SM: twice what we assume. EG only leaked clock speed.

 

[ShadowFox08]

Not really a tech guy. But a portable as powerful as an Xbox one when docked with an improved CPU was a realistic scenario for the Switch at a 300USD Price range.

The biggest issue would have battery life. (Potentially sub 1 hour as a portible) so Nintendo went in a different direction. (RANT)

Spoiler

and are passing off a 100USD level smartphone as a 250 USD Gaming device because no one at Nintendo thought to include a removeable battery, can use a powerbrick, or has had the forethought to sell a clamshell portible case with a built in battery to extend battery life to 3-4 Hours away from a charger.

But that device is what the Switch should be. (Its not too late to up the clock speeds nintendo)

I honestly think that Nintendo could have invested in a 16nm pascal node with specs that was close to 1 TFLOPS(and possibly even 6GB of RAM) in FP32 while docked with at least 3 hours battery life, if Nintendo was willing to lose a little money on each switch sold for the first year for under $300. I wish they did.

 

[sfried]

I honestly think that Nintendo could have invested in a 16nm pascal node with specs that was close to 1 TFLOPS(and possibly even 6GB of RAM) in FP32 while docked with at least 3 hours battery life, if Nintendo was willing to lose a little money on each switch sold for the first year for under $300. I wish they did.

I don't know if Nintendo is willing to make that risk again after the mishandling of the 3DS at launch.

 

[ShadowFox08]

2 SM: what we assume
3 SM: 50% more than we assume
4 SM: twice what we assume. EG only leaked clock speed.

Right, I know we're assuming 2 SM for +150 GFLOPS and close to 400GFLOPS for docked. But I thought those specs are based off of a 20nm node, or does it not matter( 28nm+ is the same as 20nm??) The worst case scenario thing confused me because I was thinking he meant what you just noted at 3 SM with 50% more than we assume at 2 SM.

 

[ShadowFox08]

I don't know if Nintendo is willing to make that risk again after the mishandling of the 3DS at launch.

Yeah even at $300 its a bit risky, though they might be able to get away with it more since its part console.

250 with those specs sound amazing.

I think what I find most frustrating is that Nintendo seems to be cutting corners on technology yet again and just not learning about future proofing their consoles, and the president says he pretty much wants to make a profit right out of the gate for each console sold.. They did that with the Wii U with the bad CPU which is not justifiable at all(though obviously the high price was due mainly to the gamepad, which they still sold at a loss).

Though a version two of switch is imminent. If its really 28nm right now, for sure the next one will be a smaller node like 20 or 16. I personally don't see 20nm as impossible and don't understand why some people have said its a "dead end." Nvidia wants to get rid of all their 20nm and offering nintendo for a discount price.

 

[z0m3le]

I know we're assuming 2 SM for +150 GFLOPS and close to 400GFLOPS for docked. But I thought those specs are based off of a 28nm node, or does it not matter(Is 28+ is the same as 20nm?? The worst case scenario thing confused me because I was thinking he meant what you just noted at 3 SM with 50% more than we assume.

It's kind of funny how We were all adamant on 16 to 20nm, and now suddenly its shifted to 28nm because people are absolutely sure we'll have still have fan and it apparently wouldn't make sense to have a fan at 20nm or less, because only 28nm would need a fan, so the conjecture is made on that pretty hard now.

The process node is pretty much independent of how many Cuda cores the chip has, if they wanted a 200mm^2 chip in there and 4sm, they could absolutely do it at 28nm and the fan would be needed with 20nm or 28nm, there is also the need to cool the device is warm weather and my guess is the 10watts+ that the docked switch is pulling, would require a fan anyways. It being capable of using the fan when portable is also possibly because, as we've learned through rumors, the Switch's docked clocks can be accessed while on the go, meaning it would draw that 10+ watts for maybe 2 hours of game time.

This is why worrying about what process they used is pointless, in fact, if Nintendo did use 28nm, they would be able to drop the price drastically at the end of next year when 10nm process becomes available, looking at sub $150 switch devices by holiday 2018, but speculating on such a thing seems pointless until we have official pricing.

 

[ggx2ac]

I know we're assuming 2 SM for +150 GFLOPS and close to 400GFLOPS for docked. But I thought those specs are based off of a 28nm node, or does it not matter(Is 28+ is the same as 20nm?? The worst case scenario thing confused me because I was thinking he meant what you just noted at 3 SM with 50% more than we assume.

It's kind of funny how We were all adamant on 16 to 20nm, and now suddenly its shifted to 28nm because people are absolutely sure we'll have still have fan and it apparently wouldn't make sense to have a fan at 20nm or less, because only 28nm would need a fan, so the conjecture is made on that pretty hard now.

The flops don't change regarding the node because it is the same architecture. The difference is if it went 16nmFF, the upper limit is changed and the clock speed can be increased to output at the same power consumption a stock TX1 had but with more FLOPS because it is going higher than 1GHz which was the "limit" the TX1 had.

What changes going from 20nm to 28nmHPC+ is that they are very close to each other in power consumption that if they were at the same clocks, the 20nm would only be slightly better in power consumption. The only other difference is that the die size is larger at 28nmHPC+ but that doesn't really affect how huge the Switch is because it's not the size of a smartphone.

 

[ShadowFox08]

The flops don't change regarding the node because it is the same architecture. The difference is if it went 16nmFF, the upper limit is changed and the clock speed can be increased to output at the same power consumption a stock TX1 had but with more FLOPS because it is going higher than 1GHz which was the "limit" the TX1 had.

What changes going from 20nm to 28nmHPC+ is that they are very close to each other in power consumption that if they were at the same clocks, the 20nm would only be slightly better in power consumption. The only other difference is that the die size is larger at 28nmHPC+ but that doesn't really affect how huge the Switch is because it's not the size of a smartphone.

Right. I do know that 16nm is 40% more power for the same power consumption or 60% more energy efficient than 20nm.

This 28nmHPC+ is new to me though. Thanks.

The process node is pretty much independent of how many Cuda cores the chip has, if they wanted a 200mm^2 chip in there and 4sm, they could absolutely do it at 28nm and the fan would be needed with 20nm or 28nm, there is also the need to cool the device is warm weather and my guess is the 10watts+ that the docked switch is pulling, would require a fan anyways. It being capable of using the fan when portable is also possibly because, as we've learned through rumors, the Switch's docked clocks can be accessed while on the go, meaning it would draw that 10+ watts for maybe 2 hours of game time.

This is why worrying about what process they used is pointless, in fact, if Nintendo did use 28nm, they would be able to drop the price drastically at the end of next year when 10nm process becomes available, looking at sub $150 switch devices by holiday 2018, but speculating on such a thing seems pointless until we have official pricing.

I see. Thanks.

But knowing Nintendo, if we're not getting 20 or 28nm, they would likely drop to 16nm in 2 years and have a $50 price drop at the most to $200.lol

 

[ggx2ac]

It being capable of using the fan when portable is also possibly because, as we've learned through rumors, the Switch's docked clocks can be accessed while on the go, meaning it would draw that 10+ watts for maybe 2 hours of game time.

Hmm?

The only docked clock speed that can be used while in portable mode is RAM, not the GPU.

Only the portable clock speeds of the RAM and GPU can stay the same while docked.

 

[z0m3le]

I see. Thanks.

But knowing Nintendo, if we're not getting 20 or 28nm, they would likely drop to 16nm in 2 years and have a $50 price drop at the most to $200.lol

Yeah $199 is a sweet spot for the switch, as a deluxe model, but they have a history of releasing budget models below that price, so while a deluxe model might cost $299 in March, it is probably going to push the budget price to $199 for the holidays, and from there, a new model would replace the deluxe model. We've seen them hold onto $199 with the 3DS,they will do the same with switch, but we have to remember that the 2ds exists.

 

[ShadowFox08]

Hmm?

The only docked clock speed that can be used while in portable mode is RAM, not the GPU.

Only the portable clock speeds of the RAM and GPU can stay the same while docked.

I thought the CPU would stay the same in clock speed in portable and RAM, but only the GPU and RAM clockspeed would be raised back to normal, according to the eurogamer leak.

Where Switch remains consistent is in CPU power - the cores run at 1020MHz regardless of whether the machine is docked or undocked. This ensures that running game logic won't be compromised while gaming on the go: the game simulation itself will remain entirely consistent. The machine's embedded memory controller runs at 1600MHz while docked (on par with a standard Tegra X1), but the default power mode undocked sees this drop to 1331MHz. However, developers can opt to retain full memory bandwidth in their titles should they choose to do so.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-nintendo-switch-spec-analysis

Or maybe you're talking about something else?

 

[ggx2ac]

I thought the CPU would stay the same in clock speed in portable and RAM, but only the GPU and RAM clockspeed would be raised back to normal, according to the eurogamer leak.

Where Switch remains consistent is in CPU power - the cores run at 1020MHz regardless of whether the machine is docked or undocked. This ensures that running game logic won't be compromised while gaming on the go: the game simulation itself will remain entirely consistent. The machine's embedded memory controller runs at 1600MHz while docked (on par with a standard Tegra X1), but the default power mode undocked sees this drop to 1331MHz. However, developers can opt to retain full memory bandwidth in their titles should they choose to do so.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-nintendo-switch-spec-analysis

Or maybe you're talking about something else?

You can just look at the table summary in their article.

Undocked
Available CPU Speeds 1020MHz
Available GPU Speeds 307.2MHz
Available Memory Controller Speeds 1331/1600MHz


Docked
Available CPU Speeds 1020MHz
Available GPU Speeds 307.2/768MHz
Available Memory Controller Speeds 1331/1600MHz

 

[jdstorm]

can you please break it down for me how that was in anyway a realistic scenario?

Other posters explained it better in the speculation thread. (THRAKTOR??? sorry my spelling sucks)

Using 2 or 3 SMs of Nvidias Pascal/Maxwell arcitecture on a 16nm Finfet node, would have allowed an aproximatelty 750Gflp GPU to be in the switch. There was then a heated discussion of the difference between Nvidia flops vs AMD flops and the benefits of full precision vs half precision computing.

The consensus was that a 1.2Tflp Xbox one using 24 flops per cycle would be about on par with a Switch at 800GFlops with a 32 flops per cycle.

Combined with a better CPU to prevent a CPU bottleneck and that device would be close to par with an Xbox one.

You only get those smart phones for 100 because you get them with a plan. They are actually worth way more than 100. (The S7 unlocked is 600-700) Also that is really just a poor comparison; the only game that looks anything like the full fledged games we will get on Switch is Bravus Exevius whatever where you can't even move your character around.

It costs around $250 to build a 700 dollar flagship smartphone. Companies like Apple and Samsung just opperate on high profit margains. If Nintendo were to view the R&D required to make the switch as a sunk cost. They could retail a device with a similar level of computing power for around 300USD with a razor thin profit margin.

You don't even know what it is yet and you are saying they don't have foresight....Do you not realize there is no announced price yet?!?

How many tablets out there do you see playing Mario kart 8 or Breath of the Wild???

This Article on Tantalus (Twilight Princess HD) seems to indicate that Mass Effect 3 was able to run on a smartphone in 2012. That game is close to Par with some that you have listed. http://m.au.ign.com/articles/2016/0...us-the-studio-that-ports-your-favourite-games

While a modern iphone has a 520Gflop GPU. The 2 Year old Nvidia Shield also had a roughly 500gflp GPU at a 200USD price point.

So if Nvidia is releasing an updated gaming device it should be either more powerful or cheaper. However there is a limit on how cheap you can make a device like the switch.

The 250USD price point was pure speculation which is why it was spoilertagged. However i would be shocked if you could buy the Premium model for less then that at launch

You have no idea what you're talking about and it's embarrassing

Thats why it was in spoiler tags prefixed by the text (Rant)

 

[AzaK]

I honestly think that Nintendo could have invested in a 16nm pascal node with specs that was close to 1 TFLOPS(and possibly even 6GB of RAM) in FP32 while docked with at least 3 hours battery life, if Nintendo was willing to lose a little money on each switch sold for the first year for under $300. I wish they did.

This is this is a handheld and no matter what Nintendo say, people are going to see it as a handheld. The crowds that see a handheld won't pay huge sums for it.

 

[Sesuadra]

.

Sorry, I should have made it more clear. It was a polite way to say this:

You have no idea what you're talking about and it's embarrassing

 

[ShadowFox08]

This is this is a handheld and no matter what Nintendo say, people are going to see it as a handheld. The crowds that see a handheld won't pay huge sums for it.

Its a console as much as its a handheld. Nintendo is unifying the handheld and home console install base as one, and its much closer in specs to ps4 and xbone than the Wii U. The development costs will be very close to ps4 and xbone games also and much more than previous consoles for the most ambitious titles and non ports(as well as Indies) And let me tell you, it will be judged and compared as a console to Sony and Microsoft's consoles whether people like it or not(as well as no matter how much Nintendo would claim they aren't competing against Sony and Ms). Especially on third party ports, and how much the games are priced. Nintendo needs to get as much core install base as possible, and they will need take some of Sony and microsoft's.

Switch's future at this point is uncertain as Trump's presidency, though I feel way more optimistic and much less doom and gloom on the former.

And yes, Switch selling at $250 for base is the sweet spot for a hybrid. That I know everyone can pretty much agree in.

I don't think switch being 40% xbone in power is DOA. It will have a better launch than the Wii u, but the price of the console and perhaps price of games will set the tone. 3rd party support and getting people to buy enough of the 3rf party ports so devs can keep making games, is my biggest worry.

 

[Vic]

This is this is a handheld and no matter what Nintendo say, people are going to see it as a handheld. The crowds that see a handheld won't pay huge sums for it.

Most people will see it as a videogame system, period. The nuance about whether it's a handheld, home console or hybrid won't matter much in the end.

 

[Hermii]

Its a console as much as its a handheld. Nintendo is unifying the handheld and home console install base as one, and its pretty close in specs to ps4 and Microsoft. And let me tell you, it will be judged and compared as a console to Sony and Microsoft's consoles whether people like it or not(as well as no matter how much Nintendo would claim they aren't competing against Sony and Ms). Especially on third party ports. Nintendo needs to get as much core install base as possible.

Switch's future at this point is uncertain as Trump's presidency, though I feel more optimistic and much less doom and gloom on the former.

If Nintendo cheaps out on the hardware and it won't be able to run ports without heavy compromises thats sad, but its not on the same stratosphere as Trumps presidency.

I disagree that its pretty close to current consoles. At this point its most likely 150 gflops undocked and 325 docked. They could easily have gone with 16nm ff pascal, doubled the SM count, and put in 6gb of ram with double the bus width. That would have been home console gaming on the go done right.

 

[Kathian]

Most people will see it as a videogame system, period. The nuance about whether it's a handheld, home console or hybrid won't matter much in the end.

Not people with kids or kids themselves.

 

[Vic]

Not people with kids or kids themselves.

I don't get it. Could you please clarify your statement?

 

[sfried]

I think what I find most frustrating is that Nintendo seems to be cutting corners on technology yet again and just not learning about future proofing their consoles, and the president says he pretty much wants to make a profit right out of the gate for each console sold.. They did that with the Wii U with the bad CPU which is not justifiable at all(though obviously the high price was due mainly to the gamepad, which they still sold at a loss).

Wii U was actually sold at a loss.

As for futureproofing, the fact they have a more modern architecture from Nvidia (i.e. Wii U did not even use Graphics Core Next from AMD!) and covering their bases with an HMD concept in the patents is proof enough that they're exploring the possibilities for future updates, or maybe incremental updated versions of the Switch a la prior handheld lines. They don't always need to be bleeding edge to become sustainable, they just need a steady thorough output software and buyers i.e. an audience.

Having not-so-bleeding-edge-but-still-high-end chips (Tegra and Maxwell aren't that old) and a very cheap system to sell will definitely see customers.

 

[ShadowFox08]

If Nintendo cheaps out on the hardware and it won't be able to run ports without heavy compromises thats sad, but its not on the same stratosphere as Trumps presidency.

I disagree that its pretty close to current consoles. At this point its most likely 150 gflops docked and 400 undocked. They could easily have gone with 16nm ff pascal, doubled the SM count, and put in 6gb of ram with double the bus width. That would have been home console gaming on the go done right.

I mean its the closest in power to a nintendo console to current gen xbone and ps4 since the Wii u and it will have much more capable ports. It should at least be 40% as powerful as xbone. Not excited for it, but I'm coming to terms with it, or trying to keep my expectations low so I don't get burned in the end.

 

[ShadowFox08]

Wii U was actually sold at a loss.

As for futureproofing, the fact they have a more modern architecture from Nvidia (i.e. Wii U did not even use Graphics Core Next from AMD!) and covering their bases with an HMD concept in the patents is proof enough that they're exploring the possibilities for future updates, or maybe incremental updated versions of the Switch a la prior handheld lines. They don't always need to be bleeding edge to become sustainable, they just need a steady thorough output software and buyers i.e. an audience.

Having not-so-bleeding-edge-but-still-high-end chips (Tegra and Maxwell aren't that old) and a very cheap system to sell will definitely see customers.

I said it was sold at a loss in that same quote you just quoted. Yeah, I think it will be likely we'll get some switch v 2.0 in 2-3 years or some scd. I've brought up in this thread a couple times already.

I'm just saying it couldn't hurt to have Switch a bit more powerful right out of the gate for Nintendo while selling at a loss for a year(they will make up for it in software and mobile sales). It could bring in more core gamers, especially helping with supporting 3rs party ports. The Swirch don't have anything that is driving the price like crazy like Wii U's gamepad, and it will likely give Nintendo profit per console sold, as kimishima says he doesn't want the Switch to be sold for a loss. Nintendo is playing it too safe and cutting corners(nothing new), and $250 is very likely for base console as Laura Kate dale has said.

The Wii u failed for many reasons, with the high base price and not justifiable gamepad that set the high price being some of the.. Other reasons are marketing, and the name. The CPU was also flat out embarrassing when being compared to multiport games involving 360..

Its impossible to predict how the switch will do with 3rd party support one year from now at this point.

 

[Panajev2001a]

The USPO is not going to verify all claims in a patent are used to their fullest extent. There is absolutely no downside in making patents broad and overcovering. The patent will be just as valid if several of its claims are never implemented.

Not a dig at NX, but USPTO... what you said is both true and very sad :/.

 

[Osiris]

...and its much closer in specs to ps4 and xbone than the Wii U...

I keep seeing this stated, but is that really true?

Wii-U : 176 Gflops
Switch: 393 Gflops (At rumoured specs)
Xbox One: 1200 Gflops (approx, rounded down)
PS4: 1800 Gflops (approx, rounded down)

I'm probably missing something from lack of sleep, but surely at the rumoured specs it's a nice upgrade over Wii-U, but not "closer to XB1 / PS4 than Wii-U"?

 

[Inuhanyou]

I keep seeing this stated, but is that really true?

Wii-U : 176 Gflops
Switch: 393 Gflops (At rumoured specs)
Xbox One: 1200 Gflops (approx, rounded down)
PS4: 1800 Gflops (approx, rounded down)

I'm probably missing something from lack of sleep, but surely at the rumoured specs it's a nice upgrade over Wii-U, but not "closer to XB1 / PS4 than Wii-U"?

That's just the GPU, and even then, your comparing an architecture from a competing company from like 2008 to something from 2014. The CPU is way stronger than Wii U's and the RAM capacity is 4GB(with rumors of 3GB for games) compared to 2GB for Wii U, with only 1 available for games....bandwidth also is on a different level.

Maxwell has color compression techniques and 25GB/s while Wii U does not, has like 12GB/s and needs the EDRAM to even function correctly.

That 25 GB/s optimized color compression is more like 30 or 40GBs(talking about of my ass lol, but basically, color compression and bandwidth saving on maxwell compared to Wii U's ancient architecture is no joke)

 

[KingSnake]

At the rumoured clocks the CPU is no longer such a huge advantage over Wii U's. The memory bandwidth is the trickiest question here, because on paper it doesn't look good, unless they use the memory controller from Parker.

 

[Osiris]

That's just the GPU, and even then, your comparing an architecture from a competing company from like 2009 to something from 2014. The CPU is way stronger than Wii U's and the RAM capacity is 4GB(with rumors of 3GB for games) compared to 2GB for Wii U, with only 1 available for games....bandwidth also is on a different level.

Maxwell has color compression techniques and 25GB/s while Wii U does not, has like 12GB/s and needs the EDRAM to even function correctly.

That 25 GB/s optimized color compression is more like 30 or 40GBs(talking about of my ass lol, but basically, color compression and bandwidth saving on maxwell compared to Wii U's ancient architecture is no joke)

Fair enough on CPU grunt and RAM capacity, however not for bandwidth IMO.

Itt would still put it closer to Wii-U's bandwidth than the Xbox One's 68GB/s (moreso taking into account the 200+GB/s ESRAM assisting on that front).

I think in aggregate the specs are closer to Wii-U''s than the XB1 / PS4. (At least as far as the rumoured specs go, not final etc. etc.)

 

[Inuhanyou]

At the rumoured clocks the CPU is no longer such a huge advantage over Wii U's. The memory bandwidth is the trickiest question here, because on paper it doesn't look good, unless they use the memory controller from Parker.

I think your being way too cynical here.

In terms of the bandwidth, the color compression Maxwell has will surely make up ground compared to anything the Wii U GPU could do. Its on a completely differently level. We're talking years of architectural improvements here, that counts for a lot.

And the CPU is the same CPU that is in the shield don't forget, in a quad core configuration. Even cut down to half speed, that's still no joke.

I think in aggregate the specs are closer to Wii-U''s than the XB1 / PS4. (At least as far as the rumoured specs go, not final etc. etc.)

The fact that the GPU architecture is so advanced means it can get ports at all from modern fully featured engines, even if its closer to last gen consoles in pure grunt. I think that feature set puts it faaar above Wii U by default, don't you agree

My argment is basically that Switch is way more capable than people give it credit for based on the specs we have. Hell, the shield is too for that matter, but it obviously has no exclusive games to show that off.

 

[AzaK]

Its a console as much as its a handheld. Nintendo is unifying the handheld and home console install base as one, and its much closer in specs to ps4 and xbone than the Wii U. The development costs will be very close to ps4 and xbone games also and much more than previous consoles for the most ambitious titles and non ports(as well as Indies) And let me tell you, it will be judged and compared as a console to Sony and Microsoft's consoles whether people like it or not(as well as no matter how much Nintendo would claim they aren't competing against Sony and Ms). Especially on third party ports, and how much the games are priced. Nintendo needs to get as much core install base as possible, and they will need take some of Sony and microsoft's.

Switch's future at this point is uncertain as Trump's presidency, though I feel way more optimistic and much less doom and gloom on the former.

And yes, Switch selling at $250 for base is the sweet spot for a hybrid. That I know everyone can pretty much agree in.

I don't think switch being 40% xbone in power is DOA. It will have a better launch than the Wii u, but the price of the console and perhaps price of games will set the tone. 3rd party support and getting people to buy enough of the 3rf party ports so devs can keep making games, is my biggest worry.

Most people will see it as a videogame system, period. The nuance about whether it's a handheld, home console or hybrid won't matter much in the end.

I disagree. All those 3DS handheld gamers who want an upgrade will look at the Switch and think, "do I want to pay X for my next handheld". I don't think a lot of them will give two hoots about whether it's a console or not. Wii U 15 million, 3DS 60 million, we know what Nintendo's customers like from them.