Aceofspades
Banned
Closer to WiiU, no where near X1/PS4 .
-
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.
Confirmed: The Nintendo Switch is powered by an Nvidia Tegra X1
- Thread starter FZZ
- Start date
- Status
Closer to WiiU, no where near X1/PS4 .
metalslimer
Member
The Vita wasn't even powerful enough for many games to even be the native res of 540p.
This is first proper fully portable "home" console i think it's nothing like Wii U,Wii U was just a regular home console with a touch screen gamepad since Wii U is a traditional home console people bought their already limited 3rd parties for Xbox or PS.But Switch is another story let's say FIFA ported just as i said,online functions,ultimate team,gameplay just as it's on PS4 but less detailed graphics.When people -like me- starts to see that it's a whole new group of people who wants to buy that even if they let's say hate Nintendo exclusives.
Wii U had a Black Ops game it was Bops2 i think and it didn't sell that well but imagine if that game released for Switch,multiplayer CoD on the go that could sell really well IMO.
Schnozberry
Member
It's a 10x increase in raw power over Vita, plus modern GPU features and a much more capable API. Not to mention custom drivers and a very lightweight OS. It's over 20x the Vita in docked mode, and over 2x the Wii U in Raw power with the same software and architectural advantages.
It's an excellent gaming machine for what Nintendo set out to do.
The Wii-U was a colossal flop; it's hardware sales numbers were dismal.
Some 3rd parties did want to support the Wii-U; they bailed pretty quickly when they saw it was one of the worst selling consoles ever.
If Switch sales are strong; we could see some third party support. The portable capabilities could help bring 3rd parties over; the audience is elsewhere sitting on their couches not able to take those games on to a portable.
Tinúviel;232153910 said:
If Switch sells gangbusters you may see some 3rd parties dip their toes back in the water, but I really wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it. Why divert money and resources with no guarantee of return when you have 2 sure fire platforms with minimal effort. When Nintendo exited the arms-race this was inevitable.
The ship has sailed and Nintendo knows it, it's part of the reason for a stronger emphasis on indie titles.
RichiRamjag
Member
That's really what it comes down to. If the thing sells, then companies are going to want a bite of the pie. I don't see why folks always try to imply otherwise. I guess it makes them feel like they're "in the know".
You wouldn't believe how many deluded posters were going on about the Foxconn leaks though. Thank fuck we can finally put that to rest.
No, it's called common-sense. More has to go it's way that just sales. It requires risk and as games have got more expensive the industry has got more risk-adverse.
3rd parties don't need the Switch, and although it would be nice to have everything the Switch has been planned to make do without them with Nintendo throwing their full weight of handheld and console development behind it.
That is something to be excited by, sod COD.
I heard it runs on Blue Pikmin
Ports aren't very risky.
iPad pro has about 234,458x the resolution a glass screen, actually works unlike broken joycons, and has free online gaming and a TON of features. What I was going on about was all the cost that went into the joycons and the waste of time (IMO) portability. The machine is weak as shit unless you've only played on a 3DS
Nothing you mentioned required the joycons really - except I guess for the random multiplayer situation which you are in a VERY small minority.
I would never want to play Zelda on a tiny screen. I'm playing on Wii U and when I put it onto the GamePad it ruins the whole thing.
I still think US$300 is
1) Very expensive for what you get (Weak, buggy system with next to no games)
2) Is not the honest price because you will almost certainly need a big SD card, and likely a charging joycon grip because they were too cheap (Or should I say, thought they could gouge people for more) to pay the cents for a USB port.
Switch is a Wii U (All talk of power then we finally realise what it actually is) but the difference is that NVidia kept talking it up as a Custom X1 with "500 man years" of R&D.
BotW plays great at 720p anywhere and quite good at 900p at home. A massive open world sandbox with more interactivity than any game I can think of, period. And it looks very pretty.
On a phablet. Despite it not being PS4 or even XB1-level, that is fucking huge in and of itself. What Nintendo has done with their hardware is genuinely more impressive to me than anything that any stationary console has ever done.
On a phablet. Despite it not being PS4 or even XB1-level, that is fucking huge in and of itself. What Nintendo has done with their hardware is genuinely more impressive to me than anything that any stationary console has ever done.
Ok, Horizon is a fucking marvel on the PS4 as well. GG are crazy ninja devs, straight-up. 2017 is a good year for gamers who aren't assholes.
airmangataosenai
Member
Given I went with that one Japanese list which has been called into question for listing WiiU as 350 GFlops and there seems to be no good estimates out there for the actual benchmark by a major website, but I have never seen an estimate that low before and it sounds ridiculous to me. Wouldn't that place it in the same class of machines as the original Wii?
Even with compromises to resolution and effects the Vita is able to run numerous PS360 games with the same models and geometry. This wouldnt be possible if this were the case. Running at 480p (Lower res than the Vita version) would not make it possible to run Street Fighter vs. Tekken with the character models on display for that system.
They still cost money, they still divert resources, they have to be adapted for weaker hardware which takes time, and there is no guarantee they will sell.
Under those circumstances you just concentrate on the known-quantities of PS4/Xbone as game development is already hideously expensive.
Sora the Cat
Member
How many pages? And people still think this is true. Amazing gaf.
King of Cups
Member
Cool, good to know.
Now that it's here, I just don't care.
https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/what-are-the-raw-performance-specs-of-psvita.52831/page-5
GFLOPS @ 200MHz per core: 6.4 for that chipset.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerVR
Since Vita GPU is clocked at 111MHz, that would be around 55% of the flops.
So 4 cores at 111MHz gives approximately 14.2 GFLOPS.
primasaurus
Member
Nar they where living at the edge of reality, near fantasy land
It was almost always going to be the TX1, due to cost and availability and thats OK
mugurumakensei
Member
Vita has up to 6.4 GFLOP of computing power per GPU core if it's clocked higher. The theoretical max would be 6.4 x 4 which would be around 25.6 GFLOPs. However, in practice, it is able to squeeze out around 15-20.
The risk is incredibly low compared to the overall risk of creating a modern game. Games get ported a lot precisely BECAUSE of how expensive game development is. Not to mention there are specific studios and companies that are experienced at handling the port process; you don't have to use your own resources if you don't want to.
There's already a decent amount of effort to port games of the last few years over to chipsets like Tegra due to the proliferation of mobile devices using those chipsets. Not to mention game engines that are already ported to Switch (Unreal, Unity) which are incredibly popular to use.
I'm not talking about creating a Switch port of every AAA game to come out at the same time as the Xbox/PS4 version. But game that are meant for a wider audience, that are already designed to run on somehow lower end hardware (like older PCs), and some older games.. all seem like prime candidates to port to a hot selling gaming portable.
Your statement was pointless either way IMO; "Well system X had bad 3rd party support, therefore system Y definitely won't"... completely ignoring that it's a different product targeting a wider market (home and portable), and it might sell far more. It's also far less underpowered compared to Wii-U.
That shows how important the feature sets and RAM are for graphics. I like to think on the Vita as an Xbox+ with lots more RAM.
The Vita has a much more advanced architecture than the Wii. The truth is that all GFlops are not created equal, so Vita can make much better use of its flops with modern shaders and such that aren't possible on the Wii.
Of course this same thing works against the Vita compared to the Switch; The X1 is a more modern architecture so it can actually do even more than 13 Vitas taped together.
StarStabbedMoon
Member
DF and Eurogamer in general have been leading many rumor leaks among the major gaming media websites and people who don't like rumors have an interest in spreading that skepticism towards them.
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical of leakers. Many posters, twitter users, and even media get things wrong at times
Angel Whispers
Member
Errrm... Nope. If you read that link, that site doesn't actually confirm anything (it can't, anyway...), and that's not how it works - Not my words, the site says as much itself (it speculates and suspects, but can not actually confirm). You know where we can get confirmation from? The horse's mouth. The official Nintendo site states very clearly that it is a custom chip (i.e., NOT an off-the-shelf Tegra X1), and the games it hosts should ring alarm bells. They provided more information, too. It isn't hard to do the research.
A few fancy pictures is all that unofficial site has, and they made speculations based on those. We can and should disregard them, because that's all they are - speculations, not confirmations. Both Nintendo and Nvidia have confirmed that it isn't a Tegra X1 chip, and that's been backed up by third party developers - I mean very word-specific details, of which some elements haven't been mentioned in the discussion. I know this because I've read the information from the horse's mouth, and have the receipts, which are available on the Internet. We can go with silly speculations, and we can make like Azak and be obtuse as hell, but if we do, then that is also saying that the horse's mouth is lying. I know who I would believe. After that, you have to reconcile the real-life world performance of the Switch and the details we have at hand with the real-life world performance of the Tegra X1 (I will help a little here; It isn't keeping up with titles from the 7th Generation, on hardware a decade older than it) - When you do this, you soon realise that there's so much which doesn't add up. You soon realise that the proposals in this thread are the same BS that's been spread on this site and elsewhere. I would still have a lot of questions, tbqh... BTW, When others were speculating about Polaris-esque, I told anybody who cared to listen that the Switch was not aiming for that bracket, and even called it on the ARM architecture. This was almost a fortnight before EuroGamer published that article.
3rd parties have been getting burned by Nintendo for various reasons for generations, I do think the last bit of goodwill evaporated with the Wii U and it's pretty clear from the launch line-up that no effort was made in this area or nothing was forthcoming. Bomberman, shoddy as it is, is exactly the sort of thing to expect from 3rd parties and a good fit.
Anyway we're going round in circles, you think it's likely I don't. Time will tell.
kimifan141
Member
Is the nvidia chipset better than Snapdragon 835 ? i cant seem to find any mobiles using the nvidia soc , i was hoping there would be android ports to the system seeing as it is meant for portable play.
wonderful103
Member
So what you're saying is having things costs money? Whodathunk it!
And yeah, free online multiplayer is certainly a good thing to advocate on an ipad. I know Candy crush deathmatches get intense.
I didn't say it was likely; nor did you say it was "unlikely." You said it's not happening, and I said it's possible.
Yep you saw with the wii major 3rd parties put 1 or 2 big name franchises on it and after that it was mostly shovelware. That was with the Wii being a sales juggernaut. WiiU was worse only Ubi really tried with asscreed and zombiu. They aren't even trying with the switch. I would bet if the switch does take off sales wise, 3rd parties will go the later wii route with shovelware.
Let's see a PS3 and 360 run Zelda at 900p.
Or Mario Kart 8 at 1080p 60fps.
People trying to make it seem like Switch is equal or less powerful than the PS3 is getting kind of old.
It's not a huge leap but I thought it was well known that even the Wii U was more powerful than the PS3/360?
No I didn't, scroll up. I said some 3rd parties may dip their toes in the water again if it sells gangbusters but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Yeah you contradicted your hyperbole.. you were still hyperbolic.
DECK'ARD said:
You are clearly stating you believe even remotely decent 3rd party support "won't happen." There already are a few games announced, so of course you aren't saying zero games.
I think decent, and even sizable 3rd party support is possible. Never implied it was likely; you certainly said it definitively wasn't happening.
killatopak
Member
$300 dollars. Fuck.
I bought the thing at 400 in my country too.
I bought the thing at 400 in my country too.
For fuck's sake it's called clarifying in more detail when engaged in a conversation with someone.
Have you got a joycon up your arse?
It depends what you are talking about when referring to better.
You are comparing a 20nm SoC released in 2015 to a 10nm SoC that will release sometime on phones this year.
The Switch doesn't need to run Android to get ports of mobile games.
Manny _Calavera
Member
There is no reason to ever doubt Digital Foundry. They have never been wrong on their rumours and leaks. They only publish once they can confirm their source.
Don't lump them in with random posters, twitter users and the like.
Their track record is impeccable.
I think the biggest issue that this teardown reveals is that there is no way that the Switch is worth what it costs. So much cheap plastic, age old mobile tech, the dock is plastic with basic inputs and outputs, the HD rumble is nothing new, etc. Nintendo is making bank off this thing.
Says the guy getting bent out of shape.
ShadowFox08
Member
If its 400 GFLOPS for fp32, then if you count mixed precision mode and architectural advantages of newer Nvidia architecture over AMD, could easily be half as powerful as xbone.
Fustrated, yes.
But then I don't like posters who cut out individual parts of the posts they are replying to, I find them to be needlessly combative.
Now as I think we've covered it all can I go?
Say what you will but the best looking games on any portable platform will be on the Switch.
Xdrive05
Member
This is correct but no one here who needs to pay attention to it will.
The "it's just a Wii-U totes!" narrative makes for good internet I guess. Or good NeoGAF anyway.
kimifan141
Member
I was thinking of the GPU mostly cant find any comparisons to the Qualcomm Adreno gpu vs GM20B Maxell .
Oh yeah, Nintendo is definitely making a substantial profit off of each unit sold. I have no doubt this would be true even at $250, which I expect it to be by Christmas-if not standalone, then $300 with a pack-in such as Mario Kart.
You claimed I said something I never did or implied; I never once said anything close to "it's likely." And you are getting bent out of shape and saying FUCK and ARSE because I.. quoted something you said?
Of course you said there will be some 3rd party support; that's not a prediction, it's a fact that has already occurred. You think that statement I didn't quote suddenly makes your clear hyperbole that "it won't happen" mean "it's unlikely"?
...
wonderful103
Member
ITT, more people who think BOM of components are the only costs when it comes to building hardware (of any kind).
- Status