• 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.

Eurogamer - Switch screen is 6.2", 720p, Capacitive Multi-Touch, IR sensor

HoodWinked

Member
performance vs fidelity people that have any kind of valid opinion have typically sided with framerates.

probably will come off as a nintendo apologist despite never owning a Nintendo console (tho several handhelds) having a 1280x720 screen is ideal since it looks good enough but will perform well with modest specs and nintendo's typical targeting of 60fps. also having games run native to the resolution of the screen is always more desirable than upscaling.

its about balance a high dpi screen would just be a waste its one of the problems with most phone games looking so uneven where they have high resolution textures but then low framerates or low geometry due to rendering resolution.
 

King_Moc

Banned
I'm confused, GAF.

Okay, so say the screen is multi-touch. What's the point in making a multi-touch game if the screen is covered while docked?

I was assuming it was going to operate as an actual tablet as well as a game console? I mean, i'm really not sure why it wouldn't. That's the best reason to pick multi-touch, web browsing.

I don't think the K1 was that powerful, that sounds like the X1 but at peak performance that needs a fan too. Switch could be a bit higher than that but probably around that region is the safest assumption.

1 TFlop would be close to impossible I think.

Yeah, you're right. That's X1. K1 was 0.365.
 

RoadHazard

Gold Member
I don't think it will have IR pointing, seems they have been phasing that out with the Wii U. It doesn't have many advantages over gyro, and it comes with a bunch of drawbacks. I think the IR sensor/emitter is for communicating with other devices.

IR pointing has one huge advantage: Absolute pointing, which never becomes unaligned. Gyro can't do that; it will always be relative, and it will always drift. Always. So you're constantly recalibrating.
 

shandy706

Member
720p device releasing in 2017? You're kidding me, right?

Even if that is serviceable, people know what resolutions are these days and that won't be seen as a good thing in the eyes of the masses.

You're kidding me right?

720p on a 6" handheld console screen is perfectly fine. Good even.
 

jdstorm

Banned
Speaking of the display. I wonder if Nvidia were willing to throw in a Gsync display into the switch as part of their deal with Nintendo.

Being able to run games at 43 or 57FPS ect on the go and not having any discernable difference to a stable 60FPS when docked (on mains power) would be huge for a.device like this
 

King_Moc

Banned
Speaking of the display. I wonder if Nvidia were willing to throw in a Gsync display into the switch as part of their deal with Nintendo.

Being able to run games at 43 or 57FPS ect on the go and not having any discernable difference to a stable 60FPS when docked (on mains power) would be huge for a.device like this

As amazing as that would be, Nvidia's solution for that is pretty damn expensive. Although wouldn't it be easier to do if it's all contained in one device? Not sure tbh, but yeah, G-sync is pretty damn amazing. I'd probably end up completely avoiding the home console mode if they did it (they won't btw).
 
I was assuming it was going to operate as an actual tablet as well as a game console? I mean, i'm really not sure why it wouldn't. That's the best reason to pick multi-touch, web browsing.



Yeah, you're right. That's X1. K1 was 0.365.

What I find hilarious is that all everyone said when the Wii U was failing was that we needed to take out the "second screen" gaming aspect of the Wii U and lower the price. We needed to forget about the touch screen it took away from the experience....

Now all you hear is that if it is multi touch it makes no sense to be hidden in the dock... They got rid of it because they LISTENED to everyone who complained including the developers. They gave you a traditional controller and let you play it on the TV as well as take it out of the house further than the 30 foot range. It most likely has multi touch as you stated to be used as a regular tablet when not gaming. Maybe it has multi touch functionality when not on the dock and traditional button gaming when on the dock.
 
This thing requires fan? The Shield Tablet K1 was 0.512TF and will be coming on for three years old when this comes out, and that required no such cooling solution. Given that this is built on similar tech, surely it must be a higher equivalent power in 2017, than that was in 2014? So probably over 1TF?

I don't think the portable has a fan, I suspect it's passively cooled in portable mode, and perhaps the dock has a fan to cool the unit when it has higher clock speeds and temps to output at 1080p. This is just me speculating, but that could explain the docks girth.
 

King_Moc

Banned
I don't think the portable has a fan, I suspect it's passively cooled in portable mode, and perhaps the dock has a fan to cool the unit when it has higher clock speeds and temps to output at 1080p. This is just me speculating, but that could explain the docks girth.

Probably makes more sense, yeah. Tiny fans would displace such a small amount of air that it probably wouldn't do a lot.
 
I would like battery tech to improve

Yea. Even the iPad Air 2 only gets about 4 hours of battery life.

Granted it's also a 9.7" screen, pushing a resolution of 1536 x 2048 and will probably prove to be significantly brighter with better colors...

Yea. For 1280x720 and what will undoubtedly be a fairly mediocre 6" screen...I think 6 hours is the minimum acceptable amount. Just looking at the other tablets on the market. But maybe GPU performance is that much better? IDK.
 

schopaia

Member
Not at all unreasonable to expect something beyond 720p for a console which will be played at home on a TV by many.

Perfect example of why Nintendo doesn't talk about specs. The consumer will always misconstrue them. 720p is the resolution of the screen. Thats not going to change. It doesn't have anything to do with the resolution games are rendered at. Certainly rendering at 1080 is an option. As is 240... and so on.
 

Dash Kappei

Not actually that important
720p device releasing in 2017? You're kidding me, right?

6.2" ..... at 720p...... 2017 and forwards....ew!

raw

I'm alway appalled by how tech-illiterate most people on an hardcore-gaming centric message board like GAF are.
Never ceases to amaze me
 

Sinfamy

Member
That's a pretty low ppi for a 6.2" when doing anything else other then playing games.
Wish they would have gone with a 1080p screen and just rendered their games at a lower or dynamic resolution.
That way the HUD is sharp and can be native resolution, while rest of game is 720p or some simple games native as well.

Though it's not a big deal.

My main concern is memory, since I'm assuming that it will only have 32GB internal, even with SDXC expansion, the max would probably top off at 256GB support for around $200 for a fast one.
That's expensive and still low in storage when you consider how large games are and the constant patches.

They'll either have to compress them or have a RW partition for the patches on the game cartridge itself.
 
Sad to see stylus controls go on a Nintendo platform, but capacitive nowadays is the way to go and it's probably not worth it to also include Wacom-like stylus controls.

Also 720p is fine for a handheld gaming device. You can't compare it to a smartphone which has a totally different usage, even as a gaming device. Don't need a higher resolution eating up battery when most games will probably be rendered at 720p anyway (at least when played in handheld mode...).
 

Lemonte

Member
If the IR pointer is under side of the second controller I doubt many games use it too much so you don't have to flip the controller in your hand every time you need to point stuff.
 

AzaK

Member
That's a pretty low ppi for a 6.2" when doing anything else other then playing games.
Wish they would have gone with a 1080p screen and just rendered their games at a lower or dynamic resolution.

Though it's not a big deal.

My main concern is memory, since I'm assuming that it will only have 32GB internal, even with SDXC expansion, the max would probably top off at 256GB support for around $200 for a fast one.
That's expensive and still low in storage when you consider how large games are and the constant patches.

They'll either have to compress them or have a RW partition for the patches on the game cartridge itself.

720 doesn't scale well to 1080, they'd probably want to go with 1440 but you still have the power draw of the higher resolution.
 

MuchoMalo

Banned
Yea. Even the iPad Air 2 only gets about 4 hours of battery life.

Granted it's also a 9.7" screen, pushing a resolution of 1536 x 2048 and will probably prove to be significantly brighter with better colors...

Yea. For 1280x720 and what will undoubtedly be a fairly mediocre 6" screen...I think 6 hours is the minimum acceptable amount. Just looking at the other tablets on the market. But maybe GPU performance is that much better? IDK.

The rumored GPU performance is around double that of the iPad Pro, if not more. On top of that, the cooling system limits the batter size. Saying "6 hours minimum" is not realistic. That's only feasible for 2D games unless they delay it a year to to get on 10nm and Volta.
 
720 doesn't scale well to 1080, they'd probably want to go with 1440 but you still have the power draw of the higher resolution.

Again, the iPad has similar battery life when only gaming. On a 9.7" IPS screen pushing a resolution of 1536 x 2048. I understand that is a more expensive device, but iPads had this in 2012. I know, I'm looking at one. Certainly that level of screen/display tech is more affordable now.

If Nintendo needed to make it a smidge heavier and thicker in order to get better battery life out of it and a higher resolution screen, I wish they would have done so.

The rumored GPU performance is around double that of the iPad Pro, if not more. On top of that, the cooling system limits the batter size. Saying "6 hours minimum" is not realistic. That's only feasible for 2D games unless they delay it a year to to get on 10nm and Volta.

good, good. I'll believe it when I see it, though.
 
To the people who don't understand why there's multi-touch screen if it's blocked by the base: in my opinion, the reason why it's included is because Nintendo is going to heavily push that the screen can be used for Nintendo first party mobile games on the go. Miitomo, Mario Run, etc. It would make a lot of sense to make this the one-stop-shop for all Nintendo output. The one thing is that I don't know how they'll reconcile that this unit doesn't have actual mobile data (unless it doesn't matter for their ports).
 
The screen resolution is fine. We need to hear tech details. Is it ips? Viewing angles? Color space? All way more important than higher resolution.
 
What are the implications of 720p screen size on game size? How does this go with the rumor that the Switch has a Micro SD reader? Could you install shit on the SD card for TV play while 720p assets load directly from the cartridge? Or will devs just say fuck it, pack it all up for 720p and uprezz for 1080p TVs? Or just get everything for 1080p and size it down to 720p? Or a combination?

How much RAM do you need for this?
 

MDave

Member
IR pointing has one huge advantage: Absolute pointing, which never becomes unaligned. Gyro can't do that; it will always be relative, and it will always drift. Always. So you're constantly recalibrating.

Wii Motion Plus was bad, but that was years ago tech.

Gyro tech has come a long way, there is no calibration needed when I use my Gear VR for example. And that needs no drift or else it doesn't work. I think its because a gravity or magnetic sensor is in there helps to keep the gyro's straight, but I could be wrong on that. But yeah, gyro is good these days to be used as pointers (as that is how you select things and aim for things in Gear VR).
 
Anything higher than 720p would unnecessarily increase the price. The most important thing Switch needs to be is cheap.

I agree, and people are acting like this will affect dock mode. Only the framebuffer is affected.

Nvidia is I'm charge so I don't think they'll let the system be at 720p at all times, even when docked. It'd be like the WiiU where the image is downscaled to 480p on the gamepad.
 

leng jai

Member
720p should look nice enough on a 6.2inch screen anyway. It's not like a phone where you're just reading text most of the time and holding it close to your face.
 

Jezbollah

Member
Anything higher than 720p would unnecessarily increase the price. The most important thing Switch needs to be is cheap.

Do you not think this Pascal based tech cannot do 1080p?

I do not suspect it's a cost issue here, it's the fact that they have to balance resources. ie. battery life vs visual fidelity.

Has anyone actually discounted that the Switch wont suddenly output into 1080p when inserted into a dock and connected via hdmi to a TV?
 
Again, the iPad has similar battery life when only gaming. On a 9.7" IPS screen pushing a resolution of 1536 x 2048. I understand that is a more expensive device, but iPads had this in 2012. I know, I'm looking at one. Certainly that level of screen/display tech is more affordable now.

If Nintendo needed to make it a smidge heavier and thicker in order to get better battery life out of it and a higher resolution screen, I wish they would have done so.

Resolution by itself means almost nothing. One of the most important measurement that you didn't mention at all is PPI. iPad Air 2 and iPad Pro have 264 PPI. Switch will have 237 PPI, which is just a little below these very expensive premium tablets that sell for 2-3 times the price of Switch.

If Switch were to have 1920x1080 display of same size, it would be 355 PPI. Extreme overkill and waste of resources and battery life. Most games would be downscaled and would run at non native resolution. I'm so happy Nintendo didn't go this path. Instead we'll get most (all?) games running at native 720p looking perfectly crisp.
 
Resolution by itself means almost nothing. One of the most important measurement that you didn't mention at all is PPI. iPad Air 2 and iPad Pro have 264 PPI. Switch will have 237 PPI, which is just a little below these very expensive premium tablets that sell for 2-3 times the price of Switch.

If Switch were to have 1920x1080 display of same size, it would be 355 PPI. Extreme overkill and waste of resources and battery life. Most games would be downscaled and would run at non native resolution. I'm so happy Nintendo didn't go this path. Instead we'll get most (all?) games running at native 720p looking perfectly crisp.
My point was less about the resolution and more about the battery life with the point being that the old iPad could get similar battery life out of a higher resolution and significantly larger screen.

To only get 3-4 hours out of a 720p display is very disappointing in 2017, regardless of GPU involved. I am decidedly NOT so glad they decided to make the device thinner, sacrificing battery and battery life in the process. Add a little weight, make it a little thicker, and guarantee 6 hours of battery life, minimum.
 

-shadow-

Member
u wot m8? I'd take resistive + stylus any day of the week over capacitive (even capacitive with stylus, active or not).
I was thinking the same thing. Sure capacitive is great and all, but more precise? Not sure where that came from.
 
My point was less about the resolution and more about the battery life with the point being that the old iPad could get similar battery life out of a higher resolution and significantly larger screen.

To only get 3-4 hours out of a 720p display is very disappointing in 2017, regardless of GPU involved. I am decidedly NOT so glad they decided to make the device thinner, sacrificing battery and battery life in the process. Add a little weight, make it a little thicker, and guarantee 6 hours of battery life, minimum.
The ipad does 6 hours of wii u fidelity gaming at 720p?

You make it sound so easy
 

Xhaner5

Neo Member
6.2" screen at 720p is 236 ppi.

27" 4k monitor, omg graphics, is 171 ppi.

To anyone complaining the handheld isn't 1080p.........wut.

Yes, it's a trick most people fall on, because of the way mathematics work here when it comes to resolutions.

Numerically 720p doesn't sound a lot, and the difference from 854x480 and 1280x720 is not a small one as it sounds like if we just compare the short version marketing terms 480p vs 720p numbers, seeing that at a glance makes it seem like not a big deal.

854x480 = 409920 pixels
1280x720 = 921600 pixels
Diff = 511680 pixels

That means you have more than 2 times the amount of pixels, so 2x409920 plus 101760, so it's not an "improved clarity" it really is much more than that.

An increase of +124.824 %
 

Quote

Member
My point was less about the resolution and more about the battery life with the point being that the old iPad could get similar battery life out of a higher resolution and significantly larger screen.

To only get 3-4 hours out of a 720p display is very disappointing in 2017, regardless of GPU involved. I am decidedly NOT so glad they decided to make the device thinner, sacrificing battery and battery life in the process. Add a little weight, make it a little thicker, and guarantee 6 hours of battery life, minimum.
I don't know which iPad you're talking about, but internally they are mostly battery (IE Heavy) and regardless of resolution you were not getting anything nearly as complex as something a Wii U could do at 720p.
 

jwillenn

Member
If the IR pointer is under side of the second controller I doubt many games use it too much so you don't have to flip the controller in your hand every time you need to point stuff.



Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Look more closely. Flip the +JoyCon and adjust your grip. At that point you have the -JoyCon with IR but without the shoulder. I've already played First/Third Person Shooters in my head with this thing, and it is amazing. Here's another small thing to consider. Remember how the "Trigger" button was usually B or A on the Wiimote? For some reason, we rarely (if ever) had the option to use the Nunchuk's shoulder for that. So firing at your target always came with jolts. Now imagine that you're simply aiming with the +JoyCon and you're firing with one of the shoulder buttons of the -JoyCon. That's a significant reduction in jolting.


Anyway, some folks are killing me with the notion that this is mainly about having some intuitiveness in menu navigation or a mainly casual gameplay experience. Trust and believe, this is for the hardcore **** too! Nintendo knows its gold and decided to make it even more golden. Go back and play your Wii FPS games. Now imagine the OPTION of turning with the analog stick and not having to worry about the bounding box, but STILL having the speed and precision that is highlighed in those examples (S&P2 and Trauma Center NB) I posted links to above.

Gahdamn! This is the best thing about NS right now! I feel like we're getting a Wii 2 x Powerful Handheld here.
 

OptimusLime

Member
I really hope it also supports an instant sleep/resume function for all games, a la 3DS and Vita. AAA games on the go is nice, but they dont lend themselves to short bursts of gaming if you have to save then later boot and load a saved game every time.
 

shiyrley

Banned
People want the Switch to run AAA titles at good framerates AND have a good battery life but also want a 1080p / 1440p screen

?

If you seriously think that because your phone has a 1440p screen the Switch, a gaming-oriented handheld machine, should have it as well, then you really should not be discussing anything tech-related, at all.

Like, seriously, ok, your phone has a 1440p screen, but do you think it could run something like zelda BoTW at stable 30 FPS at 1440p or even 1080p? No. In fact, I bet that if you load up San Andreas and increase the resolution slider to 100% it will be choppy.
 
Top Bottom