Game card + SD expansion + controllers + whatever they decide to hang off it for I/O.
It's just an upper bound for all transfers. I really wouldn't read too much into it.
-
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
Game card + SD expansion + controllers + whatever they decide to hang off it for I/O.
It's just an upper bound for all transfers. I really wouldn't read too much into it.
Nostremitus
Member
If they got DP cheaper, why not?
DP can carry an HDMI 2.0 signal perfectly well... So, if the Switch connects to the dock with DP, then the dock connects to the TV via HDMI, the signal needs no conversion... Plus they get the extra benefits that DP provides if they also plan on sending wired internet and connected HDD data through it... I know HDD support hasn't really come up, but I can hope.
The patents do mention wired internet to the dock, though.
I'm assuming all DP to HDMI can be done without conversion. I put my old 290x in my HTPC and bought a DP to HDMI 2.0 cable. It sends a 4k 60fps signal and it's just a cable... So it's not like it's converting anything.
It's a bit higher than my previously calculated max of 4Gb/s or 500MB/s, but it's actually a perfect match for a M-PHY HS-G2 connection with two lanes (i.e. 4 bits, which matches the Switch game cards). If they were to use a standardised serial interface for the game cards then I suppose M-PHY would be the most likely suspect (it would also, in theory, allow them to use the same interface for all storage options, by also using eUFS and UFS cards).
Nostremitus
Member
The BUS speed is a big part of the equation. It doesn't matter how fast the Flash memory on the card is if it can't send the data it to the console fast enough for it the matter.
It also gives an idea as to how fast the carts are being designed to be.
No point designing it with a fast BUS unless you have fast read/write in mind, otherwise it's a waste.
Say what you want about Nintendo, but they do generally aim for balance.
I said this before, but Nintendo themselves should be doing this as well. Now that they've consolidated their dev teams and work force under one system they should have a strike force of some kind who can go in or be on call to really provide some hands on support to devs.
A lot of these great, but small, indie PC devs just don't have the experience or manpower to port their games over. I think Toby Fox, the Undertale creator, said he'd be open to porting it over to the Switch but he doesn't know how to code and would need outside help. While not exactly a demanding or complex game it would be smart for Nintendo to offer their assistance in order to allow devs to easily get their games working and optimized on the Switch.
As well they need to grow the kind of support they saw on the DS and 3DS and that's going to be hard as the graphical jump is possibly going to price out a lot of those smaller devs and projects those systems saw. So they need to do as much as they can to keep that support going, and providing technical assistance would probably help a bit.
If it actually is the game card bus speed (this is only an analyst talking and as AlStrong says it could just be a reference to USB 3 bandwidth), then it would obviously give us an upper limit on card read speeds, but it would also give us a vague idea of what speeds are being targeted (i.e. they're not going to use a 5Gb/s interface if the game cards themselves are sub-1Gb/s). If they're actually using a 5Gb/s interface then it would be reasonable to expect read speeds to top out somewhere between 2.5Gb/s to 5Gb/s (i.e. 312 MB/s to 625 MBs). This wouldn't necessarily mean all cards would hit such speeds (not all games would need it), but if developers need it they could get speeds somewhere in that range.
calc84maniac
Member
GameMaker Studio supports a ton of platforms already, would be neat if it adds Switch support soon. Then Undertale itself wouldn't need extensive porting work, no?
Polygonal_Sprite
Member
I wasn't attempting to be controversial lol. Most people expected multiple devices ever since Iwata's "brothers" / apple comparison comments in 2013. Most people then tried to downplay his comments once we found out Switch was a hybrid sort of device. I just think the hybrid suited Iwata at the time as the first device in the new family as he was consolidating all the development teams. It also had less chance of annoying current WiiU and 3DS owners as it could be announced as a separate device from them and not direct replacements.
I wonder if Nintendo will do an Nvidia and show a hardware road map of sorts at the January event and announce that they are working on dedicated consoles and handhelds for release in the coming years or just purely concentrate on Switch. I think they are better doing this from the beginning rather than announcing consoles and handhelds one or two years into Switch's life cycle as it will look desperate especially if Switch isn't a quick success. This would also silence doubters about them leaving either the dedicated home or handheld hardware business. I doubt announcing they are creating a console for release sometime in 2018 or 2019 will effect Switch sales at all tbh.
Of course it has DisplayPort technology. You guys wanted what? The handheld to have an HDMI port to communicate with the dock? The dock would be unnecessary then.
The handheld uses this tech in order to pass power, image and sound through one single connector (USB-C), the dock then passes image and sound to TV through a standard HDMI.
The handheld uses this tech in order to pass power, image and sound through one single connector (USB-C), the dock then passes image and sound to TV through a standard HDMI.
Not sure about the specifics of that situation, just know Toby stated that. If it's not on the slate for addition to GMS Nintendo should be doing whatever they can to get it. That would open up the Switch to a lot of really great games with little effort.
calc84maniac
Member
Why would it not pass an HDMI signal directly through the dock instead of needing the dock to convert it?
Because USB c also functions as a power cable / charging port.
Nostremitus
Member
To avoid the need of having two connectors in the handheld? One for communication with the dock and one for charging. The usb-c can do both and is smaller than an HDMI connector which is good for a small handheld.
This bothers me a lot. I download everything. While the Switch will have a mix of large and small games even a 128gb sd card is going to get tight after a while. Giving us HDD support through the dock would have been a great way to let people store games. Wii U already had a good few games topping or close to 20gb. I doubt the Switch will be much different.
Skittzo0413
Member
Wouldn't this essentially cripple digital versions of those games?
calc84maniac
Member
I meant the display signal through USB-C. Why would it be DisplayPort instead of HDMI?
Nostremitus
Member
He was asking about DP to HDMI.
It doesn't need conversion, the video signal would be the same.
I have a DP connected to HDMI right now, no issues.
How an external HDD would even work btw? Can't imagine either device liking it very much when you take out the switch out of its dock
That's my point
I still expect "this is so dumb goddamit nintendo" next month
That's my point
I still expect "this is so dumb goddamit nintendo" next month
That's why it allegedly don't support it.
It's not downplaying, it's the fact that people were misinterpreting things Iwata said or even took quotes out of context which happened for people trying to disprove the hybrid rumours.
Here is what I talked about regarding statements from Iwata about their merging of hardware divisions and then the statement of form factors which was at a later date.
Link: http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=215923839
And then here's another statement later on in 2015 which gave the hybrid rumours more weight about having a video game platform that could appeal to as many demographics as possible in the west and Japan seeing as handhelds are big in Japan while it is home consoles for the west.
Link: http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=216000454
Right but no storage solution that fits in a game cart is even going to scratch a read speed of 5Gb/s. The fastest SD cards on the planet only do 90 MBps or 720 Mbps. Storage solutions that max 5Mbps cost upwards of $100 per drive and are several times larger than the carts this will be using..
That depends on the storage used for downloadable games. eUFS and UFS cards can hit those speeds (and even eMMC 5.1 isn't too far off). Not that I necessarily expect it, but if Nintendo wanted to guarantee 400MB/s+ they could get it.
HDMI alt mode for USB-C was only specified very recently, whereas DisplayPort alt mode has been there pretty much since USB-C was announced. DisplayPort would have been their only option during development of Switch, and the encoding and feature-set of the two are almost identical, anyway, so it doesn't take much to convert it to a HDMI output in the dock.
Nintendo game cards use ROM, not flash memory (more specifically they use Macronix XtraROM). They could certainly push up to 500MB/s or so if they really wanted to.
calc84maniac
Member
DisplayPort FAQ: http://www.displayport.org/faq/faq-archive/
tl;dr the signals are different, but a DisplayPort connector can passthrough an HDMI signal. But it's unlikely the Switch dock will have a DisplayPort connector.
Graphics Horse
Member
Yeah assuming natively running from micro SD is in it's got to be based around reasonable micro SD speeds. UFS cards seem like a very elegant solution to a guaranteed fast speed but seeing as they're not even on sale yet I doubt they will be using them.
Someone mentioned on the previous page that DP over USB C allows for charging, USB 3.1 data transfer and a compatible signal for HDMI 2.0. HDMI over USB C doesn't support 2.0 yet.
Nostremitus
Member
Would it actually need conversion, though?
I have a DP to HDMI2.0 cable going from the DP on my 290x to my TV. It's sending 4K60 no problem. It's not a converter, it's just a cable with DP on one side and HDMI on the other.
DP port can connect to HDMI. So displayport over USB-C's video signal can be sent directly to an HDMI out. See above.
You can send DP directly to HDMI and it works... Unless Sony programed their HDMI ports for DP compliance or my GPU is forcing an HDMI signal through DP or something...
If the latter is the case, the Switch could do the same.
I really don't think they will be hitting read speeds as fast as the fastest SSD's available on the consumer market even if it is just ROM.
Anyway you made me google that and I found this
http://www.ckassoc.com/pdf/Macronix_ProductSelectionGuide.pdf
Isn't that a perfect match for the switch carts?
Skittzo0413
Member
UFS would be very unlikely, I agree. I guess one way would be to require all digital games transfer from external storage (microSD) to the internal storage on the Switch before the game can be played. Would Nintendo do something like that if it meant devs could capitalize on much faster media read speeds?
After being excited and pretty much sold, now a big red flag starts waving. I am digital and don't want to have to buy a bunch of cards to store my games on. This severely limits the appeal of it as a home system, which is why I would want one in the first place.
DrROBschiz
Member
200GB Micro SDs are affordable but yeah thats still pretty far behind a basic PS4
Its a portable though so you have to weigh the pros and cons
Games are likely to be smaller on average at the very least.
Im hoping the base switch models at least have 64GB built in
Polygonal_Sprite
Member
I take your point but I just don't see Switch being the only device they release for the next five or six years. If anything the low specs just convince me more that there will be more devices arriving in the coming years especially as they have partnered with Nvidia who are the kings of constantly evolving hardware. Only time will tell I guess.
I thought you were talking about physical ports DP to HDMI. I was refering to the DP/HDMI Alt protocols whereas the one allows for a HDMI 2.0 signal and the other for a HDMI 1.4 signal. I think DP allows for a pass through of a HDMI signal if a certain handshake is made, but that doesn't mean that DP and HDMI use the same protocol.
Nostremitus
Member
No sure, my displayport out is sending a signal that the HDMI2.0 in on my TV is using without issues. I don't know what makes it work, just that it does...
calc84maniac
Member
I think the idea is that whatever device you're using supports generating an HDMI signal, and DisplayPort supports sending that signal.
I don't see there being any reason the Switch would need to generate a DisplayPort signal, though perhaps using the DP protocol to send an HDMI signal could be the case? Not sure if you can have one without the other, though.
Yeah, instead of being a home console that is also portable, it is showing itself to be a portable that hooks up to your TV, but lacks some of the core features you would want in a home system. This is an instant blow to the appeal for me and is not really what I was hoping for.
ShadowFox08
Member
Yeah thr hidden costs add up. /:
Skittzo0413
Member
I had this theory since the Switch was revealed that the SCD would take the form of a wireless "fridge" storage device rather than an external GPU. At least the first iteration anyway. I think a Nintendo branded wireless storage device could work fairly well with this concept. It works while you're within range, so switching from docked to undocked doesn't break the connection.
It would only be used to store games though, not play them obviously.
The fastest SSDs on the consumer market are actually over 20 Gb/s (Samsung 960 Pro). Reading from a ROM chip is quite different from reading from flash, though (it's much more similar to RAM, although a low slower). All flash reads have to be run through a memory controller, which has to handle things like wear-levelling, caching, garbage collection, etc. This is usually the bottleneck on SSDs (that or the interface). On ROM you're literally just pulling data directly off the chip itself, so it's purely a matter of the interface width of the chip and the read speed. For Macronix's latest XtraROM the read speed should be on the order of 16ns (62.5MHz), so for a 16-bit interface you'll get 1Gb/s (125MB/s), with 32-bit you get 2Gb/s (250GB/s) and at 64-bit it's 4Gb/s (500GB/s).
I don't believe there's a particular penalty to using wider interfaces aside from the physical implications (more traces to/from the chip), and you'll find chips used for such bandwidth-unintensive applications as pachinko machines use Macronix's ROM products with 32-bit interfaces. In Nintendo's case, with the game card using a serial interface, they may well decide to put the SERDES on the die alongside the ROM (something Macronix have done before), meaning you only need four data traces from the chip, corresponding directly to the four data pins on the game cards. In this case, even if the logical interface width of the ROM is quite wide, the physical interface remains simple, and as the chips are custom-made for Nintendo they could basically push the logical interface, and therefore the speed, up as much as they want.
Anyway you made me google that and I found this
http://www.ckassoc.com/pdf/Macronix_ProductSelectionGuide.pdf
Isn't that a perfect match for the switch carts?
You actually cut off the relevant one just below (ASIC XtraROM). Nintendo uses custom DRM logic on the game cards, and I would suspect that they may actually move the SERDES onto the die as well for Switch, as discussed above.
Even aside from the potentially very long load times when booting a game from SD, one problem with this scenario is that you'd need to partition off a large portion of the internal storage to account for this (and if you want it to cover every game, that could be 64GB or so of storage).
Re: displayport, it's right there in the patent:
[0457] As shown in FIG. 32, the cradle 5 includes a conversion section 131 and the monitor terminal 132. The conversion section 131 includes, for example, circuitry configured for performing video and sound conversion and is connected to the main body terminal 73 and the monitor terminal 132. The conversion section 131 converts a signal format regarding images (referred to also as video) and sound received from the main unit 2 into a format to be output to the TV 6. In the present embodiment, the main unit 2 outputs image and sound signals to the cradle 5 as a display port signal (i.e., a signal in accordance with the DisplayPort standard). In the present embodiment, communication based on the HDMI (registered trademark) standard is used for communication between the cradle 5 and the TV 6. That is, the monitor terminal 132 is an HDMI terminal, and the cradle 5 and the TV 6 are connected together by an HDMI cable. Thus, the conversion section 131 converts the display port signal (specifically, a signal representing video and sound) received from the main unit 2 via the main body terminal 73 into an HDMI signal. The converted HDMI signal is output to the TV 6 via the monitor terminal 132.
Thanks, I'm surprised we missed than when running through the patent (or I just missed the posts that brought it up).
Anyway, as discussed before, this makes a lot of sense, as HDMI over USB-C wasn't even a thing when the Switch was being designed. I'll be interested to see if this means that you can plug the Switch directly into a monitor for video output without the dock (in theory it should, if they are using the USB-C DisplayPort alt mode).
Graphics Horse
Member
Doubt it'll work in a monitor* but I'm sure PC people will figure it out how to run a virtual dock sooner rather than later anyway
*Probably needs "yes, this is Dock" response before it switches
Skittzo0413
Member
I'm not surprised given all the text in that document.
As someone who works on patents for a living, I have to agree there. This is one of the more massive patent documents I've ever seen.
Welp, guess this is a lock after all. Now, about the other piece of news from the source. The mention of 1440p. I wonder why they felt the need to even talk about that? Switch could display Minesweeper at 4k and it comes down to the same thing: it doesn't really tell us anything. Maybe he just wanted to direct attention to future plans or something?
If it's, as the patent says, "a signal in accordance with the DisplayPort standard", then there's no reason it wouldn't work. A standard like DisplayPort exists precisely to ensure intercompatibility between different devices, and there's not a whole lot Nintendo could do to prevent it from working (without breaking the standard).
That's not to say I don't see issues with them allowing video out when undocked. Firstly, although some newer monitors have USB-C ports to charge devices while operating, not all of them do, so if Switch goes into docked mode while attached to a monitor it would run out of battery extremely quickly. There's also the issue of cooling, as outside of the dock it would be hard to guarantee sufficient airflow (particularly if you lay the Switch flat it won't be able to pull air in through the rear vents).
Alternatively they could still have it run in portable mode when attached to a monitor, but I can see people being confused and unhappy with the lower resolution compared to running through the dock.
- Status