NeOak
Member
Oh, I had forgotten about that.
-
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
Oh, I had forgotten about that.
th3sicknness
Member
Surprised no one has dove into battery life / battery size for this thing.
Cuningas de Häme
Member
It is more than 3 hours, by how much, we don't know.
Nate Drake from this very forum has said so and he knows stuff.
Nate Drake from this very forum has said so and he knows stuff.
ShadowFox08
Member
But how much battery life would the fan take to keep the switch cool when it gets hot, is also something we have to factor.
Unless the fan only runs when docked.
Skittzo0413
Member
Well previously we thought that is likely to be the case, but now that LPVG is reporting there are fans inside the Switch AND inside the dock, that doesn't really make a whole lot of sense if the fans are only running while docked.
Unless the internal fans are 100% necessary to assist with cooling for some reason.
Don't know Shield or Vita, but the big difference between the Nintendo stuff and iPads is serviceability of the battery. Just pop off a cover or whatever and swap the relatively small modular battery, vs Apple basically filling the whole iPad case with big flat slab batteries. If the x/y size of the battery is big enough like that, small changes in the z size can make a big difference in capacity with minimal noticeable changes in actual feel in hand.
NeOak
Member
The Shield Portable had a fan that ran on battery too ¯\_(ツ
_/¯https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Nvidia+Shield+Teardown/16212/1
It definitely won't only run fans when docked if their's one in the portable unit. It would be complete insanity to include a fan in the device then only run it along with a second fan when docked.
I'm guessing 5w in portable mode, 12w docked, 4500mAh battery.
I'm guessing 5w in portable mode, 12w docked, 4500mAh battery.
Hmmm, my take is up to 20w docked, but 5w handheld and 4500mAh seems good to me, gpu clock being about 35-40% of docked mode full clock.
No way it's around 10W docked. Too low when we consider the active cooling setup.
lwilliams3
Member
How high the 256-core GPU can be clocked? The one in the Tegra TV is 1GHz @ 512 GFLOPS, so a frequency of 400MHz would be close to the Wii U's power.
Could be 15w I suppose if they're going for more than twice the performance in docked mode, that would definitely require significant active cooling in something Switch's size. Shield TV maxes out at 19.2w and has active cooling and its a bigger box than Switch. Not bigger than Switch docked, but docking it doesn't give is more internal space for heat dissipation, which is probably why theirs a second fan to help with airflow.
12-15w could get you get a decent amount of performance as well assuming A72 or A73 CPU's and Pascal Tegra on a 16nm process.
15W-20W docked sounds reasonable since, as you said, is what the Shield TV reaches when the GPU is loaded.
Skittzo0413
Member
To piggyback on EatChildren's comment I remember pre-launch speculation for the most nintendo consoles dating back to the DS. People were convinced the DS had two screens in order to project a 3D hologram between the two when propped up at a 90° angle and were citing weird research papers and patents to prove Nintendo could adopt the technology and "make a big comeback."
And then with the Wii AND Wii U people speculated that Nintendo could adopt new 3D rendering tools to provide next-gen quality graphics at a low cost (NURBs? voxels? I don't even know shit was crazy, people are crazy and always in a state of denial).
So I'm just watching all of this "Somewhere between PS4 and PS4 Pro graphics" talk and laughing all the way tothe bank Gamestop. It's barely gonna be on the same graphics level as the Wii U, y'all... And I'm here to tell you to go pick up your 3DS and imagine it with a 720p screen and super mario 3d world playing on it. That's some pretty exciting shit.
And then with the Wii AND Wii U people speculated that Nintendo could adopt new 3D rendering tools to provide next-gen quality graphics at a low cost (NURBs? voxels? I don't even know shit was crazy, people are crazy and always in a state of denial).
So I'm just watching all of this "Somewhere between PS4 and PS4 Pro graphics" talk and laughing all the way to
There's no point guessing the mAh of a battery for the Switch.
If you can't determine the
voltage x current = Watts
of the Switch, you won't know kind of Watt output of the battery you will need.
I already spent time doing this looking at the 3DS battery and Wii U Gamepad battery but there's no reliable formula on the internet for calculating how many hours those batteries could last while running because batteries are affected by other factors like temperature. Li-ion batteries run well at around room temperature, they do not run well when it's too cold or too hot for example.
If you can't determine the
voltage x current = Watts
of the Switch, you won't know kind of Watt output of the battery you will need.
I already spent time doing this looking at the 3DS battery and Wii U Gamepad battery but there's no reliable formula on the internet for calculating how many hours those batteries could last while running because batteries are affected by other factors like temperature. Li-ion batteries run well at around room temperature, they do not run well when it's too cold or too hot for example.
Are you on something?, seriously. Which posts in this thread have you imagined which include all that talk?
NeOak
Member
Not until the final console is out.
Go back to the "can it do 4k?" part of the thread. Be prepared to cringe.
Yeah I saw that, it was just one person asking (not claiming) if maybe WiiU games could possibly run at 4k on Switch, and being told no they couldn't by everyone in the thread. If that equates to "all this talk of graphics somewhere between PS4 and PS4 Pro" then again it does so only in his imagination.
Oh yeah, that rapidly evolving mobile tech certainly couldn't outdo a Wii U in performance, amirite guys?
/s
Skittzo0413
Member
It's funny how my post above you quite clearly states that 768Gflops is the high end of reasonable expectations when docked. I'm not sure if anyone at all in this thread is saying anything remotely similar to "between PS4 and PS4 Pro"
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
4 CUs at 1.5GHz? I'd be pleasantly surprised with that. I'm expecting 2 CUs but I have no idea what clock speeds. Don't know how Pascal power consumption scales, but 2 CUs at 1.5GHz would probably give real world performance somewhere between 2x and 3x Wii U (about double the FLOPS on a much more efficient architecture). I guess that sounds low, but this is Nintendo so it's hard to have high expectations about raw hardware specs, and it is also a portable at heart regardless of how Nintendo positions it.
No other info as he indicates he does not want to spoil any games or anything like that
States Final Dev kits have been going out for a few weeks. Indicates Battery Life is like 5-8 hours depending on brightness,wifi etc.
I think a new thread should be made just because of the battery (and final dev kits)
brochiller
Member
Holy shit. 8 hours in any circumstance would be phenomenal and 5 hours as standard is great too.
NeOak
Member
Doesn't work like that.
D
Deleted member 465307
Unconfirmed Member
I've never heard of the 3DS having 5-8 hours of battery life, and Nintendo seems to rate it as less than that. I wonder if the 5-8 hours or the 3DS comparison is the accurate part.
I also can't imagine how this system could possibly run 5-8 hours. I had assumed it would be at least as powerful as Wii U (likely a bit more) when in portable mode so that it can run the games at 720p without any compromises and maybe a few improvements.
If this system really does end up having a better battery life, screen, and size than the Wii U's GamePad while also being more powerful than Wii U, that's going to be a huge jump forward in usability and I'll be impressed.
NeOak
Member
3DS can do 5 hours, and XL can do 8 hours.
Also, you're thinking of 2011 tech.
Made the thread. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1323139
brochiller
Member
Wow that really puts it in perspective. It would be a very impressive leap forward in under 5 years.
If the Switch ends up being successful I have a feeling we'll look back on the Wii U as being just ahead of its time.
visiblemode
Member
Huh?
Iphones with 256gb exist...the memory takes up an incredibly small space in the phone. Are you seriously picturing a hd in a portable?
D
Deleted member 465307
Unconfirmed Member
But Nintendo rates the n3DS at 3.5-6 hours and the n3DS XL at 3.5-7 hours when running 3DS games (it's longer if playing a 2DS game), and I believe those are the systems with the best battery lifes (lives?) of the lineup. I've just never seen someone claim 3DS can go 5-8 hours, so this would seem to be an improvement. I remember the original battery life of the 3DS in particular being quite bad (3-5 hours).
Yeah, you're right. It's not me marveling at Nintendo; it's more me being impressed with how much graphics and mobile tech has advanced in recent years and what that will lead to within Nintendo's own product line progression.
NeOak
Member
Yeah, saw the official figures, New XL can do 7. Old regular 3DS does 5 max.
While playing DS games they can have longer battery life, but that is another story.
And compare cellphones from 2012 to cellphones today to have an idea of how far have we come.
ShadowFox08
Member
Lets hope Emily Rogers is wrong then...
https://mynintendonews.com/2016/10/...ntendo-switch-has-4gb-of-ram-in-retail-units/
Its going to be either 40% more performance or more energy efficient(what was it..60%?). Gawd I hope its not the latter. Because as posted in Nate's new video of the battery life supposedly being boosted from 3 hours to 5-8 hours and Pascal(from several months ago he claimed) being used, it seems even more likely they'd go more the energy efficient route. /:
Well there's only so much performance they can push in handheld mode due to thermal restrictions anyway. Being battery efficient doesn't affect how well it performs when docked though.
ShadowFox08
Member
Heres an interesting video..
Earlier this week Eurogamer "leaked" VC games on the Switch, notably possibly GC games. Well just recently Digital Foundary/Eurogamer made a comparison video of gamecube and wii games vs dolphin emulated games on X1. Some of the games running on dolphin x1 at 480p were pretty close to hitting 60fps(around 50fps) for the gamecube games..
Perhaps it gives us a glimpse of what to expect.. Something like Pascal/x2 could certainly help with matching gamecube framerates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGdHM8AIhvw
Earlier this week Eurogamer "leaked" VC games on the Switch, notably possibly GC games. Well just recently Digital Foundary/Eurogamer made a comparison video of gamecube and wii games vs dolphin emulated games on X1. Some of the games running on dolphin x1 at 480p were pretty close to hitting 60fps(around 50fps) for the gamecube games..
Perhaps it gives us a glimpse of what to expect.. Something like Pascal/x2 could certainly help with matching gamecube framerates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGdHM8AIhvw
Well, also the fact that Nintendo would have all the internal documentation on the GameCube and would have a massive upper hand over Dolphin,which is stuck slowly reverse engineering everything.
Skittzo0413
Member
The nice thing about the whole concept of the Switch is that, when docked, you can get that 40% increased performance at the same power draw (10W) and when undocked you can get the 60% increased power efficiency to bring it down to 4W (this is all based on 10W for 512GFlops for TX1).
This is why ensuring that the final product uses the most power efficient process node is so important. It means both more battery life AND more power when fully clocked.
PdotMichael
Banned
GameCube is 15 years old hardware.
There is no reason to believe that a device that operates possibly around 350Gflops in mobile mode couldn't emulate it.
There is no reason to believe that a device that operates possibly around 350Gflops in mobile mode couldn't emulate it.
Except it does. Simple algebra.
ΔE = P * Δt
Voltage of Li-Ion / Li-Po cells is a fixed material property. 3.3~3.7V depending on chemical cell composition. So the commonly quoted mAh capacities transform to Wh capacities just nicely by multiplying with 3.5 "give or take a few".
A 4000mAh battery at 3.5V is a 14Wh battery. If you want 3 hours out of a 14Wh battery, make sure to draw no more than 4.7W "give or take a few".
As soon as we agree what power dissipation headroom a device the size of the Switch might reasonably afford, we can fill in the variables and calculate.
Sidenote: Wii U is 34W with the major offenders ITO power draw made on a 28nm process. Switch is 16/14nm, yes?
LordRaptor
Member
Read this as someone had put Dolphin on the Xbox 1 and went "wait, what?"
Wii U's processors were actually built on a 45nm node, why is part of the reason why it's power draw is that high to begin with. They had to go with that node (despite the fact 32nm and 28nm were already available) because both the CPU and GPU had eDRAM, which at the time could not be fabricated on a smaller node (not counting Intel).
Astral Dog
Member
I thought the Wii U was supposed to have super efficient architecture, wonder what happened with that
Well it was compared to PS360. Compared to Pascal is a pile of shit.
Skittzo0413
Member
Mobile phones/tablets have extraordinarily accelerated the evolution of low powered processing technology. Wii U was decently efficient when it launched, but 4 years in this new tech world is a huge amount of time.
Astral Dog
Member
poor Wii U was left too soon then, too bulky and power hungry to be a portable and too weak and small for a proper (next gen) home console
At least Switch got away with these mobile tech advancements in a good way.
At least Switch got away with these mobile tech advancements in a good way.
Kind of. I mean it wasn't inefficient by any stretch of imagination, but even for 2012, it wasn't entirely as efficient as it could have been.
That said it's not a super straight forward calculation to make. Had Nintendo gone 32nm, but kept performance the same, then the CPU and GPU would certainly be more efficient, but they'd also have to drop the eDRAM. This would mean either replacing it with SRAM or dropping embedded memory entirely but using gddr5 instead of ddr3, both options being less efficient than what the Wii U used. I think on balance it would have been more economical on the whole but maybe not as much as we'd think.
But anyway, point is, if the Switch is using 16nm finfet, it's going to be in a whole different league of efficiency versus the Wii U. Enough so to give us more power in a portable form factor.
- Status