JonathanPower
Member
Anyway this marks the return of Nvidia in the console market. I am happy about some competition finally.
Switch won't use a standard memory card for its games, it'll use a game card with serial transmission which should offer transfer speeds around 3 times that of a standard HDD and random access times on another planet to a standard HDD. Lower latency is always an advantage. Of course the advantage is far more significant with lots of small files being transferred. But even for larger it's still an advantage when you need to load something into RAM quickly.
Wasn't Tegra X2 pascal and also 16nm? I'm still not convinced the Switch uses Tegra X2, tho, but would love to see that.
That's still speculation, just from an analyst.
And 14/16nm is a bigger deal than Pascal/Maxwell.
This may be true but assuming games will be available digitally, many people will still load them from standard memory cards.
We'll have to see what the policy is on digital downloads. Obviously if a game is going to be available digitally then that's going to limit how they can use the superior data transfer of Switch's game cards. Just saying that the cards will be superior, far superior to a standard HDD. I mean even a MicroSD will be, not nearly as good as game card but the far lower latency will still be an advantage over HDD.
No, he didn't. That's the jokeDid Nate need redeeming?
Yeah, I know it's speculation from an analyst.That's still speculation, just from an analyst.
And 14/16nm is a bigger deal than Pascal/Maxwell.
Thanks. This is what I wanted to know.Tegra Parker (Pascal based) is running on TSMC 16nm FinFET process. That's like the strongest argument that me and others were using to support that having a Pascal based Tegra is the most likely options, as the 20nm process (that X1/Maxwell uses) had issues and was quickly abandoned by almost everybody, especially in the mobile world.
Did Nate need redeeming?
Looking at the above specs people need to lower their expectations. Also remember Nintendo usually have crap batteries that are not as big. Nintendo can't afford to have a large capacity battery as well as decent spec as they don't want to be priced foo high.
I reckon Switch will be severely underclocked when undocked and allow a 3 to 4 hour battery life.
I'm not so sure. I just find it hard to believe that Nintendo won't have thought about stuff like this. I mean they won't want to release a console which has a massive emphasis on being both a handheld and a home console, only for it to have dreadful battery life and awful frame rates when in handheld mode. That would be utterly mental.
I'm no techie so I'm not sure how they could have fixed issues like this but I'm willing to bet they've come up with a way.
I'm not so sure. I just find it hard to believe that Nintendo won't have thought about stuff like this. I mean they won't want to release a console which has a massive emphasis on being both a handheld and a home console, only for it to have dreadful battery life and awful frame rates when in handheld mode. That would be utterly mental.
I'm no techie so I'm not sure how they could have fixed issues like this but I'm willing to bet they've come up with a way.
Are we now finally figuring out why the Vita used cutom memory cards?One approach they could take to this would be to drop SD card support and instead use UFS cards for storage expansion, as they could guarantee a much higher minimum bandwidth. Not something I'd necessarily expect from Nintendo, though, as they'd be perhaps the first device to actually support the new cards, and with only one manufacturer you'd be looking at relatively high prices and limited availability, at least at first.
Are we now finally figuring out why the Vita used cutom memory cards?
Will the Switch support Vita memory cards?
Stay tuned!
SATA uses 4 pins for data (2 in, 2 out) and 3 for ground. You could get away with a single pin for ground if you don't need to support longer cables ... or any cable at all really.Is there any reason why a serial interface for the game cards wouldn't be able to write save data onto the card? It seems that with an appropriate interface and controller this shouldn't be a problem. And it will very likely be a serial interface since the game cards features only 5 connections.
Is there any reason why a serial interface for the game cards wouldn't be able to write save data onto the card? It seems that with an appropriate interface and controller this shouldn't be a problem. And it will very likely be a serial interface since the game cards features only 5 connections.
I also wouldn't worry too much between SD card and game card performance, since I still believe that games will be able to be downloaded to the SD storage. They might inforce a certain class requirement, and loading times might change a bit, but it wouldn't go so far that games aren't playable anymore. This stuff can happen with different SD cards for 3DS and different HDD/SSD in PC/WIIU/PS4/XBO applications too and it doesn't prevent a lot of games from being played.
So I assume this may be a little more expensive for Nintendo since 20nm is pretty much obsolete but it will be worth it in the long run.
I also read it's is more power efficient (or at least I think I did lol) so it may be on Nintendo's best interests to secure it for Switch.
One important thing I'm currently wondering about: Now that Nintendo isn't working with Power PC anymore, what does that mean for their programmers? They've spent years and years gathering experience with that architecture after all. So how much of that experience can they carry over to the Switch? Will they have to essentially relearn everything all over or can they quickly pick up the pace where they left off?
They've also been working with ARM chipsets since the GBA, so yeah, that's probably a non-issue.One important thing I'm currently wondering about: Now that Nintendo isn't working with Power PC anymore, what does that mean for their programmers? They've spent years and years gathering experience with that architecture after all. So how much of that experience can they carry over to the Switch? Will they have to essentially relearn everything all over or can they quickly pick up the pace where they left off?
It's no different from developers getting to know PS2 and having to get to know the PS3 after that, or PS4 after that. Also, as i understand it, it's basically a non issue since the compilers take care of that, as well as the ARM architecture being easier to port to, than from (from what i've gathered).
SATA uses 4 pins for data (2 in, 2 out) and 3 for ground. You could get away with a single pin for ground if you don't need to support longer cables ... or any cable at all really.
There should not be any reason for it not to be possible, the question is whether the cost of a controller that supports it and a small NAND flash chip on each game card will be worth it. And if game cards will actually be much faster than SD cards (which I kind of doubt, if only to make every storage format close enough), then games on SD cards will have longer times for loading and streaming. The former probably won't mean much more than longer loading screens, while the latter could hurt graphics as it could lead to (more) cases of pop-in, if the game doesn't take them into account.
The "same" chip, will always be more efficient when it's shrunk. When shrunk, it uses less energy, and thus it will run less hot. Basically that means you can then clock it higher to get better performance (but it will again get hotter as well and use more power) or you can keep it at the same performance and have a cooler, less powerhungry chip. I believe it would make sense for Nintendo to go for the first option in "docked" mode (better performance, hotter, more power hungry, doesn't matter when it's docked) and "switch" to the second option when portable (same performance as the 20nm chip, but cooler (less need for active cooling = better battery life) and less power hungry = again better battery life).
According to the factory that produces the chips, you either gain 40% performance (at the same power draw) or you gain 60% power efficiency (at the same performance).
Not just that, but their experience with ARM architectures goes back further than PPC did.
Dammit Vic
ARM is also not terribly difficult to understand and use. There are TONS of resources available, it's well documented and any programmer/tester worth their salt will get good at it in a reasonable amount of time.
ARM is not some esoteric solution.
At what they will come up with is Wii U level graphics undocked. This is why every game that was shown in the reveal trailer were Wii U level. People saying 2x Wii U power undocked I don't think that will happen at all. Due to sever underclocking I'm expecting they will just about match Wii U graphics with a 3 to 4 hour battery life but with USB-C Fast Charge.
Looking at the above specs people need to lower their expectations.
The Nintendo Switchs gaming experience is also supported by fully custom software, including a revamped physics engine, new libraries, advanced game tools and libraries. NVIDIA additionally created new gaming APIs to fully harness this performance. The newest API, NVN, was built specifically to bring lightweight, fast gaming to the masses.
Gameplay is further enhanced by hardware-accelerated video playback and custom software for audio effects and rendering.
Together with Samsung and the Vulkan API, Super Evil Megacorp was able to create games with 30 percent faster performance, increased rendering of images on the screen and improved battery life.
I don't think your reasoning is necessarily wrong here but Wii U is nowhere near that footage of NBA, Skyrim Remastered or the new Mario game. Now whether or not they were actually running on NS is a different question (for Skyrim and NBA at least), but still, calling that footage "Wii U level" is wrong. The reason why they showed those games had nothing to do with graphics and horsepower.At what they will come up with is Wii U level graphics undocked. This is why every game that was shown in the reveal trailer were Wii U level. People saying 2x Wii U power undocked I don't think that will happen at all. Due to sever underclocking I'm expecting they will just about match Wii U graphics with a 3 to 4 hour battery life but with USB-C Fast Charge.
I reckon all the fans and cooling system don't even turn on undocked to conserve battery life and due to the chip being severely underclocked the heat wouldn't be that bad.
I don't know any system in the market that has a fan for a portable apart from laptops or high end tablets which have crap battery life if you game. Also the batteries on those devices are massive.
That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.
As many have pointed out already, screen resolution is low in the list of things draining this console's battery.
Yes, that's how it works. My numbers are wishful thinking, but it does work.
Yes, that's how it works. My numbers are wishful thinking, but it does work.
Lower resolution could run on a downclocked CPU/GPU. The thing might even be able to undervolt while running at lower speeds to reduce the amount of power it uses.
Not CPU. You can reduce the strain on the GPU (and thus consume less power) by reducing resolution. But AI, logic, physics... still have to be calculated the same if you don't want to change the core game experience. I mean, you could play Pikmin on a reduced resolution, but you couldn't cut the amount of Pikmin you control in portable mode because the CPU is downclocked, for instance.
Not CPU. You can reduce the strain on the GPU (and thus consume less power) by reducing resolution. But AI, logic, physics... still have to be calculated the same if you don't want to change the core game experience. I mean, you could play Pikmin on a reduced resolution, but you couldn't cut the amount of Pikmin you control in portable mode because the CPU is downclocked, for instance.
I really hope they come with a balanced architecture this time, Wii U was severaly bottlenecked because the ancient CPU, it allowed Wii BC but at the cost to not keeping up with the GPU and RAM setup (which saddly leave GPU starving and unable to perform better, Wii U GPU is great imo), really don't think they have problems surpassing Wii U raw power by a wide margin, if reports are true about the CPU being highly efficient.
Oh well. I blame my age.No, he didn't. That's the joke
Clearly.He and Matt are the most reliable sources about NX here on GAF
Oh I don't know. I've definitely seen some people that seem convinced that ARM is a foreign architecture to Nintendo's developers and that Nintendo should have used x86 all because Wii U didn't get ports and "x86 has super charged PC architecture"
Did people forget that PS3(to some extent) and Xbox 360 were using PPC as well? Their CPUs were designed by IBM.
So that explains this.
Yeah... No.
I don't know why you were basing your expectations off of dev-kit rumours and some handheld from a kickstarter that is using old ARM CPU and GPU chips. They use 28nm nodes.
Switch is likely to be using a custom Nvidia GPU which is likely to be designed well aside from the node being a 16nmFF for power efficiency. We already know how powerful a TX1 is and it's not unrealistic to see something within the performance of Parker or even better for power efficiency because it all comes down to design.
It's not unrealistic to expect 2x the performance of the Wii U in handheld mode when not only is there the hardware provided by Nvidia but also their software which is most likely to include their Tile-based deferred rasterizer.
https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2016/10/20/nintendo-switch/
And let's not forget that the Switch is possibly going to be utilising Vulkan in that NVN API which has shown to improve performance per watt.
https://news.samsung.com/global/see...y-s7-create-more-immersive-gaming-experiences
____
No, it is not unrealistic to expect 2x the performance of the Wii U while it is not docked. Thinking that the Switch will be only as powerful as the Wii U is the extreme opposite to those people that thought the Switch could be more powerful than an Xbox One or PS4.
Your arguments aren't convincing enough for the idea that everyone should lower their expectations when we've had expectations of the hardware being between the TX1 and Parker with regards to performance.
I really hope they come with a balanced architecture this time, Wii U was severaly bottlenecked because the ancient CPU, it allowed Wii BC but at the cost to not keeping up with the GPU and RAM setup (which saddly leave GPU starving and unable to perform better, Wii U GPU is great imo), really don't think they have problems surpassing Wii U raw power by a wide margin, if reports are true about the CPU being highly efficient.
I believe that 30% faster with vulcan benchmark was compared to Android, not compared to a gaming console.
The point still stands, I doubt Vulcan is anywhere near the same improvement on a gaming console, because there are already apis that are close to the metal.I'm sure it's working on Android on both in its comparison.
The difference is that it would have been running on OpenGL ES vs Vulkan for the comparison.
The point still stands, I doubt Vulcan is anywhere near the same improvement on a gaming console, because there are already apis that are close to the metal.
Is there any reason why a serial interface for the game cards wouldn't be able to write save data onto the card? It seems that with an appropriate interface and controller this shouldn't be a problem. And it will very likely be a serial interface since the game cards features only 5 connections.
I also wouldn't worry too much between SD card and game card performance, since I still believe that games will be able to be downloaded to the SD storage. They might inforce a certain class requirement, and loading times might change a bit, but it wouldn't go so far that games aren't playable anymore. This stuff can happen with different SD cards for 3DS and different HDD/SSD in PC/WIIU/PS4/XBO applications too and it doesn't prevent a lot of games from being played.
I doubt the cost will be that much that it will be done on cost decision alone. The added benefit of on card saves are exchangeability of savegames if your Switch breaks down. Although on the other hand save games on the Switch itself could be compatible with their download version. They could also provide some sort of account tie in for save files and allow them to be backed up personally or via the cloud. Some games could suffer from save game manipulation though. The system already in place for 3DS is restrictive since it locks the backup to the SD card and system, therefore an account sign check could help alleviate that.
If we are believing that rumor that the Switch uses 800MB of RAM for the OS, what does that mean for the potential share button applications?
I don't know exactly how it works, but the PS4 share button letting you share/view the last 15 minutes of gameplay is a very nice feature, and I'm assuming that requires a decent amount of system RAM, though I could very well be mistaken. But if I'm not, can we expect the Switch share button to not be able to share prior gameplay footage like that? Or will it just be dedicated to taking screenshots?
It would be a real shame if there is a whole button dedicated to taking/posting screenshots and nothing else...
PS4's continuous video recording should have much more of an impact on the hard-drive than RAM. I can't imagine they're keeping the entire 15 minute loop in memory at all times.
Nothing, remember the Wii U uses 1GB for it's OS, and it has no such feature....If we are believing that rumor that the Switch uses 800MB of RAM for the OS, what does that mean for the potential share button applications?
I understand that the video file itself would not be kept in the RAM, but doesn't the OS function of continuously recording/deleting/preparing the video depend on system RAM?
The point still stands, I doubt Vulcan is anywhere near the same improvement on a gaming console, because there are already apis that are close to the metal.
I wouldn't use the clusterfuck SoC design of the decade to draw conclusions on what the Switch's Nvidia chip can do.Nothing, remember the Wii U uses 1GB for it's OS, and it has no such feature....
An encoder reading the framebuffer directly would either impose a latency hit (read: fps hit), or require multi-ported memory (read: much more expensive). An encoder would be best piggybacked to something like the display interface fb scan-out, so the fb scans that are sent out to the DI would be also sent to the encoder at the same time.Not necessarily. I'm not sure how PS4 does it, but it could just read from the framebuffer.
An encoder reading the framebuffer directly would either impose a latency hit (read: fps hit), or require multi-ported memory (read: much more expensive). An encoder would be best piggybacked to something like the display interface fb scan-out, so the fb scans that are sent out to the DI would be also sent to the encoder at the same time.
An encoder reading the framebuffer directly would either impose a latency hit (read: fps hit), or require multi-ported memory (read: much more expensive). An encoder would be best piggybacked to something like the display interface fb scan-out, so the fb scans that are sent out to the DI would be also sent to the encoder at the same time.
Which would be cheaper, money wise between the two? How much hit would it be reading from the FB?
Anyway the point was memory use. Neither should really use any extra memory.
Nothing, remember the Wii U uses 1GB for it's OS, and it has no such feature....
Piggybacking the Display Interface (DI) scan-out is essentially free.Which would be cheaper, money wise between the two? How much hit would it be reading from the FB?
Well, the encoder would need some buffers for its transformations, but that should not amount to a complete frame worth of ram.Anyway the point was memory use. Neither should really use any extra memory.