3ds' Capcom output is the best on the system as well.Except for the Wii and Gamecube mister. Some of the best looking games on those systems are third party for example the Resident Evils
3ds' Capcom output is the best on the system as well.Except for the Wii and Gamecube mister. Some of the best looking games on those systems are third party for example the Resident Evils
It gives us plenty of insight in the potential power envelope. Most likely estimates put it at the position I posted above.
But obviously you can just disregard the leak entirely if you prefer.
Really. The U is the exception so far because at least some third party publishers always try to get the best out of their system. Nevermind release their games there.3ds' Capcom output is the best on the system as well.
No need to disregard it entirely but putting it at x% of console y is silly.
I can try though:
XBO CPU runs 10% faster than the PS4's so Xbox one is 10% more powerful.
Using overconfident technically illiterate posters to create a strawman that bolsters your personal speculation doesn't really alter the fundamental argument here.
From a business strategy standpoint, there are games that may be able to scale down enough to run on the switch at the docked clock speeds, but would require fundamental changes to the nature of the game to make it work at the undocked speeds specified by Eurogamer. If you want those games on your platform, it's an issue that you can't ignore.
The Eurogamer leak makes it pretty clear that developers can choose to keep the undocked clock speeds even when displaying on a television, if that's their choice. They also have a choice of memory bus speeds while undocked as well. My point is that this is clearly a flexible system that grants a measure of developer control. If allowing docked speeds at the expense of battery life means more games on the platform, I think Nintendo would be foolish to rule it out entirely. They just have to communicate to consumers adequately that these games will have a much shorter playtime while on the go due to how much they push the system. People are already used to this playing the more graphically intense games on their Apple or Android devices. The battery life goes completely to shit when the GPU is really working hard.
Yeah. Totally the same thing.
Likely estimates put the GPU of the Switch at 33% of the Xbox One GPU in docked mode. Satisfied?
It wouldn't be surprising that Nintendo and Nvidia have done some customizations that might help the system "punch above its weight" the way the Gamecube, Wii, and Wii U chipsets did, but those end up being little used by third parties.
Except for the Wii and Gamecube mister. Some of the best looking games on those systems are third party for example the Resident Evils
Edit: the Wii U is the only Nintendo system were third parties didn't used the graphic capability at max :O
I don't think people want that, it's more that 28nm would be a possible way to explain the fan running at those clockspeeds.It's sad to me how bad people want this to be a cheap console and use maxwell 20 or 28nm so they can say "lol Nintendo." But this is neogaf as to be expected.
What part of the word "likely" don't you understand?No, we don't even know for certain the number of Shader Cores.
No, we don't even know for certain the number of Shader Cores.
There is nothing stopping a game that runs in docked mode from running undocked with a lower resolution. And that's exactly what to expect from most games.
Using overconfident technically illiterate posters to create a strawman that bolsters your personal speculation doesn't really alter the fundamental argument here.
From a business strategy standpoint, there are games that may be able to scale down enough to run on the switch at the docked clock speeds, but would require fundamental changes to the nature of the game to make it work at the undocked speeds specified by Eurogamer. If you want those games on your platform, it's an issue that you can't ignore.
The Eurogamer leak makes it pretty clear that developers can choose to keep the undocked clock speeds even when displaying on a television, if that's their choice. They also have a choice of memory bus speeds while undocked as well. My point is that this is clearly a flexible system that grants a measure of developer control. If allowing docked speeds at the expense of battery life means more games on the platform, I think Nintendo would be foolish to rule it out entirely. They just have to communicate to consumers adequately that these games will have a much shorter playtime while on the go due to how much they push the system. People are already used to this playing the more graphically intense games on their Apple or Android devices. The battery life goes completely to shit when the GPU is really working hard.
Options are badNice bit, didn't really make sense that there were two fans, it was either one on the dock or in the main unit.
You see, at the end of the day the main problem when talking about Switch is people trying to rationalize how Switch is going to handle "Top tier 3rd party games", and all the wild theories stem from that.-
- There will be more SMs for sure!
- It's totally Pascal guys! Don't worry about the clocks!
- I'm sure final unit will have 8GB!
- Full clock undocked is totally a thing!
If you ask me, Switch will be able to handle most 3rd party games as long as Developers want to support it (and if the Switch sell well most will be willing to), but compromises will have to be made obviously.
Personally I think it would be an awful decision to enable undocked full clock because you would be basically sabotaging the hybrid nature of the system, it would give both shit battery life for those that use full clock undocked and a craaaptastic normal handheld mode versions, I would rather have good games starting from a fine scaled down handheld version and being able to seamlessly play it upresed on my TV (thankfully I'm pretty sure this is going to be the case).
As a final bit, how do you explain that EG gave explicit clocks for docked and undocked mode?
Yeah that will look good, like sub res games on the Vita. Huge selling point.There is nothing stopping a game that runs in docked mode from running undocked with a lower resolution. And that's exactly what to expect from most games.
If it's already running sub-1080p on the TV, it's not really that different. I wouldn't see games going below 540p on the portable, and the games on Vita that actually run in 544p look great.Options are bad
Yeah that will look good, like sub res games on the Vita. Huge selling point.
Options are bad
Yeah that will look good, like sub res games on the Vita. Huge selling point.
Without having any real clue or leak on the fab process used for the final SoC which would allow to roughly quantify the wattage of the CPU and GPU blocks on the chip, I'll say that there's more than one possible scenario rn.Hence the words 'likely estimates'.
From the things we know right now, the signs all point a certain way. Feel free to ignore the current consensus, just don't get your hopes up too high.
Yeah. Totally the same thing.
Likely estimates put the GPU of the Switch at 33% of the Xbox One GPU in docked mode. Satisfied?
It's not the same thing for a lot of reasons, although like i said in another thread there are some temporal solutions (like the one used by Ubisoft in R6 and the PC version of WD2) that may actually help a lot if there's a game that needs to be rendered at sub 720p.If it's already running sub-1080p on the TV, it's not really that different. I wouldn't see games going below 540p on the portable, and the games on Vita that actually run in 544p look great.
I'm not saying that intensive 1080p games should run at 1080p downsampled on the portable, i was making an example with less intensive stuff that can run easily at that resolution even with portable clockspeeds, so the battery wouldn't last 2 hours.I think it would be bad if portable mode was variable too. Killing the battery or not as a choice on the go is not a good design.
Also, the difference in docked and undocked is mostly or mainly resolution? Can't see any reason someone would play Zelda in 1080p on portable mode for 2 hours vs 4 hours at 720p as an example. Almost always, lower res + longer battery life is the way to go.
My point is that running anything less than 1080p on a TV is also subnative, and the reason they don't look like a "blurry mess" is because the rendering target resolution isn't crap. I mean, those Vita games are running sub 480p, of course they're going to look like a mess. Also keep in mind that UI and other non-3D stuff could still be rendered at native resolution.It's not the same thing for a lot of reasons, although like i said in another thread there are some temporal solutions (like the one used by Ubisoft in R6 and the PC version of WD2) that may actually help if there's a game that needs to be rendered at sub 720p.
Vita games at full res look awesome, but the subnative ones are a blurry mess. Nintendo needs to avoid that one way or another.
Now it's when you explain me how is it any different what you are doing, and from there I can tell you that my comments are way more reasonable than yours.
You can't just throw away all your hybrid concept just for the sake of trying to have all software, at that point they should just have scrapped Switch completely and made a Ps4 Pro powerful Wii U.
And it may be painful for those that wished for that, but Nintendo is releasing an hybrid system.
But that's the point "it lets developers use the lower clock on docked mode", it is not mentioned anywhere that they can upclock in handheld mode.
You are free to think that Nintendo would be foolish that full undocked clocks are not a thing, well I think Nintendo would be foolish to allow the device to have crap battery even if it had a million warnings.
If we see subnative games isn't the most likely res to be 480p undocked/720p docked? That's the same multiplier as 720-->1080, right?
We're not talking about Nintendo games. Also, was subnative even a thing on Wii?Nintendo would be foolish to go 720 docked. They've shown signs of embracing technology with 1080p games on the Wii U, I don't see them taking steps backwards. Having said that, I'm hoping we see at least a locked 30FPS and, if they somehow pull it off with Nintendo magic, 60FPS.
But yeah, I can't see them going subnative yet again. People were pissed off enough with the Wii and Wii U.
So as someone who doesn´t have any clue about all this hardware stuff. I only got one question:
Is it possibile to get the Kingdom hearts series for the Switch? In terms of power.
I mean 1.5,2.5, Chi and 3D HD shouldn´t be a huge problem, because this thing should handle PS3 games. 3D was even released on Nintendo handhelds.
But my concern lies with 0.2 and 3. Both are using UE4, which the switch supports and both are cell-shading games. If I look e.g. at zelda botw, it looks smiliar to KH series, just without all the effects. Also I think botw uses more of the cpu than KH, because of the physics.
So shouldn´t it be at least possible?
Nintendo would be foolish to go 720 docked. They've shown signs of embracing technology with 1080p games on the Wii U, I don't see them taking steps backwards. Having said that, I'm hoping we see at least a locked 30FPS and, if they somehow pull it off with Nintendo magic, 60FPS.
But yeah, I can't see them going subnative yet again. People were pissed off enough with the Wii and Wii U.
So as someone who doesn´t have any clue about all this hardware stuff. I only got one question:
Is it possibile to get the Kingdom hearts series for the Switch? In terms of power.
I mean 1.5,2.5, Chi and 3D HD shouldn´t be a huge problem, because this thing should handle PS3 games. 3D was even released on Nintendo handhelds.
But my concern lies with 0.2 and 3. Both are using UE4, which the switch supports and both are cell-shading games. If I look e.g. at zelda botw, it looks smiliar to KH series, just without all the effects. Also I think botw uses more of the cpu than KH, because of the physics.
So shouldn´t it be at least possible?
Nintendo would be foolish to go 720 docked. They've shown signs of embracing technology with 1080p games on the Wii U, I don't see them taking steps backwards. Having said that, I'm hoping we see at least a locked 30FPS and, if they somehow pull it off with Nintendo magic, 60FPS.
But yeah, I can't see them going subnative yet again. People were pissed off enough with the Wii and Wii U.
Nevermind the Xbox ONEWhy would they be foolish? The x1 has several (if not most) of its games at 720p and 900p ?
If anything they would match exactly what the x1 was doing which is a range of 720p to 1080p? Hell even the ps4 isnt full native 1080p on a few of its games.
I doubt that the modifications that I gave as an example (wider memory bus, more than 2 SM) would require devs to modify their code much, if at all.Well, the dev kits was reported to be Vanilla TX1s, so it wouldn't be helpful if the final hardware derived too far from that. The final kits is also reported to be not much different from the former, but are more powerful. This implies that whatever changes that happened are not that divisible to developers.
Hence the words 'likely estimates'.
From the things we know right now, the signs all point a certain way. Feel free to ignore the current consensus, just don't get your hopes up too high.
We're not talking about Nintendo games. Also, was subnative even a thing on Wii?
Most information coming out from people with DevKits is that porting games is relitively hassle free. So it should be fine. Just dont expect it to run at the same resolution and with every graphical bell and whistle as the other consoles. Its a tradeoff you have to choose between for Portability
If the Xbox One/PS4 were PCs Running on (Hypothetically) Medium/High settings at 1080p Then the Switch would be running at either a lower resolution or Lower settings. Maybe both. Depending on the game and how much it pushed the hardware
1.5 and 2.5 should not be an issue. 0.2 and 3 on the other hand...well they would likely need to be downgraded based on rumored specs. If the platform takes off, SE might consider porting these to the Switch.
And let's not ignore that GPUs in ARM-based SoC commonly uses FP16 to compute floats which means 1/2 the time to compute a float vault compared to FP32 with the downside of the float value being less precise (2^16 for FP16 vs 2^32 for FP32, which is a freaking huge difference in size.)The 'consensus' is 33%? Haha, good one.
My problem is with the precision, if you had've wrote "between 30 and 60%" or something like that then sure, no problem.
"Pointing a certain way" suggests something value such as "quite a bit less than the PS4", "Noticably better than the Wii U", not 32.8888567% of the XBO even though we don't know the number of shader cores, anything about the memory, modifications etc.
I assume your 33% is just 393/1200 i.e assuming that GCN and Maxwell FLOPS are the same?
My hopes aren't too high, I hope that it'll come closer to XBO performance than we imagine but imagine that it'll be somewhere between Wii U and XBO.
I don't know anywhere near enough information to know.
We'll have an idea in 6 days with game footage
I really hope Nintendo and Nvidia gives us hard specs on the 12th because I really don't want this shit to carry on months after release waiting on a tear down. Even those aren't 100% legit.
I really hope Nintendo and Nvidia gives us hard specs on the 12th because I really don't want this shit to carry on months after release waiting on a tear down. Even those aren't 100% legit.
Nintendo and "NVIDIA"
Nintendo and "NVIDIA"
I doubt they know anything. Nintendo doesn't talk about specs, so why would they break the rule for some obscure print mag? And if it was Pascal it would contradict nearly everything we've heard about the hardware recently, from the internal fan to the Maxwell in the final dev kits to the Eurogamer report and others.So how bout Maximum PC mag saying Switch is using Pascal tech? Legit? Seems like maybe as a print magazine they, like other mags, got some info early for this upcoming Switch Event.
So Low-Medium at 720p? I would totally be ok with this. I mean it´s Cell-shading.
After seeing the reactions in both the VentureBeat's Maxwell and EuroGamer's clocks threads, maybe it's for the best to not publish the system specs lol. Showing the games running on the system will be a far more convincing argument than numbers that won't make any sense to most people.I really hope Nintendo and Nvidia gives us hard specs on the 12th because I really don't want this shit to carry on months after release waiting on a tear down. Even those aren't 100% legit.
I agree. If DQXI looks similar to its PS4 version, and if something like KH3 is announced for Switch, concern about hard numbers will diminish greatly.After seeing the reactions in both the VentureBeat's Maxwell and EuroGamer's clocks threads, maybe it's for the best to not publish the system specs lol. Showing the games running on the system will be a far more convincing argument than numbers that won't make any sense to most people.
Didn't Eurogamer already leak the clock speeds?The PC graphics terms i used previously are slightly missleading. I was more using them to illistrate what a potential downgrade compared to the PS4/Xbox One/PC versions might be.
Until we know the actual specs of the Switch. Saying it will run games at 720p on low/Medium settings is something that cant be determined.
Didn't Eurogamer already leak the clock speeds?
I agree. If DQXI looks similar to its PS4 version, and if something like KH3 is announced for Switch, concern about hard numbers will diminish greatly.
If we see subnative games isn't the most likely res to be 480p undocked/720p docked? That's the same multiplier as 720-->1080, right?
Nintendo and "NVIDIA"