Games will showcase specs more than silly numbers will.
I want to see some silly numbers so I can forget about speculation threads.
Games will showcase specs more than silly numbers will.
Aren't those thousands of $? I'll chip in 10$.So... Who's crowd funding the Chipworks die shot?
Not potentially.
So... Who's crowd funding the Chipworks die shot?
Well we'll likely find out battery capacity and play time which in turn will give us handheld power usage. That should help a bit, maybe..
New Famitsu releases on the 12th. Just saying.
Why are we back to 20nm if there's only one vendor and it's a shitty node anyway?
So tech NeoGAF, if I'm reading the last few pages correctly, it's safe to assume that when we get a Nintendo Switch, we will be getting a system with a minimum of 3-4 times the power of Wii U in docked mode and at least 1-1.5 times more powerful in portable mode?
Is that a good, safe assumption at this point from all the testing/speculation/leaks, etc?
So tech NeoGAF, if I'm reading the last few pages correctly, it's safe to assume that when we get a Nintendo Switch, we will be getting a system with a minimum of 3-4 times the power of Wii U in docked mode and at least 1-1.5 times more powerful in portable mode?
Is that a good, safe assumption at this point from all the testing/speculation/leaks, etc?
Rödskägg;227991100 said:Yeah, but how will we know the potential look of all the third party games that won't be released for the system then?
I just can't wait to read some hard numbers to know whether or not I should enjoy this device.
Because according to Mdaves tests, the clocks we are getting is apparently the throttling sweetspot for a TX1 at 20nm.
Yup. My thoughts exactly. I'm sure blu or Thraktor will give good explanations though for a pleb like me.I cant help to think that going A57 is a mistake when A72 is far better in term of power consumption/heat/power.
Yup. My thoughts exactly. I'm sure blu or Thraktor will give good explanations though for a pleb like me.
There is no A72 on 20nm. They'd have to go down to 16nm for that.
I cant help to think that going A57 is a mistake when A72 is far better in term of power consumption/heat/power.
I cant help to think that going A57 is a mistake when A72 is far better in term of power consumption/heat/power.
Which brings us back to the question: How sure can we be of a 20 or 28nm fabrication node?
What I don't understand is how anyone would think they know more than Nvidia or Nintendo in regards to what is best for the vision they have for their platform. Im sure they are doing everything possible to make the best system they can for the best price possible. They arent purposefully nerfing the system.
Im sure they did the best they could with the budget they had, but the point of having a discussion thread is trying to figure out what choices they made and why they made them. Nobody is saying they know better than the engineers who built the system.
Low clock speeds like the ones from Eurogamer.
If Laura Kate Dale isn't spilling the beans about what makes the October dev-kits more powerful than the last ones while she leaks a lot of other things about Switch then it doesn't really tell us if Nintendo possibly went with 16nmFF which would let them increase the clock speeds for example of a way the dev-kits could be more powerful.
I don't know, it gets pretty hilarious when we've had people say that the Switch would be weak because they went with ARM instead of x86.
Haha
They could have gone with conservative clocks at launch and plan to increase them later in a patch like the vita. The switch is thinner than the shield, maybe these clock speeds were necessary even at 16nmFF.
I agree 20nm seems most likely
The New 3DS is an interesting revision of the older hardware - ARM11 core count doubles and clock-speed radically shifts upwards from 268MHz to 804MHz, while memory and VRAM increase substantially. What's curious is that allegedly the GPU remains completely unchanged - in effect, New 3DS seems to be about bringing CPU power more into balance with its graphics potential.
ARM11 CPU: 2x MPCore/2x VFPv2 Co-Processor at 268MHz. Doubling to 4x MPCore/4x VFPv2 Co-Processor for new 3DS with 804MHz max clock.
ARM9 CPU: ARM946 at 134MHz
GPU: DMP PICA at 268MHz
VRAM: 6MB, 10MB for new 3DS
DSP: CEVA TeakLite at 134Mhz. 24ch 32728Hz sampling rates
System memory: 128MB, 256MB for New 3DS
I think they just a little late to the party to hit 16nm. Had Wii U recovered enough to plan for a Holiday 2017 release, then we might be seeing A72 cores and a 16nm GPU that affords them a little more headroom for clocks. The leakage and thermal issues with 20nm are very real, as the Snapdragon 810 showed in 2015, and the Switch is reflecting that now with the limited clock speeds.
I think the Switch is the most forward thinking piece of tech we've seen from Nintendo since the Gamecube. It's just easy to see how timing sort of tied their hands.
What (if any) would be the most likely customizations Nintendo would ask for based on what we know of TX1?
So... Who's crowd funding the Chipworks die shot?
So Gaffers, I am a complete ignorant when it comes to discuss specs, but all I care about is the following.
How does the Switch stand VS their competitors?
Will is stand the test of times when it comes to graphics? Look at the Wii U it looked good for a while, but by 2014-2015 it started showing his time.
So any thoughts?
The most likely customisations would be to the memory subsystem. So:
- A larger GPU L2 cache or an added L3
- Wider memory interface
- Modified ROPs to fully support tiling for Vulkan's renderpasses/subpasses (if they don't already)
There's also the implementation of HMP (heterogenous multi-processing) allowing all CPU cores to be utilised at the same time (so that the A53 cores can be used for the OS).
Low clock speeds like the ones from Eurogamer.
If Laura Kate Dale isn't spilling the beans about what makes the October dev-kits more powerful than the last ones while she leaks a lot of other things about Switch then it doesn't really tell us if Nintendo possibly went with 16nmFF which would let them increase the clock speeds for example of a way the dev-kits could be more powerful.
The original 3DS also got a small power bump through a firmware update early in the life cycle. There was a long debate here on gaf, measuring by comparing some games on updated and non updated consoles.They could have gone with conservative clocks at launch and plan to increase them later in a patch like the vita. The switch is thinner than the shield, maybe these clock speeds were necessary even at 16nmFF.
I agree 20nm seems most likely
There will always be those kind of posts hehe.
Yup. My thoughts exactly. I'm sure blu or Thraktor will give good explanations though for a pleb like me.
It seems unlikely to me that there would be an upclock in the dev kits vs the Eurogamer leak, which stated that those clocks were the final retail spec. I'd imagine any bump in dev kit performance comes from API optimizations and the like.
It seems unlikely to me that there would be an upclock in the dev kits vs the Eurogamer leak, which stated that those clocks were the final retail spec. I'd imagine any bump in dev kit performance comes from API optimizations and the like.
"The information in this table is the final specification for the combinations of performance configurations and performance modes that applications will be able to use at launch."
The most likely customisations would be to the memory subsystem. So:
- A larger GPU L2 cache or an added L3
- Wider memory interface
- Modified ROPs to fully support tiling for Vulkan's renderpasses/subpasses (if they don't already)
There's also the implementation of HMP (heterogenous multi-processing) allowing all CPU cores to be utilised at the same time (so that the A53 cores can be used for the OS).
It seems unlikely to me that there would be an upclock in the dev kits vs the Eurogamer leak, which stated that those clocks were the final retail spec. I'd imagine any bump in dev kit performance comes from API optimizations and the like.
Eurogamer said:Documentation supplied to developers along with the table above ends with this stark message: "The information in this table is the final specification for the combinations of performance configurations and performance modes that applications will be able to use at launch."[
It doesn't say "these are the final performance modes applications will be able to use in the entirety of the systems lifecycle". Maybe Im reaching but this doesn't rule out an upclock as I see it.
How does the rumoured Switch CPU at 1GHz compare to the WiiU CPU at 1.2GHz, several times more powerful or no ?
Looking only at Dhrystone MIPS, the Wii U CPU comes in at (based on some cursory internet searches so I'm not sure if it's accurate) about 2.3 DMIPS/MHz, while Cortex A57 is 4.6 DMIPS/MHz. So at those clocks, for general/integer performance the A57 is easily 1.6x the Wii U per core, and that's not counting the immensely better SIMD support.How does the rumoured Switch CPU at 1GHz compare to the WiiU CPU at 1.2GHz, several times more powerful or no ?
Looking only at Dhrystone MIPS, the Wii U CPU comes in at (based on some cursory internet searches so I'm not sure if it's accurate) about 2.3 DMIPS/MHz, while Cortex A57 is 4.6 DMIPS/MHz. So at those clocks, for general/integer performance the A57 is easily 1.6x the Wii U per core, and that's not counting the immensely better SIMD support.
Don't know about most likely but here's the rundown.
It seems unlikely to me that there would be an upclock in the dev kits vs the Eurogamer leak, which stated that those clocks were the final retail spec. I'd imagine any bump in dev kit performance comes from API optimizations and the like.
Look what Marcan got with " a razor blade, a DSLR, and a $100 microscope". We might not need them, as awesome as they were last time, if they don't want to give it out this time.
https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/803281643750363136
How does the rumoured Switch CPU at 1GHz compare to the WiiU CPU at 1.2GHz, several times more powerful or no ?
Looking only at Dhrystone MIPS, the Wii U CPU comes in at (based on some cursory internet searches so I'm not sure if it's accurate) about 2.3 DMIPS/MHz, while Cortex A57 is 4.6 DMIPS/MHz. So at those clocks, for general/integer performance the A57 is easily 1.6x the Wii U per core, and that's not counting the immensely better SIMD support.
4-way SIMD ALUs on ARMs Advanced SIMD (NEON) mandatory per-core vs 2-way ALUs on paired-singles on the Espresso, absolutely the SIMD will see a huge uplift.