Toadthemushroom
Member
From the Nvidia blog post regarding their support on Switch software and hardware:
Would it be correct to assume that NVN is the NX's equivalent to Vulkan, OpenGL, DirectX? I'm guessing something like PhysX forms part of the tools and libraries available to developers as well.
3DS supported several ways to program the GPU (see below), so I'm guessing Switch will support NVN and Vulkan. Are Nvidia's libraries and tools going to form part of Switch's equivalent of NintendoWare?
The interesting thing about Nvidia putting in lots of work on the libraries and graphics API for the Switch platform is it seems like it will guarantee top performance, at least according to this comment over at Ars Technica:
What do you think of Switch using an Nvidia graphics API as the standard, with Vulkan being a likely option instead?
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
Would it be correct to assume that NVN is the NX's equivalent to Vulkan, OpenGL, DirectX? I'm guessing something like PhysX forms part of the tools and libraries available to developers as well.
3DS supported several ways to program the GPU (see below), so I'm guessing Switch will support NVN and Vulkan. Are Nvidia's libraries and tools going to form part of Switch's equivalent of NintendoWare?
Another thing: Nintendo now supports five different ways to program the GPU. The easiest way is DMPGL (OpenGL|ES with Maestro stuff), which is easy to use but has a very high overhead. Then comes GD, a functional equivalent but not compatible to OpenGL and more lightweight, followed by GR, which is even more low level and offers better performance, but requires more in-depth knowledge of the GPU. The next option is NW4C (NintendoWare for CTR), Nintendo's official middleware solution, complete with graphical frontends and stuff. Supposedly easy to use and high performance, but I assume flexibility is limited. And last, but not least, is direct register access, which requires arcane knowledge but offers the best possible performance (and the most ways for stuff to go horribly wrong).
The interesting thing about Nvidia putting in lots of work on the libraries and graphics API for the Switch platform is it seems like it will guarantee top performance, at least according to this comment over at Ars Technica:
Marlor said:I think that's a bit uncharitable.
For the past six months, I've been doing work on computer vision and deep learning with the X1 platform. It's pretty impressive, not just because of its ability to run reasonably complex neural networks in a small, low-power module, but because Nvidia has pulled out all the stops to ensure all libraries are highly tuned for the platform. The investment of developer resources that Nvidia made into the X1 (and its upcoming successors) must be astronomical.
We're running workloads on the X1 that we couldn't have dreamed of deploying on an embedded system previously. It's such a huge step up from the K1 in terms of real-world performance that it still has me agog sometimes. We're running workloads on a platform the size of a credit card that previously required a full PC with a dedicated graphics card.
Assuming that the graphics and physics libraries are similarly tuned, the Switch should have no problems outperforming the Wii U by a very significant margin.
Remember that the Wii U used an incremental update of the same micro-architecture that drove the original Bondi Blue iMac, and a GPU architecture that seems derived from the AMD's R600 (i.e. similar to the ATI Radeon HD 2xxx series). This is a monumental modernization when compared to that.
It's not going to match a PC with a 10xx series graphics card, but it certainly gives much, much better real-world performance than anything else we've tried in a similar form factor.
My initial concerns with this handheld/console weren't about performance, just about battery life - the X1 is very efficient in terms of power per watt, but it can still draw up to 15W TDP. From the vents, it looks like they are going with fan-based cooling, which is a bit of a surprise (we're making do with a heat spreader in a smaller form factor), so that suggests this may be a more powerful spin on the X1. In which case, let's just hope they put a big enough battery in there to give a decent play-time.
One thing's for sure, this is going to be one really powerful handheld, and a credible platform for a home console.
What do you think of Switch using an Nvidia graphics API as the standard, with Vulkan being a likely option instead?