they should be talking about REMI know we are all reading this as RAM but could it actually be internal storage? Is that specified somewhere?
they should be talking about REMI know we are all reading this as RAM but could it actually be internal storage? Is that specified somewhere?
Buy a PS4 bro,they are good prices these daysNoooooo! Give us RE7, dammit!! :'( I still remember when there was some rumors saying that both FFXV and RE7 would be on the Switch available on launch day hahahahah :'(
That's a fair point, though 32GB is still far higher than 16GB. 16GB probably wouldn't even hold a single digital game from most big third parties, whereas with 32GB you have a little more breathing room.
I guess it could be about RAM but nothing about the context seems to indicate RAM to me, even the comparison to other consoles, while other parts of the article seem to indicate memory is being discussed as storage space. They even call it "memory space".
Nintendo Everything's source appears to be a Japanese twitter account, perhaps someone can find the relevant tweets and translate?
Ram and graphics prowess are two completely different things.My OnePlus 3 arguably checks those boxes.
Though I don't play games on my phone.
Typically, when I refer to "memory", I refer to RAM. Space to store games would be referred to as storage space. Like if you asked a tech enthusiast how much memory they have on their PC, you'll typically get RAM.
But why would Nintendo go with less storage than the Wii U?Again, typically in Japanese translations you'll see storage space being referred to as "memory". That's my whole point- this is a translation from Japanese and this is quite often a point of confusion in these translations.
Capcom are requesting this and all they've shown is a SNES port. =|
I thought Switch was expensive when it was first revealed but it's actually pretty cheap considering the specs of the console and how advance the Joycons are. Truthfully I would have preferred to have less advanced controllers and a more powerful system.
I know we are all reading this as RAM but could it actually be internal storage? Is that specified somewhere?
But why would Nintendo go with less storage than the Wii U?
Maybe it was about the Dev kits which we know are 64GB?
Entirely possible, but I was unaware of MH3U onwards using MT Framework Mobile. I guess I need to check the back of the box more often.MH has been running on MT Framework (well, the Lite version, at least) since MH3U. I don't think it's that crazy that it would simply move onto the full version for future entries.
8GB is bottom in 2017 lol
I just don't get how people can't grasp this. It really is incredible how powerful this device is.
The pricing on accessories and such is the true issue.
Cool story bro.
Maybe he just thought it was cool?
Maybe he just thought it was cool?Are you saying he's wrong? Or you just don't care even though you replied to his comment?
Again, typically in Japanese translations you'll see storage space being referred to as "memory". That's my whole point- this is a translation from Japanese and this is quite often a point of confusion in these translations.
Probably 2GB like the Wii U.
This could be a big reason why they went with a smart phone app for voice chat, so that as much RAM as possible could be for games and not having too many things reserved for the OS and other functions.
Thanks for the explanation 🙂Compared to 6GB, i'm gonna assume it's cost. Which is unfortunate considering that apparently 1) they're selling the console at profit from D1, so maybe they could cut their margins a bit and put more RAM in it and 2) with 6GB you would have had both more RAM for OS functions and a similar amount to what other consoles use for games, since they use ~3GB for their OS.
Then again, considering that games already need to be downgraded to run on Switch, maybe it was a bit overkill to have 4.5-5GB of RAM, so it was better for them to just put less and make more money from the start. We only know that no dev complained about the RAM amount for now, in fact Capcom was praising them for this.
About 8GB, the chips weren't even available, so it was pretty delusional to expect that. The first mobile device to have 8GB of RAM will be the Asus Zenfone AR, which will ship in Q2.
Actually reading the rest of the article I'm almost certain they're talking about storage memory not RAM. A lot of JP translations refer to that as "memory" and in the article it also says this:
I'm pretty sure this is storage, like going from 16GB to 32GB.
Also they keep referring to it as "memory space". That sounds much more like main internal storage than RAM.
Removing the controllers wouldn't have made the hardware more powerful. Just cheaper.
The reason being a more powerful device capable of delivering consistent performance over hours of time in a 6" tablet form factor simply does not exist.
This is totally false.
Meh, at this point I don't care about RE7 anymore. Finished it on madhouse. It's not a game begging to be replayed even on a portable.Noooooo! Give us RE7, dammit!! :'( I still remember when there was some rumors saying that both FFXV and RE7 would be on the Switch available on launch day hahahahah :'(
The Switch is,however 40% at most of what the Xbox ONE can do.
How do you propse using that much memory for a portable system?
That amount should be enough for smaller games but you run into many other bottlenecks before RAM becomes an issue when porting the latest AAA game on Switch.
If anything 8GB sounds ok for an upgraded Switch in a few years
You're thinking of epic and the 360.I'm glad Nintendo's listening to third parties more.
Didn't something similar happen with Sony concerning the PS4's RAM?
My OnePlus 3 arguably checks those boxes.
Though I don't play games on my phone.
just glanced through the tweets. the user used "main memory" when tweeting about this. it refers to RAM not internal storage.
You're thinking of epic and the 360.
Or the logos on booting the games?Entirely possible, but I was unaware of MH3U onwards using MT Framework Mobile. I guess I need to check the back of the box more often.
Oh right, I guess it has been a while.Or the logos on booting the games?
Ok then. Thanks for clarifying.just glanced through the tweets. the user used "main memory" when tweeting about this. it refers to RAM not internal storage.
The MH team better make their voices heard!
Cool story bro.
It cost $400
and visual fidelity? i dunno, is that a quantifiable metric? because it does have a 1080p oled screen that certainly trumps switch.
that and it had a fuckton of things that the switch doesnt.
just for the reference, since youre so keen on the comparison , the same phone also comes with twice as much internal memory,a 16mp camera , a quick charge port , all the media apps in the world and nfc that is used for more than just dlc
before blindly jumping to something's defense , try to think what im talking about.
4gb is nothing in today's scenario. when a phone that doesnt even have to do high end gaming can pull off 6gb at this price , 4gb sure as hell wouldnt be something id brag about in a game console designed to do heavy duty stuff in 2017.
im saying nintendo had the money to spend on nfc receivers , something that could be a lot more useful when put into something like this....the idea that they were shooting for 2gb in 2017 is just hilarious.
Are you saying he's wrong? Or you just don't care even though you replied to his comment?
Ps4 originally had 2gb when it was first envisioned. Gddr5 was really expensive in 2011.Actually, devs were pushing for 8 GB on PS4 to match XBox One. It originally was going to be 4GB. However, it seemed Sony mostly got lucky that 8 GB sticks via clamshell design made it possible to have 8 GB of GDDR5 which they were able to add as a last minute change.
Can Switch run RE7 ? Or Would capcom be satisfied with results and release the game ?
I searched 720p Resident evil 7 , found a low end PC with 1280x720 , lowest settings
getting 25-30 fps (inconsistent)
It has 700 GFlops(692 exact) compared to 393
Main memory bandwith of lowest card gets 25 fps on with lowest graphics is that 40 GB/s
while Switch is 25.6 GB . Switch is %50 slower then lowest(not even minimum) PC thats play game on 720p with everything closed. While it looks like shit it barely gets 25 fps.
And game has to run good on Handheld mode too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiJrMWKT5p4
Not wanting to crush your dreams but i dont think thats plausible even how scalable engine is.
I'm glad Nintendo's listening to third parties more.
Didn't something similar happen with Sony concerning the PS4's RAM?
Buy a PS4 bro,they are good prices these days
Meh, at this point I don't care about RE7 anymore. Finished it on madhouse. It's not a game begging to be replayed even on a portable.
RE4 on the other hand...