Support NeoGAF

[Skittzo0413]

I predict 1080p 30fps stable. But I would also be fine with 720p 60.

Honestly, with the rumored improvement over the Wii U I wouldn't be at all surprised with 1080p 60fps, though that does seem like asking a lot when what we have now seems to be more like 720p 25fps.

Like I said, the CPU is miles ahead of the Wii U's which is very likely being pushed beyond its limits with this game. Remember, Miyamoto himself complained about the CPU of the Wii U. The Switch's should be more than capable of running the BotW CPU functions with minimal effort.

I suppose adding AA to an open world game like this can cause some frame rate drops though. So I would certainly take 1080p30fps with a good amount of AA. And some improved textures would be nice.

 

[The Boat]

I predict 1080p 30fps stable. But I would also be fine with 720p 60.

I predict 720p 30 fps, stable or at least more stable and probably some iq improvements. What matters more to me is that they reduce the pop up tbh, but since the game wasn't made from the ground up for the NS, keeping my expectations in check.

 

[Malakai]

I don't understand AA. When I play on games PC, I just leave it off. I really don't notice the jaggies when the game is in motion anyway.

 

[th3sicknness]

You have got to be concern trolling right now. It's already been pointed out that compilers deal with architectures and do not require some specialist to deal with.

Nintendo weren't doing its own thing with PowerPC, Xbox 360 had a PowerPC CPU, and IBM developed Cell.

There are other reasons publishers didn't put their games on Wii U and CPU architecture wasn't even on the list of reasons.

When I said they were doing their own thing what I meant was that they stayed in the past while the other platforms moved forward with different architecture like x86.

My point was that Nintendo didnt do anything with the Wii U to make things easier on developers when the industry was moving forward with another architecture. Time will tell with the switch because they are doing something somewhat similar.

 

[Skittzo0413]

I don't understand AA. When I play on games PC, I just leave it off. I really don't notice the jaggies when the game is in motion anyway.

I don't think it matters all that much for fast paced games like Mario Kart, but for a methodical game like Zelda jaggies become very noticeable, especially when playing on a big TV.

It also improves how the game can be advertised. It's a lot easier to show off beautiful screenshots of a game to impress people than get them to sit and watch the game in motion. If those screenshots have less jaggies, people are more impressed and the game does better.

When I said they were doing their own thing what I meant was that they stayed in the past while the other platforms moved forward with different architecture like x86.

My point was that Nintendo didnt do anything with the Wii U to make things easier on developers when the industry was moving forward with another architecture. Time will tell with the switch because they are doing something somewhat similar.

You've been told several times by several people that ARM vs x86 is nothing at all like PowerPC. ARM is by far a more modern architecture because the majority of games made these days are done on ARM, as it powers most mobile devices.

Nintendo is actually being rather forward thinking here by going with ARM, so no, Nintendo is not doing anything remotely similar this time.

 

[th3sicknness]

I predict 1080p 30fps stable. But I would also be fine with 720p 60.

As of late when Nintendo updates hardware they go for substantial improvements over the prior gen. Wii to Wii U was native 480 to native 720 (I realize they have a handful of games at native 1080). So id imagine from Wii U to Switch we would be looking at native 720 to native 1080 in docked mode at least.

I think much like the Wii U the Switch is going to be CPU limited again. Lets just hope they at least go with 1 pool of faster memory.

 

[nekomix]

When I said they were doing their own thing what I meant was that they stayed in the past while the other platforms moved forward with different architecture like x86.

My point was that Nintendo didnt do anything with the Wii U to make things easier on developers when the industry was moving forward with another architecture. Time will tell with the switch because they are doing something somewhat similar.

So you're saying that using ARM CPU is something from the past ? Oh boy...

 

[Hermii]

As of late when Nintendo updates hardware they go for substantial improvements over the prior gen. Wii to Wii U was native 480 to native 720 (I realize they have a handful of games at native 1080). So id imagine from Wii U to Switch we would be looking at native 720 to native 1080 in docked mode at least.

I think much like the Wii U the Switch is going to be CPU limited again. Lets just hope they learned their lesson and go with 1 pool of faster memory.

As of late? Thats just how Tech Works. Wait 5 years and you are going to get substantially better hardware at the same pricepoint.

I think Switch is going to be the least cpu Limited console on the market, as the cpu is supposed to be stronger than Jaguar and the GPU is going to be weaker than current gen.

 

[th3sicknness]

So you're saying that using ARM CPU is something from the past ? Oh boy...

I didnt say that.... I was merely saying that ARM is different than what the other 2 console makers are working with...

 

[Schnozberry]

As of late when Nintendo updates hardware they go for substantial improvements over the prior gen. Wii to Wii U was native 480 to native 720 (I realize they have a handful of games at native 1080). So id imagine from Wii U to Switch we would be looking at native 720 to native 1080 in docked mode at least.

I think much like the Wii U the Switch is going to be CPU limited again. Lets just hope they at least go with 1 pool of faster memory.

There isn't one shred of evidence to backup this assertion.

 

[Maxrunner]

So any real news? Or are you guys updating the thread just because?
This should be locked.

 

[Schnozberry]

I didnt say that.... I was merely saying that ARM is different than what the other 2 console makers are working with...

Which are also hamstrung by CPU limitations....it's not about architecture.

 

[Nostremitus]

I think much like the Wii U the Switch is going to be CPU limited again. Lets just hope they at least go with 1 pool of faster memory.

Why would you think that?

So any real news? Or are you guys updating the thread just because?
This should be locked.

There's on topic discussion happening on a gaming forum... What's the problem?

 

[Pif]

Who says they aren't?

If the yearly CODs, Assassins and Maddens are considered by you to be new games, then all the enhanced wiiu games on switch can also be considered new games.

 

[th3sicknness]

There isn't one shred of evidence to backup this assertion.

Am I not reading the same things everyone else is reading? Most the rumors / leaks have said it is going to perform between the Wii U and the x1, but at best at x1 levels?

 

[Interfectum]

Am I not reading the same things everyone else is reading? Most the rumors / leaks have said it is going to perform between the Wii U and the x1, but at best at x1 levels?

Most likely GPU limited, not CPU. From everything we've heard the CPU surpasses current gen systems.

 

[Skittzo0413]

Am I not reading the same things everyone else is reading? Most the rumors / leaks have said it is going to perform between the Wii U and the x1, but at best at x1 levels?

You're claiming that the CPU and the CPU architecture will somehow be limiting factors though, when everything we've heard indicates the opposite is true. The CPU is likely to be the most impressive part of the hardware, likely surpassing the PS4/XB1 CPUs in power.

GPU wise it is unlikely to reach XB1 levels in raw power, but that's not at all what you were saying.

 

[Candescence]

Am I not reading the same things everyone else is reading? Most the rumors / leaks have said it is going to perform between the Wii U and the x1, but at best at x1 levels?

On the GPU side of things, but that can be compensated for and game graphics are quite scalable in many ways. The CPU will very likely not be an issue, and neither is the architecture.

 

[Matt]

I think much like the Wii U the Switch is going to be CPU limited again. Lets just hope they at least go with 1 pool of faster memory.

The Switch will be less "CPU limited" than the PS4 and XBO are.

 

[th3sicknness]

Most likely GPU limited, not CPU. From everything we've heard the CPU surpasses current gen systems.

Maybe I am being pessimistic.

The concept of the Switch being at home or on the go is going to be the limiting factor on the performance of the system. With its form factor I dont see how it is going to achieve x1 + levels of performance? The real question becomes what will the disparity be between docked vs non docked mode in regards to performance?

 

[TwilightPrincess]

Most likely GPU limited, not CPU. From everything we've heard the CPU surpasses current gen systems.

If whatever LCGeek heard/said was right. he is the only source for that if i remeber correctly. He doesn't loose a word about this anymore, does he? Not saying he is not trustworthy, but i would be a little bit more cautious and treat it as a rumour.

 

[Herb Alpert]

Am I not reading the same things everyone else is reading? Most the rumors / leaks have said it is going to perform between the Wii U and the x1, but at best at x1 levels?

X1 level would be great for a 250€ handheld system don't you think? It won't reach this level Imo.

 

[Hermii]

Maybe I am being pessimistic.

The concept of the Switch being at home or on the go is going to be the limiting factor on the performance of the system. With its form factor I dont see how it is going to achieve x1 + levels of performance? The real question becomes what will the disparity be between docked vs non docked mode in regards to performance?

Nobody is saying that.

CPU > x1
Gpu< x1
Memory < x1
Overall < x1

Get it?

 

[Skittzo0413]

Maybe I am being pessimistic.

The concept of the Switch being at home or on the go is going to be the limiting factor on the performance of the system. With its form factor I dont see how it is going to achieve x1 + levels of performance? The real question becomes what will the disparity be between docked vs non docked mode in regards to performance?

Okay let me try to break it down here-

The main components which determine the performance of a system are the CPU, GPU and RAM. The Xbox One and Playstation 4 use very high powered GPUs which render the images of a game. They have relatively weak CPUs, where the CPU performs mostly background calculations that are used in physics, collision, AI, and weather functions, among other things.

The Switch is rumored to have a CPU which is more powerful than those in the XB1/PS4, regardless of the architecture of that CPU being ARM (vs the x86 in the XB1/PS4). The Switch is also rumored to have a GPU which is much more powerful than the Wii U, but is unable to reach XB1/PS4 power due to the constraints of being a handheld device powered by a battery.

The CPU they are using on the other hand is made for these types of battery powered devices, so it is able to run very quickly on a very low amount of power. Therefore, regardless of its form factor or whether it's docked or not, the CPU will be very strong compared to the competition. The GPU will be where this falls short of the competition.

Your past few posts have argued that the CPU will be a limiting factor, and that their choice to use ARM will once again handicap them. Everything we know indicates that this, specifically, is not true at all.

**I am not an expert, please correct me if any of this is wrong.**

 

[TwilightPrincess]

The Switch will be less "CPU limited" than the PS4 and XBO are.

In correlation to its own GPU?

 

[Candescence]

Maybe I am being pessimistic.

The concept of the Switch being at home or on the go is going to be the limiting factor on the performance of the system. With its form factor I dont see how it is going to achieve x1 + levels of performance? The real question becomes what will the disparity be between docked vs non docked mode in regards to performance?

Nobody is saying that.

CPU > x1
Gpu< x1
Memory < x1
Overall < x1

Get it?

The Switch doesn't need to match the XB1 in terms of GPU power. As I said, game graphics can be quite scalable in various ways, and there are plenty of ways to compensate for more limited hardware requirements.

Still, the Switch is a custom Pascal Tegra - it's gonna be a extremely beefy machine for a handheld, which is an incredible achievement in itself, and Nvidia knows to make some really good hardware. Throw out your traditional expections for hardware power and wait for the actual games to show before making judgements.

 

[ggx2ac]

When I said they were doing their own thing what I meant was that they stayed in the past while the other platforms moved forward with different architecture like x86.

My point was that Nintendo didnt do anything with the Wii U to make things easier on developers when the industry was moving forward with another architecture. Time will tell with the switch because they are doing something somewhat similar.

That isn't ascribed to the CPU architecture. ARM, PowerPC, their instruction sets aren't Rosetta stones that are preventing third parties from putting games on Wii U or 3DS. Otherwise we'd be hearing Indies giving up on making games on those systems because they don't know how to deal with games not on x86 ISA.

Read again what Blu posted here below: (This is what developers deal with.)

Actually APIs make half the effort at porting. The other half is performance. ISAs are statistical noise in this picture.

 

[blu]

The Switch will be less "CPU limited" than the PS4 and XBO are.

But supercharged PC architecture!

A fallacy repeated a 100 times becomes truth, and what is the internet but an echo chamber.

 

[Candescence]

But supercharged PC architecture!

A fallacy repeated a 100 times becomes truth, and what is the internet but an echo chamber.

Yep. I know people like Cerny and all, but he's just as guilty of manufacturing bullshit PR propaganda as anyone else amongst the big three.

 

[Vanillalite]

I'm fine with the CPU and GPU power especially for what it's trying to be in a hybrid. Plus 720p is fine for the handheld screen.

The only worry I have at this point on anything is ram amount just cause I don't want the OS to suffer due to limited RAM as the games need to use it all. I'll have to wait and see how that pans out.

 

[LordRaptor]

The only worry I have at this point on anything is ram amount just cause I don't want the OS to suffer due to limited RAM as the games need to use it all. I'll have to wait and see how that pans out.

I'm not really expecting the switch OS to be continuously 'active' like the PS4 or X1s are to be honest, where you have things like all activity being recorded TIVO style for instant upload / snapped music apps running while you're playing your game / installing your game as a background process while you are playing it etc.

 

[th3sicknness]

I'm fine with the CPU and GPU power especially for what it's trying to be in a hybrid. Plus 720p is fine for the handheld screen.

The only worry I have at this point on anything is ram amount just cause I don't want the OS to suffer due to limited RAM as the games need to use it all. I'll have to wait and see how that pans out.

I am more worried about them wooing third parties to the platform. I was under the impression that being substantially weaker was the main reason third parties abandoned the Wii U (prior to sales being bad).

 

[Nostremitus]

I'm fine with the CPU and GPU power especially for what it's trying to be in a hybrid. Plus 720p is fine for the handheld screen.

The only worry I have at this point on anything is ram amount just cause I don't want the OS to suffer due to limited RAM as the games need to use it all. I'll have to wait and see how that pans out.

Yeah, I hope the tile-based rasterization is on point. Do devs need to code for this or is it something that's automatic?

 

[Vanillalite]

I'm not really expecting the switch OS to be continuously 'active' like the PS4 or X1s are to be honest, where you have things like all activity being recorded TIVO style for instant upload / snapped music apps running while you're playing your game / installing your game as a background process while you are playing it etc.

It doesn't have to be that to need a decent amount of RAM though.

Like I'll concede that it might not need 2 gigs for constantly archiving shit.

Even then if the 4 gig rumor is correct you'd need a solid gig just for general OS functions ala the Wii U.

I don't think it needs 8 gigs like the PS4 and Xbox One, but I think 6 gigs would be a better sweet spot as you wouldn't have to push available VRAM to 3 gigs or under if the OS needs a gig.

*There are 6 gig lpddr4 variants, but I think it's probably too new for the Switch.

 

[Okami Haundo]

I am more worried about them wooing third parties to the platform. I was under the impression that being substantially weaker was the main reason third parties abandoned the Wii U (prior to sales being bad).

If that were the case, I don't think we would have seen any third party support for the Wii... Developers will find a way to make a game work if they think they can generate sales on a given platform.

 

[LordRaptor]

It doesn't have to be that to need a decent amount of RAM though.

Sure, I just have different expectations regarding what Nintendo are going to want to do with their OS than what Sony and MS do. If nothing else, its still a portable device, so I'd expect it to be pretty ruthless about terminating or suspending background tasks for battery reasons if no other.

 

[Vanillalite]

Sure, I just have different expectations regarding what Nintendo are going to want to do with their OS than what Sony and MS do. If nothing else, its still a portable device, so I'd expect it to be pretty ruthless about terminating or suspending background tasks for battery reasons if no other.

I got that. Even a portable system these days will probably need a gig. I don't see a way around that.

So if we get 4 gigs that means only 3 left over for VRAM. I highly doubt Nintendo would only reserve 512megs.

 

[Oblivion]

Nobody is saying that.

CPU > x1
Gpu< x1
Memory < x1
Overall < x1

Get it?

Wait, what?

Why would you have a CPU that's supposedly more powerful than the X1, while being significantly less impressive on the GPU and RAM front? Wouldn't those deficiencies completely undermine whatever benefits a powerful CPU would have?

 

[Interfectum]

Wait, what?

Why would you have a CPU that's supposedly more powerful than the X1, while being significantly less impressive on the GPU and RAM front? Wouldn't those deficiencies completely undermine whatever benefits a powerful CPU would have?

I don't think its a case of Nintendo specifically going for a powerful CPU, more like current gen systems have really shit CPUs so they aren't hard to beat.

 

[Hermii]

Wait, what?

Why would you have a CPU that's supposedly more powerful than the X1, while being significantly less impressive on the GPU and RAM front? Wouldn't those deficiencies completely undermine whatever benefits a powerful CPU would have?

To be able to keep the power consumption down while still being theoretically able to run ports in a portable system. It's easier to scale down gpu processing than gpu processing.

 

[th3sicknness]

If that were the case, I don't think we would have seen any third party support for the Wii... Developers will find a way to make a game work if they think they can generate sales on a given platform.

I guess the ultimately the issue with the Wii U was the concept itself which affected the sell through. Developers were unwilling to take the risk of developing a game where they had to make compromises in quality for little return. I hope the switch much like the original Wii has a more targeted marketing message (which it seems it does based on the teaser we saw). The idea itself is much easier to understand than the Wii U ever was so that could be a huge factor (that and merging console / portable markets to 1 platform).

Past the mid point of the Wii developers understood that parity wasnt possible and that the casual audience that Nintendo catered to wasnt interested in the games they were making. Much like the Wii U it seems like the audience was more interested in first and second party games rather than third parties.

 

[Vanillalite]

Wait, what?

Why would you have a CPU that's supposedly more powerful than the X1, while being significantly less impressive on the GPU and RAM front? Wouldn't those deficiencies completely undermine whatever benefits a powerful CPU would have?

It's gotten to a point that cheap arm CPUs are just that good relative to the shit tier AMD stuff is currently pedalling.

 

[Candescence]

I don't think its a case of Nintendo specifically going for a powerful CPU, more like current gen systems have really shit CPUs so they aren't hard to beat.

To be able to keep the power consumption down while still being theoretically able to run ports in a portable system. It's easier to scale down gpu processing than gpu processing.

Pretty much both of these are right. It's not hard to beat out Jaguar cores, devs will probably appreciate having a better CPU to work with regardless of whether the GPU matches the competition or not.

 

[Interfectum]

I guess the ultimately the issue with the Wii U was the concept itself which affected the sell through. Developers were unwilling to take the risk of developing a game where they had to make compromises in quality for little return. I hope the switch much like the original Wii has a more targeted marketing message (which it seems it does based on the teaser we saw). The idea itself is much easier to understand than the Wii U ever was so that could be a huge factor (that and merging console / portable markets to 1 platform).

Past the mid point of the Wii developers understood that parity wasnt possible and that the casual audience that Nintendo catered to wasnt interested in the games they were making. Much like the Wii U it seems like the audience was more interested in first and second party games rather than third parties.

I think a lot of third parties will see if Switch is a good 'double dip' machine where you have hardcore gamers who want to own their favorite PS4/Xbone games on-the-go for Switch.

I'd totally rebuy Overwatch, Rocket League, Hitman, Dark Souls, etc for the Switch. Maybe over time I'd stop buying the PS4 versions altogether and wait for the Switch. It honestly depends on how much of a graphical sacrifice is made between the ports (for me anyway).

 

[AlStrong]

Yeah, I hope the tile-based rasterization is on point. Do devs need to code for this or is it something that's automatic?

No more than on PC (it's automagical).

Of course, devs could still cater towards how the rest of the HW is setup (registers, cache lines etc.) if they intend to expose such low-level programming.

 

[th3sicknness]

Wait, what?

Why would you have a CPU that's supposedly more powerful than the X1, while being significantly less impressive on the GPU and RAM front? Wouldn't those deficiencies completely undermine whatever benefits a powerful CPU would have?

I agree, but you need to remember we have NO idea what ram / GPU they are really using.. We dont even know what CPU they will use because it is going to be customized anyways. We are only speculating based on leaks and vague statements made by Nvidia.

From your comments POV there is no point in saying you have a race car that is amazing if you are just going to put standard unleaded in it rather than race gas and use standard tires rather than racing slicks.

GPU at this point is mostly what matters in gaming. On the PC you could have bought an i series CPU at inception 6 years ago with DDR3 and only have had to upgrade your GPU to play modern games at really good fps. I bought an i5 5 or so years ago and upgraded my video twice since then. But on the flip side i5 / i7 are really good CPUs so im not sure this scenario may apply.

 

[Skittzo0413]

I am more worried about them wooing third parties to the platform. I was under the impression that being substantially weaker was the main reason third parties abandoned the Wii U (prior to sales being bad).

The Wii U also apparently had a very complex CPU and GPGPU set up which made porting a lot more difficult than advertised during the lead up to its launch. At least according to reports from developers.

The Switch is basically using standard hardware (as far as we know) along with much, much better software tools and documentation, thanks to the Nvidia partnership, which is likely to make porting far easier.

Bottom line is we have a lot of reports that there is no technical reason that the Switch can't get PS4/XB1 ports.

 

[MacTag]

Wait, what?

Why would you have a CPU that's supposedly more powerful than the X1, while being significantly less impressive on the GPU and RAM front? Wouldn't those deficiencies completely undermine whatever benefits a powerful CPU would have?

Think less in terms of Switch having an incredibly overpowered CPU and more in terms of PS4/XBO having incredibly underpowered CPUs.

Pretty much both of these are right. It's not hard to beat out Jaguar cores, devs will probably appreciate having a better CPU to work with regardless of whether the GPU matches the competition or not.

An addition to this Nintendo tends to learn from hardware mistakes (N64 memory latency, GCN disc size, Wii storage, etc) and correct in the following hardware. Wii U was crippled by it's CPU design, even Miyamoto complained about it.

Also keep in mind Nintendo has recently focused a lot on performance and framerate is one aspect that really hinges on CPU capability. Switch seems almost tailor made to be The 60fps Console, albeit at 720p.

 

[The_Lump]

Think less in terms of Switch having an incredibly overpowered CPU and more in terms of PS4/XBO having incredibly underpowered CPUs.


An addition to this Nintendo tends to learn from hardware mistakes (N64 memory latency, GCN disc size, Wii storage, etc) and correct in the following hardware. Wii U was crippled by it's CPU design, even Miyamoto complained about it.

Also keep in mind Nintendo has recently focused a lot on performance and framerate is one aspect that really hinges on CPU capability. Switch seems almost tailor made to be The 60fps Console, albeit at 720p.

Was thinking this too. If I was given a choice between current console graphics at 2K/4K 30fps and current/slightly better graphics at 720p 60fps I would happily take the latter. And that's coming from someone who games in 4k on PC and just bought an Xbox One S to go with my new 4k TV.

Yes I like the super high resolution and yes it looks cool, but I don't like the thought of PS4 pro's (for example) extra power being wasted on striving for 2K/4K resolutions when it could be used to just make 720p games look absolutely incredible instead.

That said, I'm not expecting Switch to have XB1 or PS4 level graphics at any resolution, but that's not why I'm buying a Switch. I'll be more than happy with something between WiiU and XB1 levels graphics, with smooth framerates and on a 720p screen.

 

[10k]

The Switch will be less "CPU limited" than the PS4 and XBO are.

Thank God.