Nintendo Switch Dev Kit Stats Leaked? Cortex A57, 4GB RAM, 32GB Storage, Multi-Touch.
- Thread starter Robert at Zeboyd Games
- Start date
- Status
God damn relax lol. Still all rumors here.
On the Jimmy Fallon show the port on the bottom of the Switch did look like USB Type C....
Cow Mengde
Banned
1440p? Come on, that's pure bullshit. I've never even heard of this guy. Where is he pulling these numbers from? I don't buy it.
It would be exceedingly strange, especially considering that UE4 preset. If that preset is correct as a general guideline, then the 1440p would drop to 960p resolution, rather than 1080p as this Ace Yasuda claims. Is Ace Yasuda a reliable source for this stuff at all (who is he anyway)?
It's a consulting firm giving predictions. WSJ Tweeted additional stuff from this firm in early November.
The screen is probably going to be 720p. It was just a tidbit from a Japanese analyst going through the recent postulated patents it seems.
It is an USB Type-C connector.
Remember, Takashi is quoting an analyst. The same analyst said in November this:
__
Internally, yes. It's in the patents. The output from the dock is HDMI.
__
Internally, yes. It's in the patents. The output from the dock is HDMI.
Hehe I am good.. just wanted to get ahead of this one early. But yeah, USB-C is pretty much a given, which is a great move considering the form factor.
And that's that! Time for sleep.
Ok cool haha. Displayport and USB Type C look kinda similar from afar but with all the info out now I agree it is a given.
Thanks, I don't mean to sound concrete, if you take GTX 1060 and test a bunch of games against RX 480, you will see it wins most and loses some. This is more about optimizations at this point and if they choose to use fp16 (mixed precision) which can have a small or large impact depending on what the GPU is asked to do, a lot of effects can be done in fp16 and if that is what is majorly being asked, it can improve performance drastically.
We should also look at Doom 2016, it is probably one of the best optimized games we have seen this generation, that is optimized at an API level surrounding vulkan, which Switch is somewhat built around, it's own NVN API is rumored to be based on, NVN is speculated to mean Nintendo Vulkan Nvidia.
In terms of other customizations my post is ignoring them unpurpose to give a base performance, no mixed precision was speculated, no checkerboard rendering, memory compression or other features that we know Switch can do. What I did was give context to SM counts we assume, Clocks we know and Architecture we know (again there is no performance difference between maxwell and pascal) that means we know the base performance of the device given any number of cuda cores, so when we say 2SM or 3SM, we know what that entails.
I'm trying to give posters who don't really understand tech, a reference of power, something other than the complete sky is falling knee jerk reactions we've gotten over the past 2 days, so giving baseline performance right now is more important than talking about if a developer utilizes everything available to them. We just shouldn't expect them
because it will be more rare, and the variance is huge, mixed precision alone could mean the difference between 45% xb1 and 80% xb1. Checkerboard rendering can mean the difference between 720p 60fps and 1080p 60fps, reality is that graphics have met a new horizon in the last 9 months or so, but the industry as a whole hasn't moved in that direction and a large part of that is only x1/pascal/vega offer these new breakout features.
Not a chance.
I think it is fair to mention that there is no rumour that mentions 3 SM. Not even a fake one. As of now, 3 SM is only a speculation created here to try to cope with the conflicting information.
It's not total fantasy, but it might well be that Occam provides another reason for the fan in the tablet.
It's not total fantasy, but it might well be that Occam provides another reason for the fan in the tablet.
Milly Osworth
Member
Back to the denial phase we go!
Once again thanks for the explanation. I see where you are coming from, and your reasoning, much better now. It will be interesting to see if Nintendo focuses on some of the things that are available to them with this modern architecture. 3rd parties as well.
lol, excellent point
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
It's not just Thraktor/blu - sane gaffers have been saying ARMv8 made the most sense for NX way before there were any actual hints of what its CPU architecture was - we've been going over potential ARMv8 configurations in speculation threads for .. I dunno, since there were rumors of NX?
Re the Switch/ps4 juxtaposition, here's a very rudimentary one: https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/compare/1398129?baseline=1396658
To see the DF picture, divide the left-side scores by 1.55. Let me help - first column is A57 @ 1.55GHz, second column - Jaguar @1.6GHz, third colum - first column / 1.55:
Code:
Single-Core Score 1304 967 841
AES 945 916 610
LZMA 1221 1191 788
JPEG 1561 1177 1007
Canny 1659 988 1070
Lua 1173 799 757
Dijkstra 1416 1366 914
SQLite 1206 751 778
HTML5 Parse 1381 902 891
HTML5 DOM 1259 819 812
Histogram Equalization 1697 1022 1095
PDF Rendering 1631 926 1052
LLVM 1562 825 1008
Camera 1700 1003 1097
SGEMM 472 300 305
SFFT 977 472 630
N-Body Physics 778 650 502
Ray Tracing 892 744 575
Rigid Body Physics 1424 977 919
HDR 1743 1333 1125
Gaussian Blur 1284 813 828
Speech Recognition 964 1012 622
Face Detection 1355 861 874
Memory Copy 1399 1056 903
Memory Latency 1821 3459 1175
Memory Bandwidth 1312 647 846And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how you bring a superior uarch to mediocre performance.
NeOak
Member
_/¯Yeah, you're right. I'm one of the offenders here, both because of wishful thinking and because of the fan. I will totes own up to it and eat crow once those silly hopes are dashed properly.
PdotMichael
Banned
3SM means a more expensive chip than a standard X1 chip for the same/less performance.
I mean why not?
I mean why not?
Kissenkopf
Banned
I'm just going to mark the fan up to needing to cool the device in 100f+ degree weather.
middle column is PS4, right column is switch CPUs per core performance.
Sorry about double post!
Actually a bit more performance in docked mode than a standard X1. Thraktor made a post in which he explained (with graphs and stuff even) that having more SMs as opposed to higher clock speeds would save battery life as it draws fewer watts. That would be the reason why they could choose that.
Most likely, though, they just didn't, and went cheap. But it is at least something we can think and speculate about (speculation doesn't hurt anyone - except if you cling to that speculation as a hope for better days, which frankly would be one's own fault).
Actually a bit more performance in docked mode than a standard X1. Thraktor made a post in which he explained (with graphs and stuff even) that having more SMs as opposed to higher clock speeds would save battery life as it draws fewer watts. That would be the reason why they could choose that.
Most likely, though, they just didn't, and went cheap. But it is at least something we can think and speculate about (speculation doesn't hurt anyone - except if you cling to that speculation as a hope for better days, which frankly would be one's own fault).
Could you explain how this would translate to the overall CPU picture? The per A57 core situation is just about similar at 1 GHz, but what configuration of cores can we reasonably expect for this chip?
Edit: I found on NVIDIA's website that the Tegra X1 chip has 4x A57 cores on it. So that would mean that the CPU has 4x this similar core performance, while Jaguar (if I'm not mistaken) has currently 7 cores freed for development (at first it had 6 I believe, but they added one, at least in the PS4 - but maybe it is not fully accessible?), I think.
It will be interesting if they bump the CPU clocks if they run into any problems. Also interesting if they open up the A53 cores that I'll assume is on there for the OS, leaving 1 or 2 cores for the OS still leaves 2 or 3 for developers, and they perform around 53% A57 performance iirc.
I can see why developers aren't having much issue here running their games on Switch if they targeted PS4 before, as long as they weren't using all cores at full tilt, it should be fairly straight forward, and slowing down some games to 30fps from 60fps would be all that they need as a worst case.
I'm just got four cores from what we know. It might not even have the four A53 cores that other Tegra X1 devices have.
PdotMichael
Banned
If it doesn't have A53 cores then it would be likely that one of the four A57 cores will not be avaiable for games.
Well, it says quad core in the OP.
So per thread, the CPU is roughly on par with PS4 / Xbone, but half* the cores to scale to.
*depending on OS core reservation
CPU looks to be Switch's strongest point, competitively.
Yeah we should just speculate on this mostly, there is plenty of overhead if Nintendo can't pull of ports of games they want though, it wouldn't be unheard of to see a device wide clock increase, so don't worry too much about the CPU.
Basically 4 switch cores are going to perform around 4 PS4 cores. Developers have access to 6 cores, possibly 7?
Couldn't be more wrong, it is the weakest link, while it is closer to PS4's performance overall, CPU performance is paramount to a good port, you'll see fewer frames on Switch if 5, 6 or 7 cores are used on PS4, but if this becomes a serious enough issue, Switch does have the ability to increase clocks or possibly access hidden cores meant to run the OS, it just isn't something we should be too concerned with as things can still be scaled, logic is just a bit more of a pain.
7th core isn't fully available i think.
Not entirely sure that applies, we are only talking about 4 to 6 cores (I believe PS4's 7th core is half access because of OS) but more importantly, if you code to a core specifically, you just have that core doing that thing you told it to, for instance if they give sound to just 1 core, you get that same benefit at 3 cores or 100 cores, the other cores are free from having to deal with sound.
yeah pretty sure it is half accessible and might not be available without turning off some features of the os, could mean that you have to ask sony for permission even.
I agree. What use is WQHD when people either have 1080p or 4K TVs?
It's already a stretch to say downsampling.
GhostTrick
Banned
I think that once the device is out and we see what's inside, we'll have a good laugh on how Nintendo managed to screw up another hardware design.
Some baffling decisions here and there. Not having a big.LITTLE setup sounds stupid in this day and age.
Some baffling decisions here and there. Not having a big.LITTLE setup sounds stupid in this day and age.
That is just speculation, a dev sheet wouldn't need to know about locked processors.
I agree though that they screwed up on clocks, everything should be 25% higher clocked, it doesn't make it a different device but it would be much easier to deal with ports from ps4.
GhostTrick
Banned
It doesn't make it a different device indeed, but it does limit the potential much more. 25% of performance is important when it represent 6fps on a 30fps game and 15fps on a 60fps game.
I don't know who's responsbiel for Switch hardware design, but it's baffling that even when Nintendo is shopping for a nearly off the shelves design, they manage to drag it down in a way or another.
They're trying to design an hybrid console without giving themselves the means to do so. In the end, it'll end up a good handheld with barely enough juice to translate what's on its screen to a bigger screen.
ChrisMahoney
Banned
deleted
yeah, I understand what you are saying, but it is still 45% of XB1 without any real funny business, that is still enough to do 720p version of 1080p xb1 games. It is also still 4 times more powerful than Wii U, without the need to display graphics on a second screen. Honestly Bayonetta 2's Starfox scene was pretty good, considering that can do 4x better with Bayonetta 3 or Starfox resurrection (because that is what it needs at this point) along with all the modern effects like god rays, and if the developers do use mixed precision, it's going to be a decent console.
You need something to run the OS in the background, using full A57 cores just kills battery life, meanwhile A53 cores sip at 1ghz, I wouldn't be surprised if it has them and they just aren't accessible by developers. We will know if we hear about any cpu core split for developers, but I think they need all 4 cores to really do any porting IMO.
Not really. You already add up funny business in this.
Aren't a lot of XB1 games not running at 1080p either?
GhostTrick
Banned
Yeah... More like between 40 and 45.
That is, if XB1 targets 1080p, which it does like 1 game for 10 ?
That is... For Switch docked to target 720p (which makes you wonder what handheld would be targeting).
Let's be fair, with the current hardware available, it could've been a better machine for these ports. Not that it matter for me. But itns clear Switch wasnt made with that in mind. It's a handheld which ups its clocks when docked to up the resolution on TV. Nth more, nth less.
As for the CPU cores, no, there's no hidden CPU cores or whatsoever to devs. Nintendo usually document that kind of stuff. They did for 3DS when 1core out of 2 was available, describing one as syscore and the other as appcore.
Cool can you point them out so I can remove them?
XB1 targets 1080p and uses dynamic resolution to keep performance from tanking, Switch COULD use that, or they can go with Checkerboard rendering to have a smoother look to the game. I'm trying not to dwell on features because some people can't handle it, they are way too broken over clock speed news, but Switch should handle XB1 games at a reasonable lower resolution without issue.
540p?
GhostTrick
Banned
My point was that XB1 struggles to reach 1080p. So Switch will struggle to bring that to 720p. Which will drag down handheld res even further.
That is inaccurate. XB1 targets 1080p for a few games. And it often uses dynamic res to target 900p.
As for checkerboard rendering, this is no magic and you still hurt IQ.
Your point is that Switch should be able to handle XB1 games when XB1 targets a resolution it can't even handle most of the time. XB1 is a 900p/720p machine.
- Status