I'm expecting stable third party support from Japan. We've been discussing for a while in the Media Create threads but Switch(as the 3DS' successor) is the make or break point for the console industry is there. If third parties don't support it and it fails then consoles are done, as are quite a few publishers.
Nintendo Switch Dev Kit Stats Leaked? Cortex A57, 4GB RAM, 32GB Storage, Multi-Touch.
- Thread starter Robert at Zeboyd Games
- Start date
- Status
I'm expecting stable third party support from Japan. We've been discussing for a while in the Media Create threads but Switch(as the 3DS' successor) is the make or break point for the console industry is there. If third parties don't support it and it fails then consoles are done, as are quite a few publishers.
But a few of us do, and we are saying the leaked specs are what you should expect.
Could you give me a link for the post from "these" people who apparently know about the Switch ?
This thread, past few pages. Search for me and NateDrake.
Edit: this thread is where it began today, then moved here where we are now: http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1302355&page=100000
There were some tweets on the last page from Emily about this. She even verified the 4GB RAM. I don't know if the specs here are the final or if they're 100% accurate, but people keep saying that we should expect something along those lines.
Stop the hints and drop dem info.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
So 4GB of RAM on a mobile with more efficiency, plus NateDrake is still confident this uses Pascal.
I am more than fine with this. I am also further convinced this thing is going to be $199-249.
Also, vern, there is something else Nintendo hasn't said yet about the system. Would you say it is big news?
I am more than fine with this. I am also further convinced this thing is going to be $199-249.
Also, vern, there is something else Nintendo hasn't said yet about the system. Would you say it is big news?
I've given hard info today, as much as I'm able to. Such as 3.2 GB RAM for games. Sorry I can't give more.
I think a lot of people will make a big deal out of it, but to me I think it's smart and shows Nintendo is really confident in this system and its appeal. It's very focused.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
<never mind>
She should clarify about these "v2" devkits. Are they the final ones, the ones before or even older? PS4's bump from 4 to 8GB of RAM was basically last minute, so maybe they went with 6 in the latest kits. Not saying this is going to be the case but i believe it's a possibility, 3GB for games (assuming 1 reserved to the os) today would be utter shit, even for mobile hardware like this.
The gpu being similar to TX1 doesn't mean much either, it can be Pascal with the same performances to save battery life and generate less heat. Still, it would be idiotic in a custom design to do 2 SM at a higher clock instead of 3 at a lower one.
And this would influence a custom design because...?
A57 is idiotic not because of performances, but because they're bigger cores that generate more heat.
ecosse_011172
Junior Member
OK, thanks, my apologies.
I hope you're right and Vern is wrong
Can we assume no A72?
Any info on how significant the docked mode performance will increase?
Do you think there will be any SCD-type significant add-ons?
And she calls that good news lol
This is the first underwhelming thing I've heard about the console so far, and it's really stupid. If they really went with 4GB, a 512Gflops GPU and those ancient cores this thing better not be more than 199.
6GB with 1-1.5 reserved to the os would've been perfect.
ecosse_011172
Junior Member
I don't think a portable console could be expected with that chipset could be expected to have more than 4GB.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
4GB RAM
ecosse_011172
Junior Member
I don't think there's any doubt about that.
Did anyone seriously expect a hybrid at PS4 power levels?
They won't get those at any case! And with a hybrid it's obviously less likely they'll match power. That's the 'price' they have to pay to be able to offer a better line-up than they would otherwise. It's not a big price because, as said, they would not be gettin the 2017, 2018, 2019 Call of Duties and Battlefields anyway.
Seriously...
People should have lowered their expectations for AAA Western support the moment Nintendo announced it was a portable hybrid system.
The Switch is too weak in comparison to have lots of PS4 ports and it's a different architecture. I don't think the RAM would have changed this. No one should expect majority of multiplatform games on Switch. The trailer for Switch didn't have many current gen multiplatform games. It showed old stuff like Skyrim.
There's certainly been quite a few folks saying they'd expect Switch to get ports of PS4 titles, at least, even if the XB1 didn't, say.
With this kind of performance gaps, that could basically be almost impossible for many of the larger titles.
Yes and I knew these people were deluding themselves.
Kinda hoping this would be able to get some 3rd parties even if worse than xbone. At the very least will it be able to support your typical major third party publishers but i guess the effort into this will now depend on whether this is successful or not =/
and now i'm reminded of my wii u
and now i'm reminded of my wii u
TheMagician
Member
So many clueless posts...
Most from who wouldn't buy Switch no matter what anyone.
They want Switch, while being portable, to have the specs of a miles bigger non portable console, have 10 hour battery life, a 1080p screen, carts which hold the same as blu ray, be $199 dollars and have ports of games which they would never buy on a Nintendo system, ports of which need to look the same as they do on other consoles.
I mean some of that is potentially possible......if you don't mind Switch costing £350+ and have less than one hour of battery life.
Most from who wouldn't buy Switch no matter what anyone.
They want Switch, while being portable, to have the specs of a miles bigger non portable console, have 10 hour battery life, a 1080p screen, carts which hold the same as blu ray, be $199 dollars and have ports of games which they would never buy on a Nintendo system, ports of which need to look the same as they do on other consoles.
I mean some of that is potentially possible......if you don't mind Switch costing £350+ and have less than one hour of battery life.
Why couldn't this machine get the CoD games? Hell, the original Wii got a bunch of them and the gap between the 360 and Wii was huge. There is no real reason the NS couldn't get current gen ports. There's a gap here, sure, but it's much much smaller.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
I'm coming to terms with this just being two Wii Us strapped together that I'll play for the 2-3 Nintendo games a year that interest me
Gotta wonder what the audience is for that, tho.
Gotta wonder what the audience is for that, tho.
andythinkpad
Member
The way I see it, this is a Samsung galaxy Tab s2 gut in a shitty tab 4 7.0 body. The s2's soc has 4 A57 core running at 1.9 ghz. And the tab 4 has a 1280x800 LCD screen.
So you take this screen, chop it down to 720 pixel height, that's how you get the 6.x" screen. Also upgrade s2's 3gb RAM to 4gb.
I hope it runs Android so people can run google map and comic book viewers.
So you take this screen, chop it down to 720 pixel height, that's how you get the 6.x" screen. Also upgrade s2's 3gb RAM to 4gb.
I hope it runs Android so people can run google map and comic book viewers.
Ehh Matt said this in the 16GB card thread:
I'm inclined to believe him. Vita could manage PS3 ports despite being like 10 times weaker than the PS3.
I think if they wanted to they could port pretty much any game to Switch, but whether they will want to or not is an entirely different question. I really wouldn't rule out all AAA multiplatform games though.
TheMagician
Member
Well if they bring in some of the audience from the 3DS and others who like portable hardware then it's pretty big.
Vampirolol
Member
So with the rumored architecture, can we say that ports may be as hard as PS3 to Wii U? Is the difference that big? (Not talking about power alone)
It could. But the wii got CoD games because it was successful, so there is some money on the table. Wii u didn't receive anymore CoD games after ghosts/BO3. Why put in the work for the port when the console isn't successful, not even dlc was brought to wii u.
The problem with Wii U was its super weak CPU. Switch should be a lot better in that regard. I think its generally easier to reduce GPU-intensive things than CPU-intensive things. Ports might actually be easier but won't be as close in graphics/performance.
Why does Android actually need so much RAM? Is it that badly optimised?
Right but then it makes sense for Activision to give it a shot because Switch might be successful too. I'm sure Activision would have loved to be able to port COD to the 3DS.
OminoMichelin
Member
We don't know if it's android yet, do we? And no, android does not need much RAM to run.
mysteriousmage09
Member
People should have lowered their expectations simply because it is Nintendo. Even before confirmation on Switch being a hybrid, the general word going around was it would be close to Xbone specs, and Xbone specs were shit when it launched in 2013. This is just flat out bad. The saving grace will be if this thing is really cheap.
Candescence
Member
The architecture is a non-factor. x86 to ARM is a trivial porting process these days, nevermind that ARM is more ubiquitous than x86 these days as well.
Besides, how much the type of hardware architecture matters in terms of porting is becoming increasingly irrelevant and overblown. Even the fact that the Wii U used PowerPC being a possible porting issue was making mountains out of molehills, even if it's now a non-issue anyway. Game engines and consoles are becoming increasing abstracted, hence why a Wii U emulator is already around and actually working pretty well.
We have no idea if the NS is gonna be successful or not. I'm only pointing out that this hardware is not stopping ports from happening. If the games aren't coming, then there are other problems besides the hardware. Not only that, but we have yet to see a game actually running on the hardware. Stats like this don't tell the whole story.
TheMagician
Member
That was when it was thought it wasn't a console which is portable though.
Have you seen the size of the Xbone, or even the S model?
You think it's possible to have that as a portable console with its own screen and battery?
It's possible.....if you want to pay a huge price and have a 30 minute battery.
It doesn't run Android according to Nintendo.
And Android doesn't need much RAM? 3GB is the minimum you want these days with Android, and some phones already put in 6 GB or more. Just think it's odd when iOS runs without issues when it has so much less RAM.
Okay, I'm thinking of a few scenarios.
<Scenario 1>
Kimishima: The Switch features... a Share button!
<Scenario 2>
Kimishima: The Switch plays... Mobile games!
<Scenario 3>
Kimishima: The Switch comes with... a Supplemental Computing Device!
<Scenario 4>
Kimishima: We are going... Third party!
...
I've got nothing.
Fine for a portable, disappointing for a console. Not that I really mind. I keep my expectations regarding 3rd party support in check anyway. Helps keep the price down (a tiny bit), too, I guess.
4GB RAM
If what's been said is true Switch using 3.2GB of RAM vs PS4 using 4.5GB for games isn't that bad actually.
The other two consoles blow through half their RAM on the OS alone.
Bloatware. Phone manufacturers run their own stuff in addition to Android. That's the main thing I know of.
Android multitasks much more than any gaming system OS, which requires a lot more RAM.
5, not 4. Not that this should be such a big deal. Third party games making it to Switch or not will mostly not be decided upon RAM.
5, not 4. Not that this should be such a big deal. Third party games making it to Switch or not will mostly not be decided upon RAM.
I've never messed around with Android, but I heard it's a big resource hog and is a little bloated. I'm not sure how true that is, though.
right. I think the assumption is that if it's somewhat close to xbone then there's some sort of incentive to port games. Why get games on NX as opposed to xbone or ps4 when not as powerful (will not look or perhaps even run as good)? Though I think performance is really important(maintaining stable fps).
Due to the fact that it's also portable, which could've been the appeal for getting third parties on nx. Meh we'll see.
- Status