ShadowFox08
Member
THe Wii U's memory was slower than 360/ps3. It just had more.
Nintendo Switch Dev Kit Stats Leaked? Cortex A57, 4GB RAM, 32GB Storage, Multi-Touch.
- Thread starter Robert at Zeboyd Games
- Start date
- Status
THe Wii U's memory was slower than 360/ps3. It just had more.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Plus, vern hinted in a deleted post that Nintendo's big secret for Switch is that it has some other mysterious way of handling the RAM differences. My theory is that it is related to Nintendo's patent about utilizing home PC networks and other hardware to handle some of the load.
A lot was made of Wii U's slow DDR3 but in the end it didn't seem to amount to much if any real issue for developers. The big problem with Wii U was the CPU bottleneck.
That's interesting, I hadn't heard about that.
ultrazilla
Gold Member
I wouldn't assume that at all. 2 of the 3 games you mentioned first and foremost aren't even out yet. So that's a bit unfair.
If it's close to Xbox One in terms of performance(or just slightly less) as has been talked about, I'd argue that it could run BF 1 and most current third party offerings.
Remember that when reports came out initially about the Switch dev units going out to developers that a few had said porting their games were super easy and they were running very well.
I really do think the Switch will end up being more powerful than people are imagining/talking about. How powerful IMO? I think smack dab right in the middle of Xbox One-PS4 performance in docked mode.
This always depends on what actually needs to be adjusted. I won't lie, trying to get my game working on the Wii U has been tough, but that has mostly to do with tools available. If the tools available were better then this would be simpler. I don't think the NS will such a huge drop from Xbox One base, so getting things to work will be much simpler. Going from console docked mode to handheld mode seems like it's something that takes care of itself. Without knowing how this all performs (because we still don't have all the details and haven't seen a game running on the machine), we're pretty much just shooting in the dark anyway.
I think there's a lot of pessimism in this thread when there really shouldn't be. The hardware seems pretty good for what it's trying to do, so we should let dominoes fall where they may. If the NS doesn't get ports, then I think it's not really about the hardware, but other things (audience, sales, etc.).
I'm starting to believe that the Dev Kit specs that are leaked in the OP are mainly based on the Tegra development board from Nvidia and not the final Switch hardware. This is a gaming console; the LPDDR4 bandwidth is a bottleneck and Nintendo has always dealt with this type of issue by adding some smaller RAM with a wider bandwidth than the main one with every single one of their consoles excepted for the N64. Actually, pretty much every dedicated gaming hardware design use this type of configuration. The development board from Nvidia weren't made in mind to be dedicated video game platform running intensive 3D imaging, hence the lack of VRAM. They were mostly designed to run Android/Linux OSes and then some.
Makes too much sense. The Switch probably has some dedicated VRAM but this info hasn't been leaked yet.
What doesn't fit my theory is that I'm unaware of a type of fast RAM that had low voltage profile (ex: a type of low-profile GDDR5 or something like that)
Makes too much sense. The Switch probably has some dedicated VRAM but this info hasn't been leaked yet.
What doesn't fit my theory is that I'm unaware of a type of fast RAM that had low voltage profile (ex: a type of low-profile GDDR5 or something like that)
If it's indeed Maxwell based and not Pascal based, with 4GB RAM and 32GB storage and using X1 memory controller I expect Switch to be cheap. That's the only thing that could reasonably explain using Maxwell over Pascal. Especially since it's more power consuming and more heat generating for the same performance.
Osiris
I permanently banned my 6 year old daughter from using the PS4 for mistakenly sending grief reports as it's too hard to watch or talk to her
Economics.
The same factor that will either see the Switch with a change in 3rd party relationships, or will not.
Personally I think "not", I think Nintendo would need a serious cultural shift afway from seeing 3rd parties as competitors rather than as partners to truly bring back significant interest from 3rd parties to bring more titles to their platforms and I don't see that happening.
The "Nintendo h/w for Nintendo games" is a millstone around Nintendos neck, IMO.
Eh... the statement—or at least its interpretations—don't pass my smell test. At the very least, there is more to the story.
Even if the currently discussed specs would turn out to be lower than what is actually in the system, unless one assumes significant redevelopment efforts and downgrades in every area of performance-pushing PS4/XBO games, I don't see how a device constraint by the power and temperature requirements of its mobile mode could run straight ports of these games.
Schnozberry
Member
That's fair, but I think at the end of the day software makes or breaks them. Zelda is a good start, but they need to keep the conveyor belt moving. Gaps in their calendar will kill them again.
There is a lot more indications that it's pascal than maxwell.
Schnozberry
Member
Employing Occam's Razor here, would those patents be able to offer the kind of immediacy that's required to improve game performance? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to have a custom cache setup on chip, or some other kind of embedded memory? Seems illogical to me to leap to something that is, at bare minimum, going to delay processing by a second or more when nanoseconds count.
The Last One
Member
My question was retorical. Thirds DID bring their games to Nintendo systems (DS and 3DS), despite the tech inside them.
What move devs and publishers has more to do with sales than specs, although the latter also constitutes a fundamental factor
Regarding 3rd parties, many people seem to forget(or don't know) about this:
http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=203631027
To be honest, this was always going to be the make or break point. Ultimately, it all comes down to games that people feel compelled to play. My hope is that the NS has a great lineup of games at the start. This is why I'm looking forward to January.
I will never understand Nintendo. Let's say the specs are still below an Xbox one. Why would developers waste time and money to downgrade their 3rd party games to run on switch hardware? Did Nintendo not learn their lesson with Wii u or don't care? Let's say for instance red dead redemption 2. A announced 3rd party game.will it be ported to the switch? I understand Nintendo isn't here to compete with Sony and Microsoft.. But can Nintendo afford another flop with the switch? I will be getting a switch that's for certain.. But it would be Damm nice if I can play my Zelda and Mario games along with a red dead redemption 2 without any dumbed down graphics or features compared to say the Xbox one version.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I am not entirely sure, but combining that deleted post with Matt's statement about no porting issues, and they've got something cooking.
They sure seem to have downscaled Wii U development for a while now so there must be something akin a steady stream coming at least.
I always thought that was already a given given the timelines. 6 months out from launch devkits rarely have final hardware and this "devkit leak" perfectly reflects the Eurogamer "overclocked X1 in devkits" reporting from July.
I seriously doubt it'll be Maxwell/20nm anyway. There's just too much Pascal talk and it makes too much logical sense to this direction for performance, for battery drain, for longterm cost, etc.
That's what I don't understand. The infos seems to be contradictory. On one hand you have some people who claims that there shouldn't be any problems in porting PS4/XBO games, and on the other hand the specs says otherwise.
When EA switched over to pretty much universal Frostbite usage is when Wii U getting anything died. PS3/360 could barely run frostbite with their CPUs and the Wii U was much worse.
The Wii U was not capable of running Frostbite at anywhere near an acceptable level. Nintendo put an improved GPU etc. in the Wii U then completely destroyed any advantage it offered by using a garbage CPU. Even Miyamoto has gone on record about the CPU being an issue and limiting his own work
Have you ever though about the possibility of Nintendo releasing a PS4 and flopping hard?
I agree. Without additional qualification and information, these statements make little sense to me.
It died well before that. Almost immediately after launch, as evidenced by the near complete Crysis 3 port EA canned. EA killing Wii U support was entirely market based decision.
Grampa Simpson
Banned
The main unit of the Switch will probably be named NX-01 or NX-001 - NX-01 was the Enterprise in Star Trek Enterprise.
I wonder if there's a Star Trek theme happening in the NX.
This is totally a weekend post and I refrained from making it a new thread.
I'm probably still a bit drunk from last night.
I want a Star Trek themed Nintendo console.
I wonder if there's a Star Trek theme happening in the NX.
This is totally a weekend post and I refrained from making it a new thread.
I'm probably still a bit drunk from last night.
I want a Star Trek themed Nintendo console.
Are you a developer?
The Last One
Member
Speaking of Fristbite, are there news/rumors about the Switch support for this engine?
This is what's concerns me about the switch. It's Nintendo being Nintendo.. Again. Xbox one level graphics are nearly 4 years old at this point. The switch is not able to match this level of specs? Why? So it's more powerful than a Wii u yet not as powerful as a Xbox one? Explain how ports will be easy? Xbox one and ps4 games are dumbed down as it is compared to their Pc counterparts.. What will ports on the switch look like? I'm guessing terrible but we shall see.
I am a computer scientist, so I appreciate rational arguments and evidence over arguments from authority.
I know that and I still can't believe Nintendo would chose to use a fab node that's practically dead (there is a huge difference between using an old fab node and a practically dead one) because of its issues. But IF that's the case, it must be because of the cheap costs.
It should have no problem running frostbite. In the end as people have stated Support will come down to if it makes business sense. Even if all Nintendo gets are sports games that is an improvement for them.
It's not that simple. How things perform in real world applications is the most important and it's something we don't know right as we haven't seen a game running on the hardware. However, we have heard about ports being easy to setup and working fine. I'm gonna go with the idea that this will not be an issue and look forward to seeing the games.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
It can't get any worse than the WiiU situation...can it?
The rumored specs are not as accurate a representation of performance as they might seem. Until we know more about the custom nature of the chip and the way Nintendo has designed the various elements of the device to work together efficiently (or not,) we are just sort of looking at it like a traditional tablet with a set of specs, which is not likely to be a good representation of the performance the Switch will have. January will be interesting.
That Nintendo seems to be more willing to talk about specs at all (in January) bodes well for the device's capabilities imo. It means they might be confident about it's performance.
I know I'm always the optimist when it comes to Nintendo, but maxwell architecture is far superior to r700 architecture inside Wii U, a direct raw flops to flops comparison without architecture adjustments puts x1 at 3 times as powerful as Wii U. Maxwell handles its performance much better than even GCN and sees those peak performances much more often, and contributes to the ~33% better performance than gcn found in XB1. 720p requires only about 600gflops to match xb1 at 1080p in the same architecture, considering 16fp is perfect for most post processing and maxwell is a better architecture hitting its theoretical performance more often than gcn, even the 512gflops number could be enough to match xb1 at 720p and then we get into dynamic resolutions and checkerboard rendering, it is too early to say what this hardware can do but it can definitely get current gen ports targeting 720p on this device.
Having said the above, don't expect 1:1 comparisons with xb1, it will be noticeably slower than xb1 but thanks to the cpu being faster and the ram being comparable, it should be fine. It really only has to find its place in the market, pokemon will help with the raw numbers but gamers are going to have to buy ports and Nintendo is going to have to push for the mature market.
Because it can be held in the palm of your hands. It's quite simple.
I hope what your saying is true. Honestly I don't mind playing at 720p on the tablet if it means solid ports from xb1. I just hope Nintendo do really pushes 3rd parties to actually port their games to the switch. I want to be able to play Zelda breath of the wild on the go along with say red dead redemption 2.
The Last One
Member
But you won't.
These leaked specs are also an argument from authority (supposedly reliable insiders), as they've yet to be confirmed by an official source.
The odd thing about the Wii U is that its production must have been pretty costly for what it was in the end. I have no idea what went wrong here behind the scenes.
If Nintendo were to directly compete with Sony they'd have to play the same game. Repackage PC hardware into a smaller case and position it as super ultra high end video game machine. That's just out of Nintendo's capabilities at this point. That's not what they want to do. It's a highly competitive field between multimedia giant Sony and OS monster Microsoft. The funny thing is that even the PS4 doesn't do that hot in Japan. Add in that you'd need some serious resources to build up a robust enough online structure to support something like FIFA or Call of Duty. Again, I don't see Nintendo even trying to achieve this. They want to make Mario and sell you toys.
If this elusive Nintendo PS4 were to flop, that could be way worse than Wii U. Way worse.
RavageDark
Member
Said authority also said that the Switch wasn't going to use NVIDIA.
Or both : get better power efficiency when on battery (this would be the target you design your games around), and then gain more power when docked and no need to save battery - giving the increase needed to go from 720p-1080p hopefully
The fact that they focused on "core" gamers in their trailer bodes well for that. They didn't spend time showing Wii Sports or anything like that. Skyrim, Splatoon, Mario Kart, and 3D Mario are games that appeal to the "core" with a sprinkling of casual in there. It'll be interesting to see what games they show off, but we know a few "core" games are coming Dragon Quest being one of the biggest. Either way, I'm hopeful for the future, more than I was with the Wii U.
But it still means that one GB of Switch is NOT equal to one GB of PS4 correct?
suddenly the system seems weaker by the second.
The funniest thing really right now is just how dramatic everything has gotten. Yet from the get go it was stated to expect something in the 512-750gflop range. Nothing in that regard has changed that is still what's expected.
At this point we simply lack the fine details of customizations etc. to get a finalized look at what to expect from bandwidth etc.
At this point we simply lack the fine details of customizations etc. to get a finalized look at what to expect from bandwidth etc.
Fourth Storm
Member
I was speaking of Switch as a "home console," the same way Nintendo have referred to it. For a home console, it does not even come close to matching the much-decried Xbox One. As a home console, it is roughly comparable to the jump from Gamecube to Wii. That absolutely killed the potential 3rd party support Wii could have sported. Now, from what we hear of the architecture, it's very modern, so the scenarios aren't exactly the same. Still, it is looking like Switch may be running multiplatforms at sub-HD resolutions in a year when Sony and MS are moving on to 4k. That's...horrible.
As a handheld, as I've said, it's quite nice. The problem there is that every statistic shows the handheld market shrinking, and quite drastically at that. I'm also interested in seeing how the Japanese audience will respond to the size/battery life of Switch. I am expecting good indie support, support from the likes of Atlus, Square Enix, and Capcom, but that did not save the Wii U or allow 3DS to sell as well as the DS.
At the very least, Switch looks to be a good foundation to build on if Nintendo have built the OS properly.
Correct, but it's clear Nintendo have no intentions in 3rd party games matching the resolutions of their PS4 counterparts. Switch is very much a portable device that can output to the tv despite what Nintendo's marketing claims. That is, unless your expectations for a home console begin and end with Wii U.
Jose92
[Membe
Thank you for posting some sense in this thread.
We can speculate as much as we want but we won't know nothing until January, the Tetra chip will be heavily customized and we don't know how it is to develope on it since no one has ever tried to port a xb1ps4 game on that Nvidia architecture. My guess is that it is possible if resolution of the porting will be 720p or less and slightly downgraded effects, 4GB of ram are not gonna run actual AAA games at higher resolution than 720p at best, besides the also weaker GPU. The real question is, will it be easy enough to port a game to Switch? And will Switch have enough success to deserve them?
- Status