I think a lot of people took her statements like "Below PS4 and XB1 in raw power." to mean something other than that.Emily never said that it's faster than Xbone; she only said that it was closer to Xbone than PS4 and everyone assumed that she was saying that it's between the two.
I just find it hard to belive it is x1. It had heat issues in almost all devices it was in. The pixel c had to downclock at points. 20nm was awful for mobile... Hope it is a rumor or battery life will blow.
That best case isn't happening, that "worst case" is closer to the actual best case.1.2GHz on 20nm docked is optimistic due to yields; 1.7GHz on 16nmFFis just trying to make sure that you're disappointed.
Nate wasn't even close to my mind when I typed that.
Okay, so tell me: what do you lose from going with the most likely scenario, that it's 20nm Maxwell? Also, no, there's no chance that the final dev kits and the retail units are using different architectures. That's pure desperation. If the dev kit isn't using final hardware, it's not a final dev kit.
That best case isn't happening, that "worst case" is closer to the actual best case.1.2GHz on 20nm docked is optimistic due to yields; 1.7GHz on 16nmFFis just trying to make sure that you're disappointed.
Okay, so tell me: what do you lose from going with the most likely scenario, that it's 20nm Maxwell? Also, no, there's no chance that the final dev kits and the retail units are using different architectures. That's pure desperation. If the dev kit isn't using final hardware, it's not a final dev kit.
More units @ lower clock is always better for battery. It's just that the chip might become too big (read: either too expensive or just non-viably big).I think Thraktor did some analysis about what it would be better for battery, 2 SM with higher clocks or 3 SM with lower clock, but I can't find it now. I wonder if it's probable to have 3 SM on 20nm.
Early devkits sometimes do that. Final devkits should be near identical or identical.Don't dev kits usually use off shelf parts because it takes a long time to design and manufacture custom chips before retail? You put something close to the chip you're designing in the dev kits so developers can get an idea of what they're working with before retail units are given out. Hasn't it worked like this for a looooooooong time? Why do I feel like people have forgotten that in this whole maxwell is in the final devkit debacle?
Because Nintendo.Don't dev kits usually use off shelf parts because it takes a long time to design and manufacture custom chips before retail? You put something close to the chip you're designing in the dev kits so developers can get an idea of what they're working with before retail units are given out. Hasn't it worked like this for a looooooooong time? Why do I feel like people have forgotten that in this whole maxwell is in the final devkit debacle?
Here's the thing, this revelation doesn't change anything compared to previous rumors other than potentially battery life. None if this is really a huge deal. I'm also annoyed by people pretending to know more than they actually do.
Here's the thing, this revelation doesn't change anything compared to previous rumors other than potentially battery life. None if this is really a huge deal. I'm also annoyed by people pretending to know more than they actually do.
Forgive my ignorance, but what is your background? Developer, engineer, something else?
lol.ninjablade alt account~
ninjablade alt account~
ninjablade alt account~
Even if portable mode is 400 flops and docked around 600-700 glops that is still a big step up from PS360 and Wii U. How many troops does Iphone 7 and the fastest android have?
ninjablade alt account~
Even if portable mode is 400 flops and docked around 600-700 glops that is still a big step up from PS360 and Wii U. How many troops does Iphone 7 and the fastest android have?
Snapdragon 820 is at 500GFLOPs of FP32 perf right now. It's being hampered by notoriously bad GFX drivers. Despite that it comes remarkably close to the x1 in real world gaming performance. Not sure about synthetic benchmarks.
Interested to see the benchmarks if you can link them. Can only find one benchmark were a 820 matched X1 in pixel C. Impressive to have that performance in a phone if it can really do it in most situations though!, no doubt 14nm helps.
I imagine they will release a much more powerful dedicated console based on the same architecture in late 2018.
ninjablade alt account~
A gaming console can't throttle it's clockspeed when the SoC reaches a certain temperature, like most mobile devices. The fan should allow the Switch to keep a constant power target without sacrificing performance when in heavy load scenarios.
Interested to see the benchmarks if you can link them. Can only find one benchmark were a 820 matched X1 in pixel C (so not full clock). Still very impressive to have that performance in a phone if it can really do it in most situations though!, no doubt 14nm helps.
So...maxwell architecture for NS GPU?
All these mentions of ninjablade trigger me. I've had to deal with him since back on the BannedChartz forums and then he appears here one day and survives his junior member phase. Thought I'd never see him gone
/offtopic
Sooooo, from someone's who's still rather green, can someone explain the "Ninjablade" situation for me?
big.LITTLE is only needed when trying to optimize multi tasking and battery power. If the Switch can maintain a constant amount of CPU performance under load with the big cores, there's no reason for the LITTLE cores.The one thing that has always bugged me about this OP is the 4 cores. Even the standard X1 has eight in BIG.little setup. I would expect Nintendo to go with similar but better than X1 as min.
I remember a semiaccurate article around a year back (I cannot find it at the moment - sorry!) that essentially said Nvidia had a TON of 20nm wafers they needed to use, and were willing to dump them off SUPER cheap to anyone.
I always wondered if that's what the switch was. Just a giant dump of a lot of Silicon Nvidia was stuck with on 20nm Maxwell.
As disappointing as that is (not being Pascal), the actual abilities of the chips are the same. Just hotter / more power hungry (which isn't great since its a handheld, but if they invest the savings in screen and/or battery its probably worth it).
big.LITTLE is only needed when trying to optimize multi tasking and battery power. If the Switch can maintain a constant amount of CPU performance under load with the big cores, there's no reason for the LITTLE cores.
I remember this and also that Nvidia was loosing money with the deal (which a lot of people laughed at) but ultimately it could very well be all the truth.
Why would Nintendo not take advantage of a great deal like this? They get a massive leap technology wise from their archaic flipper-gekko architecture at super cheap prices and overall is a good stepping stone towards the new unified architecture they had in mind. The only downsides is that they would have to work around the heat problem, but aside from that they are saving big bucks on the most costly part of the new device and not even having to invest much as the design is already done.
I have defended in this thread the OP specs as a reasonable expectation, but I thought 16nm had a good chance of happening, but after the confirmation that the device is active cooled on handheld mode I'm leaning towards the 20nm bargain being a thing. This also opens the possibility of a Switch-mini in the not too distant future (e3 2018 presentation, fall 2018 release), as a 16nm shrink / no fan / 4~5 inch screen / no detachable joycons / no TV mode would be easy to make without resorting to more cutting edge fab nodes like 10nm.
So at this point I'm expecting almost an straightforward 20nm Tegra X1 chip (512 Gflops docked ~ 300ish? undocked) and crossing my fingers that some work has been done on the memory setup as it's the only weak spot overall in the SoC.
I remember this and also that Nvidia was loosing money with the deal (which a lot of people laughed at) but ultimately it could very well be all the truth.
Why would Nintendo not take advantage of a great deal like this? They get a massive leap technology wise from their archaic flipper-gekko architecture at super cheap prices and overall is a good stepping stone towards the new unified architecture they had in mind. The only downsides is that they would have to work around the heat problem, but aside from that they are saving big bucks on the most costly part of the new device and not even having to invest much as the design is already done.
I have defended in this thread the OP specs as a reasonable expectation, but I thought 16nm had a good chance of happening, but after the confirmation that the device is active cooled on handheld mode I'm leaning towards the 20nm bargain being a thing. This also opens the possibility of a Switch-mini in the not too distant future (e3 2018 presentation, fall 2018 release), as a 16nm shrink / no fan / 4~5 inch screen / no detachable joycons / no TV mode would be easy to make without resorting to more cutting edge fab nodes like 10nm.
So at this point I'm expecting almost an straightforward 20nm Tegra X1 chip (512 Gflops docked ~ 300ish? undocked) and crossing my fingers that some work has been done on the memory setup as it's the only weak spot overall in the SoC.
that makes sense but why the 500 man years of work line from Nvidia though? Just for the memory setup? They were not forced to make this statement, they just could have say nothing. And remember that this is presented as the start of a "20 years" partnership. It's not just Nintendo buying a bulk of unused chips.
So at this point I'm expecting almost an straightforward 20nm Tegra X1 chip (512 Gflops docked ~ 300ish? undocked) and crossing my fingers that some work has been done on the memory setup as it's the only weak spot overall in the SoC.
They used the same kind of PR when they announced the (later to be discovered buggy... scaler chip and more) RSX for the PS3 while they were also working on their unified shader chip which released almost alongside the PS3 itself.
Why waste a chance of putting some PR that makes them sound amazing?
But nVidia specifically stated that this was a custom chip. I'm not saying it may not be 20nm. That's a real possibility, but what would be custom about it if it was simply a stock Tegra X1?
that makes sense but why the 500 man years of work line from Nvidia though? Just for the memory setup? They were not forced to make this statement, they just could have say nothing. And remember that this is presented as the start of a "20 years" partnership. It's not just Nintendo buying a bulk of unused chips.
This doesn't make any sense considering the Nvidia blog post.
I have defended in this thread the OP specs as a reasonable expectation, but I thought 16nm had a good chance of happening, but after the confirmation that the device is active cooled on handheld mode I'm leaning towards the 20nm bargain being a thing.
So at this point I'm expecting almost an straightforward 20nm Tegra X1 chip (512 Gflops docked ~ 300ish? undocked) and crossing my fingers that some work has been done on the memory setup as it's the only weak spot overall in the SoC.
Anyone who knows Jen-Hsun Huang knows his statements are PR diamonds (ie. Pascal being a 10x leap, 3x VR perfomance...), so as an advice don't read too much into them. Most of those 500 man years (250 person 2 years) could very well be the time spent designing the original Tegra X1, and the beauty of it is that he wouldn't even be lying.
As a side note that follows this line of thought, 2 year relationship between Nividia and Nintendo seems really short to make a true custom job from the ground up for Nintendo, so this also reinforces this theory to me.
I think in this case they need a big win and a half-assed chip just isn't gonna cut it. Of course they're going to play it up, but I think they went all out considering their other failures. It sends a message to everyone else that they can do this and did a bang up job with the NS. If it turns out that they ended up not doing much with this, then it'll look bad on them for future business.
I disagree and mainly because this is Nintendo. Their DNA is to make things custom in their systems. They are not putting a stock or even close to stock " minor changes" into switch.
Very much agree. No one knows at least no one is saying anything. I just am willing to bet the bank Nintendo and Nvidia went all out on switch. Nintendo doesn't start new tech in their products with something crappy or half-assed. This will be a gamecube situation closer than any other console release we have seen from them... especially the last two consoles.