Nah, because my phone was not designed and marketed as something that does what the Switch does. Completely different kinds of devices with very different purposes.
Nintendo Switch Dev Kit Stats Leaked? Cortex A57, 4GB RAM, 32GB Storage, Multi-Touch.
- Thread starter Robert at Zeboyd Games
- Start date
- Status
Nah, because my phone was not designed and marketed as something that does what the Switch does. Completely different kinds of devices with very different purposes.
Errr... you're jumping to conclusions. We don't know how big the games would or could be. We don't know if resolution will be 720p at best. At least not when docked. And the cards are NOT 16GB MAX, they are 16GB as a STANDARD. There will be bigger cards.
ArcaneFreeze
Member
They're going to sell it as a Hybrid. A Hybrid concept isn't a hard thing to market even to non-enthusiasts. The reveal video already did a great job of selling the concept and as of now the confusion around the internet about "is it a portable/is it a home console" has been almost non-existant, keyword almost. People saw Zelda and Skyrim go from TV to Handheld and immediately understood "This thing can play home console games on the go." Will there still be confused people? Yes, theres ever people who get confused with PS4 and Xbox One and those are as straightforward as it gets. But Nintendo has done a great job selling the concept behind the system from the get go. I dont expect them to fudge this one up like they did WiiU.
Your phone was designed to be able to put it down in your car, and stream music to your car stereo. How is that any different?
Clarification requested. Not sure what you are trying to say here.
At this point I swear people will read/hear whatever they want to hear.
The fact that he's aware of the game cards' size article yet he's spreading wrong info is more than enough proof.
TLZ
Banned
Well look, if they don't mention/show home console at all, Nintendo is officially saying "we're done with the home console market", and there would be uproar from home console gamers, and I'm pretty sure Nintendo do not want that. So yea, sell the portable system as a home console and they're off the hook.
"Look people, we've taken out the innards that are usually sitting in a stationary box and placed them into a piece that can be removed! That means you can take it with you and no longer stuck home! Isn't that marvelous! You're not limited to that stationary box anymore! Put the piece back in the box and voila! There's your home console again!"
Audience:
Putting your phone down, to listen to music through your car stereo is no different from putting your Switch down to game on your TV. And yet, even putting the Switch down just to play with the JoyCons detached on the go, is enough for you to not consider it "handheld" at the time. So, whenever the device is not ACTUALLY in your HANDS, it isn't handheld. Hence, your phone seizes to be a handheld when you dock it in your car as a GPS or carkit or music device.
Pretty much.
I absolutely agree, the video did a great job, but never bet on that. ;p
ArcaneFreeze
Member
I believe he's going back to your definitions of handhelds vs portables. Saying that your phone isn't marketed as such doesn't negate the fact that you specifically defined a handheld as a device that is held in your hands, aka like a cell phone, while handhelds have been historically marketed synonymously with portable, aka the two words are interchangeable without changing the meaning.
So saying that playing Mario Kart like the girls on the roof' is not "handheld mode" but still "portable mode" is a moot point as the words are interchangeable. Which is why I believe there's all this confusion around your initial statement.
His phone analogy was simply stating that your phone doesn't become any less of a portable/handheld the moment you attach it to your car as a blutooth multimedia device. Its all one in the same.
There have been plenty of big games on the PS360 and most games on those platforms ran at 720p. 40 gb was way too little for the PS3 already. Aside from saves, patches, and potential installs, there is also DLC to keep in mind. And many indie games won't release physically.
Additionally 128GB isn't the microSD storage limit, that's just the size card Nintendo included in devkits. If Stream uses SDXC standard (and it'd have to to include a 128GB card) then the specification maxxes out at 2TB.
Candescence
Member
Yeah, never underestimate the stupidity of pockets of the general public. I've heard stories of parents who walk up to a shop counter and ask why Mario doesn't work on their kid's Playstation.
But for those who aren't simply beyond hope, Nintendo's marketing with this thing is extremely clear and understandable.
For all intends and purposes, as far as Nintendo software is concerned, it IS a hybrid. It's a big step performance wise from their previous home console that you can play on TV. It's also a portable. Their software, previously split over handheld and home console, will now be put on this device.
It's not just a handheld that you can play on your tv with a HDMI out. The lack of a dedicated home console màkes it a hybrid. From a library/catalog point of view.
Thanks for the response. Food for thought.
You and Matt may over estimate how much attention people pay to advertising.
People dont know what a hybrid game system is and I don't think they will care enough to focus on an ad to find out. The categories entrenched in minds are home/portable. Those are your choices. N has chosen 'home' and yet they show portable. That is a real issue once you move beyond people who actively pay attention to game advertising.
People don't have "home" and "portable" stuck in their mind. Hardcore gamers may.
You are actually understanding the power of marketing and how products are presented. Pretty much every time people see the system it will first be on the tv, then you will see someone take the system out of the dock and keep playing on the go. When you see this on Jimmy Fallon, it will be people playing on tv, then on the go. It's actually a very straightforward idea if communicated well visually, which we already have seen them do.
Bidermaier
Member
I agree, the "you can play on TV!" is not a gimmick since it is the only way to play Nintendo games on TV from now on.
It is a subtle difference but it will make a big impact on the way we see the device.
It is a subtle difference but it will make a big impact on the way we see the device.
Exactly, i don't know why this conversation keeps going, it's a simple concept and very straightforward, and the reveal video did a great job at showing how it works. Play on your tv at home, take it on a trip, local multiplayer on the go, it gives a lot of flexibility. And it's not going to be equal to Xbone or PS4 because thermodynamics and physics, it's so simple.
What is interesting is the games, and we'll have to wait until January to see what's planned so far. Even as a Nintendo-only console, it seems to be a perfect unification of console and handheld system, with Nintendo's software output not being divided between platforms and honestly it seems like a great platform for those who wish to play Nintendo games without buying multiple systems (handheld and console). Anything more than that makes it even better.
ArcaneFreeze
Member
Youre also under estimating the power of advertising in and of itself. Go back to the Wii, they properly advertised it as the first games console that can be played with motion controls. The reveal was cut throat and to the point in "this is what it does and what its capable of." Before then gaming was always relegated to standard controllers and buttons and thats all people ever knew, but because they properly advertised the system it worked. Imagine throwing the Wii onto the market with 0 advertising whatsoever, People would be confused at to what it does because a message was not conveyed to them. Case in point look at the WiiU, The advertising for it was abysmal, neither its reveal nor commercials sold it well as a brand new home console. Its reveal focused solely on the controller and its name only further confused consumers into thinking it was an add-on for the Wii. The message was not clear and they didn't sell their concept well which led to the WiiU's struggles. So far the Switch's reveal has been more on the Wii side wirh a proper clear cut concept than the WiiU's marketing mess..
Another example take a look at No Mans Sky, advertised as this grandiose game of epic space travel never been attempted before. They sold its concept on proper advertising and positive word of mouth. People understood and believed in what they were getting, of course we all know how that turned out. Despite its overly negative reception the game still sold well. It goes to show that proper advertising and marketing is key into getting product into consumer hands.
Same goes for the likes of Splatoon. Nintendo has been notoriously known this generation to have very limited advertising for its WiiU games, because of that many people thought Splatoon was going to crash and burn in the same vein as W101 and Codename Steam. But Nintendo actually marketed Splatoon, they advertised it heavily and sold its concept of being a unique TPS not really seen before and because of that the game went on to become one of the biggest new IP's of this generation.
Nintendo seemingly has learned from its mistakes with the WiiU and 3DS, the reveal trailer as I stated earlier has sold the concept very well, and reactions around the internet have shown that the concept isn't as foreign to people as you so strongly believe. As long as Nintendo keeps up proper advertising and marketing and the word of mouth continues to be good then there really wont be an issue.
Also your comment of "N has chose home and showed portable" is completely off base as the initial trailer clearly showed both home console and portable, aka both playing on the TV and on the go. Again the message was pretty clear but it seems to you it wasnt, so maybe your right, I mean if you cant even understand whats going on what hope do we have for everyone else right?
I think the central question for the final hardware vis-a-vis the dev kit is external memory bandwidth.
They need to do something about that, otherwise I could see it being the single largest performance bottleneck in the system for many workloads. Maybe significantly increasing the amount of cache is enough, but a 128 bit bus would certainly be preferable..
They need to do something about that, otherwise I could see it being the single largest performance bottleneck in the system for many workloads. Maybe significantly increasing the amount of cache is enough, but a 128 bit bus would certainly be preferable..
iirc, this together with the fab node is the main difference between Pascal and Maxwell? The memory bus?
It'd be surprising if none of that happened. There's not many other options like embedded DRAM.
What would be the major tradeoff preventing a 128bit bus? SoC size, cost, or energy consumption?
Dark Cloud
Member
Idk why this has to be said. It was clear cut, but hardcore gamers think they know everything and how everything should be, but too bad you're not the general consumer.
Hardcore gamers think the general consumer will look at "omg it has 4GB of RAM?!!". It's funny though reading lots of these posts. I'm just appreciative we get a brand new Nintendo system with brand new games which I'll enjoy.
Size and energy consumption should be the biggest culprits, as lpDDR4 chips only go up to 64 bit per chip. To get a 128 bus, you'd need 2 chips, increasing the size taken and power needed.
It's not really a difference between "Pascal" and "Maxwell" -- both of those are GPU architectures available on chips with anything from a 64 to a 384 bit bus (actually more in HPC).
It's one of the primary differences between "Parker" and "X1" though.
I'd say SoC size and cost are more or less the same thing, no? And yeah, I think the main tradeoff is cost. Also to some extent availability -- if they can get 128b in a single chip with the capacity they want the cost increase wouldn't be as significant as if they had to use 2 chips.
So...what would a 128b bus do in regards to Ram? Would it make more comparable or what?
If it doesn't have enough memory bandwidth, it does... which is why we are trying to pry some extra information from Vern.
But since Matt is here...
say Matt, any chance that bandwidth from the leak would be a problem to output games in FHD natively?
Yeah, Matt saying anything on the rumoured bandwidth would be great, even just if it's true or false. Not highly hopeful it's going to happen though.
False alarm, the above really means nothing in relation to Switch.
That article was poorly written, I looked at the earnings call and it never described any game console having a 10nm fab. What a load of shit that article was.
It's really simple: at the same frequency, a 128 bit bus provides twice the bandwidth of a 64 bit bus.
While Nvidia architectures aren't as bandwidth hungry currently as AMD ones, the X1 is still very bandwidth starved (per FLOP) compared to their desktop GPUs -- and those don't need to also serve CPU memory accesses!
(To give a rough idea, the system in the OP has 27% (FP32) - 55% (FP16) of the raw GPU performance of a PS4, but only 14% of its external memory bandwidth)
And that's IF it's a 64-bit bus, correct? So if it were 128b, the memory bandwidth would be 28%?
Clocked at the same frequency, yes.
For reference 3DS had a 128bit bus with two (64MB) chips. Probably a bit overkill for the architecture but then Nintendo does have a habit of splurging on fast memory (N64 was a hard lesson).
Seems unlikely they wouldn't at least match 3DS, then.
I'm just spitballing here, but I feel like that would be a problem for 1080p games, but not 720p (or on the screen).
JoshuaJSlone
Member
The first part has only been speculation, and the second part is supposedly something on the tablet unit rather than the dock.
Agent Gibbs
Member
in this thread
and needlessly so too
and needlessly so too
No you're completely wrong actually.
As far as a straight GPU processing comparison between iPhone 7 and the dev kit in the op:
iPhone 7 - 192 GFLOPs
Switch Devkit - 512 GFLOPs
That shows how silly people can be. And even if the i7 really was more powerful it would never have games that can compete with even the average wii u titles, let alone games made from scratch on the NS like Mario or the next xenoblade.
About the bandwidth issues, i was thinking that even the iPhone has a bit of SRAM. I really don't think Nintendo would skimp on that too, the hardware is already terrible without such a huge bottleneck. According to thraktor 4MB would be enough to do basically what the EDRAM did on the Wii U but better, as it would still be seen as a single pool of RAM.
Starts at 650$ (799 in Italy) but that's beyond the point considering 1) that it's extremely weaker, aside from the CPU (that it's still being used for different things) and 2) that they'll never use that power for complex graphics.
crazy monkey
Banned
How much does iphone 7 cost? Why is that being discussed?
28% for a 27% FP32 at 720p would be great.
That thing about eDRAM smallest node being 28 nm keeps being mentioned, so can anyone explain to me why Intel packs 64/128mb in their skylake line or even 256mb in their upcoming kabylake at 14nm?
I know Intel is usually one step ahead of the competition in node fab process, but can't other foundries offer edram at current nodes? (14-16nm)
Bringing Ps4 - AMD as a comparison kind of skews things since their architecture seems more memory starved than Nvidias, still you are absolutely right, I looked at cores/bandwidth in an earlier post and at 25.6GB seems like the SoC is kind of crippled at that speed in comparison to GTX 1000 series (although I expected it to be worse).
It seems kind of counter intuitive that Nintendo hardware division hasn't tried to give some input about trying to improve memory setup if there is some kind of customization in Switch Tegra SoC after so many years being one of their stronger focus while designing hardware.
Of course the other scenario would be Nintendo choosing X1 hardware base as good enough and save some money avoiding any custom modifications.
The bandwidth issues are being exaggerated, mostly because people aren't getting the fact that the newer Tegra GPU's (including Maxwell and Parker) are tile based. For instance people are talking about needing 32MB of eSRAM like XBox One, that simply isn't needed because unlike XBox One this GPU doesn't render to a full framebuffer.
To clarify XBox One has 32MB of eSRAM so that the frame can be rendered inside the GPU, meaning the rendering process doesn't have to be done in main memory saving lots of main memory bandwidth.
Tegra renders its frames in small tiles, so it only needs a very small cache inside the GPU to hold each tile while its being rendered. Which gains the same advantage XBox One gets from its 32MB eSRAM (keeping the rendering process away from main memory). So absolutely no need for any large pool of eSRAM for framebuffers with Tegra. If anything is added memory wise then maybe they could add in some kind of extra large texture cache (wouldn't need to be anywhere near 32MB) in order to reduce the amount of texture swapping from main memory.
For the record, I'm perfectly aware that Nvidia has been using tiled rasterization since Maxwell. It's also not a Tegra-specific feature, I was running the test program on my own GPU when this was discovered 
Despite that, I still think that 25 GB/s of external bandwidth shared between the GPU and all the CPU cores could easily become a bottleneck. A larger texture cache would probably help, but even so it's just not a whole lot of bandwidth.
Despite that, I still think that 25 GB/s of external bandwidth shared between the GPU and all the CPU cores could easily become a bottleneck. A larger texture cache would probably help, but even so it's just not a whole lot of bandwidth.
For the record, I'm perfectly aware that Nvidia has been using tiled rasterization since Maxwell. It's also not a Tegra-specific feature, I was running the test program on my own GPU when this was discovered
Despite that, I still think that 25 GB/s of external bandwidth shared between the GPU and all the CPU cores could easily become a bottleneck. A larger texture cache would probably help, but even so it's just not a whole lot of bandwidth.
I think it could do with more of course. I was more referring to people who are comparing the X1 main memory bandwidth to XBox One's total bandwidth or PS4's, as if its at all comparable.
Nostremitus
Member
Looking at the last page... I don't think I've ever seen Matt post so much in a pre-release tech thread...
Did he let anything good slip?
Did he let anything good slip?
- Status