By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Emily Rogers: Switch has 4GB of ram in RETAIL units, leaked specs might not be farfetched

Miyamotoo on 31 October 2016
torok said:
Miyamotoo said:

Actualy its metter, like I wrote, Switch hardware will be around 3x stronger than WiI U so there is no chanche that Nintendo will use slower RAM than Wii U has for Switch, it doensnt make any sense. Also fact is that Nintendo always pay attention on memory and that's actually most advanced feature of their hardware.

You forgeting that Switch isnt only handheld, its home console and with around 3x stronger hardware than Wii U, so it want be just "somewhat better than Wii U graphics", difference would be very obvious compared to Wii U graphics.

Tegra X2 is also similar to X1, main difference between X1 and X2 is efficiency and bigger memory bandwidth.

They won't use GDDR5 or something like that and will probably use DDR3L or DDR4L. On ARM, the memory is always integrated to the SoC, so they won't change what Tegra already uses since it would demand a redesign of the SoC. It won't have a lot of bandwidth, but as it will focus on 720p, it won't be an issue, really.

Offcourse, Nvidia Tegra uses DDR4L, so most likly DDR4L. Tegra 2 can provide around 2x more memory bandwith than Wii U has.

With this hardware Nintendo can easily make games in 1080p.

 

potato_hamster said:
Miyamotoo said:

Nvidia confirmed they providing chip for Switch that is "high-efficiency scalable processor includes an NVIDIA GPU based on the same architecture as the world’s top-performing GeForce gaming graphics cards", most likely is custom Tegra 2, thats pretty modern tech with full Nvidia suport, Wii U tech was basically GC tech and basically didn't had anything modern.

... and what makes that "easy" to port say, a PS4 game to it? Again, I never argued it wouldn't be easier than porting games to the Wii U.

My argument was that it was also easier to port games to the Wii U than it was to port games to the Wii, and we both know that really didn't mean much, did it?

Like I wrote, NVIDIA+ARM, bouth are modern arhitecnture that are is very easy to work, not to mentione if compare them with  Wii U PPC CPU, eDram and all old AMD custom GPU. Also modern Nvidia tools, APIs, software, whole Nvidia Shield expariance



Around the Network
sethnintendo on 31 October 2016

Can't you run almost all current games on 4 GB of RAM? I don't know considering I've had 8 GB in my PC since about 2012. Sure perhaps some current Steam games have a min spec of 8 GB but I'm sure over 75% of games can be played on 4 GB (as long as you don't have a resource hog OS).



bigtakilla on 31 October 2016
sethnintendo said:

Can't you run almost all current games on 4 GB of RAM? I don't know considering I've had 8 GB in my PC since about 2012. Sure perhaps some current Steam games have a min spec of 8 GB but I'm sure over 75% of games can be played on 4 GB (as long as you don't have a resource hog OS).

But that's leaving no room for the OS, or any other multitasking operations such as an achievement system, or being able to record clips to miiverse (or basically any miiverse functionality). Basically, the least amount of bells and whistles the game allows, the more Ram will be available, but then also expect backlash for Nintendo having no bells and whistles. 

Not to mention while out of the dock, it will greatly sacrifice battery life to use the full amount of ram. So developers got to make sure they make games with that in mind. Kind of sounds like a nightmare.



potato_hamster on 31 October 2016
Miyamotoo said:
potato_hamster said:

... and what makes that "easy" to port say, a PS4 game to it? Again, I never argued it wouldn't be easier than porting games to the Wii U.

My argument was that it was also easier to port games to the Wii U than it was to port games to the Wii, and we both know that really didn't mean much, did it?

Like I wrote, NVIDIA+ARM, bouth are modern arhitecnture that are is very easy to work, not to mentione if compare them with  Wii U PPC CPU, eDram and all old AMD custom GPU. Also modern Nvidia tools, APIs, software, whole Nvidia Shield expariance

And the PS4 and X1 are AMD + X86-64.  Both are modern arcitecture, and both are easy to work with it. Both are not nVidia or ARM which means any ports would have to be adapted to work with a completely different CPU/GPU architecture with different instruction sets and different processing piplines, that will more or less require reoptimizing from scratch.

So what exactly is your point? This is silly. You're assuming it's going to be easy to port because nVidia is supporting it, essentially? The PS3's GPU was made by nVidia, with all of it's modern tools, APIs and software, and that didn't save the PS3 from being extremely difficult to develop for.


The proof is in the pudding. The fact of the matter is, is that you do not know how easy it will be to port games to the NS until you see games come out for the NS that were demonstrably easy to port. Everything else is just marketing bullshit.

Don't believe me? Three years after the fact, I'm still waiting to see how the power of the cloud is going to make the X1 absolutely decimate the PS4 performance-wise, and offer experiences impossible on any other console without it. Yet there were numerous articles when the X1 was announced that essentially said just that, some penned by respected industry veterans. In fact I heard those very things about titanfall. Yet by some miracle titanfall 2 is coming to PS4 without the cloud. Those folks at Respawn must be fueling the PS4's cloud with hopes and dreams!



Nemesis1993 on 31 October 2016
zorg1000 said:
Nemesis1993 said:

Sport games and port of 7th games ¬¬ where is the Witcher 3,Metal Gear Solid V,Fallout 4,Destiny,Batman Arkham Knight...try understand I am not saying just about these games,I am saying about big AAA western games,like Red Dead Redemption 2,Mass Effect Andromeda next year,without 3rd AAA party support,it's like Wii U

ports of major PS3/360 games did nothing for Wii U, why would ports of major PS4/XBO games do anything for Switch?

Like you said PS3/360 games,port a game from one gen behind and years isn't the same a worldwide launch new game together PS4/Xbone.



Around the Network
bigtakilla on 31 October 2016
Nemesis1993 said:
zorg1000 said:

ports of major PS3/360 games did nothing for Wii U, why would ports of major PS4/XBO games do anything for Switch?

Like you said PS3/360 games,port a game from one gen behind and years isn't the same a worldwide launch new game together PS4/Xbone.

This is under the assumption it can actually get a good amount of those. I would say it is confirmed for NS that most AAA are skipping it in 2017, like Mass Effect, Red Dead, even Ni No Kuni. Late ports are currently all that's even speculated at this point (Skyrim and NBA 2k), and Dragon Quest 11 which I believe has been confirmed as a different build than the PS4 version.



Miyamotoo on 31 October 2016
potato_hamster said:
Miyamotoo said:

Like I wrote, NVIDIA+ARM, bouth are modern arhitecnture that are is very easy to work, not to mentione if compare them with  Wii U PPC CPU, eDram and all old AMD custom GPU. Also modern Nvidia tools, APIs, software, whole Nvidia Shield expariance

And the PS4 and X1 are AMD + X86-64.  Both are modern arcitecture, and both are easy to work with it. Both are not nVidia or ARM which means any ports would have to be adapted to work with a completely different CPU/GPU architecture with different instruction sets and different processing piplines, that will more or less require reoptimizing from scratch.

So what exactly is your point? This is silly. You're assuming it's going to be easy to port because nVidia is supporting it, essentially? The PS3's GPU was made by nVidia, with all of it's modern tools, APIs and software, and that didn't save the PS3 from being extremely difficult to develop for.


The proof is in the pudding. The fact of the matter is, is that you do not know how easy it will be to port games to the NS until you see games come out for the NS that were demonstrably easy to port. Everything else is just marketing bullshit.

Don't believe me? Three years after the fact, I'm still waiting to see how the power of the cloud is going to make the X1 absolutely decimate the PS4 performance-wise, and offer experiences impossible on any other console without it. Yet there were numerous articles when the X1 was announced that essentially said just that, some penned by respected industry veterans. In fact I heard those very things about titanfall. Yet by some miracle titanfall 2 is coming to PS4 without the cloud. Those folks at Respawn must be fueling the PS4's cloud with hopes and dreams!

Yes, but working with Nvidia and ARM is easy, so porting will not be complicated.

Yes, my point is that will be easier because Nvidia support and actually their whole experience with Shield because Switch is similar product with same architecture.

 

You talking about XB1 Cloud I talking about Nvidia/ARM tech that they are both proved that is easy to work it, basicly you already have that in Shield. Even blind man see that modern Nvidia+ARM tech will much more easier for development than Wii U for instance.



CosmicSex on 31 October 2016
bunchanumbers said:

Well looks like Switch being garbage is confirmed. RAM has always been Nintendo's hardware weakness. Been that way since the N64. Looks like Nintendo never learned their lesson. I wouldn't be shocked to see it being abandoned by 3rd party devs in a year. Maybe less.

Moderated - Miguel_Zorro

While I don't agree with bunchanumbers, I don't see how critiquing Nintendo requires moderation.   One of the things Nintendo's fanbases are know for is expressing concerns.  Which is positive in my book. 

Anyway, I disagree with your assesment because quite frankly, we don't have all the info yet.  Does that 4GBs refer to the handheld or the dock.  I am willign to bet that only applies to the portalble unit. 



potato_hamster on 31 October 2016
Miyamotoo said:
potato_hamster said:

And the PS4 and X1 are AMD + X86-64.  Both are modern arcitecture, and both are easy to work with it. Both are not nVidia or ARM which means any ports would have to be adapted to work with a completely different CPU/GPU architecture with different instruction sets and different processing piplines, that will more or less require reoptimizing from scratch.

So what exactly is your point? This is silly. You're assuming it's going to be easy to port because nVidia is supporting it, essentially? The PS3's GPU was made by nVidia, with all of it's modern tools, APIs and software, and that didn't save the PS3 from being extremely difficult to develop for.


The proof is in the pudding. The fact of the matter is, is that you do not know how easy it will be to port games to the NS until you see games come out for the NS that were demonstrably easy to port. Everything else is just marketing bullshit.

Don't believe me? Three years after the fact, I'm still waiting to see how the power of the cloud is going to make the X1 absolutely decimate the PS4 performance-wise, and offer experiences impossible on any other console without it. Yet there were numerous articles when the X1 was announced that essentially said just that, some penned by respected industry veterans. In fact I heard those very things about titanfall. Yet by some miracle titanfall 2 is coming to PS4 without the cloud. Those folks at Respawn must be fueling the PS4's cloud with hopes and dreams!

Yes, but working with Nvidia and ARM is easy, so porting will not be complicated.

Yes, my point is that will be easier because Nvidia support and actually their whole experience with Shield because Switch is similar product with same architecture.

 

You talking about XB1 Cloud I talking about Nvidia/ARM tech that they are both proved that is easy to work it, basicly you already have that in Shield. Even blind man see that modern Nvidia+ARM tech will much more easier for development than Wii U for instance.


So now you're arguing that the Nintendo Switch is a nVidia Shield with a dock? I hope you're not giving Nintendo points on innovation and originality then. Then your argument boils down to "porting to a Nintendo Switch should be no more difficult than porting a game to a PC with much lower minimum specs that can be optimized for".  I suppose that's one way of looking at it, but still I have heard all of these arguments many times before.

The Wii was going was going to be easier to port to because it was just a beefed up Gamecube so the arcitecture was familiar to developers, and should be easier to work with, especially with all of these new developer tools!

The Wii U was going to be easier to port to because it was just a beefed up Wii so the arcitecture was familiar to developers, and should be easier to work with, especially with all of these new developer tools!

Now the Switch is going to be easy to port because it's just a beefed up nVidia shield so the archtecture is familiar to developers, and should be easier to work with, with all of these new developer tools.

I've heard it all before with Nintendo. Many times. I will believe it when I see it.


Also, blind people can't see thoughts any more than people without vision impairments :P



Soundwave on 31 October 2016
Miyamotoo said:
Soundwave said:

Wii U's embedded RAM is a good deal above 32GB/sec I'm pretty sure.

I think 25GB/sec is enough for what Nintendo wants, given Nvidia's tiling set up, it's enough to give you somewhat better than Wii U graphics in a portable form factor, and 25GB/sec saves precious battery life. 

 

Soundwave said:
I guess the more pertinent point besides just RAM/bandwidth is Emily says her sources told her the custom Tegra chip in the NS is similar to the Tegra X1. 

If that's the case, then it doesn't matter how much RAM or bandwidth it has, a Tegra X1-ish processor is simply not on par with even an XBox One.

Actualy its metter, like I wrote, Switch hardware will be around 3x stronger than WiI U so there is no chanche that Nintendo will use slower RAM than Wii U has for Switch, it doensnt make any sense. Also fact is that Nintendo always pay attention on memory and that's actually most advanced feature of their hardware.

You forgeting that Switch isnt only handheld, its home console and with around 3x stronger hardware than Wii U, so it want be just "somewhat better than Wii U graphics", difference would be very obvious compared to Wii U graphics.

Tegra X2 is also similar to X1, main difference between X1 and X2 is efficiency and bigger memory bandwidth.

Neither the Tegra X1 or X2 are getting you XBox One performance.

That's just the bottom line. It's a good chip for a mobile, it's bordering on awful for console releasing in 2017.