Quantcast
Locked: Emily Rogers: Switch has 4GB of ram in RETAIL units, leaked specs might not be farfetched

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

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.



Around the Network
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.



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. 



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



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. 



Around the Network
Angelv577 said:
Is that enough to play current gen games such as the witcher 3 for example?

Nope



Seeing some comments of people saying that the 4GB won't be a problem for third parties, just like the lower power isn't important either as it only has to power a 720p screen, is so sad that's almost funny.

Third parties won't "find a way around it" or around any other hindrance. Western third parties, and third parties in general when it comes to AAA games, haven't launched their games on a Nintendo console for the last two gens... and they have done great!

Third parties don't need Nintendo, and if they find problems porting their games to Nintendo's console, they will simply forget about it.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

JEMC said:

Seeing some comments of people saying that the 4GB won't be a problem for third parties, just like the lower power isn't important either as it only has to power a 720p screen, is so sad that's almost funny.

Third parties won't "find a way around it" or around any other hindrance. Western third parties, and third parties in general when it comes to AAA games, haven't launched their games on a Nintendo console for the last two gens... and they have done great!

Third parties don't need Nintendo, and if they find problems porting their games to Nintendo's console, they will simply forget about it.

4GB is plenty for Tegra X1/X2 type performance which is going to be like a Wii U/PS3/360 on steroids. 

There is not much reason to worry about PS4/XB1 tier ports, the technology to put a PS4/XB1 level chip in a portable simply isn't here yet.



lonerism said:
Angelv577 said:
Is that enough to play current gen games such as the witcher 3 for example?

Nope

Yep, there's a reason why Nintendo showed Skyrim (a 5-year-old game) and NBA 2K (a game that's still being made for PS3/360) instead of next-gen only games like Witcher 3 or the new COD. 

Switch wouldn't be able to run something like The Witcher 3, or if it could, it wouldn't be pretty. 



Captain_Yuri said:
Would be silly if anyone was expecting more considering its a handheld

It seems like it's equally as silly to expect all those major 3rd party AAA games though. On the plus side I don't.