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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Tegra X1 (Switch GPU?) Throttles To 768 MHz (Eurogamer Correct Again?)

Soundwave on 09 January 2017
Miyamotoo said:
Soundwave said:

Both Switch and Shield Console have an active fan for cooling. It must need something much larger to be able to run at full clock. 

Just goes to show I guess that getting even Wii U/PS3/360 tier graphics or a bit better is still pretty tough even in a mobile chip. 

 

Soundwave said:

It's gonna be basically a Wii U/360 tier performance with some better effects and what not. 

Which isn't bad for a portable machine at all, and still pretty good for the more cartoony style of graphics, which is what Nintendo prefers. 

I was watching footage of that Halo LEGO demo that was never released, but man that game looked real good just running off a XBox 360, I think for the majority of Nintendo games much better than the Wii U isn't really needed. They wouldn't invest the money to make their games look that much better anyway. 

Why you keep saying that's WiiU/360 tier performance when is obvious that isn't true at all!? Switch will have around 3x real world performance compared to WiiU/360, going from GPU thatwill have around double more power on paper but bigger real world performance because its latest Nvidia tech/architecture and actualy almost 10 years newer tech/architecture compared to WiiU/360, same goes for ARM A57 CPU, while it will have most likely 6x more RAM for games than Wii U had.

So I really don't understand how exalty is that "basically a Wii U/360 tier performance with some better effects and what not", when Switch will be noticeable stronger even in portable mode than WiiU/360!?

Portably no, it will be fairly close to an XB360/Wii U/PS3. 

Since developers are going to have to make games for that spec, largely speaking I think what you'll get from the average Switch game is a game that is made to run first and foremost in the portable mode. 

Then the docked mode will have things like higher resolution or some better effects. 

You need to have a very large leap from 360/PS3/Wii U to notice a big difference, even today a lot of people say the PS4/XB1 aren't that much of a jump, or at least they were saying that until some of the more modern games came out.

The average Switch game will look like a 360/PS3/Wii U game on steroids IMO, but definitely closer to the PS3/360 than PS4/XB1. I think a bunch of games will actually just look pretty much dead on with PS3/360/Wii U titles. 



Around the Network
Scisca on 09 January 2017

If it turns out to be true that Switch uses the old Maxwell chip instead of Pascal and the older ARM CPU... I think I'm gonna hold on with my purchase. If it's true, I'm gonna be pissed at Nintendo for lying to me, since they said about the top GPU architecture, which Maxwell isn't even close to being. If it's Pascal I'm gonna buy it, if it's Maxwell, I'm gonna wait for the inevitable (imho) revision that will be using newer technology. If only for battery life.

Nintendo, don't mess this up.



Wii U is a GCN 2 - I called it months before the release!

My Vita to-buy list: The Walking Dead, Persona 4 Golden, Need for Speed: Most Wanted, TearAway, Ys: Memories of Celceta, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, History: Legends of War, FIFA 13, Final Fantasy HD X, X-2, Worms Revolution Extreme, The Amazing Spiderman, Batman: Arkham Origins Blackgate - too many no-gaemz :/

My consoles: PS2 Slim, PS3 Slim 320 GB, PSV 32 GB, Wii, DSi.

Miyamotoo on 09 January 2017
Soundwave said:
Miyamotoo said:

 

Why you keep saying that's WiiU/360 tier performance when is obvious that isn't true at all!? Switch will have around 3x real world performance compared to WiiU/360, going from GPU thatwill have around double more power on paper but bigger real world performance because its latest Nvidia tech/architecture and actualy almost 10 years newer tech/architecture compared to WiiU/360, same goes for ARM A57 CPU, while it will have most likely 6x more RAM for games than Wii U had.

So I really don't understand how exalty is that "basically a Wii U/360 tier performance with some better effects and what not", when Switch will be noticeable stronger even in portable mode than WiiU/360!?

Portably no, it will be fairly close to an XB360/Wii U/PS3. 

Since developers are going to have to make games for that spec, largely speaking I think what you'll get from the average Switch game is a game that is made to run first and foremost in the portable mode. 

Then the docked mode will have things like higher resolution or some better effects. 

You need to have a very large leap from 360/PS3/Wii U to notice a big difference, even today a lot of people say the PS4/XB1 aren't that much of a jump, or at least they were saying that until some of the more modern games came out.

The average Switch game will look like a 360/PS3/Wii U game on steroids IMO, but definitely closer to the PS3/360 than PS4/XB1. I think a bunch of games will actually just look pretty much dead on with PS3/360/Wii U titles. 

Just compare Wii U specs to Switch portable specs and you will see that overall Switch even in portable mode will be much more capable and stronger than Wii U, on paper Wii U and Switch in portable mode have similar strength of GPU, but real world performance and capability will make big difference because of much more modern tech/architecture of Switch, ARM A57 is at least few times stronger than Wii U CPU, and Switch will have at least 2-4x more RAM for games, not to mention that Wii U had huge bottleneck with its CPU and that part of Wii U resources were taken buy gamepad.

I agree that most likely developers will make games for Switch portable mode in 1st place, and than just in dock mode bump resolution and maybe same effects, but even in just portable mode there will noticeable difference compared to Wii U because even in portable mode Switch is much more capable.



Miyamotoo on 09 January 2017
Scisca said:
If it turns out to be true that Switch uses the old Maxwell chip instead of Pascal and the older ARM CPU... I think I'm gonna hold on with my purchase. If it's true, I'm gonna be pissed at Nintendo for lying to me, since they said about the top GPU architecture, which Maxwell isn't even close to being. If it's Pascal I'm gonna buy it, if it's Maxwell, I'm gonna wait for the inevitable (imho) revision that will be using newer technology. If only for battery life.

Nintendo, don't mess this up.

Lol, Nintendo never said that.

Sources saying that Pascal's couldn't be done on time (Tegra Pascal isnt on market yet) and even Nvidias newest Shield deviaces (that are intriduced few days ago) are using Tegra X1 Maxwell chip also, and actual only real difference between Pascal and Maxwell Tegra is efficiency, and sources saying that Nintendo is aiming 5-8 hours with Switch battery.



DonFerrari on 09 January 2017

The more you keep your expectations in check the less you are prone to being hit by harsh reality



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
Miyamotoo on 09 January 2017
DonFerrari said:
The more you keep your expectations in check the less you are prone to being hit by harsh reality

If you refer to me, my expectations about Switch are very realistic and actualy on pair what we know about Switch.



bdbdbd on 09 January 2017

I have to side with Soundwave here about the battery vs performance issue. These universal devices like tablets or smartphones can have high peak performance even in the real world, but the issue is how much of the time the maximum performance is used. From my experience, we are talking about seconds at a time. If you think about the today's high end mobile devices that run the same software that work on a two years old hardware, it's likely the software really isn't pushing the new hardware. Videogame consoles, on the other hand, are supposed to run on it's maximum performance most of the time by standard.
Overheating batteries are another issue, as even if capasity and consumption would otherwise meet, overheating eats away the battery performance and kills it quickly.

Also, the wireless controllers are going to consume power, as well as possible 3/4G and Wi-Fi. Hardwarewise the tablets and smartphones should be more simple devices than Switch.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

bdbdbd on 09 January 2017
Safiir said:
bdbdbd said:

I was just thinking how many people do not buy them, not how many does. The AAA games industry is a small box with high costs in the big picture. Essentially we're talking about games people do not even want to play.

People play the games on the system they're available for. Also, if you already have a system that plays game A, you're not going to get yourself another system for the same game.

Actually this made me really curious - what is the market share of AAA games? I'm sure someone has made a nice pie chart :D

Not really interested in the actual market shares - a better metric is to see how many people there are in the world and divide it by the number of people who actually buy AAA games. 



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

DonFerrari on 09 January 2017
Miyamotoo said:
DonFerrari said:
The more you keep your expectations in check the less you are prone to being hit by harsh reality

If you refer to me, my expectations about Switch are very realistic and actualy on pair what we know about Switch.

Not talking to anyone in particular, hence no quotes or naming. It is true to any fanbase or person that when you expect too much you can get frustrated with the result.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Miyamotoo on 09 January 2017
DonFerrari said:
Miyamotoo said:

If you refer to me, my expectations about Switch are very realistic and actualy on pair what we know about Switch.

Not talking to anyone in particular, hence no quotes or naming. It is true to any fanbase or person that when you expect too much you can get frustrated with the result.

Agree, it always better to have expectations low, but sometime it's hard to maintain hype. :D