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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - So Switch raw power is 80% of Xbone or more when Docked ?

dahuman on 20 February 2017
Pemalite said:
aLkaLiNE said:
NVidia flops>AMD flops

Wrong.

It depends on the GPU architecture in question. If AMD has the more efficient architecture, then it will have an advantage.

Vega should beat Fermi for example.
Regardless, the flops are irrelevant, it's a theoretical number, the other parts of the chip are arguably just as much, if not more important and have an influence in total performance as well.

Valdath said:

The weaker Nintendo's Switch hardware is, the more fun it's games are going to be.

More powerful hardware = Less fun games.

Here's hoping for the 150 handheld mode and 500 docked, that makes it's games around 2 or 3 times more fun than PS4/Xone games.

How do you come to that conclusion?

Power means new gaming potential, once we reached a point where physics was possible... We got Half Life 2 with it's gravity gun which was pretty ground breaking at the time.

More power can also mean more realism which assists in immersion which can assist you in becoming completely immersed within a games world, driving it's story and believability.

shenlong213 said:

Architecture

516 ARMv8 Cores (512 CUDA Cores + 4 ARMv8 maybe?) Not sure what does it means,

They'are talking about 386 CUDA Cores or maybe 512 Cores CUDA Cores in the comments section.

Handheld mode

  • GPU 275mhz
  • GFLOPS Benchmark : 375 gflops FP32

Single Precision (FP32) Gflops is counted as Shaders * 2 instructions * Clockrate.

Ergo. 512 * 2 * 275 = 281,600. (281 Gflop)
If it had 386 Cuda cores that would mean. 386 * 2 * 275 = 212,300 (212 Gflop.)

516 ARMv8 cores is stupid and nonsensical.

shenlong213 said:

Docked mode

  • GPU is 1005mhz
  • GFLOPS Benchmark : 875.77 gflops FP32

With the same math.
512 * 2 * 1005 = 1,029,120. (1,029 Gflop.)
386 * 2 * 1005 = 775,860. (775 Gflop.)

And in one fell swoop I have debunked this rumor.
It can't even remain accurate with itself.

And you still ignore the rest of the chip, which is just as important as single precision floating point and which the Xbox One still has a big advantage in.  

The only explanations I'd have, not that I disagree with your assessment, are that during the benchmark (if you read my gaf translation,) even though the GPU was running at a lower clock speed, the CPU was running at full speed for the first one hence making up the missing FLOPs, and that the GPU was thermal throttling during the benchmark in the second one because 1005 MHZ was the maximum hit but might not have been running at that speed the whole time. Like you though, I have high doubts about this rumor, just wanted to throw out that other possibilities exist in your argument lol.



Around the Network
jonathanalis on 20 February 2017

512 cuda cores?
it is a monster mobile!

btw, any info about memory bandwidth?



jonathanalis on 20 February 2017

OOOOMG

sorry for multiple posts.



malistix1985 on 20 February 2017
shenlong213 said:

Hi,

Nintendo Switch clock seems to be leaked from China. I'm not sure 100% about the translation, can someone help us to translate it correctly ?

This is what we can easily read from Baidu :

Architecture

516 ARMv8 Cores (512 CUDA Cores + 4 ARMv8 maybe?) Not sure what does it means,

They'are talking about 386 CUDA Cores or maybe 512 Cores CUDA Cores in the comments section.

Handheld mode

  • Cpu Core 0 314mhz
  • Cpu Core 1 726mhz
  • Cpu Core 2 726mhz
  • Cpu Core 3 314mhz
  • GPU 275mhz
  • GFLOPS Benchmark : 375 gflops FP32

Docked mode

  • Cpu all cores are 2143mhz
  • GPU is 1005mhz
  • GFLOPS Benchmark : 875.77 gflops FP32
It's only a notch below the XBONE with almost 0.9 TFLOPs (Switch when docked) compared to 1.3 Tflops (Xbone). And this is one hell of a custom SoC !

Even if all that is true and this is the best case scenario, this is just the GPU, the CPU will be slower, the memory will be slower and it will have half the available memory, things to keep in mind.




Twitter @CyberMalistix

SmileyAja on 20 February 2017
jonathanalis said:
512 cuda cores?
it is a monster mobile!

btw, any info about memory bandwidth?

A user on /r/nVidia has identified this according to the markings as certain Samsung LPDDR4 modules, 4GB at 25/GBs. Assuming this leak holds water, nVidia wasn't screwing around when they said it's a custom chip. 

Basically, they took the Tegra X1 as a base, threw CUDA cores at it and did a die shrink of second gen Maxwell. Pascal at it's core is indeed a die shrink of Maxwell with improved memory bandwith and extra VR features, meaning that a Maxwell second gen die shrink would perform very similarly to Pascal (in terms of GFLOPs at least that is). It appears that since it mentions 516 cores for the CPU as well that it is indeed 512 CUDA cores and a quad core processor (indicating they got rid of the low power A53s in the original X1). What they're using for CPU cores is anyone's guess, though since it's based off the X1 it's most likely using A57s.

I'd still take this with a grain of salt, wait for someone with professional equipment to get their hands on one and take it apart and analyse the SoC with proffesional equipment to confirm the exact specs. Something that could potentially support this though is that the more recent document leak said that only developer kits have root access, and he stated that he had to use ARM_v8 (a developer protocol) to get the info, and if he's using the same version as the one dissassembled it's most certainly a retail version since the developer kit storage was said to be 64GB and the storage was 32GB from Toshiba in the teardown Switch.



Around the Network
dahuman on 20 February 2017

double post



fatslob-:O on 20 February 2017

What is hype ?



curl-6 on 20 February 2017
maxleresistant said:

I didn't see any games looking like they are running on something 80% the power of the Xbox One.

But let's say it is;, you have to remember that the real graphical capabilities of the switch, are dictated by the handheld mode.

EVERY GAME has to run in handheld mode, meaning that the dock mode will be able to improve stuffs like framerate, resolution, or maybe have more players playing on one system. But don't expect the dock mode to be used at its full capacity. One other way to say it is that games are kind of developed for the handheld mode, then upgraded for the docked mode. They are not build for the dock mode, then downgraded for the handheld mode

Let's take a more concrete example, let's say FF XV could run on the dock mode at 720p, and a bit of downgrading, if the game can't run on the handheld mode because it needs to be massively downgraded, then the game can't be ported to Switch.

So you won't have games looking like Xbox One games on Switch, even on docked mode.

That's the thing; so far it looks like the only thing the docked mode's power boost is used for is a resolution bump, so the core graphics (textures, shaders, polygons, effects, etc) are still constrained by the handheld mode which is only slightly more powerful than Wii U.



JRPGfan on 20 February 2017
shenlong213 said:

Hi,

Nintendo Switch clock seems to be leaked from China. I'm not sure 100% about the translation, can someone help us to translate it correctly ?

This is what we can easily read from Baidu :

Architecture

516 ARMv8 Cores (512 CUDA Cores + 4 ARMv8 maybe?) Not sure what does it means,

They'are talking about 386 CUDA Cores or maybe 512 Cores CUDA Cores in the comments section.

Handheld mode

  • Cpu Core 0 314mhz
  • Cpu Core 1 726mhz
  • Cpu Core 2 726mhz
  • Cpu Core 3 314mhz
  • GPU 275mhz
  • GFLOPS Benchmark : 375 gflops FP32

Docked mode

  • Cpu all cores are 2143mhz
  • GPU is 1005mhz
  • GFLOPS Benchmark : 875.77 gflops FP32
It's only a notch below the XBONE with almost 0.9 TFLOPs (Switch when docked) compared to 1.3 Tflops (Xbone). And this is one hell of a custom SoC !

The 516 Graphic Cores of the GPU part makes me think this is all maded up stuff.



Pemalite on 20 February 2017
FunFan said:

Not really, you didn't debunked anything. Not saying that I trust this "leak" but the results of a benchmark don't nessesarily need to match the maximun theorical performance of a chip, which is what you get with the fancy math.

Yes. I have debunked it, if you cared to read, their "benchmark" had flops exceed the theoretical maximum. That is impossible.

Here. Let me quote myself, so you can grasp it properly:

Pemalite said:
shenlong213 said:

Architecture

516 ARMv8 Cores (512 CUDA Cores + 4 ARMv8 maybe?) Not sure what does it means,

They'are talking about 386 CUDA Cores or maybe 512 Cores CUDA Cores in the comments section.

Handheld mode

  • GPU 275mhz
  • GFLOPS Benchmark : 375 gflops FP32

Single Precision (FP32) Gflops is counted as Shaders * 2 instructions * Clockrate.

Ergo. 512 * 2 * 275 = 281,600. (281 Gflop)
If it had 386 Cuda cores that would mean. 386 * 2 * 275 = 212,300 (212 Gflop.)

516 ARMv8 cores is stupid and nonsensical.

See. Debunked.


aLkaLiNE said:

I did do a little reading though and from what I understand, NVidia scales other parts of their gpu together while AMD does not which generally means that NVidia cards are more thoroughly able to max out from what I understand. And this isn't about fermi vs vega either. This is about maxwell vs GCN2.0.

No. nVidia's architecture is engineered for a more balanced gaming workload, there is more to rendering a game than single precision floating point.

There are tasks that AMD GPU's beats nVidia in, such as Asynchronous Compute... As that allows AMD to leverage its theoretical compute performance to a higher degree.

It's also why AMD GPU's are typically preferred for mining, folding and stuff like that, it has more theoretical floating point performance, but games need more than that.

aLkaLiNE said:

It's rather disingenuous of you to only partially quote someone telling them they're wrong and then turning around and agreeing with the part of the statement that you cut off.

You don't make a statement, then disregard it with your next. You stated that nVidia > AMD in terms of flops, which is the point I had contention with, thus that is was what got quoted.

dahuman said:

The only explanations I'd have, not that I disagree with your assessment, are that during the benchmark (if you read my gaf translation,) even though the GPU was running at a lower clock speed, the CPU was running at full speed for the first one hence making up the missing FLOPs, and that the GPU was thermal throttling during the benchmark in the second one because 1005 MHZ was the maximum hit but might not have been running at that speed the whole time. Like you though, I have high doubts about this rumor, just wanted to throw out that other possibilities exist in your argument lol.

The ARM cores aren't making up for 100~ Gflop. They aren't that powerful.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8718/the-samsung-galaxy-note-4-exynos-review/4

There is no doubt in my mind that this rumor is fake, the fact that some people believe it though is very telling.

 



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--