By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
superchunk on 05 November 2016
Edit Thread
bonzobanana said:

I believe you are completely wrong about the Switch spec I'm going with the development kit spec which stated shared DDR3 memory and I think some of the guts of the SOC has been removed to make way for some frame buffer ram. Which is why the development kit only mentions 4 arm cores. Anyway by going with the full spec you have completely ignored Nintendo's normal cost cutting approach of using value hardware and ignored the development kit spec which is normally higher than the retail version. I don't know what the basis for this is.

Personally I think a position in the middle ground is better so you have less way to travel either way as more information comes in.

However I was going to point out the wii u has the wii gpu in addition for compatibility which is used to generate the tablet screen in wii u mode so that's at least 11 gflops on top plus if the wii gpu operates in turbo mode in wii u mode possibly more. It definitely has an additional 11 gflops. That's why the wii u tablet screen is 800x480 to fit perfectly with the output of the original wii gpu. Both gpu's operate together as you have 2 unique screens to generate both the tablet and the main tv display so its unfair to list only the more powerful gpu. It makes it look like the 176 gflops gpu has to generate both screens.

The dev kit was one rumor, my specs are from a couple, more align with the big.little design of tetra soc, are hinted to being accurate by Kim and Emily and it fits the many notions of being less than XBO while better than WiiU.

Yeah I didn't include wiiBC in the wiiu specs as that only performed for Wii games. Do you have link to more GFLOPs on wiiu? That's where it ended with the most confirmed specs in GAF and others.