By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
bonzobanana on 06 November 2016
Edit Thread
superchunk said:
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.

I disagree with the Switch spec but we can't really lock it down at the moment so it doesn't really matter. It certainly seems like the worst development kit ever though missing 2 major cpu's and bottlenecked by slow memory. How on earth can that be used to develop games for the Switch of your specification?

The  wii u spec I think is something that is much clearer based on the analysis of the chipworks images at neogaf. There clearly is extra performance there and the wii gpu is clearly used heavily for the gamepad screen but whether its at 11 gflops or 24 gflops as claimed here I don't know.  I was going with the safe view that the wii gpu is only used for generating the gamepad screen at 11 gflops when different to the main image others have said it can be utilised even for the main graphic display and at up to 24 gflops. It does seem strange that they wouldn't be utilised thinking about it again. You'd need to read the thread below and other similar threads to get the full picture. The confirmation of 176 gflops pretty much came from neogaf based on both analysis of the chipworks image and the low power requirements of the wii u. It's not critical but I think 176 gflops is a little unfair to wii u. 

8 shader units with 20 alus in each = 160ALUs @ 550mhz = 176GFLOPs + 24gflops+ of fixed function shaders

Update: sorry I wasn't here to post earlier, the 176gflops is probably correct, since this part does seem to be vliw based. However there is almost certainly at minimum Hollywood inside this die as well considering how Wii u handles backwards compatibility. @550mhz that would give Hollywood 24gflops. Fixed functions are far better at doing their job than programmable shaders, but can do little else. It is more capable than 360, but it is impossible to really compare beyond that.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=511628