By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Miyamotoo on 17 November 2016
Edit Thread
DonFerrari said:
torok said:
The funniest thing here is that Nvidia has been talking crap about consoles since the gen started, simply because AMD got all contracts to make theirs GPUs. They were outdated, useless, etc. Now that they have one console in their hands, it suddenly is a technical achievement, a masterpiece of design and a proof of how far humanity has evolved.

However, it is an ingenuous design and porting current gen titles to it won't be much of an issue since it's basically a toned down Maxwell or Pascal GPU.

Yes... PS4 and X1 were jokes because they were so weak, but then releasing a half the power X1 3 years later is a groundbreaking success.

Miyamotoo said:

I already wrote, Switch is Nvidia+ARM, today ARM architecture is most used CPU architecture on market and almost every developer is familiar with ARM, Nvidia is most used GPU architecture on PC market and most of PS4/XB1 multiplatform games are also availibe for PC, with Switch hardware we talking about tech from 2015/2016. Now compare that with Wii U, old IBM PPC CPU architecture from early 2000" and custom ATI Radeon GPU that is if I recall based on Radeon 46xx series (2008. tech) graphic cards. Also Wii U didn't had support for most modern engines, for instance didn't had even support for U4 and it got Unity support very late, while Switch has support for almost evre modern engine.

Thats make quite difference compared to Wii U, and of course there will be noticeable difference with Switch compared to Wii U regardless XB1/PS4 ports.

So now ARM is a very common chip in gaming PCs? We are always learning something new.

And about you being over optimistic I can't even see how can you deny that since you always refuse to accept the possibility that the positive rumors aren't true and the negatives are true, and when people try to show the outcome is hardly be what you expect you always go to "it isn't confirmed yet" but you use the same type of information to prop and hype.

I never said it's very common chip in gaming PCs.

What exactly negative and what exactly positive rumours?

 

 

JEMC said:
Miyamotoo said:

Of Course it's not impossible to port games to Wii U but it would require huge effort for something like that. When I talk about porting for Switch, I actually don't refer at all to PR talk, but to point that Switch has very modern architecture and tech compared to Wii U (actually it's most likely more modern than XB1/PS4 tech architecture, because that's AMD tech from 2012. while Switch most likely have Nvidia/ARM tech from 2016/2015) thats easy to work with, like I  already wrote Wii U had very outdated architecture and tech when was launched (CPU architecture is from early 2000", while GPU is 2008. based tech).

Fact that ARM is most used CPU means that developers are very familiar with ARM tech, and ARM tech is actually easy to work with and porting from x86 to ARM is not complicated at all. Actually if you look, you will see that most of AAA studios also have mobile games (Ubisoft, EA, Bethesda..) so they already worked with ARM and they are very familiar with ARM tech espacily ARM A57 (rumored Switch CPU) that's currently most used CPU in mobile phones.

You didn't answer my question, what exactly that I wrote in this matter that is not realistic?

I'll start with the question. What is not realistic is expecting, as you said in other threads, that third party games can be "easily" ported to Switch by simply lowering the resolution to 720p and little else. Capcom has already gone on record saying that they won't port their games but instead make special versions.

And again, being more modern doesn't solve all the problems. A 2016 BMW M3 is far newer and better than a 1950's Ford Transit, but if I want to carry a sofa, I won't care how new is the M3.

In this case, the GPU architecture of Switch will be newer (just one gen as Pascal is mostly Maxwell on a smaller node and before that we had Kepler, which competed with the GCN chips of PS4/X1), but that won't be enough to solve the big gap in raw performance.

PS4 has 1152 cores and the X1 768 compared to 256 cores of the Tegra X1&2. Being newer and more efficient won't solve the 3x gap in cores between the Switch and the X1. And before you say that Nvidia GPUs performs better than AMD's, that's on PC and with DX11, not on a console where low level coding matter the most.

Lastly, you're confusing publishers and studios/developers. Yes, publishers like EA and Ubisoft have mobile games, but they aren't developed by DICE, Bioware or Ubi Montreal. All those games are done by other studios that only work on mobile games, like EA Mobile.

Capcom plan to make special versions of Switch version does not means same plan will be for all 3rd parties.

Offcourse it doenst solve all problems (I never said it solves all problems or that Switch will have strong 3rd party support beacuse of that), but modern/tech architecture of course is positive thing regardless 3rd parties and for platform.

Switch most likely won't have enough power for straightforward XB1 ports, but it will have enuf power for some downscaled XB1 ports. Tegra X1 cores are capable for around 500 Gflops, Tegra X2 can achieve around 700 Gflops because it can achieve much higher clocks, we cant still talk how much exactly Switch will be strong, I personally expecting around 500-600 Gflops in docked mode.

EA Mobile is still EA studio, it not hard to imagine they call some developer from EA Mobile to help EA with porting.