Soundwave said:
bonzobanana said:
My guess from the beginning was about 400 gflops performance (fp32) and all the information released more recently makes me more sure that Nintendo would have compromised performance slightly for commercial costing reasons. I have absolutely no problem with 400 gflops myself and it could be a bit lower or a bit more but I think thats realistic especially with the claimed longer battery life now.
The dev kit had 4 Arm A57 64bit processors and shared memory for graphics and cpu with a memory bandwidth of 25.6GB/s
In the Nintendo custom chip which could be using a later fabrication process as its a custom chip. It's going to need frame buffer memory in main chip with a few other caches.
This is not going to be a reference design with maximum performance it is going to be a costed version where price is going to be critical to Nintendo. They will want to use cheap memory and possibly multiple vendors of memory chips to keep prices competitive.
Lets not forget the end product will have it seems;
1. home console performance between last gen and current gen.
2. Portable performance of last gen plus a bit including a lot more memory
3. 1-2 player portable gaming out of the box of 5-8hrs life
4. Unlimited gaming in a vehicle using usb power
5. low cost virtual reality system capable of games somewhere between probably wii and wii u in performance
6. Easily transportable gaming engine (tablet) that you can move from dock to dock in the house so it can be used in the living room, bedroom, dining room televisons etc without having to disconnect wires or move power supplies.
7. Will get amazing Nintendo games from both their home console developers and portable game developers/studios.
8. Will get easy conversions of android and ios games with many enhancements and decent controls
9. Will get conversions of last gen games which can now be played on a portable and possibly in VR.
10. Will get VR versions of many classic Nintendo games.
I'm just trying to make the point the Switch offers huge gaming possibilities well beyond the small difference in performance it may or may not have. If Nintendo Switch really is lets say a 1 terraflop gpu we are going to get royally sc****d when it comes to battery life. Careful what you wish for.
|
5-8 hours was from NakeDrake, the same guy who said Pascal for Switch, so he's likely wrong on both accounts.
Emily has said the battery life is "mediocre", so 3 hours is more likely.
A 20nm Maxwell Tegra X1 eats battery like crazy. To get 5-8 hours from a chip like that would require an enormous battery like 15,000 MaH I'd guesstimate.
|
We still dont know if this Maxwell vs Pascal is true info, whole this article is a mess..
Emily reported that summer Dev Kits battery life is around 3 hours, while Nate Drake said that was in old dev kits and that based on final dev kits (November) Nintendo is aming 5-8 hours battery life. He also stated that in final dev kits also have Maxwell but from some reason he thought that final hardware will have Pascal...
You don't really know that, especially if we know that Switch is underclocked in portable mode and chip is actualy custom Tegra. Saying that 15.000 MaH battery life is needed for 5-8 hours battery life is nonsense even laptops have much smaller battery, and with Switch we are talking about 2016/2017 battery tech.
curl-6 said:
Honestly, the specs leaked back in October (Quad core ARM Cortex A57, 4GB RAM, Maxwell Tegra) should be just fine for Nintendo's purposes.
Switch isn't meant to be a PS4/Xbone competitor. Think of it more as a next gen portable.
|
Yup, Emily and I think Laura, said that around 90% of those specs are accurate "as least in regards to the dev kits".
