Quantcast
Ventura Beat: Nintendo Switch are based on Nvidia's Maxwell Architecture not Pascal

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Ventura Beat: Nintendo Switch are based on Nvidia's Maxwell Architecture not Pascal

Emily weigh

 

GamesBeat has confirmed from two sources (who don’t want to be identified) that the Switch’s graphics are based on Nvidia’s older Maxwell architecture, not the new Pascal graphics technology that the chipmaker introduced earlier this year. The semi-custom Nvidia Tegra processor in the machine is still powerful enough to play typical Nintendo cartoon-style games (like the Mario series), but don’t expect the highest-end games we’re seeing on the PS4 or Xbox One to run on the Switch.

This may be OK, and the Switch’s high-definition visuals may still be satisfying to a lot of gamers, who will also appreciate its dual purpose of being played in the home as a console and on the run as a portable system. But the Kyoto-based Japanese company was in such a rush to replace its failing Wii U that it couldn’t wait for the updated Pascal version of the graphics technology, sources told us. This means that the Switch doesn’t have as much visual horsepower as the PS4 when played on a television, and it may not be able to handle 4K graphics, either. If Nintendo had waited for Pascal, it would have had to push back the launch date of the Switch. We’re not so sure if the Switch is weaker than the Xbox One, as the performance may be close.

http://venturebeat.com/2016/12/14/nintendo-switch-specs-less-powerful-than-playstation-4/



Around the Network

Great news! Might be selling for cheaper in stores msrp!

 

Edit: ironically i saw this news on gaf and said to myself my good ol boy Sh1nn would make a thread. Glad i was right xD



I'll wait until January to decide if I'm going to start panicking or not. Was it ever inferred that Switch was going to use Pascal to begin with? That's so not Nintendo to begin with. It's new, expensive, and is only used in high end autonomous cars from what I've heard.



"We’re not so sure if the Switch is weaker than the Xbox One, as the performance may be close."

All that matters.

Seriously, though. Who was expecting this thing to be as powerful as a PS4??



Well, this is new.

Read.

Before anyone freaks out...

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=226619995&postcount=504

"I have a few immediate thoughts after reading through the article:

Firstly, it's worth noting the difference between Maxwell and Pascal is almost entirely down to the manufacturing process. Maxwell was made on 28nm (and in the case of the TX1, 20nm) whereas Pascal is made on 16nm. The actual architectural difference between the two is minimal, and aside from improved color buffer compression, largely irrelevant for a device like the Switch.
Despite that, the article never makes any mention of the manufacturing process. I find that extremely strange, as it's obviously the defining difference between the two sets of GPUs.
In fact, the article gets the difference between the two completely the wrong way around, saying "Nintendo’s box is relatively small, and so it has to fit into the heat profile of a portable device, rather than a set-top box. That’s another reason that explains the older Maxwell technology, as opposed to the Pascal’s state-of-the-art tech." Pascal is literally a more power efficient version of Maxwell, so the incentive would be the other way around.
The author says "we expect the Nintendo Switch to be more than 1 teraflop in performance", which is notably higher than even those of us who were expecting Pascal were considering (I literally posted earlier today with a 500-750 Gflop estimate). If this is a Maxwell chip, then that would mean at least 4 SMs (512 "CUDA cores") at 1GHz, as they're not going to be able to push much past that on 28/20nm. This is a much larger GPU than most people would have been expecting.

I see a few different scenarios here:

The Switch SoC uses Maxwell at 20nm, and simply has a much larger GPU than anticipated to account for the performance.
Nintendo looked at the feature-set planned for Pascal when design started, realised that the new features were largely irrelevant, and decided that they would save time and just use a straight-forward die shrink of Maxwell to 16nm instead. That would technically be a Maxwell GPU, but would be almost completely indistinguishable from Pascal in terms of performance.
The sources are wrong about Maxwell, the 1 Tflop performance, or both.

Basically, if you're to take the article as being accurate, then the only worthwhile takeaway is this quote:"



Around the Network

Was hoping it would be pascal due to the power efficiency but not surprised if its Maxwell.

Its odd cause Nvidia will most likely be showing off a new shield at CES which is sure to be Pascal but I guess Nintendo opted for Maxwell if its true. Not the worst thing in the world though but it certainly sounds like it will be the Tegra x1 for better or for worse.



             

                               Anime: Haruhi                                                                                      Anime: Love Live
                              Nsfw Anime Thread                                                                             Join our Anime Threads!
                             Sfw Anime Thread                                                                                VGC Tutorial Thread

Im expecting a rumor everyday from Jan 1 to Jan 12.



Pocky Lover Boy! 

Sh1nn will never report anything good for Nintendo. Why? What do you get out of it? Not saying this isn't worth reporting. I just don't understand what's at stake for you, Sh1nn. Can you explain this?



spemanig said:

"We’re not so sure if the Switch is weaker than the Xbox One, as the performance may be close."

All that matters.

Seriously, though. Who was expecting this thing to be as powerful as a PS4??

switch is gonna be ~500gf machine

 xbox one  is 1.3 tf



Meelow said:
Before anyone freaks out...

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=226619995&postcount=504

"I have a few immediate thoughts after reading through the article:

Firstly, it's worth noting the difference between Maxwell and Pascal is almost entirely down to the manufacturing process. Maxwell was made on 28nm (and in the case of the TX1, 20nm) whereas Pascal is made on 16nm. The actual architectural difference between the two is minimal, and aside from improved color buffer compression, largely irrelevant for a device like the Switch.
Despite that, the article never makes any mention of the manufacturing process. I find that extremely strange, as it's obviously the defining difference between the two sets of GPUs.
In fact, the article gets the difference between the two completely the wrong way around, saying "Nintendo’s box is relatively small, and so it has to fit into the heat profile of a portable device, rather than a set-top box. That’s another reason that explains the older Maxwell technology, as opposed to the Pascal’s state-of-the-art tech." Pascal is literally a more power efficient version of Maxwell, so the incentive would be the other way around.
The author says "we expect the Nintendo Switch to be more than 1 teraflop in performance", which is notably higher than even those of us who were expecting Pascal were considering (I literally posted earlier today with a 500-750 Gflop estimate). If this is a Maxwell chip, then that would mean at least 4 SMs (512 "CUDA cores") at 1GHz, as they're not going to be able to push much past that on 28/20nm. This is a much larger GPU than most people would have been expecting.

I see a few different scenarios here:

The Switch SoC uses Maxwell at 20nm, and simply has a much larger GPU than anticipated to account for the performance.
Nintendo looked at the feature-set planned for Pascal when design started, realised that the new features were largely irrelevant, and decided that they would save time and just use a straight-forward die shrink of Maxwell to 16nm instead. That would technically be a Maxwell GPU, but would be almost completely indistinguishable from Pascal in terms of performance.
The sources are wrong about Maxwell, the 1 Tflop performance, or both.

Basically, if you're to take the article as being accurate, then the only worthwhile takeaway is this quote:"

Thanks.



Well, this is new.

Read.