By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - Emily Rogers: Switch has 4GB of ram in RETAIL units, leaked specs might not be farfetched

Barkley on 01 November 2016
superchunk said:
Barkley said:

Literally just counted, 50 seconds shown used docked in house, 109 seconds shown used outside house (didn't count the ending ESPORTS or whatever thing at the end for this)

Cool down on the accusations there, especially when he's factually correct.

lol I actually just did the same thing. Here is my breakdown.

- starts off w/guy playing zelda at home 0:00 to 0:30

- he takes it off and plays w/ dog outside :30 to :50

- switches to guy on plane :50 to 1:20

- he gets home and docks 1:20 to 1:34

- switches to group playing in van 1:34 to 1:50

- switches to group playing basketball 1:50 to 2:09

- switches to girl playing at home 2:09 to 2:25

- she undocks and goes to building top party 2:25 to 2:39

- switches to group getting ready for splatoon eSport 2:39 to 3:00

- they move to docked mode to play actual event 3:00 to 3:23

- END credits time excluded.

Totals

Home = 83 seconds or 41% of the trailer.

Portable = 120 seconds or 59% of the trailer.

 

So, yes I think there are definitely gaps in how people will count each second, I'm putting various transitions with whatever activity it surrounds. All in all, yes I was wrong and they are not almost indentical. It is definitely given more portable time. Guess the GAF accounting wasn't what I remembered or not how I counted the split.

Yeah I counted again properly now, including the ending event and it's a lot closer then I thought but still in favour of portable, including the amount of extra (non-gaming) footage outside the house would increase the gap further though.

 

0:04 -  0:22   (used docked inside house)      19 seconds

0:24 - 0:31 (used docked, removing from dock)       8 seconds

0:32 - 0:36 (used undocked inside house)        5 seconds

0:37 - 0:47 (used undocked in park)         11 seconds

0:49 - 0:59 (used undocked in airport)     11 seconds

1:01 - 1:14 (used undocked on plane)       14 seconds

1:18 - 1:20 (used undocked in car)       3 seconds

1:22 - 1:32 (used docked home)          11 seconds

1:35 - 1:47 (used undocked in car)     13 seconds

1:56 - 2:06 (used undocked basketball court)             11 seconds

2:09 - 2:25 (used docked in house)       17 seconds

2:26 - 2:37 (used undocked on roof)       12 seconds

2:40 - 2:55 (used undocked in public building)     16 seconds

3:05 - 3:22 (docked event)  18 seconds

 

Docked  (73 seconds)    43.1%

Undocked (96 seconds)  56.8%

 

Everyones gonna count it slightly differently, I cut out parts where they weren't shown using the Switch and the red Nintendo Switch slides, whereas it seems you left those in.



Around the Network
JEMC on 01 November 2016
Akeos said:
No body knows about Switch or dock hardware... How some people can say if ff XV or others can't be port on Switch...
Nvidia have creating a special API, NVN for it, Nintendo could ask easy port ps4 games, intégred second GPU in the dock...
In first, developers port ps4 games on Switch on "home mode" 1080p 60 fps .. After it's easy to make portable version 720p 30 fps...

It's called common sense.

The PS4 Slim uses 86 W while gaming, and the XboxOne S 79W, and both are manufactured using the 16nm tech, which is currently the best and more efficient one.

Now, the Switch can't even use 1/4 of that power in order to succeed as a portable machine, because otherwise it would drain the battery in a blink of an eye.

So, how can you expect a machine that will use 15-20W max in dock mode (the Nvidia Shield with a Tegra X1 used that in a case bigger than the Switch) to compete with a machine using the same manufacturing process but capable of using 4 times as much power? It can't, it's that simple. No matter what API it uses, the power difference is just too big.

Miyamotoo said:
JEMC said:

Your reasoning that because Nintendo uses more modern hardware, it willbe better, is not accurate. More modern tech is usually better, yes, but that better doesn't have to mean more powerful. It can also mean more efficient, for example.

And please, let me express my suspicions about those claims on Neogaf. What kind of games are we talking about? If we talk about Just Dance-like kind of games then yes, ports should be easy, but if we're talking about AAA games that push the boundaries of what the PS4/X1 are capable of, then hell no!, that's not going to happen.

We know that Switch will be underpowered compared to XB1, and we talk about modern tech/architecture, tech, architecture, tools, APIs...that will make development and porting easy.

Will they definitely didn't had only Just Dance on mind, thaey most likely had all 3rd party games on mind.

But the hardware inside the XboxOne and PS4 is also modern. Just because it's new, it doesn't mean that it's modern.

And since none of us can read the mind of anyone, I won't comment on your second part.



Please excuse my bad English.

Former gaming PC: i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Current gaming PC: R5-7600, 32GB RAM 6000MT/s (CL30) and a RX 9060XT 16GB

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

Pavolink on 01 November 2016

But what can Nintendo do with it? I want to see the games and speak for the specs.



Proud to be the first cool Nintendo fan ever

Number ONE Zelda fan in the Universe

DKCTF didn't move consoles

Prediction: No Zelda HD for Wii U, quietly moved to the succesor

Predictions for Nintendo NX and Mobile


Miyamotoo on 01 November 2016
JEMC said:
 
Miyamotoo said:

We know that Switch will be underpowered compared to XB1, and we talk about modern tech/architecture, tech, architecture, tools, APIs...that will make development and porting easy.

Will they definitely didn't had only Just Dance on mind, thaey most likely had all 3rd party games on mind.

But the hardware inside the XboxOne and PS4 is also modern. Just because it's new, it doesn't mean that it's modern.

And since none of us can read the mind of anyone, I won't comment on your second part.

Switch hardware will more modern, Pascal based Tegra 2 basically latest Nvidia tech.

If someone says "3rd party" of course that it's assumed that he think on all of 3rd party games not some specific type of games.



potato_hamster on 01 November 2016
Miyamotoo said:
JEMC said:

Your reasoning that because Nintendo uses more modern hardware, it willbe better, is not accurate. More modern tech is usually better, yes, but that better doesn't have to mean more powerful. It can also mean more efficient, for example.

And please, let me express my suspicions about those claims on Neogaf. What kind of games are we talking about? If we talk about Just Dance-like kind of games then yes, ports should be easy, but if we're talking about AAA games that push the boundaries of what the PS4/X1 are capable of, then hell no!, that's not going to happen.

We know that Switch will be underpowered compared to XB1, and we talk about modern tech/architecture, tech, architecture, tools, APIs...that will make development and porting easy.

Will they definitely didn't had only Just Dance on mind, thaey most likely had all 3rd party games on mind.

Porting is one of the most difficult things to do in the video game industry. It has never been "easy". Microsoft claimed to make it "easy" with their "Universal Windows Platform" program that was made (as they marketed) to make porting an Xbox One game to PC literally a matter of a few clicks in an application. I'm not BSing you. That's literally how easy they made it seem when they introduced the UWP framework. Need I point out that going from console to PC is amuch easier process than the opposite, and the entire program been a complete trainwreck. And the worst part about it? Games have been horribly optimized. Even the beefiest of gaming PCs can struggle to run UWP games well. Porting games has never, ever been "easy".

So please, go ahead and tell me what Nintendo knows that Microsoft doesn't.  Tell me how nVidia working with Microsoft to make UWP work with nVidia's framework is going to be noticably worse than their work with Nintendo, especially when Microsoft wasn't severely impeded with the limitations of a platform that's based entirely on mobile hardware!

Will porting to the switch be easier than porting to the WIi U? Undoubtedly, because porting to the Wii U was a total disaster. Will it be easier than porting from say the PS4 to the X1? Not even close. So far all we can guess its that it's going to be "easier" than a total disater (which could still be terible), and literally any other stance that is more positive than that is 100% wishful thinking, bordering on apologetic.



Around the Network
Miyamotoo on 01 November 2016
potato_hamster said:
Miyamotoo said:

We know that Switch will be underpowered compared to XB1, and we talk about modern tech/architecture, tech, architecture, tools, APIs...that will make development and porting easy.

Will they definitely didn't had only Just Dance on mind, thaey most likely had all 3rd party games on mind.

Porting is one of the most difficult things to do in the video game industry. It has never been "easy". Microsoft claimed to make it "easy" with their "Universal Windows Platform" program that was made (as they marketed) to make porting an Xbox One game to PC literally a matter of a few clicks in an application. I'm not BSing you. That's literally how easy they made it seem when they introduced the UWP framework. Need I point out that going from console to PC is amuch easier process than the opposite, and the entire program been a complete trainwreck. And the worst part about it? Games have been horribly optimized. Even the beefiest of gaming PCs can struggle to run UWP games well. Porting games has never, ever been "easy".

So please, go ahead and tell me what Nintendo knows that Microsoft doesn't.  Tell me how nVidia working with Microsoft to make UWP work with nVidia's framework is going to be noticably worse than their work with Nintendo, especially when Microsoft wasn't severely impeded with the limitations of a platform that's based entirely on mobile hardware!

Will porting to the switch be easier than porting to the WIi U? Undoubtedly, because porting to the Wii U was a total disaster. Will it be easier than porting from say the PS4 to the X1? Not even close. So far all we can guess its that it's going to be "easier" than a total disater (which could still be terible), and literally any other stance that is more positive than that is 100% wishful thinking, bordering on apologetic.

Okay, easier. :)



potato_hamster on 01 November 2016
Miyamotoo said:
potato_hamster said:

Porting is one of the most difficult things to do in the video game industry. It has never been "easy". Microsoft claimed to make it "easy" with their "Universal Windows Platform" program that was made (as they marketed) to make porting an Xbox One game to PC literally a matter of a few clicks in an application. I'm not BSing you. That's literally how easy they made it seem when they introduced the UWP framework. Need I point out that going from console to PC is amuch easier process than the opposite, and the entire program been a complete trainwreck. And the worst part about it? Games have been horribly optimized. Even the beefiest of gaming PCs can struggle to run UWP games well. Porting games has never, ever been "easy".

So please, go ahead and tell me what Nintendo knows that Microsoft doesn't.  Tell me how nVidia working with Microsoft to make UWP work with nVidia's framework is going to be noticably worse than their work with Nintendo, especially when Microsoft wasn't severely impeded with the limitations of a platform that's based entirely on mobile hardware!

Will porting to the switch be easier than porting to the WIi U? Undoubtedly, because porting to the Wii U was a total disaster. Will it be easier than porting from say the PS4 to the X1? Not even close. So far all we can guess its that it's going to be "easier" than a total disater (which could still be terible), and literally any other stance that is more positive than that is 100% wishful thinking, bordering on apologetic.

Okay, easier. :)

Great. So the gap between the ease of porting from say the PS3 and the Xbox 360 and ease of porting from the PS3 and the Wii U is absolutely enormous. I cannot stress this enough. It's so much more difficult to port in terms of how much additional work you need to put in to simplify the game to the point the Wii U can run it well. How much easier is porting a PS4 game to the Switch going to be?

Well frankly, pretty much no one on this forum actually knows that. It might still be very difficult. Let's not take this for granted and just let the games come out that show how easy or difficult it actually is, shall we?



Miyamotoo on 01 November 2016
potato_hamster said:
Miyamotoo said:

Okay, easier. :)

Great. So the gap between the ease of porting from say the PS3 and the Xbox 360 and ease of porting from the PS3 and the Wii U is absolutely enormous. I cannot stress this enough. It's so much more difficult to port in terms of how much additional work you need to put in to simplify the game to the point the Wii U can run it well. How much easier is porting a PS4 game to the Switch going to be?

Well frankly, pretty much no one on this forum actually knows that. It might still be very difficult. Let's not take this for granted and just let the games come out that show how easy or difficult it actually is, shall we?

Of Course, but whole my point is that we can expect easier and not problematic porting because reasons I mentioned several times to you (modern Nvidia+ARM architecture/tech, new tools, APIs, great Nvidia support, especially with their Shield experience..), how much exatly we will see.



potato_hamster on 01 November 2016
Miyamotoo said:
potato_hamster said:

Great. So the gap between the ease of porting from say the PS3 and the Xbox 360 and ease of porting from the PS3 and the Wii U is absolutely enormous. I cannot stress this enough. It's so much more difficult to port in terms of how much additional work you need to put in to simplify the game to the point the Wii U can run it well. How much easier is porting a PS4 game to the Switch going to be?

Well frankly, pretty much no one on this forum actually knows that. It might still be very difficult. Let's not take this for granted and just let the games come out that show how easy or difficult it actually is, shall we?

Of Course, but whole my point is that we can expect easier and not problematic porting because reasons I mentioned several times to you (modern Nvidia+ARM architecture/tech, new tools, APIs, great Nvidia support, especially with their Shield experience..), how much exatly we will see.

Porting could still be extremely problematic. That's the part you appear to fail to understand. You are assuming it won't be.

I personally refuse to believe a Nintendo console is easy to work with until proven otherwise. I haven't seen one yet that was.



Miyamotoo on 01 November 2016
potato_hamster said:
Miyamotoo said:

Of Course, but whole my point is that we can expect easier and not problematic porting because reasons I mentioned several times to you (modern Nvidia+ARM architecture/tech, new tools, APIs, great Nvidia support, especially with their Shield experience..), how much exatly we will see.

Porting could still be extremely problematic. That's the part you appear to fail to understand. You are assuming it won't be.

I personally refuse to believe a Nintendo console is easy to work with until proven otherwise. I haven't seen one yet that was.

Offcourse It can be, but with Switch probably won't be because reasons I mentione.

To be fair this is 1st time from GC that Nintendo hardware/architecture will be very modern. They definitely learned some lessons with Wii U.