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

Soundwave on 01 November 2016

Porting is just one problem.

The other problem is (sadly) Nintendo's own buyer base.

They turned their nose up at perfectly good/playable ports like COD and Assassin's Creed on the Wii U launch and shunned things like Need For Speed because they were a few months late. Even an exclusive like Zombi U didn't sell well.

If they wouldn't buy these games because of very minor differences in performance or a game being a couple of months late (yes, heaven forbid developers prioritize two platforms with 80 million users each over your 0 userbase ... lets be real), then I doubt they are going to deal well with much bigger differences with PS4/XB1.

The Wii U was at least much closer and better in some areas than the PS3/360, the Switch won't be so favorable vs a PS4/XB1. 

It doesn't really matter if a third party bothers to port or not if no one is going to buy any of the games. I think a large part of the Nintendo community doesn't really even want these games, they just want to be able to use it as a bullet point in online arguements with Sony/MS fans "we have the same games as you, neener, neener, neener!". But actually buying them? Hell no, they mainly only buy Nintendo games.

Developers are not going to prioritize a Switch port when PS4 has 50 million users already, XB1 has 25 million, and then there's PC too. 



Around the Network
Akeos on 01 November 2016
JEMC said:
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:

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.

79 watts is all xboxone s,  if you take only APU xboxone it's get down to  35-40 watts... For older APU génération...  Blu-Ray need 30 watts... 

Tegra X 2 give 75 GFLOPS per watt...  So 1.5 TFLOPS at 20 watts... 

Amd is in late...  Ps4/Xboxone use technology from 2011/2012,  tegra X2  comes this year and use pascal core, the last génération Nvidia. 

Common sense ? 



JEMC on 01 November 2016
Akeos said:
JEMC said:

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.

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.

79 watts is all xboxone s,  if you take only APU xboxone it's get down to  35-40 watts... For older APU génération...  Blu-Ray need 30 watts... 

Tegra X 2 give 75 GFLOPS per watt...  So 1.5 TFLOPS at 20 watts... 

Amd is in late...  Ps4/Xboxone use technology from 2011/2012,  tegra X2  comes this year and use pascal core, the last génération Nvidia. 

Common sense ? 

The APU is not the only thing that has to be powered. RAM, HDD/Blue Ray also require power in the same way that the Switch will also need to power the RAM, flash memory and, most important of all, the screen.

Where did you get those Flops/W numbers? I'd like to know more about it.

Pascal isn't much different than Maxwell, only a tad more efficient, which means that the Tegra X2 isn't much more powerful than the older X1. And much of its computing improvements come from the ARM cores in it, not the GPU shaders.

Yes, common sense.



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.

teigaga on 01 November 2016
Akeos said:
JEMC said:

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.

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.

79 watts is all xboxone s,  if you take only APU xboxone it's get down to  35-40 watts... For older APU génération...  Blu-Ray need 30 watts... 

Tegra X 2 give 75 GFLOPS per watt...  So 1.5 TFLOPS at 20 watts... 

Amd is in late...  Ps4/Xboxone use technology from 2011/2012,  tegra X2  comes this year and use pascal core, the last génération Nvidia. 

Common sense ? 

Thats FP16 instructions, not FP32 if Im not mistaken, so in real world terms we're talking half of that stated figure. 750gflops at 20watts which is way too high for portable mode.



Wyrdness on 01 November 2016
Soundwave said:

Porting is just one problem.

The other problem is (sadly) Nintendo's own buyer base.

They turned their nose up at perfectly good/playable ports like COD and Assassin's Creed on the Wii U launch and shunned things like Need For Speed because they were a few months late. Even an exclusive like Zombi U didn't sell well.

If they wouldn't buy these games because of very minor differences in performance or a game being a couple of months late (yes, heaven forbid developers prioritize two platforms with 80 million users each over your 0 userbase ... lets be real), then I doubt they are going to deal well with much bigger differences with PS4/XB1.

The Wii U was at least much closer and better in some areas than the PS3/360, the Switch won't be so favorable vs a PS4/XB1. 

It doesn't really matter if a third party bothers to port or not if no one is going to buy any of the games. I think a large part of the Nintendo community doesn't really even want these games, they just want to be able to use it as a bullet point in online arguements with Sony/MS fans "we have the same games as you, neener, neener, neener!". But actually buying them? Hell no, they mainly only buy Nintendo games.

Developers are not going to prioritize a Switch port when PS4 has 50 million users already, XB1 has 25 million, and then there's PC too. 

The port of ZombiU to the other consoles sold terribly so that's not strictly a problem with the userbase as that's universal across gaming, the issue really is infact that the userbase on Nintendo aren't as swayed by the mainstream, these aren't people who would be yearly installments of a franchise by default. It's also not a case of them not wanting the game either as I'm sure they wouldn't mind such games but what they don't want is buying installments on a yearly basis when the's little change over the previous game. The multiplayer following in the userbase just want to buy one complete version that they can play over and over, they don't mind DLC either.

Also why should they go out their way to buy games that are late or have performance issue just to please the developer? They're spending money as well and in some cases being charged more than other versions, treat certain consumers with less priority then don't be surprised if they're not out there rushing to buy your products.



Around the Network
curl-6 on 01 November 2016
Miyamotoo said:
curl-6 said:

Dude, you are not fooling anybody.

You’ve always had problems with presenting your opinions as fact, overhyping everything to do with Nintendo, and repeating information you clearly don’t understand, but in this thread you’ve taken it to an absurd level. 

Take a breath, and tone it down a notch, for your own sake.

You writing nonsense and clear example of that is that you accuse me like I wrote that Wii U has GPU and RAM of GC, even it's very clear I was talking about GC CPU only and thats actually well known fact (but it seems not for you).

Actually, your post never specified you were only referring to the CPU. You said: "Wii U tech was basically GC tech", and that is straight-up wrong because its GPU tech is totally different, it's RAM tech is totally different, etc.

Anyone with even a basic knowledge of gaming hardware (which is a lot of us) can see that numerous claims you've made in this thread are BS. You do not know what you are talking about, and the more you post, the more obvious that becomes. The best thing for you to do is stop now before you make yourself look any worse.



curl-6 on 01 November 2016
JGarret said:
curl-6 said:

Oh I agree that it's basically a portable in spite of what Nintendo says, but the fact they're advertising it as a console also means it will be compared to other consoles, including the Wii U, in the minds of gamers.

Hey man, just curious on your opinion of this new system...I know you´ve been down on Nintendo for a while now, but what do you think about the Switch so far?

I think Nintendo made the right decision with Switch's design. Going head-to-head with PS4/Xbone with a traditional console would have been suicide. Plus, if they kill 3DS soon, they can focus all their software output on one device, and hopefully alleviate the persistent droughts that crippled Wii U.

If they price it reasonably, ($250 USD or under) and deliver a consistent stream of appealing software, I think it could be a hit.



Darc Requiem on 02 November 2016
Soundwave said:

Porting is just one problem.

The other problem is (sadly) Nintendo's own buyer base.

They turned their nose up at perfectly good/playable ports like COD and Assassin's Creed on the Wii U launch and shunned things like Need For Speed because they were a few months late. Even an exclusive like Zombi U didn't sell well.

If they wouldn't buy these games because of very minor differences in performance or a game being a couple of months late (yes, heaven forbid developers prioritize two platforms with 80 million users each over your 0 userbase ... lets be real), then I doubt they are going to deal well with much bigger differences with PS4/XB1.

The Wii U was at least much closer and better in some areas than the PS3/360, the Switch won't be so favorable vs a PS4/XB1. 

It doesn't really matter if a third party bothers to port or not if no one is going to buy any of the games. I think a large part of the Nintendo community doesn't really even want these games, they just want to be able to use it as a bullet point in online arguements with Sony/MS fans "we have the same games as you, neener, neener, neener!". But actually buying them? Hell no, they mainly only buy Nintendo games.

Developers are not going to prioritize a Switch port when PS4 has 50 million users already, XB1 has 25 million, and then there's PC too. 

The problem is the part of the Nintendo audience that bought third party games has moved on generations ago. The audience that is left are Nintendo diehards. Nintendo blew a golden chance with Wii U to gain that audience back.

It was common knowledge that both Sony and MS weren't going use the loss leader model for the PS4 and XB1. Nintendo could have released a console within the same realms as the XB1 in power for a reasonable price. Instead they choose to release consoles in the realm of the PS3 and 360 in power with an awkward architecture.

I mean they could have something like a AMD Phenom II X4 X940BE with a 5870M. Sure the CPU isn't that great  but Jaguar cores aren't world beaters. The 5870M was a pretty good GPU 1.12 TFLOPs from 50W. Both chips would have been 2 years old when the Wii U launched. The TPD would have around 100W. I still dont understand the philosphy behind the Wii U's architecture. 



oniyide on 02 November 2016
superchunk said:
oniyide said:

nope, in the trailer they showed the NS been used mostly OUTSIDE the house. There was less footage of it being used as an actual home console I dont know what trailer you saw.

That is not true. Its almost an exact 50/50 split between the two usage types. GAF thread on the video had the exact seconds and it was almost equal. Careful, your bias is showing.

 

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.

its all good, at least you corrected yourself. I think the excitement caused you to see what you wanted to see. Im not down on the Switch, I was for this whole thing when it was rumored that this is what it was going to be. What im not down for is Ninty or any company showing us one thing and completly contradicting what they JUST showed us. Just keep it real and let the product speak for itself.



oniyide on 02 November 2016
Soundwave said:

Porting is just one problem.

The other problem is (sadly) Nintendo's own buyer base.

They turned their nose up at perfectly good/playable ports like COD and Assassin's Creed on the Wii U launch and shunned things like Need For Speed because they were a few months late. Even an exclusive like Zombi U didn't sell well.

If they wouldn't buy these games because of very minor differences in performance or a game being a couple of months late (yes, heaven forbid developers prioritize two platforms with 80 million users each over your 0 userbase ... lets be real), then I doubt they are going to deal well with much bigger differences with PS4/XB1.

The Wii U was at least much closer and better in some areas than the PS3/360, the Switch won't be so favorable vs a PS4/XB1. 

It doesn't really matter if a third party bothers to port or not if no one is going to buy any of the games. I think a large part of the Nintendo community doesn't really even want these games, they just want to be able to use it as a bullet point in online arguements with Sony/MS fans "we have the same games as you, neener, neener, neener!". But actually buying them? Hell no, they mainly only buy Nintendo games.

Developers are not going to prioritize a Switch port when PS4 has 50 million users already, XB1 has 25 million, and then there's PC too. 

I dont think anyone really turned up their nose at those games they just chose to buy them on another system. Why wouldnt they? why wouldnt you buy COD on anything but Wii U when you know millions of people will have one of those versions which means the online will last longer. How much WIi U owners ONLY have a Wii U?