While I agree with you, more RAM doesn't mean better graphics, this is also about having enough RAM.

You've used PC as an example, but you forgot to mention that a PC also has system RAM, meaning that in total you have your system plus your GPU VRAM together while the Switch will only have 4GB in total, minus whatever the OS takes (I doubt Nintendo puts extra RAM just for the OS).

It's not the same situation.

If you recall you and me were one of only few here on site who pushed idea that Switch is hybrid, Tegra based and that will have power below XB1. ;)

What doesnt matter is Nintendo PR talk because that just a PR talk, much more important is reality, and first Switch commercial is reality of Switch and people very well understand what Switch presents, home console and handheld in same package. Nintendo PR talk cant change that.

Im excluding system memory. All current games use no more than 2 to 4gigs of Vram. The only games that require more are those running in 4k. We are also not comparing AMD Ram to AMD Ram, we are comparing AMD to Nvidea Ram which over the course of history has shown Nvidea can out preform AMD with cards using less Vram.

Even if the Switch uses 1gig for its OS, it still has 3gigs left for gaming and like i stated before, a 1060 or 480 both come in 3gig variants which is more than enough to run any current game at a comfortable level. System memory excluded because thats normaly used for the OS and other operations. 

The XB1 and PS4 have 8gigs because there home entertainment systems. The Switch is a pure game machine. Nothing more.

Wait, what? Games don't use system RAM on PC? You know that the memory listed in the task manager for a game is system memory right, not gpu memory. There is some overlap on PC, yet games still need more than gpu memory alone. Plus PC games that need more vram can still use system ram to help out at the cost of frame rate.

There's just so much wrong in this post I don't know where to begin. It completely baffles me that you ackowledge that all RAM is not the same, and then go right back to comparing them as if all are the same. Not all VRAM is the same, not all system RAM is the same, and VRAM definitely isn't the same as system RAM, and using PC hardware as an example when comparing console hardware with custom APUs and RAM configurations is laughable, especially considering that PC games, as well as every other program your PC runs, also uses system RAM. You use them all almost interchangably when it makes Nintendo look more favorable, and are sure to point out there's a difference (albeit, pointing out factually incorrect differences) when that angle makes Nintendo more favorable.

But let's get "to the metal" about this, shall we?

Here's what we have about the Switch: The RAM the Switch is reportedly using? Weak sauce. Apparently it has a bandwidth of 26 GB/s, compared to 176 GB/s with the PS4, and 68 with the Xbox One. That means the biggest cause of graphical disparity between the PS4 and Xbox One is made even less favorable in the Switch. In fact, that puts it's RAM's performance level pretty closely matched to the Xbox 360, and according to you, the size of the memory pools don't really matter, do they? So please, tell me how something with what you have to believe have the rendering capability of an Xbox 360 is going to handle all of the latest and greatest games coming out from third parties? Or how that makes it a "pure game machine", compared to the PS4 which is literally a level of magnitude more powerful? Is it the fact that the PS4 has the ability to share gameplay (a rumored Switch feature), or is it the fact that the PS4 has native Netflix and Plex apps that makes it not a "pure game machine". A rumored feature of the Switch is the ability to answer phone calls and read text messages from your phone using the Switch. What kind of a  "pure game machine" has features like that? and what if the Switch has Neflix and Plex apps as well? Because we all know it probably will .

As for your comment regarding the XB1 and PS4 being "entertainment systems", perhaps you should remind yourself what the "ES" stands for in "NES". This argument is absolute horseshit.

And where does the CPU data go to, if it's not to the system RAM? You have to keep in mind that in consoles all RAM is shared between CPU and GPU (and OD), so even if the Switch has 3GB available for games, not all of that will be dedicated to the GPU data.

And even if your claim that all current games use between 2-4GB (which would actually be something more like at least 3GB, unless your card has less than that), take out the memory used by the OS and you'll into problems storing all the GPU and CPU data. Although I have to say that that can be somewhat alleviated by streaming the data from the SD card or system storage.

The only saving point for the Switch is that, if rumors are true and games run at 540p or 720p at best, textures will be smaller and it will require less RAM, but on the other side, games will look worse when playing on a FullHD TV.

Where do i start?

First off the XB1 and PS4 only dedicated around 5 to 6gigs of Vram for its games, the rest is used for ther OS. System memory is more of a reserve tank than an actual use for gaming and PC games are also designed slightly different to benefits the needs of the many or the most common spec. Consoles dont take from the pool of system memory, they use whats allocated for the games.

Name me one game this gen that requires more than 4gigs of Vram on consoles? And thats how many games the Switch will struggle running.

Where did i say all Ram is the same? I clearly stated that Nvidea cards which is what the Switch uses doesnt need as much Ram to compete with AMD cards as history shows. Also i daubt the Switch will have as many media options as an XB1/PS4. It has the standard amount of Ram which is what current games use today. Even if the Switch uses 1gig for the OS it still has 3gigs for gaming which is heaps for todays games hence why there is a 3gig option for the latest GPUs.

Quote - *As for your comment regarding the XB1 and PS4 being "entertainment systems", perhaps you should remind yourself what the "ES" stands for in "NES". This argument is absolute horseshit.*

That is an embassasing comment. For one, the NES is a Pure game console, not a multi media system. If you know the difference than a NES can ONLY play games, it has no OS, it has no other media functions. So if i made a company and called it TBCM - The BEST Console maker, does that mean its exactly what it is? Haha thats very gullable. After that comment i just dont know if i can take you serious now.

See here's the thing you're messing up. The PS4 and X1 have unified memory pools. The memory is actually shared between the CPU and GPU sections of the processor. So here you are thinking that most PS4/X1 games don't actually use all of that 5/6 GB of "VRAM" allocated to them, when actually most games use all of that unified memory. So your comment about games that use more that 3 GB of VRAM is a complete non-starter, because frankly it's an ignroant question. It fundamentally doesn't work that way.

Let me break it down with a realistic example. Since the CPU and GPU share the unified RAM, if the CPU portion uses 2.5 GB of RAM and the GPU portion uses the other 2.5 GB available, this represents using the complete 5 GB of unified memory allocated, and clearly is more than the 3 GB of unified memory available to the Switch, so the Switch will not be able to run it. See the CPU still does a huge portion of the games required processing outside of the resources it uses to run the OS, the GPU mostly only renders the scene, and does physics calculation, leaving the processor to do everything else - AI, Animation, scipting, sound, controls, networking, etc.) So this has to be taken into consideration. See under my example, assuming the Switch does have 3GB of unified memory (it too does not have dedicated VRAM) the CPU  is still using 2.5 of the unified memory, leaving just 0.5 GB for the CPU. Does that sound like a problem? I think so.

But of course, this all hinges on you completely ignoring the huge memory bandwidth issue that means even if the Switch had 8 GB of unified RAM it would still struggle to run games the PS4 runs with ease.


Frankly, I don't care if you take me seriously or not, because based on you passing off a complete lack of understanding on how consoles use RAM as fact, and appear to completely lack the knowledge and comprehension to understand what I am saying. You still haven't made an argument that demonstrates what makes the Switch a "pure games console" and why the PS4 isn't a "pure games console" when they both have similar non-games related features. My point clearly was that your labels are non-sensical, and you proceeded to counter my point that your labels are non-sensical by actually supporting my initial argument.

Link me a game that uses more than 4gigs of Vram on current consoles? Most games are developed around 2 to 4gigs of ram in mind not 8gigs. If a PC with less than 3gigs of Vram can run the latest games without issues than the Switch wont have any issues either aslong as the bandwith improves because i will agree that the Bandwith is pretty low however its all rumours for now.

The Switch is also showcasing Skyrim Remastered with no issues *If the trailer is true* than it doesnt need 8gigs like the XB1 or PS4. It doesnt have to be more powerful.

XB1 and PS4 are home entertainment devices that are used for multi tasking. Which is why they need alot more Ram free for the OS. The Switch most likely is a Gameing console only which might have afew Streaming features.

Also for all we know, Nintendo is customsiing the Chipset, it could be using Nvidea's GDDR5X ram instead of GDDR5, We dont actually know except the fact there working with Nvidea on the chipset and Nvidea are very happy with it.

Still your the one using the NES name as an example of what a console can do. So talk about understanding.

4gigs is more than enough to play any current game without issues.

You want to talk about understanding? Tell me how much dedicated VRAM the PS4 has. I'll give you a hint: It doesn't have any!

"Link me a game that uses more than 4gigs of Vram on current consoles? " WHY do you not understand why this question is ridiculous? I made it crystal clear. Theses consoles have UNIFIED RAM they do not technically have ANY VRAM, as the graphics card can technically have access to any amount of the UNIFIED RAM as needed. So ANY PS4 or X1 game could be using over 4GB of the UNIFIED RAM for graphics processing purposes, since it is allocated dynamically.

But if you reallly, really want to get dumb about this:The PS4 has 8 GB of GDDR Ram which for PCs is found in graphics card, so in that sense, pretty much all PS4 games use more than 4 gigs of VRAM. Happy? No because it makes no sense to put it in that context and so does your question.

I can't list you a game that definitely uses at least 4 gigs of allocated UNIFIED RAM for graphics processing purposess at any one time since only the developers would ever know this (if they even keep track of it) and they have no reason to divulge such information. It is meaningless. Console developers have access to any and all of the APU and the unified memory the consoles possesses and they use it as they see fit. That's it. They don't have a dedicated graphics card with dedicated VRAM to utilize! You need to let this line of thinking go, you're embarassing yourself. This is not how modern consoles work.

Please go ahead and tell me that if the Switch has the ability to stream/share gameplay while playing (as rumored) that it cannot be considering a "multi-tasking console". This is foolish. From what is rumored, there may be more non-gaming related functionality built into the Switch than is built into the PS4!
And again I used the NES as an example of why the term "entertainment system" as a label for what the PS4 is, and the Switch isn't is meaningless. It's just a dumb label you chose to use to that could easily be used to describe what the Switch is, the same way Nintendo used to to describe what the NES was. Are you forgetting that Nintendo developed a knitting attachment for the NES? I

http://kotaku.com/5939210/this-long-lost-nintendo-knitting-machine-would-have-let-you-make-sweaters-with-your-nes