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

Conina on 05 November 2016
Azzanation said:

For Example, Dues Ex MD on PC can run on an AMD HD7870 (2gigs) or a GTX 660 (2gigs) Graphic cards. That on Switch leaves 2gigs left over for the system etc, if they program the game for its minimal specs.

Most of my PC games I am looking at right now say 2gigs or more required of Vram. None say 8gigs of Vram required. Maybe at Maximum Requirements it needs more than 8gigs and if that’s the case than the PS4 and XB1 can’t run it either because again only 5gigs is available to Devs.

The Devs only have access of 5gigs of Vram on the PS4 and I think it’s 5.5gigs on the XB1. The OS eats up the rest. The devs cannot touch or use that Ram. So games are focused on being made with a lot less. They normally design games on the lowest common denominator.

I am not going to disagree with you on this, I am just saying that most current gen games are design with 2gigs in mind. PCs require a ton of system memory to run the OS and features.

I'm baffled that a PC gamer like you with so many games and countless invested hours into PC gaming still doesn't understand the basic requirements for a PC game to run.

You are still thinking that the PC only needs

  • RAM for the OS / features / game clients / other background tasks
  • VRAM for the game

But to run the game the PC needs

  • RAM for the OS / features / game clients / other background tasks
  • RAM for the game
  • VRAM for the game

Why are you still denying that requirement?

For example, when my PC is idle (some background tasks running like Steam client, Origin client, Windows Defender, Dropbox...) around 20% - 25% (that's 3 - 4 GB of 16 GB) of the available RAM are in use:

But if I start a demanding PC game, another 3 - 5 GB RAM (not VRAM!) are in use.

Here is Mirror's Edge Catalyst in the lowest settings (1280x720, quality settings = low)... that program needs around 3.2 GB RAM + 1.4 GB VRAM in that setting (additional to the ~4 GB RAM of the OS + background tasks)

Changing the quality settings increases both the demand for RAM and VRAM, even when not changing the resolution. Mirror's Edge Catalyst (1280x720, quality settings = hyper) needs around 4 GB RAM + 4 GB VRAM in that setting (additional to the ~4 GB RAM of the OS + background tasks):

While playing Mirror's Edge Catalyst in 1920x1080, quality settings = hyper, it uses up to 5 GB RAM + 5 GB VRAM in that setting (additional to the ~4 GB RAM of the OS + background tasks). So it uses up to 9 GB RAM + 5 GB VRAM in FullHD if we include the OS + background tasks:

In 4K resolution it can even be more demanding to RAM and VRAM.

So can you PLEASE stop spreading that disinformation that games only need VRAM and that RAM is only needed for the "OS + features"? Thank you!



Around the Network
DevilRising on 05 November 2016

Even though neither PS4 or Xbone have 8 gbs available for games to use?

For one thing, this isn't confirmed, just because Emily says it is. She isn't right on everything. And even if it is correct, honestly, Switch is a portable device that also plays on a big screen TV, doubling as a home console. It'll be on par with Xbone, for the most part. But it isn't going to do 4k or VR or any of that stuff. So while it would be NICE to have 8gb ram, it isn't necissary. And honestly, I don't know why people are freaking out. Nintendo still legit filed a patent for an external, possibly power boosting add-on. Just because they haven't talked about that yet, doesn't mean it might not happen in the future.



Conina on 05 November 2016
Akeos said:
Xen, barkley,

Nintendo follow his own way... I think Nintendo don't want making live like Microsoft or Sony, Nintendo want making a Community, selling small server for true cloud computing Community...
To make that, Nintendo have waiting internet networks are enough mature to support a cloud système no centralized, a real repartission tasks, a real cloud...
This will eliminate the latency associated with the geographical distance and allow Nintendo to keep online without a subscription ...

This is explained on the patent supplemental computing device and what can be done with the NVIDIA TESLA and GRID technology ..
Things are not made at random, and I doubt that nintendo has invested 500 million dollards in research and development in 2015 to make a detachable pad

So you are still going with your cloud community idea, where all Switch devices are calculating 24/7 for others when the owners aren't using that device themselves? And that all Switch owners are okay with that wear and tear of their devices and that they aren't allowed to turn their bought systems completely off? Even if nothing in the Switch trailer even indicates any cloud computing features? 

I must say, I love your confidence after so many different failed predictions in only 122 posts. Your posting history is pure gold.



Azzanation on 05 November 2016
Barkley said:
Azzanation said:

Consoles dont need 8gigs of System Ram to run games. PCs do because there not pure gaming consoles.

No, some games (old/indie) run on PC's with just 1gb of ram, thus the PC's os uses <1gb of ram. Playing a more powerful game on PC doesn't increase the amount the OS needs. If a game says it requires 8gb of ram, it's using the majority of that for the game, so it not being a "pure gaming console" is irrelevant.

Windows doesn't just decide "oh he's playing a demanding game, so our OS is now going to take up 6gb of ram."

You have really confused me with your understand of our debate. The dedicated Ram for consoles is for the Devs to use, the rest is for Sony to have there system operate. Again games are made with 2gigs of Vram in mind as a minimal requirement for todays games. The Switch has more than 2gigs of Vram.

Conina said:
Azzanation said:

For Example, Dues Ex MD on PC can run on an AMD HD7870 (2gigs) or a GTX 660 (2gigs) Graphic cards. That on Switch leaves 2gigs left over for the system etc, if they program the game for its minimal specs.

Most of my PC games I am looking at right now say 2gigs or more required of Vram. None say 8gigs of Vram required. Maybe at Maximum Requirements it needs more than 8gigs and if that’s the case than the PS4 and XB1 can’t run it either because again only 5gigs is available to Devs.

The Devs only have access of 5gigs of Vram on the PS4 and I think it’s 5.5gigs on the XB1. The OS eats up the rest. The devs cannot touch or use that Ram. So games are focused on being made with a lot less. They normally design games on the lowest common denominator.

I am not going to disagree with you on this, I am just saying that most current gen games are design with 2gigs in mind. PCs require a ton of system memory to run the OS and features.

I'm baffled that a PC gamer like you with so many games and countless invested hours into PC gaming still doesn't understand the basic requirements for a PC game to run.

You are still thinking that the PC only needs

  • RAM for the OS / features / game clients / other background tasks
  • VRAM for the game

But to run the game the PC needs

  • RAM for the OS / features / game clients / other background tasks
  • RAM for the game
  • VRAM for the game

Why are you still denying that requirement?

For example, when my PC is idle (some background tasks running like Steam client, Origin client, Windows Defender, Dropbox...) around 20% - 25% (that's 3 - 4 GB of 16 GB) of the available RAM are in use:

But if I start a demanding PC game, another 3 - 5 GB RAM (not VRAM!) are in use.

Here is Mirror's Edge Catalyst in the lowest settings (1280x720, quality settings = low)... that program needs around 3.2 GB RAM + 1.4 GB VRAM in that setting (additional to the ~4 GB RAM of the OS + background tasks)

Changing the quality settings increases both the demand for RAM and VRAM, even when not changing the resolution. Mirror's Edge Catalyst (1280x720, quality settings = hyper) needs around 4 GB RAM + 4 GB VRAM in that setting (additional to the ~4 GB RAM of the OS + background tasks):

While playing Mirror's Edge Catalyst in 1920x1080, quality settings = hyper, it uses up to 5 GB RAM + 5 GB VRAM in that setting (additional to the ~4 GB RAM of the OS + background tasks). So it uses up to 9 GB RAM + 5 GB VRAM in FullHD if we include the OS + background tasks:

In 4K resolution it can even be more demanding to RAM and VRAM.

So can you PLEASE stop spreading that disinformation that games only need VRAM and that RAM is only needed for the "OS + features"? Thank you!

You have put way to much effort in your post. Because i never said all you need is Vram for games. Min Vram for games is 2gigs on most, Switch has twice the amount as rumoured and could possibly have alot more as the system gets uncovered.

So Switch has what it needs to run current games.

PCs require alot more System Ram than a Console. The Switch is NOT a PC that requires a monster amount of Ram to run games.(Still needs System Ram hence why it has 4gigs and not 2gigs which is the min requirment for most current made games).

PCs Oranges/Consoles Apples.

Read my comments correctly than reply with reason. Thank you.



bigtakilla on 05 November 2016
Azzanation said:
Barkley said:

No, some games (old/indie) run on PC's with just 1gb of ram, thus the PC's os uses <1gb of ram. Playing a more powerful game on PC doesn't increase the amount the OS needs. If a game says it requires 8gb of ram, it's using the majority of that for the game, so it not being a "pure gaming console" is irrelevant.

Windows doesn't just decide "oh he's playing a demanding game, so our OS is now going to take up 6gb of ram."

You have really confused me with your understand of our debate. The dedicated Ram for consoles is for the Devs to use, the rest is for Sony to have there system operate. Again games are made with 2gigs of Vram in mind as a minimal requirement for todays games. The Switch has more than 2gigs of Vram.

Conina said:

I'm baffled that a PC gamer like you with so many games and countless invested hours into PC gaming still doesn't understand the basic requirements for a PC game to run.

You are still thinking that the PC only needs

  • RAM for the OS / features / game clients / other background tasks
  • VRAM for the game

But to run the game the PC needs

  • RAM for the OS / features / game clients / other background tasks
  • RAM for the game
  • VRAM for the game

Why are you still denying that requirement?

For example, when my PC is idle (some background tasks running like Steam client, Origin client, Windows Defender, Dropbox...) around 20% - 25% (that's 3 - 4 GB of 16 GB) of the available RAM are in use:

But if I start a demanding PC game, another 3 - 5 GB RAM (not VRAM!) are in use.

Here is Mirror's Edge Catalyst in the lowest settings (1280x720, quality settings = low)... that program needs around 3.2 GB RAM + 1.4 GB VRAM in that setting (additional to the ~4 GB RAM of the OS + background tasks)

Changing the quality settings increases both the demand for RAM and VRAM, even when not changing the resolution. Mirror's Edge Catalyst (1280x720, quality settings = hyper) needs around 4 GB RAM + 4 GB VRAM in that setting (additional to the ~4 GB RAM of the OS + background tasks):

While playing Mirror's Edge Catalyst in 1920x1080, quality settings = hyper, it uses up to 5 GB RAM + 5 GB VRAM in that setting (additional to the ~4 GB RAM of the OS + background tasks). So it uses up to 9 GB RAM + 5 GB VRAM in FullHD if we include the OS + background tasks:

In 4K resolution it can even be more demanding to RAM and VRAM.

So can you PLEASE stop spreading that disinformation that games only need VRAM and that RAM is only needed for the "OS + features"? Thank you!

You have put way to much effort in your post. Because i never said all you need is Vram for games. Min Vram for games is 2gigs on most, Switch has twice the amount as rumoured and could possibly have alot more as the system gets uncovered.

So Switch has what it needs to run current games.

PCs require alot more System Ram than a Console. The Switch is NOT a PC that requires a monster amount of Ram to run games.(Still needs System Ram hence why it has 4gigs and not 2gigs which is the min requirment for most current made games).

PCs Oranges/Consoles Apples.

Read my comments correctly than reply with reason. Thank you.

So you are telling me third parties WON'T say NS is to underpowered for their games. I'm going to hold you to this you know.

 

They shouldn't be downgraded or anything.



Around the Network
curl-6 on 05 November 2016
Miyamotoo said:
curl-6 said:

You said Switch will run PS4 games without noticeable downgrades. Now you're changing that to "not so noticeable" in this post. So at least you're admitting your prior statements weren't accurate and changing your stance, which is good. Your statement about Wii U being "basically GC tech" was still not accurate though, because there is more to a system's technology than just its CPU architecture.

Let's be honest though, the unfortunate truth is that Switch will not get strong multiplatform support, at least not PS4/Xbone titles. It doesn't matter how "modern" its hardware is, its weaker horsepower will mean extra work for devs, and the Nintendo crowd won't buy third party games in enough numbers to make the extra costs worthwhile.

I didnt changed anuthing, "not so noticeable downgrades" doesn't mean "noticeable downgrades", I always wrote there will be some other downgrades but not so noticeable, like I wrote in my last post, "there will be some other downgrades but not so noticeable like 720p beacuse tech is there". If my original statement wasnt specified pointing on CPU (and like I already wrote that's very known fact and I thought there is no need to specify that), that doesn't mean at all that I was wrong.


OK lets be honest. Its certain that Switch will have much less 3rd party support than PS4/XB1 (there is zero doubts about that), but we can expecte that will have stronger 3rd party support at least than Wii U had. Switch will definatly be more popular and it will have better sales than Wii U so want be dead platform after 1st year like WiiU, Switch hardware/tech is very modern hardware/tech (for instance Wii U didnt had Unreal Engine 4 engine support) that is easier to work/port than Wii U hardware/tech was, both those things will lead to better support than Wii U had.  Offcourse that less power means extra work for develpers when they porting, but that doent mean that no one 3rd party will not port PS4/XB1 games to Switch. Regardless 3rd party so far is positive, list of Switch partners and supporters actually seems that its bigger than combined initial lists for 3DS and Wii U, Skyrim on Switch and having supporters and partners like Bethesda and From Software is very encouraging because Wii U didnt had that.

"Not noticeable" and "not so noticeable" are not the same thing though. The former implies not noticeable at all, while the latter implies slightly noticeable.

And consoles are not just a CPU in a box. GPU and RAM play a crucial role in how easy a system is to port to. So in this context, excluding GPU and RAM from the discussion makes no sense.

It's never a great idea to get hyped up for the third party support of a Nintendo system. Best to just look forward to it for what it will be; a first party Nintendo machine with a few quality third party morsels on the side, just like every console of theirs since the N64.



Miyamotoo on 06 November 2016
curl-6 said:
Miyamotoo said:

I didnt changed anuthing, "not so noticeable downgrades" doesn't mean "noticeable downgrades", I always wrote there will be some other downgrades but not so noticeable, like I wrote in my last post, "there will be some other downgrades but not so noticeable like 720p beacuse tech is there". If my original statement wasnt specified pointing on CPU (and like I already wrote that's very known fact and I thought there is no need to specify that), that doesn't mean at all that I was wrong.


OK lets be honest. Its certain that Switch will have much less 3rd party support than PS4/XB1 (there is zero doubts about that), but we can expecte that will have stronger 3rd party support at least than Wii U had. Switch will definatly be more popular and it will have better sales than Wii U so want be dead platform after 1st year like WiiU, Switch hardware/tech is very modern hardware/tech (for instance Wii U didnt had Unreal Engine 4 engine support) that is easier to work/port than Wii U hardware/tech was, both those things will lead to better support than Wii U had.  Offcourse that less power means extra work for develpers when they porting, but that doent mean that no one 3rd party will not port PS4/XB1 games to Switch. Regardless 3rd party so far is positive, list of Switch partners and supporters actually seems that its bigger than combined initial lists for 3DS and Wii U, Skyrim on Switch and having supporters and partners like Bethesda and From Software is very encouraging because Wii U didnt had that.

"Not noticeable" and "not so noticeable" are not the same thing though. The former implies not noticeable at all, while the latter implies slightly noticeable.

And consoles are not just a CPU in a box. GPU and RAM play a crucial role in how easy a system is to port to. So in this context, excluding GPU and RAM from the discussion makes no sense.

It's never a great idea to get hyped up for the third party support of a Nintendo system. Best to just look forward to it for what it will be; a first party Nintendo machine with a few quality third party morsels on the side, just like every console of theirs since the N64.

Again, I didnt said it will have just 720p and not any other dowgrades, it will have some other dowgradees, but they are not be so noticible like 720p.

Also again, its well known fact that Wii U CPU is GC tech/architecture not RAM and GPU, but RAM and GPU even they are not GC tech they were pretty old tech also, but of course not old like CPU.

Who is really hyped for third party!? Who actually really cares about inferior multiplatforms on Nintendo console!? We just talking about what is very likely scenario, and that's that will be easier for development/porting than Wii U and that will have better 3rd party support than Wii U at least, that means better suport for Switch and thats offcourse positive.



Barkley on 06 November 2016
Azzanation said:

The Switch is NOT a PC that requires a monster amount of Ram to run games.(Still needs System Ram hence why it has 4gigs and not 2gigs which is the min requirment for most current made games).

Still literally only talking about vram requirements, it's not worth the debate. Look at how many people are telling you are wrong, then accept you are wrong. It's like talking to a wall, so I'm out.



Akeos on 06 November 2016
Conina said:
Akeos said:
Xen, barkley,

Nintendo follow his own way... I think Nintendo don't want making live like Microsoft or Sony, Nintendo want making a Community, selling small server for true cloud computing Community...
To make that, Nintendo have waiting internet networks are enough mature to support a cloud système no centralized, a real repartission tasks, a real cloud...
This will eliminate the latency associated with the geographical distance and allow Nintendo to keep online without a subscription ...

This is explained on the patent supplemental computing device and what can be done with the NVIDIA TESLA and GRID technology ..
Things are not made at random, and I doubt that nintendo has invested 500 million dollards in research and development in 2015 to make a detachable pad

So you are still going with your cloud community idea, where all Switch devices are calculating 24/7 for others when the owners aren't using that device themselves? And that all Switch owners are okay with that wear and tear of their devices and that they aren't allowed to turn their bought systems completely off? Even if nothing in the Switch trailer even indicates any cloud computing features? 

I must say, I love your confidence after so many different failed predictions in only 122 posts. Your posting history is pure gold.

In fact, it's been over a year that I say that the switch will be 2 consoles, mobile / home ..

A powerful home console whose makes server for the community via a cloud system... 

A small portable 50 to 100 Gflops... 

I was thinking that because I couldn't imagine that Nintendo will make a powerful portable...  And using Nvidia solutions... 

But now,  we know Switch have power and using Nvidia tegra... 

We have 2 or 3 leaks that Switch use USB-C to connect on dock... 

So if there is a Tegra X 2 in Switch,  it’s easy to put a gpu in dock and use USB-C to connect tegra X2 to gpu... 

With GRID TECHNOLOGY NVIDIA, we can make a server with GPU,  just need little ARM like in wiiu to ensure the active standby..

Furthermore, sharing is not giving ... In patent supplemental computing device, Nintendo made it clear that he will reward those who let their server (dock) at the service of the community, with MYNINTENDO via a cloud-mining system.

 

We also had this image just before the official trailer... 

 

https://forum.nextinpact.com/uploads/monthly_2016_10/CvOmRpXVUAQCPc-.jpg.017293b37b94b17cbab033efd08b28a3.jpg

 

a power plug is seen as the WiiU, vents, which shows that there are watt dissipate ... Well the network jack, nintendo no machine has ever had ... So I still think it is a server using mostly 1 gpu, gpu which will also serve to boost the switch on TV ..



Barkley on 06 November 2016
Akeos said:

We have 2 or 3 leaks that Switch use USB-C to connect on dock... 

So if there is a Tegra X 2 in Switch,  it’s easy to put a gpu in dock and use USB-C to connect tegra X2 to gpu... 

With GRID TECHNOLOGY NVIDIA, we can make a server with GPU,  just need little ARM like in wiiu to ensure the active standby..

USB-C would allow for fast charging of the handheld, which is definitely going to be needed considering the likely high power consumption, USB-C in no way indicates a GPU inside the dock, there will not be a GPU inside the dock, the cost of buying the Switch would be too high and it would be DOA.

Having a GPU inside the dock would make docking/undocking during gameplay impossible, undocking during gameplay with no pauses was shown in the reveal trailer. (The reveal trailer used post-production footage, but regardless it would be false or at least misleading advertisement if the process shown wasn't equivelent to the retail release.)

Nintendo using "cloud processing" is ridiculous, considering how far behind they are on all things "online". To take advantage of Cloud-Computing or whatever in a serious way would require an ALWAYS ONLINE SYSTEM. The dock having some form of processing chip inside it I give a 4% chance, the Switch using cloud computing I give a 0.01% chance.