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

Forums - Nintendo - Nvidia: Porting PS4, Xbox One, and PC games to Nintendo Switch is simple

JEMC on 17 November 2016
Miyamotoo said:
JEMC said:

Port games from PS4/X1 to WiiU wasn't not just hard or complicated, but almost impossible. If something is easier than impossible, does that make it easy? No, it just makes it less complicated. But of course, noone would say that it's less complicated because we're dealing with PR talk, and that's something that won't help sell your product.

And, by the way, WiiU was also called to be easy to develop for, compared to PS360, but now you hear devs complaining about it.

ARM is the most used CPU architecture, and so what? Intel's integrated graphics dominate the global GPU shipments with over 70% of the market, but that doesn't make them good for gaming, right?

And most AAA developers only work with consoles and PCs, not mobile, and right now that means that they work with x86, not ARM.

Of Course it's not impossible to port games to Wii U but it would require huge effort for something like that. When I talk about porting for Switch, I actually don't refer at all to PR talk, but to point that Switch has very modern architecture and tech compared to Wii U (actually it's most likely more modern than XB1/PS4 tech architecture, because that's AMD tech from 2012. while Switch most likely have Nvidia/ARM tech from 2016/2015) thats easy to work with, like I  already wrote Wii U had very outdated architecture and tech when was launched (CPU architecture is from early 2000", while GPU is 2008. based tech).

Fact that ARM is most used CPU means that developers are very familiar with ARM tech, and ARM tech is actually easy to work with and porting from x86 to ARM is not complicated at all. Actually if you look, you will see that most of AAA studios also have mobile games (Ubisoft, EA, Bethesda..) so they already worked with ARM and they are very familiar with ARM tech espacily ARM A57 (rumored Switch CPU) that's currently most used CPU in mobile phones.

You didn't answer my question, what exactly that I wrote in this matter that is not realistic?

I'll start with the question. What is not realistic is expecting, as you said in other threads, that third party games can be "easily" ported to Switch by simply lowering the resolution to 720p and little else. Capcom has already gone on record saying that they won't port their games but instead make special versions.

And again, being more modern doesn't solve all the problems. A 2016 BMW M3 is far newer and better than a 1950's Ford Transit, but if I want to carry a sofa, I won't care how new is the M3.

In this case, the GPU architecture of Switch will be newer (just one gen as Pascal is mostly Maxwell on a smaller node and before that we had Kepler, which competed with the GCN chips of PS4/X1), but that won't be enough to solve the big gap in raw performance.

PS4 has 1152 cores and the X1 768 compared to 256 cores of the Tegra X1&2. Being newer and more efficient won't solve the 3x gap in cores between the Switch and the X1. And before you say that Nvidia GPUs performs better than AMD's, that's on PC and with DX11, not on a console where low level coding matter the most.

Lastly, you're confusing publishers and studios/developers. Yes, publishers like EA and Ubisoft have mobile games, but they aren't developed by DICE, Bioware or Ubi Montreal. All those games are done by other studios that only work on mobile games, like EA Mobile.



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.

Around the Network
PotentHerbs on 17 November 2016

I'll believe it when I see it.



Miyamotoo on 17 November 2016
DonFerrari said:
torok said:
The funniest thing here is that Nvidia has been talking crap about consoles since the gen started, simply because AMD got all contracts to make theirs GPUs. They were outdated, useless, etc. Now that they have one console in their hands, it suddenly is a technical achievement, a masterpiece of design and a proof of how far humanity has evolved.

However, it is an ingenuous design and porting current gen titles to it won't be much of an issue since it's basically a toned down Maxwell or Pascal GPU.

Yes... PS4 and X1 were jokes because they were so weak, but then releasing a half the power X1 3 years later is a groundbreaking success.

Miyamotoo said:

I already wrote, Switch is Nvidia+ARM, today ARM architecture is most used CPU architecture on market and almost every developer is familiar with ARM, Nvidia is most used GPU architecture on PC market and most of PS4/XB1 multiplatform games are also availibe for PC, with Switch hardware we talking about tech from 2015/2016. Now compare that with Wii U, old IBM PPC CPU architecture from early 2000" and custom ATI Radeon GPU that is if I recall based on Radeon 46xx series (2008. tech) graphic cards. Also Wii U didn't had support for most modern engines, for instance didn't had even support for U4 and it got Unity support very late, while Switch has support for almost evre modern engine.

Thats make quite difference compared to Wii U, and of course there will be noticeable difference with Switch compared to Wii U regardless XB1/PS4 ports.

So now ARM is a very common chip in gaming PCs? We are always learning something new.

And about you being over optimistic I can't even see how can you deny that since you always refuse to accept the possibility that the positive rumors aren't true and the negatives are true, and when people try to show the outcome is hardly be what you expect you always go to "it isn't confirmed yet" but you use the same type of information to prop and hype.

I never said it's very common chip in gaming PCs.

What exactly negative and what exactly positive rumours?

 

 

JEMC said:
Miyamotoo said:

Of Course it's not impossible to port games to Wii U but it would require huge effort for something like that. When I talk about porting for Switch, I actually don't refer at all to PR talk, but to point that Switch has very modern architecture and tech compared to Wii U (actually it's most likely more modern than XB1/PS4 tech architecture, because that's AMD tech from 2012. while Switch most likely have Nvidia/ARM tech from 2016/2015) thats easy to work with, like I  already wrote Wii U had very outdated architecture and tech when was launched (CPU architecture is from early 2000", while GPU is 2008. based tech).

Fact that ARM is most used CPU means that developers are very familiar with ARM tech, and ARM tech is actually easy to work with and porting from x86 to ARM is not complicated at all. Actually if you look, you will see that most of AAA studios also have mobile games (Ubisoft, EA, Bethesda..) so they already worked with ARM and they are very familiar with ARM tech espacily ARM A57 (rumored Switch CPU) that's currently most used CPU in mobile phones.

You didn't answer my question, what exactly that I wrote in this matter that is not realistic?

I'll start with the question. What is not realistic is expecting, as you said in other threads, that third party games can be "easily" ported to Switch by simply lowering the resolution to 720p and little else. Capcom has already gone on record saying that they won't port their games but instead make special versions.

And again, being more modern doesn't solve all the problems. A 2016 BMW M3 is far newer and better than a 1950's Ford Transit, but if I want to carry a sofa, I won't care how new is the M3.

In this case, the GPU architecture of Switch will be newer (just one gen as Pascal is mostly Maxwell on a smaller node and before that we had Kepler, which competed with the GCN chips of PS4/X1), but that won't be enough to solve the big gap in raw performance.

PS4 has 1152 cores and the X1 768 compared to 256 cores of the Tegra X1&2. Being newer and more efficient won't solve the 3x gap in cores between the Switch and the X1. And before you say that Nvidia GPUs performs better than AMD's, that's on PC and with DX11, not on a console where low level coding matter the most.

Lastly, you're confusing publishers and studios/developers. Yes, publishers like EA and Ubisoft have mobile games, but they aren't developed by DICE, Bioware or Ubi Montreal. All those games are done by other studios that only work on mobile games, like EA Mobile.

Capcom plan to make special versions of Switch version does not means same plan will be for all 3rd parties.

Offcourse it doenst solve all problems (I never said it solves all problems or that Switch will have strong 3rd party support beacuse of that), but modern/tech architecture of course is positive thing regardless 3rd parties and for platform.

Switch most likely won't have enough power for straightforward XB1 ports, but it will have enuf power for some downscaled XB1 ports. Tegra X1 cores are capable for around 500 Gflops, Tegra X2 can achieve around 700 Gflops because it can achieve much higher clocks, we cant still talk how much exactly Switch will be strong, I personally expecting around 500-600 Gflops in docked mode.

EA Mobile is still EA studio, it not hard to imagine they call some developer from EA Mobile to help EA with porting.



TheLastStarFighter on 17 November 2016
vivster said:
Miyamotoo said:

Today ARM architecture is most used CPU architecture on market and almost every developer is familiar with ARM, Nvidia is most used GPU architecture on PC market and most of PS4/XB1 multiplatform games are also availibe for PC.

Wow..... really?

Let me tell you what you just said. You just said that because planes are so common nowadays that almost all car drivers know how to fly a plane. And after that bombshell you claim that Nvidia in Tegra is the same as Nvidia in PCs.

Why can't you just accept that, as many people in this thread have already pointed out, what Huang says here is marketing blubber disconnected from reality.

It's still gonna be a significant effort to port for Switch and architecture is just the first of three hurdles developers have to overcome.

 

Your analogy is flawed in that he said the Switch was using the most common tech but you compared it to the least common piloting skill. If you wanted to accurately paraphrase him, you'd say there's all these airplane pilots who will port their airplane games to switch because it's like driving a car.

TheLastStarFighter on 17 November 2016
Scisca said:
I think it's a good sign that another huge company apart from Nintendo is actively involved in turning the Switch into a success. Especially when it's one so highly regarded among gamers.

 

Yeah, this has been the best result of the hardware choice thus far. Nvidia does command respect.

Around the Network
Miyamotoo on 18 November 2016
TheLastStarFighter said:
Scisca said:
I think it's a good sign that another huge company apart from Nintendo is actively involved in turning the Switch into a success. Especially when it's one so highly regarded among gamers.

 

Yeah, this has been the best result of the hardware choice thus far. Nvidia does command respect.

Agree, it seems Nvidia really wants that Switch be succees and that partnership with Nintendo be long lasting, and it seems they are pushing hard in that direction, actually it's not hard to imagine that Nvidia is influencing some 3rd parties to gave Switch some support. I dont think AMD would do like that (at least not on that scale) because they already have XB1/PS4/PS4Pro/XboxScorpio, while Nvidia has only Switch and Nintendo so they rellly want that to be success.



FallingTitan on 18 November 2016

thats great news.. even at 720p on a small screen wont even notice. it will look like 8k



Eagle367 on 18 November 2016
Xen said:
This is good news and all, with technical details even, but why is Nvidia doing the PR Nintendo should be doing, exactly ?

Well perhaps Nintendo said we need time till January. You take care of it till then then we'll go full force



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

omgfk on 19 November 2016

Regrads power differences between wii u and switch:
Switch will using a custom tegra chip based on x1 or x2.
Benchmarks: Trex 1080p offscreen
Nvidia tegra x1: 120 FPS
Ipad Pro: 163 FPS
unanounced Tegra chip with a codename: 190 FPS (they removed that but it had a benchmark 1-2 weeks ago, google it).
Radeon HD 4850 (Wii U): 150 Fps
HD Radeon 7870 (ps4): 533 FPS


https://gfxbench.com/result.jsp?benchmark=gfx40&test=547&text-filter=&order=median&ff-desktop=true&ff-lmobile=true&ff-smobile=true&os-Android_gl=true&os-custom_gl=true&os-iOS_gl=true&os-iOS_metal=true&os-Linux_gl=true&os-OS_X_gl=true&os-OS_X_metal=true&os-Windows_dx=true&os-Windows_gl=true&pu-dGPU=true&pu-iGPU=true&pu-GPU=true&arch-ARM=true&base=device

We wont see true 8th gen games on the switch.



COKTOE on 19 November 2016
onionberry said:
OnyxPhoenix said:
is it as easy as Nvidia Shield? oh wait.. Nvidia Shield is dead, NVM

 

User was moderated for this post ~ CGI

Harsh ban? Pretty tame reply to somebody who was just stirring up ****. I know I've questioned a ban a few times in the last 4-5 months, so, sorry about that. And yes, I realize there is possibly an aggregate at work here that mods are more privy to than I am. At any rate, felt complelled to say something. Love, peace and chicken grease.



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."