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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Ventura Beat: Nintendo Switch are based on Nvidia's Maxwell Architecture not Pascal

Miyamotoo on 15 December 2016
kitler53 said:

i'll i'm going to say is i watched this:

and then i watched this:

 

it looks noticibly worse than the E3 trailer.  i don't know if that means the entire game got downgraded or if it just runs worse on switch than on wiiU but it's a substantial difference.

Are you really comparing direct trailer with off screen video in light night studio conditions (with studio reflectors)!?



Around the Network
Miyamotoo on 15 December 2016
superchunk said:
Miyamotoo said:

Also if we talk about 3rd party we will definatly seeing and:

portable = 540p

docked = 720p

I don't think so.

Again PS4/XBO keep same level of tech but run and different resolutions. (1080 vs 900)
NS will run at 720/900 (maybe some 1080) but will then also lower other settings like textures, AA, etc to keep the frame rate up. On the portable screen, most won't even see much of a difference. On the TV it will be noticeable in visuals but likely not in gameplay.

This isn't like Wii/WiiU days where devs had to actually do siginificant code to port a game to the very unique hardware. Goign to ARM/Nvidia that supports all the same modern technology allows the existing middleware to do most of the work.

Well you have games on XB1 running at 900p and 720p, I am pretty sure we will have 540p/720p for some 3rd party ports on Switch.



nuckles87 on 15 December 2016

torok said:

  Anyway, having AAA ports isn't a matter of power. It's a question of sales. PS2 was significantly weaker than both competitors and a hard to develop for machine. If 3rd party software sells well on the Switch, they will be ported.

What made Wii U lose 3rd party support wasn't it's limited power. The reason was the low sales of 3rd party games, such as the brilliant port of NFS: Most Wanted. People usually try to justify it with the "60 dollar late port" excuse, but look at what all those remaster are doing on PS4 and X1. If games sell well, 3rd parties will port them to Switch even if they have to almost rebuild the game from scratch.

This isn't really accurate. Yes, the PS2 was less powerful than its contemporaries, but not at the scale Wii and Wii U were. It was at least powerful enough to receive much of the same technology, utilize many of the same assets, and receive direct ports from competing consoles. It could, say, run the Unreal 2 engine. Not as well as the Xbox, but it could run it.

Wii, on the other hand, couldn't even hand Unreal 3, an industry standard for hd engines at the time. Developers were desperately trying to bring games to it early in its lifespan, but it was so weak that it required its very own versions of games, built from the ground up for it, in order to run it.

Certainly, Wii U didn't lose third party support due to its power. The GameCube and Wii are proof of that. But power IS a barrier to third party ports, which both the Wii and Wii U have also proven. Capcom REALLY wanted to bring a dead rising game to Wii, but the system just couldn't handle it and the game was crap.  Numerous third party games have been canned on the Wii U because it just wasn't capable of running modern tech satisfactorily. 

 

 



se7en7thre3 on 15 December 2016
Captain_Yuri said:

Not saying it can't be Maxwell, just saying this article is nonsense

yup

They may have stumbled across some facts regarding  the Switch, but it was so clumsily presented (& edited) that its hard to take serious.  

I call BS until proven otherwise.



curl-6 on 15 December 2016
nuckles87 said:
twintail said:

We have no idea at what capacity DS3 is even running.

The rumour wasn't that it ran at the same level an x1 or ps4 version does, but rather that From found it acceptable. Which doesn't tell us anything about capability .

It tells us plenty. It means the Switch can receive ports of high end current gen games. As I said later in the post, neither the Wii or Wii U could do that. The Wii could not run any version of Demons Souls, the Wii U was far to weak to receive any direct ports of Xbox One or Ps4 games. So the fact that the Switch can says a lot about capability. Sure, we don't know what sacrifices they had to make, but anyone who is expecting anything less than a notable visual downgrade is fooling themselves. But at the very least, for the first time since GameCube, Nintendo might actually be getting direct ports from competitors consoles.

You could get Dark Souls 3 running on the PS3 and 360 if you really wanted to. Hell, last gen Treyarch got Modern Warfare 3 running on Wii.

It's less a question of power and more a question of whether sales justify conversion costs.



Around the Network
Soundwave on 15 December 2016
bonzobanana said:
My guess from the beginning was about 400 gflops performance (fp32) and all the information released more recently makes me more sure that Nintendo would have compromised performance slightly for commercial costing reasons. I have absolutely no problem with 400 gflops myself and it could be a bit lower or a bit more but I think thats realistic especially with the claimed longer battery life now.

The dev kit had 4 Arm A57 64bit processors and shared memory for graphics and cpu with a memory bandwidth of 25.6GB/s

In the Nintendo custom chip which could be using a later fabrication process as its a custom chip. It's going to need frame buffer memory in main chip with a few other caches.

This is not going to be a reference design with maximum performance it is going to be a costed version where price is going to be critical to Nintendo. They will want to use cheap memory and possibly multiple vendors of memory chips to keep prices competitive.

Lets not forget the end product will have it seems;

1. home console performance between last gen and current gen.
2. Portable performance of last gen plus a bit including a lot more memory
3. 1-2 player portable gaming out of the box of 5-8hrs life
4. Unlimited gaming in a vehicle using usb power
5. low cost virtual reality system capable of games somewhere between probably wii and wii u in performance
6. Easily transportable gaming engine (tablet) that you can move from dock to dock in the house so it can be used in the living room, bedroom, dining room televisons etc without having to disconnect wires or move power supplies.
7. Will get amazing Nintendo games from both their home console developers and portable game developers/studios.
8. Will get easy conversions of android and ios games with many enhancements and decent controls
9. Will get conversions of last gen games which can now be played on a portable and possibly in VR.
10. Will get VR versions of many classic Nintendo games.

I'm just trying to make the point the Switch offers huge gaming possibilities well beyond the small difference in performance it may or may not have. If Nintendo Switch really is lets say a 1 terraflop gpu we are going to get royally sc****d when it comes to battery life. Careful what you wish for.

5-8 hours was from NakeDrake, the same guy who said Pascal for Switch, so he's likely wrong on both accounts. 

Emily has said the battery life is "mediocre", so 3 hours is more likely. 

A 20nm Maxwell Tegra X1 eats battery like crazy. To get 5-8 hours from a chip like that would require an enormous battery like 15,000 MaH I'd guesstimate. 



Soundwave on 15 December 2016
curl-6 said:
nuckles87 said:

It tells us plenty. It means the Switch can receive ports of high end current gen games. As I said later in the post, neither the Wii or Wii U could do that. The Wii could not run any version of Demons Souls, the Wii U was far to weak to receive any direct ports of Xbox One or Ps4 games. So the fact that the Switch can says a lot about capability. Sure, we don't know what sacrifices they had to make, but anyone who is expecting anything less than a notable visual downgrade is fooling themselves. But at the very least, for the first time since GameCube, Nintendo might actually be getting direct ports from competitors consoles.

You could get Dark Souls 3 running on the PS3 and 360 if you really wanted to. Hell, last gen Treyarch got Modern Warfare 3 running on Wii.

It's less a question of power and more a question of whether sales justify conversion costs.

You're probably right. 

If an XBox 360 for example had a 500 GFLOP Tegra processor (so likely about 2.5x the GFLOP performance) and 3GB of RAM (6x the memory), plus the more modern architecture ... there probably would be a lot more PS4/XB1 ports, but there are already are things like MGSV and Far Cry 4 and what not. 



SonytendoAmiibo on 15 December 2016

Well, the Google Pixel C tablet has the Tegra X1/Maxwell and its going for $600 US on Amazon right now. The Nintendo Switch will be optimized for gaming and only go for $250/$300. Who can complain about that. I will be quite happy with X1/Maxwell. They should call the Nintendo custom chip X1/Mario.



   

Hey! They got SONY on my amiibo! Wait a minute. Two great gaming tastes that game great together!

Switch FC: SW-0398-8858-1969

curl-6 on 15 December 2016

Honestly, the specs leaked back in October (Quad core ARM Cortex A57, 4GB RAM, Maxwell Tegra) should be just fine for Nintendo's purposes.

Switch isn't meant to be a PS4/Xbone competitor. Think of it more as a next gen portable.



barneystinson69 on 15 December 2016
Sh1nn said:
spemanig said:

"We’re not so sure if the Switch is weaker than the Xbox One, as the performance may be close."

All that matters.

Seriously, though. Who was expecting this thing to be as powerful as a PS4??

switch is gonna be ~500gf machine

 xbox one  is 1.3 tf

Then it won't be running DS3 and Skyrim remastered (at least not decently). If it has a chance at running those two games, it's as least competitive with XB1 hardware



Made a bet with LipeJJ and HylianYoshi that the XB1 will reach 30 million before Wii U reaches 15 million. Loser has to get avatar picked by winner for 6 months (or if I lose, either 6 months avatar control for both Lipe and Hylian, or my patrick avatar comes back forever).