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

Wait...after reading the "report" that article has so much BS that I'm not going to take the time to explain why. First pascal and maxwell are architectures, not the "power" of the console and I would continue but I need to sleep.

And btw the switch is going to be as powerful or really close to the xbox, that's what people were expecting because of the form factor.



Around the Network

From gaf.


 Originally Posted by Thraktor

I have a few immediate thoughts after reading through the article:

    Firstly, it's worth noting the difference between Maxwell and Pascal is almost entirely down to the manufacturing process. Maxwell was made on 28nm (and in the case of the TX1, 20nm) whereas Pascal is made on 16nm. The actual architectural difference between the two is minimal, and aside from improved color buffer compression, largely irrelevant for a device like the Switch.
    Despite that, the article never makes any mention of the manufacturing process. I find that extremely strange, as it's obviously the defining difference between the two sets of GPUs.
    In fact, the article gets the difference between the two completely the wrong way around, saying "Nintendo’s box is relatively small, and so it has to fit into the heat profile of a portable device, rather than a set-top box. That’s another reason that explains the older Maxwell technology, as opposed to the Pascal’s state-of-the-art tech." Pascal is literally a more power efficient version of Maxwell, so the incentive would be the other way around.
    The author says "we expect the Nintendo Switch to be more than 1 teraflop in performance", which is notably higher than even those of us who were expecting Pascal were considering (I literally posted earlier today with a 500-750 Gflop estimate). If this is a Maxwell chip, then that would mean at least 4 SMs (512 "CUDA cores") at 1GHz, as they're not going to be able to push much past that on 28/20nm. This is a much larger GPU than most people would have been expecting.

I see a few different scenarios here:

    The Switch SoC uses Maxwell at 20nm, and simply has a much larger GPU than anticipated to account for the performance.
    Nintendo looked at the feature-set planned for Pascal when design started, realised that the new features were largely irrelevant, and decided that they would save time and just use a straight-forward die shrink of Maxwell to 16nm instead. That would technically be a Maxwell GPU, but would be almost completely indistinguishable from Pascal in terms of performance.
    The sources are wrong about Maxwell, the 1 Tflop performance, or both.

Basically, if you're to take the article as being accurate, then the only worthwhile takeaway is this quote:



A Maxwell Tflop is identical to a Pascal Tflop, and it's largely irrelevant to us whether they achieved that by using a larger Maxwell GPU on 20nm/28nm at a lower clock or a smaller Pascal GPU on 16nm at a higher clock.



onionberry said:
Wait...after reading the "report" that article has so much BS that I'm not going to take the time to explain why. First pascal and maxwell are architectures, not the "power" of the console and I would continue but I need to sleep.

And btw the switch is going to be as powerful or really close to the xbox, that's what people were expecting because of the form factor.

You sure? Last thing I heard was 750GFLOPS(official specs of Tegra X2/P1). Which is a tiny bit below the 1.31TFLOPS of the X1.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

spemanig said:
Sh1nn said:

switch is gonna be ~500gf machine

 xbox one  is 1.3 tf

According to the article, its over 1tf.

I really don't know or care what thast means. DS3 runs on it. All I care about.

Then the GPU probably stands at around one TF. It's probably comparable to the most powerful Intel HD GPU... 



Nintendo never uses stock off the shelf chips. They ALWAYS have a modified chip made. So even if it is X1/Maxwell it will be a custom version. To get to the 1TF maybe there are two of them sandwiched in there. Even when Nintendo pulls the curtain back next month they wont talk about the system specs. They never do.



   

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

Switch FC: SW-0398-8858-1969

Around the Network

So this story changed it's story live so don't take it to heart. It's another bunk rumor from someone. Not to mention originally had snark comments against Nintendo's games. Guys it's total bunk.



m_csquare said:
preorder cancelled

Sure.. *wink wink*



vivster said:
onionberry said:
Wait...after reading the "report" that article has so much BS that I'm not going to take the time to explain why. First pascal and maxwell are architectures, not the "power" of the console and I would continue but I need to sleep.

And btw the switch is going to be as powerful or really close to the xbox, that's what people were expecting because of the form factor.

You sure? Last thing I heard was 750GFLOPS(official specs of Tegra X2/P1). Which is a tiny bit below the 1.31TFLOPS of the X1.

100% sure, efficiency and a better processing unit are going to be key.



Nuvendil said:

Yeah, this sounds like the article was put out on partial information without technical know how for the sake of "getting the scoop."  It will be interesting to see how it plays out, but this right here points out just how unreliable these articles are when taken at word - for - word face value, even when they have sources providing some info.

I think the article may have  got tripped up on a previous rumour that they weren't aware of and ran with a story they didn't know much about, previously the was a rumour of devkits where it had early kits using Maxwell while the updated kits were using Pascal.



"We’re also not sure if Nintendo plans to make use of the Shield’s cloud gaming features. We don’t know the exact number of subprocessors on the Maxwell-based chip, nor do we know at what speed the chip will run at."

Sorry but this report is a mess.