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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Digital Foundry: Nintendo Switch CPU and GPU clock speeds revealed

animegaming on 20 December 2016
SvennoJ said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
Same CPU speed in both modes is quite obvious, as game logic must always run in the same mode (at most they could cut it by a few tens MHz by suspending unessential non-gaming services that they possibly chose to run in background while docked). GPU speed and so graphics level is obviously where big power saving can be achieved when in portable mode, and this too shouldn't be matter of arguments.
What can really disappoint people with sound reasons is the choice of top speed when docked.

Is it that obvious? PS4 pro has a modest boost in CPU speed. Scorpio will have a much bigger difference in cpu speed compared to xbox one. Does this mean that the only difference between undocked and docked will be resolution? More effects, physics, detail, draw distance, all require more attention from the cpu as well. Or will the game run slower while undocked.

It seems likely the undocked specs are the main target, with docked only adding a resolution boost. Yet if games are tailored to 720p regarding detail, draw distance etc, won't they look a bit sparse in 1080p? Like playing a crossplay ps vita game on ps3.

I wonder how the switch will be marketed. Home console $300, $350 deluxe with larger internal storage, like the wiiU release, with $60 games. Or will it launch as a handheld at $250 with $40 games.

Rumors by Laura K Dale are suggesting its $250 with the dock and $300 with a copy of Splatoon. Though considering the cost of development for HD games I imagine games like Zelda and Mario will be 60 with remasters and small scales in terms of budget costing $40. So basically a combination of what you said.



Around the Network
Pemalite on 20 December 2016
JRPGfan said:

That Nvidia coolaid :p

Just so we are clear. I am Pro-AMD. I have had multiple AMD GPU's in crossfire for generations.
Don't assume I am a "Fanboy".

JRPGfan said:

The Tegra X1 uses like 30watts of power to reach those 512 Gflops its able to do in the shield console.

Without powering a screen or anything extra.

Hell a Hard disk drive is 4-5watts alone, and PS4 & XB1 use those.

Even if Nvidia tried to do a 1teraflop Mobile chip, it would still be in the 50+watt range.

You make it sound like the Chips inside the PS4 & XB1 are bad, and their really not.

Not at the power levels of graphics they do.



Tegra's GPU uses roughly 1.51 watts of power on average in Manhattan.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8811/nvidia-tegra-x1-preview/3

Here it is in the Shield TV using 10 watts.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=nvidia-tegra-x1&num=1

And here we see it go from anywhere between 3.6w and 19.4w of power consumption.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9289/the-nvidia-shield-android-tv-review/9

So how is it a 30-50w chip again? Remember. Volta will be double the performance again, at the same fabrication level and use the same amount of power, it will be close enough to an Xbox One.

The Google Pixel C with it's Tegra, is faster than the Nintendo Switch, will have a bigger and better display with higher power consumption and still gets over 13 hours of battery life in web browsing.
With all the CPU cores pegged, that drops down to 5 hours, which is still better than most other tablets.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9972/the-google-pixel-c-review/6

As for the drives. Remember, the Switch is using NAND. Not a mechanical based drive. It's power consumption is significantly lower... And yes. Screens do play a big part in this, but Nintendo isn't using a massive high-resolution display (And one would hope it is an LTPS display) so power consumption isn't going to be as drastic as other tablets like the Pixel C.

JRPGfan said:

 

 

This chart is useing old review scores, but AMD drivers for the 470/480 have done alot since it released.

And look at that the most effecient GPU chip at 1920x1080 resolutions is a RX 470!

If you are basing efficiency based on the graph above. Then no. It's really not. That is Price/Performance not Performance/Power consumption.

As for the Radeon 470 specifically.
At Load and Idle it uses more power than the Geforce 1060 Founders Edition and most certainly looses in the performance stakes by a significant margin, where the Geforce 1060 can beat the Radeon 480.

But don't take my word for it:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-470,4703-6.html

JRPGfan said:

Yeah RX470/480 arnt at the top of the list.

Will say this though; the launch drivers for the RX470/80 wherent the best optimised, newer drivers have seen some pretty decent gains.

Its something nvidia is usually good about, optimiseing drivers for launch so their cards revew well day1.

nVidia drivers haven't stopped improving either.

haqqaton said:

After seeing some OpenGL vs Vulkan comparisons and considering that Switch supports Vulkan and that Vulkan is great for ARM mobile chips like Tegra X1, I think we can be confident to say that Switch, even undocked, will be fairly better than Wii U. To be fair, they are comparing Vulkan to OpenGL|ES in the videos below but I think that the point stands.

Vulkan is irrellevent, it's not going to be some magical "Secret Sauce".
The Wii U has a low level API that is higher performance than Vulkan if a Developer wishes to build for it.
Same goes for the Xbox and Playstation platforms.

An API like Vulkan does offer better performance than higher level API's like Direct X 11 and OpenGL.

Wyrdness said:

It's actually around twice Wii U performance when undocked going by the specs rumours are giving.

Specs are one thing. Real world per formance is another completely.

The Switch will beat the Wii U undocked. - The question though, is by how much?

Alby_da_Wolf said:
Same CPU speed in both modes is quite obvious, as game logic must always run in the same mode (at most they could cut it by a few tens MHz by suspending unessential non-gaming services that they possibly chose to run in background while docked). GPU speed and so graphics level is obviously where big power saving can be achieved when in portable mode, and this too shouldn't be matter of arguments.
What can really disappoint people with sound reasons is the choice of top speed when docked.

The annoying part is... Nintendo could have thrown out the Big cores in the Tegra chip and just kept the slower, more power efficient cores and then used that extra TDP to throw more clock rate at the graphics chip.

They could have saved money as well due to less die-space.




--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

SvennoJ on 20 December 2016
animegaming said:
SvennoJ said:

Is it that obvious? PS4 pro has a modest boost in CPU speed. Scorpio will have a much bigger difference in cpu speed compared to xbox one. Does this mean that the only difference between undocked and docked will be resolution? More effects, physics, detail, draw distance, all require more attention from the cpu as well. Or will the game run slower while undocked.

It seems likely the undocked specs are the main target, with docked only adding a resolution boost. Yet if games are tailored to 720p regarding detail, draw distance etc, won't they look a bit sparse in 1080p? Like playing a crossplay ps vita game on ps3.

I wonder how the switch will be marketed. Home console $300, $350 deluxe with larger internal storage, like the wiiU release, with $60 games. Or will it launch as a handheld at $250 with $40 games.

Rumors by Laura K Dale are suggesting its $250 with the dock and $300 with a copy of Splatoon. Though considering the cost of development for HD games I imagine games like Zelda and Mario will be 60 with remasters and small scales in terms of budget costing $40. So basically a combination of what you said.

Not too bad, although that likely means CAD 350 with the dock CAD 400 with a game, same as WiiU at launch. Not that Nintendo can do anything about that. I hope the games will be reasonably priced as CAD 80 for new game releases is making me think twice before buying.

I wonder if you'll be able to buy the dock standalone? Standalone WiiU gamepads never happened, yet a separate dock to play on different tvs instead of moving stuff around would be a convenience. Since the dock doesn't do anything anyway, that shouldn't cost much.



animegaming on 20 December 2016
SvennoJ said:
animegaming said:

Rumors by Laura K Dale are suggesting its $250 with the dock and $300 with a copy of Splatoon. Though considering the cost of development for HD games I imagine games like Zelda and Mario will be 60 with remasters and small scales in terms of budget costing $40. So basically a combination of what you said.

Not too bad, although that likely means CAD 350 with the dock CAD 400 with a game, same as WiiU at launch. Not that Nintendo can do anything about that. I hope the games will be reasonably priced as CAD 80 for new game releases is making me think twice before buying.

I wonder if you'll be able to buy the dock standalone? Standalone WiiU gamepads never happened, yet a separate dock to play on different tvs instead of moving stuff around would be a convenience. Since the dock doesn't do anything anyway, that shouldn't cost much.

I have a feeling due to hardware limitations it made hard to make games that used multiple game pads in any meaningful way. But they would be crazy not to have the opition of buying docks seperately since that is very useful for people who a Switch in both their bedroom and living room there is a good chance that Dock's will likely cost around $50 to $60 dollars since they don't sound that expensive to make unlike the gamepad.



Panama on 20 December 2016

So... $150 confirmed????:^)



Around the Network
GhaudePhaede010 on 21 December 2016
spemanig said:
GhaudePhaede010 said:

1) Wait what? Smash is on 3DS and Wii U. Stop it.

2) It is not about one game, I use that game as an example for me personally. You avoided my HD Pokemon argument because you know I have a point. All those titles getting HD upgrades and able to play on your television and on the go has a market, period. It has one against the rival consoles but more importantly, it has a place alongside those consoles (like 3DS has a home alongside those consoles). You are trying too hard to see it ONLY as a home console when it simply is not. It is a hybrid at best but mostly, it is a hand held. You are absolutely wrong and you know it. Hand held gaming is catching up to and will end up surpassing home console gaming. And the games are cheaper. All games sell to gamers, that is one big market. There are times when I have to decide between getting a PS4 game, a Wii U game, or a 3DS game. I cannot buy them all so... this means they are all competing for my money.

1. Smash 3DS isn't handheld software selling in a home console marketplace.

2. If you think $40 HD Pokemon Sun/Moon will help the Switch, without multiplats, reach 3DS numbers, I can't really help you either.

I'm seeing it for exactly what it is, and what it's competing with, like it or not, are home consoles. That's how it's being marketed and that what people are going to expect when it comes to software. $40 Pokemon is a AAA blockbuster on a handheld device, but cheap middleware on a home console, because it's not being compared to Yokai Watch and Daganrampa anymore, it's being compared to FFXV and DQ11. Unless Pokemon on the Switch evolves to fit the scale of its new platform, it's not going to do much of anything with regards to selling software, and at that point it won't be a handheld franchise anymore and it definitely won't be $40. Pokemon isn't some inpenetrable franchise. It's sales can drop like anyone else.

1) Then what is it? It has direct competition with a HOME CONSOLE TITLE of the same name and, as far as game play is concerned (with lesser graphics), parity. And despite its obvious (graphical) shortcoming, it slaughtered its console competition. Call it what you want to call it, I can tell you definitively that the way you are thinking is not productive to me but especially to yourself.

2) You not only avoided the majority of my points for a second time, but you sound stupid while doing it. You cannot dispute that there is a market for Switch because, there is. You can only speculate that games on the Switch will have to cost more because of a graphical upgrade (which may not be true), you think Pokemon has to change its formula or somehow upgrade in a way other than graphically in order to sell on any console (which is straight up insane), and you think games like Call of Duty, Dragon Quest, and whatever else comes out on another console will somehow disturb the sales of said Pokemon game (which it will not). Seiously, where do you get this idea from? Is it history? Cannot be there because there is no historical evidence that says any game will stop these games from selling. Is Pokemon not outselling COD right now? Even poor hardware sales do not stop many of these games from selling. I mean seriously, I have never seen one man in such denial about what a console really is and yet try to defend their position at the same time. It is time you admit you have a problem. You started out in ther threads calling the Switch a home console and now you have have devolved to saying it will compete with home consoles. You are wrong both ways. It is time for you to give it up. Nothing about this console says, "home console". You have to come to this realization before you can understand how insane, incorrect, and massively pathetic you sound. Please, and I am saying this in seriousness (not condescention), admit this is NOT a home console. Admit it and mean it. Once you start to view this console as a very strong hand held (which it obviously IS) with a couple of cool features and not as a home console (which it NEVER was), you will start to understand exactly how silly you have been sounding lately. And you will start to understand why I have been at odds with you recently. If you cannot do this, please get help. And I am dead serious, your denial is seriously troubling and it is preventing your growth in this area.



01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01001001 01111001 01101111 01101100 01100001 01101000 00100001 00100000 01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01000101 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101001 01110100 01111001 00100001 00100000

wombat123 on 21 December 2016
dark_gh0st_b0y said:
ok, so the only way to look at the specs in a positive way is to think of it as a handheld

and the only hope for NS to be an actual home console is an extra GPU through the Supplemental Computing Device via the capable USB-C port, but still, the portable mode will need developers to downgrade the games even more so yeah, we can expect 3DS kind of support, Wii at most if it's successful

Ninty should have picked the $350 road and more power imo

a great concept, probably to be limited by the graphics once more :/

When Nintendo said that the Switch was a console first they opened the door for people to expect xbone/PS4-like power so I'm not going to make excuses for the criticism they're getting.  Once I saw that Nintendo was going the hybrid route I was hoping that they would position it as a handheld first to dissuade people from expecting twins-like console power from a tablet barring some kind of supplemental power from the dock.  I still think it can be successful (especially in Japan) but Nintendo really needs to just abandon the 3DS and say that the Switch is a handheld first to position it as a device that's not competing with traditional consoles.  I know they're not going to do that though because they want to milk whatever they can out of the 3DS before it dies.



haqqaton on 21 December 2016
Pemalite said:

The Google Pixel C with it's Tegra, is faster than the Nintendo Switch, will have a bigger and better display with higher power consumption and still gets over 13 hours of battery life in web browsing.

haqqaton said:

After seeing some OpenGL vs Vulkan comparisons and considering that Switch supports Vulkan and that Vulkan is great for ARM mobile chips like Tegra X1, I think we can be confident to say that Switch, even undocked, will be fairly better than Wii U. To be fair, they are comparing Vulkan to OpenGL|ES in the videos below but I think that the point stands.

Vulkan is irrellevent, it's not going to be some magical "Secret Sauce".
The Wii U has a low level API that is higher performance than Vulkan if a Developer wishes to build for it.
Same goes for the Xbox and Playstation platforms.

An API like Vulkan does offer better performance than higher level API's like Direct X 11 and OpenGL.

About Pixel C battery, we must note that the tablet has a bigger form factor than Switch and very, very probably a bigger battery. Besides, the tablet throttles.

What I really said about Vulkan (in this thread):

First here: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8207955

Then here: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8208201



sam987 on 21 December 2016

I hope this give companies motivations to release a Switch killer.



NATO on 21 December 2016
haqqaton said:
Pemalite said:

The Google Pixel C with it's Tegra, is faster than the Nintendo Switch, will have a bigger and better display with higher power consumption and still gets over 13 hours of battery life in web browsing.

Vulkan is irrellevent, it's not going to be some magical "Secret Sauce".
The Wii U has a low level API that is higher performance than Vulkan if a Developer wishes to build for it.
Same goes for the Xbox and Playstation platforms.

An API like Vulkan does offer better performance than higher level API's like Direct X 11 and OpenGL.

About Pixel C battery, we must note that the tablet has a bigger form factor than Switch and very, very probably a bigger battery. Besides, the tablet throttles.

What I really said about Vulkan (in this thread):

First here: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8207955

Then here: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8208201

The pixel C is *SIGNIFICANTLY* thinner than the switch, at only 7mm thick compared to the switch at 24+mm thick, so the switch should have plenty of space for a much better battery, yet it doesn't.

But it's Nintendo, are you really that surprised? They have a reputation for cheaping out, take the WiiU gamepad, it has a battery slot much bigger than the battery it ships with.. then they sell a bigger battery separately..