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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Tegra X1 (Switch GPU?) Throttles To 768 MHz (Eurogamer Correct Again?)

zorg1000 on 10 January 2017
Scisca said:
zorg1000 said:

This train of thought really confuses me, why dont you just buy the device based on the games and features it has? Why is the difference between Pascal/Maxwell so important?

Battery life and performance mainly. The kicker being that going for Maxwell makes a future Pascal revision a no-brainer, so I might as well wait for it.

I get that better battery life and increased performance are nice things to have but if the software library and system features are appealing to you than shouldn't that be what matters?

I mean i just dont see how an extra 1-2 hours of battery life and games looking/running slightly better decides whether a device is a must have item or something you pass on.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Around the Network
Safiir on 10 January 2017
bdbdbd said:
Safiir said:

Actually this made me really curious - what is the market share of AAA games? I'm sure someone has made a nice pie chart :D

Not really interested in the actual market shares - a better metric is to see how many people there are in the world and divide it by the number of people who actually buy AAA games. 

Why? Why take into account people that are not interested in games at all? Obviously those are not buying AAA games since they're not buying games, period.



Miyamotoo on 10 January 2017
curl-6 said:
Miyamotoo said:

my expectations about Switch are very realistic and actualy on pair what we know about Switch.

Like when you predicted Switch would be 600 Gigaflops or more, claimed bonzo's prediction of 400 was unrealistically low,

and that Switch would "gets lots of PS4/XBox One games with no noticeable downgrades"?

Not true, my expectations were 500-600 Gigaflops, and that was realistic prediction based on performance of Tegra X1 chip, but Nintendo downclocked Tegra X1 and that directly influence performance. So nothing was unrealistic about 500-600 gigaflops for based Tegra X1 Switch, you sound like I said 1-1.5TF, lol.

Not true, I never said it will get lots a PS4/XBox One games, but that multiplatforms games that Switch will get will be ports of XB1/PS4 games not build from ground games for Switch, and that biggest downgrade will be lower resolution with few other downgrades compared to XB1/PS4. Also nothing unrealistic.

 

 

Scisca said:
Miyamotoo said:

Lol, Nintendo never said that.

Sources saying that Pascal's couldn't be done on time (Tegra Pascal isnt on market yet) and even Nvidias newest Shield deviaces (that are intriduced few days ago) are using Tegra X1 Maxwell chip also, and actual only real difference between Pascal and Maxwell Tegra is efficiency, and sources saying that Nintendo is aiming 5-8 hours with Switch battery.

"The Nintendo Switch will be using the same architecture as the world's top performing Geforce graphics cards"

So yeah, they did. It's not on the market? Not my trouble. I'm not the one who lied about the architecture. There's no spinning this, Pascal architecture would be better in every way. Battery life, performance, it would allow for cheaper production and an earlier price drop.

I hate it when companies bs me like this.

No they didn't, that was said buy Nvidia on Nvidia site about Switch, not buy Nintendo, Nintendo never said that. Nintendo still didn't said anything about power, tech, architecture, or about capabilities of Switch, basically everything Nintendo said about Switch till now is in Switch initial trailer.

https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2016/10/20/nintendo-switch/



DonFerrari on 10 January 2017
Miyamotoo said:
DonFerrari said:

Well I always end up being overhyped a lot of times... Sony usually delivered on my hypeness or close to it, the only issue I saw with some rumors on switch is that they didn't made sense in real world (power x consumption) and that Nintendo since Wii haven't been worried with being very powerfull (and even we had one speach from CEO saying they weren't going for power on NX).

I don't remember you being one of the people that were buying into rumors of very powerfull HW, but certainly if I were a Nintendo fan I would allow myself to often think "well, it could be powerfull, I would like it, so perhaps I can get excited".

We already know more-less about power of Switch, I am hyped about games, to see rumored games and games we don't know anything about running on Switch.

I was talking about when it was still NX and there were rumors all around the place, but as I said I don't remember you being on the over 1Tf camp. And it's good to be hyped about some games, Nintendo usually delivers in this field.

Pemalite said:
bdbdbd said:

Yeah, the controllers have their own batteries, but judging by the Switch trailer, the controllers are wireless, meaning you need to have some sort of a receiver/transmitter for the controllers, and I'd be willing to bet it consumes power.

It will likely use Bluetooth which is extremely energy efficient.

bdbdbd said:

If you're a high-end tech enthusiast, what's the point in debating about the tech in videogame consoles you know them not being high-end anyways. I can understand the point being for the sake of discussion, but even then it's pointless if your only argument is that "company X shouldn't be doing a product for it's customers".

First and foremost, I am a PC gamer. I do enjoy my tech.

But I also wish for Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony to succeed and be competitive, competition breeds innovation and allows for tech to advance even more rapidly.
And just so we are clear, there is more to tech than just the performance of a system.

Thus, I will happily ridicule any platform which doesn't strive to push boundries in technology, that's not a bad thing either, that's a good thing, these companies need constructive criticism to change and get better and to appeal to our wallets.
Being apologetic does nothing.

For example, Microsoft was heavily ridiculed for the Xbox One, it's price, it's performance, so Microsoft boosted the Clockrate of it's SoC, got rid of Kinect which freed up GPU resources and DRAM... Optimized it's various software stacks. You name it. The consumer won.

DonFerrari said:

I see you talking often about Gflops not being everything, and on the surface I can understand that GHz aren't precise measure of capacity, Gflops not being the only variable, that you also have bandwidth, efficiency, coding, etc...

But just not to stay on the hyperbolic a 100Tflop could run worse than a 100Gflop CPU or GPU... on the real world what would be expected deviations... like last gen GPU performing at 1Tflop would be roughly equivalent to this gen GPU at 850Glops, etc.

You are correct. It is hyperbole.
But it's not impossible, I was using it as an example.

If you took a 100 Petaflop GPU, gave it no cache, no GDDR memory, 1 Render-Out-Put Pipeline of questionable capability, 1 Texture mapping unit of questionable capability, 1MB/s of bandwidth to system Ram... Then it will be slower than a 100Gflop GPU which suffers from none of those shortfalls.

If we took a Radeon 5870 for example with it's 2720 Gflop of performance and compare it against a Radeon 7850 which is 1761 Gflop, the Radeon 7850 is going to be faster, even in compute tasks, despite it being almost a Teraflop slower.
But don't take my word for it: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1062?vs=1076

The Radeon 7850 is based on Graphics Core Next which is arguably the true successor to the Radeon 5870's VLIW5 architecture as well. (VLIW4 being a cost-efficient reworking based on VLIW5.)

Flops alone tell us nothing. It's literally a theoretical number, that ignores the rest of the GPU.

Thanks... the first paragraph I had more or less imagined (still hyperbolic because would be crazy to do that to such GPU). But on the comparison of two gen GPUs and translating the faster to "marginally" we have a 30-40% difference that is basically tied to improvements in the archite



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Miyamotoo on 10 January 2017
DonFerrari said:
Miyamotoo said:

We already know more-less about power of Switch, I am hyped about games, to see rumored games and games we don't know anything about running on Switch.

I was talking about when it was still NX and there were rumors all around the place, but as I said I don't remember you being on the over 1Tf camp. And it's good to be hyped about some games, Nintendo usually delivers in this field.

Of Course not, I believed what Emily, Laura and Eurogamer were reporting about Switch.



Around the Network
bdbdbd on 10 January 2017
Pemalite said:
bdbdbd said:

Yeah, the controllers have their own batteries, but judging by the Switch trailer, the controllers are wireless, meaning you need to have some sort of a receiver/transmitter for the controllers, and I'd be willing to bet it consumes power.

It will likely use Bluetooth which is extremely energy efficient.

bdbdbd said:

If you're a high-end tech enthusiast, what's the point in debating about the tech in videogame consoles you know them not being high-end anyways. I can understand the point being for the sake of discussion, but even then it's pointless if your only argument is that "company X shouldn't be doing a product for it's customers".

First and foremost, I am a PC gamer. I do enjoy my tech.

But I also wish for Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony to succeed and be competitive, competition breeds innovation and allows for tech to advance even more rapidly.
And just so we are clear, there is more to tech than just the performance of a system.

Thus, I will happily ridicule any platform which doesn't strive to push boundries in technology, that's not a bad thing either, that's a good thing, these companies need constructive criticism to change and get better and to appeal to our wallets.
Being apologetic does nothing.

For example, Microsoft was heavily ridiculed for the Xbox One, it's price, it's performance, so Microsoft boosted the Clockrate of it's SoC, got rid of Kinect which freed up GPU resources and DRAM... Optimized it's various software stacks. You name it. The consumer won.

I understand your point to an extent. But what makes you think Nintendo isn't pushing boundaries of the tech? I mean they obviously (assuming the rumours are correct) chose existing tech for a reason, instead of relying on something that may or may not be out at the time the console is supposed to launch. This could allow the code being used optimised.

And what did the consumer win by MS boosting the clockrate and freeing DRAM? Umm... Nothing, I believe. Unless you're talking about possible framerate issues, which are problems with software and not hardware. It still runs the same games. Personally, speaking about tech, I'd be more worried about Sony and MS releasing updated consoles instead of new ones, that could actually have games that advantage of the hardware, than Switch, which most likely is as optimised as possible.

I really don't know what is it that Switch should be competetive with, as the device is so much different than anything currently on the market. 



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

jonathanalis on 10 January 2017
Soundwave said:

Looks like Eurogamer was probably correct on these leaked Switch clock speeds they got. 

A user at NeoGaf named MDave has a Nvidia Shield console which has the Tegra X1 (Maxwell) GPU that supposed is powering the Switch too. 

He ran some tests on the chip, and some interesting things popped up ... most notable the chip will run at a full 1 GHz clock speed .... but only for a couple of minutes (even with a fan). It throttles itself down to 768 MHz after a few minutes of running:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=227883703&postcount=8800

So this is probably the max a Tegra X1 can hit in sustainable performance (without overheating). 768 MHz is the exact clock speed Eurogamer got for the Switch in docked mode. 

EDIT: Meant 768 MHz guys, not GHz. Typo. 

That can mean that if switch is based in X1 and has the same clock frequency(and suposelly, same number of GPU units), one of 2 things:

Or X1 is 398 Gflops, like switch on dock, or switch is 500 Gflops like X1.

Which one of them is right? Is NVIDIA fooling us when told X1 is 500 Gflops?



DonFerrari on 10 January 2017
Miyamotoo said:
DonFerrari said:

I was talking about when it was still NX and there were rumors all around the place, but as I said I don't remember you being on the over 1Tf camp. And it's good to be hyped about some games, Nintendo usually delivers in this field.

Of Course not, I believed what Emily, Laura and Eurogamer were reporting about Switch.

That was the sensible route I guess



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Scisca on 10 January 2017
zorg1000 said:
Scisca said:

Battery life and performance mainly. The kicker being that going for Maxwell makes a future Pascal revision a no-brainer, so I might as well wait for it.

I get that better battery life and increased performance are nice things to have but if the software library and system features are appealing to you than shouldn't that be what matters?

I mean i just dont see how an extra 1-2 hours of battery life and games looking/running slightly better decides whether a device is a must have item or something you pass on.

I didn't say I'd skip it. Just that I'd wait for the inevitable revision, that will bring these extra features.



Wii U is a GCN 2 - I called it months before the release!

My Vita to-buy list: The Walking Dead, Persona 4 Golden, Need for Speed: Most Wanted, TearAway, Ys: Memories of Celceta, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, History: Legends of War, FIFA 13, Final Fantasy HD X, X-2, Worms Revolution Extreme, The Amazing Spiderman, Batman: Arkham Origins Blackgate - too many no-gaemz :/

My consoles: PS2 Slim, PS3 Slim 320 GB, PSV 32 GB, Wii, DSi.

Scisca on 10 January 2017
Miyamotoo said:

No they didn't, that was said buy Nvidia on Nvidia site about Switch, not buy Nintendo, Nintendo never said that. Nintendo still didn't said anything about power, tech, architecture, or about capabilities of Switch, basically everything Nintendo said about Switch till now is in Switch initial trailer.

https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2016/10/20/nintendo-switch/

Let's be serious, everything they've said has been agreed upon and Nintendo takes full responsibility for it.



Wii U is a GCN 2 - I called it months before the release!

My Vita to-buy list: The Walking Dead, Persona 4 Golden, Need for Speed: Most Wanted, TearAway, Ys: Memories of Celceta, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, History: Legends of War, FIFA 13, Final Fantasy HD X, X-2, Worms Revolution Extreme, The Amazing Spiderman, Batman: Arkham Origins Blackgate - too many no-gaemz :/

My consoles: PS2 Slim, PS3 Slim 320 GB, PSV 32 GB, Wii, DSi.