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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Rumor/Leak: Switch Hardware Specs, 1024 FLOP (Possibly 1TF) Device, Maxwell Architecture, Chat w/out Smartphone, Bluetooth Enabled...

m_csquare on 13 February 2017
Alkibiádēs said:
m_csquare said:
Things that matter:

G: Is there any possibility for Final Fantasy XV to be released on Nintendo Switch?

HT: There are no Plans, it wouldn’t run…

Funny how you leave out the next sentence where he said he didn't even try it and just assumes it. 

You're just in for another disappointment



Around the Network
Alkibiádēs on 13 February 2017
m_csquare said:
Alkibiádēs said:

Funny how you leave out the next sentence where he said he didn't even try it and just assumes it. 

You're just in for another disappointment

How? I have no desire to play a game like FF XV. 

Just calling you out on your nonsense. 



"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides

jonathanalis on 13 February 2017

Lets compare 2 scenarios:
-16FP 1 teraflop
-32FP 0.5 teraFLOP

Which would perform better for gaming graphics?
Would we use a mixed, with teraflops contage in middleway?



Hynad on 13 February 2017
curl-6 said:

Yeah, I was wondering what the go was there. With so many PS2 games (including GT4 itself) failing to hit even true 480p, 1080i seemed a bridge too far.

For years people keep bringing up GT4's supposed 1080i resolution to try to make PS2 look better compared to Gamecube and Wii, but it always felt fishy.

How was GT4 failing to hit true 480p?

As far as I know, it was native 480p. 



JRPGfan on 13 February 2017
FunFan said:
JRPGfan said:

xbox one is like 80watts? or so to reach 1.4 teraflops.

Switch is like 20? watts.

Its just not possible.

True. The Maxwell based GeForce GT 945A TDP is rated at 33w but can only reach 1024 gflops FP32. Note that actual power comsumption tends to be a bit less than the TDP rating.

There aren't any Pascal desktop cards under 75 watts yet, tho.

*edited.

NVM I always get them confused.



Around the Network
JRPGfan on 13 February 2017
jonathanalis said:
Lets compare 2 scenarios:
-16FP 1 teraflop
-32FP 0.5 teraFLOP

Which would perform better for gaming graphics?
Would we use a mixed, with teraflops contage in middleway?

It depends on the programming, if you program everything in FP16..... the code will run just was well as a 1 teraflop FP32 machine.

The problem is often they cant get by with FP16, so almost everything is just FP32.

The PS4pro can do FP16, and its not really done much for it, it doesnt run like a 8 teraflop machine, compaired to the normal PS4 of 1,84.

The same will probably be true for the switch, so for all intense and purposes it ll probably run like a FP32 0.5 Teraflop machine.



curl-6 on 13 February 2017
Hynad said:
curl-6 said:

Yeah, I was wondering what the go was there. With so many PS2 games (including GT4 itself) failing to hit even true 480p, 1080i seemed a bridge too far.

For years people keep bringing up GT4's supposed 1080i resolution to try to make PS2 look better compared to Gamecube and Wii, but it always felt fishy.

How was GT4 failing to hit true 480p?

As far as I know, it was native 480p. 

In their analysis of Gran Turismo 5, Digital Foundry gave the native resolution of GT4 as 632x448.



Hynad on 13 February 2017
curl-6 said:
Hynad said:

How was GT4 failing to hit true 480p?

As far as I know, it was native 480p. 

In their analysis of Gran Turismo 5, Digital Foundry gave the native resolution of GT4 as 632x448.

First time I've heard of that. Consider me surprised. Because the game looked crisp and ran very smoothly.



Pemalite on 14 February 2017
curl-6 said:

Yeah, I was wondering what the go was there. With so many PS2 games (including GT4 itself) failing to hit even true 480p, 1080i seemed a bridge too far.

For years people keep bringing up GT4's supposed 1080i resolution to try to make PS2 look better compared to Gamecube and Wii, but it always felt fishy.

Because people don't make the distinction between rendered resolution and output resolution.

jonathanalis said:
Lets compare 2 scenarios:
-16FP 1 teraflop
-32FP 0.5 teraFLOP

Which would perform better for gaming graphics?
Would we use a mixed, with teraflops contage in middleway?

FP16 (Half Precision) gives you better performance on nVidia's Tegra due to Packed Math. (I.E. Two FP16 operations are done on a FP32 unit.)

The caveat is a graphics quality hit. I have already been over this and demonstrated the difference betweem FP16 and FP32 in regards to image quality, so would rather not reiterate upon that again... But the difference can be massive.

The other bonus to using FP16 is battery life, FP16 rules the mobile world because of it, whilst more PC-centric platforms tend to use FP32 exclusively.

FP8 or Quarter-Precision seems to be gaining traction as well, interesting to see how that plays out in the future, should offer double the performance of FP16 if it's packed properly.

What will games use? Well. For tasks that don't need precision, FP16. For tasks that do. FP32. So there will be a mixed use.
Also depends on the developer and their vision as well.

JRPGfan said:

It depends on the programming, if you program everything in FP16..... the code will run just was well as a 1 teraflop FP32 machine.

The problem is often they cant get by with FP16, so almost everything is just FP32.

The PS4pro can do FP16, and its not really done much for it, it doesnt run like a 8 teraflop machine, compaired to the normal PS4 of 1,84.

The same will probably be true for the switch, so for all intense and purposes it ll probably run like a FP32 0.5 Teraflop machine.

Like hell it does.

You need to understand how flops, regardless of precision relates to how a game is rendered to make such claims.



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

SuperNova on 14 February 2017
Ljink96 said:
SuperNova said:

 

At the risk of repeating myself, but the manufacturer of both the 3DS ans Switch cartiges annouced (either in late 2015 or early 2016 can't remember now) that they had the manufacuring cost of 32GB carts down to the manufacturing cost of a BD.

This is probably why the 32GB carts are the maximum available size as of summer 2016. They are probably working on getting 64GB down in cost as we speak and it's not unreasonable to assume that they will become available to publishers at a BD pricepoint within the switches lifetime. Other than that, devs will just have to use compression. Many games these days are barely compressed and would probably fit on 32GB easily with clever compression work.

Well then, that would be cool. But those were 3DS cartridges, which price depreceated over time. Switch carts are an entirely new beast from 3DS cards. Doesn't that play a role in price? Of course if Nintendo buys in bulk, they can get some cheap prices. I hope that high compression is an option for developers, but something's telling me Nintenod's going to want us to use sd cards for bigger games. It's just the Nintendo thing to do at this point. Now that I think about it we'll most likely get more than 32gb cards later as 3DS didn't get 8gb cards until later after launch.

If it also means anything, wikipedia has Switch with a max 128GB card size : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_game_card 

So, I'm probably just putting too much on these documents at this point. 

As far as I'm aware the cart technology beween the 3ds and Switch carts is largelythe same. Switch carts will be higher capacity and read speeds as well as a die shrink but it's still the same technology. Also, there is no 32GB 3DS cart the maximum is 8GB currently, I belive, so between that and the die shrink they were clearly talking about Switch carts.

As for 128 GB, it's certainly possible, but I'm not sure what the price would be. Nintendo really gains nothing by making us buy SD cards for big games though. They are not proprietary like the Vitas so Nintendo has no profit in that. This is mainly about 3rd party ease of developement and game production cost wich Nintendo by all accounts is very aware of with the Switch.