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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Your thoughts on the Next Ninty Console

Pemalite said:
Miyamotoo said:

Difference is that Jaguar in PS4 is 8-core CPU that runs at 1.7GHz while A57 is 4-core CPU that runs at 1GHz. If I recall, A57 vs Jaguar core vs core on same clocks had similar results in benchmarks.

The Playstation 4 Operates at 1.6ghz, not 1.7ghz.

ARM A57 and AMD's Jaguar should be roughly equivalent in performance per clock. But Jaguar operates at a higher clock and has more cores. - But you are just reinforcing my argument at this point.

Remember though... AMD's Jaguar was AMD's absolute worst CPU at a time when even their high-end CPU's were trending towards the low-end. - Perspective.

Miyamotoo said:

PS5/XB2 will have huge update in CPU, but possible Switch 2 will also have huge upgrade in CPU side in any case, I mean if just now curently imagine for instance A76 6-core CPU running at 2GHz compared to current A57 4-core CPU runing at 1GHz, we talking about huge difference, and Switch will most likely using more stronger and more advance CPU than latest ARM CPU for potential Switch 2 that would most likely be released in 2023, and that would be most likely enough to runs 4K PS5/XB2 games at 1080p at least in docked mode.

The Switch 2 will also have an increase in CPU capability, it would be pretty asinine to assume otherwise anyway.
The jump from A57 to A72 was 90%.
The jump from A72 to A73 was 30%.
The jump from A73 to A76 was 35%.

The jump from Jaguar to Zen you are probably looking at 400% or more. - 800-900% if it's an octo variant of Zen+.
And that is before we start looking at Zen 2...

Fact is... AMD spent years trailing the industry, where-as ARM hasn't... And that pays off for the current Switch in comparison to the Playstation 4/Xbox One. - But that all goes away next gen as AMD finally has a CPU design worth talking about, the performance delta on the CPU side of the equation is set to grow next gen, that's just a reality of AMD catching up to Intel.

Miyamotoo said:

No I didn't forget, I actually wrote its 20nm, and 20nm is reason why they couldnt go with higher clocks, higher clocks with X1 thats 20nm would mean higher heating and less battery life.

It's part of the reason.
The other is that it's a Maxwell derived part. - nVidia made significant engineering changes with Pascal in order to drive up clockrates for the same amount of power.

Miyamotoo said:

If they for instance used Tegra X2 you can bet they would use higher clocks for CPU and GPU. Biggest bottleneck for Switch is CPU not GPU, and that was obvious from day one.

I disagree, the largest bottleneck is the GPU. - It simply doesn't have the bandwidth/fillrate to drive higher resolutions... And that is evident in the many games that aren't even in HD/720P.
The CPU doesn't really help in some games though.

 
curl-6 said:

GTA5 runs on the Xbox 360. Anything that runs on the 360 could run on Switch.

Anything the Xbox 360 can do, the Switch can do better.

Miyamotoo said:

Again, point that some game isn't on Switch (at least currently) doesn't meant that game couldnt run on Switch. Actually we had multiply different insiders saying that current one of biggest problem for some biggest 3rd party games coming to Switch is size/cost/availability of Switch carts, and games like GTAV and CoD are heavily hinted examples. So Pro model still wouldnt solved currently one of biggest Switch problems regardles big 3rd party games. I mean there is reason why no one using even 32GB Switch carts (so 16GB is biggest cards that are using).

Also can't forget that... The Xbox One and Playstation 4 tend to have uncompressed 7.1 audio, which takes up a massive chunk of space. - And then 1080P FMV on top of that.
Carts are technically superior to optical disks on every front, except... Cost.

It costs to have large capacities, so something has to give somewhere.

My bad, XB1 operates at 1.75GHz.

Yeah, I know that, but ARM A57 was in Switch was heavily constrained buy 20nm, thats why has 4 core and operates at only 1GHz.

 

Well person I was replying to was talking like Switch 2 will stay on ARM A57.

Thats just jump when you talk about same clock and some Core count, tell for instance about how much difference we talk only if Switch 2 uses for instance A76 6-Core CPU clocked at 2GHz compared to A57 4-Core 1GHz? And its safe to say that potentail Switch 2 will use more stronger CPU than A76.

Like you wrote earlier, 8-Core ARM A57 at 1.7GHz would be very comparable to PS4/XB1 CPU. I was very clear that PS5/XB2 will again have stronger CPUs than Switch 2 in any case, I dont arguing that. But with all that on mind, Switch 2 could easily have stronger CPU than PS4/XB1 have, and IMO that would be enough to run 4K PS5/XB2 games at least 1080p in docked mode maybe even in 1440p with maybe some other downgrades, and that was my main point.

 

Well that's my point, Tegra X2 would alow Switch to have higher CPU and GPU clocks than currently has, even higher memory bandwith (double compared to current one).

 

Switch has enough power to run some games at higher resolution than it does currently, but doesn't have enough CPU power to maintain probably even 20 FPS in that case. From specs reveal devs said that biggest bottleneck is A57 that has 3-cores available for games and operates at only 1GHz. Next biggest bottleneck is RAM bandwidth, when you look hole Switch configuration, GPU is biggest advance of Switch hardware and after that size of RAM.

 

Yeah, one of biggest problems for some 3rd partyes when to comes to Switch support is cost of Switch carts.



Around the Network
Soundwave said:

No I think you will see bigger upgrades than things like 3DS XL and New 3DS and 2DS ... those types of things don't excite consumers. None of the 3DS revisions caused a notable increase in sales for the 3DS, whereas XBox One X has caused a very noticable increase in XBox One sales and PS4 Pro is helping the PS4 with higher than anticipated sales for being in the back half of its hardware cycle, so much so that Sony had to revise sales expectations up.

"Pro" models have been helping Apple and Samsung sell more phones and tablets for years too.

People like the premium model, I'm talking bigger than things like 3DS XL, PS4 Slim, XBox One S, or even New 3DS.

A New 3DS type revision for Switch alone is not really gonna lit many people's world on fire. It's 2019 almost, you gotta bring more to the table than that. "It's slimmer and has a few new features" doesn't cut it, it's not 2004 anymore. 

There will be a slimmer/smaller/more power efficient Switch sure, but that won't be the only model Nintendo sells, a Pro model is gonna happen eventually too IMO, one that has a significant upgrade. And Sony and MS will also release new model PS5s and XBox 2s 3-4 years into that cycle. It's simply going to become the new normal and it'll become more like the PC side where generations become basically blurred.

New 3DS had solid upgrade, but those things didnt exited consumers because we were still talking about low power in any case at end, despite its solid upgrade. I disagree, New 3DS is one of reasons why 3DS maintain good sales, you can bet that without revisions 3DS sales would be much worse. Xbox X had good effect on sales because people were buying X to have best system currently available for their 4K TVs, Pro has much less effect on PS4 sales than X has for Xbox.

What you keep ignoring that despite Pro models all apps and games still works on weaker Apple and Samsung devices. Same is for PS4 Pro and XB1 X, and for around 99% games will be same for Switch in any case.

Base is still selling much better in any case than Pro model.

Switch Pro wont made also people on fire, PS4 Pro also didnt made people on fire, if current Switch didnt set on fire some people, New Switch or Switch Pro want do also. It will boost sales offcourse in some degree in any case, but its not like we getting brand new console that will make people that didnt had any intrest in Switch before will Pro make them buying one. Cheaper/low price point Switch would have higher effect on sales than potental Switch Pro.

It will be multiply revisions for Switch in any case, but you totally wrong if you think that plenty of 3rd partys would want to release game just for on revision and where most of Switch install base couldnt play. Around 99% of games will be still be playable through hole revisions in any case.

 

Pemalite said:
curl-6 said:

The Switch is modern hardware capable of running many third party games, and it's still missing out on plenty it could viably handle. A Switch Pro won't suddenly get an avalanche of third party games like RE2R , KH3, or ES6, just like the current Switch is still missing RE7, GTA5, Overwatch, Spyro Reignited, etc.

Overwatch needs to be on Switch. Missed opportunity in my opinion.
Would be good if they had crossplay with Xbox and Playstation too.

I am pretty sure it will be, they several times said they considering Overwatch for Switch, probably it will be E3 announcement same Rocket League and Fortnite were.

Last edited by Miyamotoo - on 02 December 2018

Miyamotoo said:
Soundwave said:

No I think you will see bigger upgrades than things like 3DS XL and New 3DS and 2DS ... those types of things don't excite consumers. None of the 3DS revisions caused a notable increase in sales for the 3DS, whereas XBox One X has caused a very noticable increase in XBox One sales and PS4 Pro is helping the PS4 with higher than anticipated sales for being in the back half of its hardware cycle, so much so that Sony had to revise sales expectations up.

"Pro" models have been helping Apple and Samsung sell more phones and tablets for years too.

People like the premium model, I'm talking bigger than things like 3DS XL, PS4 Slim, XBox One S, or even New 3DS.

A New 3DS type revision for Switch alone is not really gonna lit many people's world on fire. It's 2019 almost, you gotta bring more to the table than that. "It's slimmer and has a few new features" doesn't cut it, it's not 2004 anymore. 

There will be a slimmer/smaller/more power efficient Switch sure, but that won't be the only model Nintendo sells, a Pro model is gonna happen eventually too IMO, one that has a significant upgrade. And Sony and MS will also release new model PS5s and XBox 2s 3-4 years into that cycle. It's simply going to become the new normal and it'll become more like the PC side where generations become basically blurred.

New 3DS had solid upgrade, but those things didnt exited consumers because we were still talking about low power in any case at end, despite its solid upgrade. I disagree, New 3DS is one of reasons why 3DS maintain good sales, you can bet that without revisions 3DS sales would be much worse. Xbox X had good effect on sales because people were buying X to have best system currently available for their 4K TVs, Pro has much less effect on PS4 sales than X has for Xbox.

What you keep ignoring that despite Pro models all apps and games still works on weaker Apple and Samsung devices. Same is for PS4 Pro and XB1 X, and for around 99% games will be same for Switch in any case.

Base is still selling much better in any case than Pro model.

Switch Pro wont made also people on fire, PS4 Pro also didnt made people on fire, if current Switch didnt set on fire some people, New Switch or Switch Pro want do also. It will boost sales offcourse in some degree in any case, but its not like we getting brand new console that will make people that didnt had any intrest in Switch before will Pro make them buying one. Cheaper/low price point Switch would have higher effect on sales than potental Switch Pro.

It will be multiply revisions for Switch in any case, but you totally wrong if you think that plenty of 3rd partys would want to release game just for on revision and where most of Switch install base couldnt play. Around 99% of games will be still be playable through hole revisions in any case.

 

Pemalite said:

Overwatch needs to be on Switch. Missed opportunity in my opinion.
Would be good if they had crossplay with Xbox and Playstation too.

I am pretty sure it will be, they several times said they considering Overwatch for Switch, probably it will be E3 announcement same Rocket League and Fortnite were.

PS4 Pro is probably in the range of being 30%+ of PS4 sales which is not a small amount. In Japan PS4 Pro and regular PS4 models are now selling almost 1:1. 

XBox One X has caused a huge shift in XBox One year over year sales and probably is also selling 1:1 or better than the base model despite being the most expensive game hardware SKU out there. 

There's simply not much of a chance Nintendo isn't going to follow suit. Not only do these models sell well to the point that they're causing upward trends in both the PS4 and XB1, they're also more profitable long term too, there was a report that Sony makes more money off the Pro model, because the cost of chips come down in price relatively quickly, but the higher price point then nets you a higher take home profit. 

As for whether 3rd parties would make a few games Pro only, I think it could happen if the system is cheap enough to port to. If its something that isn't a big damn pain in the ass to port and has a reasonable amount of power where they can outsource the port or have it done with a small team, probably for some titles you will see that done. Take2 just released a console quality "patch" for NBA2K19 on iPad that gives the game PS4/XB1 tier graphics and runs at 2K+ resolution at 60 frames per second. They did that for a version of the game that basically can only run on the new iPad Pro which is like $800. Doubling or tripling a mobile chip simply opens up more possibilities for game experiences. 

You will get your New 3DS/2DS etc. style revisions for Switch sure. But you will also get a Pro model. Nintendo is not ignoring that revenue stream and it's an option that's proven itself to be very popular with consumers and helps the bottom line of Sony and MS, Nintendo isn't going to ignore that. Looking at how Apple operates there was already the notion to do something like that anyway, but Sony/MS doing it with home consoles basically sealed the deal. It's not an either/or thing, the PS4 and XBox One have also gotten "smaller/cheaper" revisions like the PS4 Slim and XBox One S. It doesn't stop a Pro model from happening. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 02 December 2018

Miyamotoo said:

My bad, XB1 operates at 1.75GHz.

Yeah, I know that, but ARM A57 was in Switch was heavily constrained buy 20nm, thats why has 4 core and operates at only 1GHz.

ARM A57 was designed for 20nm.

The issue with the Switch is that... It's not going to have short, bursty processing workloads.

For example, in a typical mobile device the A57 would clock up to 2ghz whenever there is demand and race back to idle... For example, you open up the browser and the CPU will clock to 2ghz during the initial load and then settle down to it's idle clocks, there isn't a need for the full clockrate when browsing a webpage.
This phenomenon is known as "race to idle" - Where you want the processing done as fast as possible so the chip can enter a power saving state.

The Switch on the other hand doesn't get that privilege... Video games, demanding video games will peg every single core at 100%, which means there will be significant power drain, it cannot race to idle because there is always more work to be done.
That's not a design issue with the Switch or the A57 or the node it's fundamentally on, that's just the nature of the processing load.

So Nintendo rightfully opted to limit clockrates and voltages so that power consumption will always be in check for CPU loads.

THAT is the real reason why the Switch's CPU's are at only 1ghz.


Miyamotoo said:
Thats just jump when you talk about same clock and some Core count, tell for instance about how much difference we talk only if Switch 2 uses for instance A76 6-Core CPU clocked at 2GHz compared to A57 4-Core 1GHz? And its safe to say that potentail Switch 2 will use more stronger CPU than A76.

I would be very surprised if the Switch 2 used anything less than a 6-core complex to be honest.

Whether the Switch will use A76 or a newer derivative is still up for debate though, nVidia has Denver remember, they might wish to push their own CPU design over ARM's direct architecture.

Miyamotoo said:
Like you wrote earlier, 8-Core ARM A57 at 1.7GHz would be very comparable to PS4/XB1 CPU. I was very clear that PS5/XB2 will again have stronger CPUs than Switch 2 in any case, I dont arguing that. But with all that on mind, Switch 2 could easily have stronger CPU than PS4/XB1 have, and IMO that would be enough to run 4K PS5/XB2 games at least 1080p in docked mode maybe even in 1440p with maybe some other downgrades, and that was my main point.

I think you might find that because of the large CPU performance delta between Xbox One/Playstation 4 and Xbox Two/Playstation 5, that the Switch 2 will struggle to get demanding ports, especially ports that leverage Ryzen to it's absolute fullest extent, that's not to say the Switch 2 won't get ports, it should get some, not every game is going to be running stupidly complex simulation on the CPU next gen... And the Switch 2 should get those if the developer/publisher bothers.

The jump from Jaguar to Ryzen is a significantly larger one than what you will get with Switch and Switch 2. - Nintendo simply lucked out as AMD didn't have a decent CPU for the consoles, let alone PC.

The Switch 2 should be able to match or exceed base the Xbox One/Playstation 4 CPU's. - By how much is yet to be determined for obvious reasons... The Xbox One X's CPU does muddle things though as it does offload some processing and has the highest clockrate.

Miyamotoo said:
Well that's my point, Tegra X2 would alow Switch to have higher CPU and GPU clocks than currently has, even higher memory bandwith (double compared to current one).

Indeed. Or Nintendo could have kept the same performance level and increased battery life substantially.
I am sure Nintendo had it's reasons for opting for the old chip that it did.

It's still a very capable device though at the end of the day, it just could have been that little bit more.

Miyamotoo said:
Switch has enough power to run some games at higher resolution than it does currently, but doesn't have enough CPU power to maintain probably even 20 FPS in that case. From specs reveal devs said that biggest bottleneck is A57 that has 3-cores available for games and operates at only 1GHz. Next biggest bottleneck is RAM bandwidth, when you look hole Switch configuration, GPU is biggest advance of Switch hardware and after that size of RAM.

I think you are trying to paint to much of a black and white scene.
Whether the CPU, GPU or Ram is the biggest limiter really comes down to the individual games themselves.

Some games will drive home the CPU loads more than others... Whilst other games will push the GPU harder.

Miyamotoo said:
I am pretty sure it will be, they several times said they considering Overwatch for Switch, probably it will be E3 announcement same Rocket League and Fortnite were.

It's just one of those games that just makes sense for the platform. - Plus Overwatch is not technically demanding anyway, it can run on a toaster... And even when downscaled to low visual settings still looks semi-decent thanks to blizzards atypical strong art style.





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

Pemalite said:

I would be very surprised if the Switch 2 used anything less than a 6-core complex to be honest.

Whether the Switch will use A76 or a newer derivative is still up for debate though, nVidia has Denver remember, they might wish to push their own CPU design over ARM's direct architecture.

I wouldn't be as more cores means nothing without a good memory subsystem because most games have a decent amount of synchronization overhead with contended memory accesses and that's probably why Intel still wins in most of the gaming benchmarks despite the fact that even as good as AMD is with RyZen, Intel scales noticeably better with higher core counts ... (practically no mobile CPU designers have went for more than 4 of it's big main cores and all will probably be just content with raising higher clock speeds) 

Nvidia's CPU designs are fairly mediocre as well and the others like Qualcomm's Snapdragon 845 which features custom A75 cores still have laughably slow L2/L3 caches compared to whatever AMD/Intel have ... 

I don't think A76 cores will be good enough in general to have competitive performance against Zen 2 cores and the same will likely be true for it's successor since by that time they'll eventually have performance just above that of an Apple A10 ? 



Around the Network
Soundwave said:
Miyamotoo said:

New 3DS had solid upgrade, but those things didnt exited consumers because we were still talking about low power in any case at end, despite its solid upgrade. I disagree, New 3DS is one of reasons why 3DS maintain good sales, you can bet that without revisions 3DS sales would be much worse. Xbox X had good effect on sales because people were buying X to have best system currently available for their 4K TVs, Pro has much less effect on PS4 sales than X has for Xbox.

What you keep ignoring that despite Pro models all apps and games still works on weaker Apple and Samsung devices. Same is for PS4 Pro and XB1 X, and for around 99% games will be same for Switch in any case.

Base is still selling much better in any case than Pro model.

Switch Pro wont made also people on fire, PS4 Pro also didnt made people on fire, if current Switch didnt set on fire some people, New Switch or Switch Pro want do also. It will boost sales offcourse in some degree in any case, but its not like we getting brand new console that will make people that didnt had any intrest in Switch before will Pro make them buying one. Cheaper/low price point Switch would have higher effect on sales than potental Switch Pro.

It will be multiply revisions for Switch in any case, but you totally wrong if you think that plenty of 3rd partys would want to release game just for on revision and where most of Switch install base couldnt play. Around 99% of games will be still be playable through hole revisions in any case.

 

I am pretty sure it will be, they several times said they considering Overwatch for Switch, probably it will be E3 announcement same Rocket League and Fortnite were.

PS4 Pro is probably in the range of being 30%+ of PS4 sales which is not a small amount. In Japan PS4 Pro and regular PS4 models are now selling almost 1:1. 

XBox One X has caused a huge shift in XBox One year over year sales and probably is also selling 1:1 or better than the base model despite being the most expensive game hardware SKU out there. 

There's simply not much of a chance Nintendo isn't going to follow suit. Not only do these models sell well to the point that they're causing upward trends in both the PS4 and XB1, they're also more profitable long term too, there was a report that Sony makes more money off the Pro model, because the cost of chips come down in price relatively quickly, but the higher price point then nets you a higher take home profit. 

As for whether 3rd parties would make a few games Pro only, I think it could happen if the system is cheap enough to port to. If its something that isn't a big damn pain in the ass to port and has a reasonable amount of power where they can outsource the port or have it done with a small team, probably for some titles you will see that done. Take2 just released a console quality "patch" for NBA2K19 on iPad that gives the game PS4/XB1 tier graphics and runs at 2K+ resolution at 60 frames per second. They did that for a version of the game that basically can only run on the new iPad Pro which is like $800. Doubling or tripling a mobile chip simply opens up more possibilities for game experiences. 

You will get your New 3DS/2DS etc. style revisions for Switch sure. But you will also get a Pro model. Nintendo is not ignoring that revenue stream and it's an option that's proven itself to be very popular with consumers and helps the bottom line of Sony and MS, Nintendo isn't going to ignore that. Looking at how Apple operates there was already the notion to do something like that anyway, but Sony/MS doing it with home consoles basically sealed the deal. It's not an either/or thing, the PS4 and XBox One have also gotten "smaller/cheaper" revisions like the PS4 Slim and XBox One S. It doesn't stop a Pro model from happening. 

But that doesn't mean that PS4 would sell 30% less without Pro model, only reason why Pro is selling currently 1:1 in Japan is because Pro had recently price cut in Japan.

I was very clear about, X is selling good because people are buying it like best 4K consoles for their 4K TVs, but that doesn't have anything with potential Switch Pro.

You ignoring fact that Nintendo was already doing similar thing, New 3DS or DSi are already some kind of 3DS and DS upgrades. Difference is that PS4 and XB1 were already strongest hardware on market and that bring more attention, also they bring 4K support (in case of PS4 Pro we talking about upscaled 4K).

Yeah, you could have few games, but expecting 8-15 bigger 3rd party games per year just for Pro is not realistic at all, we want have even 8 bigger 3rd party only for Switch LT, not per year. Point is that huge majority of 3rd party if want to release its game for Switch would rather want to release game that could be played hole Switch install base than just small part of it, if game cant run, they will not bother porting in on first place just one revision. But thats a point, iPad Pro maybe recived NBA2K19 patch, but point is that have also version of NBA2K19 game that works on previous iPad, while in case of Switch Pro you talking just about exclusive games not versions of games, you keep comparing potential Switch Pro with PS4 Pro/X and iPad Pro, while you ignoring fact that all games for those devices runing on base version of those devices also.

We will see if we will get Pro or New Switch revision and we probbably talking about same thing, because New 3DS or DSi are something similar what Pro is for base PS4, and offcourse that Nintendo was never ignored higher revenue stream, we have New 3DS and we have New 3DS XL, so there is no reason so to pretend like Nintendo wanst doing that before. No one arguing that, what I arguing with you and some other people here, is because you expecting big number of big 3rd party games that would be released just for one Switch revision, and that's not realistic at all.



Pemalite said:
Miyamotoo said:

My bad, XB1 operates at 1.75GHz.

Yeah, I know that, but ARM A57 was in Switch was heavily constrained buy 20nm, thats why has 4 core and operates at only 1GHz.

ARM A57 was designed for 20nm.

The issue with the Switch is that... It's not going to have short, bursty processing workloads.

For example, in a typical mobile device the A57 would clock up to 2ghz whenever there is demand and race back to idle... For example, you open up the browser and the CPU will clock to 2ghz during the initial load and then settle down to it's idle clocks, there isn't a need for the full clockrate when browsing a webpage.
This phenomenon is known as "race to idle" - Where you want the processing done as fast as possible so the chip can enter a power saving state.

The Switch on the other hand doesn't get that privilege... Video games, demanding video games will peg every single core at 100%, which means there will be significant power drain, it cannot race to idle because there is always more work to be done.
That's not a design issue with the Switch or the A57 or the node it's fundamentally on, that's just the nature of the processing load.

So Nintendo rightfully opted to limit clockrates and voltages so that power consumption will always be in check for CPU loads.

THAT is the real reason why the Switch's CPU's are at only 1ghz.


Miyamotoo said:
Thats just jump when you talk about same clock and some Core count, tell for instance about how much difference we talk only if Switch 2 uses for instance A76 6-Core CPU clocked at 2GHz compared to A57 4-Core 1GHz? And its safe to say that potentail Switch 2 will use more stronger CPU than A76.

I would be very surprised if the Switch 2 used anything less than a 6-core complex to be honest.

Whether the Switch will use A76 or a newer derivative is still up for debate though, nVidia has Denver remember, they might wish to push their own CPU design over ARM's direct architecture.

Miyamotoo said:
Like you wrote earlier, 8-Core ARM A57 at 1.7GHz would be very comparable to PS4/XB1 CPU. I was very clear that PS5/XB2 will again have stronger CPUs than Switch 2 in any case, I dont arguing that. But with all that on mind, Switch 2 could easily have stronger CPU than PS4/XB1 have, and IMO that would be enough to run 4K PS5/XB2 games at least 1080p in docked mode maybe even in 1440p with maybe some other downgrades, and that was my main point.

I think you might find that because of the large CPU performance delta between Xbox One/Playstation 4 and Xbox Two/Playstation 5, that the Switch 2 will struggle to get demanding ports, especially ports that leverage Ryzen to it's absolute fullest extent, that's not to say the Switch 2 won't get ports, it should get some, not every game is going to be running stupidly complex simulation on the CPU next gen... And the Switch 2 should get those if the developer/publisher bothers.

The jump from Jaguar to Ryzen is a significantly larger one than what you will get with Switch and Switch 2. - Nintendo simply lucked out as AMD didn't have a decent CPU for the consoles, let alone PC.

The Switch 2 should be able to match or exceed base the Xbox One/Playstation 4 CPU's. - By how much is yet to be determined for obvious reasons... The Xbox One X's CPU does muddle things though as it does offload some processing and has the highest clockrate.

Miyamotoo said:
Well that's my point, Tegra X2 would alow Switch to have higher CPU and GPU clocks than currently has, even higher memory bandwith (double compared to current one).

Indeed. Or Nintendo could have kept the same performance level and increased battery life substantially.
I am sure Nintendo had it's reasons for opting for the old chip that it did.

It's still a very capable device though at the end of the day, it just could have been that little bit more.

Miyamotoo said:
Switch has enough power to run some games at higher resolution than it does currently, but doesn't have enough CPU power to maintain probably even 20 FPS in that case. From specs reveal devs said that biggest bottleneck is A57 that has 3-cores available for games and operates at only 1GHz. Next biggest bottleneck is RAM bandwidth, when you look hole Switch configuration, GPU is biggest advance of Switch hardware and after that size of RAM.

I think you are trying to paint to much of a black and white scene.
Whether the CPU, GPU or Ram is the biggest limiter really comes down to the individual games themselves.

Some games will drive home the CPU loads more than others... Whilst other games will push the GPU harder.

Miyamotoo said:
I am pretty sure it will be, they several times said they considering Overwatch for Switch, probably it will be E3 announcement same Rocket League and Fortnite were.

It's just one of those games that just makes sense for the platform. - Plus Overwatch is not technically demanding anyway, it can run on a toaster... And even when downscaled to low visual settings still looks semi-decent thanks to blizzards atypical strong art style.


Well you have A57 at 28/20/16 and 14nm. Tegra X2 is 16nm and it includes A57 cores also.

I am very aware of that, same like fact that A57 throttles (same like Tegra GPU)  at higher speeds than 1.7/1.8GHz. But I already said that only reasons why Nintendo went with 1GHz and not for instance 1.5GHz are battery life and heating. But Tegra X2 and lower nm would allow them higher clokcs because we would have lower power consumption and power heating in any case.

 

 

Yeah, I also expecting at least 6-Core CPU for Switch 2, but my point is that we will talk about huge difference in any case compared to 4/3 Core A57 1GHz that operates in current Switch.

SoC that Switch 2 will have will most likely be adjusted much more to Nintendo needs and wishes, even if they again use already available chip from market, it will probably be much more customized than Tegra X1 in Switch has. Nintendo used available Tegra X1 because it was best suiting their needs for their first handheld, but with point that we will most likely have Switch 2 and Nintendo and Nvidia will have long term partnership, Nintendo and Nvidia will plan much better SoC for Switch 2.

 

 

From standpoint of games, I dont expecting huge jump in graphics on PS5/XB2 compared to PS4/XB1 games, I expecting little improved current gen games that will run at 4K resolution, so most of that power difference will go to much higher pixel count and maybe 60FPS that will devs maybe start pushing much more. So I do think that in plenty cases, Switch 2 will probably could run 4K PS5/XB2 games at least at 1080p maybe even at 1440p with some other cut backs (like lowered effects or maybe lower frame rate if we talking about some 60 FPS games..). Difference would be that 1080p or even 720p (for handheld mode maybe) sound much better compared what devs would need to with some current big games in order to run on current Switch where we have some AAA 3rd party games working below 720p (go down to 540p, 480p even to 360p in some sequences), because some devs just simple want cut so much resolution for their games and that their games run at those resolutions on big screen, but for instance 1080p is nice resolution in any case.

Probably will be larger jump, but Switch 2 will also have huge jump in CPU side in any case.

 

Well I guess its combination of points that Tegra X2 probably couldn't be ready on time for Switch and there were already some rumors that Nvidia had tons of unused Tegra X1 chips and that they apparently gave Nintendo very good offer.

Yeah, I mean it ending Win-Win situation for Nintendo and Nvidia, and Switch is doing its job.I am personally very interesting to see what Switch will have with its revisions, for instance Tegra X2 is very possible for Switch revisions, or would Nintendo go at lower NM with current Tegra X1 chip (that has less sense) that would allow them higher clocks.

 

I disagree, I just talking about objective look of Dev point of view when just he looks Switch specs, right away it obvious that CPU is biggest bottleneck followed by RAM bandwidth. But I agree that not all games are equally CPU or GPU intensive.

 

Yeah, I agree, especially because it seems that Diablo 3 is selling quite well so that will also push them more to bring Overwatch to Switch.

Last edited by Miyamotoo - on 03 December 2018

Miyamotoo said:
Soundwave said:

PS4 Pro is probably in the range of being 30%+ of PS4 sales which is not a small amount. In Japan PS4 Pro and regular PS4 models are now selling almost 1:1. 

XBox One X has caused a huge shift in XBox One year over year sales and probably is also selling 1:1 or better than the base model despite being the most expensive game hardware SKU out there. 

There's simply not much of a chance Nintendo isn't going to follow suit. Not only do these models sell well to the point that they're causing upward trends in both the PS4 and XB1, they're also more profitable long term too, there was a report that Sony makes more money off the Pro model, because the cost of chips come down in price relatively quickly, but the higher price point then nets you a higher take home profit. 

As for whether 3rd parties would make a few games Pro only, I think it could happen if the system is cheap enough to port to. If its something that isn't a big damn pain in the ass to port and has a reasonable amount of power where they can outsource the port or have it done with a small team, probably for some titles you will see that done. Take2 just released a console quality "patch" for NBA2K19 on iPad that gives the game PS4/XB1 tier graphics and runs at 2K+ resolution at 60 frames per second. They did that for a version of the game that basically can only run on the new iPad Pro which is like $800. Doubling or tripling a mobile chip simply opens up more possibilities for game experiences. 

You will get your New 3DS/2DS etc. style revisions for Switch sure. But you will also get a Pro model. Nintendo is not ignoring that revenue stream and it's an option that's proven itself to be very popular with consumers and helps the bottom line of Sony and MS, Nintendo isn't going to ignore that. Looking at how Apple operates there was already the notion to do something like that anyway, but Sony/MS doing it with home consoles basically sealed the deal. It's not an either/or thing, the PS4 and XBox One have also gotten "smaller/cheaper" revisions like the PS4 Slim and XBox One S. It doesn't stop a Pro model from happening. 

But that doesn't mean that PS4 would sell 30% less without Pro model, only reason why Pro is selling currently 1:1 in Japan is because Pro had recently price cut in Japan.

I was very clear about, X is selling good because people are buying it like best 4K consoles for their 4K TVs, but that doesn't have anything with potential Switch Pro.

You ignoring fact that Nintendo was already doing similar thing, New 3DS or DSi are already some kind of 3DS and DS upgrades. Difference is that PS4 and XB1 were already strongest hardware on market and that bring more attention, also they bring 4K support (in case of PS4 Pro we talking about upscaled 4K).

Yeah, you could have few games, but expecting 8-15 bigger 3rd party games per year just for Pro is not realistic at all, we want have even 8 bigger 3rd party only for Switch LT, not per year. Point is that huge majority of 3rd party if want to release its game for Switch would rather want to release game that could be played hole Switch install base than just small part of it, if game cant run, they will not bother porting in on first place just one revision. But thats a point, iPad Pro maybe recived NBA2K19 patch, but point is that have also version of NBA2K19 game that works on previous iPad, while in case of Switch Pro you talking just about exclusive games not versions of games, you keep comparing potential Switch Pro with PS4 Pro/X and iPad Pro, while you ignoring fact that all games for those devices runing on base version of those devices also.

We will see if we will get Pro or New Switch revision and we probbably talking about same thing, because New 3DS or DSi are something similar what Pro is for base PS4, and offcourse that Nintendo was never ignored higher revenue stream, we have New 3DS and we have New 3DS XL, so there is no reason so to pretend like Nintendo wanst doing that before. No one arguing that, what I arguing with you and some other people here, is because you expecting big number of big 3rd party games that would be released just for one Switch revision, and that's not realistic at all.

No, I think it's becoming clear the X and Pro models for XBox One and PS4 are industry changing additions. And I doubt Nintendo ignores that trend. 

We're seeing consoles in year 5 of their cycle when you should start seeing decline, and instead you're actually seeing zero decline and in the case of the XBox, you're seeing actual large uptick in sales. 

This is like someone coming up with a pill that a 60 year old can take that makes them appear like they're in their late 30s again ... that's not a small deal in the business of gaming. 

You will get your smaller/slimmer/moderate bump/different screen size Switch sure ... but the "Pro" equivalent to Switch is also (seperately) gonna happen too. And I'm not talking New 3DS. The XBox One S is basically the "New 3DS" of XBox One models, the XBox One X however is a different beast entirely, and it is what is primarily responsible for XBox One sales remaining not only steady but rising up. 

What Sony/MS have done with the Pro and X models is going to forever change the console industry. This is not a minor thing. 

Personally I think Nintendo is done with the old generational definition you have, so I think that's your hold up there is you can't imagine anything different. But PC has been doing this for 30 years, there is no "generational shift", games come as they please, and developers know full well a higher end game will initially only be available to certain portion of the overall PC base because not everyone is going to have the newest GPU. It's not that big of a deal. 

I know some people think the world would end or something if a console system adopted something similar, but it really wouldn't, it's just different, but people have problems grasping that. The minute you show them a 30 second trailer with an official product most of the time they end up going "I don't want that, that sounds terribl -- oh wait ... that looks kinda hot, I actually might buy that ... oh wow ... where do I preorder?".

Last edited by Soundwave - on 04 December 2018

Soundwave said:
Miyamotoo said:

But that doesn't mean that PS4 would sell 30% less without Pro model, only reason why Pro is selling currently 1:1 in Japan is because Pro had recently price cut in Japan.

I was very clear about, X is selling good because people are buying it like best 4K consoles for their 4K TVs, but that doesn't have anything with potential Switch Pro.

You ignoring fact that Nintendo was already doing similar thing, New 3DS or DSi are already some kind of 3DS and DS upgrades. Difference is that PS4 and XB1 were already strongest hardware on market and that bring more attention, also they bring 4K support (in case of PS4 Pro we talking about upscaled 4K).

Yeah, you could have few games, but expecting 8-15 bigger 3rd party games per year just for Pro is not realistic at all, we want have even 8 bigger 3rd party only for Switch LT, not per year. Point is that huge majority of 3rd party if want to release its game for Switch would rather want to release game that could be played hole Switch install base than just small part of it, if game cant run, they will not bother porting in on first place just one revision. But thats a point, iPad Pro maybe recived NBA2K19 patch, but point is that have also version of NBA2K19 game that works on previous iPad, while in case of Switch Pro you talking just about exclusive games not versions of games, you keep comparing potential Switch Pro with PS4 Pro/X and iPad Pro, while you ignoring fact that all games for those devices runing on base version of those devices also.

We will see if we will get Pro or New Switch revision and we probbably talking about same thing, because New 3DS or DSi are something similar what Pro is for base PS4, and offcourse that Nintendo was never ignored higher revenue stream, we have New 3DS and we have New 3DS XL, so there is no reason so to pretend like Nintendo wanst doing that before. No one arguing that, what I arguing with you and some other people here, is because you expecting big number of big 3rd party games that would be released just for one Switch revision, and that's not realistic at all.

No, I think it's becoming clear the X and Pro models for XBox One and PS4 are industry changing additions. And I doubt Nintendo ignores that trend. 

We're seeing consoles in year 5 of their cycle when you should start seeing decline, and instead you're actually seeing zero decline and in the case of the XBox, you're seeing actual large uptick in sales. This is like someone coming up with a pill that a 60 year old can take that makes them appear like they're in their late 30s again ... that's not a small deal in the business of gaming. 

You will get your smaller/slimmer/moderate bump/different screen size Switch sure ... but the "Pro" equivalent to Switch is also (seperately) gonna happen too. And I'm not talking New 3DS. The XBox One S is basically the "New 3DS" of XBox One models, the XBox One X however is a different beast entirely, and it is what is primarily responsible for XBox One sales remaining not only steady but rising up. 

What Sony/MS have done with the Pro and X models is going to forever change the console industry. This is not a minor thing. 

Personally I think Nintendo is done with the old generational definition you have, so I think that's your hold up there is you can't imagine anything different. But PC has been doing this for 30 years, there is no "generational shift", games come as they please, and developers know full well a higher end game will initially only be available to certain portion of the overall PC base because not everyone is going to have the newest GPU. It's not that big of a deal. 

I know some people think the world would end or something if a console system adopted something similar, but it really wouldn't, it's just different, but people have problems grasping that. The minute you show them a 30 second trailer with an official product most of the time they end up going "I don't want that, that sounds terribl -- oh wait ... that looks kinda hot, I actually might buy that ... oh wow ... where do I preorder?".

For home consoles yes, but what you fail to see is that Nintendo was already doing similar thing with DS and 3DS, DSi and New 3DS are also like some kind of mid gen upgrade, and with point that Switch is essentially handheld hardware, we could expect Nintendo will do something similar with Switch in any case and regardless PS4/XB1.

And Nintendo was very clear about how they want that Switch has longer life span than typical 6 years, but Nintendo already doing that with 3DS, 3DS was launch in March 2011. and in 3 months 3DS will be 8 full years on market.

New or Pro Switch will happen, but difference will be more similar to New 3DS than to PS4 Pro or especially Xbox One X. It point about context, point if PS4 pro is to offer 1440p resolution that could be upscaled to 4K TVs, point of Xbox One X is to offer native 4K resolution for 4K TVs for most of current gen games, while point of New/Pro Switch will most likely be little higher clocks and maybe memory bandwidth that will allow them to have higher resolution with games that have dynamic resolution and more stable frame rate, same like probably better battery life. No Xbox One S is not New 3DS, only improvement that S has is with GPU where clockspeed was raise from 853MHz to 914MHz, while New 3DS recived huge upgrade in CPU (double cores and much higher clocks), double amount of RAM memory and much more VRAM memory. Yeah, Xbox X is totally different beast, but point of that beast is 4K gaming, and that's reason why its selling so better, because 4K TVs are becoming mainstream and Xbox X is best 4K console, but that's totally different context to Switch, Switch is already in any case best and strongest handheld/hybrid (actually only handheld or hybrid, 3DS will be dead next year).

It will, but for home consoles, like wrote, you fail to see is that Nintendo was already doing similar thing with DS and 3DS, DSi and New 3DS are also like some kind of mid gen upgrade, and with point that Switch is essentially handheld hardware, we could expect Nintendo will do something similar with Switch in any case and regardless PS4/XB1.

Generational definition I talking about is not old, look just how much revisions only 3DS has and how long life span 3DS has, Nintendo definitely plans to do something similar with Switch.

 

Remember, Nintendo was talking about iOS or Android platforms like example for their next platform ("NX" that become Switch), where you have family of devices that are all part of one platform and all games running on all devices, and that's basically 3DS family also become. You keep bringing examples like PS4 Pro/Xbox X and iPad or Samsung tablets, but you ignoring fact that all games for those platforms works on every versions of those hardwares and in same time you talking about big number of big 3rd party exclusive games that would run only Switch Pro version only.

What I personally expecting from Switch revisions is that we will have:

-New (or less possible that name would be Pro, why would Nintendo used Sony naming when Nintendo has couple of its own for improved hardware) Switch that will have improved GPU/CPU clocks, maybe higher memory bandwidth and maybe even less possible more RAM memory, that would alow Switch to have higher resolution and better frame rate for games that cant hit 720p resolution in portable and that cant hit 1080p docked mode with better frame rate and maybe better battery life.

-Switch Pocket/Mini that would be low price option and handheld focused Switch, for instance around 5" screen and built in controls, just for handheld play.

-Switch TV is also possible, similar like Vita TV, It would essentially be just Switch hardware built in similar looking device like Dock (just smaller) of course without screen, battery, parts needed for handheld play, Joy Cons, Joy Con Grip...so basically just Switch SoC built in Dock and shipped with Pro Controller instead of Joycons (but it would have support for JoyCons).

-After that maybe we could have another upgrade for Switch.

 

Point of all those revisions is they all would support of around 99% Switch library of games, I mean you will always have few examples that wouldnt run on some revisions, I mean thats case even with 3DS/2DS.

After that we will have Switch 2, its very possible that Switch 2 games will be still be cross gen with Switch 1, offcourse on Switch 2 will look and run better.

Last edited by Miyamotoo - on 04 December 2018

A new technique for NVIDIA GPUs may make porting large games to the Switch's successor easier.

https://youtu.be/edYiCE0b8-c

Variable Rate Shading

It basically allows textures and shaders on individual surfaces to be reduced in resolution if they are seen as unnecessary at that moment, such as when the room is dark.
Such a technique introduces another element that can be be reduced on the fly to improve performance in addition to overall image resolution.

I don't think the Tegra X1 supports this new feature, but whatever is in the next gen version should support it.