Nintendo Switch Uses Nvidia Tegra X1 SoC, Clock Speeds Outed (arstechnica.com)
The Nintendo Switch -- the hybrid portable games console/tablet due for release in March 2017 -- will be powered by Nvidia's older Tegra X1 SoC and not its upcoming Tegra X2 "Parker" SoC as initially rumored. From a report on ArsTechnica: The use of Tegra X1, which also powers the Nvidia Shield Android TV, means the graphics hardware inside the Switch is based on Nvidia's older second-generation Maxwell architecture, rather than the latest Pascal architecture. While the two architectures share a very similar design, the Switch will miss out on some of the smaller performance improvements made in Pascal. When docked, the Switch's GPU runs at a 768MHz, already lower than the 1GHz of the Shield Android TV. When used as a portable, the Switch downclocks the GPU to 307.2MHz -- just 40 percent of the clock speed when docked. Given the Switch is highly likely to use a 720p screen rather than 1080p -- this is currently assumed to be a 6.2-inch IPS LCD with 10-point multi-touch support -- there is some overhead to run games at 1080p when docked. However, it's questionable how many developers will go to the effort of creating games that make use of the extra horsepower when docked, rather than simply opting to program for the slower overall GPU clock speed. While GPU performance is variable, the rest of the Switch's specs remain static. Its four ARM A57 CPU cores are purported to run at 1020MHz regardless of whether the console is docked or undocked, while the memory controller can run at either 1600MHz or 1331MHz in either mode.
I'm probably in the minority, but my opinion is that the Wii is plenty powerful for fun and visually pleasing games. For that matter, so is the PS2. The focus here isn't on raw horsepower, but providing a new gimmick: being both portable and stationary. The majority of people don't care about technical specs, they just want to play games on the device they have. Having a consistent platform is good for developers because you don't have to factor in 100 different iOS configurations of 1000 different Android configuration. This is far more important in development. I know because I develop mobile games.
Whether or not people will spring to buy these to supplement their phones, however, remains to be seen.
To paraphrase "It's the content, not the graphics, stupid!"
There have been lots of great looking, super shiny games that were absolutely terrible. And there are lots of games with less than stellar graphics that are absolute blasts to play. Not every game needs to look ultra realistic. For that matter, do you WANT some of Nintendo's IP to look ultra realistic?
http://www.mariomayhem.com/bowsers_blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/real-mario-face.jpg
How about no?
I definitely understand that it's good to have the extra horsepower for some games, but at the same time way too often game companies chase the stunning visuals and don't work enough on the rest. Back in the old days when consoles had very limited power compared to what was in the arcades, game makers focused on making the games enjoyable first because they could only do so much with the graphics. That's probably one of the reasons Nintendo does so well with their IP in the handheld space even today.
This just means that Nintendo hasn't changed it's strategy.
Just to let people who didn't look into it know: nVidia Shield TV - powered by the same SoC - has games like Half-Life 2, Portal 2 and Borderlands 2.
That's running Android, not an OS dedicated for games alone, though I'm not sure how much better things would be in a Nintendo proprietary OS. You usually have some gains there though.
Yes, it's not up to latest gaming standards, but it'll be powerful enough... a big step from the 3DS which seems to be the target anyways.
The move also makes sense if Nintendo is gonna keep prices down in comparison to the competition, and if the screen is at 720p it'll be better for power savings. I have no qualms with having older specs if that means I can actually use the thing for some hours rather than minutes as a portable device.
In any case, I see that every time some spec gets released Nintendo haters jump at the opportunity to criticize the company... like all previous Nintendo hardware releases, there always seems to be these opportunistic trolls that keeps repeating the same crap over and over again.
I'm not saying the Switch will be great, but how about we wait and see? None of the consoles and portables Nintendo made in the past decade or so were as powerful as competition offerings, yet at least part of them sold multiple times over the competition. Nintendo has repeatedly said in official statements that specs are not their priority. Putting the latest untested tech into new consoles also means there's not enough time to properly test things, that the price will have to go up, and that developers will have to deal with unknown variables that could end up delaying games and all.
If you don't like the strategy, just stay away from it. Nintendo does not need to be another Sony or Microsoft. Vita had plenty impressive specs when it came out, and we all know where that went. For all the crap people gave about Wii and Wii U specs, both consoles had great games even if the former failed to sell. 3DS, which has pretty poor specs for todays' standard, is still selling plenty well 5 years after it's release, with new games coming every month, which is usually more than all other consoles and portables put together... and the Vita trampled over it specs wise back when it was released, remember?
So yeah, let's keep things in perspective here. Is it a bummer that it's not using Tegra X2 and the latest tech? Sure. It'd be awesome to have some more recent titles running smoothly on the Switch, I agree. Some ports either won't happen or will have to be toned down to low settings to work. Things won't be all that different from the relationship between Vita and PS3/PS4.
That doesn't mean, and it never meant though that there won't be great games on it - which is what's most important for a portable/console system anyways. Did the DS or 3DS failed for not having specs on the same level as console counterparts?