Slashdot Mirror
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 understand that the focus of Nintendo is not performance, but the specifications would not be too low to make any reasonable modern game?
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
We have locked up our IP so fans will buy even with sub par video.
Just hope that any games that get ported are not dumbed down on other systems as well. And that games on other systems are not cut down to run on this POS.
If they're encouraging developers to account for different clock speeds from the start, sounds like they're leaving themselves wiggle room to maybe update the hardware in the future, although they can't get too crazy unless they use an abstract enough api for graphics (Vulkan hopefully). Console developers won't like it, but it might be the only way this thing can survive against phones
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
Really depends on which games you liked in the SNES era. If you liked the first-party titles, much of what you like is still alive in new forms today - and the Switch will be perfect for that. Those games were all about gameplay, but never were about immersive storylines (that would then require fancy graphics). If you liked 3rd-party titles at the time, most of those work better on more powerful consoles.
Those specs put the Switch at the same ballpark performance level of a WiiU. It fares well if you consider the portable space, but those are still below average specs compared to recent Android and iOS tablets. Even docked, a fricking iPad has more gaming performance than this. Nintendo always releases underwhelming hardware, but considering the WiiU was already outdated on release, this time they really have outdone themselves.
Sure, sure, graphics are not important, etc. But the thing is, you can forget it if you're thinking you have any chance of seeing modern third party games being ported to this machine, unless you're talking about crappy outsourced versions of the games, made specifically for this thing, and even then that's a highly unlikely possibility except perhaps for a few high-profile franchises.
It may still be worth getting this just for Nintendo's first party titles, but the WiiU had plenty of those and was still a big failure. Not to mention if you already have a WiiU you'll be paying for a downgrade.
In addition, I wouldn't expect a cheap price for such cheap, outdated hardware. That's not how Nintendo works.
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
This. A thousand times this. No developer in their right mind is going to program a game that doesn't run properly on the portable. The downscaling of the portable is just too profound. 40% clocks? So the console will suffer from portablitis (similar to how PC games suffer consolitis).
If they then kill the portable line (currently 3DS) in preference to Switch, they may well kill both their portable and console markets with one stone. I know they have a NIH ("Not Invented Here") culture, and this has resulted in some excellent and novel gaming (thinking Wii here), but this new console seems strategically unsound.
We've known for some time that the guts would be Tegra based and we saw the promotional video that sells us the idea that this is meant to be mobile first. Looking at the list of partners they have on board at least one is a telecom provider (Web Technology Corp, aka Vodafone) another is a well known mobile eCommerce portal (DeNA). This is Nintendo creeping into the smartphone market.
What we have here is a 6" gaming tablet, how much of the mobile parts will make it intact to North American / European markets who can say, but at the end of the day this is a gaming tablet first, the game library will likely reflect this.
crazy dynamite monkey
This is extremely disappointing to me. How does one reconcile the 400 GFLOP performance of the X1 with the 1TFLOP that was reported earlier? How do they intend on securing 3rd party support with 1/3 the power of a PS4?
...that Nintendo product planning meetings usually include a deliverable about "How do we make this not that great and then fail". Consider that Nintendo execs tried numerous times to kill off the motion controller for the Wii as it was expensive. Had they succeeded we'd be looking back at the SNES as the most recent success after failures by the N64, Gamecube, Wii, and Wii-U. Anyone else get the feeling that these folks couldn't find their own ass with both hands?
This device looks like it'll perform more like a PS3 or Xbox 360. Why is it that Nintendo keeps tossing out overclocked gamecubes and wondering why that strategy fails?
At least this means they'll port their games to the ARM architecture. Then when this face plants they can finally release the games for android and ios. Then they'll make money.
Had they at least made the price on the Wii-U or the Switch rational for the weak hardware, maybe. I've seen Xbox Ones for $150ish and PS4's for $200ish. There's no way I'm paying more than that to get old slow hardware.
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.
Nintendo is going to miss the VR wave. This is a massive mistake. As someone who owns a PSVR and has played the Battlefront X-Wing demo. Nintendo is missing a massive opportunity here, remember Factor 5 and the Star Wars games? This is the perfect time for that style of game and they're going to miss it. There are games in the VR Playroom which definitely tread on Nintendo's turf, the mini robot games in particular feel so much like a modern take on Mario it's ridiculous. Nintendo has lost the plot.
Generally agree with you, but don't believe that immersive storylines require fancy graphics.
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?
immersive storylines require fancy graphics.
Depends on how lazy your storytelling ability is. I do agree with you, but if the same publishers during that generation were doing the same games now but with the more powerful hardware, I'm sure of what they would choose to do.
It is all about the gameplay. Portable gaming console does not need to have realistic graphic or physic in game. The graphic and the physic of a game should be creative and suit the gameplay. I prefer the World of Mario than a world that try to mimic our world in gameplay. Game Studio should be creative with the game world and character that live in it. Creating realistic world is expensive compare to creating imaginary world.
I think of the PC CD-ROM era, when all you had was VGA (on VLB or PCI bus), Sound Blaster, 2x CDROM. There were immersive stories with that, esp. when there was full voice acting, and the sound was still uncompressed because that's all you could afford (but a lot of 8bit 11KHz, just with no mp3/ogg/aac artifacts)
For the time though, those were fancy graphics!
But with those supposedly low specs ($1000/$2000 of desktop computer hardware) you had e.g. high value hand drawn graphics, professional voice acting and so on. High budget but not one hundred million dollars either more like a million or more, and taking it seriously.
Nowadays, it's easy to make crisp HD graphics, lighting effects, as many 3D-accelerated UI elements as you like etc. and call that an indie game although it's effectively just a glorified, low value shareware or flash game. Whereas, the high budget stuff all looks like Call of Duty/Uncharted/GTA/Superhero movies. I just want the cursor to be set somewhere in the middle, and I also hope there was less fast-moving eye-catching dumbed down look-at-me designed to hurt the eye flashy bullcrap like all the titles and graphics that fly and whoosh around on US corporate TV!
I hope y'all got what I mean?
PS : games of the 90s were very much about the graphics most times.
Nintendo can't rely on Mario to save their asses every time they release a crap console. If they'd called this the GameBoy Pro or something, its specs would be pretty decent. As a living room game console, however, it's pathetic.
As for your graphics comparison, you know what looks like absolute crap every single time on a 1080P TV bigger than 20 inches? Anything Nintendo produces. Now hook it up to a 4K TV and really appreciate the suck.
Nintendo needs to grow up and let their hardware and IP grow up too.
Every current game on the market includes sliders to set the graphics quality so that it can be played on a wide variety of systems.
It is a non-issue to have 2 settings: docked, undocked.
Work Safe Porn
If you liked the third party games of the snes era, you're pretty much hosed, because not only all characters of that era are pretty much dead, as the focus on making a good gameplay by itself is dead.
The main deciding factor for the success of this device will be the battery life. Pretty much nothing else, if they really are aiming for the portable market. I have heard rumors that battery life will be 3-4 hours. A quick google tells me that the 3DS has a battery life of 3 - 5.5 hours. So maybe it will be enough. I guess we will see on release. Another concern is the supposedly wireless controllers. They face the same problem as Apple does with the Airpods: batteries and lost controllers.
A console with 2 modes is nothing compared to a PC game's options.
Haven't you ever played with PC game options? Lowering the resolution has always helped FPS greatly but with newer GPU features it does not help as much. Many of the newer time consuming GPU features you can simply TURN OFF.
I would expect a Nintendo engineer who has a history of extracting performance from hardware estimated just what the needs are for THEIR game engine at 720p with some features like AA turned off. Plus the depth rendering of their engine doesn't need to be set as far out at that resolution and screen size. 40% was likely a compromise on settings and hardware scaling limitations with a bias towards the practical needs of portable mode.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Yes and no.
Increasing the clock speed or the number of cores will demand more power but this can be counteracted by using a more efficient architecture or smaller transistors.
Newer hardware is typically more efficient and can be better without needing more power.
Plus every time Nintendo gimps their hardware like this all they do is chase off third party support. Why should a third party give a rats ass about a Nintendo console when their 1080P 60FPS game that works great on PC, PS4, and XBone has to have its visuals slashed in half or further and needs a ton of other adjustments just to run on Nintendo's offering?
The only way they get third party support is if they get a large install base, but without hefty third party support getting that install base is nigh impossible. It's a devilish chicken and egg scenario. They'll get their die hard and first party exclusive fans to buy in, but at this point is that really going to give them an install base big enough to entice the major third party developers?
But this isn't Atari 2600 graphics.... It's a Tegra X1, which was quite frankly beating the piss out of cheap Intel onboard graphics in desktops the same year it was released. Nintendo's consoles also cost considerably less than the competition and part of that is the price of the hardware because they use mature hardware that can be had cheap instead of bleeding edge tech that they'll pay a prince's ransom on and maybe even lose money on each console sold until the tech moves lower in the food chain, like Sony did last time around. Sony lost money on each PS3 sold for 4 YEARS. And if you look at Sony The Company as a whole right now, that probably wasn't a great idea in the long run. Nintendo doesn't want to be in a position of burning money like that.