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
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.
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.
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?
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.