Support NeoGAF

[bomblord1]

You know re-rereading the article.

They pretty definitively say it has 256 CUDA cores. Which is 2SM's. All the customizations in the world won't make up that difference.

The gflop count is lower than the wiiU in handheld mode and the processor is only 4 underclocked A53's.

The A57s are so weak on the Nvidia shield even when running them at twice the clock speed of this was outperformed on many CPU benches at the launch of the device.

The memory is running incredibly slow.

Docked the system is significantly outperformed by an Iphone 7 running on its battery.

I'm chalking up the lack of negative dev talk to tighter NDA's the wiiU didn't have the same NDA's at this point in its lifespan. And the initial dev support is probably Nintendo moneyhatting paired with some PR lip service. No dev is going to be able to make even a moderately big PS4/Xbox One game run on the handheld mode

Nintendo screwed up yet again crippling good hardware with incredibly aggressive underclocks for seemingly no discernible reason and then throwing a fan on top of it just to be sure the battery life sucks as well. There's no way around this this is an incredibly weak console and a handheld only barely on par with last years flagship phones. This thing is weak there is no positive way to read this. I've been trying all day and there just isn't I give up you guys win.

 

[Vena]

Well in any case, the point would be to keep low temps. That and to cheap out on the battery.

A fan doesn't cheap out at all and adds a major failure point, so the battery argument is dumb.

 

[lwilliams3]

Interpreting performance with the clock speeds alone is a mistake. There's too much we don't know atm.

Sounds like you also agree that we may be missing something that would have led NVidia/Nintendo to have a fan in the system.

 

[JaMarco]

Hahaha, should have known Nintendo would screw this up. This all was too good to be true. Oh well, fun while it lasted.

 

[GhostTrick]

Real world performance will be interesting but I'm sure plenty of diehards will perform standout mental gymnastics to argue that Nintendo's magic and underappreciated to-the-metal optimization and hardware magic will put them on par with the competition's performance standard.

I'm kinda leaning in the direction that rumours of certain multi-platform ports does in fact indicate some degree of architectural compatibility that'll inevitably come at a hefty cost of asset quality and/or performance. But that's better than nothing for those who want a handful of third party titles on-the-go.

Longevity of said support being viable is another matter entirely as is context. Not all titles are made the same, and where one game may leverage modern hardware entirely in asset quality and not much else, others may lean heavily on modern CPU performance and RAM ceilings for more gameplay relevant tasks. So while something like Skyrim is technically viable since, at the end of the day, it's a last generation game, other titles may not be even with heavily reduced asset quality. That's the very wide gray zone the Switch falls into with the current hardware rumours.

End of the day though I still think if you're buying into Nintendo hardware with any expectation of strong compatibility with third party software ten years after the Wii, you've only got yourself to blame for disappointed. If it matters that much to you suck it up, save your pennies, and buy another platform because that's the current state of the industry and Nintendo's direction in particular.

Nintendo's fault to call it a home console. They should've been smart and call it what it is: A fast handheld that can connect to the TV. They're once again trying to play the "we got 3rd party" card when no one cared or at least people pretended to care.

 

[whitehawk]

What's troubling for me is that.. AT the end of the day... if its still going to have 32GB(and that's possibly in the bundle version priced at 300), than getting an SD card for means of storage will be expensive. Getting a 512GB sd is $200, and 256 is $100.

The PS4 and Xbone already quite a bit of space out of the bag. sigh.

I fully expect the switch to retail for $199.

 

[plagiarize]

I fully expect the switch to retail for $199.

It will.

When it gets a price cut.

 

[GhostTrick]

A fan doesn't cheap out at all and adds a major failure point, so the battery argument is dumb.

Fans are cheap. Especially small one like this. A major failure point ? Come on...
As for the battery argument it's not dumb. Nintendo has an history of penny pinching cost saving measures. Basically for them, saving 2 dollars on a battery means potentially saving 100M dollars.

 

[AzaK]

I'll say it again, but the lessons we should have learned with GameCube clearly weren't learned.

GameCube CPU: 485MHz, FPU 1.9GFLOPs
GameCube GPU: 162MHz
GameCube RAM: 43MB

PS2 CPU: 294MHz, FPU 6.2 GFLOPs
PS2 GPU: 147MHz
PS2 RAM: 32MB

Xbox CPU: 733MHz, FPU performance unknown
Xbox GPU: 233MHz
Xbox RAM: 64MB

At the time of their comparison in 2001, GameCube was labeled "garbage-tier" compared against the Xbox and just barely better than PS2, with its floating-point performance being regularly singled out.

And we all remember how things panned out that generation: PS2 was the weakest, naturally, but Xbox wasn't this massive unparalleled technology leap compared to any of them. How every component works with the total package in real-world performance is the only way to measure a console.

Nintendo clearly demonstrated its design philosophy, a philosophy that always gets overlooked because it's not something you can use as bait when trolling: Optimal RAM and cache for fewer wasted CPU/GPU cycles. I don't expect Switch to be any different in that regard. How optimized the design is as a whole will be the question, but as always, we'll have to wait until January to know for sure.

They hardware was all within spitting distance as far as graphics went. The big thing with Xbox is that MS did stuff gamers wanted - that is, online. Nintendo has shown us they don't do what gamers want, unless they are dragged kicking and screaming to do it.

I fully expect the switch to retail for $199.

If the 2SM floppage is what it ends up being then yes, I think it needs to be $199 or even less so it's basically just an impulse buy that people will pickup because "I played that Mario jumping game by some company called TinDendo or something"

 

[Risette]

well, it was nice being excited for it for the last month or so

I can't justify paying $250 for hardware this bad. I was fine with a sub-XB1 that was tiny and quiet, but something that barely edges out the Wii U... I'm good.

 

[AquaWateria]

You know re-rereading the article.

They pretty definitively say it has 256 CUDA cores.

Which is 2SM's. All the customizations in the world won't make up that difference.

The gflop count is lower than the wiiU in handheld mode and the processor is only 4 underclocked A53's the A53's are so weak on the Nvidia shield even when running at twice the clock speed of this system they don't even turn on when the system is running benchmarks. Docked the system is significantly outperformed by an Iphone 7 running on its battery.

The memory is running incredibly slow.

I'm chalking up the lack of negative dev talk to tighter NDA's the wiiU didn't have the same NDA's at this point in its lifespan. And the initial dev support to moneyhatting and lip service.

No dev is going to be able to make even a moderately big PS4/Xbox One game run on the handheld mode

Nintendo screwed up yet again crippling good hardware with incredibly aggressive underclocks for seemingly no discernible reason and then throwing a fan on top of it just to be sure the battery life sucks as well.

There's no way around this this is an incredibly weak console and a handheld only barely on par with last years flagship phones. This thing is weak there is no positive way to read this. I've been trying all day and there just isn't I give up you guys win.

This is an example of what negativity can do to a individual.

I hope we can all survive till the January event......

 

[Vena]

Fans are cheap. Especially small one like this. A major failure point ? Come on...
As for the battery argument it's not dumb. Nintendo has an history of penny pinching cost saving measures. Basically for them, saving 2 dollars on a battery means potentially saving 100M dollars.

Fans cost money, they also cost power. Batteries in bulk are also cheap.

 

[hooijdonk17]

You know re-rereading the article.

They pretty definitively say it has 256 CUDA cores.

Which is 2SM's. All the customizations in the world won't make up that difference.

The gflop count is lower than the wiiU in handheld mode and the processor is only 4 underclocked A53's the A53's are so weak on the Nvidia shield even when running at twice the clock speed of this system they don't even turn on when the system is running benchmarks. Docked the system is significantly outperformed by an Iphone 7 running on its battery.

The memory is running incredibly slow.

I'm chalking up the lack of negative dev talk to tighter NDA's the wiiU didn't have the same NDA's at this point in its lifespan. And the initial dev support to moneyhatting and lip service.

No dev is going to be able to make even a moderately big PS4/Xbox One game run on the handheld mode

Nintendo screwed up yet again crippling good hardware with incredibly aggressive underclocks for seemingly no discernible reason and then throwing a fan on top of it just to be sure the battery life sucks as well.

There's no way around this this is an incredibly weak console and a handheld only barely on par with last years flagship phones. This thing is weak there is no positive way to read this. I've been trying all day and there just isn't I give up you guys win.

Summed it up better than I could on mobile while driving.

 

[GhostTrick]

Fans cost money, they also cost power. Batteries in bulk are also cheap.

The power cost of a fan is ridiculously low. Batteries in bulk are cheap, yes. But maybe a 3000mah battery was a better deal for Nintendo than a 6000mah one.

Nintendo is cheap, this isn't new. To the point that they can hurt their design in the process.

 

[lwilliams3]

The power cost of a fan is ridiculously low. Batteries in bulk are cheap, yes. But maybe a 3000mah battery was a better deal for Nintendo than a 6000mah one.

Nintendo is cheap, this isn't new. To the point that they can hurt their design in the process.

Actually, dock-mode would be a good reason why it would have a fan. A 2.5x increase of the GPU is nothing to sneeze at. My question is why they would need to have it on during HH mode?

 

[Vena]

You know re-rereading the article.

They pretty definitively say it has 256 CUDA cores. Which is 2SM's. All the customizations in the world won't make up that difference.

The gflop count is lower than the wiiU in handheld mode and the processor is only 4 underclocked A53's.

... What article did you read? Because that's not in the article. In fact, you should re-read the last paragraph.

 

[Instro]

The Switch is not comparable to past handheld efforts that go in the $200+ range as it is the first game system to go the full seamless hybrid console route and Nintendo specifically markets it that way. And they did a good job convincing people until now.

If there really is a market for that remains to be seen but it struggling at that price is not clear at all.

There's no indication that the 60 million or so people who own a 3DS care about Nintendo in the console space. Certainly not in Japan, where the console market is dead. An above $200 price point is going to hurt the device with the handheld only group.

 

[EatChildren]

I agree that since Wii it's become apparent that AAA third party has gone. I tried to keep the faith but was reamed by Wii U - Switch is sounding like it's going to be pretty much the same.

As you say it'll be capable of ports, just like someone could take a PS4 game now and make it work on PS3/XBOX 360 if they wanted, but the question is "do they want to". If Nintendo go low power and market to casuals, that's what will be reflected in the software support. They'll get Just Dance, indies and Nintendo games but not a lot more for "enthusiast" gamers.

Sometimes it's not that clear cut either though; porting a game from one set of hardware to another can be very complicated and not entirely possible just by downgrading assets. In theory yes, but a line must be drawn to when the cuts and changes start drastically impacting the designer's vision for the title and impact gameplay. In addition to that as hardware progresses, architecture evolves, and standards are raised, engines themselves (particularly middleware) a built for maximum optimization on current standards and not the antiquated. Even insanely simple games might not technically be feasible on outdated hardware due to massive conflicts of operation, at least not without major changes to the engine which usually aren't worth the effort.

But I mean, Maxwell doesn't have much of a problem with that yet. Pascal is objectively superior (kinda surprised a deal wasn't struck there given Pascal's energy conservation), but yeah. Regardless of clockrates, Maxwell is architecture is suitable to most/all modern games.

Whether or not the rest of the specs can keep up and, if so, at what cost is another matter entirely.

Nintendo's fault to call it a home console. They should've been smart and call it what it is: A fast handheld that can connect to the TV. They're once again trying to play the "we got 3rd party" card when no one cared or at least people pretended to care.

The Wii and Wii U were home consoles. And they had junk hardware by comparison to their direct competitors that was evident in the lack of support (among other reasons).

They might indeed have actual third party support. People just have a different interpretation of what that means; side story game, downgrade, or the mainline AAA titles. Maybe it's more the former and less the latter. Or maybe it's nothing at all.

 

[GhostTrick]

Actually, dock-mode would be a good reason why it would have a fan. A 2.5x increase of the GPU is nothing to sneeze at. My question is why they would need to have it on during HH mode?

Even in dock mode, they could sustain these clocks fanless or with passive cooling.
As I said, I guess they want to keep the device temps lower for a better longetivity of the device. Cost saving measures.

The Wii and Wii U were home consoles. And they had junk hardware by comparison to their direct competitors that was evident in the lack of support (among other reasons).

They might indeed have actual third party support. People just have a different interpretation of what that means; side story game, downgrade, or the mainline AAA titles. Maybe it's more the former and less the latter. Or maybe it's nothing at all.

It'll be the usual 3rd party support: Late port at launch, Test games.
It's clear that Nintendo's best hope with 3rd party support is basically what they've been doing on 3DS: Selected partners and some exclusives in the bunch.

 

[yipchunyu]

Possible the fan is being used to cool off some kind of gsync solution?

 

[bomblord1]

... What article did you read? Because that's not in the article. In fact, you should re-read the last paragraph.

This leaked spec actually appeared on Twitter before Nintendo's official reveal. Thought by many to be out of date or fake, we can confirm that Nintendo has briefed developers recently with the same information. One source tells us that the 4K30 aspect of the spec was not part of the developer presentation, but everything else was. We can assume that the clock-speeds are theoretical maximums, and not the 768/307.2MHz combo we've confirmed as locked in retail hardware.

CPU: Four ARM Cortex A57 cores, max 2GHz
GPU: 256 CUDA cores, maximum 1GHz
Architecture: Nvidia second generation Maxwell
Texture: 16 pixels/cycle
Fill: 14.4 pixels/cycle
Memory: 4GB
Memory Bandwidth: 25.6GB/s
VRAM: shared
System memory: 32GB, max transfer rate: 400MB/s
USB: USB 2.0/3.0
Video output: 1080p60/4K30
Display: 6.2-inch IPS LCD, 1280x720 pixels, 10-point multi-touch support

The second to last paragraph says this

Performance at lower clocks could be boosted by a larger GPU (ie more CUDA cores), but this seems unlikely - even if Switch is using newer 16nm technology, actual transistor density isn't that different to Tegra X1's 20nm process - it's the FinFET '3D' transistors that make the difference. A larger GPU would result in a more expensive chip too, with only limited performance gains. And if Switch is using a more modern 16nm Tegra chip, we would expect Nintendo to follow Nvidia's lead in how the new process is utilised. However, the Tegra X2 features the same CUDA core count and apparently boosts GPU clocks by 50 per cent, the opposite direction taken by Nintendo.

 

[GhostTrick]

Possible the fan is being used to cool off some kind of gsync solution?

Yeah, not happening. Gsync is an expensive technology. That penny pinching company isnt gonna put something that big and expensive when they might be undercutting their new console sor seemingly cost reasons.

Plus I dont think Gsync needs a fan.

 

[crinale]

I also remembered that if they are to implement Thunderbolt 3 via USB-C then that part gets ridiculously hot (I personally have some experience that such device becoming untouchable).

Also, having fan allows you to cool off device regardless of the direction you are holding (air always goes up and would make "heat spots" within device if not forcefully ventilated).
If a device is meant to be held at certain side up, like desktop or even laptop PC, then vendor can rely on passive ventilation because airflow is predicable.

 

[Vena]

The second to last paragraph says this

So where do you see A53?

And there is no X2.

 

[Permanently A]

So is anyone else excited for a super powerful handheld device or is it just me?

More powerful than normal sure, but if it means games running poorly in that mode with lower framerate, no thanks.

 

[GhostTrick]

So where do you see A53?

And there is no X2.

A53 was just a mistake on his part. There's no X2 but there's a Tegra Pascal indeed, which goes up to 1.25Ghz with the same core count. Let's be honest: There's something wrong with these conservative clocks.

Now you'll get two views on this:
-The people thinking it means one or two SM hiding somewhere.
-The people thinking Nintendo is being cheap and safe.

 

[bomblord1]

So where do you see A53?

And there is no X2.

Seems I was wrong there don't know where I seen 53

That still doesn't make a good case for it considering the Shield TV's CPU was being outperformed at double the clock of the Switch when the system launched.

 

[TheAngryMonkey]

You know re-rereading the article.

They pretty definitively say it has 256 CUDA cores. Which is 2SM's. All the customizations in the world won't make up that difference.

The gflop count is lower than the wiiU in handheld mode and the processor is only 4 underclocked A53's.

The A53's are so weak on the Nvidia shield even when running them at twice the clock speed of this system doesn't even turn them on when the system is running benchmarks instead opting for it's A57 CPU's. The A53's running at twice the clock of the Nintendo Switch are reserved for low end tasks like web browsing. on the Shield TV

The memory is running incredibly slow.

Docked the system is significantly outperformed by an Iphone 7 running on its battery.

I'm chalking up the lack of negative dev talk to tighter NDA's the wiiU didn't have the same NDA's at this point in its lifespan. And the initial dev support is probably Nintendo moneyhatting paired with some PR lip service. No dev is going to be able to make even a moderately big PS4/Xbox One game run on the handheld mode

Nintendo screwed up yet again crippling good hardware with incredibly aggressive underclocks for seemingly no discernible reason and then throwing a fan on top of it just to be sure the battery life sucks as well. There's no way around this this is an incredibly weak console and a handheld only barely on par with last years flagship phones. This thing is weak there is no positive way to read this. I've been trying all day and there just isn't I give up you guys win.

This might be true but we can't forget that the iPhone 7 plus, off contract, is over $800. The regular 7 is over 700. Nintendo wants to make money on the device and it has detachable controllers, slots for games and so on. Something's gotta get cut to bring the price down.

 

[bomblord1]

This might be true but we can't forget that the iPhone 7 plus, off contract, is over $800. The regular 7 is over 700. Nintendo wants to make money on the device and it has detachable controllers, slots for games and so on. Something's gotta get cut to bring the price down.

Sadly consumers don't see the Iphone 7 as a $700 device they see is as a free upgrade from their previous model the second they get it paid off or a $30 per month increase on their phone bill.

 

[hooijdonk17]

This might be true but we can't forget that the iPhone 7 plus, off contract, is over $800. The regular 7 is over 700. Nintendo wants to make money on the device and it has detachable controllers, slots for games and so on. Something's gotta get cut to bring the price down.

You cant make money on dirt by selling it at a penny.

 

[MuchoMalo]

Seems I was wrong there don't know where I seen 53

That still doesn't make a good case for it considering the Shield TV's CPU was being outperformed at double the clock of the Switch when the system launched.

Yeah. Basically, we have an average-to-weak handheld (for 2017 expectations) and a pathetic console. There's nothing special about this. A Vita successor would likely match this in docked mode as a portable.

What really stings is, as much as people want to attack Nintendo fans, these specs just go against everything that was rumored. It's really not our fault that expectations were too high because everything was pointing to it be 50% faster than this. Even the Venturebeat article.

 

[bomblord1]

Yeah. Basically, we have an average handheld and a pathetic console. There's nothing special about this.

Yea :/

 

[GhostTrick]

Yeah. Basically, we have an average-to-weak handheld (for 2017 expectations) and a pathetic console. There's nothing special about this. A Vita successor would likely match this in docked mode as a portable.

Lol no. As a handheld, it's pretty fast. It's in the same range as an iPhone 6s or a Galaxy S7. Except that it's driving a 720p screen.
As for Vita successor... You mean the same Vita which had even more conservative clocks, with a 333mhz CPU instead of the 1.8Ghz the architecture could run and a 222mhz GPU instead of the 400mhz found in others ?
A Vita successor would likely sit in the same range of clocks.

 

[Vena]

Yeah. Basically, we have an average-to-weak handheld (for 2017 expectations) and a pathetic console. There's nothing special about this. A Vita successor would likely match this in docked mode as a portable.

lol

Stop pulling shit out of your ass. I swear you have a compulsive need to make stuff up and hyperbole.

 

[lwilliams3]

A53 was just a mistake on his part. There's no X2 but there's a Tegra Pascal indeed, which goes up to 1.25Ghz with the same core count. Let's be honest: There's something wrong with these conservative clocks.

Now you'll get two views on this:
-The people thinking it means one or two SM hiding somewhere.
-The people thinking Nintendo is being cheap and safe.

Ha. Well, we already know you think the latter, but it is nice to see that you also see something is off.

Btw, what is the iPhone 7's GPU performance?

 

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

Hopefully the thing is priced accordingly.

 

[ggx2ac]

The second to last paragraph says this

Performance at lower clocks could be boosted by a larger GPU (ie more CUDA cores), but this seems unlikely - even if Switch is using newer 16nm technology, actual transistor density isn't that different to Tegra X1's 20nm process - it's the FinFET '3D' transistors that make the difference. A larger GPU would result in a more expensive chip too, with only limited performance gains. And if Switch is using a more modern 16nm Tegra chip, we would expect Nintendo to follow Nvidia's lead in how the new process is utilised. However, the Tegra X2 features the same CUDA core count and apparently boosts GPU clocks by 50 per cent, the opposite direction taken by Nintendo.

I'm starting to think it's less likely for the Switch to have 3 SM now.

What would be cheaper?

20nm SoC with 3 SM for the GPU?

Or

16nmFF SoC with 2 SM but clocked higher? (It would have to be 461 MHz to match the 3 SM config above for 236 GFlops in portable mode.)

Basically, I can't see any reason for the SoC to use a 16nmFF node when the GPU is clocked at 307.2 MHz. But then, the question is, would it be cheaper to add another SM as opposed to a die shrink?

This is still without knowing what the CPU is either.

 

[MuchoMalo]

An average handheld, not at all. That thing is in the same range as a Galaxy S7 in 3D benchmarks.

I edited to clarify. It's only 6x the Vita on paper in handheld mode. Do you honestly think that a potential Vita successor wouldn't have been far ahead of that, potentially even matching Switch's docked mode? I just don't get it. It doesn't make any sense. Why the fuck does this piece of trash...


Okay, I think I get it now. Switch isn't on 20nm; it's on 28nm. That's the only way to explain it having a fan with these specs. Nintendo really went as cheap as possible.

I'm starting to think it's less likely for the Switch to have 3 SM now.

What would be cheaper?

20nm SoC with 3 SM for the GPU?

Or

16nmFF SoC with 2 SM but clocked higher? (It would have to be 461 MHz to match the 3 SM config above for 236 GFlops in portable mode.)

Basically, I can't see any reason for the SoC to use a 16nmFF node when the GPU is clocked at 307.2 MHz. But then, the question is, would it be cheaper to add another SM as opposed to a die shrink?

This is still without knowing what the CPU is either.

Adding another SM would be more expensive. I think it's 28nm. That explains everything.

lol

Stop pulling shit out of your ass. I swear you have a compulsive need to make stuff up and hyperbole.

Shut up, stop talking to me. I'm sick of your shit. Just add me to your ignore list and never reply to me again.

 

[GhostTrick]

Ha. Well, we already know you think the latter, but it is nice to see that you also see something is off.

Btw, what is the iPhone 7's GPU performance?

Something's off because it's way below what they could potentially be. Now sorry but it's Nintendo. They're not the kind to make such a decision because of a powerful hardware but more like because it's either for longetivity or because they're cheaping out on something.

I edited to clarify. It's only 6x the Vita on paper in handheld mode. Do you honestly think that a potential Vita successor wouldn't have been far ahead of that, potentially even matching Switch's docked mode? I just don't get it. It doesn't make any sense. Why the fuck does this piece of trash...


Okay, I think I get it now. Switch isn't on 20nm; it's on 28nm. That's the only way to explain it having a fan with these specs. Nintendo really went as cheap as possible.

Only 6 times in RAW Gflops numbers. That's without accounting the fact that Maxwell architecture mops the floor with that 2008 PowerVR architecture and also because you can't compare different architectures flop to flop. It'd be like saying GTX1080 is on par with Fury X because of the Tflops count when it's in fact a lot faster.

In the end, you'd end up with something 10 times faster than a Vita. The same goes for the CPU btw.

And yes, I honestly feel a Vita successor would be the same as what the actual Switch is, undocked. Because that's basically what Vita was. People are having a sort of meltdown because clockspeeds were leaked. If it didn't' we'd see Switch as a different handheld.
If Vita clocks leaked back then, oh boooy the thread would've been full of meltdowns.

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

Yeah. Basically, we have an average-to-weak handheld (for 2017 expectations)

I was awaiting you getting back into character.
I'm pleased but can't say the same for my brain.

 

[facetheslayer92]

You know re-rereading the article.

They pretty definitively say it has 256 CUDA cores. Which is 2SM's. All the customizations in the world won't make up that difference.

The gflop count is lower than the wiiU in handheld mode and the processor is only 4 underclocked A53's.

The A57s are so weak on the Nvidia shield even when running them at twice the clock speed of this was outperformed on many CPU benches at the launch of the device.

The memory is running incredibly slow.

Docked the system is significantly outperformed by an Iphone 7 running on its battery.

I'm chalking up the lack of negative dev talk to tighter NDA's the wiiU didn't have the same NDA's at this point in its lifespan. And the initial dev support is probably Nintendo moneyhatting paired with some PR lip service. No dev is going to be able to make even a moderately big PS4/Xbox One game run on the handheld mode

Nintendo screwed up yet again crippling good hardware with incredibly aggressive underclocks for seemingly no discernible reason and then throwing a fan on top of it just to be sure the battery life sucks as well. There's no way around this this is an incredibly weak console and a handheld only barely on par with last years flagship phones. This thing is weak there is no positive way to read this. I've been trying all day and there just isn't I give up you guys win.

No please give us some good news :/

 

[Siddiqui]

Yeah, not happening. Gsync is an expensive technology. That penny pinching company isnt gonna put something that big and expensive when they might be undercutting their new console sor seemingly cost reasons.

Plus I dont think Gsync needs a fan.

Apparently the module itself isn't expensive. According to Nvidia’s Tom Petersen: "Petersen says any price disparity between comparable G-Sync and FreeSync monitors is not due to the module, whose cost he says is 'relatively minor.'" http://www.pcworld.com/article/3129...ia-g-sync-on-monitor-selection-and-price.html

Also, it does not always need the module. For example, Gsync laptops don't need the extra hardware. It's expensive because Nvidia and/or monitor manufacturers charge for "value." It's true though that even if they did offer Nintendo a reasonable price they may still refuse it.

 

[Persona7]

I fully expect the switch to retail for $199.

Not with the Nintendo tax, dock, cables, and joy-cons it won't.

 

[MuchoMalo]

I was awaiting you getting back into character.
I'm pleased but can't say the same for my brain.

Then ignore me and leave me alone.

 

[MuchoMalo]

Not with the Nintendo tax, dock and joy-cons it won't.

There's no such thing as a "Nintendo tax," unless by that you mean that you feel that it should be sold at a loss.

 

[Velocity:Design:Comfort]

Then ignore me and leave me alone.

If numerous people (per page) are telling you youre the problem and you can only say you want them to ignore you...maybe just realize you are the problem and act differently.


Anyway to actually talk about the Switch, I can't say I care very much. 60 million ps4s and x1s already exist to play shooters or assassins creed. I have one myself. After all NeoGAF will even say PCs make them irrelevant. But Mario looks really good to me which is really all that matters - what games actually are going to look like. And we have a general idea. Not some numbers about clocks.

Will people at a Gamestop or on Amazon see Pokemon Stars, Mario Kart, and Animal Crossing and think its too weak? They probably already have another console. But those don't have the franchises they really like. There's already evidence of a huge recession in graphically intensive big budget titles sales.

 

[AzaK]

There's no such thing as a "Nintendo tax," unless by that you mean that you feel that it should be sold at a loss.

Of course there is. Nintendo charge way too much for what they deliver. The Wii U was almost as much as a PS4 and the Wii was a pile of shit they charged $250 for. Nintendo thinks the sun shines out of their arses, and they charge accordingly. $10 for Super Mario Run. No/few game price drops.

 

[lwilliams3]

I edited to clarify. It's only 6x the Vita on paper in handheld mode. Do you honestly think that a potential Vita successor wouldn't have been far ahead of that, potentially even matching Switch's docked mode? I just don't get it. It doesn't make any sense. Why the fuck does this piece of trash...


Okay, I think I get it now. Switch isn't on 20nm; it's on 28nm. That's the only way to explain it having a fan with these specs. Nintendo really went as cheap as possible.



Adding another SM would be more expensive. I think it's 28nm. That explains everything.



Shut up, stop talking to me. I'm sick of your shit. Just add me to your ignore list and never reply to me again.

The PSVita GPU by default ran @ 111MHz, so it is around 15 GFLOPS. Excluding other architectural advantages, the Switch is already over 10x that system.

For your sake, I really hope your meltdowns are not real.

 

[Risette]

This might be true but we can't forget that the iPhone 7 plus, off contract, is over $800. The regular 7 is over 700. Nintendo wants to make money on the device and it has detachable controllers, slots for games and so on. Something's gotta get cut to bring the price down.

the iPhone 7 Plus also has a top-binned screen, high quality machined metal chassis, high quality small camera(s) and lenses, cellular electronics, and extremely high Apple margins baked in.

 

[Generalpsyduck]

So how does this compare to a wii u?