Schnozberry
Member
There's zero chance the Switch has 4 SM's. That would be ready apparent the photos we are looking at today. It would be a much larger chip.
There's zero chance the Switch has 4 SM's. That would be ready apparent the photos we are looking at today. It would be a much larger chip.
Seriously, battery tech is utter trash. To put it into perspective 4320Mah at 3.5V is about 15Wh which is equal to 54kj or 13kcal. This big battery stores as much energy as 1.5 grams of oil. The energy density of batteries is pathetic.
There's zero chance the Switch has 4 SM's. That would be ready apparent the photos we are looking at today. It would be a much larger chip.
but the size difference between a Xavier 512 cores on the right vs a Parker's 256 cores on the left (bottom SoCs in that setup), are on first impression, identical..
Also limitations on USB type c not supporting turbo/quick charge
Naw TX1 is 2SM, 256 cores. 4SM would be 512 cores.
Personally i think it's not possible, at least not in the same form factor as the new shield android TV (2017) that we saw in this thread. 2SM -> 4SM with nearly identical sizes? Maybe someone more technical could clear things up, but i don't think that's even possible.
16nmFF is roughly the same density as 20nm, where would they fit 2 more SM in there?
Xavier isn't on 20nm. Wouldn't think too much on the render, it's not even a render of the chips under the IHS. The GPU on TX1 is the largest block, doubling it has to go somewhere. Not enough stuff to remove to get to there.
All games run at 1060fps and it has 875 gflops what more is there to understand. it's a dream machine.What is being said in those cellphones discussions? Anyone can translate?
It annoys me when people say the Switch is outdated. It's amazing that they achieved such a sleek yet powerful console. For the first time in a while it doesn't feel like Nintendo cheaped out at all and that makes me excited. The upgrade from 3DS is nuts
Here is a Wii U for comparison
Four years and three months ago, you mean.The wii u was only released about 3 years and 2 months ago. Its a testament to technology that they can fit more than twice the power of the Wii U into an infinitely smaller design
The wii u was only released about 3 years and 2 months ago. Its a testament to technology that they can fit more than twice the power of the Wii U into an infinitely smaller design
The wii u was only released about 3 years and 2 months ago. Its a testament to technology that they can fit more than twice the power of the Wii U into an infinitely smaller design
Four years and three months ago, you mean.
Blows my mind that something this size:
=
Also limitations on USB type c not supporting turbo/quick charge
We don't know yetIt is Tegra X1-Nintendo customized version confirmed right?
I was thinking the same thing in my earlier post and for the fun of it i wanted to see if any tegra ever had 4SM to compare.
Well actually they have a 512 core tegra coming up, Xavier.
(1) Not that i think it's possible
(2) I'm not saying Switch is pascal or volta
but the size difference between a Xavier 512 cores on the right vs a Parker's 256 cores on the left (bottom SoCs in that setup), are on first impression, identical..
It is Tegra X1-Nintendo customized version confirmed right?
The wii u was only released about 3 years and 2 months ago. Its a testament to technology that they can fit more than twice the power of the Wii U into an infinitely smaller design
The wii u was only released about 3 years and 2 months ago. Its a testament to technology that they can fit more than twice the power of the Wii U into an infinitely smaller design
The wiiu was outdated upon release though. I'm still pretty impressed on where we are in mobile tech, especially the jump they are making from 3ds to Switch
What is being said in those cellphones discussions? Anyone can translate?
Other than the useless bullshit about poorly treated and pissed off ex-employee that didn't have to sign a NDA and bleh bleh.
In standby mode, the thing runs at 314MHz CPU clock speed and 275MHz GPU clock speed. Keep in mind that that's standby mode speed, not operational.
When doing a benchmark called Julia running at 480x360, the FPS is 267FPS, whereas the PSVita benched at 82FPS. The combined CPU and GPU power is at about 375.06 GFLOPS.
After docking(I assume that's what the person is trying to say with the follow up information,) the CPU is running at 2.1GHz with the GPU maxing out at 1005 MHz. The benchmark ran at 806FPS@875.66GFLOPS CPU and GPU combined whereas the X1 ran at 1060FPS, PS4 at 1349 FPS, and the PS4Pro at 2983FPS..
So it supports what is shown here?
I feel very old
The odds are much worse than that.My guess.
Nintendo Switch custom Tegra has 256 GPU cuda cores: ~ 99% likely.
Nintendo Switch custom Tegra has 512 GPU cuda cores: ~ 1% likely.
What does GAF seriously think?
A few thoughts:
This is a "prototype" unit for Fcc which was done on August 3rd, that means this is the July devkits we have here. Nothing more.
The 32GB of internal storage would be fine given this isn't a final devkit which might have offered more and is why it is removable as they weren't sure what they were doing yet.
The Foxconn test with the high clocks happened on final hardware, that couldn't be done on 20nm because the cpu clock is just too high, however it might not be final cpu clock speed because they might have wanted to stress the system a bit? Though that last part is speculative, I would also suggest that the 921mhz number is final for the GPU.
I was originally wondering why it would use 2 chip modules for 64bit bandwidth, but this is almost certainly the July devkit which we know used a modified X1 with 64bit bandwidth so this fits.
This isn't a later devkit because they wouldn't hold the chip until the end of October to release the next devkit.
The clock increase on the cpu could be because developers told Nintendo it was too low when they gave the clocks for launch, so they changed it to make someone happy, if they are willing to add memory, they are willing to shrink the soc die.
Stop the pascal nonsense, x1 on 16nm is basically pascal in terms of performance. X1 is a prototype pascal chip anyways, with many of the architecture changes that pascal received.
Lastly, I find it interesting that they would have space for 2 memory chips on the board when one would be cheaper, use less energy and be a simpler design.
Yeah the switch doesn't seem to be outdated, even with July devkits and eurogamer's clocks, it would be very similar to the ps4 in terms of tech used at time of release when form factor is taken into account. The pixel c for instance seems to throttle heavy after just a few minutes.
Switch more than doubling the gpu performance when docked is pretty great.
Lastly for anyone wondering what the comparison to wii u is, with eurogamer's clocks, the raw performance of maxwell chip with 157gflops is about 60% faster than wii u and ~4 times faster when docked. We see this with fast racing port, who is likely the only developer pushing both wii u and switch on their architectures.
With Foxconn, the undocked performance is 100% faster and close to 5 times wii u when docked. I'm not talking about mixed precision but games made in engines that take advantage of it, especially automatically would improve drastically and can really make a large difference, pushing even the eurogamer clocks of an undocked switch to around 160% faster than wii u.
We are going to hear a lot about mixed precision over the next few years, with AMD going all out with fp8 even thrown around, (don't expect it to be used for much but fp16 is viable for all pixel work afaik)
Engines will get more and more automated with pixel shader code and post processing effects, pushing fp16. It wouldn't surprise me for switch games in 2019 to look like they were made on a different device altogether.
thank you tooOther than the useless bullshit about poorly treated and pissed off ex-employee that didn't have to sign a NDA and bleh bleh.
In standby mode, the thing runs at 314MHz CPU clock speed and 275MHz GPU clock speed. Keep in mind that that's standby mode speed, not operational.
When doing a benchmark called Julia running at 480x360, the FPS is 267FPS, whereas the PSVita benched at 82FPS. The combined CPU and GPU power is at about 375.06 GFLOPS.
After docking(I assume that's what the person is trying to say with the follow up information,) the CPU is running at 2.1GHz with the GPU maxing out at 1005 MHz. The benchmark ran at 806FPS@875.66GFLOPS CPU and GPU combined whereas the X1 ran at 1060FPS, PS4 at 1349 FPS, and the PS4Pro at 2983FPS..
When are we expecting someone like iFixit to break this down and break down what's in the SoC, anyways? What's the wait on that, just so all this speculative discussion can be over with?
Anyone else thinks that green PCBs look dated?
Give me a black PCB, or at least blue.
Preorder cancelled.
The odds are much worse than that.
The current-gen NVIDIA Shield only comes with the X1 - they haven't got anything better right now, nor anytime soon. If there's some great Pascal or Volta Tegra coming any time soon, NV wouldn't be releasing a new Shield until it's ready. They're so stuck on this Tegra business that they have two Shield generations using the same Tegra SoC, one of them that's only been out for a month, while the first has been out for almost two years.
The Switch isn't coming with a magical new Tegra chip or a magical GTX 1060 in the dock.
Those GPU numbers sounds strange. The X1's system clock is 76.8MHz, so I would have expected the clockspeeds to adjust to numbers divisible by that. Both the Eurogamer and foxcon report used GPU numbers that was divisible by 76.8, so I have doubts.Other than the useless bullshit about poorly treated and pissed off ex-employee that didn't have to sign a NDA and bleh bleh.
In standby mode, the thing runs at 314MHz CPU clock speed and 275MHz GPU clock speed. Keep in mind that that's standby mode speed, not operational.
When doing a benchmark called Julia running at 480x360, the FPS is 267FPS, whereas the PSVita benched at 82FPS. The combined CPU and GPU power is at about 375.06 GFLOPS.
After docking(I assume that's what the person is trying to say with the follow up information,) the CPU is running at 2.1GHz with the GPU maxing out at 1005 MHz. The benchmark ran at 806FPS@875.66GFLOPS CPU and GPU combined whereas the X1 ran at 1060FPS, PS4 at 1349 FPS, and the PS4Pro at 2983FPS..
Those GPU numbers sounds strange. The X1's system clock is 76.8MHz, so I would have expected the clockspeeds to adjust to numbers divisible by that. Both the Eurogamer and foxcon report used GPU numbers that was divisible by 76.8, so I have doubts.
Just out of interest, why do people repeatedly say they don't want a powerhouse console from Nintendo, that they would prefer they did their own thing and then spend many, many pages trying to work out if Nintendo have some hidden hardware, or if their hardware is actually more powerful than it first seems?
They did the same for the Wii U and now the Switch, I thought hardware power didn't matter?