wonderful103
Member
The current system is pretty well as powerful as a tablet can be short of a much higher pricetag.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Confirmed: The Nintendo Switch is powered by an Nvidia Tegra X1
- Thread starter FZZ
- Start date
- Status
The current system is pretty well as powerful as a tablet can be short of a much higher pricetag.
Flying Toaster
Member
This is how I feel. A lot of people complain but this tech is crazy at the price point.
SuicideUZI
Member
Their exclusive games already looked great on the WiiU and this is an upgrade from that so I'm fine with it. Anyone who ever expects Nintendo to release a console with the best specs at this point are only setting themselves up for disappointment. I buy Nintendo hardware for Nintendo exclusive content and I have a PC for whatever else I want to play. Also when you consider that its basically a tablet that comes with a few accessories including all the tech built into the joy-cons its a pretty reasonable price. A 32GB iPad Air 2 with no accessories is $399 granted the iPad Air 2 has a superior display, but you get the point
Night Angel
Member
That's not what I said. I said people would inevitably complain as long as the output from Nintendo rivaled the last generation.
There are legitimate reasons for that to be the case (form factor, profit margins, etc). I understand those limitations.
I can still wish they had released a console capable of current gen performance.
Not the best hardware compared to everyone else but certainly good enough for a handheld hybrid? There has to be a balance between battery life, performance and costs. If everyone wanted the best value for money hardware, it's always PC.
I mean, beyond GAF, how many people will care if it's Tegra or Intel Celeron? For example, lots of consumers buy PS4s without knowing what specs it is, they just know PS4 Pro = 4K console, PS4 = great console with games.
I mean, beyond GAF, how many people will care if it's Tegra or Intel Celeron? For example, lots of consumers buy PS4s without knowing what specs it is, they just know PS4 Pro = 4K console, PS4 = great console with games.
For a handheld, the graphics on the Switch are amazing and will only get better as time goes on. It also looks great on my TV, and I don't think it's feasible right now to make it much more powerful in its current hybrid format without increasing the price or compromising the battery. My first ever home console was the Xbox 360 and so I have always only been used to HD gaming, but the Switch's graphical output is great for me. I find it interesting that so many people think that the Switch is graphically underwhelming as if you showed BOTW running on a handheld only 20 years ago, people would have been amazed that it was even possible. Seems like nowadays we have high expectations of what the graphics of game should be even though we have already come so far in such a short period of time.
Price point and portable form factor are exactly the kind of compromises I was talking about. If Nintendo had wanted to be competitive, then they'd build something with the power of a PS4 or greater, and the reason they didn't do so was because they felt that they couldn't compete.
Astral Dog
Member
Ithought it was Ni Oh
That's fine and all for you to wish for something else but recognize that it's easy to say a company should take certain risks and much more difficult to actually make those choices. You can't possibly believe it's impossible for Nintendo to be competitive in the console market with the Switch. Doing what you're asking for may have led to success too but a case can be made that it would be far riskier for Nintendo as a company that employs hundreds to compete directly with hardware specs and in the same corner of the market as the other two manufacturers. That said, it's not like the Switch doesn't take its own share of risks.
wonderful103
Member
It's not hard to go to a hardware manufacturer and say "give me this, for this approximate pricepoint". That's what Sony did. That's what MS did. That's what Nintendo did.
But this device replacing/converging both product lines necessitated the current strategy.
And, in my (and their) opiniong, pursuing one that would require an identical strategy to 2 other near-identical consoles would be fruitless regardless. Especially since they wouldn't get anywhere close to the same major third party publisher support no matter what kind of box they put out.
And why would they want to. Why throw another console out to compete with Xbox and PlayStation when they can create something unique and interesting and probably outsell them all anyway. I'm not the craziest hardcore gamer out there, and when I heard of all this Playstation 4 Pro and Project Scorpio crap I couldn't have been more disinterested. Yay another box that's got a little more power begging for my large amounts of cash. Nintendo have played it smart once again, just like they did in the Wii days. But this time they've actually created the most powerful handheld gaming machine ever, which boosts in performance even further when you plug it into a TV. Thing's a beast.
GankzyMcfly
Member
Basically sums up my feelings as well. Im not trying to suggest that nintendo is using bad hardware or that they didnt go with the best possible option given the circumstance but ultimately i feel like the switch is roughly 100 dollars overpriced based on whats inside of it (my own personal opinion one doesnt have to agree with). I can imagine cheaper high end smart phones/tablets 2 years from now being more powerful then the switch at a cheaper price....again im not suggesting power is everything...if nintendo released a weak ass 50 dollar home console but also released a ton of 1st party exclusive games on it at a healthy pace, id likely be down to clown...hell if they made a home console version of switch that was just the dock itself with no joycons or anything just the fucking SOC and a slot for external storage....and actually priced it reasonably... Id be all in..unfortunately nintendo is the nike of console producers imo...my friends and i always joke that nike shoes cost a little bit more then any other shoe just for the check mark on the side.. Nintendos hardware similarly costs more then the exact same hardware sold by another producer simply because its got the nintendo brand slapped all over it.
wonderful103
Member
Receipts.gif ?
The 2017 Shield TV is exactly $100 cheaper and includes a lot less shit. Including memory and screen.
Pasedo
Member
Really it's all in Nintendo's core philosophy of fun experiences. Hardware specs is secondary because their hardware design choices are based on achieving that experience. I'm glad Nintendo is not trying to be like every one else. The day they do is the day they will die and the earth will flood for 40 days and 40 nights.
GankzyMcfly
Member
Its got like 1 gig less ram and like half the onboard storage...based on what i can remember. Anyhow i would argue shield tv is arguably more reasonably priced (although i would still suggest its a tad overpriced)...i would sooner buy a shield tv then a switch at this point though (but tbh the odds of me buying either are slim). The first generation shield tablet (i believe its the k1) is likely the best bang for buck scenario but only if you buy used (again, just my opinion).
Edit: additionally i forgot to mention originally but half the onboard storage is insiginficant imo when your talking about the difference between 16 and 32 gigs.. In both scenarios your likely going to go about expanding your storage space but again thats just another opinion.
Herb Alpert
Banned
Ho you want a Nintendo PS4. But why? There already is something called PS4 and something quite the same called XBOX ONE.
Leave the power race to them, Nintendo won't take part of this anymore.
wonderful103
Member
I enjoyed this journey.
Let's go look on Craigslist for used Switches together, hand-in-hand.
While we're there, we can look for 2017 ShieldTVs (because that's the only comparable product in your imaginary scenario) that have screens, double the storage, extra memory, and far more advanced control mechanisms. For $100 less. I'm sure during this journey it is something we shall come across.
Night Angel
Member
Because a portable mode has no use for me. I do all of my gaming at home, and as a home console the Switch leaves much to be desired. I'd like to play Nintendo games on modern home console hardware instead of modern portable hardware.
Nintendo can choose to release hardware that produces last-gen results. I can choose to wish it were otherwise. If the PS4 or XB1 got Nintendo games (and especially Monster Hunter) I'd take no issue with the limited specs, but given my only option to play BOTW on my (brother's) TV is at 900p with frequent frame drops, I wish it were better.
Peterthumpa
Member
You forgot something: games worth playing.
It has more to do with them targeting a portable form factor than last gen specs.
Herb Alpert
Banned
so, just a traditional "nintendo should go third party" rant. OK
And MH isn't a nintendo game. Given the strange stance from Capcom about the switch, I wouldn't write a playstation Monster hunter off yet.
Oh the old "it's got no games" thing, how cute.
Peterthumpa
Member
I was talking about the Shield, lol.
Night Angel
Member
No, it's not that either. I'm not sure why you're trying to make it seem like I'm saying something I'm not.
I'm perfectly happy buying Nintendo hardware if it's good. I'm not a fan of their target/goals this time around. Saying "buy a PS4 instead" does nothing for me as a fan of Nintendo's games but not their current hardware. Why can't I wish they did things differently without being put in a "rant" bucket?
Pasedo
Member
Btw. Just thought I'd say that I've been a devout follower of these Nintendo hardware speculation threads all the way back to the Wii U and I've figured out a formula to predict performance of future Nintendo hardware. It's simply take the most conservative assumptions from these threads and devide by 2 and that will give you an accurate ball park of its power. Lol.
I could argue that Nintendo don't seem to have done anything custom on this. If half the CPU cores aren't used and it still has standard X1 features like the 4k hardware decode etc then it isn't as efficient as it could have been. They could have taken that out and had a smaller (=cheaper) chip, shrunk to 16nm for power savings (=higher performance or longer battery life), or possibly taken some tech from the upcoming generation like Sony did with AMD.
But history seems to show nvidia perhaps not being as flexible as AMD when it comes to supplying custom chips for consoles so it isn't entirely surprising that it is standard. And it is still an insanely huge jump forward as a handheld - especially when compared to 3DS rather than vita.
TLZ
Banned
I bet you no one would be complaining if this was marketed as a HH.
TLZ
Banned
So you're disinterested in power when it's in a box but highly praise it when it's in a handheld. Isn't that double standard? This has actually been the gist of many here. They say they don't care about power but when it's a handheld they praise its power to high heavens. On the other end of the spectrum there are people who want the exact opposite. I for one want power in both, but I don't know how feasible that is. They've achieved power in handheld now, so maybe next they can achieve power in docked mode by releasing a dock that adds it? Just a hope, and again I don't know if or how that is possible.
GankzyMcfly
Member
With the lack of stock on the switch i wouldn't be surprised if it cost more to buy it used for the next few months...something thats not usually the case with most hardware as you point out.
lol not sure why you're going on about the shield TV. I never claimed it was a great value device or anything so this is kind of a straw man argument ultimately. Comparing one extremely overpriced device with another slightly less overpriced device and claiming the first has better functionality doesn't really change the fact that their both ultimately overpriced pieces of hardware that will likely become laughably under powered compared to things like cellphones and tablets in no less then a couple of years...(at least thats how i see things panning out but if you have some divine wisdom that you feel might enlighten me im all ears).
wonderful103
Member
It doesn't take a genius to look at the device and, you know... see the device for what it is. If marketing told you it was a walrus, would you still call this the Nintendo walrus?
Here's where a subjective opinion ("these devices are overpriced") is presented as fact. Would you have called the 3ds overpriced at its launch of 250? Lots of people did. Lots of threads about how the BOM was like 120 bucks or whatever those shitty estimates were. Lots of complaining. And it seems rightfully so, as the price dropped like a rock shortly after launch. BUT... when it did, nintendo was selling them at a pretty hefty per device loss.
Tldr: you nor anyone else here knows exactly how much these things cost including build/test/package/ship/store margin/etc. You can certainly articulate how YOU feel, but it's on the market to decide the relative value for the price. As it stands, the shieldtv certainly presents the case that this is the best the product can be for 300usd.
Milly Osworth
Member
Nintendo going with Nvidia is a great choice. Imagine if they went with some weirdass custom shit like in 3DS.
Given the type of system that Nintendo wanted to build I don't think there was really any other choice besides the Tegra.
What they did with the 3DS was perfect for its time and ultimately allowed for the 2DS to be sold at under $100 while pushing graphics like RE: Revelations. Switch is attempting to do something entirely different.
Not my words, it comes from the horse's mouth: Nintendo America/Europe said it's their new home console system.
Ocarina of Time was possible because the N64 was significantly more powerful than the PS1, so yeah it does fit my narrative.
The underpowered argument for Xbox One and PS4 doesn't work for one reason: as "underpowered" as they might be compared to a gaming PC, they are still the standard right now in console gaming and get all the multiplatform games for that reason.
Nintendo choosing the portability route, with a Tegra X1, makes it so third parties who want to port their games to the Switch need to do some serious optimization, and I mean, reaaaaally serious.
What comes from that ? Games a lot of people are looking forward to, like Red Dead Redemption 2 for example, have no chance of releasing on the Switch.
You mostly see little indie games (which are awesome, don't get me wrong) on the Switch when we talk third party.
b00_thegh0st
Member
What makes you think the Switch audience care for games like RDR? Just as GTA it's a poor 3rd person shooter that lets you ride horses instead of driving cars. Guns & cars, R* only cares for the young male's fantasy. There are other (and larger) demographics out there.
You are missing the point, Nintendo knows that they can´t compete directly in the main home console market, they would have failed miserably with a home box against a huge installed base of Ps4/XboxOne and Ps4Pro/Scopio iterations.
And portability is not a gimmick, Switch is already Nintendo next portable and the only reason they are not calling it directly is because they are trying use some lateral thinking to try to stay relevant in the TV space or just in case Switch fails and they have to back down to a cheaper 4DS or something.
Fortunately it seems that Switch has had a good start and has some momentum and we can enjoy having a quantum leap in Nintendo portables with the added bonus of playing them decently on TV.
This is a self defeating argument.
Nintendo absolutely could compete with a powerful home console and industry standard storage, fully integrated online services, web browser, conventional controls etc.
They simply either can't afford to or choose not to that's the top and bottom of it.
This underpowered gimmicky bullshit they have gone for over the last couple of generations is entirely their own choice.
Nintendo absolutely could compete with a powerful home console and industry standard storage, fully integrated online services, web browser, conventional controls etc.
They simply either can't afford to or choose not to that's the top and bottom of it.
This underpowered gimmicky bullshit they have gone for over the last couple of generations is entirely their own choice.
Of course it will, because until a battery can supply the same maximum power output as the National Grid, portable devices will never catch up to mains powered consoles.
To be clear, they targeted the best available option in a mobile form factor, at a marketable cost. They don't design consoles specifically targeting the 'last generations specification'. That's not how product design works.
And where is the market for another powerful high end home console? What is it about that home console that is going to attract more third parties (and thus wider market appeal) than their current device? Sure they could absolutely build a cutting edge console, nothing stopping them. But they know that its not a marketable proposition. Again, this isn't how product design works.
Another genius, power depands on clocks so you can set clock so cpu will draw less than 15 W as was shown in link that I gave, tegra x2 consumed 5W and was on level with tegra x1 that consume almost 10W. And if you take away denver cpu (much faster than cpu in tegra x1) you still have double bandwidth and 16nm with higher clocks and less power consumption. But you don't have to take away denver cores as it was proven in benchmarks.
mario_O
Member
I think Nintendo has chosen underpowered consoles because it's cheaper to develop games. The HD era of games requires a lot more money to develop, and Nintendo doesn't like to produce AAA games. They normally do a few each gen. Then smaller games and "party games", and third party. Their first really ambitious open world HD game is Zelda, and it still doesnt look like a 2017 game.
You are deluding yourself if you think Nintendo could scratch the home stronghold of Ps4/X1 now, maybe 3 years ago they could have done something or when Ps5 X2 land some years down the road, but right now? Not a bloody chance.
Funny thing is that if Switch is truly successful we may have a chance down the road to a more capable home Switch compatible system, so this approach can potentially be a win-win for everyone.
Pasedo
Member
I think when the 'Nintendo should join the hardware power race' argument is brought up, the Gamecube is usually referenced. It was a beast at the time but sold less than the Xbox and PS2. What they probably learnt is it made them very little money and they had very little differentiation. Then when they went the opposite way with the Wii they made alot of money and sold more consoles than their competitors. To them it was an important lesson.
mario_O
Member
The problem with the gamecube was not the power. You can make a powerful machine and be successful, like the PS4.
Yeah the Gamecube certainly had some weird issues like the controller that had less buttons than the competition and the smaller media size. It would be interesting to see how the Gamecube would of done if those weren't factors.
Reading through the last pages in this thread makes me miss the middle ground. Like Nintendo can't realistically be competitive with a high powered and expensive console but also Zelda BotW would definitely benefit so much from a more powerful hardware. From framerate to the ugly textures and aliasing. No, art doesn't compensate for everything.
But this seem to be realistically the best specs Nintendo could have used for their proposed scope. And the hybrid idea is more or less the only way out for Nintendo from the corner they put themselves in. Anything else are rather dreams that realistic scenarios.
But this seem to be realistically the best specs Nintendo could have used for their proposed scope. And the hybrid idea is more or less the only way out for Nintendo from the corner they put themselves in. Anything else are rather dreams that realistic scenarios.
No, he's right.
If all we're talking is a beastly powerful home machine then if Nintendo wanted to build that they could. They've got the cash to afford the R&D. They simply don't want to. Whether it would be successful is another thing and the GameCube may have taught them that lesson.
Pasedo
Member
Yeh. I guess it was from that point that Nintendo changed their strategy and still keeps it today. Guess you can't blame them for being this way after going from Gamecube to monumental success of Wii with a change to this approach. Perhaps today it's outdated and people are again demanding more power and with it more eye candy and performance. Guess we'll know in a year whether the lower powered gimmick approach still works with the success or failure of the Switch.
Well then he's not right, because that's exactly what the post you replied to is saying. They could build the powerful console, anyone could. It's not rocket science. But is it a marketable proposition? No it isn't. There is no room in the market for another high-powered console. It's got absolutely nothing to do with "wanting" to. It's about what can make money.
- Status