Haha, AAA is nowhere near the largest gaming audience, that easily goes to mobile. And Switch easily has enough power to give a AAA experience anyway... just look at Zelda.
-
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
Haha, AAA is nowhere near the largest gaming audience, that easily goes to mobile. And Switch easily has enough power to give a AAA experience anyway... just look at Zelda.
It's pretty clear we are just being trolled and baited.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
It has enough for a Wii U port.
It doesn't have enough for the Mass Effect: Andromedas and Final Fantasy VII Remakes of the world, and large game card capacity cost might be an issue there too.
How is BOTW any less of a AAA experience?
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
I'm saying there's just not enough juice for every AAA experience out there. I agree with you on BOTW. It's fine, Nintendo needs to do their own thing, and the power is fantastic for mobile hardware.
Astral Dog
Member
DOOM 2016 uses all six cores 100 % and that was called one of the simplests games around in terms of scaling.
I doubt even Nvidia's next gen SoC (Xavier on 16nm FF) which at some point might be the basis for a next-gen Tegra, would be capable of PS4 in a portable.
Probably a bit short of Xbox One even.
Nvidia is probably two mobile chip generations away from PS4 level capability. So lets say there's a Tegra "X4" in 2021-2022 on 7nm and it can do 1.5 ~ 2.0 TFlops FP32 and if you're lucky, maybe 1TF fp32 with lower clocks in a portable device.
Bitanator
Member
Yeah, but with the prospect of Horizon quality graphics on a portable, does the arms race even matter anymore if that were the case in six years. I know it will, but damn Horizon is mind blowing, cannot imagine what will be pumping out on the next game consoles
Astral Dog
Member
It matters for third parties and fanboys at the very least.
I'm not seeing him say that in your quote. By the way, the real point should be that switch offer better performance for the multiplat, in the cpu scenario, over the ps4? Because it seems very unlikely to me.
I can't imagine that would do anything other than help the switch as more studios would decide to make stripped down versions of their other console games
Well they've used 20nm for 400Gflops now. 16nm was certainly available but perhaps they've kept that for a refresh, either way that will provide a nice boost in allowable clock speed (40-50% higher clock at the same power usage/heat). 10nm will allow more cores plus a higher clock and 7nm will do so again. I don't think 1.5tflops fp32 in a handheld is unrealistic at all by then.
Of course with every console now moving to fp16 functionality (Switch, Pro and Scorpio) it'll be heavily in use long before 7nm is around. Along with a far newer design PS4 performance won't be an issue at all as far as processing power goes. RAM is more the issue, but that will continue to drop in wattage and increase in performance. Finally getting a breakthrough in battery technology would also be nice
This is of course if Nintendo stay with the Switch design. They may stay with Nvidia but move on to a difference concept next time around.
Man, this read was a ride to read.
I feel like peoples expectations for mobile hardware has been needlessly inflated by Smartphones. Octa-Cores, 1080p screens, the things the Switch comes around with makes it look weak in comparison, even tough the Hardware has been designed to work totally different.
The Switch is a pure gaming device, the specs on the paper are pretty much whats going to be used for Games.
Smartphones are designed to be portable mini-computers you can do multiple things at once with. Actual games are not going to use all of that power. Not even close.
This is a 300 bucks device designed for games, and i dare to say that the price is justified (ignoring occasional Hardware malfunctions )
I feel like peoples expectations for mobile hardware has been needlessly inflated by Smartphones. Octa-Cores, 1080p screens, the things the Switch comes around with makes it look weak in comparison, even tough the Hardware has been designed to work totally different.
The Switch is a pure gaming device, the specs on the paper are pretty much whats going to be used for Games.
Smartphones are designed to be portable mini-computers you can do multiple things at once with. Actual games are not going to use all of that power. Not even close.
This is a 300 bucks device designed for games, and i dare to say that the price is justified (ignoring occasional Hardware malfunctions )
TwilightPrincess
Member
Scaled down and changed graphics, why not? It wouldn't even hurt to scale back the Andromeda NPCs animations or better remake them.
Can't wait to see how Dragon Quest 11 performs on Switch, i bet much better than the crappy Heroes launch port.
Diablohead
Member
TBH I am really happy that someone is using the tegra X1 in a gaming system, it's such a good chip it was sort of going to waste in the shield tv's currently, and even at capped speeds it's still a beast of a tiny chip.
I don't know how much sense it makes to compare it to last gen and current gen as I'm not very sure it will get well worked ports from 3rd parties. I mean we will be pretty lucky if we get at least a resolution bump for FIFA and NBA 2k from the PS30 versions.
Most of the indies though will probably be able to do what Snake Pass does in terms of porting.
As for Nintendo it's strange to see that they don't really go for 1080p as a main target so far, so I expect a mix. I actually believe that Zelda is optimised as well as it gets for Switch and the game is just too ambitious in some parts for current Nintendo hardware and it had to sacrifice a lot in some other parts. I think SMO will also run at 900p, but at 60 fps and that will mean sacrifices in other areas, so I don't think it will be a huge jump from 3d World in terms of graphics.
And further on, I'm looking forward to what Monolith Soft can do with Switch. And maybe Platinum Games.
Practically on average a higher res Wii U with a cherry on top with few nice exceptions.
I really hope (and think) BotW issues are from it being a port. I mean if the Portable Switch is more powerful than the WiiU, with more ram and a more modern tech.. we should see a difference at some point. Xenoblade 2 will be a good test as the 2 first ones were amazing tech achievement on Wii and WiiU, except if it started its dev on WiiU to of course..
Capcom would be a good candidate to show off what the Switch can do to, (Remember RE and SFIV on 3ds ?) but they don't seem to support it he same way right now :\
I keep reading this used as some kind of excuse. That they worked just 1 year on the Switch version. On a port, not on a game. 1 full year spent on porting and optimising a game for a platform is more than most games get.
And I'm not saying that there can't still be some minor tweaks done, like replacing the double buffering which forces any frame drop into 20fps.
It will be interesting to see what will Monolith Soft do. Will they jump on the Havok boat or continue to ignore physics for prettier things? Interesting decision.
And I'm not saying that there can't still be some minor tweaks done, like replacing the double buffering which forces any frame drop into 20fps.
It will be interesting to see what will Monolith Soft do. Will they jump on the Havok boat or continue to ignore physics for prettier things? Interesting decision.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
Most AAA devs aren't going to scale their games down drastically to work on Switch.
As for DQXI, it might be a 30 FPS game on PS4, so it being 30 FPS on Switch will probably come at a more significant visual cost as they can't reduce frame rate as their main change.
Knowing SE by the time 7 remake comes out PS4 probably won't be able to run it either.
DQXI would look super fine with lower geometry if they can manage to keep the light and good enough textures
lwilliams3
Member
You seriously think that a game that was designed to look exactly the same as the Wii U verizon was optimized to the best of its ability to new hardware with completely difference tech in 9 months? What evidence do you have to come to that conclusion?
As for SMO, we already see that it is a very notable upgrade from 3DMW. For example, 3D World did a lot of obvious shortcuts with their level backgrounds.
Astral Dog
Member
Super Mario Odyssey actually gives me confidence the Switch is a bit more than a Wii U+ game looks much more technically demanding and running at 60fps.
Some people don't remember how simple 3D World actually looked
Even today the X1 is good, plus the Switch power envelope is considerably bigger than most mobile devices. Could it have been better? Yes, a Pascal based chip at 16nm would have been better, but the only sock in existence is a car chip. PowerVR has consistently showed the best performance per watt, I'm confident that a PowerVR handheld on the same envelope at 16nm would have higher raw power. But I also believe that the dev tools wouldn't be as good. UE3 never ran very good on the Vita, for example.
Pasedo
Member
You can see it now but I reckon the Switch will be a console for first party, Indie and games from 3rd parties which have more basic graphics. For example there are rumours Overwatch may be ported over. Makes sense they choose that game as the graphics are suitable for the Switch. I also think 3rd parties will re-release some of their older games on Switch. A good example is Skyrim which is just the beginning. Again the Switch is more than capable to run these 3 year old plus games. In fact they are still damn fun and I bet alot of gamers like myself missed out on these games cos of their massive backlogs. I played the Fear series for the first time. Graphics are still reasonable on even the first one and I was running it on my fully capable gtx 1080 ftw gaming PC and was having a good time. They don't need the latest 3rd party games with the intense graphics. They will allow PS4 and PC to own that space. Plus it will be easier and cheaper for 3rd parties to do this, which makes good business sense for them.
ShadowFox08
Member
I've said this so many times, I'm a broken record at this point.
The switch is super easy to develop for, supports the most modern tools and engines, and at the worst, has 40-50% power of xbone after you count newer architecture from NVIDIA and mixed precision. For ps4 its like 2.5x to 3x.
We've already seen like four head to head ports with switch vs ps4. Nit that much big of a gap as you think. We saw switch ports that looked identical to ps4 in fidelity but framerate locked to 30fps, less lighting and textures on some areas. Dragon Quest and I am Setsuna in particular come to mind.
Switch games could literally be 720p docked, 900p on xbone, and 1080p on ps4 for AAA games with similar graphic fidelity and framerate on switch, sans maybe lower textures and lighting if need be. We'll see more comparisons this fall. I'm particularly excited for ports like cod and assassins creed to come through and show what thr switch is capable of. I only hope that devs are allowed to boost fidelity instead of resolution in docked mode.
franklyshankly
Member
I'm afraid you are setting yourself up for disappointment.
TwilightPrincess
Member
I think it's a little bit too negative. Zelda is a Wii U game, the engine was based on the Wii U version, the game was a launchtitle and would almost have been pushed back a few months. Also it has the same effects and lighting as Wii U version, i think they would have made it different if it started as a switch project. And i don't believe they coded it to the core of Switch metal.
Heard a podcast interviewing Julian Eggebrecht (ex Factor 5), he was positive about Switch performance (he ran tests with devkits throughout development) and called it between Wii U and Xbox One. He also said that clocks were changing back and forth until launch and could still be changed with software updates.
As for 3rd parties i think it will depend on the sales of Switch how much they spend for ports. I think we will see good support from Capcom etc. (japanese devs)
lwilliams3
Member
The GPU speed change doesn't just affect the resolution; the potential polygon counts, filtrate, and special effects also changes. Due to that, the differences we see in docked mode performance can vary depending on how the developers handled the optimization of both modes. If there was a heavier focus on getting the game running well in HH-mode, for example, the game may end up not using docked-mode to achieve parity with the other consoles. There are a lot of factors to consider.
ShadowFox08
Member
Right. I addressed that when I mentioned textures and lighting, and I have mentioned polygon, shadows, etc in previous pages and other threads.
At least from what we've seen in the head to head ports so far, and from on paper specs, it doesn't seem bad at al. But really for me the biggest thing is if they are able to increases fidelity instead of resolution in docked mode. 720p AAA multiplayer games I'd be totally fine with.
But we'll see in due time.
Agreed. They even said outright at GDC I believe that it was ported without any optimization.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
PS4 is probably roughly 50% more powerful than Xbox One, quite a gulf, but still not sure where you're getting your numbers.
As for the second bolded....I'll echo a poster above in that you're setting yourself up for disappointment, this year certainly.
ShadowFox08
Member
Switch docked is roughly 400GFLOPS going by Eurogamer's clockspeed of 768GHz. Switch's NVIIDA architecture is also newer and more efficient than AMD'S per flop. Who knows exactly how much, as some have said 1.3 to 1.4x. Even if we don't factor that in, mixed fp precision mode could bring it to +600 GFLOPS easily. 40-60% of Xbone with mixed precision and architectural efficiency is really not that big of a deal. From a technical perspective, GPU and CPU are up there, and 4GB of RAM on a cartridge with +3GB for games isn't so bad. But working around the bandwidth and using tile based rendering will be interesting.
Again, we've seen games like I am Setsuna, Dragon Quest. Identical outside framerate being cut in half, and some minor lighting and texture(mainly on Dragon Quest) downgrades. 2-3x power discrepency isn't that big of a deal, particularly for ports, if developers aim for 720p on switch--while the leading platform will most definitely be 1080p, which requires 2.25x the power.
Its already capable of decent ports. When it comes down to it, all depends on how much the devs take advantage of it. Fast Racing RMX(great resolution and framerate upgrade from the wii u version) and ARMS look amazing.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
Hardly the most difficult of ports there....
You're in for a shock if you think every AAA game is an easy financial decision and viable port job.
ShadowFox08
Member
Who ever said it was an easy financial decision or that third party ports are gonna be swarming the Switch? lol You're putting words into my mouth.
Like I said, It's a capable machine of receiving good AAA ports due to its specs on paper and compatible architecture that makes it much easier to port games with when compared to the wii u. You'll see in due time. It's up to the devs to take advantage of it.
DigitalScrap
Member
I seriously doubt that there are many of us that own a Switch that also don't own at least one of the other consoles (I own both). So I don't really care if many AAA 3rd party games don't come to the Switch (although it'd be awesome to have them on a portable). I'll just play them on PS4 or Xbox One.
I'm not sure why everyone is harping on "not many 3rd party AAA titles will come to the Switch". Who cares? Nintendo games also won't becoming to PS4 or Xbox One. So what?
killatopak
Gold Member
I am setsuna could run on a toaster.
callhitman
Member
this topic is getting old. No GREAT systeam is built on raw power. nes snes psx ps2 Xbox 360. ps4 is the exception. it is a combination of many factors. the switch has started with one of the best games ever made. Its about a combo of innovation. switch at this moment hit's the right notes. Nintendo MIGHT have just hit the right balance. We areally all on the go. But most importantly it saves money to parents who are looking for a all in one Cambo. Also with good advertising. We gafers are the exception not the norm.
civilstrife
Member
Honestly you simply don't buy a Nintendo console for AAA multiplatform games. Like, they haven't provided that experience for over a decade.
You buy a Switch for Nintendo gems, portable indies and best in class handheld graphics.
The X1 makes it clear that this will not be the place for AAA ports, unless portability is more important to you than graphics and performance.
You buy a Switch for Nintendo gems, portable indies and best in class handheld graphics.
The X1 makes it clear that this will not be the place for AAA ports, unless portability is more important to you than graphics and performance.
The only way it matters, is if multi plats can be down ported without a huge investment from studios.
PdotMichael
Banned
They just released a powerful hybrid. The most powerful handheld released to date.
I know what you are saying though, and my response is more for the people saying crazy things like Nintendo's next portable should be as powerful as a PS5 that doesn't even exist yet. I guess these psychics are saying that the PS5 will also be a hybrid? Because if not, then expecting a portable to be as powerful as a big ass box with lots of active cooling and massive power draw is insanity that ignores physics.
I'm not sure if we are on the same page here.
People being dissapointed with the Switch just using a (downclocked) stock X1 is silly. Hardware is exactly what was possible for a mobile gaming system and there are factors like the ones you listed which limited the power of such a system but also key parts like ram.
We would be lucky if there is something in 5 years on consumer level that will match the bandwidth of the GDDR5 of the PS4 or even Pro.
Brad Grenz
Member
The 3DS hardware was awful for the time. Getting under $100 is not an achievement when you can by $50 tablets with larger, better screens, and significantly more powerful SoCs, way more RAM, and onboard flash storage. Revelations only looked as good as it did because it loaded one tiny room at a time, and many off the shelf SoCs available in the same timeframe would have produced far superior results.
You are citing two games that were designed to also run on a Vita. They are hardly representative of the PS4's potential. Get back to us when we have Battlefield 1 running at 30fps and 720p on the Switch with only minor lighting and texture differences.
Pasedo
Member
If there was no docked console mode and it was pitched as a pure portable I think the sentiments of power would unanimously shift to incredible for the Switch. When you look at it this way its downright an incredibly powerful handheld at between Wii U Xbone power. Oh btw if I feel the need I can also plug it to the TV.
Me to. I doubt it will matter much to triple a, but less demanding titles can easily be ported and I believe it will offer flexibility in terms of hardware upgrades whiteout requiring much r&d. I dont think it will be complicated to have a TX2 / 3 etc powered Switch once the prices gets low enough.
I look at killzone on the vita, that's really impressive. It looks like a PS3 game.
and ARMS look amazing.
While running at 900p. Being developed only for Switch.
Oh, so we're down to 9 months now. Soon the Switch port will be just a week's work of an intern going by this rate.
A team working 1 year (or even 9 full months) just to port a game to a new platform is actually a hell lot of work put into that port. As I said, very few ports get that kind of effort. Unless you think Aonuma's team is somehow less competent that other developers.
Edit: and what's your assumption here? That the team that put so much consideration and attention to details in BotW just made the game run on Switch and then said "fuck it, it's good enough"? The simple fact that the game running in handheld mode (so just a small power bump from Wii U) has none of the Wii U version's issues should contradict this theory.
Green Yoshi
Member
Tegra would have been a terrible choice for 3DS. It had similar bottlenecks as the N64 back then and devs would have struggled. Dead or Alive: Dimensions was launched in May 2011 and showed what was possible on the hardware. Monster Hunter 4 looks awesome, too.
And 60fps.
Aonuma said last spring. If you don't want people to give a certain time frame for granted to fit their narrative, don't do the same thing.
And the ports you mentioned aren't usually made by the same team while they're still developing the base game. So i'm not sure what you're trying to suggest here.
Not sure how long Last of us remaster took, but that is made by some of the best coders in the industry, and it nowhere near maxes out a ps4. Its a launch port from a system with very different capabilities.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Dragon Quest has lower polygon counts and less vegetation as well. It still doesn't look bad, but to claim "identical" outside of framerates, lighting, and textures is simply false.
The only time it maintains 30fps is when you're not fighting. Which means most of the time it's in the 20s.
- Status