SmoothRunningGun
Member
Resolution is alot lower in portable form (I assume) but still it's a pretty weak system.
-
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.
Digital Foundry: Nintendo Switch CPU and GPU clock speeds revealed
- Thread starter Vashetti
- Start date
- Status
Kssio_Aug
Member
Nice to see the "graphics above everything else" crowd is still around to hyperbolise issues on low power Nintendo hardware.
See how it works now?
Seriously.
Fredrik
Member
I expected a new home console which could become portable, not a portable console which could become stationary. If I understand the specs correctly it's not even close to PS4 and XB1, and this is 3-4 years after those consoles which are now getting upgraded. Switch comes out the same year as 6TF Xbox Scorpio . Not good, even for conservative Nintendo standards.
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
Missing the point: the spec disparity between two similarly functioning consoles with the same available parts is nothing short of embarrassing.
The fact that its even a contentious point is telling enough.
Recognition is not learning, especially evidently. Nintendo fully knew the consequences of bad third party support and the relation to that with weak hardware. Did they appropriately act on it? Well, from this leak, I would say no.
Sure, but most of the time you can at least rationalize each console being the best it could or should have been at the time of release. Replaying old games, it's still satisfying to reflect on how that was pushing the boundaries at release.
Antiquated now, but stunning in 1998.
This isn't even out yet and looks acceptable by 2017 standards. If this is a Wii U screenshot and Switch looks outstandingly better then feel free to post a screenshot and I'll happily concede that I'm wrong.
Nintendo is the only one who consistently underperforms in that category. This isn't even going into the benefits of RAM and CPU.
Edit - also kudos to Thraktor for the great write-up
I haven't had time to read through every response here, so I'm probably repeating what others have already said, but here are my thoughts on the matter, anyway:
CPU Clock
This isn't really surprising, given (as predicted) CPU clocks stay the same between portable and docked mode to make sure games don't suddenly become CPU limited when running in portable mode.
The overall performance really depends on the core configuration. An octo-core A72 setup at 1GHz would be pretty damn close to PS4's 1.6GHZ 8-core Jaguar CPU. I don't necessarily expect that, but a 4x A72 + 4x A53 @ 1GHz should certainly be able to provide "good enough" performance for ports, and wouldn't be at all unreasonable to expect.
Memory Clock
This is also pretty much as expected as 1.6GHz is pretty much the standard LPDDR4 clock speed (which I guess confirms LPDDR4, not that there was a huge amount of doubt). Clocking down in portable mode is sensible, as lower resolution means smaller framebuffers means less bandwidth needed, so they can squeeze out a bit of extra battery life by cutting it down.
Again, though, the clock speed is only one factor. There are two other things that can come into play here. The second factor, obviously enough, is the bus width of the memory. Basically, you're either looking at a 64 bit bus, for 25.6GB/s, or a 128 bit bus, for 51.2GB/s of bandwidth. The third is any embedded memory pools or cache that are on-die with the CPU and GPU. Nintendo hasn't shied away from large embedded memory pools or cache before (just look at the Wii U's CPU, its GPU, the 3DS SoC, the n3DS SoC, etc., etc.), so it would be quite out of character for them to avoid such customisations this time around. Nvidia's GPU architectures from Maxwell onwards use tile-based rendering, which allows them to use on-die caches to reduce main memory bandwidth consumption, which ties in quite well with Nintendo's habits in this regard. Something like a 4MB L3 victim cache (similar to what Apple uses on their A-series SoCs) could potentially reduce bandwidth requirements by quite a lot, although it's extremely difficult to quantify the precise benefit.
GPU Clock
This is where things get a lot more interesting. To start off, the relationship between the two clock speeds is pretty much as expected. With a target of 1080p in docked mode and 720p in undocked mode, there's a 2.25x difference in pixels to be rendered, so a 2.5x difference in clock speeds would give developers a roughly equivalent amount of GPU performance per pixel in both modes.
Once more, though, and perhaps most importantly in this case, any interpretation of the clock speeds themselves is entirely dependent on the configuration of the GPU, namely the number of SMs (also ROPs, front-end blocks, etc, but we'll assume that they're kept in sensible ratios).
Case 1: 2 SMs - Docked: 384 GF FP32 / 768 GF FP16 - Portable: 153.6 GF FP32 / 307.2 GF FP16
I had generally been assuming that 2 SMs was the most likely configuration (as, I believe, had most people), simply on the basis of allowing for the smallest possible SoC which could meet Nintendo's performance goals. I'm not quite so sure now, for a number of reasons.
Firstly, if Nintendo were to use these clocks with a 2 SM configuration (assuming 20nm), then why bother with active cooling? The Pixel C runs a passively cooled TX1, and although people will be quick to point out that Pixel C throttles its GPU clocks while running for a prolonged time due to heat output, there are a few things to be aware of with Pixel C. Firstly, there's a quad-core A57 CPU cluster at 1.9GHz running alongside it, which on 20nm will consume a whopping 7.39W when fully clocked. Switch's CPU might be expected to only consume around 1.5W, by comparison. Secondly, although I haven't been able to find any decent analysis of Pixel C's GPU throttling, the mentions of it I have found indicate that, although it does throttle, the drop in performance is relatively small, and as it's clocked about 100MHz above Switch to begin with it may only be throttling down to a 750MHz clock or so even under prolonged workloads. There is of course the fact that Pixel C has an aluminium body to allow for easier thermal dissipation, but it likely would have been cheaper (and mechanically much simpler) for Nintendo to adopt the same approach, rather than active cooling.
Alternatively, we can think of it a different way. If Switch has active cooling, then why clock so low? Again assuming 20nm, we know that a full 1GHz clock shouldn't be a problem for active cooling, even with a very small quiet fan, given the Shield TV (which, again, uses a much more power-hungry CPU than Switch). Furthermore, if they wanted a 2.5x ratio between the two clock speeds, that would give a 400MHz clock in portable mode. We know that the TX1, with 2 SMs on 20nm, consumes 1.51W (GPU only) when clocked at about 500MHz. Even assuming that that's a favourable demo for the TX1, at 20% lower clock speed I would be surprised if a 400MHz 2 SM GPU would consume any more than 1.5W. That's obviously well within the bounds for passive cooling, but even being very conservative with battery consumption it shouldn't be an issue. The savings from going from 400MHz to 300MHz would perhaps only increase battery life by about 5-10% tops, which makes it puzzling why they'd turn down the extra performance.
Finally, the recently published Switch patent application actually explicitly talks about running the fan at a lower RPM while in portable mode, and doesn't even mention the possibility of turning it off while running in portable mode. A 2 SM 20nm Maxwell GPU at ~300MHz shouldn't require a fan at all, and although it's possible that they've changed their mind since filing the patent in June, it begs the question of why they would even consider running the fan in portable mode if their target performance was anywhere near this.
Case 2: 3 SMs - Docked: 576 GF FP32 / 1,152 GF FP16 - Portable: 230.4 GF FP32 / 460.8 GF FP16
This is a bit closer to the performance level we've been led to expect, and it does make a little bit of sense from the perspective of giving a little bit over TX1 performance at lower power consumption. (It also matches reports of overclocked TX1s in early dev kits, as you'd need to clock a bit over the standard 1GHz to reach docked performance here.) Active cooling while docked makes sense for a 3 SM GPU at 768MHz, although wouldn't be needed in portable mode. It still leaves the question of why not use 1GHz/400MHz clocks, as even with 3 SMs they should be able to get by with passive cooling at 400MHz, and battery consumption shouldn't be that much of an issue.
Case 3: 4 SMs - Docked: 768 GF FP32 / 1,536 GF FP16 - Portable: 307.2 GF FP32 / 614.4 GF FP16
This would be on the upper limit of what's been expected, performance wise, and the clock speeds start to make more sense at this point, as portable power consumption for the GPU would be around the 2W mark, so further clock increases may start to effect battery life a bit too much (not that 400-500MHz would be impossible from that point of view, though). Active cooling would be necessary in docked mode, but still shouldn't be needed in portable mode (except perhaps if they go with a beefier CPU config than expected).
Case 4: More than 4 SMs
I'd consider this pretty unlikely, but just from the point of view of "what would you have to do to actually need active cooling in portable mode at these clocks", something like 6 SMs would probably do it (1.15 TF FP32/2.3 TF FP16 docked, 460 GF FP32/920 GF FP16 portable), but I wouldn't count on that. For one, it's well beyond the performance levels that reliable-so-far journalists have told us to expect, but it would also require a much larger die than would be typical for a portable device like this (still much smaller than PS4/XBO SoCs, but that's a very different situation).
TLR
Each of these numbers are only a single variable in the equation, and we need to know things like CPU configuration, memory bus width, embedded memory pools, number of GPU SMs, etc. to actually fill out the rest of those equations to get the relevant info. Even on the worst end of the spectrum, we're still getting by far the most ambitious portable that Nintendo's ever released, which also doubles as a home console that's noticeably higher performing than Wii U, which is fine by me.
Yes, this exactly!
We only know one piece of the whole picture, and clockspeeds are far from the biggest factor in a machines overall visual output horsepower. Despite that, what we do know suggests the machines going to be a bit more powerful than a Wii U.
I'm okay with that. Despite how the Switch has been marketed so far, it's obvious that it's a portable that can double as a console. For that purpose, Wii U Plus visuals are more than sufficient.
ultrazilla
Gold Member
I agree. While I trust Digital Foundry, I'm still going to wait it out for the January reveal.
Nintendo *might* be releasing false info to start weeding out "leaks" in their mist.
I trust Nintendo learned their lessons with Wii U. Bring on January!
Robert at Zeboyd Games
Banned
When your only choices for a new portable game console is the Switch, where exactly do you think those Vita fans are going to go? The only other choice is to leave portables entirely & become a mobile fan (which many Japanese gamers have been doing) or become a home-only console fan (which is becoming less & less popular in Japan).
theangrypirate
Member
Oh geez... Nintendo, cmon. The Switch event can't come soon enough. It's been a stream of bad news and speculation since they revealed this thing. Every bit of news that has trickled out has been disappointing. I really hope they reveal some cool stuff Jan 12th or I might end up taking a pass on this one.
That wasn't exactly my point. I'm not saying that you should be confident in the console, or even like it. I'm saying that Nintendo knows what they are making, and that they're making this console fully knowing (if the rumors are right) that it won't handle huge third-party games. I mean, everyone (Nintendo included) know why the Wii U failed. If they're not fixing some things (like the lack of power, for example), that's because they think they don't need to, not that they didn't know the Wii U lacked power. They have a strategy with the Switch, a different one and the hardware will be suited for their strategy. Now, time will tell if it was a good strategy or not.
Skittzo0413
Member
I haven't had time to read through every response here, so I'm probably repeating what others have already said, but here are my thoughts on the matter, anyway:
CPU Clock
This isn't really surprising, given (as predicted) CPU clocks stay the same between portable and docked mode to make sure games don't suddenly become CPU limited when running in portable mode.
The overall performance really depends on the core configuration. An octo-core A72 setup at 1GHz would be pretty damn close to PS4's 1.6GHZ 8-core Jaguar CPU. I don't necessarily expect that, but a 4x A72 + 4x A53 @ 1GHz should certainly be able to provide "good enough" performance for ports, and wouldn't be at all unreasonable to expect.
Memory Clock
This is also pretty much as expected as 1.6GHz is pretty much the standard LPDDR4 clock speed (which I guess confirms LPDDR4, not that there was a huge amount of doubt). Clocking down in portable mode is sensible, as lower resolution means smaller framebuffers means less bandwidth needed, so they can squeeze out a bit of extra battery life by cutting it down.
Again, though, the clock speed is only one factor. There are two other things that can come into play here. The second factor, obviously enough, is the bus width of the memory. Basically, you're either looking at a 64 bit bus, for 25.6GB/s, or a 128 bit bus, for 51.2GB/s of bandwidth. The third is any embedded memory pools or cache that are on-die with the CPU and GPU. Nintendo hasn't shied away from large embedded memory pools or cache before (just look at the Wii U's CPU, its GPU, the 3DS SoC, the n3DS SoC, etc., etc.), so it would be quite out of character for them to avoid such customisations this time around. Nvidia's GPU architectures from Maxwell onwards use tile-based rendering, which allows them to use on-die caches to reduce main memory bandwidth consumption, which ties in quite well with Nintendo's habits in this regard. Something like a 4MB L3 victim cache (similar to what Apple uses on their A-series SoCs) could potentially reduce bandwidth requirements by quite a lot, although it's extremely difficult to quantify the precise benefit.
GPU Clock
This is where things get a lot more interesting. To start off, the relationship between the two clock speeds is pretty much as expected. With a target of 1080p in docked mode and 720p in undocked mode, there's a 2.25x difference in pixels to be rendered, so a 2.5x difference in clock speeds would give developers a roughly equivalent amount of GPU performance per pixel in both modes.
Once more, though, and perhaps most importantly in this case, any interpretation of the clock speeds themselves is entirely dependent on the configuration of the GPU, namely the number of SMs (also ROPs, front-end blocks, etc, but we'll assume that they're kept in sensible ratios).
Case 1: 2 SMs - Docked: 384 GF FP32 / 768 GF FP16 - Portable: 153.6 GF FP32 / 307.2 GF FP16
I had generally been assuming that 2 SMs was the most likely configuration (as, I believe, had most people), simply on the basis of allowing for the smallest possible SoC which could meet Nintendo's performance goals. I'm not quite so sure now, for a number of reasons.
Firstly, if Nintendo were to use these clocks with a 2 SM configuration (assuming 20nm), then why bother with active cooling? The Pixel C runs a passively cooled TX1, and although people will be quick to point out that Pixel C throttles its GPU clocks while running for a prolonged time due to heat output, there are a few things to be aware of with Pixel C. Firstly, there's a quad-core A57 CPU cluster at 1.9GHz running alongside it, which on 20nm will consume a whopping 7.39W when fully clocked. Switch's CPU might be expected to only consume around 1.5W, by comparison. Secondly, although I haven't been able to find any decent analysis of Pixel C's GPU throttling, the mentions of it I have found indicate that, although it does throttle, the drop in performance is relatively small, and as it's clocked about 100MHz above Switch to begin with it may only be throttling down to a 750MHz clock or so even under prolonged workloads. There is of course the fact that Pixel C has an aluminium body to allow for easier thermal dissipation, but it likely would have been cheaper (and mechanically much simpler) for Nintendo to adopt the same approach, rather than active cooling.
Alternatively, we can think of it a different way. If Switch has active cooling, then why clock so low? Again assuming 20nm, we know that a full 1GHz clock shouldn't be a problem for active cooling, even with a very small quiet fan, given the Shield TV (which, again, uses a much more power-hungry CPU than Switch). Furthermore, if they wanted a 2.5x ratio between the two clock speeds, that would give a 400MHz clock in portable mode. We know that the TX1, with 2 SMs on 20nm, consumes 1.51W (GPU only) when clocked at about 500MHz. Even assuming that that's a favourable demo for the TX1, at 20% lower clock speed I would be surprised if a 400MHz 2 SM GPU would consume any more than 1.5W. That's obviously well within the bounds for passive cooling, but even being very conservative with battery consumption it shouldn't be an issue. The savings from going from 400MHz to 300MHz would perhaps only increase battery life by about 5-10% tops, which makes it puzzling why they'd turn down the extra performance.
Finally, the recently published Switch patent application actually explicitly talks about running the fan at a lower RPM while in portable mode, and doesn't even mention the possibility of turning it off while running in portable mode. A 2 SM 20nm Maxwell GPU at ~300MHz shouldn't require a fan at all, and although it's possible that they've changed their mind since filing the patent in June, it begs the question of why they would even consider running the fan in portable mode if their target performance was anywhere near this.
Case 2: 3 SMs - Docked: 576 GF FP32 / 1,152 GF FP16 - Portable: 230.4 GF FP32 / 460.8 GF FP16
This is a bit closer to the performance level we've been led to expect, and it does make a little bit of sense from the perspective of giving a little bit over TX1 performance at lower power consumption. (It also matches reports of overclocked TX1s in early dev kits, as you'd need to clock a bit over the standard 1GHz to reach docked performance here.) Active cooling while docked makes sense for a 3 SM GPU at 768MHz, although wouldn't be needed in portable mode. It still leaves the question of why not use 1GHz/400MHz clocks, as even with 3 SMs they should be able to get by with passive cooling at 400MHz, and battery consumption shouldn't be that much of an issue.
Case 3: 4 SMs - Docked: 768 GF FP32 / 1,536 GF FP16 - Portable: 307.2 GF FP32 / 614.4 GF FP16
This would be on the upper limit of what's been expected, performance wise, and the clock speeds start to make more sense at this point, as portable power consumption for the GPU would be around the 2W mark, so further clock increases may start to effect battery life a bit too much (not that 400-500MHz would be impossible from that point of view, though). Active cooling would be necessary in docked mode, but still shouldn't be needed in portable mode (except perhaps if they go with a beefier CPU config than expected).
Case 4: More than 4 SMs
I'd consider this pretty unlikely, but just from the point of view of "what would you have to do to actually need active cooling in portable mode at these clocks", something like 6 SMs would probably do it (1.15 TF FP32/2.3 TF FP16 docked, 460 GF FP32/920 GF FP16 portable), but I wouldn't count on that. For one, it's well beyond the performance levels that reliable-so-far journalists have told us to expect, but it would also require a much larger die than would be typical for a portable device like this (still much smaller than PS4/XBO SoCs, but that's a very different situation).
TL
Each of these numbers are only a single variable in the equation, and we need to know things like CPU configuration, memory bus width, embedded memory pools, number of GPU SMs, etc. to actually fill out the rest of those equations to get the relevant info. Even on the worst end of the spectrum, we're still getting by far the most ambitious portable that Nintendo's ever released, which also doubles as a home console that's noticeably higher performing than Wii U, which is fine by me.
Excellent analysis as always, and I agree with that conclusion regarding the fan, though I'm starting to expect that I'll be disappointed again regardless of what I'm hoping for.
But another thing to consider is LKD's report that there is an additional fan in the dock. I know the patent didn't support that report but the patent was filed in June, and adding a fan to the dock is certainly a possible change from the patented specification. 2 fans would be a ridiculous amount of overkill if the clock rates listed are being ascribed to TX1 hardware.
Also, consider the DF article did mention that it's likely that some of the customizations to the SoC were from the Pascal architecture, so it's still certainly possible this will be on a 16nm process. Unlikely I'd say at this point, but possible.
witchedwiz
Member
Thanks thraktor for the informative read..
I copule follow up (to a certain point) though unfortunately hardware architecture isn't exactly my field, so while not being 100% in line with my assumption, i'll accept that it will ultimately boil down to whether they want to jeopardize battery like for performance, plus the possible issues when the user pass from a docked mode to ah undocked mode if tere is a performance change..
Oh will time will tell, but if DF estimations are in line, i would be hesitant to drop more than 200 eur for a swirch deluxe edition..
I copule follow up (to a certain point) though unfortunately hardware architecture isn't exactly my field, so while not being 100% in line with my assumption, i'll accept that it will ultimately boil down to whether they want to jeopardize battery like for performance, plus the possible issues when the user pass from a docked mode to ah undocked mode if tere is a performance change..
Oh will time will tell, but if DF estimations are in line, i would be hesitant to drop more than 200 eur for a swirch deluxe edition..
I am curious why did 3rd parties flock to the Wii tho. There were many Wii exclusive 3rd party games.
Were first few years sales that good? Were they on board from the beginning?
Using wikipedia right now, so many were on board the first months before they even knew how good sales were gonna be.
So what made them flock before they knew it was gonna be a hit?
And looking now, the Wii had alot of 3rd party support for multi platform games. I already knew this but I didnt realize it was this good...some games I didnt even realize came out for it.
And it wasnt all shovelware.
Both would need to be the same thing! Or did you expected 1/2 hour of battery time or a handheld as big as the PS4?
Instead of the Vita library, because some have been focusing on the PS4 (though not all would likely be able to do that. They either got Switch or Mobile or both) I would replace that with possibly premium mobile titles that exist. Like the ones Square Enix have been putting out that aren't stuff that could already be found on the virtual console. If the Switch can run mobile content just fine why not push out a Switch version to have another revenue source?
I mean, I hope people here aren't expecting the January reveal to get into the nitty gritty of specs. When has Nintendo ever done that?
You'll see gameplay fro sure, but all it will do is further add confusion because we'll be seeing the graphical fidelity of launch software, which is proven time and time again to be completely indicative of a platform's power.
Wii sales were phenomenal for a LONG time. Most initial 3rd party offerings was nothing but shovelware, it didn't really start to improve until a year after launch.
Where did I say that in my post? This thing is gonna be weaker then the Shield TV I own and bought for less then $160. No way in hell I'm paying $250 plus to play Wii U ports.
KojiKnight
Member
2 years of solid solid hype. Heck, Nintendo took the system out on tour months in advance and had people trying our Wii Sports and the word of mouth on that game alone was huge.
There's no fan in the dock.
JetSetRadio
Banned
Maybe they will announce a console too next month.
But it's not a question of where the fans will go but where developers will go. When Capcom put Monster Hunter on 3DS the majority of fans switched but the developers of all the clones went to Vita.
That would be possible but it would require an uncharacteristically aggressive Nintendo in terms of securing support.
VendettaRed07
Member
Nice to see all the reactionary shitposting based on rumors and incomplete information in another Nintendo hardware thread
Actually the X1 was exactly designed for tablets/portables.
In my opinion it depends on the fab node. If it's 20nm I don't see more than 2 SM. If it's 16nm I think 3 SM would be more probably simply because the fan would be totally useless for 2 SM.
I'm perfectly fine with this too... it's all I really wanted or expected.TL
Each of these numbers are only a single variable in the equation, and we need to know things like CPU configuration, memory bus width, embedded memory pools, number of GPU SMs, etc. to actually fill out the rest of those equations to get the relevant info. Even on the worst end of the spectrum, we're still getting by far the most ambitious portable that Nintendo's ever released, which also doubles as a home console that's noticeably higher performing than Wii U, which is fine by me.
Of course, if everyone does this, the Switch is DOA.
This is why the price needs to be as low as possible. Nintendo, convince us that we need this with a $199 price tag! (And then, make enough of them to go around.)
Don't need the fan for 20nm either, really, not at these reported clocks.
TheCongressman1
Member
Like I said in the beginning, making this a hybrid just brings down the home console aspect. Wish they would have made two separate devices for home and handheld with a shared library.
Still really excited for the Switch. Just wish they had went in a slightly different direction.
I feel like there's still a chance for a home only model down the line, or at the very least a more powerful Switch.
Still really excited for the Switch. Just wish they had went in a slightly different direction.
I feel like there's still a chance for a home only model down the line, or at the very least a more powerful Switch.
I know the patent states fan runs slow in handheld mode. But perhaps the fan doesn't turn on at all when handheld mode. Nintendo changed their minds to allow better battery life.
This would allow Nintendo to release a Switch Go down the line that's much smaller that doesn't have fans and cannot be docked.
This would allow Nintendo to release a Switch Go down the line that's much smaller that doesn't have fans and cannot be docked.
Sure, but most of the time you can at least rationalize each console being the best it could or should have been at the time of release. Replaying old games, it's still satisfying to reflect on how that was pushing the boundaries at release.
Antiquated now, but stunning in 1998.
This isn't even out yet and looks acceptable by 2017 standards. If this is a Wii U screenshot and Switch looks outstandingly better then feel free to post a screenshot and I'll happily concede that I'm wrong.
Nintendo is the only one who consistently underperforms in that category. This isn't even going into the benefits of RAM and CPU.
Edit - also kudos to Thraktor for the great write-up
maybe you should consider things out of just graphics, have you seen the physics and the size of breath of the wild? if thats not pushing bundaries i dont know what is
I haven't had time to read through every response here, so I'm probably repeating what others have already said, but here are my thoughts on the matter, anyway:
CPU Clock
This isn't really surprising, given (as predicted) CPU clocks stay the same between portable and docked mode to make sure games don't suddenly become CPU limited when running in portable mode.
The overall performance really depends on the core configuration. An octo-core A72 setup at 1GHz would be pretty damn close to PS4's 1.6GHZ 8-core Jaguar CPU. I don't necessarily expect that, but a 4x A72 + 4x A53 @ 1GHz should certainly be able to provide "good enough" performance for ports, and wouldn't be at all unreasonable to expect.
Memory Clock
This is also pretty much as expected as 1.6GHz is pretty much the standard LPDDR4 clock speed (which I guess confirms LPDDR4, not that there was a huge amount of doubt). Clocking down in portable mode is sensible, as lower resolution means smaller framebuffers means less bandwidth needed, so they can squeeze out a bit of extra battery life by cutting it down.
Again, though, the clock speed is only one factor. There are two other things that can come into play here. The second factor, obviously enough, is the bus width of the memory. Basically, you're either looking at a 64 bit bus, for 25.6GB/s, or a 128 bit bus, for 51.2GB/s of bandwidth. The third is any embedded memory pools or cache that are on-die with the CPU and GPU. Nintendo hasn't shied away from large embedded memory pools or cache before (just look at the Wii U's CPU, its GPU, the 3DS SoC, the n3DS SoC, etc., etc.), so it would be quite out of character for them to avoid such customisations this time around. Nvidia's GPU architectures from Maxwell onwards use tile-based rendering, which allows them to use on-die caches to reduce main memory bandwidth consumption, which ties in quite well with Nintendo's habits in this regard. Something like a 4MB L3 victim cache (similar to what Apple uses on their A-series SoCs) could potentially reduce bandwidth requirements by quite a lot, although it's extremely difficult to quantify the precise benefit.
GPU Clock
This is where things get a lot more interesting. To start off, the relationship between the two clock speeds is pretty much as expected. With a target of 1080p in docked mode and 720p in undocked mode, there's a 2.25x difference in pixels to be rendered, so a 2.5x difference in clock speeds would give developers a roughly equivalent amount of GPU performance per pixel in both modes.
Once more, though, and perhaps most importantly in this case, any interpretation of the clock speeds themselves is entirely dependent on the configuration of the GPU, namely the number of SMs (also ROPs, front-end blocks, etc, but we'll assume that they're kept in sensible ratios).
Case 1: 2 SMs - Docked: 384 GF FP32 / 768 GF FP16 - Portable: 153.6 GF FP32 / 307.2 GF FP16
I had generally been assuming that 2 SMs was the most likely configuration (as, I believe, had most people), simply on the basis of allowing for the smallest possible SoC which could meet Nintendo's performance goals. I'm not quite so sure now, for a number of reasons.
Firstly, if Nintendo were to use these clocks with a 2 SM configuration (assuming 20nm), then why bother with active cooling? The Pixel C runs a passively cooled TX1, and although people will be quick to point out that Pixel C throttles its GPU clocks while running for a prolonged time due to heat output, there are a few things to be aware of with Pixel C. Firstly, there's a quad-core A57 CPU cluster at 1.9GHz running alongside it, which on 20nm will consume a whopping 7.39W when fully clocked. Switch's CPU might be expected to only consume around 1.5W, by comparison. Secondly, although I haven't been able to find any decent analysis of Pixel C's GPU throttling, the mentions of it I have found indicate that, although it does throttle, the drop in performance is relatively small, and as it's clocked about 100MHz above Switch to begin with it may only be throttling down to a 750MHz clock or so even under prolonged workloads. There is of course the fact that Pixel C has an aluminium body to allow for easier thermal dissipation, but it likely would have been cheaper (and mechanically much simpler) for Nintendo to adopt the same approach, rather than active cooling.
Alternatively, we can think of it a different way. If Switch has active cooling, then why clock so low? Again assuming 20nm, we know that a full 1GHz clock shouldn't be a problem for active cooling, even with a very small quiet fan, given the Shield TV (which, again, uses a much more power-hungry CPU than Switch). Furthermore, if they wanted a 2.5x ratio between the two clock speeds, that would give a 400MHz clock in portable mode. We know that the TX1, with 2 SMs on 20nm, consumes 1.51W (GPU only) when clocked at about 500MHz. Even assuming that that's a favourable demo for the TX1, at 20% lower clock speed I would be surprised if a 400MHz 2 SM GPU would consume any more than 1.5W. That's obviously well within the bounds for passive cooling, but even being very conservative with battery consumption it shouldn't be an issue. The savings from going from 400MHz to 300MHz would perhaps only increase battery life by about 5-10% tops, which makes it puzzling why they'd turn down the extra performance.
Finally, the recently published Switch patent application actually explicitly talks about running the fan at a lower RPM while in portable mode, and doesn't even mention the possibility of turning it off while running in portable mode. A 2 SM 20nm Maxwell GPU at ~300MHz shouldn't require a fan at all, and although it's possible that they've changed their mind since filing the patent in June, it begs the question of why they would even consider running the fan in portable mode if their target performance was anywhere near this.
Case 2: 3 SMs - Docked: 576 GF FP32 / 1,152 GF FP16 - Portable: 230.4 GF FP32 / 460.8 GF FP16
This is a bit closer to the performance level we've been led to expect, and it does make a little bit of sense from the perspective of giving a little bit over TX1 performance at lower power consumption. (It also matches reports of overclocked TX1s in early dev kits, as you'd need to clock a bit over the standard 1GHz to reach docked performance here.) Active cooling while docked makes sense for a 3 SM GPU at 768MHz, although wouldn't be needed in portable mode. It still leaves the question of why not use 1GHz/400MHz clocks, as even with 3 SMs they should be able to get by with passive cooling at 400MHz, and battery consumption shouldn't be that much of an issue.
Case 3: 4 SMs - Docked: 768 GF FP32 / 1,536 GF FP16 - Portable: 307.2 GF FP32 / 614.4 GF FP16
This would be on the upper limit of what's been expected, performance wise, and the clock speeds start to make more sense at this point, as portable power consumption for the GPU would be around the 2W mark, so further clock increases may start to effect battery life a bit too much (not that 400-500MHz would be impossible from that point of view, though). Active cooling would be necessary in docked mode, but still shouldn't be needed in portable mode (except perhaps if they go with a beefier CPU config than expected).
Case 4: More than 4 SMs
I'd consider this pretty unlikely, but just from the point of view of "what would you have to do to actually need active cooling in portable mode at these clocks", something like 6 SMs would probably do it (1.15 TF FP32/2.3 TF FP16 docked, 460 GF FP32/920 GF FP16 portable), but I wouldn't count on that. For one, it's well beyond the performance levels that reliable-so-far journalists have told us to expect, but it would also require a much larger die than would be typical for a portable device like this (still much smaller than PS4/XBO SoCs, but that's a very different situation).
TL
Each of these numbers are only a single variable in the equation, and we need to know things like CPU configuration, memory bus width, embedded memory pools, number of GPU SMs, etc. to actually fill out the rest of those equations to get the relevant info. Even on the worst end of the spectrum, we're still getting by far the most ambitious portable that Nintendo's ever released, which also doubles as a home console that's noticeably higher performing than Wii U, which is fine by me.
This should be in the OP, even Eurogamer should considered post this kind of explanation.
Tegra X1 is not crap. It's a good package, and it should enable smooth game development... but not in the range of 8th gen games.
Metalingus5150
Member
I feel like it'll be another wii u situation. Would love to be wrong tho.
Maybe because they envision an actual Wii 2.
Maybe because they have experience using waggle/motion controls vs doing something new with the Wii U Gamepad.
Maybe because its using more traditional controls.
Maybe the Wii U gamepad took something away from games they wanted to do. Kinda like with the XBO Kinect had some of the specs reserved for it.
I have a feeling its about the control scheme as to why they are more receptive.
Robert at Zeboyd Games
Banned
To all the naysayers, I guess I'm not seeing how any other choice Nintendo has could be better for them as a company.
Option 1 - They release a new system that directly competes against the PS4/XBO/PC. Since this market is already heavily contested AND is shrinking over time, chance of failure is very high.
Option 2 - They release a portable system with specs that rival the PS4/XBO. Battery life is short & cost is too high to compete. Chance of failure almost guaranteed.
Option 3 - They give up hardware entirely and become a 3rd party developer. They lose huge sources of revenue from licensing & royalties.
Option 4 - They do what they're doing with the Switch. They win the handheld market by virtue of being the only handheld competitor. They try to steal back mobile gamers with their mobile initiatives like Pokemon Go & Super Mario Run. And they try to steal gamers from the XBO/PS4/PC crowd that don't care about cunning edge graphics & would rather have a strong exclusive library & the option to go portable.
Whether or not it succeeds, remains to be seen, but what they're doing seems like the option with the best chance of success.
Option 1 - They release a new system that directly competes against the PS4/XBO/PC. Since this market is already heavily contested AND is shrinking over time, chance of failure is very high.
Option 2 - They release a portable system with specs that rival the PS4/XBO. Battery life is short & cost is too high to compete. Chance of failure almost guaranteed.
Option 3 - They give up hardware entirely and become a 3rd party developer. They lose huge sources of revenue from licensing & royalties.
Option 4 - They do what they're doing with the Switch. They win the handheld market by virtue of being the only handheld competitor. They try to steal back mobile gamers with their mobile initiatives like Pokemon Go & Super Mario Run. And they try to steal gamers from the XBO/PS4/PC crowd that don't care about cunning edge graphics & would rather have a strong exclusive library & the option to go portable.
Whether or not it succeeds, remains to be seen, but what they're doing seems like the option with the best chance of success.
They can easily release
Switch 4K down the line that allows all Switch games to be played in 4K in the future.
Perhaps Switch is the first system in the Switch line.
Switch - Hybrid
Switch Go - Handheld
Switch 4K - Home Console
Listen, I'm looking forward to Zelda as much as anyone, but I gotta admit those physics looked similar to what Half Life 2 introduced. Which examples did you feel were truly impressive?
Skittzo0413
Member
We don't know that for a fact. Laura Kate Dale said she had heard there is a fan in the dock, then when the patent was published said that it did not line up with what she'd heard and that she could be wrong.
But there are quite a few differences between what we see in that patent application and what we've seen in the Switch trailer, so it's certainly possible that one of the changes made since the June filing date was the addition of a fan into the dock.
LelouchZero
Member
I haven't had time to read through every response here, so I'm probably repeating what others have already said, but here are my thoughts on the matter, anyway:
CPU Clock
This isn't really surprising, given (as predicted) CPU clocks stay the same between portable and docked mode to make sure games don't suddenly become CPU limited when running in portable mode.
The overall performance really depends on the core configuration. An octo-core A72 setup at 1GHz would be pretty damn close to PS4's 1.6GHZ 8-core Jaguar CPU. I don't necessarily expect that, but a 4x A72 + 4x A53 @ 1GHz should certainly be able to provide "good enough" performance for ports, and wouldn't be at all unreasonable to expect.
Memory Clock
This is also pretty much as expected as 1.6GHz is pretty much the standard LPDDR4 clock speed (which I guess confirms LPDDR4, not that there was a huge amount of doubt). Clocking down in portable mode is sensible, as lower resolution means smaller framebuffers means less bandwidth needed, so they can squeeze out a bit of extra battery life by cutting it down.
Again, though, the clock speed is only one factor. There are two other things that can come into play here. The second factor, obviously enough, is the bus width of the memory. Basically, you're either looking at a 64 bit bus, for 25.6GB/s, or a 128 bit bus, for 51.2GB/s of bandwidth. The third is any embedded memory pools or cache that are on-die with the CPU and GPU. Nintendo hasn't shied away from large embedded memory pools or cache before (just look at the Wii U's CPU, its GPU, the 3DS SoC, the n3DS SoC, etc., etc.), so it would be quite out of character for them to avoid such customisations this time around. Nvidia's GPU architectures from Maxwell onwards use tile-based rendering, which allows them to use on-die caches to reduce main memory bandwidth consumption, which ties in quite well with Nintendo's habits in this regard. Something like a 4MB L3 victim cache (similar to what Apple uses on their A-series SoCs) could potentially reduce bandwidth requirements by quite a lot, although it's extremely difficult to quantify the precise benefit.
GPU Clock
This is where things get a lot more interesting. To start off, the relationship between the two clock speeds is pretty much as expected. With a target of 1080p in docked mode and 720p in undocked mode, there's a 2.25x difference in pixels to be rendered, so a 2.5x difference in clock speeds would give developers a roughly equivalent amount of GPU performance per pixel in both modes.
Once more, though, and perhaps most importantly in this case, any interpretation of the clock speeds themselves is entirely dependent on the configuration of the GPU, namely the number of SMs (also ROPs, front-end blocks, etc, but we'll assume that they're kept in sensible ratios).
Case 1: 2 SMs - Docked: 384 GF FP32 / 768 GF FP16 - Portable: 153.6 GF FP32 / 307.2 GF FP16
I had generally been assuming that 2 SMs was the most likely configuration (as, I believe, had most people), simply on the basis of allowing for the smallest possible SoC which could meet Nintendo's performance goals. I'm not quite so sure now, for a number of reasons.
Firstly, if Nintendo were to use these clocks with a 2 SM configuration (assuming 20nm), then why bother with active cooling? The Pixel C runs a passively cooled TX1, and although people will be quick to point out that Pixel C throttles its GPU clocks while running for a prolonged time due to heat output, there are a few things to be aware of with Pixel C. Firstly, there's a quad-core A57 CPU cluster at 1.9GHz running alongside it, which on 20nm will consume a whopping 7.39W when fully clocked. Switch's CPU might be expected to only consume around 1.5W, by comparison. Secondly, although I haven't been able to find any decent analysis of Pixel C's GPU throttling, the mentions of it I have found indicate that, although it does throttle, the drop in performance is relatively small, and as it's clocked about 100MHz above Switch to begin with it may only be throttling down to a 750MHz clock or so even under prolonged workloads. There is of course the fact that Pixel C has an aluminium body to allow for easier thermal dissipation, but it likely would have been cheaper (and mechanically much simpler) for Nintendo to adopt the same approach, rather than active cooling.
Alternatively, we can think of it a different way. If Switch has active cooling, then why clock so low? Again assuming 20nm, we know that a full 1GHz clock shouldn't be a problem for active cooling, even with a very small quiet fan, given the Shield TV (which, again, uses a much more power-hungry CPU than Switch). Furthermore, if they wanted a 2.5x ratio between the two clock speeds, that would give a 400MHz clock in portable mode. We know that the TX1, with 2 SMs on 20nm, consumes 1.51W (GPU only) when clocked at about 500MHz. Even assuming that that's a favourable demo for the TX1, at 20% lower clock speed I would be surprised if a 400MHz 2 SM GPU would consume any more than 1.5W. That's obviously well within the bounds for passive cooling, but even being very conservative with battery consumption it shouldn't be an issue. The savings from going from 400MHz to 300MHz would perhaps only increase battery life by about 5-10% tops, which makes it puzzling why they'd turn down the extra performance.
Finally, the recently published Switch patent application actually explicitly talks about running the fan at a lower RPM while in portable mode, and doesn't even mention the possibility of turning it off while running in portable mode. A 2 SM 20nm Maxwell GPU at ~300MHz shouldn't require a fan at all, and although it's possible that they've changed their mind since filing the patent in June, it begs the question of why they would even consider running the fan in portable mode if their target performance was anywhere near this.
Case 2: 3 SMs - Docked: 576 GF FP32 / 1,152 GF FP16 - Portable: 230.4 GF FP32 / 460.8 GF FP16
This is a bit closer to the performance level we've been led to expect, and it does make a little bit of sense from the perspective of giving a little bit over TX1 performance at lower power consumption. (It also matches reports of overclocked TX1s in early dev kits, as you'd need to clock a bit over the standard 1GHz to reach docked performance here.) Active cooling while docked makes sense for a 3 SM GPU at 768MHz, although wouldn't be needed in portable mode. It still leaves the question of why not use 1GHz/400MHz clocks, as even with 3 SMs they should be able to get by with passive cooling at 400MHz, and battery consumption shouldn't be that much of an issue.
Case 3: 4 SMs - Docked: 768 GF FP32 / 1,536 GF FP16 - Portable: 307.2 GF FP32 / 614.4 GF FP16
This would be on the upper limit of what's been expected, performance wise, and the clock speeds start to make more sense at this point, as portable power consumption for the GPU would be around the 2W mark, so further clock increases may start to effect battery life a bit too much (not that 400-500MHz would be impossible from that point of view, though). Active cooling would be necessary in docked mode, but still shouldn't be needed in portable mode (except perhaps if they go with a beefier CPU config than expected).
Case 4: More than 4 SMs
I'd consider this pretty unlikely, but just from the point of view of "what would you have to do to actually need active cooling in portable mode at these clocks", something like 6 SMs would probably do it (1.15 TF FP32/2.3 TF FP16 docked, 460 GF FP32/920 GF FP16 portable), but I wouldn't count on that. For one, it's well beyond the performance levels that reliable-so-far journalists have told us to expect, but it would also require a much larger die than would be typical for a portable device like this (still much smaller than PS4/XBO SoCs, but that's a very different situation).
TL
Each of these numbers are only a single variable in the equation, and we need to know things like CPU configuration, memory bus width, embedded memory pools, number of GPU SMs, etc. to actually fill out the rest of those equations to get the relevant info. Even on the worst end of the spectrum, we're still getting by far the most ambitious portable that Nintendo's ever released, which also doubles as a home console that's noticeably higher performing than Wii U, which is fine by me.
I've been hoping for around 1536 GF FP16, hopefully it gets somewhere close or at-least 1TF FP16.
Sapiens
Member
How could Laura Emily be wrong tho!?!?
As I expected. They would always take battery over performance.
Thing is, gamers won't care about how powerful it is compared to an iPhone.
Yeah they need to hit $199 if it's 2SMs worth of grunt. Basically give up totally on those that was nice, modern graphics and just go for the throwaway fad crowd and child HH gamers.
Of course they will, and they will refuse to entertain they idea that maybe, just maybe Nintendo doesn't care about power at all and will go for the cheapest thing that hits some low threshold they set.
Citation needed. No, seriously. Can you point out at least one person who asked for that? This is getting ridiculous.
I just don't see this as competition for the PS4/Xbone, it's almost like VR in my mind, the standards are different because it's not trying to do the same thing as a traditional console. It's a different experience. I'm not saying it'll be good, it could easily go awry and lead to worse sales then the WiiU/Nintendoisdoomed.
We're also on a board where value is judged significantly different from that of the general public. Hell, significantly different from most people who play games. See the posts hanging around saying that the PS4 Pro was worth the $150 upgrade only because R&C looks amazing, or because Battlefield 1 runs smoother for examples of this, or the people paying $800-$1000 for a graphics card so they can make sure that Nvidia hairworks will run 60FPS at 4k.. I just don't think the spec obsession we see here exists in reality.
If this thing does what it's trying to do well, I think it'll succeed, so I don't really see this as bad or good. Of course I want to see the full package before I make a call, but ultimately if I get Nintendo games at 60FPS with decent battery life, I'll be on board.
We're also on a board where value is judged significantly different from that of the general public. Hell, significantly different from most people who play games. See the posts hanging around saying that the PS4 Pro was worth the $150 upgrade only because R&C looks amazing, or because Battlefield 1 runs smoother for examples of this, or the people paying $800-$1000 for a graphics card so they can make sure that Nvidia hairworks will run 60FPS at 4k.. I just don't think the spec obsession we see here exists in reality.
If this thing does what it's trying to do well, I think it'll succeed, so I don't really see this as bad or good. Of course I want to see the full package before I make a call, but ultimately if I get Nintendo games at 60FPS with decent battery life, I'll be on board.
- Status