• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

nacarelli

Neo Member
I'm sure it was posted way earlier, but this got me so good

GmPjssN.jpg


Regardless if it is true or meaningful, quality shit post

Man, this is funny as hell. Literally LOL'd here.
 
That's not true. EA dropped it pre-launch because Frostbite straight up wouldn't function on it.
I said that it would have kept some support. Since it was failing, for example, EA dropped them altogether with no consequence.

Now for the Switch, they do seem to have modern game engine support. That is definitely a plus. We will see if devs will be able to easily port down to whatever level the system is, but Nintendo will have to make sure that the system has a good sales tractory to encourage publishers to give them a chance.
 

Soroc

Member
Extremely unlikely. No I dare say, 100% not happening.


But we have a confirmation it's the 3ds version ?

Nope we don't, but it helps to keep the expectations at the lowest common denominator and be pleasantly surprised instead of the other way around. Although DQ on PS4 looked good to me, I didn't particularly think it looked like it ran well for what was demo'd so far. Could have been just the stream but the shimmering IQ and frame rate looked rough and that was on the PS4.
 

PrimeBeef

Member
I know, but it's unrealistic and unfair imo to compare and device that's meant to function on the go with a dedicated console.

I get that, I just wish everyone could see it. This was never going to be PS4 that you could take on the go. Maybe the next iteration could be closer to a next gen( for lack of better term) console as a handheld as tech improves.
 

Malice215

Member
The specs are underwhelming for a home console, but I'm more excited about the Switch's prospects as a handheld.

The average consumer doesn't understand tech specs, so they're going to look at the price and software lineup. If the Switch isn't priced appropriately comparative to its specs, then it's going to struggle at launch.

What Nintendo can't do is repeat the same mistakes with the Wii U and 3DS launches, so I'm eager to see what they have in store.
 

PrimeBeef

Member
They are nice. Games look sharper than an Xbox 360 or PS3, and cleaner too, but they don't look "better" somehow.

Anyway, I am not convinced by this leak.

I'm not that tech savvy, but it seems from the posters here that it would be very hard to do the things that Nvidia and Nintendo have claimed about being possible on the switch if these specs are correct. Like easily porting Thrid party AAA games over, Skyrim remastered, DQX1. Please correct me if I am wrong.
 

MuchoMalo

Banned
Also, that Venture Beat article read like it was written by someones kid brother who's uncle works at nintendo. I dont really trust it.

This debunks the Venturebeat article anyway. It was probably just a troll/clickbait article that happened to get one thing right.
 

Kirye

Member
Those posts (like the one quoted below) are as dumb as those saying that the Switch is weaker than a PS3

So you're saying that people aren't complaining that the console is nowhere near the PS4/X1 and they're not also saying they'll only buy this if it's 200$? There's a few posts in this very thread that prove you wrong, let alone all the other Switch threads.
 
Actually, it's even better than that. It has the same power level in both portable & home mode; it's just that the GPU is underclocked in portable mode because the resolution is capped at 720p (the resolution of the Switch's monitor). The GPU is 2.5x faster in docked mode and what do you know? 1080p is 2.25x as many pixels as 720p is.

The problem is that "same power level" is a lot lower than it could be, looking at the Shield.
 

cackhyena

Member
The Wii U didn't have any compelling featues, that's why it failed. Not to mention the stupid name.
It had a tablet controller. I loved it. Playing WW in its entirety in bed was great.

Still, there's nothing great feature wise about the PS4, and it will most certainly be the king this gen.
 
Any info on any modern game performance? I'm trying to find some on the net and coming up short.

Haven't played it in ages, but Digital Foundry played GameCube on it with great results.
It also streams games really well (from a computer in the same network or from the Nvidia service), but that doesn't say much I guess.

It is great hardware, but of course in terms of numbers it's much weaker than the PS4 or XB1, I just hope the rumors are wrong and the damn thing runs on Pascal - that's the only thing that matters, even if the specs in numbers seem low, Pascal does wonders
 

The Goat

Member
If this is all true, man, what a wasted opportunity for Nintendo. I really don't understand their hardware's utter lack of power. How do they expect to gain 3rd party support (which they so desperately need) when the machine is so far off the curve of even current gen? PS4 Pro and Scorpio only widen the gap.

I expect Nintendo's first part games will be great, as always, but they will fall short on 3rd party support, and yet again, the machine will end in utter failure with poor sales.
 

ultrazilla

Member
I never once saw people expect this exaggeration in any switch speculation thread. Not once. Feel free to prove me and others who are also stating the same, wrong.

I'm sorry you didn't get my sarcasm. Honest, not being an ass about it. It's about expectations vs. reality. It doesn't matter if I said Skynet powerful, HAL(2001 Space Odyssey) powerful or 10 PS4 Pros duct taped together powerful. Besides, how about calling out Digital Foundry for this video and to cite their sources? /shrugs shoulders

No offense mate. Seriously. :)
 
It had a tablet controller. I loved it. Playing WW in its entirety in bed was great.

Still, there's nothing great feature wise about the PS4, and it will most certainly be the king this gen.

I like it too - I love my Wii U and bought it near release, but it is not compelling to most people who already own iPads and other things like that.
 

Vanadium

Member
Didn't they choose this hardware platform so they could iterate over time? Hardware arms race is never something Nintendo was interested in after N64. They want all the people playing phone games on the subway to buy this. I'm sure it will be mid-line smart phone priced too.

Will they succeed? ¯_(ツ)_/¯
 
After seeing both Xbox and PS platforms both release a more powerful iteration within a single generation it's hard for me to care about specs or consider them a dealbreaker anymore. This is weird times for me as a gamer. I'm going to buy a Switch because it looks like something I'll actually have time to play and should hopefully bare the fruits of a focused Nintendo. Additionally it uses cartridges which means all the good games should hold their value. Not too much risk is involved.
 

Horp

Member
I must be missing a meme here because i don't find this funny at all.

The meme is that the "retarded" creature is normally a dog.
The Switch kinda looks like a dog. Not kinda, it does. Like a retarded dog with eyes all over the place (just like the original meme comic).
And, the low clock frequency means it's "less smart" than it's counterparts (put VERY bluntly, to make the joke work).
 

sanstesy

Member
Whilte the hyperbole is strong and it's still a powerful handheld, as a hybrid it's a very underpowered home console.

Guess I have to settle with Breath of the Wild on Switch only getting locked 30FPS and maybe 1080p when docked. Ugh.
 
The GPU downclocking reaction is hilarious. What did you think developers were going to do - make a separate "Ultra 720p" mode with lots of extra effects for their games when undocked? Of course, not. They're going to make a 1080p game (or whatever) and just have the system automatically downscale it in portable mode to fit the 720p screen. By downclocking the GPU, they improve battery, reduce heating, and don't lose any relative power since outputting at 720p requires much less power than 1080p.

The Switch is a Wii U Pro with a better gamepad that's actually portable and doesn't need to stay within range. Alternatively, it's a Vita 2 with a much better built-in PSTV.
 

Oregano

Member
I said that it would have kept some support. Since it was failing, for example, EA dropped them altogether with no consequence.

Now for the Switch, they do seem to have modern game engine support. That is definitely a plus. We will see if devs will be able to easily port down to whatever level the system is, but Nintendo will have to make sure that the system has a good sales tractory to encourage publishers to give them a chance.

True but the gap between PS3/360 and Wii U is a lot smaller than Xbo/PS4 and Switch.
 
Phone's CPUs have different target than gaming devices CPUs. Phones target burst performance for rendering websites as fast as possible between long periods of low taxing time, while a gaming device will target sustained performance that must be kept for hours. If this was only "lol Nintendo" thing, then why did godly Sony clocked its high-end handheld (Vita) at 333Mhz on a chip with potential for 2Ghz?

4xA57 cores at half the speed they are in the android shield tv? is that the current expectation? that puts it WELL behind even apples A8
 

BitStyle

Unconfirmed Member
Thraktor's posts are a godsend in these threads. The Switch event needs to hurry up already so we can see some games, impressions, and direct feed.
 

Oregano

Member
The GPU downclocking reaction is hilarious. What did you think developers were going to do - make a separate "Ultra 720p" mode with lots of extra effects for their games when undocked? Of course, not. They're going to make a 1080p game (or whatever) and just have the system automatically downscale it in portable mode to fit the 720p screen. By downclocking the GPU, they improve battery, reduce heating, and don't lose any relative power since outputting at 720p requires much less power than 1080p.

The Switch is a Wii U Pro with a better gamepad that's actually portable and doesn't need to stay within range. Alternatively, it's a Vita 2 with a much better built-in PSTV.

Good strategy to follow up such successful products.

Also everyone knew it would downclock when portable but it's already downlocked when docked.
 
I'm not that tech savvy, but it seems from the posters here that it would be very hard to do the things that Nvidia and Nintendo have claimed about being possible on the switch if these specs are correct. Like easily porting Thrid party AAA games over, Skyrim remastered, DQX1. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Normal Skyrim should run pretty well on a Tegra X1, but the remaster wouldn't, certainly. Do we know which version of Skyrim the Switch will run? We don't, unfortunately. Hell, even if shown, the game hasn't even been confirmed yet - that said, Todd Howard loved the damned thing.

As for DQX1, we can't assume the Switch version will be the same as the PS4 version - it might be an HD version of the 3DS version or a third Switch exclusive version, who knows?
 

Lionheart

Member
The Switch is a Wii U Pro with a better gamepad
I just hope it'll be more comfortable to use than it looks. If I have to buy a pro controller to have comfortable controls, then it adds another $50, which could only be acceptable to me if the device itself is $199.

On the tech side: at $199 these specs would be fine to me. Nintendo games look fine on a Wii U and will look even better on this in docked mode. It's just funny to read all speculation and supposed 'leaks' of the past months that were way too optimistic imo.
 
The specs are underwhelming for a home console, but I'm more excited about the Switch's prospects as a handheld.

The average consumer doesn't understand tech specs, so they're going to look at the price and software lineup. If the Switch isn't priced appropriately comparative to its specs, then it's going to struggle at launch.
The key point about this discussion is that it isn't really about specs, it's about third party support. If the specs are too low then third parties won't bother porting XB1/PS4 games over to the Switch. That leaves the Switch as a secondary Nintendo only console. There are plenty of people who would buy such a console, but it's far fewer than the number of people who would buy a Switch that could play the Witcher 3 on the go.
 
I just hope it'll be more comfortable to use than it looks. If I have to buy a pro controller to have comfortable controls, then it adds another $50, which could only be acceptable to me if the device itself is $199.

You don't have to play with the tablet in your hands, and the built in controller looks fine to me.
 

ultrazilla

Member
Normal Skyrim should run pretty well on a Tegra X1, but the remaster wouldn't, certainly. Do we know which version of Skyrim the Switch will run? We don't, unfortunately. Hell, even if shown, the game hasn't even been confirmed yet - that said, Todd Howard loved the damned thing.

As for DQX1, we can't assume the Switch version will be the same as the PS4 version - it might be an HD version of the 3DS version or a third Switch exclusive version, who knows?

I don't have it in front of me but I'm pretty sure it was mentioned the Switch was getting the remaster of Skyrim
 
Normal Skyrim should run pretty well on a Tegra X1, but the remaster wouldn't, certainly. Do we know which version of Skyrim the Switch will run? We don't, unfortunately. Hell, even if shown, the game hasn't even been confirmed yet - that said, Todd Howard loved the damned thing.

Rewatch the Switch reveal trailer, it's most definitely the Special Edition.
 

Vertti

Member
The games make the console not the specs.

If I think my favourite games of the last 5 years most of them are indies that would run on even weaker hardware than this.

But I"m still a little dissapointed. Not surprised tho.
 
Its funny how nintendo rumors are always:

If its negative:
"Haha, holy shit what are you thinking nintendo, preorder cancelled"

If its positive:
"No way they would do this. SHOW ME THE RECEIPTS!"

In this thread, please observe the former.

So you mean this is negative after all?

Also cannot blame that sentiment after wiiU.
 

Marlenus

Member
Compared to PS4 and PS4 pro we have.

Undocked vs PS4 it has 8.5% of the Gflops.
Undocked vs PS4 pro it has 3.7% of the Gflops.

Docked vs PS4 it has 21.3% of the Gflops.
Docked vs PS4 pro it has 9.3% of the Gflops.
 

Celine

Member
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.
Wii got ton of support from publishers which were still interested in releasing SD games or family friendly games.
The main platform which shared multiplatform games with Wii was actually PS2 but eventually the console was so successful that publishers began making exclusive Wii version of multiplatform games available on PS3/Xbox 360/PC.
 

LordKano

Member
I will never understand the logic of people who think Bethesda will bother to port a five-years old version of a game they just remastered.
 

CrustyBritches

Gold Member
The majority of Shield TV games have inferior performance to the Xbox 360. The exception if I remember was DOOM BFG.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume this is not getting any substantial 3rd-party support.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom