wonderful103
Member
Are posts like this serious?
-
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
Are posts like this serious?
DrROBschiz
Member
you guys realize we already exist in a multiple spec market ecosystem for games creation
there will be no shortage of software
Battlefield 1 and other 3rd party AAA games? WIll always be right where they are with PS4/XB1 and PC
Switch will still be flooded with software that targets people who would buy the switch
Nintendo fans, mass market, portable enthusiasts, Vita fans etc....
The whole compete with Sony/Microsoft ship sailed a LOOONNNGGG time ago and yet here we are talking in circles on GAF
there will be no shortage of software
Battlefield 1 and other 3rd party AAA games? WIll always be right where they are with PS4/XB1 and PC
Switch will still be flooded with software that targets people who would buy the switch
Nintendo fans, mass market, portable enthusiasts, Vita fans etc....
The whole compete with Sony/Microsoft ship sailed a LOOONNNGGG time ago and yet here we are talking in circles on GAF
YES THEY ARE, IS COOL TO BE EDGY
Comandr
Member
This guy knows what's up. I'm expecting 299-349. So around $500 day one for games accessories, expanded storage, etc.
The game has sold like over 30mil copies. You need to take your taste out of the equation and realize it would indeed sell, for portable functionality alone.
Kssio_Aug
Member
LoL. What? It's stronger than Xbox 360, and I totally asked for a new Nintendo portable! =D
Azelover
Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was. It really was.
exactly
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.
I find it odd if Switch uses 2 SM and it has a port of Dark Souls 3 and runs UE4 in portable mode, it would be better if it was 3 or 4 SM. But can Switch handle that with the fan and how much more costly would it be for Nintendo?
th3sicknness
Member
The problem is you are confusing what Nintendo has said or demonstrated with what people online want out of the system. They said they would like to provide a console quality experience at home and in a portable form factor. By what they demonstrated on the tonight show they have made that possible. They have not said anything else other than showing the teaser trailer of what the concept actually is. They have never said graphically it would be the same, they just said you will get the same game.
To price something 200 to 300 and have it be a portable PS4 would not be feasible monetarily but also technologically impossible in the targeted form factor. People need to realize compromises need to be made to meet the concept that was discussed at a price consumers expect.
My taste has nothing to do with this and I don't think it will sell as well as you think it will. You could get portable Skyrim on laptop ages ago as well Nvida Shield. I think people are seriously overestimating the appeal of this old game.
to say that nobody asked a new hanheld from nintendo...
do people even try to hide their hate anymore?
lwilliams3
Member
Gameboy vs Gamegear?
DS vs PSP?
Wii vs PS3/360?
Dreamcast vs Xbox?
Anyway, I think you are downplaying the importance of good tools. Third party developers probably had issues using the little power the Wii U had, so coming to the Switch will give them access to more power than what theraw specs are showing us.
Does anyone know exactly much has bad development tools hindered Nitnendo's other consoles? I recall LCGeek and others saying that it was really bad.
RobFox64tm
Member
I would be lying if I said this news isn't disappointing, but I don't think Switch's power limitations will be all that detrimental to what Nintendo is trying to achieve with it. It almost certainly won't get ports of all the major third party games, at least those from western developers, but I think the combination of Nintendo's full efforts not being divided between two pieces of hardware, games from creative independent developers and support from Japan where this device has a lot of potential to do well, we could see a unique system that complements Sony's and Microsoft's consoles.
Of course this is all contingent on the market's interest in the Switch. I feel the price and quality of the software releases will be far more influential on its potential success than the specs will be. We'll have a better idea on Jan. 12.
Of course this is all contingent on the market's interest in the Switch. I feel the price and quality of the software releases will be far more influential on its potential success than the specs will be. We'll have a better idea on Jan. 12.
krizalidzero
Member
USB-C, not to be confused with USB 3.1, is a shape, a form factor. Thunderbolt 3 uses USB-C and it does have the bandwidth
AtomicShroom
Member
Oh right, that's what I meant.
This is true in principle but in execution it didn't help the Wii U, which missed out on a ton of third party games that would have made for easy ports. Even Xbox One is missing out on some third party games.
But my point is, power doesn't matter. If the publisher wants to release a version of a game on Switch, then that's up to them, not the developer.
Kssio_Aug
Member
It seems that some are not capable anymore. I mean, if that post wasn't sacarsm or some kind of a joke, that was incoherent as hell!
CrustyBritches
Gold Member
Hey a new Nintendo portable is great, but to kill their home console business and release a $250-300 handheld...not my vision of optimal, but whatever floats your boat.
th3sicknness
Member
That is like saying people are overestimating the appeal of angry birds or minecraft.. both games have solid well year of year and have large concurrent users bases for older games.
I'm not irritated, but you're showing a lack of understanding as to what Skyrim actually is. It's an x86 architecture game that was shoehorned onto the PS360 platforms, and relatively poorly I might add. There is no special edition. They swapped a few assets and re-branded it to get gullible people to buy it twice, with pretty solid success.
The Switch is based on an Nvidia product line that runs x86 architecture games with minimal tweaking, not full rebuilds like the PowerPC family the PS360 consoles were based on did. Bethesda is going to basically 1:1 the same Skyrim they put out on PC years ago and updated with a few new textures and sound files recently onto the Switch, then lock it where the thing runs at an acceptable framerate in both modes. That's it. Done. If the Switch is a 2 SM system where the handheld mode is <200 GFLOPS its going to look a hell of a lot more like playing it on the PS360 than on the PS4/XB1. If it's a 3 SM system it'll land somewhere in the middle.
So don't say they won't port X version instead of Y version. There's basically just one version of Skyrim and everything else is scaling the performance of that game to match whatever technical limitations are put upon it by the hardware it's running on.
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.
Once again, summed up beautifully. Consider adding "/thread" to the end of your username.
You can all save yourselves a lot of time by reading this a few times until you understand (I include myself in this).
DrROBschiz
Member
Should be easier on mass market mobile hardware quite honestly
But yeah.. just a matter of how to strike the right opportunities in this massive market
Nintendo brand still has push but its a much more competitive space for peoples time, money and attention
EventHorizon
Member
Handheld sales have been going down. Mobile will continue to eat its lunch.
This isn't about a "master race" argument. I totally despise those because consoles and PCs are different. It's like comparing the specs of a motorcycle to a car. If you view the Switch as a mobile-only device then the spec comparison to the PS4/XB1 would also be meaningless. Unfortunately Nintendo is marketing the Switch as a console as well as a portable, so the comparisons make perfect sense. The question people want answered is if the Switch will get the same type of third party games that the XB1/PS4 get. If not then the Switch fails as a console.
Remember that over 10 millions of people will be buying a PS4 or XB1 in the coming year. If the Switch could offer up the non-exclusive games those consoles get plus exclusive Nintendo games, then it has a far better chance of winning over more of those potential customers than if it can only offer Nintendo games. Those additional customers could determine if the Switch is another Wii U or not.
krizalidzero
Member
According to the AC III devs, the port itself was a miracle. It was really hard to make.
Funny how it is the best AC III version and too bad the game sucks anyways.
Man, look at all that 1st party Nintendo support that the Shield is getting.
Robert at Zeboyd Games
Banned
In such a situation, they'd use a sub-native resolution in the portable mode. It's been done before on Vita.
DrROBschiz
Member
That makes it the most powerful portable console we have ever seen
Anyone coming from Vita/3DS will be blown away
Anyone coming from WiiU will be less impressed but I know Ill be happy to have a full featured system without all the issues the WiiU hardware had
krizalidzero
Member
Isn't Dark Souls 3 supposed to run great on it?
I have so many reasons to not believe this particular rumor.
I have so many reasons to not believe this particular rumor.
Relentless 757
Member
What happens if the Switch bombs like the Wii U? These specs are rather low, and I honestly expect little 3rd party support. And while Nintendo makes arguably the most quality games in the industry, they become more irrelevant as time goes on.
I don't wanna make the Sega comparison, but if the Wii U sells trend continues, what is Nintendo gonna do next?
I honestly wouldn't mind Nintendo going full third party. It'd surely make the decision to buy their games much easier. It's funny, because I used to be a pretty big Nintendo fanboy, though I've always owned a MS and Sony console. I just no longer see the point in buying their consoles anymore.
Edit: This is of course assuming the specs in the OP are indeed the specs in the Switch.
I don't wanna make the Sega comparison, but if the Wii U sells trend continues, what is Nintendo gonna do next?
I honestly wouldn't mind Nintendo going full third party. It'd surely make the decision to buy their games much easier. It's funny, because I used to be a pretty big Nintendo fanboy, though I've always owned a MS and Sony console. I just no longer see the point in buying their consoles anymore.
Edit: This is of course assuming the specs in the OP are indeed the specs in the Switch.
SuperLeviathan
Member
I'm REALLY worried about Gamecube VC now. That was a Laura rumor, wasn't it?
I really can't see that being viable with clocks THAT low, especially games like Sunshine and Melee.
I really can't see that being viable with clocks THAT low, especially games like Sunshine and Melee.
Poimandres
Member
So from these specs it will struggle to run Wii U games in portable mode? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
This doesn't sound great, and now people have gone from "PS4/XB1 ports will be easy!" to "why do you need those games when you already have a PS4". Anyway, let's see what Nintendo has up their sleeve next month.
This doesn't sound great, and now people have gone from "PS4/XB1 ports will be easy!" to "why do you need those games when you already have a PS4". Anyway, let's see what Nintendo has up their sleeve next month.
krizalidzero
Member
It's the new DS/3DS. It will have 3rd party support. The worst it could happen is that it'll miss some AAA games like CoD, for which I couldn't care less.
I hear this. Hold on until the 12th. I think I had read that they have more to show.
Skyrim had a remaster recently it didn't light the charts on fire and it won't suddenly get second life because Switch version which will probably look and run like shit knowing Bethesda.
Kssio_Aug
Member
They're not killing their business. Switch is a hybrid console, both portable and home console. It is stronger than the predecessor console (Wii U) wich automatically makes it stronger than PS3 or X360, besides not as strong as any other current gen home console.
Also, there's a market out there for Nintendo handheld since 3DS is a very successful platform and still sells a quite impressive ammount even with an out dated hardware.
Also, we cannot say anything about the price yet. 250~300 is as much speculation as betting for $199.
DrROBschiz
Member
WiiU was pricey and saddled with inconveniences and misunderstandings
Switch at the very least should be instantly understood and more streamlined than before....
Assuming Nintendo learned anything
For someone who would never play the switch undocked, what the hell would I want to buy another console which is on par with the wii u? Especially with enhanced ports of Mario kart etc coming. Went from 100% on a preorder to now waiting and seeing. Hype deflated. FFS Nintendo.
People are really losing their minds over this, without seeing what kind of games we're going to get. I feel like once the Nintendo exclusives are shown, and all those development resources from their console and handheld divisions are poured into one system, people won't be so negative about the Switch.
Sure, multiplatform support is now more up in the air than ever, but there's also more potential software support from Nintendo themselves - the primary reason people purchase their systems for.
Sure, multiplatform support is now more up in the air than ever, but there's also more potential software support from Nintendo themselves - the primary reason people purchase their systems for.
That's what Laura says. As Thraktor said (whether or not you accept his SM theory), there is more to the customisation of the chip than just clock speed (in fact, clock speed is not even a hardware customisation).
xochipiltontli
Member
Goddamnit Nintendo. This thing better not cost more than $199.
Switch seems to have the viral positivity going for it where the wiiU had viral negativity going for it.
I think it missed out because it missed sales figures on consoles sold. It also didn't help that porting to Wii U actually took more work than was expected (poor documentation, few tools, etc.).
That and very bad marketing.
DrROBschiz
Member
well they did hire a mobile company to modernize their online account systems lol
Nintendo games as always. This system will live and die by Nintendo content and some Japanese 3rd party support in the home country.
Is there a Dolphin port on Shield TV? I'm sure that emulation would be fine when done by Nintendo themselves, just look at what MS has achieved on XBO.
And it still may be. We have one piece of the puzzle (potentially).
- Status