blankempathy
Member
For the games? Yes because enhanced wii u games are all the system is ever going to get.
-
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
For the games? Yes because enhanced wii u games are all the system is ever going to get.
I think some of those might actually be closer in power(Ds/Psp and Dc/Xbox) but even so the only that received any downports was Wii/PS3/360 and they were few and far between.
This isn't a rumor. It's a well established news source with legitimate direct connections to the industry stating hard numbers with phrasing and certainty that would indicate they're holding a goddamn spec sheet. When the New York Times runs an article on political corruption and cites "sources" it isn't a rumor. This is the video game analog to that.
Meanwhile your rebuttal is some random person who knows some other random person who maybe knows something or is maybe just full of shit. That is a rumor.
D
Deleted member 465307
Unconfirmed Member
I don't understand how people are making conclusions about the overall power and how it will compare to other consoles without knowing more about the customized architecture and chip details.
Um what?
This thing is playing Wii U ports, and is allegedly capable of running Dark Souls 3 at a playable level.
You think it will struggle to run GC games? Nintendo is usually good at emulation, no?
Has any DS or 3DS game run at a sub-native resolution? Have any Wii U games run at anything besides 720 or 1080?
I wouldn't mind Nintendo requiring that between handheld and docked. Though I doubt they could or would force something upon devs like that. Would probably be a lot harder for certain ports from already released games from other consoles. But wouldn't be hard for exclusives and newer games developed with the Switch in mind as one of its platforms.
It is basically confirmed as £199 in the UK at this point. Laura Dale confirmed it and a retailer has a pre order price promise on that price.
It will be $250. I can almost guarantee it.
krizalidzero
Member
Everything is a rumor until confirmed to be true.
Unknown.
Save yourself the trouble of reading the thread, and read this instead:
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.
Because you don't need every bit of data to make some general conclusions and Nintendo has a strict policy of never releasing all the data, so this is only marginally less than what we're ultimately going to ever have on the Switch's actual specs.
You are an idiot. That isn't a rumor now because you just confirmed it to be true.
Relentless 757
Member
So, would it be more applicable to view the Switch as an successor to the 3DS that utilizes what the Wii U aspired to be? Because then I could see the Switch do well.
If priced appropriately.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Because it's not a new architecture.
PS4 is $249 w/ Uncharted 4 right now on Amazon.com
good fucking luck to Nintendo if they launch this thing at $249. If you're releasing a home console (like the advertising says!) and yet claim you aren't competing with Sony or Microsoft, you can't price it like the competition!
Needs to be $199. 3DS at $99.
good fucking luck to Nintendo if they launch this thing at $249. If you're releasing a home console (like the advertising says!) and yet claim you aren't competing with Sony or Microsoft, you can't price it like the competition!
Needs to be $199. 3DS at $99.
Some details are missing in the equation and don't line up with other details we already know (such as active cooling?). Instead I'll just link to this quote.
It's relatively new.
eeeeeeeeee
laura has been more on the money than Eurogamer, also eurogamer is no new york times
apparently theyre releasing a system in 2017 that wouldve landed them in "out of touch" territory if it was released in 2013. So theyre essentially not in touch with how out of touch they are.
BlastProcessing
Member
Remember dudes, this is maxwell architecture. Far more advanced than the GPU architecture in the wii u or in the PS4 and XB1, and its Nvidia flops to boot.
The flops don't tell the whole story in regards to the capability of the device, even if it is severely underpowered in general.
XB360 was around 240GFLOPs of AMD 2004-5 flops. This is 2014-15 Nvidia flops.
On the other hand, pointing to games in development coming to switch is no real indicator either, as we have no idea how they will be downgraded and in what fashion.
The flops don't tell the whole story in regards to the capability of the device, even if it is severely underpowered in general.
XB360 was around 240GFLOPs of AMD 2004-5 flops. This is 2014-15 Nvidia flops.
On the other hand, pointing to games in development coming to switch is no real indicator either, as we have no idea how they will be downgraded and in what fashion.
I often wonder if people realise that this isn't even a desirable position to be in. People play games on their PS4 and believe everything is going swimmingly for the video game industry. They don't seem to grasp how "stuck" it really is.
blankempathy
Member
Lol at the people assuming that power dictates if a platform gets ports. Publishers will go where the money is. They always have. Its also one of the main reasons why PC gaming is getting more and more japanese developed games these days.
Pancakes R Us
Member
Nintendo can't compete with a console the that is equivalent to / better than PS4/XBO. It'd be a waste of money and a super early grave for the console. You want more power, buy one of the others or a PC. Nintendo doesn't have the audience for those 'core' third party games, so making a console to get those games wouldn't work anyway - people would just buy on PS4/XBO/PC.
Not calling it the Wii Switch and making it very clear that this is a brand new system means they have learned something from the Wii U.
DrROBschiz
Member
lmao
These are modern mass produced chipsets
This is the most within market they have ever been from a manfacturing perspective
you are blinded by only looking at one segment of the marketplace to make this comparison
I was making a joke. I am extremely satisfied with what the Switch's low is even predicted to be. All I want is a system that allows me to play games on the go with traditional controls like the 3DS was. This thing couldve been just a Wii U again with a true portable mode and I would have been satisfied, but it isn't that. It is a handheld that blows the Wii U away while also gives me the option to game on my 60" tv. That is exactly what I wanted from nintendo this whole time.
I hope nintendo can poach some of the higher profile phone games for this system. I enjoy most of the games on my ipad but I would much rather have them on a device thats sole purpose is gaming with a solid gaming infrastructure.
Papacheeks
Banned
Please enlighten me on how stuck they are? They are in no way losing even close to the amount of money they were on hardware last generation. They also make more profit for digital which has grown by a lot this gen alone.
If your talking stuck in a financials aspect I would suspect that's not accurate in the slightest.
If your talking development wise maybe for AAA gaming? But costs on certain things are way down compared to last gen like costs for engines. Also there are more programs now for indie development than ever before which help make smaller, but competitive retail titles.
I really want to hear what you have to say. I mean yea AAA gaming has been stuck for a while because of costs, but studios are now making games a little smarter with smaller teams, budget engines that are proven to work.
Don't tempt me...
Huh arm is nearly 30 years old I think ?!
LinkSlayer64
Member
Whoa man, just calm down. They are technically correct, whether you like it or not. They're free to believe whichever source they want.
I bet someone will do the one with Hitler as well.
Omega Kirby
Member
So who's excited to spend the next four years with an underpowered nintendo console again? Great for handheld fans, not so much for people who actually just wanted a console
USB 3.1 also has the bandwidth. I doubt we'll see Thunderbolt inside there.
Gaming on the Wii and DS was some of the best gaming years of my life. So I am all for it.
DrROBschiz
Member
My problems with WiiU didnt have anything to do with power quite honestly
IM super happy with the switch so far
krizalidzero
Member
I really don't think it's enough for this use case scenario.
Kssio_Aug
Member
If it means more great Nintendo games and a powerful handheld console (and Switch can be considered that aswell), count me in!! o/
LegendofLex
Member
Concentrating profits in relatively fewer, increasingly large-budget products is a sign that your industry/product is vulnerable to/suffering from low-end disruption.
If you only have a few successes (even if they're much larger successes), and struggle to find smaller successes, it means you're moving closer to overshooting the needs of everyone but your most demanding customers.
CrustyBritches
Gold Member
This thing is WiiU 2. That doesn't bode well. Too weak for a home console, and too expensive for a portable.
Speaking of WiiU's effect on game support...
While dropping to 40% sounds major, talking to my graphics programmer it may not be as bad as it sounds.
The handheld unit has 44% of the pixels of the docked version. While performance doesn't scale exactly with number of pixels, it's still going to be a big factor here.
There are also a lot of image quality bells and whistles you can live without on a smaller screen. For example, turning off shadows, AA, etc. would have significant performance savings and wouldn't be as noticeable on the smaller screen.
At least as far as I'm concerned, I'm fine with some graphical sacrifices in order to enjoy games on the go. I mean, we've only been doing that forever. So I fail to see why this is all that different or surprising.
The handheld unit has 44% of the pixels of the docked version. While performance doesn't scale exactly with number of pixels, it's still going to be a big factor here.
There are also a lot of image quality bells and whistles you can live without on a smaller screen. For example, turning off shadows, AA, etc. would have significant performance savings and wouldn't be as noticeable on the smaller screen.
At least as far as I'm concerned, I'm fine with some graphical sacrifices in order to enjoy games on the go. I mean, we've only been doing that forever. So I fail to see why this is all that different or surprising.
blankempathy
Member
Luckily for me I just want nintendo games and if this console does combine their portable/console development it'll be even better. Comparing this thing to the wii u lol.
Papacheeks
Banned
But like I said they have smaller games that come to retail to help that vulnerability.
That's not a bad thing.
This thing is WiiU 2. That doesn't bode well. Too weak for a home console, and too expensive for a portable.
Speaking of WiiU's effect on game support...
It has the same amount of first party games/year as the highest on the list....
edit: Or are we comparing third party?
metalslimer
Member
Let's be real though for a second. No one would be disappointed if this was labeled a 3ds successor. It would still be the largest jump in graphical power for a Nintendo handheld ever. The disappointment comes from Nintendo home console systems seemingly going away and this being the successor to both. As a haND held this will be fantastic, but I feel very disappointed from the console perspective.
DeuceGamer
Member
I disagree. It can easily launch at $250 and be successful if they have the right software ready. People will buy it if they have Zelda, 3DMario, etc... in the first few months, along with the enhanced Wii U ports.
I agree it needs to be as low as possible, but $250 is fine as long as they have the software to back it up. We still need to know more about the SOC outside of clocks as well.
Kssio_Aug
Member
This thing is WiiU 2. That doesn't bode well. Too weak for a home console, and too expensive for a portable.
Speaking of WiiU's effect on game support...
How is it expansive for a portable if you don't know the price yet?
Also, why you're so sure it's Wii U 2?? Because if you're making this analogy based only in the weak hardware do not ignore OG Wii.
Franz Brötchen
Banned
People who just wanted a console are free to buy a console, though? I hope you have a relatively modern PC, or you're also playing on underpowered hardware icymi.
LegendofLex
Member
How much more expensive are these smaller games than their equivalents were in years past?
How many dollars are those smaller games pulling in compared to their equivalents from years past?
etc. etc.
From is happy with the performance of Dark Souls 3 on the Switch. But From doesn't really care about performance that much, see: Blighttown in DS1, and DS3 on XBO/PS4 isn't exactly smooth. They could be happy with 20-30 fps unlocked which isn't the best
- Status