DuckThor Evil
Legend
I am pretty sure that the Pro controller is not bundled in with the normal SKU.
Nintendo Switch Revelation
- Thread starter Rodéric
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nintendo nintendont
Do they plan do do "bigger" joy con controller to be used in local in place of the ones included? I bring the question in a malicious manner, games need to support different input depending on whether one play solo or not. When you are home the two joy con are meant to be used on dock-pad which rise the question about which input devs should target as well as is MP relevant to the system.
For those who are interested in the performance of the Tegra X1, and perhaps more relevant, the difference between the Tegra X1 (stationary) and the Pixel C (mobile), this article by notebookcheck is worth a read.
(I am by no means convinced that they will use X1.)
(I am by no means convinced that they will use X1.)
The X1 gets about 40k-45k in 3dmark icestorm and a R7 360(about xbox 1 performance) gets about 100k. This is probably best case scenario for the tegra since the benchmark is not designed for desktop cards and they are all over the place for desktop cards, probably because the frame rates go too high and there are other bottlenecks.
Looks like the Basemark memory score in the Pixel C is very close to 50% of that in the Shield TV. Pure bandwidth tests aren't generally going to be so thermally constrained, especially when the CPU performance isn't much lower for the overall GB3 scores. If the LPDDR4 is clocked half as fast in Pixel C (or is half as wide) that alone could explain the GPU performance deficiencies, although I don't doubt the GPU is clocking at least a little lower too.
So, what are your thoughts then? All we know for certain is that its a Tegra based chip, and Eurogamer said their sources claimed X1. Eurogamer ended up being dead on. I think a tweaked X1 chip is very likely at this point. Possibly pascal instead of maxwell, and probably Finfet 16nm. I think expecting much more is setting us up for dissapointment.
That also gives some reference points (from GFXbench).
Sounds like Natedrake over at Neogaf has some credability, and has been saying for a while now that the Tegra chip in Switch is Pascal based. also worth mentioning is that dev kits are said to have audible fan cooling, where the Shield console using th X1 is passively cooled. So even if dev kits have been using Tegra X1 chips, they are likely clocked much higher than normal.
On the other hand, it was a natural and inherent decision to aim for hardware efficiency, including a not huge capacity but low-latency memory, in designing Wii U, as we have done since the days of Nintendo GameCube. These sorts of things have been ubiquitous across the entire company; it is in our DNA.
https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/stock/meeting/140627qa/02.html
This is from 2014 shareholder meeting, when clearly they were already developing Switch. So is there any chance of using eDRAM, eSRAM or something like those fast small memory on their custom Tegra in Switch?https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/stock/meeting/140627qa/02.html
Passive cooling? When did that happen?
I think the device Nintendo has shown is also fan cooled, hence the big venting holes at the top of the main unit.
Shield TV isn't passively cooled, its fan is actually pretty big. See here:
http://broo2.blogspot.com/2015/06/nvidia-shield-android-tv-tear-down.html
Nintendo has indeed used eDRAM a lot for a long time. I think even 3DS and maybe DS had something similar to eDRAM on Fujitsu's process. But I don't think this is a real option on a competitive current process like one from TSMC or Samsung, and trying to do Switch's SoC on a Renesas or Fujitsu process would be a huge mistake. So I think eDRAM is probably not happening, like how it didn't with XB1.
eSRAM seems more possible. The 32MB on XB1 is rather huge, around 70mm^2 on 28nm. With shrinks this could get down to maybe ~40mm^2 on TSMC's 16FF+. I don't have exact sizes, but I'd expect Tegra X1 to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 100-150mm^2, so another 40mm^2 would be very significant. However, nVidia may have been able to shave some space vs X1 by not including blocks that would be important for a tablet or phone but unnecessary for the Switch. For instance, if the Switch doesn't have a camera it probably won't need an image signal processor or video encoder. So I think this is at least possible. They could also go with 16MB or 24MB, but I don't know if it'd be as proportionately useful even with lower than XB1 resolution targets.
The other option is HBM or stacked wide-IO (like PSVita), but I'm not sure it'd be a good cost proposition vs 32MB of eSRAM.
The new 3DS and the WiiU, for that matter, are both horrendously overpriced right now. WiiU has been out for 5 years and they've never bothered to try reducing the MSRP, other than eliminating the 8GB SKU and replacing it with the 32GB model. The 3DS is even worse. You can buy 4 android tablets with much better processors, screens, batteries and way more RAM+storage for the cost of a single 3DS, and the tablets will all come with chargers!
I don't disagree with that. Now why is that? Bad sourcing or contracts? They aim at margin that are too high? the volume is too low OR they have issue managing their many SKUs? Sucky management? A blend of everything and then some more.
Yet it is tough in the context to expect marvel. I dislike the concept is a handheld produt with some make-up. If one want to deliver more serious performances and double as a home console there are bigger yet portable form factor. It is just a tablet with 7icsh inch screen.
I actually believe the rumors about the devkit. Tegra X1, high clocks, fan cooled. But a devkit is a placeholder for the retail device. Those who wish for the highest possible performance should take heart from the fact that at the time the devkit was decided upon, something faster than a highly clocked Tegra X1 simply wasn't available.
I can see a few different possible scenarios if Nintendo indeed goes with nVidia Tegra, the most likely IMHO is that Nintendo goes with what basically would be nVidias default 16nm design. That would ensure nVidia decent volumes for their SoC, if the automotive market doesn't pay off in terms of volume purchases. Nintendo gets a good price and software support.
Another could be that nVidia reserved a lot of 20nm wafers for X1 volumes that simply never materialised, and that they therefore offer it at fire sale prices to Nintendo. Certainly possible, but the volumes involved seems too large.
A third could be that Nintendo comissions a custom solution on for instance 16nmFFC. They could then tailor it to their liking in any direction, for instance reducing die size for cost and power reasons. Or increase die size to solidify performance sufficiently that they feel safe in claiming it to be a viable platform for third party ports. So this one could go either way in terms of performance, but it shouldn't drop too far from the dev kits. Personally I hold this to be less likely, since it requires developing a new SoC on FF, with Nintendo as the only user, so amortisation of design costs would depend entirely on the sales of the Switch. Volume would have to be pretty high for this to actually pay off in terms of savings, and I don't see that they can save all that much in SoC die cost vs. Parker if they still have to reach high X1 levels. Still it's an obvious possibility.
And the list could go on.
My guess is 16nmFF, and a SoC that is basically a chip that nVidia would produce anyway.
The design costs for the WIiU MCM with its custom on-board dies amortised over so few systems must have stung a bit.
I think Nintendo is kind of stuck with Wii U because there just isn't that much they can do to shrink and integrate the hardware, or at least it's not a worthwhile investment to do so. Since they're transitioning away from it anyway it makes sense that they wouldn't bother reducing the cost anymore.
As far as 3DS is concerned, I wouldn't compare them straight to bargain basement Chinese tablets. Being a dual screen clamshell device with 3D takes some toll. 2DS is a lot closer to a tablet and can be is $80 with an included game. Naturally, Nintendo is still not being super aggressive on lowering the price, but they really don't need to see themselves as competing with the cheapest possible tablets, they deliver pretty different content.
Last edited:
cheapchips
Veteran
I do wonder if Nintendo will release a TV only version of Switch down the line?
It would probably dilute the Switch concept at this point, but if they are able to establish a good software library it could make sense in year or so after launch.
It would probably dilute the Switch concept at this point, but if they are able to establish a good software library it could make sense in year or so after launch.
It will be called witch.
