Nintendo Switch Technical discussion [SOC = Tegra X1]
- Thread starter Alucardx23
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nintendo nintendont
What do you mean "just found out"? I'm pretty sure you even talked about it in your earlier posts when you were saying Switch was closer to Xbox One than people were indicating because of the FP16 rate. Did you not know what it meant earlier when you were talking about it? Or did you forget about it between then and now?
Yes, I could've forgott it, to many hard working days.
But I still would like to know answer my question, please.Yes, I could've forgott it, to many hard working days.
Yes, it is the same.
Most mobile GPUs have had double rate fp16 for ages. Nothing new. Intel iGPUs also have it.
I believe Unreal 4 supports FP16 natively, so I would think so.
I think the problem with xbox one is the small eSRAM and that its not so fast(as edram was in other consoles), if there is a problem to fit the render targets/ frame buffers like using deferred rendering devs will probably lower resolution as an easy fix but if there were enough space I think more games will have the same resolution as their ps4 counterparts of course also is good to consider that having 1080p sometimes require more than the space to fit the framebuffer and that is why some games run at 900p in ps, resolution can't be taken for a comparison between switch and xbox one
i think developers figured out the esram thing figured after launch. ps4 gpu is 40% more powerful, so I don't see how there could be more games with same resolution and the same settings.
I didnt say same settings, sorry for not being more specific
I think that given the chance MS will push for resolution at the cost of effects, textures and draw distance because most of the people seems to care for resolution and dont pay too much attention to graphical details or act as if they were the same cost in every game and resolution is the only metric for power, if a game is 1080p in both systems then there is no disparity at the eyes of the public and as a result there are no discussion in forums, but if there is a difference in resolution then everybody is talking about it, that is why MS make lot of noise about "true 4K" and downplay checkerboard rendering even if they are using the same techniques to achieve 4k, they probably know very well that people wont notice the difference but as long as they believe the "true 4K" mantra they can get away with it and people will think that everything in X.B.O.X. is true 4K, its a good marketing move
it was good for nintendo to say switch targets 1080p because lot of people think is really close to xb1/ps4 because of this, even if it falls short in AAA if nintendo releases X games at 1080p, people will count how many games at 1080p are in each system and declare what console is more powerful because of it, sure is nonsense but some of that people review games and guide public opinion
That's up to developers. resolution is very demanding part when it comes graphics, they would have to significantly down grade the xbone version to run at 1080p, not worth it.
very few people think switch is close to xb1/ps4. most gamers that care about graphics, want realistic graphics, and switch so far has nothing impressive in that aspect.
Snake Pass runs at 844x475 @ 30 fps on Switch (handheld). It is still selling well. I don't think Switch audience cares that much about technical stuff like rendering resolution.
Similarly for Xbox One vs PS4: You want to bring the same game on both platforms. Xbox One will obviously look a bit worse, because it has slightly slower GPU. The easiest way to reach parity in game play is to reduce the rendering resolution. If you start reducing the draw distance and/or reducing the amount of vegetation or environment objects, it will slightly change the game. Changes that go beyond simple visual tweaks needs more testing to ensure that nothing breaks in the levels (example: difficulty changes because can't hide behind objects). Most people don't notice the difference between 900p and 1080p unless both are running side by side... and not that many players have two similar TVs on next to each other one connected to Xbox One and other to PS4. They just enjoy the game on their favorite console.
Similarly for Xbox One vs PS4: You want to bring the same game on both platforms. Xbox One will obviously look a bit worse, because it has slightly slower GPU. The easiest way to reach parity in game play is to reduce the rendering resolution. If you start reducing the draw distance and/or reducing the amount of vegetation or environment objects, it will slightly change the game. Changes that go beyond simple visual tweaks needs more testing to ensure that nothing breaks in the levels (example: difficulty changes because can't hide behind objects). Most people don't notice the difference between 900p and 1080p unless both are running side by side... and not that many players have two similar TVs on next to each other one connected to Xbox One and other to PS4. They just enjoy the game on their favorite console.
I believe that your average consumer is pretty ignorant in this respect, and I do not mean that as a slight, but they simply are not as interested in the nitty gritty tech details. I would venture to guess that most consumers assume that if their TV is 1080p then so is the game being played on it. Not that they cant see the difference, but probably arent up to speed on what the rendering resolution is.
WWE 2K18 was announced today, and sounds to be on par as far as modes and features are concerned. Visuals will surely see compromises. Still, its a good example of the publisher identifying a game that fits with the perceived audience on Switch, and shouldn't be a complete bear to port.
I think people buy games rather than consoles. (ie they will buy the device to play their favorite game or the game everyone talks about ; the controller matter too, Wii sold because it promised easy controls and Wii Sports was straightforward [not something you need to learn really])
I mean, this has always been kind of a known thing. We all obsess about the details because we're enthusiasts and enjoy technology and seeing what people do with it. But for an average person, they just want to play their game. It's why Gameboy, NES, PS2, etc, had such long long lives. Back then it was also a lot easier to see the difference between generations. I think it's getting more and more difficult for people due to diminishing returns. This will probably continue in the future.
Anyway, digital foundry did their Splatoon 2 video. Seems the game uses dynamic resolution and falls out of 1080p a lot. Hopefully they fix that and make it stay more in the 1080. But the best news is that while playing the game you're at a constant 60 fps. Unless you're in the hub, which runs at 30 FPS because I guess it's a hub?
Anyway, here's the video.
Anyway, digital foundry did their Splatoon 2 video. Seems the game uses dynamic resolution and falls out of 1080p a lot. Hopefully they fix that and make it stay more in the 1080. But the best news is that while playing the game you're at a constant 60 fps. Unless you're in the hub, which runs at 30 FPS because I guess it's a hub?
Anyway, here's the video.
What is interesting is Splatoon 2 doesn't drop frames. It seems their implementation of dynamic resolution doesnt need to exceed the 16ms frame time to kick in. John made it sounds like the resolution bumped up and down a lot, but never did he encounter framerate dips. The game is a massive improvement over the original in pretty much every way from a tech perspective. With the team making such strides in just a few months since the test fire, I think its a safe bet to assume Mario Odyssey will likely get a boost to at least 900p when it releases.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Assuming the hub world is where players can gather and see each other, then it's going to be significantly more CPU limited than the game world making it far more difficult to achieve 60 FPS. They also want to maintain 1080p there as the hub world is one where a person can linger and take a close look at the game, unlike in game mode where the action can be frantic and fast paced leaving little time to just sit there and look at your surroundings.
Speaking of which. Huge huge kudos to the Splatoon team for achieving locked 60 FPS. 60 FPS (IMO) is far more important than resolution, especially in fast motion. I hope all games in the future go for a locked framerate with variable resolution, although I doubt this will happen. Unlike the hub world, the game world features fast paced action and hence a drop in resolution will be less noticeable. Ideally you'd want to keep resolution constant, but there are people that would argue that if you did that, then you'd be wasting GPU resources. Either way, 60 FPS and variable resolution is massively better than 1080p with drops in framerate.
That said, the lack of AA is disappointing. Most people aren't as sensitive to aliasing in games as I am, so this will stick out like a sore thumb to me (one of the major reasons PS3/X360 games were so much worse on console than PC beyond the fact that most were also limited to 30 FPS). However, it's understandable considering the limited hardware. I still would have loved to see some AA.
Then again, when I think about it maybe not so much. If we look at Mario + Rabbids, it appears to feature AA that is decent at removing the jagged appearance of aliasing. Unfortunately it seems to come at a cost of massive blur across the entire scene. Hopefully that isn't the actual case and maybe the capture method was at fault (faint hope). But if the choice here was between a blur heavy AA method or no AA with a clear picture, I'd reluctantly choose no AA with a clear picture.
All in all, it looks like they did a fantastic job with Splatoon. It is in all ways a rather massive improvement over the Wii-U version. They could have instead used that GPU power to have a stable 1080p, but variable resolution as a tradeoff for greater visual fidelity is the right choice to make, IMO. Resolution is relatively unimportant as long as it doesn't go down to something ridiculously low.
In other words, people are much more likely to notice the improvement in the graphics rather than the fact that it isn't always 1080p. Almost no one will notice the variable resolution.
PS - is there a text version that accompanies the video? I really REALLY dislike video only reviews/analysis of games.
[edit] I'm also starting to like the Switch far more than the PS4/XBO due to one simple thing. Nintendo's focus on 60 FPS. As the video states over 80% of the games currently on the switch are 60 FPS game, YAY. Granted many of them are smaller indie titles. But the fact that outside of Zelda (an incredibly ambitious titles) all of Nintendo's first party games have been 60 FPS makes me hope that all of Nintendo's future titles will also be locked 60 FPS games. For me that is huge as I dislike playing 30 FPS games a LOT. Give me 60 FPS over resolution and meaningless graphical bling (which always ends up looking horrible at 30 FPS) any day of the week.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
They may not even be done optimizing the game. I think Splatoon 1 got patches after release that improved frame rate and other things, so it's possible we can expect the same here. Especially since it seems only recently that they brought the game up to 1080p. One thing to keep in mind is that all of the games released so far are only generation 1 Switch titles. Next year the games might look and perform even better due to better optimization. I mean hell, look at Mario + Rabbids.
As for the lack AA, it's understandable. For me it was hard when playing on Wii, but these days it's not nearly as bad even with no AA. Unfortunately AA is pretty taxing on a system (even stronger ones) so I don't mind them axing it for a better frame rate and resolution. If you have a 4k TV I think most models today upscale games pretty nicely, so it's no where near as bad as the Wii days where everything was stretched to shit.
1080p 30 FPS is also acceptable to me in certain genres. But I think most of Nintendo's games should go for 1080p 60FPS
As for the lack AA, it's understandable. For me it was hard when playing on Wii, but these days it's not nearly as bad even with no AA. Unfortunately AA is pretty taxing on a system (even stronger ones) so I don't mind them axing it for a better frame rate and resolution. If you have a 4k TV I think most models today upscale games pretty nicely, so it's no where near as bad as the Wii days where everything was stretched to shit.
1080p 30 FPS is also acceptable to me in certain genres. But I think most of Nintendo's games should go for 1080p 60FPS