"Cutting Edge" *cut-off thread*

[CSI PC]

It is a modern architecture, the feature set of either CPU or the GPU lacks nothing. It is not outdated by any mean.

The X2 should have better power characteristic but it is still a big chip and the balance between CPU/CPU seems failed with gaming in mind. If they can Nintendo should pass.
Well the thing is the new tegra are no longer designed to fit within the power envelop or phone or tablet, not even close. The same applies to productions costs, Nvidia is evolving in segments which are a lot less competitive than tablet/phone SOC.
Clearly the not the PS360 generation but those systems were pretty crazy in many regards still we got something not cutting edge but pretty great nonetheless a lot of RAM compared to the consoles of the past. Nintendo also went that way 4GB is an amount Sony considered for the PS4 for a long while. If it is about the SOC only there is not much to argue, not the greatest thing around at release.
I'm pretty positive with the system because it is a massive step from prior Nintendo hardware and the overall goals for the system are pretty crazy. Now as others I've my doubts about the deal with Nvidia and how this will develop, Nintendo got quite some things right, they can't get stuck, they need to capitalize on their success: they need hardware to move their strategy forward, Nvidia does not have such hardware at hand.

I guess it is one of perspective and definition of modern/current; because it would also be fair to say then XBOX1 or PS4 are not outdated by any mean.

Jetsons X2 has the same size as the X1 but with improved power envelope profile and truly designed with two states in mind; perfect for the Switch but was mentioned specifically in context of recent posts; anyway for reference it has up to 2x performance for same power or twice the efficiency for same performance (ideal rather than real world) with double the bandwidth and is a Tegra/Jetson design that has been around for a few years now.

None of the Tegra/Jetsons are designed for phones; X1 at peak spec is 15W (rather than 10W); X2 operates at 2 distinct modes 7W or 15W (something like that anyway but both with flexibility from original spec).
But I mentioned Xavier/Volta because it is cutting edge with the features/functions/instruction sets and also a better CPU design along with superior performance efficiency.
And as I said there are currently no public Jetson boards around Volta, while Nvidia refuses to talk openly about the possibility either way.
As a refernce NVDLA that is being given to ARM as part of the Trillium Platform project is based upon Xavier; yeah loosely

The current XBOX1 and PS4 were not really cutting edge but had some advanced functions-features, greater level RAM/other similar specs do not mean cutting edge but more with specification/performance vs ergonomics/price.
But to reiterate the current consoles cannot be compared closely to the Nintendo Switch as very different design scope-focus, not sure why so many recent posts are comparing them as they can only loosely be compared to each other.
Both (XBOX1-PS4 and Switch) to me are non-current/non-cutting edge designs with certain compromises; that said I think they all have some great games and enjoyable to play on - not being sarcastic really do think that (just saying as some may see me more focused towards PC).

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Also, people keep saying that the Switch is very impressive, but the reality is that the Vita was more impressive for its time. Vita ports were much closer to the 360/PS3 games from a technical standpoint.

Ooof, I don't think this is quite true. Looking at the VITA exclusives (which can be tailored to the hardware much more than ports) that have been ported to PC, the VITA wasn't even remotely close to PS3 level graphics. Poly count and texture res is atrocious when looking at them on a non mobile screen.

VITA games looked good in comparison to PS3 games because you only ever got to see them on a small screen. The Switch version of Doom also looks extremely good and very close to the home console version of the game if you only play on the Switch's native screen. It's only when you play it on a big screen TV that the sacrifices become obvious enough that they can't be overlooked. Likewise, when you see VITA games on a big screen, they are significantly worse than even the bad PS3 games.

I think the Vita was a great handheld and always wanted one. I never did pull the trigger on getting it though because the library in the US was just too small. If they hadn't switched from the beautiful OLED screen to the LCD screen after launch, I may have gotten one later in the generation just for the screen.

Regards,
SB

 

[Grall]

how would you call a resolution that is basically below 720p, half the framerate yet still unstable and assets even lower than the low settings on PC ?

I'm not the switch's greatest of fans (or even a fan at all actually), but it does run DOOM passably, while running on battery power. That's...not super awful, I'd say.

 

[BRiT]

When people say they find the Switch to be impressive, what they really mean is it's impressive for a Nintendo product. Compare it to their older portables, the 3DS/2DS, it is very impressive because of the large jump on graphics. It's also a huge jump from a development perspective because of the Nvidia supplied SDKs and it brings Nintendo into the current state of programmable GPUs with advanced concepts.

It's far less impressive when compared to stationary consoles.

 

[Recop]

I'm not the switch's greatest of fans (or even a fan at all actually), but it does run DOOM passably, while running on battery power. That's...not super awful, I'd say.

Indeed, the result is fine but the compromises are important. The unstable framerate is annoying though.

I could have said the same thing between the PS4 version of any 3P game and the same game running on PC at 4k/60fps + max settings. It's an immense technical gap.

Ooof, I don't think this is quite true. Looking at the VITA exclusives (which can be tailored to the hardware much more than ports) that have been ported to PC, the VITA wasn't even remotely close to PS3 level graphics. Poly count and texture res is atrocious when looking at them on a non mobile screen.

The Vita performances, in a relative comparison, were indisputably better than that of the Switch when undocked. Actually, they were probably still better when compared to the Switch in its docked mode.

The Vita was able to run AAA games running at 720/30fps on PS3/360 with only a 76% difference in pixel count : https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-vs-borderlands2-on-vita-face-off

All of that with a console that was not especially successful...

Keep in mind that in Doom, the difference in pixel count compared to the PS4 is larger than 350% (docked mode)...

 

[see colon]

The Vita was able to run AAA games running at 720/30fps on PS3/360 with only a 76% difference in pixel count : https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-vs-borderlands2-on-vita-face-off

Borderlands 2 is mostly 20FPS on the Vita, though. There are comparable cutbacks between Switch DooM and Borderlands 2 Vita in terms of visuals (lacking shadows, post effects, etc), but I would contend that framerate is more important when talking about preserving a game, and that while a drop from 60 to 30 is huge, once you drop below 30 consistently you really start to lose playability. If we are ignoring framerate, Mortal Kombat and Injustice for Vita are very far off from their home console versions and probably represent a larger gap between the portable and the home console than anything I've seen on Switch. They remain playable, but look closer to a PS2 game.

I really wanted to like the Vita. I had the original and now the slim and regarding the comments earlier about the switch from OLED to LCD, it's almost a non-issue. If I'm being honest I think the LCD looks a tad sharper. The only disadvantage is a bit less contrast. But the Slim is lighter and uses a micro-USB cable for charging. That's probably the most important upgrade.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

When people say they find the Switch to be impressive, what they really mean is it's impressive for a Nintendo product. Compare it to their older portables, the 3DS/2DS, it is very impressive because of the large jump on graphics. It's also a huge jump from a development perspective because of the Nvidia supplied SDKs and it brings Nintendo into the current state of programmable GPUs with advanced concepts.

It's far less impressive when compared to stationary consoles.

Completely disagree with this!

Obviously Switch isn't outputting the same graphics as xbox or PS, nobody ever claimed that. But you are getting the same game, just at lower graphical settings. E.g. for Doom they didn't cut content, didn't lower the enemy count etc as far as I know. They dialed down the graphics but does that break the game? If you have both consoles and only want to play on the big screen, maybe. But if you only have a Switch and are talking with your mates who played Doom on a xbox, your still talking about the same game.

If graphics is all somebody cares about, then yes, Switch probably isn't impressive for them. Personally I think Switch is impressive as a package and in the couple of months I've owned one I've been playing more on it than I did on my PC in over a year.

As a package its impressive. Well built, surprisingly comfortable even in portable mode, batter that last just long enough to be acceptable, reasonably affordable etc.

 

[BRiT]

So using a 2 year old existing product as a mobile device is impressive to you?

 

[Deleted member 13524]

So using a 2 year old existing product as a mobile device is impressive to you?

I guess it'll depend on your reference for "impressive".

If the reference is the 3DS launching in 2011 with ARM11 cores and an OpenGL ES 1.1 GPU with fixed function pixel shaders, or the Wii that launched with practically the same hardware as the Gamecube with a 50% overclock... then I guess it's impressive.

But if the reference is the PSP, Vita, Xbone, PS4, X360, PS3, or pretty much every Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft/Sega consoles launched before the Wii at their release dates, then it's pretty mediocre.

 

[troyan]

So using a 2 year old existing product as a mobile device is impressive to you?

It is better than using a four years old architecture for a 2017 product...

 

[CSI PC]

The only thing in common IMO between Switch and PS4/Xbox1 is they all have compromises in some way.
With their design-user focus so radically different to each other, really not sure how one can compare PS4/Xbox1 with Switch at anything but a very high level.
None of these products are truly impressive for 2017; even price will be subjectively argued by some.
But they have some great games.

 

[liolio]

I guess it is one of perspective and definition of modern/current; because it would also be fair to say then XBOX1 or PS4 are not outdated by any mean.

They are not though, not to start a war the resolutions pushed by the XB1 are clearly showing the age of the system (and its lacking), the PS4 is a competent system to display games in 1080p.

Jetsons X2 has the same size as the X1 but with improved power envelope profile and truly designed with two states in mind; perfect for the Switch but was mentioned specifically in context of recent posts; anyway for reference it has up to 2x performance for same power or twice the efficiency for same performance (ideal rather than real world) with double the bandwidth and is a Tegra/Jetson design that has been around for a few years now.

None of the Tegra/Jetsons are designed for phones; X1 at peak spec is 15W (rather than 10W); X2 operates at 2 distinct modes 7W or 15W (something like that anyway but both with flexibility from original spec).

I would expect the X2 to be tinier, as it is mostly the same IP on a newer process but I've not checked.
The big/little set-up is not exactly meant to provide some sort of parity between higher and lower power operations, the little cores cluster clearly lacks in the L2 department to be a proper substitute to the Big cluster. In every ways DynamIQ is superior as it is completely flexible whereas Big/little was more about optimizing different tasks, tasks with various performances requirements.
A nice advantage of the X2 is the 18 bits bus which could see some use in dock mode or a proper home console set-up.

I believe Nintendo needs to move from the Switch (as a piece of a hardware) to others ways to promote what could be their (new) united gaming platform. The Switch sold well and fast but I expect its sales if not to stall but to significantly slow down, there are too many segment in which Nintendo could/should be relevant it can reach (foremost price but there are other factors). Nintendo needs to replace the DS, and they need a home console and they need both to be affordable.
With a proper SOC it is doable, the Switch will always lack as a Home console, even a tiny box could allow for a greater SOC and nowaday you need a HDD. Nintendo could/should plan HQ-Texture patchs as 4k will become more and more relevant. The Switch is too expensive as Handheld, I expect too show (wrt to sales) as Nintendo fans and wealthy core gamers niche are mostly fed. That does not mean that the market is saturated or that Nintendo can not reach other segments (through proper products). In my opinion they need a real power SOC done on a more performant lithography they can produce at a decent price: 14/16nm sounds right as it should allow something decent while allowing in the future the SOC to get real cheap.

DynamIQ is a great step forward to keep the CPU footprint low (power and mm2) while increasing performance. Looking at Nintendo usage I would think they should look at the tiny cores (A55) as there bread and butter cores and use the A75 as accelerators, either to race to sleep given workload and maintain smooth operation with fluctuating workload. One could fit an interesting number of A55 and A75 within the die size a x4 cluster of 4 A57 while removing the x4 cluster of A53 (+L2) not in use in the Switch.
As for the GPU an extra SM would go a long way along with a second 64 bit bus (not in use in the handhled that would replace the DS).
The plan would be to release a "1DS" selling at 199€ and a Wii2 at 249€ (hdd included, some extra RAM).
The handheld would look more like the 2DS, price optimized than the more fancy model or the Switch. Then if Nintendo wants to create some more fancy models/SKU as they usually do (could a Switch thing, or bigger, higher res handheld, etc), well let it be but they need their fundamental offering down, the Switch imo just opened the path for them, successfully though.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

So using a 2 year old existing product as a mobile device is impressive to you?

The overall product is impressive imo, yes.

You can apply the same reasoning to the other consoles. Why did they use crappy AMD cores instead of the far superior Intel cores? Why did they have a measly 8gb ram? My PC already had 20gb at the time. Why did, and do they have crappy slow hhds when ssds were on the market for some time already when those consoles launched?

Now your answer is going to be because they are trying to run a business and a console with a 1000 dollar BOM or more simply isn't going to work. So they had to make consessions. There you go, exactly the same as Nintendo did.

Could they have made something much better, ignoring the business side? Of course. So could Sony and MS. There probably is a good reason they didn't.

 

[Sigfried1977]

It is better than using a four years old architecture for a 2017 product...

Ah come on. Specs aren't the only thing that counts. Particularly not when talking about a portable device. The Switch is just a really nice package overall. It has a great screen, great controls and it already sports a very respectable selection of really impressive looking, extremely high quality games too. I've always liked handhelds, and I was super excited about the Vita. When it came to the promise of delivering console quality games on the go, the thing actually did come reasonably close. Ultimately, it still fell short, though. The Switch does not.
Anectotal, I know, but I don't know a single Switch owner who isn't in love with the bloody thing.

 

[CSI PC]

They are not though, not to start a war the resolutions pushed by the XB1 are clearly showing the age of the system (and its lacking), the PS4 is a competent system to display games in 1080p.
.

My point was if you feel the Switch is current then that POV should also apply to XB1/PS4, like I said it is one of perspective and definition of modern/current.
Personally I do not think any of them are current or technology advanced relative for 2017 expectations and each of them has a notable compromise in some way.
Nintendo has limited choices beyond Nvidia in this space when looking at a complete gaming platform with dev support.
For hardware they would need to move to the latest ARM solutions also with other GPU enhancements, but that ignores the complete gaming platform support and trying to get a broad range of devs to work on such platforms without the Nvidia ecosystem beyond what we see with mobile gaming to date.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

What steps could be taken to reduce the manufacturing cost of the Switch?

There are four unused cores, so removing them for a 14nm redesign should save them some silicon. Is there anything else?

There's the four unused cores and their custom cache-coherent interconnection that never worked and is probably dead silicon too, by now.

But the quad-A53 module size probably pales in comparison to the completely unused ISP and 4K x264 video encoding/decoding hardware. There are no cameras in the system and even when docked the console only supports 1080p output.

I bet nvidia could scrape those off and build a similarly-sized SoC even if they downgraded the process to 28nm.
Which is a lot more likely to occur on the mid-term than Nintendo launching an upgraded Switch with Parker.

My point was if you feel the Switch is current then that POV should also apply to XB1/PS4, like I said it is one of perspective and definition of modern/current.
Personally I do not think any of them are current or technology advanced relative for 2017 expectations.

Nor should they.
The XB1/PS4 are 4.5 years old, not 1 year-old like the Switch.

 

[CSI PC]

There's the four unused cores and their custom cache-coherent interconnection that never worked and is probably dead silicon too, by now.

But the quad-A53 module size probably pales in comparison to the completely unused ISP and 4K x264 video encoding/decoding hardware. There are no cameras in the system and even when docked the console only supports 1080p output.

I bet nvidia could scrape those off and build a similarly-sized SoC even if they downgraded the process to 28nm.
Which is a lot more likely to occur on the mid-term than Nintendo launching an upgraded Switch with Parker.


Nor should they.
The XB1/PS4 are 4.5 years old, not 1 year-old like the Switch.

Well Nintendo went with the old generation X1 even when X2 was available and been available for a while, but I made my point about that earlier as well.
Tegra X1 was 2015 for public (certain clients had it earlier than public launch).
But then XB1/PS4 are still the current mainstream solution even in 2017, so it is still relevant to some perceptions as seen even in this thread.
If you want to look at XB1X/PS4 Pro then that needs to be seen in very Late 2017-early 2018 context, and they are still not truly hardware current through the whole product; Polaris launched 2016 albeit these consoles have custom features and I mentioned earlier advanced features, the CPU is a big compromise in terms of technology while to a lesser extent one could argue Polaris will be a generation behind later this year.
If you want to mention accelerated FP16, well that also is applicable to Switch.

I notice you were defending XB1/PS4 earlier from a technology standpoint so you have a different take, it is a subject not everyone can or will agree on.
For me I am critical of all of them from a technology perspective in some way and expectations of advanced designs 2017-2018, but that does not take away there are very good games on all of them that fits the scope-criteria very well for each of those console/handheld designs.

Not directing this at you but it is pointless various posts making this about Switch vs XBOX1/PS4; different technologies and different scope-focus for their designs.
XBox1 and PS4 were outdated by late 2015 in terms of technology, Switch was outdated when it launched due to improved SoC available at the time, none of these using truly cutting edge solutions as it would be too expensive a product to sell.

 

[OlegSH]

The Vita was able to run AAA games running at 720/30fps on PS3/360 with only a 76% difference in pixel count

Simple lighting on Vita, no shadows, missing particle and post-processing effects, overcompressed very low res textures, poor texture filtering and then this: "Downgrades in everything from shadows, effects, textures and even its co-op player count are unfortunate, but stand for nothing when a game still runs in the 10-20fps range - with stuttering dragging it down further". Nothing I'd call impressive here.
Especially in comparison with this - https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-outlast-2-switch-vs-playstation-4

 

[Rootax]

Don't forget it's a very low clocked Tegra X1, it's not even the "real" one. What they're doing with it is pretty nice for a mobile console. But they fucked up the storage IMO (32gb is really too small, even when you have the cartridge).

The only game I care about on the Switch, I have it on Wii U (zelda), so I'll skip this generation since I don't care about mobility. I hope they will bring back powerfull home console one day. I just want to see what nintendo teams are capable of doing on powerfull hardware.

 

[OlegSH]

But if the reference is the PSP, Vita, Xbone, PS4, X360, PS3, or pretty much every Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft/Sega consoles launched before the Wii at their release dates, then it's pretty mediocre.

Even now, TX1 still has the widest API feature set among this gen consoles, even Xbone X and PS4 Pro don't support many Switch features, such as conservative rasterization, geometry shader pass-through, viewport multi-casting, target-independent multipsampling, ROVs, 3D tiled resources, etc. and these are mostly perf features, i.e. they can and should be used to speed up performance on certain algorithms.
On the other hand, Vita hardware wasn't anywhere as advanced as DX11 GPUs back then.