Nintendo Switch Tech Speculation discussion

[Deleted member 13524]

It will be interesting to see if they manage to not disappoint for once - so far everything they've ever made bare one or two devices perhaps have always been underpowered, but that generally hasn't been a problem.

Unfortunately, every single console they have released since the Gamecube (not included BTW) has been underpowered.

The fact that nvidia and not Nintendo is building the whole stack actually gives me some hope that the Switch won't be severely underpowered - for a handheld.
First because nvidia would probably not want to their brand to be associated with an underpowered device, and second because we didn't have Nintendo software developers making low-level decisions on performance and features (which were probably the biggest culprits for underpowered hardware during the last 15 years).

 

[Rodéric]

Chill out both of you or I'll give you some holidays away from the forum
But you seem to be cooling all by yourself already, so I won't even need to find where I put my banhammer !

 

[Goodtwin]

I do think the Switch will ultimately be powerful, but in the context of a mobile device. You simply cant expect a device pulling fraction of the power, in a form factor far smaller to be on the same level as hardware that doesn't have those restrictions. Anytime we talk about something being powerful or underpowered, its always relative. For someone gaming on a PC with an I7 CPU and a GTX1080 GPU is probably of opinion that all consoles are underpowered. For a mobile based device, I think Switch will be at or near the top in terms of performance, especially for the price.

 

[Eteric]

I do think the Switch will ultimately be powerful, but in the context of a mobile device. You simply cant expect a device pulling fraction of the power, in a form factor far smaller to be on the same level as hardware that doesn't have those restrictions. Anytime we talk about something being powerful or underpowered, its always relative. For someone gaming on a PC with an I7 CPU and a GTX1080 GPU is probably of opinion that all consoles are underpowered. For a mobile based device, I think Switch will be at or near the top in terms of performance, especially for the price.

So then I guess the question is how flexible game engines are these days.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/dice-got-battlefield-4-running-on-ios/1100-6423417/

I mean, if that was possible two years ago, I imagine if developers want to they can do decent ports to the Switch of most games. Here's to hoping!

 

[Deleted member 13524]

So then I guess the question is how flexible game engines are these days.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/dice-got-battlefield-4-running-on-ios/1100-6423417/

I mean, if that was possible two years ago, I imagine if developers want to they can do decent ports to the Switch of most games. Here's to hoping!

Hum..
They got it "running parts of the game" on (probably) an ipad air 1 or 2, but no mention of performance or settings. It's curious that they ported Frostbyte to apple metal running within the instruction set that a PowerVR Rogue GPU allows for, butBattlefield 4 was released for the PS360 which have DX9 GPUs and supposedly perform worse than the Wii U's GPU. Moreover, the A8X in the ipad air 2 has something like a 270 GFLOPs GPU, which is actually more than a PS360 but would fall really short if those were the specs for the Wii U.

Another thing to note is that those news are 2 years old, but I've yet to hear about a single mobile game from EA (and they have quite a number of them) using Frostbyte.

 

[Goodtwin]

I look at the numerous games still coming to the PS3/360 as proof that Switch not being on par with the Xbone/PS4 isn't a big deal. If current version of games like Madden, Fifa, MLB, and NBA2k are all on the ps3/360, then performance wouldn't be the reason for these titles to skip the Switch. If the Switch gets off to a fast start, and first party titles will most certainly be the driving force early on, then third party games like Madden and NBA 2K will be there for sure. Lets not stop there though, we saw many cross gen games over the previous few years. Tomb Raider came out for the 360 and X1, and more recently came to the PS4. I think these are prime examples of the compromises developers would have to make with porting to Switch, but it should be obvious by now that its far from impossible. I watched a video where a youtuber was blasting the Switch for only having 4 GB of RAM, yes its less than the PS4/Xbone, but way more than the 512MB in the PS3/360. The minimum performance to expect is Tegra X1, and we know this chip is 2-3x as capable as the 360/PS3, consoles that received cross gen games for a couple years, and still receive sports games. Performance will not be the deciding factor on how third parties approach supporting the Switch, sales will be far more important, and its up to Nintendo and its first party software offerings to make sure Switch gets off to a fast start.

I'm not saying there wont be scenarios where publishers deem the effort to port outweigh the sales potential for the game on Switch, but if a given game has such a low sales potential on Switch, then what are the odds that the game really has much impact on the overall success of the Switch as a platform.

This all has to do with Western AAA third parties off course. Japanese developers who have focused on the 3DS and Vita will most certainly be developing for Switch. Nintendo has also come a long way with Indie developers. Even as poorly as the Wii U has sold, there are still numerous Indie titles being released on the Wii U.

 

[shredenvain]

I look at the numerous games still coming to the PS3/360 as proof that Switch not being on par with the Xbone/PS4 isn't a big deal. If current version of games like Madden, Fifa, MLB, and NBA2k are all on the ps3/360, then performance wouldn't be the reason for these titles to skip the Switch. If the Switch gets off to a fast start, and first party titles will most certainly be the driving force early on, then third party games like Madden and NBA 2K will be there for sure. Lets not stop there though, we saw many cross gen games over the previous few years. Tomb Raider came out for the 360 and X1, and more recently came to the PS4. I think these are prime examples of the compromises developers would have to make with porting to Switch, but it should be obvious by now that its far from impossible. I watched a video where a youtuber was blasting the Switch for only having 4 GB of RAM, yes its less than the PS4/Xbone, but way more than the 512MB in the PS3/360. The minimum performance to expect is Tegra X1, and we know this chip is 2-3x as capable as the 360/PS3, consoles that received cross gen games for a couple years, and still receive sports games. Performance will not be the deciding factor on how third parties approach supporting the Switch, sales will be far more important, and its up to Nintendo and its first party software offerings to make sure Switch gets off to a fast start.

I'm not saying there wont be scenarios where publishers deem the effort to port outweigh the sales potential for the game on Switch, but if a given game has such a low sales potential on Switch, then what are the odds that the game really has much impact on the overall success of the Switch as a platform.

This all has to do with Western AAA third parties off course. Japanese developers who have focused on the 3DS and Vita will most certainly be developing for Switch. Nintendo has also come a long way with Indie developers. Even as poorly as the Wii U has sold, there are still numerous Indie titles being released on the Wii U.

I watched a video on YouTube as well with a guy complaining about the 4gbs or ram as well as the Switch only having 32gbs of internal storage. He was all in a tizzy about the storage size alone basically killing the chance of 3rd party support since most games are 40gbs plus. I find it odd he didn't stop for one second and consider the fact that the games will run from a flash game cartridge. The games won't need to be installed unless you buy them digitally.

 

[BRiT]

I watched a video on YouTube as well with a guy complaining about the 4gbs or ram as well as the Switch only having 32gbs of internal storage. He was all in a tizzy about the storage size alone basically killing the chance of 3rd party support since most games are 40gbs plus. I find it odd he didn't stop for one second and consider the fact that the games will run from a flash game cartridge. The games won't need to be installed

Not correct. How do you handle the Day-0 patches that range from 5 to 20 GB or the 30GB+ DLC addons?

 

[shredenvain]

Not correct. How do you handle the Day-0 patches that range from 5 to 20 GB or the 30GB+ DLC addons?

Your thinking about these titles existing in an ecosystem like you see on the Xbox one and ps4. There aren't a lot of day one patches on the 3DS.

As far as DLC goes its hard to really predict what type of 3rd party titles are coming to the Switch. Sure titles like the Division and Destiny have massive expansions and DLC, but I don't expect these kind of titles coming to the Switch (at least not in their current state on the Xone/Ps4).

There is always the possibility that the hard limit for the SD card isn't 128gb in the first place. They could even have titles with extra storage built into the game cartridge for things like DLC and patches.

PS I'm not saying a 32gb internal storage size is smart or in anyway adequate for a player base used to buying their titles digitally. I'm just saying that the Switch being the first real hybrid console we don't have much to go by as far as the ecosystem goes.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Not correct. How do you handle the Day-0 patches that range from 5 to 20 GB or the 30GB+ DLC addons?

A 20GB 0 day patch sounds like a developer putting out a game that isn't finished yet so hopefully on Switch people will get games that actually work from day one rather than having to spend a day updating after buying a game

I suppose that just like on Wii u you will be able to run games off external storage. You can buy 128GB for as little as 33 euros so that shouldn't be a major issue though it's not ideal either. Maybe they'll have a different SKU with more memory?

 

[BRiT]

For everyone saying Switch won't have those issues is admitting that the Switch will never get third party games.

 

[kalelovil]

I suppose that just like on Wii u you will be able to run games off external storage. You can buy 128GB for as little as 33 euros so that shouldn't be a major issue though it's not ideal either. Maybe they'll have a different SKU with more memory?

Agreed. I think the reality for heavy users will be spreading your currently active games across a few US$40+ 128GB SD cards.
Installs on that media is going to take a while.

 

[Eteric]

It's my understanding that the reason a lot of these games are as big as they are is because no one uses compression anymore. I don't see why they couldn't start again.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Everybody uses compression extensively - things load faster as a result and you can fit more in memory.

 

[Entropy]

Not correct. How do you handle the Day-0 patches that range from 5 to 20 GB or the 30GB+ DLC addons?

I think this is yet another example of "dev kit rumours = retail device" thinking. Dev kits don't need to provide room for four years worth of patches and DLC. So while I have no idea what the final SKUs will be, I know that a dev kit doesn't represent the final device in this case.
(That said Nintendo needs to shave off costs where they can. Some places are less hurtful than others. Requiring heavy users to buy additional storage seems rather reasonable.)

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Not correct. How do you handle the Day-0 patches that range from 5 to 20 GB or the 30GB+ DLC addons?

There's always the chance that Nintendo won't do the current console method of patching where you download the entire multi-GB WAD file if only a few KB/MB of data within that WAD needs to be updated. They could go with an actual patching system which patches the WAD file to contain the correct updated data instead, making for much smaller but much more compute intensive patches.

Although if they go with that, they'll need a some sort of system to allow writing to the cartridge and/or require installation of the game. Depending on the whether they support SD or MicroSD, it'd be relatively easy to upgrade storage to 512 GB (SD) or 256 GB (mSD) with 256 GB and 128 GB respectively being rather affordable.

That's assuming that as with their previous handhelds they're going to allow the user to upgrade the internal storage of the device. What would be novel for a handheld is if they also went the XBO route of allowing the use of USB attached storage for games. Some USB 3.0 thumb drives are remarkably tiny.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

There are two additional indications though. The dev kits are said to be fan cooled. The final device has what looks like rather substantial vents (compare with tablets for instance, or even many compact laptops), which, since they are present on the final device, indicate that it will draw rather substantial power at least when stationary. This implies that since the screen shuts down when in the dock, the device as a whole would draw substantially less when docked. But it seems odd to assume that the Switch, when portable, would draw enough power to require fan cooling as that would imply really short battery life. (Typical phablet battery capacity is roughly 10Wh. The 10" Pixel C has a 34Wh battery, and lasts roughly five hours playing games. Subtract the screen.) If the Switch wants to have reasonable battery life when mobile, SoC+memory, screen and wireless communication can't draw more than a maximum of say 5W, with three watts or so going to the SoC, on the outside.

IMO, I don't believe the NX will operate completely passively while undocked. I believe it'll be active cooled regardless of whether it is docked or undocked. The 3DS, for example has a battery life range anywhere from 3-6 hours depending on game and whether 3D is used or not. I have seen reports of less than 3 hours with 3D enabled on some people's devices as well.

The device is bulky (extremely thick compared to a mobile phone or tablet), not only to accommodate what appears to be a rather large active cooling system, but likely also a fair bit of battery. It looks to be almost as thick as a 3DS when it is closed, which means it'll have significantly more internal space.

My one hope with how thick the device is, is that they'll allow the use of standard SD cards and not limit it to micro SD cards.

Regards,
SB

 

[Entropy]

IMO, I don't believe the NX will operate completely passively while undocked. I believe it'll be active cooled regardless of whether it is docked or undocked. The 3DS, for example has a battery life range anywhere from 3-6 hours depending on game and whether 3D is used or not. I have seen reports of less than 3 hours with 3D enabled on some people's devices as well.

The device is bulky (extremely thick compared to a mobile phone or tablet), not only to accommodate what appears to be a rather large active cooling system, but likely also a fair bit of battery. It looks to be almost as thick as a 3DS when it is closed, which means it'll have significantly more internal space.

My one hope with how thick the device is, is that they'll allow the use of standard SD cards and not limit it to micro SD cards.

Regards,
SB

You may be right regarding the active cooling on the go. After all, if the cooling system is there, you might as well use it if it helps, as long as noise is kept low. We'll see.

MicroSD are sold in capacities up to at least 256GB right now. That's a lot of patches. And they are sold with UHS-II speeds, products are already out with 275MB/s transfer rate. I think the future looks good either way, honestly, even though I somewhat irrationally prefer the full fat version myself.

 

[618116]

Is there any list of Day 1 patch size? I don't think 10GB~ patch is common size of this generation.

 

[Jay]

"Semi Custom" is a term used AMD to describe that arm of its business. However, AMD doesn't describes the console products produced by that business as semi-custom apus. AMD themselves in their marketing material describes the parts it provides to Sony and AMD as "custom" processors. Yes, the core technology is AMD but there are no 8 CPUs based apus, GDDR5 based apus, esram based apus or apus sporting greater than 1 Tflops outside of current gen consoles.

Both processors employ designs unique and differ in non-trivial ways to anything produced by AMD. Plus when has the definition of a "custom processor" required novelty all the way down to an architectural level.

Guess for amd they are semi custom, but for the marketing/the soc itself within that division it's called custom as it's not a duplicate of another soc.

Semi custom design, custom chip hahaha.