- Status
Is it not possible that there can be a fair amout of idle time for the GPU or have parts of the GPU deactivated in 720p portable mode in games developers want to run in 1080p in docking mode? That way, there don't have to be a massive "overclock"?
Nope. Well not quite. It's the same price ranges ($329, $349), but I figure Nintendo is providing more on the full Nintendo Switch. There's more pieces parts, so I figure the cost with all of them could be higher.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Yeah the Wuu was 10+ year old hardware sold for the same price as ps4one, of course it was priced too high for what it was.
The Switch seems to be much more up to date from a hardware perspective and therefore will be more expensive. Wii launched for 250 and that was very bare bones from a HW perspective.
I think anybody hoping for 250 is going to be disappointed. High 200's MIGHT be possible but looking at similar hardware on the market I'd say 300 is probably the lowest you can realistically expect.
The Switch seems to be much more up to date from a hardware perspective and therefore will be more expensive. Wii launched for 250 and that was very bare bones from a HW perspective.
I think anybody hoping for 250 is going to be disappointed. High 200's MIGHT be possible but looking at similar hardware on the market I'd say 300 is probably the lowest you can realistically expect.
Right and with Nvidia I bet they will be agresive with dropping prices . I think they are going to let the 3ds limp on until they can put the switch at under $200 and it will replace the 3DS and the Wii u. All the kids that are pre teen don't have cell phones but they have a 3DS. Nintendo can try and slot into that and also perhaps steal away some tablet sales if they have touch and an app store for on the go stuff .
I believe Nvidia is selling their shield tablet for $200. I expect Nintendo to be under $300. Its in Nvidia's best interest to get developers on board because having a huge dev force making games for their hardware can only help them get more silicon wins in other devices which was the point of tegra and Nintendo needs to sell a lot of these so they can move their software . They want to sell 20m + Mario karts and 20m + super smash and 20m + Zelda and so on and they want to do it over and over again.
I'm sure Nvidia sells the Shield tablet for a profit at $199, and that's why I am pretty confident there will be a $249 Basic SKU. I also believe that a much more profitable SKU with a packed in game and possibly more memory will sell for $299. Just like the more expensive Wii U model sold better, Nintendo knows it will be the more popular model. The $249 Basic model might be selling at cost, but gives Nintendo the ability to market the Switch, "Starting at $249.00".
Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
I really feel like FP16 pixel shaders are going to be essential for bridging the gap between the Tegra chip powering Switch and the AMD processors powering PS4/X1. A poster over at Gaf put together some quotes from a thread in this forum, mostly from Sebbi I believe.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=221603499&postcount=1707
It sounds to me like the usefulness of FP16 calculations has improved dramatically over the years. Seeing as how the standard PS4 and X1 do not support FP16, this could be critical to the chips ability to close the gap with the other consoles. Laura K Dale has been pretty much spot on with her sources, and back when it was still the NX, she stated that the performance was more inline with the XboxOne than the PS4, and even that might be pushing it. But it would make sense under the context that the Switch is most certainly not as powerful as the Xbox One in the traditional sense, but if 70% of a games shaders can be done in FP16, then perhaps the deficient shrinks dramatically. This could be the first time a major player has ever really offered a true console level experience in the form of a portable. I know Vita tried selling itself as being a console level portable, but it never had the games to drive the sales. It was also probably a bit ahead of its time. Mobile hardware has advanced at a rapid pace thanks to Smart devices. I cant wait for January 13th when the details finally become much more clear, but as a Nintendo fan, I am geeking out over this device. My lunch breaks for work are going to be spent playing Zelda BoTW for a long time.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=221603499&postcount=1707
It sounds to me like the usefulness of FP16 calculations has improved dramatically over the years. Seeing as how the standard PS4 and X1 do not support FP16, this could be critical to the chips ability to close the gap with the other consoles. Laura K Dale has been pretty much spot on with her sources, and back when it was still the NX, she stated that the performance was more inline with the XboxOne than the PS4, and even that might be pushing it. But it would make sense under the context that the Switch is most certainly not as powerful as the Xbox One in the traditional sense, but if 70% of a games shaders can be done in FP16, then perhaps the deficient shrinks dramatically. This could be the first time a major player has ever really offered a true console level experience in the form of a portable. I know Vita tried selling itself as being a console level portable, but it never had the games to drive the sales. It was also probably a bit ahead of its time. Mobile hardware has advanced at a rapid pace thanks to Smart devices. I cant wait for January 13th when the details finally become much more clear, but as a Nintendo fan, I am geeking out over this device. My lunch breaks for work are going to be spent playing Zelda BoTW for a long time.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Then we should be seeing the Xbone getting better performance and/or IQ than the PS4 in most multiplatform games.
Which we don't.
Despite all the criticism I see in this forum about the 1.6GHz Jaguar cores, I have yet to see a single actual developer actually complaining about single-threaded CPU performance in the 2013 consoles.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
I stand corrected for Ubisoft, but Sucker Punch isn't complaining. They state "it's working pretty well but there's still room to optimize". Claiming it's a bottleneck compared to the GPU is not the same as complaining.
As for Ubisoft talking about AC: Unity.. well not only were they the ones claiming they locked the same resolution on both consoles to "avoid all the debates and stuff", but also the game was an undeniable shit-show at launch, on all platforms. On the PC there are still many complaints regarding ridiculous CPU usage, even though the game doesn't get that much better with higher clocks or core count.
AC: Syndicate shows substantially better performance on the lower-clocked PS4, so one has to wonder how much of that was complaint about the hardware and how much was covering the publisher's asses for having ridiculously short development times because of the obligation to churn out a new AAA Assassin's Creed every single year.
Again, stating the CPU is the bottleneck in comparison to the GPU or RAM or whatever else is not the same as complaining about the CPU.
The bottleneck had to be one thing. For some games it's perfectly natural to be the CPU.
No system could ever be perfectly balanced for all games, engines and rendering techniques. That's an utopia.
The fact that so few developers are claiming that the CPU is the bottleneck in their particular game only means that Microsoft and Sony made the right call on the CPU choice.
Last edited by a moderator:
Developers are inclined to prioritize what sells, and what the consumer deems as the most attractive. Most games are not pushing the AI and physics to the extreme because there isn't the same demand as high resolution graphics and framerate. I'm certain if developers were really trying to make strides in these departments, they would quickly find the limitations of the Jaguar CPU. I also wouldn't assume that just because there aren't numerous complaints about the CPU isnt any indication that they think its a great CPU. I am pretty confident that every single developer would much rather have a I5 quad core than the Jaguar CPU. There is also something to be said for the Jaguar being the industry standard for consoles. If either the PS4 or X1 had shipped with an I5 while the other shipped with the Jaguar, I would bet we would be hearing far more grumblings about the Jaguar CPU.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Then everyone should agree that prioritizing GPU area/power budget over CPU area/power budget was a good idea.
Consoles exist to make money by catering to their audience's preferences, and not to feed academic-esque projects on AI or physics. Developers have PCs for that.
Consoles run on too much of a tight budget as they're often sold at little profit or even a loss to ever have those aspirations.
And every single developer would also much rather have a Pascal Titan X than a Bonaire/Pitcairn class GPU in the 2013 consoles. And would much rather have 24GB of 10GT/s GDDR5X in a 384bit arrangement than 8GB of 256bit DDR3/GDDR5. And would much rather have NVMe SSDs than disc-spinning drives.
Of course any developer would much rather have faster [place-component-name-here] in order to avoid having to work around [place-bottleneck-name-here].
What's in question is not absolute performance, but rather the most balanced possible system you can get within a certain cost.
Then I guess we'll see if the PS4 Pro's 2.1GHz Jaguar gets all this criticism you suggest if/when developers start comparing it to Scorpio with a Zen CPU.
Don't get it twisted, I agree that they did prioritize correctly based on what the consumer ultimately wants. I just think that's separate from the assumption that the Jaguar isn't a bottleneck that developers have to keep a very tight lid on. We saw what happened when Ubisoft got to ambitious with Assassins Creed Unity. They ran into a ceiling that they were never able to work out. In the scheme of things, all those NPC's running around did very little to excite the player and was subsequently toned down in future installments. As for the Scorpio Zen CPU, I would bet you will here more positives comments about it than you will complaints about the Jaguar. Mainly because the games are still targeting the original PS4 and Xbox One as the baseline spec.
cheapchips
Veteran
That look pretty on my phone screen. I'm not sure it tells us anymore than we already know. Modern gpu with power > last gen.
Surely Nintendo will be a bit annoyed about them showing this before their Jan event?
Surely Nintendo will be a bit annoyed about them showing this before their Jan event?
- Status
Similar threads
