Nintendo Switch Technical discussion [SOC = Tegra X1]

[Silent_Buddha]

Yup, the Switch is basically current generation technology with a bit less memory and slower GPU and CPU speed (and a different CPU arch. which is closer to modern than not).

PS3/X360/Wii-U is multiple generations behind WRT to GPU architecture. They also came with massively slower CPU and GPU and ridiculously less memory compared to current generation non-portable consoles.

We've seen well optimized titles on the Switch (almost all non-Zelda Nintendo games, Paladins, etc.) as well as obviously quick ports (Fortnite, Doom, etc.) and a whole range of efforts in between.

And while iD (Panic Button) thus far hasn't put a lot of effort into it's Switch ports so far, UBIsoft has put in a fairly strong showing with Mario + Rabbids (https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...bbids-is-one-of-switchs-finest-tech-showcases ) which uses the Massive Engine (same as The Division). It isn't quite Nintendo levels of polish and optimization, but it's head and shoulders above iD (Panic button).

I'll be interested to see how well the Wolfenstein 2 port turns out. It's still being handled by Panic Button, so it'll be interesting to see if they've learned anything from their Doom port and/or are allowed to spend more time and money on the Wolfenstein 2 port.

Something else I found interesting was that the company (Iron Galaxy) behind Skyrim's port to the Switch would love to be able to port Monster Hunter World to the Switch. That's another title that would be interesting to see ported to the Switch.

Regards,
SB

 

[Shifty Geezer]

All of that at half the framerate and much lower graphic settings. Here is the cold truth... you can repeat as much as you want that the Switch is closer to current gen consoles, it's not supported by actual evidence, i'm sorry...

'Closer to current gen' is a vague phrase. As mentioned, the RAM alone probably makes plenty of stuff impossible on PS360. Then there's the GPU features. As for what games are like, unless we have an optimised game for PS4 and Switch and PS360 to compare, people are just guessing.

 

[Recop]

Wii u is graphically ahead of last gen so I don't think 360 would run mk8 at 720p. Deferred rendered games with that detail at 60fps don't exist on last gen.

Many multi platform games had worse performances on WiiU... ram is not hardware, just a part of it...

Just compare the gap between these games :

I don't know any Switch game that looks massively better than last gen games...

And while iD (Panic Button) thus far hasn't put a lot of effort into it's Switch ports so far, UBIsoft has put in a fairly strong showing with Mario + Rabbids (https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...bbids-is-one-of-switchs-finest-tech-showcases ) which uses the Massive Engine (same as The Division). It isn't quite Nintendo levels of polish and optimization, but it's head and shoulders above iD (Panic button).

It's a completely flawed comparison...

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Do we really need to repeat the same conversation every other page?

Switch can run current gen games. Obviously sacrifices need to be made but they are essentially the same game.

 

[Recop]

Switch can run current gen games. Obviously sacrifices need to be made but they are essentially the same game.

Mostly true for 60fps games...

 

[phoenix_chipset]

Yeah rabbids has a good amount of polys, current gen lighting and a clean image quality. Odyssey is probably the showpiece game currently. I expect games like MP4 and Bayo 3 to really shine.

@Recop Wii U's graphics chip is a few generations ahead of Xenos while having way more ram to work with. At a minimum, Wii U is capable of at least higher res textures than last gen (See NFS most wanted for apples to apples) thanks to memory but as in the mk8 example exclusives often had better lighting systems. Shadow quality, AF, AA and poly counts were on par with last gen though since the flops were very close.

It didn't have enough raw grunt to brute force better results over last gen hence some ports. Plus that tiny cpu didn't help.

 

[Recop]

@Recop Wii U's graphics chip is a few generations ahead of Xenos while having way more ram to work with. At a minimum, Wii U is capable of at least higher res textures than last gen (See NFS most wanted for apples to apples) thanks to memory but as in the mk8 example exclusives often had better lighting systems. Shadow quality, AF, AA and poly counts were on par with last gen though since the flops were very close.

People keep saying the same old things, yet most of multi platform games had worse performances on WiiU and its architecture wasn't as exotic as the PS3 one.

Also : https://kotaku.com/5962354/the-wii-u-has-a-horrible-slow-cpu-according-to-these-developers

Basically, the Switch is only able to run WiiU games at a higher resolution but with no improvements.

And people think it is closer to current gen consoles...

 

[Svensk Viking]

The downgrades in Wolfenstein are obvious, but hey, it works

On the same note, I just watched Digitalfoundry's comparison for Captain Toad and I really won't mind playing that on the 3DS

 

[phoenix_chipset]

^ I noted the cpu, that's got nothing to do with on screen graphics 'cept draw calls for polys and shinen for one said wii u wasn't limited there. Wii U was weaker in physics and game logic not graphics.

Even if a game had worse performance, again those are ports from different machines with higher gpu flops albeit marginally, lower main memory bandwidth (devs not using eDRAM happens aka cod ghosts 720p on xbox and 1080p on ps4) and quite a bit stronger cpus. So just like wolf and doom they're not tailor made.

Moving on ._.

I'm interested in how the spyro and dbz fighter ports turn out next. Glad dbz is 60fps at least.

 

[milk]

People keep saying the same old things, yet most of multi platform games had worse performances on WiiU and its architecture wasn't as exotic as the PS3 one.

Also : https://kotaku.com/5962354/the-wii-u-has-a-horrible-slow-cpu-according-to-these-developers

Basically, the Switch is only able to run WiiU games at a higher resolution but with no improvements.

And people think it is closer to current gen consoles...

You fail to understand the influence of a modern GPU feature set. Switch has the technology of a PS4, but with the horspower of a PS3. Roughly.
That means, in crude terms, its mutch easier to port a PS4 game to switch than it is to PS3, retaining most graphical features and engine architecture. Albeit with a huuuge reduction in performance.
Yet if you try to run a ps3 game on switch, the modern gpu gets you nothing, and the only thing that counts is raw grunt. You don't get the benefit of the ability to use modern tech allowed by the modern gpu feature set because those were not in the original title to start with, and doing that sort of refactoring of the engine is usually beyond the scope of a port-job.
Reggarding Wii-U, its gpu was indeed ahead of PS3's and 360's. Its weak spot was the cpu, which is specially problematic to most ports since ps360 gen games usually offloaded as much graphics tasks to the cpu as possible to free up the gpu. Again, some of that could be refactored on the wiiU but its the kind of thing that is beyond most porting projects.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

People keep saying the same old things, yet most of multi platform games had worse performances on WiiU and its architecture wasn't as exotic as the PS3 one.

Performance of multiplats isn't just proportional to hardware ability, but also port investment. Wii U had a tiny user base. Did it attract full-on investment for ports to make them the best possible for the hardware, or did it just get half-arsed cash-ins that didn't do the hardware justice.

I feel we should create a standard replies reference. The same arguments come up in so many many conversations, it'd be quicker and easier for everyone involved if we could just refer to a library of cookie-cutter arguments.

I open with statement number 7.
I reply with statement 14.
I counter with statement 9 (which you knew I'd do anyway), and I'll pre-empt your statement 18 response with a number 15.



B3D needs more data.

 

[Recop]

That means, in crude terms, its mutch easier to port a PS4 game to switch than it is to PS3, retaining most graphical features and engine architecture.

I don't dispute that.

But in my opnion, it's easier to port a Switch game on PS3 than porting a PS4 game on Switch.

Even though its GPU is far more modern compared to last gen consoles, it doesn't compensate the raw performance gap.

 

[Picao84]

I don't dispute that.

But in my opnion, it's easier to port a Switch game on PS3 than porting a PS4 game on Switch.

Even though its GPU is far more modern compared to last gen consoles, it doesn't compensate the raw performance gap.

Your opinion means squat when you are not able to present it with specific reasons other than FLOPS. Please show, by quoting graphics capabilities and feature sets, for example. Are you programmer, do you develop games? What experience do you have in the field, so we can take your opinion seriously? So far, the Switch has been shown to punch above what the naysayers said it could. Yet, on the face of several ports from PS4 / Xbox One, you still say porting from PS3 is easier. Based on what exactly? There is way more than FLOPS to graphics. You only have to see how nVIDIA, which curiously powers the Switch, is able to do more with generally less FLOPS than AMD (which power both PS4/Xbox). Programming and processing power are not the absolute known figure you seem to think it is. It is how you use that processing power that matters and that is exactly the reason why the Switch is going further than expected.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

People keep saying the same old things, yet most of multi platform games had worse performances on WiiU and its architecture wasn't as exotic as the PS3 one.

People keep saying the same things because you're wrong on a lot of things.

The most important factor for why ports to Wii-U didn't perform as well as PS3/X360 was due to the time and budget allotted to those ports and much less with the hardware (minus that weak CPU).

And ports didn't get a lot of effort because the Wii-U install base was abysmal meaning that even with decent sales as a proportion of user base, 3rd party publishers weren't going to get a large return on investment.

Wii actually suffered due to pretty darn weak hardware. But the Wii-U while not next gen was ahead of the PS3/X360 in many ways, except for that weak CPU.

Regards,
SB

 

[Recop]

And ports didn't get a lot of effort because the Wii-U install base was abysmal meaning that even with decent sales as a proportion of user base, 3rd party publishers weren't going to get a large return on investment.

If you compare respective exclusives from each platform, i don't see that supposed gap even though i agree it's far more difficult to make a relevant comparison.

For instance, Forza Horizon on 360 still impresses me more than anything on WIiiU.

Your opinion means squat when you are not able to present it with specific reasons other than FLOPS. Please show, by quoting graphics capabilities and feature sets, for example. Are you programmer, do you develop games? What experience do you have in the field, so we can take your opinion seriously?

My point is based on empirical evidence. The undocked mode is about as powerful as a WiiU and the compromises are systematically smaller.

Docked mode > Undocked mode

PS4/XB1 >>> Switch (docked)

Do you know games that have to run at half the frame rate when undocked ? The answer is no...

So far, the Switch has been shown to punch above what the naysayers said it could.

Wrong, it performs worse than expected in many scenarios. See Zelda... the Switch isn't even always able to push all WiiU games at 1080p...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But in my opnion, it's easier to port a Switch game on PS3 than porting a PS4 game on Switch.

That opinion really is based on nothing though, isn't it? Porting anything to PS3 is a nightmare to begin with thanks to Cell. Then you have all the DX11 shaders having to be re-written for a DX9 class GPU. You probably don't really mean what you wrote and were instead imagining some performance based comparison.

 

[Picao84]

If you compare respective exclusives from each platform, i don't see that supposed gap even though i agree it's far more difficult to make a relevant comparison.

For instance, Forza Horizon on 360 still impresses me more than anything on WIiiU.



My point is based on empirical evidence. The undocked mode is about as powerful as a WiiU and the compromises are systematically smaller.

Docked mode > Undocked mode

PS4/XB1 >>> Switch (docked)

Do you know games that have to run at half the frame rate when undocked ? The answer is no...



Wrong, it performs worse than expected in many scenarios. See Zelda... the Switch isn't even always able to push all WiiU games at 1080p...

So it is able to run ports from Xbox One and PS4 and its performing worse than expected? You are not making any sense. May I remind you we are talking about a 7W, when portable, console against consoles that consume upwards of 100W?

What the fuck are you on about Zelda on Switch?? It runs better than on Wiiu on both portable and docked mode! Especially after all the patches!

Docked Switch runs Zelda in 900p versus 720p on WiiU with no visual downgrades at all and better texture filtering to boot. Undocked runs in 720p with better frame rate stability than the WiiU!!!

Do you live in some alternative reality??

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...a-breath-of-the-wild-switch-vs-wii-u-face-off

As promised, we've spent a couple more days getting to grips with the performance profile of The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild on both Switch and Wii U, and while it's still difficult to justify investing so much money in a new console just for one title, what's clear is that aspects of the game that truly stress the GPU can see significant performance advantages for the Switch title - whether you're docked or using the console as a portable.

We identified several points in the game where the graphics hardware is likely to be put under stress - big explosions while Link indulges in combat, along with the area of the title we had the most requests for testing: Kakariko Village. The former sees the Wii U hardware buckle considerably under the load, while the Switch only sees minor disturbances to its frame-rate - it's not really a big issue for gameplay, as the performance drop is fleeting.

It was also a launch title that was ported from a very different architecture, both CPU and GPU. If anything, given this and the relatively small boost to Flops, we could actually have expected less than what we got if we go by your logic! But no, it runs a port from a very different architecture, with barely any advantage in raw graphics power, as you define it, passing with flying colours.

Why are you so invested in this, really? What annoys you so much about the Switch that you come back time and time again, ironically, when there are ports from Xbox / PS4?

 

[Recop]

You probably don't really mean what you wrote and were instead imagining some performance based comparison.

Indeed, my answer was in terms of performances. But you can use the 360 instead of the PS3 if you want.

So it is able to run ports from Xbox One and PS4 and its performing worse than expected?

And ? Borderlands 2 was ported on Vita... the real question is at what cost ?

Docked Switch runs Zelda in 900p versus 720p on WiiU with no visual downgrades at all. Undocked runs in 720p with better frame rate stability than the WiiU!!!

Where did i say that Zelda had worse performances on Switch ? I only said that the performances were disappointing... the game doesn't even run at 1080p. It's dynamic 900p (docked) with better framerate and that's all...

 

[Picao84]

Indeed, my answer was in terms of performances. But you can use the 360 instead of the PS3 if you want.



And ? Borderlands 2 was ported on Vita... the real question is at what cost ?



Where did i say that Zelda had worse performances on Switch ? I only said that the performances were disappointing... the game doesn't even run at 1080p. It's dynamic 900p (docked) with better framerate and that's all...

Are you deliberately avoiding the further points I made about it? Maybe because they use your own reasoning against your conclusions?

Regarding Borderlands 2, that was a lone example and Borderlands was never considered on the forefront of graphics technology. Switch has had multiple ports by now from engines that are at the forefront like idtech 6.

Regarding cost, what's your point? Has anyone here ever said that the Switch was going to have parity on graphics quality with PS4 / Xbox One? No! Everyone knew that there would be sacrifices to be made! And so what? Is it a freaking crime now? Are you some sort of Tech Nazi defending a "pure race of gaming consoles"?

This has been going on in circles since the Switch launch and no one here really understands you!

 

[Recop]

Are you deliberately avoiding the further points I made about it? Maybe because they use your own reasoning against your conclusions?

What point ? I didn't see anything relevant in your answers...

Regarding Borderlands 2, that was a lone example and Borderlands was never considered on the forefront of graphics technology. Switch has had multiple ports by now from engines that are at the forefront like idtech 6.

The great difference is that an AAA game running at 30fps was ported on Vita. Something that still never happened on Switch...

Regarding cost, what's your point? Has anyone here ever said that the Switch was going to have parity on graphics quality with PS4 / Xbox One? No! Everyone knew that there would be sacrifices to be made! And so what? Is it a freaking crime now? Are you some sort of Tech Nazi defending a "pure race of gaming consoles"?

Because if you make enough compromises, you can even port current gen games on a smartphone... so my question still remains : at what cost ?

Fact is the performance gap is greater between the Switch and current gen consoles than between the Switch and last gen consoles as i already pointed out.

There is not a single game in portable mode that has to make as much compromises as those seen in Doom/WF2 between the Switch and the PS4/XB1.

And in its portable mode, the Switch is quite close to a WiiU in terms of power.

I gave you a logical reasoning based on empirical data, something that you failed to do until now...