Tkumpathenurple
Veteran
I had no idea that it could clock higher with WiFi turned off. I'll try that next time I play Little King's Story.... which will be never.
Switched Universe Nintendo Switch design wishes *spin-off*
- Thread starter Karamazov
- Start date
Rikimaru
Veteran
It's a special state. Game have to request this.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
I'm complaining about what some keep repeating and isn't true: the Switch is not the best that could have been. This is the only fact I want to state.
No, it's not. No one ever called Liverpool's GPU "Pitcairn". They're from different generations of GCN.
Liverpool/Orbis has 4x more ACEs than Pitcairn for more efficient async compute (and it's probably what makes the PS4 capable of decent VR) and TrueAudio, both features that determine its GCN generation. In fact, AMD themselves stated that the TrueAudio blocks (which are only available from GCN2 onwards) came from the console developments.
The PS4 SoC became the best gaming SoC available the moment it came out to the market. Even if you change goalposts the answer is still the same: PS4 used the best and latest AMD had to offer in 2013, the Vita used the best and latest that ARM and PowerVR had to offer (plus first-of-a-kind Wide IO for VRAM). The PS4 Pro used the best and latest AMD had to offer considering they needed hardware BC with PS4 (hence the Jaguar cores).
The Tegra X1 was not the best and latest available for Switch's release, that's terribly far from a true statement.
100% agreed. The high-bandwidth+low-latency wireless display standards being developed for wireless VR should be excellent for any portable devices to become hybrids.
In a few years we probably won't even need to worry about video outputs. Even for older TVs we can just get Wireless Display -> HDMI dongles and call it a day.
Yes, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that the Vita's SoC did use state-of-the-art technology for a gaming-oriented device. At 222MHz the GPU was performing close to the ipad 3 which only released 4-5 months later.
phoenix_chipset
Regular
Best SOC =/= Best chips.
This was your first response to me - "Because every portable game console that existed before the switch had to use years-old existing SoCs, and no console maker ever dared to order custom SoCs or even make their own?"
Yeah, originally I was talking about the age and power of the chipsets when a console launched, not what's the best console like some company forum warrior. You started this because I said the switch was the best they had, well it was ; within reason. They may not have customized it the best they could, but X1 was the best starting point they had as TX2 wasn't ready. I've said multiple times I would've liked that 4th core available to games, and a higher memory bandwidth.
So tell me, how is a cut down 7870 the best AMD had to offer? (Ps4 is a 7870 with 2 CU's disabled and at a lower clockspeed - Pitcairn) Does the 7970 not exist in your mind? How is Jaguar comparable to Vishera 8 core? Let alone the fact that's only discussing what AMD had cpu wise and not the superior Intel chips. Sony and MS graced us with the best tech available huh? No. It was just the best they could do while remaining profitable.
No console is state of the art anymore, not just Nintendo like your bias would like. The 360 is the last truly cutting edge console.
Last edited:
CELL and Xenos seemed like they would be a great match. Best of both worlds from those consoles. Both cutting edge in their own way.
The hardware in Switch is by no means the best that could have happened. It could have been more powerful. And yet, in a sense, maybe we're lucky we received what we did. It could have been a lot worse. This is Nintendo after all.
The hardware in Switch is by no means the best that could have happened. It could have been more powerful. And yet, in a sense, maybe we're lucky we received what we did. It could have been a lot worse. This is Nintendo after all.
phoenix_chipset
Regular
Imagine that combo with 768 megs of ram. Would've been a good match for an 8800 series gpu.
Overall my pov is that it turned out pretty awesome.
The Soc is pretty great, definitely high-end with great software support. The system came with a lot of ram, I mean for mobile system this size it is possibly unprecedented (not sure), it is definitely top of the line.
I was not in agreement with Nintendo on the thing I would have distinct home and portable products working like the ps4 / ps4 pro combo. The thing is the product works and found its audience. It sort of confirm my pov on the topic of power, you don't need much morr power than the ps360 hardware to run most games in an acceptable ways for lots of gamers, the package just have to be attractive enough and Nintendo delivered that, the sales figures speak for themselves.
What I hope is that Nintendo build from there a consistent environment. I hope they produce a cheaper mobile only meant to replace the DS line, I hope they release a cheap home console too. Now as the home/portable combo is what bought then lots of costumers I think where they should iterate first on their product at lower hardware level I mean SOC). I hope Nintendo manage to get Nvidia to develop again a solid SoC meant to reach laptop/tablet/STB as their newer Soc are not gear toward those appliances requirements.
The Soc is pretty great, definitely high-end with great software support. The system came with a lot of ram, I mean for mobile system this size it is possibly unprecedented (not sure), it is definitely top of the line.
I was not in agreement with Nintendo on the thing I would have distinct home and portable products working like the ps4 / ps4 pro combo. The thing is the product works and found its audience. It sort of confirm my pov on the topic of power, you don't need much morr power than the ps360 hardware to run most games in an acceptable ways for lots of gamers, the package just have to be attractive enough and Nintendo delivered that, the sales figures speak for themselves.
What I hope is that Nintendo build from there a consistent environment. I hope they produce a cheaper mobile only meant to replace the DS line, I hope they release a cheap home console too. Now as the home/portable combo is what bought then lots of costumers I think where they should iterate first on their product at lower hardware level I mean SOC). I hope Nintendo manage to get Nvidia to develop again a solid SoC meant to reach laptop/tablet/STB as their newer Soc are not gear toward those appliances requirements.
Tkumpathenurple
Veteran
I get the feeling that Nintendo accepted this old SoC from an old node partially because it's cheap, and partially because using up Nvidia's old chips has secured Nintendo access to its 7nm successor, either cheaply or early. Maybe both.
7nm mobile chips are entering full production next year IIRC, which, depending on allocation, would give Nintendo an opportunity to release a slim Switch for Christmas 2018 or spring 2019.
Also, if, undocked, the 7nm Switch has the docked clockspeeds of its 28nm counterpart, they've got a real winner on their hands. That's certainly the iteration for which I'm waiting.
Maybe they'll wait to see what the PS5 will be though, since it's likely to be the next non-mobile home console that launches, and it's in Nintendo's interests to provide hardware that, much like the Switch, can render stripped back versions of its home console contemporaries.
7nm mobile chips are entering full production next year IIRC, which, depending on allocation, would give Nintendo an opportunity to release a slim Switch for Christmas 2018 or spring 2019.
Also, if, undocked, the 7nm Switch has the docked clockspeeds of its 28nm counterpart, they've got a real winner on their hands. That's certainly the iteration for which I'm waiting.
Maybe they'll wait to see what the PS5 will be though, since it's likely to be the next non-mobile home console that launches, and it's in Nintendo's interests to provide hardware that, much like the Switch, can render stripped back versions of its home console contemporaries.
I think a "slimmer" Switch would be largely diminishing returns and I'm not sure how much slimmer they could go due to the ergonomics of the joy-cons. If they release an updated Switch I'd like to see them maximize screen real estate so it has slim bezels, improved performance, larger battery..
Also I don't think PS5 has any implications on what Nintendo does with Switch...
Last edited:
An updated Switch may simply just use Parker ( perhaps with disabled bits again, such as the Denver cores in the this case, and car things) as volume pricing for 16nmFF gen ought to be good for 2018. Maybe they'd opt for the "12nmFF" since it's just a variant for slightly better die area.
Most of the HW relevant to gaming is going to be roughly the same (quad A57, 256CC etc), just higher clocked and a fatter bus. There'd be little R&D cost to Nintendo, I would think... all they do is commission production instead of going through a lengthy design process.
Most of the HW relevant to gaming is going to be roughly the same (quad A57, 256CC etc), just higher clocked and a fatter bus. There'd be little R&D cost to Nintendo, I would think... all they do is commission production instead of going through a lengthy design process.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I think Nintendo took some pointers from Apple, Steve Jobs was oft quoted as saying "customers didn't know what they wanted until you showed it to them". Talk to any PSP or Vita owners and you'll have to go some to find one who didn't wish they could plug those devices into the TV. Similarly, I've never yet met a console owners who didn't also express the desire to play their games on the move. This was half of the appeal of the PSP (playing some PS3 games) and PS4 stream to Vita - but without the controller issues and you're not longer tethered to streaming.
This is 100% appeal of the Switch for some people. A portable ecosystem that can't work on the big screen is unthinkable in this day and age. It's why there are things like Chromecast, AirPlay and industry standard alternatives. The smaller screen is fine when you don't have a bigger screen.
Nintendo won't really have options though. The limiting factors for a handheld are power draw and battery life, so they'll get whatever SOC they can that fits their envelope regardless how many TF's are in any home console.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
My biggest wish for the next Switch would be support for wireless displays. NVidia has experience with this as well as drivers and products capable of it. So it shouldn't be hard to get that if Nintendo wanted it.
Regards,
SB
Regards,
SB
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Are there any TVs that support this or would this require extra hardware plugged into a HDMI port?
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Some displays (both TV and monitor) support it natively. For those that don't you'd need a dongle.
For example,
http://www.lg.com/us/experience-tvs/smart-tv/connect
Support for Miracast built into the TV.
Regards,
SB
Tkumpathenurple
Veteran
Slim was probably the wrong term, since I agree with the upgrades you'd like to see.
I disagree with the notion that Nintendo won't pay the PS5 any attention though. Although Nintendo will go with the best, most cost effective SoC for the Switch 2, I would imagine that the configuration will be somewhat determined by the capabilities of the PS5 because Nintendo need their console to stay on the radar of any multiplatform developers.
So, whether it's the number of cores, their type, the width of the bus, or the two clockspeeds, something will be effected in order to provide the capabilities necessary to run a stripped back version of a PS5 game.
Lite Switch might come first for power consumption reasons and a quicker iteration time (could also boost clocks even further while docked), but the switch to next gen would probably have to wait until 7nm if they're looking at having enough performance for 3rd parties to scale down from next-gen HW from MS/Sony, and even then the node would have to be high volume enough so as not to compete for wafer supply. i.e. don't expect it soon.
Then it needs to be the most powerful mobile solution possible, regardless of PS5, because the very worst possible PS5 is going to be far beyond what a handheld can achieve. Putting it another way, what design choices would be different for Nintendo if PS5 is 10 TF and 400 GB/s or 15 TF and 600 GB/s?
Tkumpathenurple
Veteran
True, but the very worst current generation console, the XBoxOne, is far beyond what the Switch can achieve, but it's still close enough for the Switch to run graphically simplified versions of its software.
From my uneducated position, I suppose the GPU hardware features (which will probably be fine, it's Nvidia after all) and CPU threads matter most. If the PS5 utilises Zen, we'll get either 4 cores and 8 threads, or 8 cores and 16 threads. I would imagine that this would have some bearing on Nintendo's hardware, depending on how scalable the ARM cores are in the Tegra line.
It depends on how modular the Tegra is, and how cooperative Nvidia will be.
Last edited:
I don't think Nintendo thinks about designing consoles the same way people on here think about it. Look at their history of design choices...specs/power is just not big a priority.
But even if it were the case. The Switch is significantly less powerful than the other consoles and that's with nearly a 3.5 year release gap in between and one of the competitors "dropping the ball" on specs/power that gen ....which I don't we will see again.
But even if it were the case. The Switch is significantly less powerful than the other consoles and that's with nearly a 3.5 year release gap in between and one of the competitors "dropping the ball" on specs/power that gen ....which I don't we will see again.
