Nintendo Switch is powered by NVIDIA

[lolipopman]

Tegra X1 apparently has an 8 core CPU with 4 A53s and 4 A57s running in LITTLE and big configuration respectively, I recently found out.

Assuming it uses Tegra Pascal, will it really be that much better with a 6 core one? I'm curious how efficient the Denver cores really are.

 

[swilli89]

Tegra X1 apparently has an 8 core CPU with 4 A53s and 4 A57s running in LITTLE and big configuration respectively, I recently found out.

Assuming it uses Tegra Pascal, will it really be that much better with a 6 core one? I'm curious how efficient the Denver cores really are.

A big unknown here is the NV API. Nintendo is King at squeezing out the most from its hardware, and I imagine they have worked with nVidia to build a great low level API. Remember, X1 basically runs on Android so this device may have reduced CPU overhead. 6 threads should be plenty to feed ~256 Pascal cores.

 

[dogen1]

A big unknown here is the NV API. Nintendo is King at squeezing out the most from its hardware, and I imagine they have worked with nVidia to build a great low level API. Remember, X1 basically runs on Android so this device may have reduced CPU overhead. 6 threads should be plenty to feed ~256 Pascal cores.

1-2 cores should be enough depending on the game.

The are xb1 and ps4 games that saturate much less than even a single core handling draws.

 

[lolipopman]

A big unknown here is the NV API. Nintendo is King at squeezing out the most from its hardware, and I imagine they have worked with nVidia to build a great low level API. Remember, X1 basically runs on Android so this device may have reduced CPU overhead. 6 threads should be plenty to feed ~256 Pascal cores.

Sure. But I was specifically talking about the hardware.
Those Denver cores must be pretty powerful.

 

[RussianSensation]

Actually no, the 3DS and Wii U didn't successfully coexist, in that both had good sales. The Wii U was a colossal flop. That's why Nintendo is trying this instead of just releasing a new, traditional home console.

Maybe I wasn't clear in my delivery. What I meant to say is that Nintendo can create a 3DS successor that also happens to provide an additional functionality to connect to the TV -> that's the Switch. Then they should have a stand-alone powerful $400-450 home console. There are specific reasons why the N64, GameCube and Wii U all flopped. We have to go back to the SNES days when Nintendo simply designed a traditional home console with no major compromises.

Right now, Nintendo is positioning the Switch as a replacement for 2 separate products: mobile and home console. If you say that the Switch is replacing both the 3DS and the Wii U, but the Wii U's sales should never count as it flopped, then we have to go back to 3DS + N64 / GameCube or Wii U sales as the target market for the Switch. If the Switch is a replacement for 2 separate product lines, it will never manage to replace the sales of mobile predecessor 3DS and a good Nintendo home console that would normally expect to get 30-50 million sales as well.

Some of the technical concerns I voiced earlier in this thread are already becoming true:

1) Data capacity in games may become a major issue for this console as a compromise to keep the prices of game cards low:

Nintendo Switch Standard Game Card Capacity Around 16GB

Since AAA games are now easily approaching 50GB, over the next 3-5 years we should expect a lot more AAA games to grow to 60-100GB, even greater.

"Thanks to updates on the PlayStation Store, we now know the file size of Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare (make sure to read our beta impressions if you haven’t already). The latest first-person shooter from Infinity Ward will be around 44.6 gigabytes. If you’re picking up the Legacy Edition in order to get Modern Warfare Remastered, you’ll be looking at a total of 82 gigabytes.
http://www.playstationlifestyle.net...e-pre-load-date-revealed/#TBOsBcPrH6mltHAG.99

That's only 2016, but the Switch needs to last for 5 years [typical console life cycle] from March 2017 to March 2021.

How is Nintendo going to ship next generation 60-80GB AAA games on the Switch? The two likely outcomes are some of those AAA games simply won't come to the Switch and/or they will come as watered down versions of the PC/PS4 Pro/XB Scorpio versions.

2) External storage capacity expansion is severely compromised

Nintendo Switch reportedly won't support external hard drives

"
The Nintendo Switch dock isn't going to give you much more than a pathway to gaming on the big screen, it seems.
Many believed that you could perhaps plug an external hard drive into the Switch dock to give yourself additional storage for all your games.

But it turns out that you really, really can't - allegedly anyway.
A report from Lets Play Videogames, which seems to have the inside skinny on such things, states that the Switch only supports SD cards that are inserted into the tablet portion."
http://www.digitalspy.com/gaming/ni...rt-external-hard-drives-sd-cards-only-report/

So now we can already check mark that storage capacity is going to be a severe issue/problem for the Switch compared to PS4/XB1. The other 2 major factors are severely underpowered GPU and weak battery life. We'll see if Nintendo can at least get 1 of those right since the GPU is going to be weak even if it has a 512 CUDA core Pascal chip because the memory bandwidth bottleneck and much lower GPU boost clocks on a portable will gimp it anyway.

 

[Sweepr]

''According to Jen-Hsun Huang, as transcripted by Seeking Alpha, the relationship with Nintendo is going to last for a very long time, likely at least two decades, as the Japanese company tends to stick with an architecture for quite some time. NVIDIA has been working with Nintendo for over two years already, and the console will apparently amaze everyone, noting how it plays like nothing else on the market.''

The Nintendo Switch's gaming experience is also supported by fully custom software, including a revamped physics engine, new libraries, advanced game tools and libraries. NVIDIA additionally created new gaming APIs to fully harness this performance. The newest API, NVN, was built specifically to bring lightweight, fast gaming to the masses.

And so that’s a real advantage and we’re really proud of them. I guess you could also say that Nintendo contributed a fair amount to that growth. And over the next – as you know, the Nintendo architecture and the company tends to stick with an architecture for a very long time. And so we’ve worked with them now for almost two years. Several hundred engineering years have gone into the development of this incredible game console. I really believe when everybody sees it and enjoy it, they’re going be amazed by it. It’s really like nothing they’ve ever played with before. And of course, the brand, their franchise and their game content is incredible. And so I think this is a relationship that will likely last two decades and I’m super excited about it.

Via: http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2016/11/nvidia_ceo_talks_up_incredible_nintendo_switch
Source: http://seekingalpha.com/article/4022322-nvidia-nvda-q3-2017-results-earnings-call-transcript

 

[RussianSensation]

Actually no, the 3DS and Wii U didn't successfully coexist, in that both had good sales. The Wii U was a colossal flop. That's why Nintendo is trying this instead of just releasing a new, traditional home console.

I was saying that there are 2 separate markets and consumers: portable gamers and traditional home console gamers. Wii U flopped but the Wii did not. As I keep saying, Nintendo's console would look far more favourable imo if they positioned it first as a portable console that has the ability to also play games at home, as opposed to a home console that also happens to be a portable console. It's a small subtlety but it has a huge impact on how the console is perceived. Rumours from price, to performance all back this up.

In 2017, home console gamers will be cross shopping Xbox One S with a 4K BluRay, PS4 with its huge library of games, and for those who want cutting edge console graphics and 4K-upscaling, Xbox One Scorpio and PS4 Pro. The Switch doesn't seem competitive at all in the home console field in light of the 2017 competitive landscape. That's not even taking into account the already large libraries of Xbox One and PS4 compared to the Switch's minuscule gaming library at launch.

The Switch's specs are very disappointing for a 2017 home console (again, they are good for a portable but Nintendo is trying to cater to 2 different markets with just 1 console - imo a major flawed strategy):

The Switch is rumoured to have only 4GB of RAM.
The Switch is rumoured to have only 32GB of storage.

We also know the GPU is unlikely to be much more powerful than a 1Ghz 384 CUDA core Pascal chip, with memory bandwidth around 50-60GB/sec only. If we assume that an average Nintendo console's life-cycle is 4-5 years, the Switch would need to play next gen games from 2017-2022. As soon as PS5/XB2 launch in 2019-2020, it's going to be extremely hard to port 3rd party games to such weak specs. That's why the Switch's launch timing is not optimal either.

We are also getting rumours that the Switch's base console SKU may cost $249 USD/£199.99. Once again, this is good for a portable console with a bonus feature to connect to a TV but clearly this isn't even mid-end home console hardware.

By all accounts, this should not be marketed as a direct competitor to Xbox One/PS4 and their 4K counter-parts. And this is perfectly OK but only if Nintendo doesn't try to sell us the marketing BS that the Switch is also Nintendo's next gen home console from 2017-2022. They will not be able to get the traditional home console gamers back who simply wanted the next SNES/N64/GameCube style console.

What about the price of games? Currently, most AAA games sell for $59.99 USD or $79.99 Canadian. I don't think it's reasonable to charge these prices for what is essentially a portable console. I think that's why Nintendo is so desperate to try to market the Switch as a home console since they want to make up the low cost of the console with much higher game prices. Right now 3DS games sell for $39.99 USD or $49.99 Canadian. I am not sold on the idea of an underpowered 2017 home console's games costing $60 USD/$80 Canadian because then I am going to be comparing the total experience to the PS4 Pro/XB Scorpio and the PC.

That is why I think Nintendo should have a $249 Switch and then a $399-449 home console but it seems they aren't going to have it this generation. Maybe I am wrong, but in my eyes, they are abandoning the traditional home console market. A large portion of console gamers simply do not care for mobile gaming. Once we hook up the Switch to a TV, it becomes just another underpowered Nintendo console, exactly just like the Wii and Wii U were. Just like the Wii and Wii U, it also comes with compromised/weird controllers, thus forcing gamers to spend extra $ on the Pro Controller. Just like the Wii and Wii U, the console is gimped with low storage again, forcing the gamers to get external SD cards. For someone who will buy the Switch solely as a home console, the $249 price sounds more like a marketing gimmick since it'll cost another $70-80 to get the Pro Controller and a 128GB SD card. (And how exactly is Nintendo going to fit next gen AAA titles on an SD card when games are already approaching and exceeding 100GB? It won't be cheap with SD storage).

Once the early adopter sales and the initial hype dies down, and we approach 2019/2020 when many expect XB2 and PS5, the Switch risks becoming irrelevant in the home console market. That doesn't mean it won't sell well, but those sales will likely be coming from the same gamers who wanted or bought portables such as the 3DS and Vita, etc.

 

[tential]

Where did you get the $250 price tag? If that's the price and it does mobile with decent battery life count me in. Yesterday. I need it....

 

[antihelten]

Once again, this is good for a portable console with a bonus feature to connect to a TV but clearly this isn't even mid-end home console hardware.

Actually I think you could make the argument that the Switch is really one of the only mid-end home console hardware, at least in theory.

Low end/entry level: Ouya, Apple TV, Nexus Player, Fire TV etc.
Mid range/mainstream: Switch, Shield console, Wii U
High end/performance: PS4, Xbox One
Enthusiast: PS4 Pro, Scorpio

Obviously the segments for console hardware are significantly lower than how you would categorize them in the PC hardware world (i.e a high end console is equal to a mid range PC at best, and a mid range console would be equal to a low end PC at best).

 

[nvgpu]

Can't wait to play this on the Nintendo Switch with Nvidia graphics.

 

[Red Hawk]

Some news: a leaked Nintendo Switch accessory listing seems to indicate that the Switch uses USB Type C for charging.

http://www.pcmag.com/news/350101/nintendo-switch-uses-usb-c-for-charging

This is corroborated somewhat by the appearance of the Switch on the Tonight Show last night. It's a bit hard to get a good look, but if you zoom in, what looks like the charger port seems consistent with USB Type C.

(the guy talking says USB 3, but the annotation notes that he meant to say USB C.)

 

[moonbogg]

OK honest opinion here. Those graphics look like N64. This thing in my mind is just a smartphone/gaming tablet thingy. Its nothing like a home console. This reminds me of those failed attempts at a gaming tablet with control stick on it like the one Razor made a while back. This is a mobile device and doesn't deserve to be called a home console. Nintendo is just like AMD in my mind. The Nintendo name is synonymous with "low", as in low performance, low power, low graphic quality, low cost, low low low low low. They should just man up and build a hardcore console with a full blown high end GPU in it and blow away the competition in terms of specs, then charge $500 for it. They can make games look amazing and be immersive as hell with that nice Nintendo flavor. If it fails, hang it up and get the hell out of the console market because at least they would have given it their best shot unlike with this "switch" smartphone gaming device that can't even make phone calls.

 

[dogen1]

OK honest opinion here. Those graphics look like N64. This thing in my mind is just a smartphone/gaming tablet thingy. Its nothing like a home console. This reminds me of those failed attempts at a gaming tablet with control stick on it like the one Razor made a while back. This is a mobile device and doesn't deserve to be called a home console. Nintendo is just like AMD in my mind. The Nintendo name is synonymous with "low", as in low performance, low power, low graphic quality, low cost, low low low low low. They should just man up and build a hardcore console with a full blown high end GPU in it and blow away the competition in terms of specs, then charge $500 for it. They can make games look amazing and be immersive as hell with that nice Nintendo flavor. If it fails, hang it up and get the hell out of the console market because at least they would have given it their best shot unlike with this "switch" smartphone gaming device that can't even make phone calls.

Breath of the wild is a Wii U game. You can't fairly judge the switch's power on a game developed for a 176GFlop console. It could potentially end up being a lot more powerful.

Also, not many people are looking for a $500 console, nintendo fans probably the least. And the people who don't want a nintendo console in the first place wouldn't care about it at any price.

The Nintendo name is synonymous with "low", as in low performance, low power, low graphic quality, low cost, low low low low low.

Actually, they have the most first party games that run at 60 fps. Not even a sorta locked 60 fps either. Mario 3D world and Mario Kart 8 are probably 2 of the best looking games on the system, and run 100% locked at 60 fps, which is kind of ridiculous.

 

[Red Hawk]

OK honest opinion here. Those graphics look like N64. This thing in my mind is just a smartphone/gaming tablet thingy. Its nothing like a home console. This reminds me of those failed attempts at a gaming tablet with control stick on it like the one Razor made a while back. This is a mobile device and doesn't deserve to be called a home console. Nintendo is just like AMD in my mind. The Nintendo name is synonymous with "low", as in low performance, low power, low graphic quality, low cost, low low low low low. They should just man up and build a hardcore console with a full blown high end GPU in it and blow away the competition in terms of specs, then charge $500 for it. They can make games look amazing and be immersive as hell with that nice Nintendo flavor. If it fails, hang it up and get the hell out of the console market because at least they would have given it their best shot unlike with this "switch" smartphone gaming device that can't even make phone calls.

Man, it must be a looooooooong time since you've played an N64 game. Even the 3DS has better graphics than the N64 (as in, several N64 games have been ported to 3DS, and got upgraded textures, lighting, draw distances, etc., in the process).

 

[NTMBK]

1) Data capacity in games may become a major issue for this console as a compromise to keep the prices of game cards low:

Nintendo Switch Standard Game Card Capacity Around 16GB

Since AAA games are now easily approaching 50GB, over the next 3-5 years we should expect a lot more AAA games to grow to 60-100GB, even greater.

The important part of that story is "At Launch". Cartridge capacity can increase over the course of the console's life, as the cost of silicon comes down; it happened with the NES, SNES, and N64. Both the NES (or rather Famicom) and N64 had disk-drive attachments meant to provide storage for larger games, which became obsolete as the cartridge capacity increased.

 

[nathanddrews]

The only reason game sizes have grown so massive is thanks to LPCM audio files and FMV cut scenes. Textures, even the 4K and 8K texture packs are still usually highly (and smartly) compressed, the largest pack I think I ever downloaded was 8GB. Then, of course, there are the junk files that are only used to fill the empty space.

If there is an 80GB AAA game that Nintendo wants on the Switch, you can bet that all that extra crap will be stripped out to make it work.

 

[nvgpu]

Personally, I can't wait for the next Zelda game post BotW, where it will be developed solely for the Switch and showcase the true capabilities of the modern GPU inside using advanced rendering features like Conservative Rasterization, Rasterizer Ordered Views etc.

 

[Stuka87]

OK honest opinion here. Those graphics look like N64.

Seriously? I love the N64, but the graphics of this new Zelda look amazing compared to any N64 game, not even comparable.

 

[Chiropteran]

While I don't know if the switch will be a huge hit, I do see it filling a certain niche extremely well:

Portable tablet gaming with GOOD controllers. Sure, you can use some bluetooth controllers with android tablets, but support isn't universal and there is no guarantee every game will work right with them. Virtual touch-joysticks are terrible.

On switch, you know every game is going to be built to use the real hardware controllers, and use them well.

I'll probably get a switch just for these reasons.

 

[Face2Face]

I don't think we need another XBONE or PS4 competitor; we need something different in the market. Didn't work out too well for the Sega and the Dreamcast. While it's a risk, I think it could be A big payoff for Nintendo. I mean most kids playing Pokemon Sun and moon are playing on a handheld that's barley faster than a flip phone. They don't care. It provides them entertainment, and most of them could care less how many TFLOPs of compute their system has. I think the PCMR is looking at the Switch in the wrong way. If we want a power house handheld for gaming, then I certainly wouldn't look to Nintendo to give it too us. If the switch fails, then on the bright side, maybe in the future we'll be able to buy Nintendo developed games on STEAM...

 

[thecoolnessrune]

The only reason game sizes have grown so massive is thanks to LPCM audio files and FMV cut scenes. Textures, even the 4K and 8K texture packs are still usually highly (and smartly) compressed, the largest pack I think I ever downloaded was 8GB. Then, of course, there are the junk files that are only used to fill the empty space.

If there is an 80GB AAA game that Nintendo wants on the Switch, you can bet that all that extra crap will be stripped out to make it work.

Between Final Fantasy XIII-1 and Final Fantasy XIII-2, FFXIII-1 was 36GB for the PS3 version, and 24GB spread over 3 discs for the Xbox 360 version. The quality on the X360 version was noticeably reduced to get it down for 3 discs. Audio overall was much worse (very obvious when using headphones) and high amounts of pixelation on the cutscenes made the PS3 the obvious choice for those with both consoles.

For FFXIII-2, they moved most of the in-game FMVs (It's final fantasy after all, so there's a crap ton) out, and replaced them with in-engine cutscenes. The difference was drastic, with the PS3 version lowering to 14GB. This was still too much for the Xbox 360 of course, and compression was used to lower the Xbox 360 version to 7.7GB. The difference between the two consoles was less drastic than before, but still noticeable.

The reason I bring this up is that yes, compression can be done, but even a last generation game, with all the compression used, still has difficulty reaching goals, and quality suffers as a result.

I highly doubt that many, if any, of the current generation AAA titles will make the switch to the Switch without drastic changes to the game design itself.

 

[crisium]

Is capacity even an issue? It hurts the software margins to have a high capacity card, that's a real monetary concern.

But there's no technological concern for capacity. This isn't the N64 where most games were 8MB-32MB, and the absolute largest were 64MB, competing with 700MB CDs.

SD cards are available in sizes larger than Blu-Ray. They can make a 256GB game if they want to have a lossless audio experience. I expect a similar range to the N64 sizes actually, just GB isntead of MB; I expect an 8GB-64GB range.

The question is if the cost concern leads developers to make noticeable quality sacrifices to use a smaller card. That's up to the publisher, I suppose.

 

[MarkizSchnitzel]

I highly doubt that many, if any, of the current generation AAA titles will make the switch to the Switch without drastic changes to the game design itself.

I would like to hear reasoning for why do people keep insisting on that?
If I want to play destiny and CoD or Battlefield, why would I even be considering Nintendo with PC, PS and XB already there?

 

[Headfoot]

I would like to hear reasoning for why do people keep insisting on that?

Not x86, doesn't have 8 equal cores, power limited GPU reduces total throughput, different programming API, Nintendo's historical difficulty in getting 3rd party dev buy-in

 

[antihelten]

Not x86, doesn't have 8 equal cores, power limited GPU reduces total throughput, different programming API, Nintendo's historical difficulty in getting 3rd party dev buy-in

None of that would really require changing the game design for a port though, generally it should only require a reduction in IQ. whether or not devs make the choice port a title in the first place would probably have far more to do with install base size, and attach rate statistics.

Change in game design would have to be due to controller design, form factor and potentially the online capabilities of the Switch, but none one of those would appear to be issues compared to the PS4/Xbone as far as I can tell.