Apparently the Switch Hardware Specs Has been Leak

[Trixanity]

A57 cores? Brutal. Nvidia is definitely handing Nintendo their leftovers.

[Demonking]

2 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

A57 cores? Brutal. Nvidia is definitely handing Nintendo their leftovers.

And for dirt cheap.

[LAwLz]

That... sucks ass. So it's just an X1 with the A53 cores ripped out, and a 100MHz CPU overclock?

We're getting smartphone-tier performance from 2 years ago, in a 400 dollar console.

 

 

I don't get why Nintendo didn't just give us some decent hardware.

Old CPU architecture and old GPU architecture. They couldn't even be bothered to get the latest Tegra chip.

[GoodBytes]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

That... sucks ass. So it's just an X1 with the A53 cores ripped out, and a 100MHz CPU overclock?

We're getting smartphone-tier performance from 2 years ago, in a 400 dollar console.

Is there a similarly priced phone with better specs? This includes full OpenGL and Vulkan support, and not the garbage OpenGL ES.

[Sniperfox47]

7 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Is there a similarly priced phone with better specs? This includes full OpenGL and Vulkan support, and not the garbage OpenGL ES.

Pixel C >.>

[vanished]

7 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

• CPU: Quad core ARM A57 CPU - 3 cores is available for devs. Max clock rate is 2GHz.

Thank god, this makes WAY more sense than the 1 GHz nonsense we were hearing earlier.  As I mentioned several times in previous threads about it, that would have been simply unplayable (source: manually setting CPU freq on my shield tablet and attempting to game)

7 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

• GPU: Nvidia second gen Maxwell architecture - with 256 CUDA cores with a max clock rate of 1 GHz.
• RAM: 4GB
• Storage: 32GB 400MB/s

Sweet, this should run well I think, and those are SSD-like speeds, which is fantastic to see in any mobile device, let alone a console!

[suicidalfranco]

2 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Is there a similarly priced phone with better specs? This includes full OpenGL and Vulkan support, and not the garbage OpenGL ES.

phone have access to vulkan since marshmallow (android obviously), said that, nvidia shield tablet (200$) and nvidia shield tv(200$)

[GoodBytes]

7 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

phone have access to vulkan since marshmallow (android obviously), said that, nvidia shield tablet (200$) and nvidia shield tv(200$)

The GPU needs to be adapted for support. You have 2 things that Vulkan has, lower level access to the hardware and new features. New Features aspect needs the GPU designed to support it, with good performance. This is like DirectX 10.1 games/app which can run on DirectX10.0 GPUs just fine. But if it uses 10.1 specific features then it will crawl. Same with OpenGL versions, assuming it is supported.

[GoodBytes]

5 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Pixel C >.>

Pixel C is $800. The Switch is $300 with 2 really fancy controllers and smaller.

Despite all this, it only has 3GB of RAM. While the Switch manged (assuming the leaks to be right) 4GB

[suicidalfranco]

3 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

The GPU needs to be adapted for support. You have 2 things that Vulkan has, lower level access to the hardware and new features. New Features aspect needs the GPU designed to support it, with good performance.

support is there, straight from nvidia

https://developer.nvidia.com/vulkan-android

[GoodBytes]

2 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

support is there, straight from nvidia

 

https://developer.nvidia.com/vulkan-android

Wonderful.. but you said ALL Android phones with Android M, and not Nvidia Tegra K1 and above.

[suicidalfranco]

1 minute ago, GoodBytes said:

Wonderful.. but you said ALL Android phones with Android M, and not Nvidia Tegra K1 and above.

yes, all phones with android m have access to vulkan, straight from google

https://developer.android.com/about/versions/nougat/android-7.0.html

 

which means everything with a snapdragon 808 and above and later can has full vulkan support 

[Sniperfox47]

21 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Thank god, this makes WAY more sense than the 1 GHz nonsense we were hearing earlier.  As I mentioned several times in previous threads about it, that would have been simply unplayable (source: manually setting CPU freq on my shield tablet and attempting to game)

1Ghz is totally doable if they're not using Android. Keep in mind that Android has a lot of CPU overhead as a multitasking OS compared to a console OS. Then consider that the switch will be primarily using Vulkan which will further lower CPU overhead.

 

3DS has *much* lower IPC/advanced compute at <1GHz, and the Wii-U has 3 cores total with comparable IPC/Compute extensions at <1GHz

[GoodBytes]

11 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

yes, all phones with android m have access to vulkan, straight from google

https://developer.android.com/about/versions/nougat/android-7.0.html

 

which means everything with a snapdragon 808 and above and later can has full vulkan support 

Yes, like on desktop PCs, but does it fully support all features? no it does not.

This is the same story with GPUs with DirectX12. If your GPU doesn't say that it support DirectX12 specifically, then all you have is the more direct hardware control, but all new features aren't supported. So the game needs to check for that, and execute an alternative solution if not supported (assuming the game wants to support that, else it can just crash with unsupported API).

[Sniperfox47]

2 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Yes, like on desktop PCs, but does it fully support all features? no it does not.

This is the same story with GPUs with DirectX12. If your GPU doesn't say that it support DirectX12 specifically, then all you have is the more direct hardware control, but all new features aren't supported. So the game needs to check for that, and execute an alternative solution if not supported (assuming the game wants to support that, else it can just crash with unsupported API).

All cards that support DX11 support DX12, given they have proper drivers. Fully support DX12.

 

DX12 is an API. There's a very big difference between APIs and feature levels. *No* card fully supports all features of the DX 12_2 feature level. Not even the Titan X Pascal.

 

Just like with Vulkan. All chipsets that support Open GL ES 3.1 support Vulkan assuming driver support. No single card supports all the features of Vulkan. None.

[GoodBytes]

22 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

All cards that support DX11 support DX12, given they have proper drivers. Fully support DX12.

 

DX12 is an API. There's a very big difference between APIs and feature levels. *No* card fully supports all features of the DX 12_2 feature level. Not even the Titan X Pascal.

 

Just like with Vulkan. All chipsets that support Open GL ES 3.1 support Vulkan assuming driver support. No single card supports all the features of Vulkan. None.

I don't think you know what you are saying exactly. Because you just highlighted what I am saying without you knowing... at least, I don't think. Unless you are agreeing with me.

 

OpenGL ES is a SUBSET, a stripped down version, of the full version of OpenGL. OpenGL/DirectX are APIs, yes, but in the context used on this forum, it includes GLSL (OpenGL Shaders language) and HLSL (DirectX Shader language). Tegra supports full OpenGL.

 

Let's focus on OpenGL.

Shaders is what allows you to code the Vertex Shader, Tesselation, Geometry Shader, and Fragment shaders. These are rendering layer of the OpenGL pipeline. OpenGL 4.0 is required to be able to code something in the Tesselation layer, but you really need 4.5 to be able to do something real nice and with much ease (although still complicated and challenging. Hence, why they are many books on Tesselation only). Despite both supporting Tesselation, in this example, if you use something specific to 4.5,  then a graphics card with 4.0, will not work. So the drivers can handle a translation of it, sure... or the game can see it isn't support it, and avoid the code (disable Tesselation or use a more intensive technique to get the same visuals), or just crash with error (not handling it)

 

The same applies to Vulkan. Vulkan has newly added abilities. This new API and shading language (SPIR-V) allows support for feature already existing in "past versions" (OpenGL), but anything new is not supported

[Sniperfox47]

3 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

I don't think you know what you are saying exactly. Because you just highlighted what I am saying without you knowing... at least, I don't think. Unless you are agreeing with me.

 

OpenGL ES is a SUBSET, a stripped down version, of the full version of OpenGL. OpenGL/DirectX are APIs, yes, but in the context used on this forum, it includes GLSL (OpenGL Shaders language) and HLSL (DirectX Shader language). Tegra supports full OpenGL.

 

Let's focus on OpenGL.

Shaders is what allows you to code the Vertex Shader, Tesselation, Geometry Shader, and Fragment shaders. These are rendering layer of the OpenGL pipeline. OpenGL 4.0 is required to be able to code something in the Tesselation layer, but you really need 4.5 to be able to do something real nice and with much ease (although still complicated and challenging. Hence, why they are many books on Tesselation only).

 

The same applies to Vulkan. Vulkan has newly added abilities. This new API and shading language (SPIR-V) allows support for feature already existing in "past versions" (OpenGL), but anything new is not supported

Except that Vulkan doesn't have set API levels like OpenGL had. There's no Vulkan 3.1, Vulkan 4.0, Vulkan 4.1, Vulkan 4.2. there's just features that Vulkan drivers expose. While the X1 supports most of these there's a number that it doesn't support. "Shader Int16" is a good example of a couple different ones from the original Vulkan release. The Maxwell v2 GPU cannot be used with 16 bit integer shaders. This is one of the *core* Vulkan features, not one from an extension, and the X1 doesn't support it.

 

Nowhere in the Vulkan doc does it say that to support Vulkan you have to support every feature that Vulkan offers. To do so would be ridiculous. Vulkan is not a set of capabilities, it's merely a way to, as a developer, access these capabilities.

[GoodBytes]

11 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Except that Vulkan doesn't have set API levels like OpenGL had. There's no Vulkan 3.1, Vulkan 4.0, Vulkan 4.1, Vulkan 4.2. there's just features that Vulkan drivers expose.

Exactly.

 

Quote

While the X1 supports most of these there's a number that it doesn't support. "Shader Int16" is a good example of a couple different ones from the original Vulkan release. The Maxwell v2 GPU cannot be used with 16 bit integer shaders. This is one of the *core* Vulkan features, not one from an extension, and the X1 doesn't support it.

 

Nowhere in the Vulkan doc does it say that to support Vulkan you have to support every feature that Vulkan offers. To do so would be ridiculous. Vulkan is not a set of capabilities, it's merely a way to, as a developer, access these capabilities.

No one uses Int.. except the GameCube. Everything and everyone uses floats in shaders in the gaming world.

It only affects if you do GPU computation to some level. Which is useless as on an Nvidia GPU you have CUDA.

[othertomperson]

9 hours ago, ChickenCake248 said:

I'm pretty sure the second gen Maxwell GPU means it's Tegra X1, the Tegra X2 is Pascal. First generation Maxwell was actually released with low end Kepler cards such as the GTX 750 ti. There was no first generation Tegra.

The 750 Ti was Maxwell, not Kepler. Secondly the main difference between Maxwell and Pascal is the die shrink. Given that this is not actually 28nm or 16/14nm, the designation of either Pascal or Maxwell is muddy.

[Sniperfox47]

1 minute ago, GoodBytes said:

Exactly.

 

No one uses Int.. except the GameCube. Everything is floats.

That doesn't change the fact that it's a core feature from the feature set of Vulkan.

 

My whole point here is that mobile chips supporting less or different capabilities does not mean that they don't fully support Vulkan. Vulkan is merely an API for exposing hardware, nothing more.

 

Using Vulkan to refer to capability sets is misleading and needs to stop. People doing that with OpenGL was bad enough where at least it was kinda semi true. With Vulkan it's completely not. The minimum feature set for Vulkan is supported by every single GPU that supports OpenGL ES 3.1 or higher.

[Hobox]

I'm not sure I'm buying a Tegra X1. The performance compared to the Wii U doesn't seem enough of a step up to support Mario Kart 8 at 1080p60 compared to the Wii U's 720p60. Plus when you look at Breath of the Wild, while it's only 900p30 on the Switch and the Wii U is 720p30, the graphical details on the Switch version are also a lot higher quality while also pushing that higher resolution. I'd guess something around the 750GFlops in power. I just really hope it's Pascal for the energy efficiency, because if it's Maxwell it seems like it would have been such an easy way to advertise a much better battery life. Imagine if instead they said 2-6 hours if it was 4-10.

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Exactly.

 

No one uses Int.. except the GameCube. Everything and everyone uses floats in shaders in the gaming world.

It only affects if you do GPU computation to some level. Which is useless as on an Nvidia GPU you have CUDA.

Ohh GoodBytes... Nice backpedaling there buddy.

 

You: Show me something that has full Vulcan support! It must have full Vulcan support or else I will dismiss it for some unexplained reason! It is super important that it has full Vulcan support!

 

Foxie: But, the Switch doesn't have full Vulcan support either. Nothing has. But it doesn't have to support every single feature to still be classified as supporting Vulcan.

 

You: B-b-but the features the Switch doesn't have doesn't matter, but everything it does support is super important okay? ;_;

 

 

The Switch has a shitty SoC. Just admit it already.

It gets destroyed by something like the A9X, which is ~1.5 years old at this point.

And I know what you will say, "the iPad is more expensive than this" which is true, but the iPad also has a hefty Apple tax, and a much MUCH better screen, and possibly more expensive construction, and the list goes on. My point is, you can't just look at the price of the device and go "it is more expensive, therefore Nintendo couldn't have used a better SoC". These kinds of SoCs are not the most expensive part of a tablet. They cost like ~30 dollars.

 

8 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

The Switch is $300

Oh, I thought it was 400. That makes it a bit more excusable. But it's still shitty hardware.

Hopefully the games will be good despite the hardware.

[Sniperfox47]

24 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It gets destroyed by something like the A9X, which is ~1.5 years old at this point.

And I know what you will say, "the iPad is more expensive than this" which is true, but the iPad also has a hefty Apple tax, and a much MUCH better screen, and possibly more expensive construction, and the list goes on. My point is, you can't just look at the price of the device and go "it is more expensive, therefore Nintendo couldn't have used a better SoC". These kinds of SoCs are not the most expensive part of a tablet. They cost like ~30 dollars.

I'm not sure where you're getting your info. The a9x has a more powerful CPU than the X1, but the X1 blows it out of performance on graphics tests. The 3dmark score for the X1 is a whopping 20% faster than the fully clocked a9x in the larger iPad Pro, and that's a combined CPU/GPU gaming benchmark.

[LAwLz]

31 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

I'm not sure where you're getting your info. The a9x has a more powerful CPU than the X1, but the X1 blows it out of performance on graphics tests. The 3dmark score for the X1 is a whopping 20% faster than the fully clocked a9x in the larger iPad Pro, and that's a combined CPU/GPU gaming benchmark.

I am comparing it to the Pixel C, because I believe that will have about the same thermal and power constraints as the Switch in tablet mode.

 

The iPad Pro is about twice as fast in Basemark 3.1 and about 10% faster in 3DMark. Not to mention that the CPU is way better. Even the Shield has a better CPU than the Switch if these specs are to be believed.

[Sniperfox47]

50 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I am comparing it to the Pixel C, because I believe that will have about the same thermal and power constraints as the Switch in tablet mode.

 

The iPad Pro is about twice as fast in Basemark 3.1 and about 10% faster in 3DMark. Not to mention that the CPU is way better. Even the Shield has a better CPU than the Switch if these specs are to be believed.

That's not really a fair comparison for two reasons:

A) the Pixel C is passively cooled, the switch is active cooled. Also even passively cooled you can quite regularly hit TX1/ShieldTV level clocks without getting *too* much throttling with an overclock on the Pixel C.

B) More importantly, the Pixel C has a crudely hacked together driver stack made by combinations of small parts of Nouveau and the Nvidia proprietary driver, with custom shims between then. I wouldn't really consider those drivers to be fair of actual X1 performance, even at those clocks.