Apparently the Switch Hardware Specs Has been Leak

[KuJoe]

Out of curiosity, has anybody here ever NOT bought a console because of the specs? For me the specs for a console are irrelevant, it's not like console games have system requirements. All console games will run on the console regardless of the specs (excluding some older systems that had RAM upgrade accessories). Am I missing something?

[Master Disaster]

Just a word of warning on these leaks guys...

 

The leaker (NWPLAYER123 or Niki) is a huge shitposter over on GBATEMP to the point most people straight up ignore everything she says. She was a member of Team Salt but they kicked her out for releasing stuff without permission and she has a big reputation for just making stuff up.

 

Not saying these rumours are not true, just that I wouldn't believe them coming from her.

[Sniperfox47]

1 hour ago, KuJoe said:

Out of curiosity, has anybody here ever NOT bought a console because of the specs? For me the specs for a console are irrelevant, it's not like console games have system requirements. All console games will run on the console regardless of the specs (excluding some older systems that had RAM upgrade accessories). Am I missing something?

What you're missing is that the specs determine if developers take the time to even bring their games to this platform.

 

The bigger the differential between this hardware and the mainstream consoles, the less likely it is that developers will take the time and money to port their game to the switch. Time and money are both valuable resources, and more of each are required if there's a bigger gap between the hardware. Unless they see a small enough cost and can expect a decent return, they're not likely to port games to another small console.

 

But you buy Nintendo systems for the Nintendo games! Why should you care? Because Nintendo's classical audience (Nintendo Fans) aren't enough to keep Nintendo afloat and competitive as a company. They need to expand into a wider mainstream audience or risk falling out of the market entirely. If the switch doesn't do quite well, Nintendo is in trouble. Its very possible that if the switch doesn't sell well it might be the last Nintendo console we see.

[KuJoe]

3 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

What you're missing is that the specs determine if developers take the time to even bring their games to this platform.

 

The bigger the differential between this hardware and the mainstream consoles, the less likely it is that developers will take the time and money to port their game to the switch. Time and money are both valuable resources, and more of each are required if there's a bigger gap between the hardware. Unless they see a small enough cost and can expect a decent return, they're not likely to port games to another small console.

 

But you buy Nintendo systems for the Nintendo games! Why should you care? Because Nintendo's classical audience (Nintendo Fans) aren't enough to keep Nintendo afloat and competitive as a company. They need to expand into a wider mainstream audience or risk falling out of the market entirely. If the switch doesn't do quite well, Nintendo is in trouble. Its very possible that if the switch doesn't sell well it might be the last Nintendo console we see.

That makes some sense. Thanks.

[GoodBytes]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

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.I said full OpenGL and Vulkan support. The focus is on third party support. OpenGL ES is the wrong direction to get that. With the Tegra chip, all they need to do is compile their code for ARM chip, and reduce polygon and texture quality, which is probably just setting lower LODs on all object. Unlike the WiiU, where they also need to get a PowerPC compiler which, due to the low interest and marketshare of that chip, compilers tend to suck, and documentation is low, making optimizing things a lot harder (I am sure ARM compilers themselves does a lot of excellent work, like x86, due to not only the sheer amount of ARM based CPUs out there, but also because the focus on mobile, means highly optimized code is needed), and has a special custom GPU to make matter worse, with its open OpenGL with its own limitation and quirks. This is the PS3-story all over again, but the difference is that no one bought it to justify any development cost towards it, especially that they are better options out there (standard x86/GPU with the XBox One and PS4)

 

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

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.

I never said it was good. i said, find me something that is better for the same price. No one has. Therefore, for the money, you have a fantastic (the best... as they are no other product, unless someone present one) performance and feature set. Nintendo likes to make affordable system. I am sure they have done their research and going with Nvidia, means a costly chip to get. So all one can assume, is that despite Nvidia higher price, it is the best offering that they could get. And that isn't even including the cost of the controllers with its fancy rumble (as we can consider that a phone needs to have mobile network stuff, multiple mics, cameras, even though they cost nothing on low cost phones)

 

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

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.

Yea.. sorry, it's not 50$ more expensive.. it is more than double. And the Pixel C was presented, NOT the iPad. Aluminum isn't expensive, as marketing makes you want to think that it is.

 

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

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.

Shitty hardware would be something like Snapdragon 400. Or how about the 3DS hardware... let's not even talk about that.

 

[Prysin]

so basically, this is a underpowered 2016 tablet.... Wow, and they think they can push 4k games on it by just bumping the GPU  lol, no.

[AlTech]

15 hours ago, Trixanity said:

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

Yes.

 

3 hours 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.

Which shield are you referring to?

 

The one with the Denver CPUs or the 32Bit K1?

[AlTech]

I don't understand why Nvidia is handing out  leftover Tegra X1 chips to Nintendo.

 

Why don't they cut their loses and move on to make a damn good chip?

[GoodBytes]

20 minutes ago, Prysin said:

so basically, this is a underpowered 2016 tablet.... Wow, and they think they can push 4k games on it by just bumping the GPU  lol, no.

They can actually. They can't boost AI, or anything that uses the CPU, but they can boost shader visuals (which plays a big part of visuals).

The PS4 Pro is pretty much that. The CPU is the same speed (its actually locked down) to the PS4 specs. But the GPU is faster.

 

And funny enougth, is that the PS4 Pro isn't giving out true 4K, it is upscaled. While a 1060 can genuinely do 4K.. although I still doubt they'll use a 1060, as it is too expensive,

[GoodBytes]

2 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

I don't understand why Nvidia is handing out  leftover Tegra X1 chips to Nintendo.

 

Why don't they cut their loses and move on to make a damn good chip?

I agree. Nvidia problem is that they charge too much. Which is stupid. Having their latest and greatest chip is direct advertisement how their Tegra chip, and everything else they made is so good. Maybe now more tablets and phone would get a Tegra chip despite the higher cost, and consumers might demand it, even if the CPU isn't as fast as Qualcomm latest and greatest offering.

[GoodBytes]

So there is some added info. the specs leak dates from June/July if last year. So these could have been changed. Multiple dev kits during the development of a console is nothing new. In general they say that it takes about 3 month to mass manufacture a product. So the final consul design might be set in late December or early Jan.

 

[AlTech]

2 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Nvidia problem is that they charge too much.

This is actually why Microsoft chose IBM + ATI for the Xbox 360.

 

Nvidia wanted too much for the GPU design.

 

1 minute ago, GoodBytes said:

consul

*Console

1 minute ago, GoodBytes said:

design might be set in late December or early Jan.

 

 

so at best we can expect a Tegra P1 or at worst we can expect a Tegra X1?

[GoodBytes]

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

so at best we can expect a Tegra P1 or at worst we can expect a Tegra X1?

Yup. We have to open the door that it is something in between. Especially that the word "Custom" is used by Nvidia and Nintendo.

 

[GoodBytes]

So some interested OFFICIAL news. I don't think it is worth doing its own thread.

• Nintendo has confirmed in an French interview that you can us a Bluetooth headset, and you can use a wired headset with the Switch.

So this indicates that the whole app thing on smartphone is only something complemental to the online experience of the system.

 

• Switch dock is using a propitiatory format

Considering that it uses standard USB Type-C plug, and that we know it works with any chargeable battery banks that can provide the needed power. They didn't do this propitiatory format for nothing. So it looks like that perhaps Nintendo did its own variation of Thunderbolt.

[Castdeath97]

21 hours ago, huilun02 said:

Soo... PS Pro?

The PS4 Pro however is a bit of let down itself as well. Those frame rates are just unacceptable, getting less frames than the base PS4 in some games is just ludicrous.

[AlTech]

22 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Yup. We have to open the door that it is something in between.

 

Open the door? This is nvidia we're talking about, they'll drive right through the door .,

[AresKrieger]

1GHz max is likely referring to undocked if true, though it is from reddit so I have no reason to trust its validity. Just like with ryzen why don't we just wait and see what the console can do before judging it

[AresKrieger]

28 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Considering that it uses standard USB Type-C plug, and that we know it works with any chargeable battery banks that can provide the needed power. They didn't do this propitiatory format for nothing. So it looks like that perhaps Nintendo did its own variation of Thunderbolt.

Well given the docks price it very well could have some additional hardware in it, otherwise the $90 price tag is just insanity

[Bouzoo]

28 minutes ago, Castdeath97 said:

The PS4 Pro however is a bit of let down itself as well. Those frame rates are just unacceptable, getting less frames than the base PS4 in some games is just ludicrous.

That is due to software optimization. Also, a patch is coming that should boost all games by 35%, even if they don't have PS4 Pro mode which should boost them even more. 

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, KuJoe said:

Out of curiosity, has anybody here ever NOT bought a console because of the specs? For me the specs for a console are irrelevant, it's not like console games have system requirements. All console games will run on the console regardless of the specs (excluding some older systems that had RAM upgrade accessories). Am I missing something?

I have a 3DS, and specs is one of the major reasons why I don't like playing games on it. It just looks ugly as sin because of the low resolution (it's 800x240, yes serious).

 

I also haven't bought the Xbone or PS4 mainly because of bad specs. What's the point of getting one of those consoles when they are essentially just weaker PCs that runs at ~30 FPS and medium level details?

 

But more importantly is the argument Sniperfox gave in his post.

 

 

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Which shield are you referring to?

 

The one with the Denver CPUs or the 32Bit K1?

I was not referring to any shield. I was comparing the Pixel C vs the iPad Pro.

 

 

3 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

I said full OpenGL and Vulkan support. The focus is on third party support. OpenGL ES is the wrong direction to get that. With the Tegra chip, all they need to do is compile their code for ARM chip, and reduce polygon and texture quality, which is probably just setting lower LODs on all object. Unlike the WiiU, where they also need to get a PowerPC compiler which, due to the low interest and marketshare of that chip, compilers tend to suck, and documentation is low, making optimizing things a lot harder (I am sure ARM compilers themselves does a lot of excellent work, like x86, due to not only the sheer amount of ARM based CPUs out there, but also because the focus on mobile, means highly optimized code is needed), and has a special custom GPU to make matter worse, with its open OpenGL with its own limitation and quirks. This is the PS3-story all over again, but the difference is that no one bought it to justify any development cost towards it, especially that they are better options out there (standard x86/GPU with the XBox One and PS4)

No... If Nintendo wanted to focus on third party support then they would have made it x86 with some GCN GPU. Using ARM, special controllers, having to support tablet mode and so on is not being "third party focused".

 

And you make it sound really easy when you say "all they have to do is X, and Y and Z", but I doubt it will be that easy. If the Switch becomes a success then maybe developers will bother to port their games to it, but it will not be as easy as you try and make it sound.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

I never said it was good. i said, find me something that is better for the same price. No one has. Therefore, for the money, you have a fantastic (the best... as they are no other product, unless someone present one) performance and feature set.

That is the same stupid argument Mac fanboys use to justify the terrible prices/performance of Apple products.

Them: "Show me a better all-in-one if you think the iMac is bad!"

Me: "Well, I think all All-in-ones are terrible. It's like asking me to name a better STD than chlamydia."

Them: "See? You can't, so therefore the iMac is fantastic!"

 

You might not have noticed this, but the tablet market has kind of died. I bought my Z4 tablet because it seemed like it would be the last good Android tablet. It is the only Snapdragon 810 tablet I know of, and as far as I am aware there are no 820 tablets at all.

Someone could make a better tablet for the same price if they wanted, but the market isn't there.

 

 

3 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Yea.. sorry, it's not 50$ more expensive.. it is more than double. And the Pixel C was presented, NOT the iPad. Aluminum isn't expensive, as marketing makes you want to think that it is.

I think you misunderstood what I said. I said the entire chip costs 30 dollars. I did not say it would be 50 dollars more expensive.

You are overestimating the cost of ARM SoCs waaaay too much if you think there is a 50 dollar difference between the two. For crying out loud the only reason the Snapdragon 820 costs ~60 dollars (yes, 60 dollars for the entire chip) is because it includes a fuckton of other things as well (a lot of which you have to buy as separate chips to add to the Tegra line).

 

 

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

This is actually why Microsoft chose IBM + ATI for the Xbox 360.

 

Nvidia wanted too much for the GPU design.

[Citation Needed]

[Juniho]

ohh nintendo, the piece of crap you've become

[Castdeath97]

38 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

That is due to software optimization. Also, a patch is coming that should boost all games by 35%, even if they don't have PS4 Pro mode which should boost them even more. 

Yeah I know, I have called it from day the rumours started popping up about it. Some devs are going to compromise somewhere because they have to develop for 2 systems now.

 

The boost mode is a nice touch, but I feel that it doesn't lead to massive improvements as you are only making use of clock boosts.

[Castdeath97]

18 hours ago, LAwLz said:

They couldn't even be bothered to get the latest Tegra chip.

Is there any proof Nvidia was welling to make a Pascal Tegra SoC for something that isn't car in the first place? I mean their new shield still uses Maxwell.

[Castdeath97]

18 minutes ago, Juniho said:

ohh nintendo, the piece of crap you've become

I would still hold my judgment until release. I will be much faster than the already plenty fast Vita, so that's pretty good for a handheld.

[Prysin]

3 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

They can actually. They can't boost AI, or anything that uses the CPU, but they can boost shader visuals (which plays a big part of visuals).

The PS4 Pro is pretty much that. The CPU is the same speed (its actually locked down) to the PS4 specs. But the GPU is faster.

 

And funny enougth, is that the PS4 Pro isn't giving out true 4K, it is upscaled. While a 1060 can genuinely do 4K.. although I still doubt they'll use a 1060, as it is too expensive,

Lol wrong. Ps4p will render native 4k if the game supports it. L2console