Apparently the Switch Hardware Specs Has been Leak

[GoodBytes]

22 minutes ago, Juniho said:

ohh nintendo, the piece of crap you've become

Yes, because the Ricoh 2A03 8-bit 1.78MHz CPU of the NES was so ground breaking.

And no one cared that the GameCube had better specs than the PS2.

 

It's not specs.

 

[Castdeath97]

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

And funny enougth, is that the PS4 Pro isn't giving out true 4K, it is upscaled.

Fifa 17 not only runs at native 4K but also at stable and locked 60FPS

 

The PS4 pro can handle native 4K for sure! 

[GoodBytes]

7 minutes ago, Prysin said:

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

Yea, indie 2D games, or simple 3D games like the video above... congrats. So far we have seen games running max 1800p on the system, with 1440p being more common. The whole sales pitch was 4K on AAA title games. Not "a more powerful game console option for smoother frame rates, faster load times, etc."

[GoodBytes]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

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).

Yea, the 3DS was just awful. There was heavy rumors that it would have a Tegra 1 inside. Which of course, nothing ground breaking, but it is a portable system of the time, definitely miles better than what they ended up, in just about every single way. Not to mentioned the multiple issues the 3DS GPU has.

 

Quote

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?

That makes on sense. There is NEVER a game console that come close to a PC specs.

You buy it for this small form factor coach gaming, 'all done for you' solution, unique experience that you can't get or not easily, anywhere else, and exclusive games.

 

They are many gamers that have both a console of their choice and a PC.

 

In terms of unique experience:

- PC gets you the best visuals, where the money money you through at your system, the better the game and visuals are, up to what the game permits.

- The Wii was motion controls.

- The GameCube had LAN party, and portability.

- The XBox 1 and XBox 360 was the best and easy online experience.

etc.

 

It all depends on what you value.

 

Quote

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

Ah! Now it makes sense.

 

Quote

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".

Yes, because AMD has the exact solution for what Nintendo wants to do. /s

 

Quote

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.

Because it is. ARM CPUs have fantastic compilers. Heck Visual Studio has an ARM option, the devs possibly don't even need to switch IDE. The challenge (what takes time) comes in boosting visuals the most you can, ensuring that the game runs at a stable fps for both mobile and docked modes. That is assuming the AAA dev cares, which probably won't for the system early games. The problem in maximizing visual or performance for a given port is similar to any ports. And when one doesn't care, it can be awful (see the PC port of that lovely Batman game we had).

 

 

Quote

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!"

Well yea. I mean, this is like saying.. XYZ laptop computer might cost a lot but is the best. And you go say.. no.. look at this server room of computer which has similar performance, its cheaper. Form factor counts. But I didn't limit to a tablet. I was considering all smartphone, and, well, any device that has an IPS screen with it.

 

Quote

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

When one is alone in the market, they can charge anything they want.  If people really needs it, or justify the price, then it will sale.

 

Quote

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).

We have no idea of the cost of the chip. Only speculations is done.

[Prysin]

3 hours ago, Castdeath97 said:

Fifa 17 not only runs at native 4K but also at stable lock 60FPS

 

The PS4 pro can handle native 4K for sure! 

Dont argue with him. It is obvious that he is biased AF in his opinion. 

[GoodBytes]

12 minutes ago, Prysin said:

Dont argue with him. It is obvious that he is biased AF in his opinion. 

I am not the one that is too lazy to go a quick Google search

[Prysin]

7 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

I am not the one that is too lazy to go a quick Google search

What you search for is far more important than if you search.

And i find your replies in this topic wanting in more ways then one. 

But the past has taught me that arguing with you is pointless given your dogged opinions. So I shall leave this topic to rot. 

[Castdeath97]

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Yea, indie 2D games, or simple 3D games like the video above...

While I can agree that Fifa 17 is easy to run compared to hardcore AAA games, it's far from a "simple 3D game". It uses the Frostbite engine and makes use of a load of bells and whistles:

 

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

 The whole sales pitch was 4K on AAA title games.

FIFA is a triple A game, the budget EA throws at it is probably massive! Yes it's still rare to get full fat 4K on most AAA, but they did deliver it, and in 60 fps.

 

[GoodBytes]

1 hour ago, Castdeath97 said:

While I can agree that Fifa 17 is easy to run compared to hardcore AAA games, it's far from a "simple 3D game". It uses the Frostbite engine and makes use of a load of bells and whistles:

 

FIFA is a triple A game, the budget EA throws at it is probably massive! Yes it's still rare to get full fat 4K on most AAA, but they did deliver it, and in 60 fps.

 

I see. Well, alright I stand corrected. Apologies.