Nintendo Switch's Tegra not custom at all - die shot revealed it's Tegra X1

[GoodBytes]

29 minutes ago, Hunter115 said:

they  said zelda will be 60  so it can change

I don't recall that, but they said they wanted an identical experience between WiiU and Switch. So that means no graphical upgrades. And that means the WiiU doesn't have the gamepad anymore (which we can see has helped boost visuals on the WiiU). Could Zelda run at 60fps on the Switch? possibly, but the engine probably needed some major modification and the game core code needs to be adapted/optimized to the Switch hardware.

[Silentprototipe]

I think the only thing custom about it is the API support Is what im guessing 

[PlayStation 2]

4 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

The WiiU could do 1080p 60fps on AAA games. Switch is more powerful. Doesn't mean that Zelda has issues, than this is what to expect out of the console. The game runs as well/bad as the WiiU version, which indicates that either the game has an engine design problem, or the port was done quickly, or there is a performance issue with the drivers of the Nvidia Tegra SoC in the Switch.

 

Looking at Fast RMX, a game done by a very small studio, you can see how much visually impressive game they can output, at 1080p 60fps including split screen. In fact, we saw impressive titles on the Shield TV.

 

The Wii U could output at 1080p. The damn menu for the Wii U renders at 720p, with no anti-aliasing on top of that. Very few games on the Wii U rendered at anything higher than 720p. A majority of Nintendo's games on it were 720p, with no anti-aliasing.

 

Fast RMX uses a dynamic resolution that can hit up to 1080p. Fast Racing Neo was 640x720 scaled to 1280x720 with a form of AA, IIRC.

[The Sloth]

6 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

The Wii U could output at 1080p. The damn menu for the Wii U renders at 720p, with no anti-aliasing on top of that. Very few games on the Wii U rendered at anything higher than 720p. A majority of Nintendo's games on it were 720p, with no anti-aliasing.

 

Fast RMX uses a dynamic resolution that can hit up to 1080p. Fast Racing Neo was 640x720 scaled to 1280x720 with a form of AA, IIRC.

 

you understand switch is lot more powerful than the wii u, capable to running something like gta 5 easily in 720p low. 

[PlayStation 2]

4 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

you understand switch is lot more powerful than the wii u, capable to running something like gta 5 easily in 720p low. 

I do. I'm responding to the guy about saying Wii U games ran at 1080p60.

[The Sloth]

Just now, Dan Castellaneta said:

I do. I'm responding to the guy about saying Wii U games ran at 1080p60.

he stated that zelda breath of the wild could run in the switch at 60 fps, the game was made for wii u with 30 fps in mind than ported to switch.  

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, nerdslayer1 said:

he stated that zelda breath of the wild could run in the switch at 60 fps, the game was made for wii u with 30 fps in mind than ported to switch.  

Meh, the CPU side of things on the Switch might be too week to keep a stable 60fps if the physics system is complex.

I would like to see 1080p on BotW on the Switch, though.

[The Sloth]

1 minute ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Meh, the CPU side of things on the Switch might be too week to keep a stable 60fps if the physics system is complex.

I would like to see 1080p on BotW on the Switch, though.

 

cortex a57 has better IPC than the ps4, so it's no slouch relatively speaking.  

[mathijs727]

6 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

cortex a57 has better IPC than the ps4, so it's no slouch relatively speaking.  

 

I think you're being a bit optimistic

[sof006]

6 minutes ago, mathijs727 said:

 

I think you're being a bit optimistic

I agree, there is no way a mobile platform chip is more powerful than a desktop grade APU. Especially the PS4 Pro.

[The Sloth]

7 minutes ago, sof006 said:

I agree, there is no way a mobile platform chip is more powerful than a desktop grade APU. Especially the PS4 Pro.

nope research @mathijs727  dig around a bit, you might be surprised. cpu wise the switch is quite good gpu wise it falls short. 

 

https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=a6-5200 

https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/search?q=shield+tv 

[AG1233]

4 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

The PS4 has lengthy install times just like the Xbone....and not all games allow you to play it once its 25% installed. And as far as I'm aware none of them allow you to run the game straight off the disc anymore if you don't want to install it/there isn't enough space (500GB doesn't hold too many on the Xbone and PS4 especially with the size of some updates)

Nope Ps4 doesn't take more than 15-20 mintues (even that's a stretch) maximum to install a game and thats speaking from my own experience also I don't know about you but I have been able to play majority of my xbox one games as far as I can remember when they were installing there have been some limitations to some of them such as Not being able to story modes/multiplayer or vice versa.

[RagnarokDel]

20 hours ago, nerdslayer1 said:

Mario kart is 1080p 60, platoon is also 1080p 60. 

Those are not Switch games lol.

[The Sloth]

2 minutes ago, RagnarokDel said:

Those are not Switch games lol.

...yes they are look it up on google 

[GoodBytes]

1 minute ago, RagnarokDel said:

Those are not Switch games lol.

Yes they are. And they ran on 60fps on the WiiU.

 

[RagnarokDel]

15 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

...yes they are look it up on google 

 

13 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Yes they are. And they ran on 60fps on the WiiU.

 

They were ported to the Switch but they're from the WiiU originally. I bet you the PS4 could play Final Fantasy 10 at 120 fps. That doesnt mean it's able to play current games at 60.

[The Sloth]

2 minutes ago, RagnarokDel said:

 

They were ported to the Switch but they're from the WiiU originally. I bet you the PS4 could play Final Fantasy 10 at 120 fps. That doesnt mean it's able to play current games at 60.

 

its a new Mario kart game also all mario kart are similar technically wii u has n64 Mario kart with better gfx and more character, just a port with added stuff and better gfx.

[sof006]

1 hour ago, nerdslayer1 said:

nope research @mathijs727  dig around a bit, you might be surprised. cpu wise the switch is quite good gpu wise it falls short. 

 

https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=a6-5200 

https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/search?q=shield+tv 

You do realise that APU is not the ones used in the PS4/Xbox One right? That is a quad core, the one in the PS4/Xbox One is a 8 core customized APU. Quite a bit more powerful than that APU.

[The Sloth]

2 minutes ago, sof006 said:

You do realise that APU is not the ones used in the PS4/Xbox One right? That is a quad core, the one in the PS4/Xbox One is a 8 core customized APU. Quite a bit more powerful than that APU.

 

 

look at the single core score also not "quite a lot more powerful" 

[sof006]

Just now, nerdslayer1 said:

look at the single core score

You're looking at it totally wrong. You're assuming the consoles are running things conventionally like a PC would, where single core performance would matter. However in a console that doesn't matter, reason being is that developers can code directly to metal bypassing the need for a API to do any hard work. Developers can go ahead and utilize all 8 cores on both consoles (thus better performance) where as the Switch has only 4 cores. Yes single core is better but ultimately when it comes to performance the PS4 and Xbox One will always win, even more so that the GPU's in both Sony and Microsofts consoles are more powerful.

 

There is no competition. Only advantage that Switch has over the other two is that its portable.   

[The Sloth]

5 minutes ago, sof006 said:

You're looking at it totally wrong. You're assuming the consoles are running things conventionally like a PC would, where single core performance would matter. However in a console that doesn't matter, reason being is that developers can code directly to metal bypassing the need for a API to do any hard work. Developers can go ahead and utilize all 8 cores on both consoles (thus better performance) where as the Switch has only 4 cores. Yes single core is better but ultimately when it comes to performance the PS4 and Xbox One will always win, even more so that the GPU's in both Sony and Microsofts consoles are more powerful.

 

There is no competition. Only advantage that Switch has over the other two is that its portable.   

 

i didn't say switch was even close to powerful as a ps4 i just stated it's quite powerful for its size and chipset. 

[sof006]

Just now, nerdslayer1 said:

i didn't say switch was even close to powerful as a ps4 i just stated it's quite powerful for its size and chipset. 

You said it does more IPC which yes it does at single core but not overall when looking at 8 cores vs 4 cores. Which would mean you need to revise your statement above to say  "cortex a57 has better IPC in single core than the ps4, so it's no slouch relatively speaking. "

 

 

[Elerek]

1 hour ago, sof006 said:

You're looking at it totally wrong. You're assuming the consoles are running things conventionally like a PC would, where single core performance would matter. However in a console that doesn't matter, reason being is that developers can code directly to metal bypassing the need for a API to do any hard work. Developers can go ahead and utilize all 8 cores on both consoles (thus better performance) where as the Switch has only 4 cores. Yes single core is better but ultimately when it comes to performance the PS4 and Xbox One will always win, even more so that the GPU's in both Sony and Microsofts consoles are more powerful.

 

There is no competition. Only advantage that Switch has over the other two is that its portable.   

Pretty sure you're wrong on that... From what I've read, games only have 4 of those 8 cores, the other 4 are reserved for the ps4's os.

Also, custom api's (console games DO NOT run on baremetal, custom api's that run through custom OS) don't eliminate games from mostly using one core. That's just the nature of games, most things are time sensitive and have to always happen in order. That can't be split across cores to speed things up.

[Elerek]

1 hour ago, sof006 said:

You said it does more IPC which yes it does at single core but not overall when looking at 8 cores vs 4 cores. Which would mean you need to revise your statement above to say  "cortex a57 has better IPC in single core than the ps4, so it's no slouch relatively speaking. "

 

 

IPC is always measured for single cores only, not muliplied by number of cores.

[The Sloth]

19 minutes ago, Elerek said:

Pretty sure you're wrong on that... From what I've read, games only have 4 of those 8 cores, the other 4 are reserved for the ps4's os.

Also, custom api's (console games DO NOT run on baremetal, custom api's that run through custom OS) don't eliminate games from mostly using one core. That's just the nature of games, most things are time sensitive and have to always happen in order. That can't be split across cores to speed things up.

 

i agree with everything except for one point, ps4 has 7 cores for games https://www.geek.com/games/sony-unlocks-ps4s-7th-processing-core-for-developers-1640646/.