Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

@Aeleron0X
Well if you want to be corrected if you were wrong? Then yeah, you're kinda wrong. You've got the right idea but the conclusion is a bit wrong. To put it simply "TFLOPS" is a measure of how many calculations can be done per second. So all things being equal 1TFLOP = 1TFLOP. The problem is that unless you're litterally just crunching numbers that number is nothing more than just a yardstick. It's like saying how many horsepower a car has. More is better but what you really care about is how it translates to real world performance.

In terms of ARM vs x86? Well basically ARM has a more limited set of instructions and instead focuses on being power efficient. Vs x86 which has more specific functions and has more access to memory and I/O. For example something on ARM might require multiple operations for something that on x86 can be done in one step. Which in theory makes ARM harder to program for and less efficient if it's doing more complex calculations.

But here's the third thing. When talking about FLOPs with game consoles we're not usually talking about the CPU. What we're talking about is the GPU. And on the GPU it kinda swings back the other way in terms of where the Switch sits. Because it's using an NVidia GPU rather than an AMD GPU. And for rendering 3D graphics? NVidia GPUs typically get more fps for a lower amount of FLOPs and W than AMD does. For performance that's the important bit, not whether it's ARM or x86.

With that said, TFLOPS isn't really a good measurement either. But it is simple, and most CPUs list that. For example, Nvidia has historical been able to cram out more FPS than AMD with comparable FLOPS.

@Aeleron0X Are you perhaps talking about CISC (x86) vs RISC (arm, PowerPC)?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-CISC-and-RISC-architecture-How...
In performance there are not that much difference today. It is mostly an historical difference.

Maybe I should clarify, TFLOPS is a theoretical maximum of computations a specific CPU/GPU can cram out. But pure computations are not the only thing that matters, the architecture around it also matters. If you can't feed your precious GPU with data, you won't get the full benefit from it.

Obligatory Car Analogy (TM): Say you have bought a Koeningsegg Regera. http://koenigsegg.com/
It has 1500 hp and it can do 0 to 400 km/h in under 20 seconds. But you would never be able to use all that power if you don't have the infrastructure for it. So if you are puttering along a dirt-road, you are better of with a Nissan Micra (109 HP, 0-100km/h in 10s). But on the high-way, the Koeningsegg has the advantage. And if you take them to the race-track, the Nissan will lose even harder.

I got my phone for AU$50.

I think $400 for the switch as well, though.

AFAIK the only phones <$100AU are either locked to a specific provider or are not smartphones. Also when talking about launch prices for console hardware? $400AU ~ $299US.

@skywake
Dude, chill. I often wonder if you actually read my responses. The whole "if you don't like it, don't buy it" doesn't even apply to me if you read what I've been writing. I've said NUMEROUS times that I'm hardcore buying this puppy no matter how much it costs. It could be 1,000 bucks and I'm still preordering it. Please chill and take the time to read before huffing and puffing.

To continue on that note, I've NEVER even brought up the RAM. Not once. And I've also never stated that I want a "PS4 in my pocket" or whatever you wrote. It's quite obviously not going to be that. But I DO think it's going to be nearly Xbox One-level, and you can take that to the bank. "But Nintendo doesn't care about power blah blah blah." Yea, that's sweet and all, but as we've established, that was only Nintendo's recent history. They DO care about power, especially if they want to pursue stuff like VR in the near future, which their president has confirmed they are "very" interested in. Something with Wii U specs in 2017 ain't gonna cut the mustard, and they ain't stupid.

4GB of RAM would be okay if developers were able to use all four of those gigabytes.

But it is only 3GB and a bit, as the OS will likely require up to 1GB.

It's not what about 'the power I want', it is about coming to terms that the Nintendo Switch may continue their run of underwhelming third party ports, or nary any third party support at all.

Companies like Activision (Call of Duty, Destiny and Skylanders), EA (Battlefield, FIFA, Madden NFL, Titanfall and so on) and Ubisoft (Assassin's Creed, The Division, For Honour, Watch Dogs 2 and so on) will probably end up outsourcing some of their popular titles for the Nintendo Switch rather than from their main internal studios, who would be working on the more powerful platforms that can fulfill their vision.

Using Battlefield 1 and last years Star Wars: Battlefront as an example, the game struggles to maintain a consistent 60fps in a 720p resolution on the Xbox One (!)

It begs the questions; would the Nintendo Switch even be able to comfortably run something like those two games above?

TL;DR - I believe that 3GB or so of RAM might be good enough for Nintendo, but is it really going to keep what's left of their third party relationships in good spirits?

I don't dabble too much in the tech specs aspects as there are many things I don't understand, but even assuming the Switch will have last year's Tegra X1 (Maxwell), according to the wiki, that is capable of 1.0 Teraflops.
Now assuming the Xbox One is around 1.3 Teraflops, the gap seems pretty little. Assuming Nvidia and Nintendo have been customising it for the last year, it could do 1.1 or 1.2, I reckon, at least on docking mode. On handheld, I think it would go south of the 1.0 Teraflops, so maybe some games would be limited on the go, e.g. not having 8x8 players online or stuff like that on the go.

4 GB of RAM sounds little, but this is a RISC machine so I don't know if the memory requirements are identical to those of x64. Arguably, ARM is more efficient on managing the RAM. If Nintendo restricts the OS to ARM 32-bit operation, it could run on less than a 1 GB (just like Windows 10 Mobile) and leave the 64-bit integer for games. Or not at all, since the common rule of thumb seems to be that 64-bit is only worth it with >4GB of RAM.

Can you tech savvy fellows share some of your expertise into my thoughts?

On Nintendo Voice Chat they suggested the idea that if the price was going to be say $349, that Nintendo could look to reduce that price by introducing virtual console subscriptions. So say something like:

$349 - RRP of Nintendo Switch
Or take out a 12 month subscription to Nintendo Virtual Console ($12.99 p/m) then get a $100 off your switch.

Do you think people would go for that?

All this talk of specs, and it not being as powerful as Scorpio, when we still have nothing confirmed about what's in the portable and what's in the dock...

I feel the general concept of Switch is far more important to the widestream success of the system than the specs. If the concept is a winner, units will sell, 3rd parties will develop. If it was an 8gb system designed to equal performance of PS4Pro/XScorpio, the portability of it would make it cost prohibitive for the mainstream consumer. Get used to the Switch being a compromise between portable/home console.

But... but... how can we Nintendoooooom with that attitude?

It's funny seeing such annoyance because not everyone just sitting around praising the thing all day. Unfortunately there are those that can be Nintendo fans while also not being completely happy with everything they do. Perhaps people should get used to that as well.

@Operative Sure, but, uncertainty about the specs aside, we know this is a portable system. How can anyone think a portable system, designed to appeal to a broad market of consumers (and therefore be highly cost sensitive), can be expected to perform at the same level as a fixed system? It can't.

But yet a rumour comes along, suggesting the Switch indeed won't perform at the same level as the newest home consoles (something none of us should be surprised about) and there's mass mutiny.

Since the day it was revealed, simple logic should tell us all that Switch very likely won't be as 'powerful'. We should all have accepted that by now. Switch will offer the opportunity for games more impressive than the Wii U's excellent library, and be portable. That's the crux of it. If Switch could rival PS4Pro/Scorpio then Sony/MS would be doing it themselves. Portability always comes at a price.

As funny and weird as it sounds, I was waiting for this kind of comment from you. Not surprising at all.

@Vee_Flames most likely because I'm always of the "Nintendo isn't perfect" mind that is at odds with people here. Not surprising that you would post a passive aggressive comment either, vee.

@rallydefault
The thread went in this direction because of the talk about it having 4GB RAM whether you said it or not. The only reason we're talking about the cost is because a few people (myself included) said 4GB is fine for a portable gaming device in that sort of price range. Enter you and a few others saying it's going to cost way more than that.

So again, to over-analyse the crap out of the last few pages:
Group 1: 4GB RAM is fine for a sub-XBOne ~$299US portable
Group 2: 4GB RAM is ridiculous for 2016. This is a home console, not a portable.
Group 3: No way this thing costs ~$299US. It's going to cost a lot more than that

My first post addressed the third PoV. The one where I said people should just not buy it if they feel that was was addressed to the second. So if you feel that you're not in that camp? Assume that the post wasn't directed at you. I mean if it's a question of reading comprehension, note what I wrote. I didn't direct the post at you and didn't intend for it to be read like that.

Literally nobody mentioned the Scorpio, until you did.

Some folks are comparing the Nintendo Switch to two consoles that will be a shy over three and a half years old by the time it comes out (in March); the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One.

But keep on moving the goalposts if it makes you feel better!

I am a big fan of Nintendo, but I am also able to keep my expectations grounded.

I really want the Switch to be good enough for both Nintendo and third parties, rather than enduring a repeat of what the Wii U went through, and the Wii to a lesser extent.

Unrelated, but just curious. If devs opted for bigger cards than their game requires, would it be possible to store potential patch, DLC, or save data in the unused space? It could save space on the SD card a bit.

I hope at least save data can be saved on the game card, as is usual with cartridges. Patches nowadays take up too much space so I doubt they would put them in the game card.

Yeah good point. I suppose that won't really be an issue unless they actually do get major third party support, well known for their huge patches haha