Topic: Nintendo Switch --OT--

I heard only positive things from people who have played the demo, but I just can't say I enjoy watching the gameplay videos. It doesn't feel really fun to me or anything, but maybe it's something I only understand after I play some of it myself.

It seems a few leaks have come out before next months official reveal. Digital Foundry have had a discussion about these specs and what they could mean.

It seems that the screen will be a 720p screen with the GPU speeds reduced in hand-held format to prolong battery life (as expected) but then increased when docked as the Switch can pull more power from the wall which could enable upto 1080p resolutions in games. Its looking like it will be using the old Tegra X1 chip rather than the newer X2. It's not looking like it will be as powerful as the nVidia Shield but that is not portable. It is more powerful than the WiiU but it seems it won't be on a par with even MS's Xbox One let alone the PS4.

Power as we know is important in delivering a great visual experience and I doubt we will see the level of fidelity and detail that games on current generation can offer. I doubt we will see games being able to compete statistically (by that I mean things like resolution, frame rate, levels of visual quality - shadows, lighting, particle effects etc) and it will be interesting to see if 3rd Party developers will bring 'new' AAA releases to the Switch or opt to port the older games across.

Visuals though are only a part of the gaming experience. Nintendo have delivered some of the best games historically on far less power. I admit as an ex Graphic Designer, I do look at the visuals and impressed by the standards that game developers can achieve. I am probably more aware of the little details, and impressed by the quality of the artwork. I do appreciate that games are (or can be) a visual delight and make up a part of the experience, like good sound as well. I do however also understand that a game can still be fun, play well and deliver a great gaming experience without exactly pushing technical visual detail to the limit. Whilst a game (say Skyrim as it was showcased in the trailer) may not look as good as alternative platforms, I do expect it to play as well, still deliver the same story and game-play, the same world size etc and of course the added bonus of playing 'on the go'

For me though, who never games on the go, the more I read and watch about the Switch, the less appealing it becomes. Of course a few games could change my opinion - not gamecube virtual console games but new experiences. I don't often want to play games I have or have played. I don't or rarely have played any BC games on my XB1.

Anyway just though I would share the DF video...

It was insane to me that people thought a tablet would be able to compete with a PlayStation 4, which is much larger and requires much more power to function. The DF video seems much more in line with reality.

@get2sammyb: I don't understand why people expect Nintendo consoles to be as powerful as Sony's or Microsoft's. They have stated numerous times that they don't worry about being the most powerful their thing is how funn the games are.

I quite agree with that too. People are too worried this day and age about power. I have played a ton of NES games, SNES and heck Atari games that are alot more fun then some of today's games and those systems are way less powered then todays.

I'll be buying this no matter the power outputs etc. I've not had a Nintendo console since the Wii and I'm bursting at the seams to catch up on old and new nintendo games.

I do think that as a handheld that can be plugged into a TV, the power isn't an issue but as a console first and foremost, it does seem a bit lacking. Bringing out a console that less powerful than the XB1 essentially does make me question what 3rd Party support it could have and the concessions developers may have to make to run these games. Its not like the XB1 can run every game at 1080p.
It also seems that 4k, HDR and VR are the direction that gaming is taking and these do require a certain level of power. Is VR going to be more like the Galaxy Gear IF they do add it - the leaked patent indicates it could use a similar headset system where you slot the screen in.
Power itself may not be an issue but you want to know that it has enough to last the generation, to be supported etc. Yes Nintendo can make great games but if you only get a few a year and 3rd Party support dries up quickly, you are left with a dust collector. It could make use of the mobile casual market and of course Nintendo's back catalogueas well as a lot of the last few years of games that didn't make it to WiiU.
As a handheld, its looking like it could be the most powerful handheld console but its looking to be about a quarter of the power of a PS4 Pro and a 6th of the power of the Scorpio which is quite a big difference.

@BAMozzy: How much more power than the Vita does it have? I read somewhere the vita cpu runs at 300hz and the specs from the Eurogamer article on switch are the same, obviously I have no idea about nitty gritty computer specs but on the face of it, that paints a bleak picture. The vita is great but you can see its an overpowered ps2 in essence. Is that the limit of the switch?

Nintendo used to be THE most powerful console maker, 8 bit it was miles ahead of the curve, 16bit with mode 7 and multicolour madness, it even skipped 32bit and went woohoo look at our 64bits. The GC had the best looking games of that era too. Just wtf happened? Wii looked worse than GC, wii u is way behind this gen. Apparently the ds cant even emulate Gameboy advance games?

Mad Nintendo, go and build a proper console. Zelda in 4k would blow my mind!

@get2sammyb: Well, it IS possible. Maybe that's not what the Switch will be, but a tablet that can compete with the PS4? Definitely not impossible. The Switch will be close. We know it can run the new Zelda game, and it looks to be running better than on the Wii U. We know that From Software has Dark Souls 3 running in an acceptable state on the Switch, which I presume is around Xbox One performance. And the Switch won't be a $500 tablet, it'll retail for about half and Nintendo won't take a loss on it. So yeah, tablets competing with consoles are definitely a thing. Mobile tech has advanced a lot over the last couple of years.

@themcnoisy: Clock speed alone doesn't determine the power of a GPU. The XB1 has a faster GPU (and CPU) if we look just at clock speed but we know the PS4. This maybe an interesting document to show console GPU in terms of Gflops http://kyokojap.myweb.hinet.net/gpu_gflops/ - this indicates that the Vita had around 50.

The PS4 Pro has 2304 cores and each core can handle 2 instructions at a time. The clock speed is 911mhz meaning that's how many complete instructions can be completed per second. Therefore the GPU can handle 2304 x 2 x 911 instructions every second which gives us 4197888 which gives us 4.2tflops or 4200gflops. The XB1s has 768 cores and 914mhz clock speed so 768 x 2 x 914 = 1403904 or 1.4tflops. For the Scorpio to get 6tflops, the GPU could have 3200 cores running at around 935-940mhz for example or 3400 cores at 880-885mhz.

The Switch has a LOT more cores than the vita so will be a lot more powerful. The WiiU for example is around 7x the power of a Vita (according to that chart) and if accurate, the Switch should be about 3x the power of a WiiU at least. Of course this is just the GPU's potential. RAM and its bandwidth and CPU are also important in determining the overall.

Anyway hope that helps show how these figures are determined and what they mean.

@Octane: But just imagine if Nintendo built a powerful computer like the ps4 pro. It would be great.

They are trying to substitute power for innovation - they aren't mutually exclusive.

I love Nintendo games, but the Switch specs are disappointing. I'm sure a couple of games will be fantastic but Its not going to displace the PS4 at the top of the tree - something I believe they should aim for.

• Looks at Nintendo life comment section *

@Octane: I just don't understand the expectation that it'll retail for approx $250, be as powerful as an Xbox One and be the size of a tablet....and still make profit. How is this a realistic expectation for the console? Not trying to be rude.

@mrobinson91: The Switch has a 6.2" IPS 720p screen (according to leaks) so puts it in the 'iPad mini' type size range. except the Mini has a bigger and a much higher resolution screen. If Apple (and other 'mini' tablets) can be made and sold for under £200, then I don't see why Nintendo can't either. It appears to use 4GB RAM and 32GB of System Memory (SSD) - not a lot but comparable with mini tablets that are sold for around £200.
Look at the Linx Vision 8" Win10 Gaming Tablet - a 800p screen with similar specs for around £150. The nVidia Shield K1 tablet features a 1200p 8" screen and similar specs too. The Switch of course has the dock to connect to the big screen seemlessly but this seems to have very little cost to manufacture - a charging dock essentially that also has a HDMI port to connect to the TV but the image is passed through this from the handheld and all the dock does essentially is supply more power than the batteries alone can to enable the internal clock speed of the GPU to run faster. Its not got any extra processing capabilities, no extra RAM or memory, I don't think it has any extra ports(just a HDMI out and Power supply in), any slots for cartridges or memory cards. Its just a neater solution than plugging a power adaptor/charger cable and HDMI in to the screen directly. Maybe its Nintendo's way of ensuring you don't plug just the HDMI in and only get the 'lower' res version on screen - which may look good on a 720p 6.2" screen but on a 55"+ HD (or even 4k) TV would look quite poor by modern console standards - more comparable with last gen.
Its very easy to see how Nintendo could make a console like this for £200-£250 and make a profit...

@BAMozzy: Just had a quick look at both those tablets and they seem mostly to be aimed at streaming content? One of the reviews mentioned that the Shield ran Hearthstone smoothly which is a barely a glowing review for a native gaming device. Hearing rumours that Dark Souls 3 is going to be running on the Switch is what confuses me.

I suppose in my head I struggle to see how the new, cheap PS4 is £250, but Nitendo can bring out something nearly as powerful, with a screen and built in battery for the same or cheaper.

@mrobinson91: Those both may well be aimed more at the streaming market but throw in a cartridge slot and they could theoretically run games from that. The screen isn't 'high quality' in terms of resolution or technology. Its not an AMOLED for example but an IPS screen, smaller and lower res than these as well as most mini tablets - in essence its not much bigger than some mobiles. A PS4 also has a Bluray Drive, more RAM, a bigger HDD (albeit mechanical as opposed to a 'chip', more ports, a more complex controller with a speaker, touch pad, gyroscopic sensors, lightbar and ports for headsets, charging etc too. It appears that its nearly twice as powerful as the Switch is going to be. Its not even as powerful as an XB1s which is selling for £250 (or less) with a 4k HDR Bluray player and a 500GB HDD - certainly not in undocked mode and I can't see how it will match up docked either unless it has significantly more cores to make up for the lower clock speeds (which doesn't appear to be the case). It appears to have 256 cores and can top out at around 1tflop (the XB1s is around 1.4tflops, the PS4 at 1.86tflops) if using 16bit processing but around half that if using 32bit like the other consoles. If the XB1s used 16bit, that would be 2.8tflops or the PS4 would 3.92tflops and the Pro a whopping 8.4tflops to put it into context. http://wccftech.com/nvidia-tegra-x1-super-chip-announced-ces-...

Nintendo can put that to good use with their own developed games and develop them to use 16bit instruction to get effectively double the performance. 3rd Party multi-platform games though may be an issue. If they stick with the 32bit as used in PS4, XB1 etc, they are effectively halving the potential number of instructions the GPU can handle per second. Instead of say 1tflop, they now have 500gflops. That's peak performance by the way with the GPU running at its Max clock speed. The Switch though doesn't run at its Max capacity - even when docked - the Shield for example runs at 1ghz (1000mhz) but the Switch runs at 768mhz when docked so its not as powerful as the Shield.

If you look at at a Small/mini Tablet for example, these cost less than a PS4 too. They don't come with a dock and controller but do come with a higher res, bigger screen, built in battery, at least 32gb system memory etc. Its not difficult to see how Nintendo could essentially build one of these, optimise it more for gaming rather than a more general use, add in a dock and controller and sell it for a profit at £250.

It's going to have great exclusives and get less and less 3rd party support as time goes on. Developers will not and should not waterdown their games because Nintendo refuses to get with the times.

@themcnoisy: Well, I've given up on the idea of a PS4-like Nintendo console a long time ago. I wouldn't mind it, it's just not going to happen unfortunately. I think that by combining their handheld and home console departments, we'll hopefully get one of the better Nintendo consoles in a while. Only time will tell!

@mrobinson91: BAMozzy already did a great job of explaining it. There's another way to look at it though. Take the Wii U console itself. It's pretty small compared to the PS4 and Xbox One. The main bulk of the system is the disc drive, the Switch doesn't have that. There's some empty space for ventilation, and then there's the core of the machine itself, it's pretty small actually. Remember that the Wii U is also four years old at this point, so the tech should be able to fit in a much smaller space. Add the fact that the Wii U was pretty much based on outdated bulky tech when it came out and the Switch is using high-end mobile components, that allow the system to be even more compact. It's not that difficult to imagine how they managed to squeeze a beefed up Wii U in a tablet. Same thing is true for the PS4, the majority of the system is the disc drive and cooling fans. The same question can be asked about any mobile device essentially!

@Splat To be fair, this is the most high-end handheld we've ever seen. It's pretty much able to keep up the current home consoles, not even the Vita or the PSP was capable of that, let alone any of Nintendo's previous handhelds.

I don't mean to sound like a Nintendo hater haha. I actually plan on getting The Switch. I just know it will be for exclusives only. I just highly doubt The Switch versions of 3rd party games are going to be on par with PS4/One. I don't care about gaming on the go so that isn't a selling point for me.

I hope it likes being in it's dock because that is where it's staying.

@Splat: Hah, and I sound like a Nintendo apologist! I think the Switch is far from perfect, and I have my own issues with the system, I just think there are way more legitimate concerns than things like ''I don't believe that fits in a tablet'' and ''Nintendo should get on with the times''. If you all worried about battery life, storage capability(!) or the entire Nintendo marketing department, then I would immediately agree.

@Octane: Battery life isn't an issue to me because not many handheld devices when used for gaming last very long and that's only a concern if/when used on the go. I wonder if Nintendo will bring out a portable and/or in-car charger and how will that affect the performance? Storage capability does seem low at 32GB but I cartridges could have their own 'game saves' on them - like the N64 did.
Marketing it as a 'Console' first and foremost though could be a mistake. Without trying to bring 'power' into it, although its difficult not to, its not looking like it will be competitive with the 3yr old XB1/PS4. Its release is sandwiched between a PS4 Pro and Xbox Scorpio. Its looking like the Pro will be over 8x as powerful and the Scorpio more than 12x and with more RAM and Storage. These also have media functionality - not just apps but the ability to play Blurays and DVD's too and both also offer 'next gen' TV support - 4k and HDR. Its true that 1080p TV's dominate the market place now, but in a few years that could swing. I know we here that Switch could be a 1tflop device but that is based on 16bit instruction but using 32bit (as the other consoles do) it would be half that. Mark Cerney himself spoke about 16bit instructions on the Pro and how that could effectively make the Pro an 8.4tflop console and to quote him from the interview in Eurogamer...

"One of the features appearing for the first time is the handling of 16-bit variables - it's possible to perform two 16-bit operations at a time instead of one 32-bit operation. In other words, at full floats, we have 4.2 teraflops. With half-floats, it's now double that, which is to say, 8.4 teraflops in 16-bit computation. This has the potential to radically increase performance."

In the mobile space though, it doesn't have such competition. Yes there are a lot of Tablets, Smartphones etc but dedicated handheld mobile gaming devices are dominated by Nintendo with some minor competition from Shield and the Vita which statistically is less powerful than Switch. Marketing it as a mobile device that you can plug into a TV when you get home takes it out of the 'console' competition and effectively puts it up against the Vita and 3DS as well as the tablets and Smartphones. Interestingly though some Smartphones look like they could compete in terms of 'power' but may not be as well optimised for gaming and/or as easy to play.
Software is always key to a consoles success. Nintendo have a good pedigree with its games library and it looks like the Switch will dip into the archives too with Virtual Gamecube. My one concern though would be the 'new' games and 3rd Party support. For most of us here, we do have a PS4 at least to play these anyway but it seems Nintendo are more than happy to sit back and try to target the '2nd console' and 'casual' market rather than as a primary console.
When docked, the Switch will be more powerful than the WiiU but undocked its debateable. Of course games like Zelda may look and run better than the WiiU but then you are looking at a 6.2" 720p screen - not a large screen 1080p (at least) television. The difference between docked and undocked is looking similar to the difference between the PS4 and PS4 Pro where that doubles the GPU size with a small bump to clock speed to get over double the performance, the Switch more than doubles the clock speed.
Of course the form factor is quite slim, small etc and it would be very impressive to build a PS4 competitor in something this size and sell it for the money they are likely to. Have you seen the price of ultra slim laptops that use 512GB SSD, 8GB RAM and then add in a decent CPU and GPU to at least match the PS4 or XB1s and a hi res (at least 1080p) touch screen and we are looking at something that could cost upwards of £6-700. It was never going to compete on that budget.
I still think Nintendo would be better off marketing as a mobile device first and foremost but I do appreciate that would put it up against their own 3DS and people would be wondering if this was a replacement for that.