FSAPO The Xbox was literally designed and has always been for 15 years a step child to the Pc. Microsoft has always wanted to bring the console player over to the Pc. The original Xbox was literally off the shelf Pc parts. Nothing customized. Nvidia is just another mercenary, 15 years ago it was Xbox, 10 years ago it PS3 and now Nintendo. Notice how the systems I mentioned all lost their generation.
You have to admit though, the Pascal chips are so much better and efficient than the last one. Especially in the Laptop space. If they can bring that to switch i think it can do well. Even if its the equivalent of a 1050
Defeqel I think its possible when you factor in it having a docked state. And from the Images of it, it will still have a fan going in its portable state. I really think they could heavily modify a 1050 chip to work with it.
NINJAZOMBI 169 same. And third party developers will be on board probably and better support then Wii U. I will definitely be pre-ordering this system.
jordan rausch I agree with your opinion on the name. I say it's really good for it's purpose because you're basically SWITCHING to a different way to play your game. In that case, portable to console or console to portable. As for hardware, I've heard developers say the NS is not skimping power so the power SHOULD be done properly.
Well, Todd Howard from Bethesda said that the Switch was the best demo he's ever experienced at E3 and basically confirmed Skyrim HD, despite being under NDA haha
It also depends on Nintendo. I was excited about the Wii U because it looked like a more normal console than the Wii which honestly i never liked much. The Wii U had potential even if it wasn't the strongest BUT Nintendo never seemed to give it the time of the day. Except the stupid name that confused people(I swear, whoever thought "Wii U" was a smart name should hanged in the middle of the Nintendo facilities as an example) Nintendo never really gave it the time of day. I watched there Nintendo shows etc and 90% they where talking about their hand-held and titles on that. It was like they didn't have a home console. If you ignore your own console then how to you expect others to pay attention to it.
Modern architecture isn't everything, we still don't know what the specs of the switch gpu will be. And if nintendo has cut too many corners it could be disastrous. No it doesn't need to be even close to the ps4/xbone. But it can't be a complete turd.
IsoMacintosh He said that the 1070 and the switch would have the same chip design. Which is just not true. A 1070 is a dedicated GPU. The tegra chip for the switch is a GPU/CPU combo. So it is by far not the same design.
"Specs are known: 192 or 256 NVIDIA shaders at 921 Mhz!" Nope, those are rumors. If they are true that would mean that theoretically the gtx 1050 non ti would be more than 5 times as powerful as the switch GPU.
The Switch may very well be the next Nintendo console I own since the Gamecube era. Zelda looks incredible, and I've had a mario itch for awhile now. Plus, Pokemon may finally get the huge upgrade the franchise needs (Yes, I love Sun and Moon so far, but it's still clearly held back a lot).
***** Like l said. There are multiple rumors of it being ported over. www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-11-18-nintendo-switch-will-get-pokemon-sun-and-moon-version
***** l don't think you read the post. So let me quote something from it real quick. "Expect the Switch version of Sun and Moon to feature the same map - the same routes and cities - and the same art style, although be built using separate, higher-resolution assets." A port. So there you go. It's initially the third entry. A la Yellow, Crystal, Emerald and Platinum. But yet again this is all rumors.
***** It's probably being delayed because of the differences in the CPU. The WiiU ran on a still heavily modified CPU form the gamecube. While the Switch is being rumored to run on a Tegra ARM chip. Completely different architecture.
I don't think you understand the actual issue with porting to Nintendo "Consoles". Porting issues are rarely a graphics card issue but mostly architecture and resources. If Nintendo really cared about not having shitty ports for once, they should've used x86, not freaking ARM for Christ sake. ARM devices are going to run way worse no matter what. And Android provides the most access to the hardware than any other Mobile OS (And there are actually more). Android can be easily optimized and Nvidia made their own optimized version of Android. You can safely assume that the Switch is only going to be at MOST 15% better because again, the Shield is the best match to it and no matter what, using an ARM architecture sucks for upgrading graphics that far. A lot of bottleneck there. Heck, even the Shield has a ton of bottleneck. You, my friend, are what a dictionary would call and optimist
To be fair, mobile x86 chips suck if you want to keep the energy efficiency and cost down. I say that as someone who wishes they could be used more in the mobile world.
James Alexander Well yeah. That's kinda the whole role of the ARM chipset. To be used in Mobile devices. But at the same time, now Nintendo just made a portable console that sacrifices the big screen experience because of the ARM processor, not to mention not everyone is gonna want to carry a 7 inch tablet everywhere just for videogames. They should've just focused on making a more practical Home console. I mean, they had Nvidia for heaven's sake, they completely screwed an opportunity.
James Alexander Holy crap, I flagged your comment on accident. Sorry. Touchscreen laptops aren't that precise. I see what you mean. But I just play my PS4 on the go with my PSVITA. The vita is crappy, but remote play still works anywhere as long as I got an internet connection. And I honestly think Japan is becoming more and more of a negative influence every year. They'll by anything without telling them what needs improving. Nintendo is a mostly Japanese company instead of a worldwide company.
SonicMastr500 It's okay accidents happen and yeah they really aren't. See I tried remote play but I got some serious input lag no matter where I went. Plus there was the fact that you won't always have an Internet connection wherever you go (much less a good one). That's a big concern for me as well. The only other company that can shape what they want is sony and funny enough the psvita isn't doing too bad over in japan.
James Alexander Well that's what I mean. Japan makes EVERYTHING seem like a good idea, no matter how bad. That's why I think companies shouldn't rely on Japan for feedback as much as Nintendo does. Japan honestly thinks the craziest and stupid things are good ideas. Sometimes right, mostly wrong.
Tablets are also portable. Phones are also portable. This thing is basically a bigger, clunkier, less portable tablet, possibly with less battery life and fewer functions, if that's how you want to look at it. If you want to compare it to mobile gaming devices, the only thing the switch has over the rest of the already saturated tablet and smartphone market are Nintendo games. But no, I wasn't knocking the Switch, as I hope it's successful and I'll be keeping an eye on it (but I wont preorder it, because I'm not an idiot). I was merely commenting on the line in the video where he said it's not as weak as you think.
Salamihawk Well I mean there is a bootleg Pokemon game on the Google Play Store called Catch Em Monster :D and it actually kind of plays like a legit Pokemon game but it's online only :(
Well... switch also has another important thing over the rest of the tablet and smartphone market: physical inputs. Touchscreens can only do so much for certain genres of games. So if we presume that the Switch also has a capacitive touchscreen, then you've got a more flexible set of options for games.
AMD is usually cheaper, which is nice, but the main reason I don't want to switch to Nvidia is because is their absolute asshattery in terms of proprietary features. They lock down everything they develop, and will fight to the bitter end to not support any of AMD's open standards.
So... if Ford went out and paid every gas station they could to only sell a fuel formulation that halves the horsepower of any vehicle that isn't a brand new Ford you would be perfectly happy with only being able to drive a brand new Ford from that point on unless you were willing to deal with either only using certain gas stations or driving half the car you own.
ahayesm no I wouldn't be happy but it's well within their rights to do so. It's a business trying to make money. If amd doesn't feel the need to be a competent competition then why should nvidia hold back. Nvidia almost has a monopoly on the market and that's amd and consumers fault.
Riley Jacobs II he said JUST above budget tablet. that still means crap performance. as a budget tablet has nothing on the wiiu, how would it even hold a candle to the projections of performance on the switch? that's how it's titanically idiotic
this is genuinely the most informative switch hardware video I have seen on RU-vid , so well paced and descriptive and explained a great argument for its potential success
The ps4 and Xbox was a powerful and fun experience when it came out, but with that it came with a curse that previous consoles has faced. The curse was gamers with an inadequate mindset only trusting their consoles and companies, this would later be the cause of the consoles war. Due to the low morality and kindness of gamers, people tend to argue about another console about specs, size, games, and etc. (Switch and other consoles). Because lack of main information on the switch right now, we people tend to create pointless arguments to try to prove that their company is more adequate and more "perfect." In reality, the more loving gamers tend to be more softer and seem to have more hope for the future. This is because they do not care about the strength and they deeply care for the enjoyability.
Liked the video, but when you shat on AMD and PowerPC Chips I was worried you'd be called a Hypocrite, but it looks like no one has picked up on the point that Gamecube used both, ha.
I liked the video, gave you views, and provided some constructive criticism, you're not going to get far as personality at any level, let alone youtube, if you're so easily offended. If you really thought my opinion was "dumb" you would have just ignored it, instead you chose to respond directly, it clearly spiked a nerve and you reacted emotionally to it. I still like a lot of the points you made and I've made similar points to others when they've dismissed the switch as an expensive Tegra tablet. I've designed and built custom PCB's and other electronics that I've had manufactured in Taiwan etc so I'm extremely familiar with the process they've been through and I appreciate the work that's gone into the switch, so while you made a dumb assumption about me, I'm happy to let that slide. Honestly, it's a good video and keep up the good work.
You really need to get laid dude, using faggot as an insult only exposes your insecurities about your sexuality. It's okay, you shouldn't hate yourself. It gets better.
Do you know anything about docking station issues with the nintendo Switch? I been through the troubleshooting and ordered a new one still I can't get the thing to dock properly. Is this a common problem? Thanks! -Mark
I agree with most of your points. I've got a PC with incredible specs (GTX 1080, I7 6700k, 16gb ram). No console is appealing to me because it will be a step down. However, the Nintendo Switch is the first console in 10 years that I actually want because it is decent graphics but portable. Nintendo was smart to make a device like this.
I'm just saying it, because before OUYA was released, it's devs always used it as an argument, that their console would be able to perform well in living room. If N dosen't give something with docking station (either than cooling), I don't expect Switch to be able to compete with home consoles. Tegra is good for smartphones not for consoles.
KeeperOfTheFate You really cant compare them. If we compare the Tegra 3 (Ouya, 12GFLOPS) to the P1 (possibly Nintendo Switch 750GFLOPS), we see a 62x more powerful GPU. Thats just like the difference between the first XBox and the XBox One. Even the Nvidia Shield tablet was already 5x as powerful as the Ouya. Mobile computing has come far in the last few years, you really cant compare the old Tegras to the new ones..
+dabeste Very True, cause a LG F3Q, a 2014 Keyboard Phone and has a GPU able to emulate PS2 and play PS2 ports. My T699, is 2012 and has a GPU that can emulate PSP & PS1, but some games like Exile Colony looks better than most PS2 games and yet my phone can play it. That being said its more important to game with good Gameplay vs Graphics.
KeeperOfTheFate True cause by that time they might have a better chip and Modders will know what is really inside it, but then again by that time a better CPU will come out...and you won't care about Graphics when Pokemon has a Shader/Material and 10k-20k Polygon Meshes like GTA 4 with brighter and livelier colors.
GameCube CPU - Yea this is powerful..! Wii CPU - Hm... I'm too lazy to do something new, so let's just _Overclock!!_ Wii U CPU - *_Overclock EVEN MORE!!!_* Switch CPU - Ok fuk dis gunna get some of the new architectures
Do you think it wise to be an early adopter of the Switch or do you think waiting about six months will see the release of a "Switch Pro" or "Switch Elite" that's glossy black and has bigger hard drive? I honestly didn't even know the Wii U existed until about a year after it was released (very poor marketing imo) so I was lucky enough to get the better black version the first time around.
Something that wasn't mentioned was cooling. Xbox One, PS4, and gaming PCs require pretty beefy cooling. It doesn't look like the Switch has a lot of room to devote to cooling gear (it might be passively cooled), how far do you think they can drive that Nvidia SoC before heat becomes an issue? Any one who has played demanding games on their phone or tablet know very well how much of an issue cooling (and battery life) is on mobile devices.
pretty well is an overstatement. laptops become noisy and hot when they start doing actual work instead of idling or less resource intensive tasks like web browsing. unlike a laptop, the Switch will be much more limited in space. the bigger they make the cooling system, the more that will eat into battery space. battery life is one of those things I'll be curious about with the Switch. there's a lot of hardware they need to stuff into that shell and I fear battery space is one of those things that will take a back seat.
my experience with laptops have been pretty much what I wrote earlier, they're fine as far as thermals until you push them. gaming or rendering (basically anything that pushes it to near 100% CPU/GPU) and it's no longer something you want to touch. It's not scolding hot or anything but it's pretty unconformable.
MacTX Yeah, they usually do get noisy, like my ps4 sounds like jumbojet taking off while under load but it wont overheat. I think Switch will be the same.
Everything said in this video about Nvidia is pure speculation. We don't know what and if any tools are being provided by Nvidia. Nintendo may be handling all software, from the OS, API's, etc.
am I the only one more concerned about the game library than to the console numbers? HD is already pretty much great for a videogame. fullhd is cool too and anything bigger than that only makes sense on bigger screens today. Anyway, when I think about consoles, the last thing I care about is gfx. high end gfx was always something to look for on PC gaming. As many console fanboys preach around, "PC hardware gets obsolete in two years, while a console survive through almost a decade or five years at least"(words from console gamers that I usually see/hear around to justify their choice). Since consoles are computers too, this rule should apply to them too. So why do you people(console gamers) care so much about hardware specs and gfx fidelity? Different ways of having fun > better hardware specs. Be it through the game mechanics itself, physics, etc or through new ways to Interact with the game. TL;dr: consoles should be more about fun than gfx fidelity. If people want to go full enthusiast, buy a killer gaming PC and dont ruin a good gaming environment such as console gaming with lesser details such as graphics fidelity and hardware competition because it is pointless to discuss about it on consoles.
Nathan Maia PC hardware does not become obsolete in 2 years, that's a wrong way to express the potential of growth of the PC hardware. since you have the chance to build your PC accordingly to your budget, of course, if you currently build a PC just to barely rrach 60fps in some heavy games, ib 2 or 3 years, it night not reach 60 fps in every game, but that's because the hardware you chose to begin with, it wasn't strong enough. You can fin people still playing with 3rd gen intel processors from 3 years ago, ddr3 Ram that is like 5 years old, GPUs that can be even 3 years old, that thanks to the new api (in the case of amd cards) they come back to life. I'm not a PC fanboy, but the state of PC components does not get obsolete after 2 years, it improves a lot, in 2 years.
One of the biggest problems today is that people are more concerned with benchmarking and the " nerd status" of having high end hardware than with having fun. People dont let themselves have fun if the gfx fidelity is not the state-of-the-art which is something really really dumb to do. Almost irrational. Almost all FX bloat in most games today barelly make real diference in gaming experience.
Sounds like you don't know shit about pc gaming... I've had my build for a while now, and don't plan on changing anything for at least a few more years
i'd also like to add that the CPU architecture in the PS4 and xbox one is also from 2013, a 3, almost 4 year old architecture that was even weak back then when it came out as it was designed for low power machines and laptops. I believe the switch is very promising.
Mantenner I just watched at the instruction set of this APU and my i5 6600k and the only difference is that the AMD chip doesn't support AVX2.0 and you want to say this *one* instruction set is making the PS4 and Xbox processors bad?
MrDavibu not quite what I was saying, all I'm saying is that just because it's x86 doesn't necessarily mean it will be powerful, it can still be x86 and be weaker than say, ARM :) depending on age of course.
I believe what Mantenner means is that the CPU architecture of the PS4 and Xbox One was that it was designed for low-powered applications (Jaguar) for use in laptops and the like, not desktop-grade performance. That's probably why they shoved 8 cores into the things.
what does the ps4 and xbone version have to do with anything? Please think before you attack your viewers. This tablet will run an extremely cut down version of any 5 year old game, at 720p. A tiny tablet has no capacity for any real cpu and gpu power while have to balance with having a battery in mobile mode. They could have atleast made the dock a real cpu/gpu combo, but it just a dock. This POS tablet will stick cost a lot of money, and all the amiibo virgins will buy it.
F Khan can see into the future! he knows everything about the system before we do! Yo, let me get next weeks lotto numbers since you seem to know everything.
The point I think he's trying to make is the fact that Nintendo made the port of a 5 year old vanilla Skyrim as a corner of their marketing for in the announcement trailer. I think that's pretty indicative of the quality of the games that will be put on the system. And I think it's especially lackluster considering the fact that this is their second console from this generation. I bought a Wii U and found it useless for other than MH, Bayo, and Smash. So, how I feel, is they expect me to be amazed by a a port of a five year old game after I already dropped money on the wii u when it came out? I don't trust them to not fuck it up again.
People can try and hope for the Nintendo Switch to be something revolutionary but we all know how this works. We have reached a stale mate in gaming where everything after the GameCube, Playstation 2 and Xbox, and Wii have become repetitive and over used. The last unique feature that a console had was the Wii, everything else was a huge fail. It can't be extremely powerful because its a basically a gaming tablet which wouldn't be able to last longer the probably 3 hours maxed.
It likely will be, but that's not saying much because the PS4 is already over 3 years old and has a new Pro version that is 2.4x more powerful than the PS4.
But the PS4 pro does not mean a thing - just like the future Micirosoft console. Their gaming policy is promising not to create a next console generation but just an updated version of the current one. By promising that ALL their future games will run on the stronger and on the standard version of their current consoles, they are going to help Nintendo out a lot. Nintendo does just need to get around the "power" of the current generation but the Switch and its features can easily outclass the other consoles. And like it is explained in the video, this does not really need to be a problem.
Yes this is true. It depends on what you prefer but since I have read a lot about VR and seen some medical reviews, I know that many doctors warn you not to use it a lot, especially oculists and otolaryngologists. The idea of VR is nice but it is not that healthy. And I personally do not really want to spend that much money for something like this even though many people are seriously impressed by that awesome experience. I mean, I love my standard PS4 as well but Nintendo has the best first party games without any doubt. Even the Microsoft CEO stated this. So I will just enjoy different consoles :-)
The Shield TV doesn't play everything better than an Xbox 360. Resident Evil 5 for instance, runs much worse on Shield TV than it does on Xbox 360. The "modern games" you see on Shield TV are streamed from Nvidia servers. It doesn't run any AAA games natively on the Shield TV hardware, because it's simply too weak, depite being new architecture. What people should be looking closer at is how Nvidia cards compare. GTX 750 (Maxwell based) gives similar graphical performance to an Xbox One. It comes in at around 1 TFLOPS FP32 performance. Pascal cards have not shown any significant performance increase, when comparing cards of similar spec range (i.e. 3GB GTX 1060 vs GTX 970). So in order to match Xbox One performance, Switch needs a 1 TFLOPS FP32 Pascal GPU, even after optimisations and stuff. Tegra Parker is a 750 GFLOPS FP32 Pascal chip. Sure, the enhanced FP16 capabilities provide some room for FP16 optimisation, but the potential gains depend heavily on the scale of the game. Can Nvidia create a custom Tegra with at least 30% more graphical power than the brand new Tegra Parker, while also reducing the TDP for the mobile Switch? I'm not so sure they can... This doesn't mean games won't be able to run on the Switch... this just means that Switch ports will likely suffer from reductions to texture and effects quality, just to reach 720p 60 fps.
Well it's long known that Nintendo b****es whenever there is some gameplay involved so kinda your own fault for taking the "easy" way of just showing gameplay. ;)
Great, informative video! Definitely some good points brought up. I haven't played Nintendo since GC and I have so much nostalgia for Nintendo IP's *-* ... I remain hopeful about the Switch.
What a load of waffle, its still an underpowered mobile chip no matter how good Nvidia 'support' is. I'm a Nintendo fan and will probably pick one of these up because of the IP's, but you would have to be a drooling moron to expect the tiny GPU in NX to match even an original PS4 or XBOX. This was just a way of Nvidia dumping some of the wasted research they spent on their shield console which hardly anybody bought. Its sad that the last really competitive console from Nintendo in terms of specs was the gamecube. Nintendo have already made it clear this will be another technically weak console gamerant.com/nintendo-nx-content-focus-759/ .
This video seems to be missing the point. While addressing the surface concern of "specs aren't everything" It completely misses that a lot of the pros you claim are just as often going to be weaknesses. 1) A focus on common graphical hardware/architecture will be a benefit - Unfortunately while at a base level, this may be true, when it comes to cross-platform porting and optimization this will be harder because of... 2) different architectures - Now I use a Pascal GPU in my desktop and its good for the Directx 11 and OpenGL 4.x style games we often play and use on the PC. However, this is not a PC and almost all of the benefits you claim go out the window when you are talking about the console or mobile market that the Switch will be in. Low-level APIs are where it is at for efficient resource use and our next generation of titles. Those are either highly Nvidia hardware dependent (i.e. CUDA, Physx, etc) or perform poorly on the Nvidia architectures. Direct X 12 (both GPGPU and graphics), Vulkan, Open CL, etc all perform poorly on Pascal. Sure Pascal has some great IPC numbers, but that's not going to make the platform a success or not. Which then bring me to... 3) Nvidia middleware - Nvidia middleware and development is focused purely on benefiting Nvidia hardware often explicitly at the expense of being architecture agnostic. Unlike middleware from most other major companies, Nvidia only optimizes and targets its own hardware making it less likely you will use this off of anything but a single platform targeted game. If you implement it in the Switch development you often can't use it in the xbox/PS release due to... 4) cross-platform issues - Nintendo wants to be a major target for development when it comes to the Switch. Nvidia wants a win because its approch has been rejected by the other console makers including Nintendo in the past. Nintendo NEEDS to start with the ability to efficiently create ports and realize a return on investment. After all, you need ports to make people not feel like this is just a second console, and developers need easy cross-platform wins to help subsidize targeting the platform for future titles. This is something that never happened with the Wii U because its use of the PowerPC architecture, lack of Nintendo support, poor third party engine/middleware support, and managing the quirks the platform had. With the Switch we see more middleware companies on board, but we are still having an issue with working around the quirks of the system. Middleware and code that cant or wont work on other platforms, an Nvidia focused on its own interests, and Nintendo just trying to make this new balance work. After all, we all have to wonder if the Switch is... 5) Mobile first and console second? - Nintendo has set up the Switch for an almost impossible battle. It has to go against the mobile market that is fueled off of yearly refreshes and better support then Nvidia has shown in the same marketplace. Sure it can perform some interesting and unique GPU capabilities, but the built-in ARM cores are normally substandard and draw power even more than the competition... only to then be bested by the competition 6 to 12 months later in every category. But now you plug it in and suddenly that high powered mobile part with lackluster battery life becomes an underpowered fixed device. Will the switch be able to keep up with the Playstation and xbox lines? Amazing graphics aren't required, but being able to run similar software and releases are still necessary or you see desertion of the platform like the Wii U did. Will the temporary superiority of the hardware fade away and developers will stop seeing the demand letting them write it off like the Wii U? Nintendo is trying to make a third category of device. Is this what we really want or need? The technology and market doesn't seem to be in a place to accept it and Nvidia seems to be using Nintendo to try and claw back into the console and mobile space after several failures in winning bids or products falling through in the market (Tegra in gaming for instance). That being said.... *pre-orders a Switch* Also a few corrections to your statements: Pascal is a stable and familiar ground - It is only for PC developers. Not for mobile or console developers that have all been targeting different GPU architectures for decades now. So I guess you hope for a lot of PC Ports? Nvidia Geforce Experience - Nvidia didn't do it first. there were several auto-optimizing software options out there earlier including Raptr that AMD has since partnered with as its competing option Android does not allow low-level hardware access - Will this is just painfully wrong. Vulkan, NDK, etc. Android has equivalent low-level access to the Apple Ecosystem and you have seen some amazing graphics coming from that platform when people prioritize it and throw the time and money to make it come out right... kind of like how you can see the same with the Wii U or 3DS today. Power PC - Virtually all of your analysis is factually incorrectly. iMac Core2Duo vs G5 dual socket workstation, I hate to tell you but that 2006 quad (2x2 970MP) powermac still outperformed a 2008 8-core (2x 4-core) Xeon for several workflows. Your basis for explaining the switch for Apple is only partially correct, it more had more to do with IBM not receiving a new specs sheet for the next generation of PowerPC "small" architecture in time from Apple, thus de-prioritizing Apple's request forcing them to switch to Intel. Honestly though, relationship wise Arm & x86_64... or even PowerPC & X86_64 today are nothing like they used to be back then. Playstation Dominance - While it was the popular wisdom today to think this, those alive at the time and living through this war remember it quite differently. The N64 used cartridges, but it wasn't the low storage that made it harder... it was the significantly higher production costs that were the larger issue. a CD even then was cheap, carts are significantly more expensive. Today its not as big of a deal since flash memory is bulk produced so much it can replace a lot of rotational media. Sony had a 2 year or so head start on the N64. Sony also had to go against the Saturn that was already coming off of a shaky launch after the Genesis (Sega CD and 32X) confusion fiascos, Sony didn't have much competition. Then come Sony with its lack of a Seal of Quality program, making it harder/expensive, to get N64 games released and those much higher media costs and it became easy for Sony to get its partners to release large quantities of titles almost on demand. The average consumer sees more choice and more store front taken up by a competitor and those parents end up gravitating towards the "safer" option. [But this brings in two questions. Will Nintendo continue to control and restrict content on the Switch like it has traditionally putting it at a competitive disadvantage? Also, how will Nintendo deal with not have a back-catalog of titles that can play on the system like Project Spartian or the PS4 Pro can?]
It has a little fan in it, but I speculate that it will run in a lower power consumption mode when hand held. It doesn't need to put out as high a resolution, so it can slow things down a bit to improve efficiency, heat, and battery life. That fan will run a lot more when docked. It will ramp up power to output full 1080p.
One thing: Tegra X1, the current, Maxwell-based Tegra comes with 256 compute units, while a GTX 970, the Maxwell-based mid-range consumer card, comes with 1664. That's a factor of 6.5. I'm saying this because you're video made it seem as if the Switch's (perhaps) Pascal-based Tegra would perform anywhere near a Pascal-based consumer card. It won't. Not even close. Will it be good enough for a console? Definitely. It definitely will be very power-efficient, which it absolutely has to be with its form factor. It will probably also outperform the PS4 and XB1. Nice... but it very likely won't be fast enough to deliver games at the visual fidelity we're used to at proper 4K with good, stable frame rates.
I'm not sure if it'll even be enough to reach Xbox One performance. Rumors also said this will be based on the X2, which is better than the X1 by a good margin. Talking about actual specs, numbers and raw performance so bear with me: Tegra X2 has 0.75 TFlops of 32bit precision(single precision to be precise). Xbox One is at 1.3 and PS4 at 1.8 both of single precision. Now, it does have one feature that Apple has made use of for better performance on their iOS devices for a while now and that AMD has brought to PS4 Pro as well which was not available before. Before if developers wanted to sacrifice precision and only use 16bit floating operators(half precision) it would make use of a full 32 bit address. The PS4 Pro now allows a 16bit to double the TFlops for a lower precision, basically allowing it to go from 4.2TFlops to 8.4Tflops which the Tegra X2 is also capable of, making it able reach 1.5Tflops(previous Tegra chips can also do this but the X1 only reaches 1TFlops in 16bit). Here's the issue, this is half precision which you don't always want or will use nor will it always benefit from it. There's also a lower memory bandwidth which is a bit troubling. Xbox One is already slow at around 70GB/s with the DDR3 memory solely, but Microsoft cleverly used a small bit of fast memory that is capable of 109 GB/s, theorically it can go higher with certain methods. It's only 32MB but it has made possible for some games to reach 1080p on Xbox One, it's I think impossible without it. Tegra X2 is only capable of 50GB/s. This will probably not be a huge issue at 720p but it's still very important for other tasks other than res. Conclusion with a bit of speculation involved: Best case scenario it's only able to match the Xbox One, maybe even put it a bit ahead in visual quality, of course with the lower 720p res(depending on the game). The whole dock does bring a few questions. Imagine it does use the X2. If the dock supposedly provides power so the Tegra X2 doesn't underclock and to reach the full potential at 900p(example) then it might mean the system will not be at it's full potential when portable meaning the situation might be of slower performance than I mentioned.
50MB/s will be ok for 1080p, just not 60fps. But I don't think anyone was expecting that. Either way I don't believe the I/O speed will be a bottleneck.
Grahamaan27 You meant 50GB/s? Developers struggle to get to 1080p on Xbox One by just using the DDR3 memory which is faster at around 70GB/s so OK for 1080p would mean really, really weak graphics. But no, it won't be a bottleneck, the GPU won't be fast enough for 50GB/s to even be a bottleneck so it's ultimately not a problem but it does give us a good picture of what to expect, which until Nintendo shows otherwise should be lower than people's current expectations.
***** That is what happened to the WiiU. Specially with Ubisoft which was the only big publisher supporting the system. They tried to stick with it but bailed out rather quickly after ZombiU and AC3 didn't meet expectations because the console sold poorly.
It still isn't strong enough to play games like Battlefield 1, meaning once again, most current developers won't want anything to do with it...meaning we can expect the same old ass titles as a sequel...again.
Oh of course not. Nintendo always waits until hardware becomes cheap and out of date just to save a few bucks and then their consoles can't compete or support current AAA titles, so they always fall back on the same games they been making for over 20 years. No surprise here.*****
That's not true. The Nvidia Shield does play games on it's own, like most Android consoles. A few games out on it are Metal Gear Rising, Doom 3 BFG, Half Life 2 and episodes, Portal, Borderlands 2, Resident Evil 5, The Talos Principle, and pretty much every android game and its mother is available and runs natively on the console without streaming. The streaming you're thinking of is either Nvidia GameStream or Nvidia Geforce Now, which the Shield also supports. Also, I didn't believe it at first, but apparently the thing does support DirectX 12... Weird. shield.nvidia.com/blog/tegra-x1-processor-and-shield
The Chip may support DX12, but that doesn't mean Android does. For DirectX you need the device to run some kind of Windows (Desktop, Embedded Versioen, etc.).
Someone correct me if I am wrong, But the ARM architecture that the Tegra chips is based on uses the RISC (Reduced instruction set computing) instruction set. The same instruction set that Power PC was designed for. Since the Xbox 360, ps3 and the wii all had some for of PPC CPU powering them it would only make sense for them to pick something that most developers would be familiar at this point. In addition to having low power consumption to make this a hybrid console.
Android does provide low level access to the hardware since 7.0 thanks to the Vulkan API, the same API used by DooM (2016). It's just only a couple of games actually use Vulkan.
I use C++ to write native code that compiles to iOS and to Android (Using their NDK). Then yes - I reference it from Java - because it's easier for me. But it's not all "f*** java-compiled apps"
FANTASTIC VIDEO! glad I stumbled across it :) :) gives me lots of hope for the Nintendo switch even though I was already loving it! Thank you! And you should post more videos! They're so good 👍👍👍
Also, just a tidbit.... Nintendo seems to claim ANY video that has more than 5 seconds of gameplay from any of their products. So I'm glad they claimed it as opposed to removing! Haha somehow that's a step in the right direction for Nintendo. So sad
Im thinking like long term stuff. Do you see these two creating a new market for mobile/home gaming? I saw an article stating the Switch is not competing with PS or XB but its actually going after the iPad
I totally agree. I've been under the impression that following what Sony and Microsoft do would be very bad for Nintendo(worse than the issues they are already facing)
video just became invalid the moment you said your gtx 1070>Nintendo switch. regardless of any console dedication it's only gonna improve what like 5+ fps. even a gtx 1060 will out preform the switch heck even a 1050ti can handle most recent games at 1080p 60fp with high detail settings.
last argument doesn't make any sense, the n64 was behind the ps1 almost only because of nintendo bad decision of keeping cartridges as game media and limited the game's size, texture size and sound quality, not because the n64 was easier to program. The switch won't be the easiest console to program, it will also feature the tiniest media size (booth internally and externally) and also features worse graphics, there's literally no factor that gives nintendo any advantage relating to the switch's hardware or easiness to code
Thats what he said.. It was easier to program for the PS1, and PS1 had more storage on their discs.. so.. it made perfect sense.. And No, the switch will not have the tiniest media size.. the switch is using SD-like cards that can hold 16 GB.. and knowing that Skyrim, that is getting a re-release on switch, take only 6 GB of harddrive space. Then knowing that Breath of the Wild is aprox 10x bigger than Skyrim.. well.. the capacity of these discs wont be an issue.. And then the Discs having close to no loading times is also a big plus.. And how did you figure it will be harder to program for the Switch? Have you tried? Have you spoken to the developers who are developing for the system? And how is the graphics worse?Have you even seen any of the fotage of the BETA builds of the games they have shown so far?
"The switch won't be the easiest console to program," how do you know? are you currently working with a dev kit? Do you have hand's on experience? or just is it just something you want to believe? " will also feature the tiniest media size" Micro SD cards can hold upwards of 200gb, 4 times the amount of the bluray media of PS4 and Xbone. Also lets not forget to mention extremely low load times in comparison. "features worse graphics" Have you played any first party Wii U games? They look AMAZING, all run at 1080p and 60 fps, something that only a handful of Xbone and PS4 game have done. And this coming from a "less" powerful console. It's all about optimizing and utilizing the hardware. People always get on board "it's hard to code", give it up already.
+fickminne 16GB storage won't be an issue? Both PS4 and XB1 support BluRays with currently up to 50GB. I'm not entirely certain whether XB1 or PS4 support more than dual-layer BluRays, though, so this could very well be 75GB (triple layer) or 100GB (quad layer BluRay). The Witcher 3, Infinite Warfare, XCOM2 and many other current games are way above 16GB in size. Sorry, but 16GB maximum storage won't have developers jumping up and down in joy. Also, since the Switch will be the only console not using the x86 architecture common to PC, PS4 and XB1, it definitely will be harder to work with, even if it is only the fact that you actually do need to put some more effort into a port than when going from one x86 system to the other. Together with the fact that a AAA game made for the other systems will most likely be larger than 16GB and will require some cutbacks for the Switch, you end up with the simple fact, that a Switch port will be more work than any other port. Seeing as the Switch is coming in mid-generation and NIntendo platforms aren't exactly known for great third-party sales, this could become a problem overall. I'm not hating on the Switch, btw. I like the concept and I really hope NIntendo delivers an actually good console this time around, but these issues do exist.
Clairvoyant81 "16GB storage won't be an issue?" Why would it be an issue? Stop thinking in terms of optical and think cartridge, you don't have to install games that are already on a "hard drive" of their own. The entire game, yes, even those big scary AAA games can fit on an entire cart and have almost no load times. It's a beautiful thing. As for downloading games, The dock does have a USB port. Hook up a hard drive. "Switch will be the only console not using the x86 architecture" How do you know? do you have a dev unit that you have access too? Think of it this way, If a company can make a game for an Android device, then the switch would be cake if it does have a ARM processor (nothing's been confirmed). "Together with the fact that a AAA game made for the other systems will most likely be larger than 16GB" Again you are thinking like the switch is a optic console. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO INSTALL YOUR GAMES, YOU PLAY THEM RIGHT OF THE CARTRIDGE. Go play any Gameboy from the past 20 years and you will see what I mean. Also, USB support for more space (if needed). " but these issues do exist." The issues you think "exist" really don't if you think about things critically.
Atomized look up 200gb sd card, they are a real thing. All I am saying is that developers do not have to worry about space, flash memory has far exceeded optical storage in terms of capacity.
Keep in mind that hardware improvement nowadays isn't as fast as in the 90s and early 2000s. So I'll keep some skepticism. I'm looking more into it's handheld appeal because as a handheld it definitely is quite powerful and interesting.. But I'll have to leave this buy to 2018. In 2017 I'll buy a new display for my PC, a new smartphone and my first ever notebook for work.
Assationater ML Nothing will ever beat real life. Real life not only looks amazing but also is filled with several sensations such as taste, smell, touch and temperature that simply don't exist in games. The only problems of real life is that nothing is for free, all of our real life pleasures are very costly and we are quite fragile and there isn't a second chance, once we are dead we are done, forever.
ARM is a huge relief for development. It doesn't match the performance profile of X86 (a Bay Trail would have been easier), but at least it's endian-neutral and usually used in little endian, as opposed to BE PowerPC, which eliminates a huge family of unpleasant bugs. But multithreading is... interesting on ARM, and that's not a compliment. Then again, i don't expect it to impact game development all that much, i mean lockless multithreading is not exactly common in games. Then again, that's something that will need to change on the game development side as we're growing towards wider architectures with lower sequential performance. Most of today's mobile systems fail at the CPU impact of the GPU driver. I wonder what NVidia has come up with here, it'll have to be pretty good in order not to disappoint.
Bay Trail is old, they'd be using either Cherry Trail or Braswell. Anyway, a Cortex-A57 core is faster than an Airmont core using the same power (Cherry Trail and Braswell SoCs combine Airmont cores, Broadwell-T GPUs, and Broadwell-Y memory controllers). x86 GPU drivers tend to be better than ARM mostly because they have an older pedigree and are more refined; SSE4 is a slightly better SIMD engine than NEON, but only barely, which does help a little for GPU drivers but like I said, only barely.
I wouldn't really say PS 1 games looked bad. Majora's mask and conker are both good looking games, but PS1 has games like FF IX, Chrono Cross, tekken 3, medievil, gex, rayman, pandemonium 2, front mission 3, quake 2, spyro, soul reaver, crash trilogy. Top notch psx graphics.
well, N64 wasn't really popular here, neither is XboX - in my neighbourhood. I forgot to mention tomba, kingsley's adventure and 40 winks, also colony wars: red sun, really nice graphics. And I didn't really choose. I own more PS1 games than the whole N64 library. The only geaphicaly good games on N64 are the ones you need expansion pack.
Guessing it will be about a 1050Ti or perhaps 1060. (It won't be these cards of course - just in terms of comparison with current PC cards) Cool, inexpensive and plenty powerful enough for full HD gaming if you write on a stable platform.
You need some serious psychiatric help of you think that a mobile chip powered by a battery will run anything remotely similar to modern AAA titles.Ps4 barely runs some of this games at sub 30 fps but a mobile will? Makes sense.
No one will buy some new AAA titles to play at 720p. And I doubt that the switch will be able to even to that. 5 years old skyrim? ok. But RDR2? You cant be serious
Lets not forget that switch is supposed to run on the tegra chip which is about 0.7 tflops. Thats about half of xb1/ps4. But on a battery so expect much lower power.
Lets not forget that switch is supposed to run on the tegra chip which is about 0.7 tflops. Thats about half of xb1/ps4. But on a battery so expect much lower power.
So much truth has been spoken. I love the N64 Part that everbody seem to forget. The Power PC part is also very notable but the big question is can nvidia really deliver such architecture that is so much better than the (already very good) one before? The Tegra X1 ist still a very good design and i can't see where so much more Power should come from. However, i think it will be arround the XboxOne. Maybe a bit slower but hopefully a bit faster
Tegra X1 was released a while ago. A long while ago. Like over a year ago. That's a long time. Switch's Tegra will be better and more efficient, guaranteed. Nobody can really say how much more, though.
Pascal is a big improvement over previous architectures, especially when it comes to small form factor mobile performance. The new 10 series cards scale in design so well that the only differences between a desktop 10 series and a laptop 10 series is clock speed and number of cores. Both changes were simply to lower power consumption and heat output, which are important in a small form factor that doesn't have much breathing room. Other than that the cards are basically identical. A new Tegra using this architecture will be pretty impressive.
1 to 1,5 years old maybe. The good thing is that the X1 was made in 20nm. When this is going to be a 14nm chip, then i think there can be gib improvements, but not much more than the XBoxOne. The 1,5 Tflops that some rumors tell us semm to be a realistic number
DayDreaming Boy Yeah, if this can even get close to the base Xbox1, doesn't have to match, it'll already be impressive. Imagine an Xbox1 shrunk down into a tablet. I doubt anybody could complain about that.
I don't think Nintendo Switch is going to have Pascal architecture, until now, Nvidia hasn't released any Tegra processor with Pascal architecture. I think they will reserve that architecture for their most expensive devices for few years. I think it will be too expensive for a console.
luis enrique vargas azcona I agree that it won't have a pascal tegra. It will likely have the tegra x1 variant that the pixel C uses, with some extra software features. Maxwell generation
Some weeks after my comment, a website called GamesBeat claimed to have a filtration confirmed by two different sources stating that Nintendo Switch will use the Maxwell architecture, and not Pascal, and that the GPU can be described as an small modification of the X1 processor (maybe an X1 with different clock speed).
it will use a maxwell architecture but this not a big issue in the way than bot Maxwell and Pascal are nearly the same, juste Pascal use better process technology
Fun fact: The GameCube, Wii and Wii U actually run on the PowerPC architecture, the G3 CPUs specifically. So the iMac G3's CPU is similar to those found in said Nintendo consoles. Although the Nintendo ones have gotten big updates to improve game performance as much as possible.
Actually the G3 was a Motorola arcitecture (that was sort of a pentium-esk style 68k chip)... the G4 was a freescale (basically Motorola.. A pentium 4-esk 68k chip) But the G5 is really something complacently different. Its a processor from old Unix-Risc servers/work station. They use to be the very top end processors. But by the 00-tys AMD and Intel have passed them. Apple swiching to power 4 processor was really just a last ditch attempt to not go for x86 The thinking behind this was if people could not compare directly, the would not know what the performance was. And it worked. A lot of apple buyers thought that the G5 was way faster than the x86 processor of the day, even the exact opposite was true Apple was not the only one playing that game. Both Microsoft and Sony played it to. The PPE in PS3 is a Power 4 core, and the xenos in the 360 is 3 power 4 cores with altivec vector units attatched To say that the Gamecube, Wii and Wii U use the same processor is very wrong. Game cube pretty much uses the G3 processor. Hardware vice, its pretty much a G3 mac with a ATI gpu. Wii is pretty much a G4 processor with some modification. Its compatible with the G3 processor just like a Core2Duo is compatible with a 486, but its a very different processor. The Wii U... well it seams like its some kind of custom IBM chip using something similar to power 7 architecture.
The wii U cpu is almost certainly a custom derivation of the IBM powerPC 750... Because Wii backwards compatibility would be easiest (and most reliable) if you could simply downclock the CPU, shut off two of the cores, and run it exactly the way the Wii ran. This is the same trick the Wii used to run Gamecube software. (as such, the Wii U still contains the functional components of a gamecube GPU) It stands to reason that a Wii U can run gamecube games, due to CPU and GPU level compatibility, but as it lacks a drive capable of reading the disks, any of the controller ports, or the memory card ports, it cannot do so in practice. I presume if cost hadn't been a factor it would have had close to full backwards compatibility with two entire hardware generations, which would have been... Surprising for a home console. The Wii doesn't contain a G4 processor. It contains the exact same CPU as a gamecube, but running at twice the clockspeed. This is trivially provable using pretty much any hacked wii capable of running custom software. The Wii is a gamecube with the CPU and GPU clockspeeds doubled, and a co-processor to handle input processing, wifi, bluetooth, and background updates while the system is in a low power state. It's still the exact same IBM PowerPC 750 derived cpu core as the gamecube, which, if you want to call it a G3... It's a gamecube CPU on a smaller process running at twice the speed. To run in gamecube mode it outright just runs at half the clockspeed. As is usual for game console CPU's going way back (especially those that Nintendo has used), it contains some custom circuitry and functionality compared to the CPU core it is derived from. But claiming a Wii's CPU is something different from that in a gamecube is quite misleading, honestly. Increasing the clockspeed and changing the manufacturing node does not a new CPU make.
KuraIthys "The wii U cpu is almost certainly a custom derivation of the IBM powerPC 750" No, it really just neet to have the same instruction set. A AMD FX can run code for a intel 8086 processor. CPU architecture have very little to do with instruction set. You can pretty much take a Intel i7 and just change the microcode and it will run Arm A-8 instructions... Thow, not very optimal (running x86 instruction on a ARM processor might be a problem on the other hand) " The wii U cpu is almost certainly a custom derivation of the IBM powerPC 750" No.. it got the same instruction set, it don´t make it the same processor... Just don´t read stuff on wikipedia and think its true, it might not be. "But claiming a Wii's CPU is something different from that in a gamecube is quite misleading, honestly. Increasing the clockspeed and changing the manufacturing node does not a new CPU make." You know what the IPC is? the Simd instruction register? pipeline length?
the CPU IPC has alot to do with the CPU's instruction set thus the CPU architecture improvements small as they are now have to do with how the instruction set will take to go around the CPU cores once other than that it has to do with how the CPU is designed as the purpose of is different you can but the CPU IPC will be alot lower than if designed for it
yumri4 Well... it have a lot to do with instruction in a way if it have simd or not... Other vice its really it. Mostly just how efficiently it execute the code.
I disagree on the Android vs. iPhone statement. This is a thing of the past not simply not true anymore. And for the Switch is not running Android, I too believe that, but I think it's a big, big mistake. Great video though, thanks for your insights.
Ryo Cook how is android a better choice than building its own software to the Switch? Do you believe that every console or PC games developer wants to port their heavy ass games to android code? That sounds less efficient to me, that they have to run android, and then the games, on top of android.
***** yeah better is relative. I'm sure a perfect optimized and built for only one purpose OS will be always better in performance. The thing is that so many independent developers are building suite good games at that time for Android devices. Plus the compatibility to more mobile devices would maybe (we will never know for sure) attract more users to the platform. Think about users could use their registered phones with the same games etc. and hundreds of small developers could easily develop games. I think the Nintendo switch is an awesome concept of a console. But I have my doubts for mass market because they all use their phones to play. And even if it takes the market by storm there will be some Android hardware developers that have the idea to make a simple dock for TV and joypads at home at a bargain. then a big chunk of the market might break away.
***** man, that's like asking apple to let music be sent via Bluetooth, it's not good for them, and it won't happen with the switch, since that would make the Switch, a Nvidia Shield on steroids, if that happened, what would stop us from installing android games on the switch? And kill the time with free games? That's not profitable, it's just idealistic, i would love it but that's basically the future of the Nvidia Shield, not the reality of the Switch :)
***** I don't have a solution for that. Maybe Nintendo would have already come with a solution for that if it would be so easy. But it's a fact that Android and iOS will be an enormous problem for Nintendo.
I don't think android would be a good idea. The reason why they don't want android games on it is because it's a game console, no one wants to play phone games on a tv, look at the sales for OUYA and Nvida Shield and tablet. Yeah maybe they are alright figures but no where near as close as it should be if people actually wanted it. Android consoles and Android OS's are a waste of time unless they are on phones and things like that. Sure there a lot of android devs that would have loved to make content for the Switch but frankly, they will never be as good as real console type games just do to android OS limitations.
A couple of points: 1) Android has NDK that is the native development kit. You can program in c++ for Android, like IOS. 2) The problem with N64 was the use of cartridge. The use of cartridge was a massive mistake: it was the bottleneck of the entire system. It's useless to have the faster CPU and the better GPU if you don't have the space to put high-res textures.
No, it really isn't that important, and this isn't my fanboy ism talking. Look at the 3DS and PS Vita. The 3DS is shit in hardware comparatively, but because of how much support Nintendo gave it, the 3DS was able to destroy the PS Vita. Now look at the PS4 vs Xbox One. If what you say is true, the Xbox One would be dead because of how it's hardware is worse than the PS4, resulting in some games looking worse and framerates being lower. The reason why the Wii U lost this time is because of how it didn't get great support outside of any Nintendo games. So the only reason it lived for this long is because of Nintendo fanboys like myself. Hardware doesn't matter in the Console industry. The reasoning why Nintendo doesn't make a beast is because of two factors. One: part of their audience are younger gamers, that means that to be able to get consoles sold, they need to make their console affordable enough, but not weak enough that it is unbearable by today's standards. This ties in with reason two: they are competing with the main two, that means that to be able to have a market, they need to make their hardware cheaper than the main two so that they are able to get more of an audience. They know their place, they know they can never be at the top ever again without some bullshit luck, instead, they are playing it safe by becoming affordable (but not shit with graphics unless you are nitpicking), but still taking a risk with some innovative ways to game. Ether way, their games don't need better hardware because of how none of their games are ultra realistic, instead, their games are more colourful which works well and hides the bad graphics (eg. Overwatch does this well by making easy to run graphics but still pretty on the eyes).
"Nvidia is not dumb"...eee...remember GTX970? That was pretty dumb move. Made a lot of people switch to AMD (including myself). You are bias on this opinion, because you own GeForce, but the software is not far off from what AMD offers, and most of those are niche gimmicks anyway, that most people won't use. I was with Nvidia since 6600GT and was gonna carry on, but recent flop with VRAM memory and hissing coil on the cooler made me realize, that in terms of hardware, they are behind AMD.
***** Yet you still fail to recognize the better value for money cards. Nvidia makes more and more shady business these days. Teaming up with MS to push the DX12 exclusivity. AMD came out with Vulkan software, truly open source next generation API. Your "go have a seat argument" ends up being a "moo point".
Daniel Kowalczyk I'm gonna say it depends where you live and price adjustments. Some cases you can get a gtx 1060 cheaper and faster than the amd variant. Honestly I have never noticed a difference between the 2 companies buy the fastest card in your budget.
do you really use raptr? ewww i rather use obs than that crap, i keep using shadowplay on my nvidia machine, yet in my amd one i would never use that also nvidia is way more efficient, just to begin with, the rx480 uses more power and has more transistors than the gtx 1060 and the 1060 still has very similar performance, vulkan is just a move which helps amd, even though i like it i rather run my game 10 fps lower than 40 watts higher, there's only like 4 games with vulkan anyways
+Daniel Kowalczyk AMD didn't make Vulkan... It was made by the Khronos Group, which technically didn't didn't get support from AMD (they got support from ATI, which was later bought by AMD). Oh, and they were also made with help from other companies such as NVidia. The only part of AMD that is involved in Vulkan is that Khronos Group used AMD's Mantle, which AMD has since abandoned. It's like saying OSX was made by Bell because it used Unix (which is made by Bell Labs). If you are going to make examples, you should have the full scope of what you are saying. And AMD is no saint. arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/11/amd-sued-over-allegedly-misleading-bulldozer-core-count/ From one year ago, and not the only issue they've had.
I don't like this video at all. Programming Games changed over the years, nowadays it's about comfort if you port a game to another console or OS, you mainly have an engine and this engines cross-compiles the game to the platforms. With comfort I mean that you have to test the game, check for bugs, you know maintaining a game for the platform. Those low level features are just marketing trash, yes vulkan/metal/directx12 will increase the performance, they will do certain things faster and/or on a more efficient way, but that doesn't mean that this is the fault of the hardware. You can see this well with Vulkan which basicly doing the same as directx12 and Vulkan can run on every graphics card which support I think it was OpenGL 4.3 and for DirectX you need new hardware. And then you have problems like Android which supports vulkan, but you need new firmware for that. That's everything you could get the same low level support as ios if they just update the firmware, but that cost money and companies wanna keep money... The problem is not the technology, it's the support. The RasberryPi 3 is a good example it has the same graphic card as the first one, but now it can play HD and FullHD videos, they just make the drivers better and better.
***** Yes I did listen and I believe that there was some fanboyism. There is nothing wrong with that you know? Everyone has their preferences and that is reflected in their content. It's why I watch youtube rather than just reading spec sheets or press releases.
Yes and maybe it was too strong of a word, bias might be a better word. We can clear it up now, do you prefer Nvidia cards? I'm sorry if I offended you, that wasn't my intention, I was just trying to weigh in. It was a great video and I enjoyed it. While I have your ear, do you think that Nintendo will update just the core of the switch (Screen, processor, etc.) in future generations, rather than refreshing the dock and accessories?
the switch uses 4 gb of ram wich is ok for handheld display an 7 years old skyrim remastered with new shaders. They will will fuxcking recycle and remaster the shit out of all last gen titles. For that purpose the specs are fine. But to keep up in the future they will have to release the new switch with 8 to 16 gb ram geforce 1060 gtx or higher and a modern cpu. That's whe i am in. I won't spent 350 bugs for crap. I own a high end pc a Wi u and two new 3ds
Nintendo sucks because: - they didn't shift to disc with the N64 - they are stupid because, the Gamecube didn't use normal DVDs with 4,5GB data - they still don't have a good online gaming system - the whole Wii experience was really bad - the Wii U was a major flopp - they don't care for ThirdParty-Support - the CPU/GPU of Nintendos last two consoles were a complete generation behind ... .. .
PsyGnosiS You never backed up your claims so shut up. You have not even backed up your claims yet. Why was the shield crap? And what shield was you talking about? There is multiple Nvidia Shields. And about what i talked about: I pointed out that you just assumed the nationality of someone and somehow you were super triggered because of that (which for any rational human being makes no sense).
Same thing happened with the Gamecube, it's pretty much Nintendo's "power house", I thought of it as a PC but the problem is that it was using mini discs which only held up to 1.5GB so developers needed to compress data to fit their game in so they said "screw it, we're not making a game for the Gamecube."
***** I waited a bit, and got a MSI Gaming X, best cooler i've ever used on a nvidia or amd gpu, this made the situation better after I switched from a r9 280x which had a "Meh" quality cooler. Best upgrade I've made in my time.
You, have your reasons, but this GPU nearly never produces any heat, and barely rotates at a noticeable speed. Makes just as much or even less noise than a water cooler and has very good temps. The case fans probably won't go over a certain RPM with this. Also I find that water coolers are just a bit too expensive to justify the cooling performance, and also the need for a new case (my case isn't fit for a radiator) Also, whilst were talking about water, I would really love for the switch to have water resistance, but nintendo would never do that, as they seem to be going away from their old "durability" based thinking in consoles, probably because the home console and handheld division joined together and they can't fit their ideas together? dunno, I may be horribly wrong. But i would really want nintendo to make the switch water proof, or resistant to water in some way
Hey zues, I also have a Gaming X from MSI and so far I didn't even hit a point where my fans would need to go off :D It's a really cool card, in both meanings of that word :)
