All is confirmed the Nintendo Switch is powered by stock Nvidia Tegra X1, same chipset used in Shield TV. The most surprising is the retention of 4 Cortex A53 processor cores, which have no use in the Nintendo switch as they can't be operated at the same time when Cortex A57 cores are running due to the ARM big.little configuration setup.

After subsequent processing of the GPU from the Nintendo Switch, we have determined that the processor is the Nvidia Tegra T210. The T210 CPU features 4 Cortex A57 and 4 Cortex A53 processor cores and the GPU is a GM20B Maxell core.

http://techinsights.com/about-techinsights/overview/blog/nintendo-switch-teardown/

Nvidia Tegra X1 features

• 8 core CPU (4 x Cortex A57 and 4 x Cortex A53)
• GPU is a GM20B Maxell core

A comparison to Shield TV. Switch specs on the left, and Shield TV on the right. The clock speeds are reported from Eurogamer, which are very much true.

• RAM: 4GB vs 3GB
• CPU: 1Ghz vs. 2Ghz
• GPU: 3 modes:307.2Mhz/384Mhz/768Mhz vs 1Ghz

Shield TV is clocked higher initially in both CPU and GPU, but don't forget Shield TV can't keep these clock speeds up for long, it throttles down to the exact switch's dock clockspeeds. Which further supports a stock X1.

 

[DeslotlCL]

It's a portable. I don't understand why it is still being compared to full "non portable" consoles. Other than the fact that these people are either trolling or so closed/small minded that they cannot fathom a portable gaming system that can be output to a TV.

If there was some architecture in the actual DOCK that supplemented or augmented the portable hardware then I could understand but we are not even there yet and I question whether it will ever happen at all...

Because nintendo marketed it as a home console that you can play on the go?

 

[s157]

There's mainly two reasons people compare:

1. They see it as a home console first. Portability is just one of the quirks. As Nintendo stated, it's a home console first and foremost. And because they see it as a home console, they can compare it to the other home consoles. Nintendo is at fault here as well, making claims either directly or through one of their partners that aren't true.

2. They compare out of fear of the Switch not getting 3rd party support. I agree with em in this case. If you look at all future releases, there are some great things coming soon, but very little in the way of third party AAA titles. Hopefully we can hear more ports/versions in the upcoming E3. It's a real shame, I would rather play most third party AAA titles as a portable too.

 

[Mr. Wizard]

Ah I see. I never really listened to what Nintendo "marketed it as". I could clearly see for myself with my eyes that it was a bigger better DS with higher resolution that I could finally output to a TV and from its form factor that it could never be as powerful as a console. I guess that's just me though.

 

[Benja81]

Ah I see. I never really listened to what Nintendo "marketed it as". I could clearly see for myself with my eyes that it was a bigger better DS with higher resolution that I could finally output to a TV and from its form factor that it could never be as powerful as a console. I guess that's just me though.

There were some reports of the Switch hitting 1 TF, which gave us some hope of maybe running some of the same games that ran on an Xbox One. But its starting to look doubtful the Switch will actually hit 1 TF.

 

[s157]

Personally I still prefer see it as a portable with the quirk of being able to be plugged into the TV. Hell, if it were designed (or marketed) with being a handheld as its primary emphasis, even some of the switch haters would like it more. I still love mine, but I'm also biased as I love handhelds in general. Not sure what my opinion of the switch would be if I hated handhelds.

 

[Mr. Wizard]

There were some reports of the Switch hitting 1 TF, which gave us some hope of maybe running some of the same games that ran on an Xbox One. But its starting to look doubtful the Switch will actually hit 1 TF.

It's quite easy to dumb down a game to run on inferior hardware. They do it all the time with PC games so they can also run on xbox1 and ps4. I don't see the problem with going a bit further so it can run on a switch.

 

[KiiWii]

Wonder if the architecture is the same/similar.... If switch OS can be dumped (eventually) and installed on Shield TV for dual booting... Or some other trickery....

 

[s157]

There were some reports of the Switch hitting 1 TF, which gave us some hope of maybe running some of the same games that ran on an Xbox One. But its starting to look doubtful the Switch will actually hit 1 TF.

1 TFLOPS at FP16, which is rather deceptive of them to use since their competition reports in FP32. It has .5 TFLOPs at FP32. They actually claimed that it ran at 1 TFLOPS without saying it was at FP16. Another bad marketing ploy by Nintendo. I still think it's good for what it is, but Nintendo is clearly at fault for what they're telling their customers (or prospective customers).

 

[Mr. Wizard]

Wonder if the architecture is the same/similar.... If switch OS can be dumped (eventually) and installed on Shield TV for dual booting... Or some other trickery....

It's quite possible, there are those of us that get the same if not more enjoyment out of hacking things that normal people get out of playing with them.

I've bought several devices that provided me with countless hours of enjoyment tinkering and hacking. The problem for me is once the challenge is gone there is no more enjoyment. It doesn't matter what the end result is, it could be a device that plays every game ever made at the touch of a button and also makes you pancakes I would probably just move on to the next challenge because that's what I enjoy most.

So in summary, if it's at all possible, someone will find a way to do it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I find it hilarious all these people concerned with the TFLOP performance of the Switch yet are whining that they can't get their hands on an NES Classic or Virtual Console on Switch lololz. Since when does TFLOPs determine the best games? I don't care if you can see every single strand of Link's hair blowing in the wind. I can save that shit for my PC.

 

[DrkBeam]

It's quite easy to dumb down a game to run on inferior hardware. They do it all the time with PC games so they can also run on xbox1 and ps4. I don't see the problem with going a bit further so it can run on a switch.

If the switch in portable mode is a little more powerful than a Wii u, it Will have the same problems for multiplatform games like the Wii and Wii u had, in order to have a game on switch it should be needed to be a base for the lower performance mode, not the opposite because is harder, for that reason the Wii didn't have battefield 4, black ops 2 or other multiplatform games, the gap is too Big and right now we don't see AAA games coming to the 3 consoles because they doesn't exist

 

[MionissNio]

If the switch in portable mode is a little more powerful than a Wii u, it Will have the same problems for multiplatform games like the Wii and Wii u had, in order to have a game on switch it should be needed to be a base for the lower performance mode, not the opposite because is harder, for that reason the Wii didn't have battefield 4, black ops 2 or other multiplatform games, the gap is too Big and right now we don't see AAA games coming to the 3 consoles because they doesn't exist

I don't know I think.wii u architecture was also different resulting in more effort to.port compared.to something like Arm or Arm_64.

 

[CatmanFan]

Are you sure that the NVIDIA logo is plastered on the Switch's Tegra X1 chip?

 

[DrkBeam]

I don't know I think.wii u architecture was also different resulting in more effort to.port compared.to something like Arm or Arm_64.

Not as hard like ps3, that one was on purpose in order to have more exclusive, but that backfire them

 

[Mr. Wizard]

If the switch in portable mode is a little more powerful than a Wii u, it Will have the same problems for multiplatform games like the Wii and Wii u had, in order to have a game on switch it should be needed to be a base for the lower performance mode, not the opposite because is harder, for that reason the Wii didn't have battefield 4, black ops 2 or other multiplatform games, the gap is too Big and right now we don't see AAA games coming to the 3 consoles because they doesn't exist

The Wii U didn't die because of TFLOP performance it died because of it's architecture. It was PowerPC instead of x86. Now you could make the same argument for the Switch seeing as it's ARM but ARM is quite alive and well and I don't see it going away anytime soon like PPC. Even microsoft is about release a FULL Windows 10 ARM version soon. ARM is much more efficient than x86. The xbox1 and ps4 are x86.

 

[Joe88]

Are you sure that the NVIDIA logo is plastered on the Switch's Tegra X1 chip?

 

[Xzi]

http://tabletmonkeys.com/nvidia-shield-tablet-2-x1-cancelled-by-nvidia/

We all know the switch was going to be the X1 tablet.

So? I'm much happier that it turned out to use a better gaming OS and include first-party Nintendo games as opposed to just being another Android streaming device.

 

[XDel]

Well I'm happy with my Raspberry Pi 3, and I'm happy with my cheap RCA Tablets, so I'm sure I'll be happy with a switch.

 

[specht]

1 TFLOP at FP16, which is rather deceptive of them to use since their competition reports in FP32. It has .5 TFLOPs at FP32. They actually claimed that it ran at 1 TFLOP without saying it was at FP16. Another bad marketing ploy by Nintendo. I still think it's good for what it is, but Nintendo is clearly at fault for what they're telling their customers (or prospective customers).

To be fair that's all Nvidia's marketing before Nintendo was even involved. Nintendo's at fault for what they're not telling customers.

 

[s157]

Nintendo was always involved. They just chose not to say anything. Whenever they aren't involved in a certain situation, they flat out come and say it. They knew what the claim was, and what people expected them to have, and yet they said nothing about it. Why? They were okay with the consumers having the incorrect, yet more positive assumption of their product. If people think your system is stronger than it actually is, then why correct them?

Morals? Ethics? Concrete truth? Those don't apply to Nintendo.

Disclaimer: This me, as a nintendo fan, being unhappy with the COMPANY, not the switch. The system being weaker than the other consoles doesn't bother me aside from the fact that it's unlikely we'll see many 3rd party AAA games for it, for as a handheld fan, I would much rather play a 3rd party AAA game on the switch.

 

[DrkBeam]

The Wii U didn't die because of TFLOP performance it died because of it's architecture. It was PowerPC instead of x86. Now you could make the same argument for the Switch seeing as it's ARM but ARM is quite alive and well and I don't see it going away anytime soon like PPC. Even microsoft is about release a FULL Windows 10 ARM version soon. ARM is much more efficient than x86. The xbox1 and ps4 are x86.

So the Xbox 360 has a power PC architecture, developers know how to work with, anyway on your previous post you claim it should be seen as a hanheld, so why a handheld could handle AAA titles with a 300$ Nintendo budget and not selling at a loss, there are not proof those games are coming to the switch at least the majority, either way right now the switch looks like another Nintendo game machine with a lot of indie games and lack of current Gen games like mass effect Andromeda and others alike