It was much debated on the Internet what SoC Nintendo's Switch is using. Some say it is powered by Nvidia's 2 years old Tegra X1, others say it is powered by a custom Tegra Pascal chip. It seems we finally have an answer as ARM claimed the Switch will be powered by 4x ARM Cortex-57 cores. For reference, the X1 also uses four ARM Cortex-57 cores. While Nvidia's Pascal based Tegra P1 chip utilises four Cortex-57 cores as well, it also has 2 additional Denver2 cores that are lacking in the X1 and ARM's announcement. That means it's very likely that Nintendo went with the X1, although with some sort of possible customization.

Source

Update

Someone asked ARM via email about the facebook post and ARM says it was 'not an official statement' and removed the post. Whether it was posted by mistake or if there is any other reason behind it is anyone's guess. ARM notably didn't deny the truthfullness of the post, but at present the Switch's SoC remains unconfirmed.

 

[TeamScriptKiddies]

Can people please stop bashing the Switch for being "underpowered"? When has Nintendo EVER cared about graphics! I mean, come on everyone. It's the content produced on the console. Let's all have a little faith!

NES lol, but I get you're point. Ever since the original Wii, they've focused more on innovation rather than sheer "horsepower." Back in the 8-bit gen and the later 16-bit gen horsepower was king so its understandable they put their efforts there, but yeah, they tend to focus on two things now: Affordability and innovation.

I'm personally VERY excited for the release of the Switch, too bad I can't afford one XD

 

[TotalInsanity4]

NES lol, but I get you're point. Ever since the original Wii, they've focused more on innovation rather than sheer "horsepower." Back in the 8-bit gen and the later 16-bit gen horsepower was king so its understandable they put their efforts there, but yeah, they tend to focus on two things now: Affordability and innovation.

I'm personally VERY excited for the release of the Switch, too bad I can't afford one XD

I'd argue even since the N64, skipping the Gamecube of course

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

A15 and A57 are pretty similar in performance, so with the extra A7 cores the Exynos 5410 (was it?) is kinda more powerful than just four A57, in my opinion. Obviously single core on the 5410 will be lesser but as a whole cpu, i think exceeds just four A57s

I'm going to be honest, I'm more familiar with x86 (specifically intel) naming schemes, so I don't know much about how naming of ARM relates to power. I'm inclined to say that a 2017 tablet is going to be well above performance of a smartphone that was midrange when it came out in 2013, especially considering its GPU was a potato (it can't even handle some 2D games properly. Source- Firsthand experience)

There are phones with 4 A72s and 4 A53s that cost less than 200usd, surely Nintendo could've made a negotiation with Nvidia/ARM?

Is that $200 up front or $200 through a carrier? There's a big difference there

 

[raystriker]

I'd argue even since the N64, skipping the Gamecube of course

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


I'm going to be honest, I'm more familiar with x86 (specifically intel) naming schemes, so I don't know much about how naming of ARM relates to power. I'm inclined to say that a 2017 tablet is going to be well above performance of a smartphone that was midrange when it came out in 2013, especially considering its GPU was a potato (it can't even handle some 2D games properly. Source- Firsthand experience)

Is that $200 up front or $200 through a carrier? There's a big difference there

The phone only costs 200usd. And I was talking about the CPUs only, not the GPU in the respective SoCs. I have no doubt that the Switch will have one of the most powerful GPUs ever put in a mobile device till date.

 

[Xzi]

The phone only costs 200usd. And I was talking about the CPUs only, not the GPU in the respective SoCs. I have no doubt that the Switch will have one of the most powerful GPUs ever put in a mobile device till date.

That's the thing, it's a balancing act with all consoles, and CPU power is never the biggest priority. The power of XB1/PS4's CPU portion is pretty laughable compared to any modern PC CPU, be it AMD or Intel. They don't need that kind of power though, and neither does Switch. All about dat GPU efficiency.

 

[the_randomizer]

I'd argue even since the N64, skipping the Gamecube of course

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


I'm going to be honest, I'm more familiar with x86 (specifically intel) naming schemes, so I don't know much about how naming of ARM relates to power. I'm inclined to say that a 2017 tablet is going to be well above performance of a smartphone that was midrange when it came out in 2013, especially considering its GPU was a potato (it can't even handle some 2D games properly. Source- Firsthand experience)

Is that $200 up front or $200 through a carrier? There's a big difference there

The N64 was very powerful for its time, in terms of raw power it slaughtered the Playstation (better CPU, better graphics processor, perspective correction, z-buffer, etc), the only downfall was the 64 MB carts and not CDs. Gamecube also was almost as powerful as the Xbox, but the PS2 won despite being the weakest.

 

[6adget]

The phone only costs 200usd. And I was talking about the CPUs only, not the GPU in the respective SoCs. I have no doubt that the Switch will have one of the most powerful GPUs ever put in a mobile device till date.

I could be wrong, but if it's running the tegra x1, then I believe the CPU is also a GPU chip onboard. The shield tablet I have plays a lot of games really well and it is the K1 tegra. The shield TV runs even better when trying to play games that are made for it at 4K upscaled. Back when I bought my shield tablet, the media was saying that it was Nvidia showing off what they could do.The only downside to it was that sinse not a lot of people had one, not a lot of games were made for it. It was way overpowered to just play android games for it. We are now finding out that it wasn't Nvidia showing off what they could make. They were showing Nintendo that they were capable of making A system that was worthy of a hybrid system.

these are the specs for the tegra x1. I'm sure nintendo has a customized version, but it's still has to be close to this.
https://shield.nvidia.com/blog/tegra-x1-processor-and-shield

These are some of the games that are running on the shielt tv that is running the tegra X1.
https://recombu.com/digital/article/nvidia-shield-tv-best-games-emulators-apps

 

[WiiUBricker]

The N64 was very powerful for its time, in terms of raw power it slaughtered the Playstation

What are you talking about? The PS1 had awesome graphics. I mean, look at the biceps!

Spoiler

 

[the_randomizer]

What are you talking about? The PS1 had awesome graphics. I mean, look at the biceps!

Spoiler

View attachment 77714

But no perspective correction The Playstation GTE (geometry transform engine) had no perspective correcting the z-buffer, so the 3D models looked like they had too much caffeine One reason I liked N64 more.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

The N64 was very powerful for its time, in terms of raw power it slaughtered the Playstation (better CPU, better graphics processor, perspective correction, z-buffer, etc), the only downfall was the 64 MB carts and not CDs. Gamecube also was almost as powerful as the Xbox, but the PS2 won despite being the weakest.

In terms of innovation I was referring to the analogue stick that was introduced with the N64 that's now the de-facto control method

Spoiler: Remember this?

 

[kumikochan]

In terms of innovation I was referring to the analogue stick that was introduced with the N64 that's now the de-facto control method

Spoiler: Remember this?

Actually the analog stick was an innovation by Sega with the 3D controller.
Also the analog stick was a much older invention that Sega started to perfection and not Nintendo.

 

[sarkwalvein]

Oh, Nights...

 

[grossaffe]

Actually the analog stick was an innovation by Sega with the 3D controller.
Also the analog stick was a much older invention that Sega started to perfection and not Nintendo.

Oh, you mean the controller that came out after the N64?

 

[kumikochan]

Oh, you mean the controller that came out after the N64?

It came out a month before the N64 in the US and a couple of months before the N64 in Europe . In Japan the N64 released a couple of weeks earlier but N64 def wasn't the first one introducing a stick when Sega first started it.
First true analog stick was made for the Arcade by Sega for space harrier in 1985.
First stick that could register every movement in every direction.

 

[grossaffe]

Nope it came before the N64 A month before the N64 in the US and a couple of months before the N64 in Europe . In Japan the N64 released a couple of weeks earlier but N64 def wasn't the first one introducing a stick when Sega first started it.
First true analog stick was made for the Arcade by Sega for space harrier in 1985.
First stick that could register every movement in every direction.

So Japan doesn't count for some reason?

 

[kumikochan]

So Japan doesn't count for some reason?

Read again.
And i also said Sega invented the true analog stick that could move in every direction wich was introduced in the arcade with Space harrier in 1985.
Nope Nintendo didn't invent the analog stick and didn't introduced it.

 

[Xzi]

Lol, Saturn was rushed to market probably so that Sega could claim they had the first analog stick. Not much good it did them. For all intents and purposes the release was basically simultaneous with N64, which is much of the reason Saturn was largely ignored.

I don't think the idea of an analog control stick was conjured from thin air from either Nintendo or Sega, there were plenty of devices around that inspired the idea.

 

[kumikochan]

Lol, Saturn was rushed to market probably so that Sega could claim they had the first analog stick. Not much good it did them. For all intents and purposes the release was basically simultaneous with N64, which is much of the reason Saturn was largely ignored.

I already said Sega introduced the first analog stick in 1985 in the arcade with space harrier. That's 11 years earlier then Nintendo did

 

[sarkwalvein]

TBH analog column controllers (like the one in space harrier) have existed in PC since always.
I remember playing some fighter jet simulators back in the 80s in my fuck old PC with those ones.

 

[kumikochan]

TBH analog column controllers (like the one in space harrier) have existed in PC since always.
I remember playing some fighter jet simulators back in the 80s in my fuck old PC with those ones.

Nope the one in the arcade was the first one that could register every movement in every direction.

 

[grossaffe]

Read again
And it clearly states Sega inventing the true analog stick that could move in every direction wich was introduced in the arcade with Space harrier in 1985.
Nope Nintendo didn't invent the analog stick and didn't introduced it.

Except that an arcade is not a home console. No one is saying Nintendo "invented" analog sticks, but that they were the ones to bring it to the home console making it a standardized input. And designed to be controlled with just a thumb instead of gripping the stick. If you REALLY wanted to make an argument against this narrative, you would not have picked Sega, but rather this thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1292_Advanced_Programmable_Video_System

That's an analog stick on a home console. Of course it is still designed as something you have to grip rather than the natural way we control analog sticks today with our thumbs that the N64 gave us.