Hardware Nintendo Switch Technical Specifications Discussion

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheDarkGreninja
  • Start date Start date
  • Views Views 68,754
  • Replies Replies 792
  • Likes Likes 4

What SoC do you think the Nintendo Switch will use? + Reasons in thread.


  • Total voters
    184
  • Poll closed .
Also achievable with a custom Tegra based on X1 that has 4SMs and 512 CUDA cores(768MHz clock speed), no? ~80% of XB1 power, just in terms of FLOPs. Not forgetting of course that UE4 is a newer engine, optimized for basically anything that can run x86. PS4, XB1, and Switch are all much closer to being PC hardware than even last generation was.

Battery life is only an issue in one of the modes, and I thought rumor was only ~5 hours. You could get 720p at medium settings for 5 hours.
No. That would require 1024 (or rather 1280) cores. You are comparing fp16 with fp32.
UE4 is also optimized for arm, and Switch runs off arm.
5 hours of that sounds reasonable.
 
Also achievable with a custom Tegra based on X1 that has 4SMs and 512 CUDA cores(768MHz clock speed), no? ~80% of XB1 power, just in terms of FLOPs. Not forgetting of course that UE4 is a newer engine, optimized for basically anything that can run x86. PS4, XB1, and Switch are all much closer to being PC hardware than even last generation was.

Battery life is only an issue in one of the modes, and I thought rumor was only ~5 hours. You could get 720p at medium settings for 5 hours.
Actually in terms of Flops it surpasses XBONE thanks to maxwell architecture. Something like 1.67 Tflops if it were running GCN
Just some evidence for people who think GCN (PS4/XB1) beats Maxwell(NS):
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=219089
 
Yeah, GCN gen 1, against Polaris im pretty sure its much closer and Vega will destroy maxwell.
I'm not at master branch i have a friend who is however.
So they installed last month's update and do they find anything interesting, or is more access required?
 
Ill have to ask her, shes in Canada right now so itll be a little harder.
I am in Ontario and I am on the forum right now. Do check it out.
Didn't expect that huge of a difference between them. So are you suggesting the switch might not have that much of TF?
 
No. That would require 1024 (or rather 1280) cores. You are comparing fp16 with fp32.
UE4 is also optimized for arm, and Switch runs off arm.
5 hours of that sounds reasonable.
I'm not, a stock Tegra X1 (2SMs, 256Cores) does 512GFlops FP32. So with 4SMs and 512Cores you'd get 1TFlop.

This is discussed earlier in this same thread with Foxi.
 
Last edited by Xzi,
I'm not, a stock Tegra X1 (2SMs, 256Cores) does 512GFlops FP32. So with 4SMs and 512Cores you'd get 1TFlop.

This is discussed earlier in this same thread with Foxi.
The rumored clock is 768MHz, so there is a drop to 768GFlops FP32. Or it could have higher core count and it will also make up for low clock. Hitting higher clock also seems to require better silicon.
 
The rumored clock is 768MHz, so there is a drop to 768GFlops FP32. Or it could have higher core count and it will also make up for low clock. Hitting higher clock also seems to require better silicon.
You can push more GFlops than the number of MHz in the clock speed, but clock speed does limit number of cores. 512 CUDA cores and 768MHz makes sense, but 1 more SM and it'd be at 768 CUDA cores 768MHz, and at that point the clock speed couldn't keep up with all of the cores.

2 SMs = 512GFlops, 256 cores
3 SMs = 768GFlops, 384 cores
4 SMs = 1024GFlops, 512 cores

UE4 and dev info really only lines up with the custom Tegra in Switch having 4 SMs, I just don't see Dark Souls 3/Skyrim easily being ported unless Switch is pretty close to XB1 in power.
 
Last edited by Xzi,
  • Like
Reactions: TotalInsanity4
You can push more GFlops than the number of MHz in the clock speed, but clock speed does limit number of cores. 512 CUDA cores and 768MHz makes sense, but 1 more SM and it'd be at 768 CUDA cores 768MHz, and at that point the clock speed couldn't keep up with all of the cores.

2 SMs = 512GFlops, 256 cores
3 SMs = 768GFlops, 384 cores
4 SMs = 1024GFlops, 512 cores

UE4 and dev info really only lines up with the custom Tegra in Switch having 4 SMs, I just don't see Dark Souls 3/Skyrim easily being ported unless Switch is pretty close to XB1 in power.
No, it's more like 512 cores * 768MHz * 2 = 768GFlops. Clock does limit the thermal capacity especially within such small space.
 
No, it's more like 512 cores * 768MHz * 2 = 768GFlops. Clock does limit the thermal capacity especially within such small space.
I think there's something wrong with your formula. 256 * 768 * 2 = 393GFlops, but a 2 SM, 256core stock Tegra X1 does 512GFlops FP32.

EDIT: Nevermind, this makes sense with the clock speed under 1GHz. Another way to calculate is TUs * RO * core clock. Stock X1 = 16 * 32 * .768 = 393GFlops. Double is 768GFlops for a Tegra custom chip.
 
Last edited by Xzi,
  • Like
Reactions: TotalInsanity4
You can push more GFlops than the number of MHz in the clock speed, but clock speed does limit number of cores. 512 CUDA cores and 768MHz makes sense, but 1 more SM and it'd be at 768 CUDA cores 768MHz, and at that point the clock speed couldn't keep up with all of the cores.

2 SMs = 512GFlops, 256 cores
3 SMs = 768GFlops, 384 cores
4 SMs = 1024GFlops, 512 cores

UE4 and dev info really only lines up with the custom Tegra in Switch having 4 SMs, I just don't see Dark Souls 3/Skyrim easily being ported unless Switch is pretty close to XB1 in power.
Well per core its better, but XB1 has more stream processors.
 
Well per core its better, but XB1 has more stream processors.
Years later Windows will have a much higher priority while PC and switch phase out PS4 and XB1.
Considering the low clock of PS4 and XB1, more features with Maxwell and possibly cramming in lots of cores, it's going to be good. Also Xbox one 'only' has 768 cores.
With Foxconn leak: 512 cores * 921MHz * 2 = 921GFlops.
A73 on the other hand might have already surpassed Jaguar in actual performance.
 
Last edited by Yil,
  • Like
Reactions: TotalInsanity4
What reality?
That specs don't matter as long as the game is fun. All the rumours I've found say that developers find the Switch easy to develop for, and the lower power and dual (maybe triple, if they are planning for an eventual "Power Dock") performance levels have not inspired a significant amount of complaint.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TotalInsanity4
That specs don't matter as long as the game is fun. All the rumours I've found say that developers find the Switch easy to develop for, and the lower power and dual (maybe triple, if they are planning for an eventual "Power Dock") performance levels have not inspired a significant amount of complaint.
1) Some games require more power to operate properly. Wii u is already seen struggling a bit with botw.
2) Even mobile games are designed to scale with different hardware, and in some regard closer to pc. And I don't think the change is that drastic.
 
That specs don't matter as long as the game is fun. All the rumours I've found say that developers find the Switch easy to develop for, and the lower power and dual (maybe triple, if they are planning for an eventual "Power Dock") performance levels have not inspired a significant amount of complaint.
Well, the likeliest reason for Switch being easy to port to is that it's within a marginal performance difference of XB1. I don't see how From would've got Dark Souls 3 running on it at 1080p otherwise. That game taxes even XB1 in areas at 1080p/30.
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum