https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/search?q=shield+tv
A better explanation is that Nvidia is keeping the X2 for a bigger client, not to mention that they have their own line of products *and* the tools for low-level interaction with the X2 don't exist since the chip isn't out. That, and Nintendo is still following the Lateral Thinking strategy - they won't go for a bleeding edge chip.
Different architecture, different priorities. Jaguar APU's are meant for low wattage with an integrated discrete GPU - the CPU is low-key for a reason. They have different core families for integer-heavy CPU's, which are not necessary in gaming. It's also a tad unfair to compare a brand-new ARM with the Jaguar - since then Puma and Puma+ cores were released, and both are backwards compatible with Jaguar.
But it won't be Nintendo running it, it'll be Nvidia. The reason I brought up jaguar was because its in the PS4 and XBONE and at a lower clock than the one stated.
That's a fair point. Cloud/pc will handle the 3a games while Nintendo does their things. Let's just hop they are not going to piss off dev with low power units.
They're also octacore because the cores are so small and draw so little energy that you can cram loads of them in. Do you think the Switch will run 8 A73 cores? I don't - I think it will run the baseline X1 core configuration or a slightly better one because it doesn't need more juice in that department and most games only run on 4 cores anyways. It's a waste of die space.
1. This machine is ARM which is highly compatible with x86
2. Nintendo is working much closer with nvidia and as such we see that nvidia are working their hardest to make sure this thing can run all the latest in software.
3. Has official support from Unity and Unreal engines which i dont think were properly implemented into Wii u but we see that Unreal will definitely work on switch ( Seasons of Heaven strengthens this notion)
4. Bethesda supports this system... need i say more?
I was talking about this earlier (as in like 14 pages back), this machine could definitely use the grid like the Shield TV and nintendo have patented something similar and the inventor of this tech worked in nvidia. (seems we were bilnd to this even before the eurogamer rumours)
Its the fact that most people see lower specs (in relation to PS4 XBONE) and instantly think its terrible. Without going into detail.Then what, may I ask, are people up in arms about? The clock speed not being as high as people want it to be or is the fact it uses ARM + nVidia? I'm curious as to where all this doom and gloom is coming from
It was core by core, not how many cores, switch gets destroyed for having less cores.
OTOH 500GFlops is plenty enough for 720p, no? PSVita is 540p and it only does 32GFlops. Puts Switch at roughly 13x as powerful as PSVita. 720p is also still pretty widely supported, all major modern engines allow games to be played at that resolution. It's just a matter of scaling graphics settings from there.
Pascal actually uses ~2W more at 100% usage, but does save a little bit on power draw at ranges under 100%. Best case scenario it would've given Switch +30 minutes to battery life. Not a deal-breaker by any means, especially in the age of 15000mAH power banks for $20.
Ah, I was unaware of that. Still, once you're talking about out-performing a device by a factor of double-digits, that device's power is completely dwarfed. We're talking GTX 1080Ti is to XB1 as Switch is to PS Vita.
It works well on shield TV if your download and upload is good enough, I expect this to be something similar to a local server within 50 miles of the user in an urban area like London.
