• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Nintendo Switch

From the videos, it looks like Switch is in the same league as XB1 or PS4 (non-Pro). I don't think it's a total skimp on graphics like the Wii was.

I'm really excited actually. I tried the PS4 to Vita streaming thing, and I'm not sure the network is fast enough for that (it barely worked). Switch looks good for lounging out on the bed or playing Skyrim on the crapper.
 
cybereality said:
From the videos, it looks like Switch is in the same league as XB1 or PS4 (non-Pro). I don't think it's a total skimp on graphics like the Wii was.

I'm really excited actually. I tried the PS4 to Vita streaming thing, and I'm not sure the network is fast enough for that (it barely worked). Switch looks good for lounging out on the bed or playing Skyrim on the crapper.
Click to expand...

Nothing like exploring a dungeon while dropping a bomb I guess.
 
FrEaKy said:
That actually is not a concern to myself. I would prefer a story and gameplay over how the game looks. I dunno, just me though.
Click to expand...

That's the thing, I don't think we should have to settle for one or the other. There are plenty of games that succeed at both graphics and gameplay.
The last few Nintendo systems have always had a caveat which leads to this same discussion. I mean, if graphics truly don't matter...why even bother getting new systems at all? We could all save some $ and just stick to the consoles that launched in the early 2000's. They can do widescreen and native HD resolutions, which is all we technically need. Yet here we are 2 systems later and with high hopes that this one won't die a quick death like the last 2 did.
 
Nintendo Switch specs: less powerful than PlayStation 4.
http://venturebeat.com/2016/12/14/nintendo-switch-specs-less-powerful-than-playstation-4/

The Nintendo Switch game console coming in March won’t be more powerful than Sony’s three-year-old PlayStation 4, according to sources familiar with the system.

Two sources (who asked to keep their names out of this story) confirmed to GamesBeat that the Switch uses Nvidia’s last-generation Maxwell graphics-processing architecture. Nvidia introduced its new Pascal architecture earlier this year, but that technology is not ready for the Tegra chip going into the Switch. The custom Maxwell Tegra (which uses a 20nm process as opposed to the more efficient 16nm process of the Pascal) in the machine is still powerful enough to play Nintendo-style games that rely on quality art over horsepower, but don’t expect Switch software to match the graphical fidelity of the highest-end PS4 games.
 
cageymaru said:
Nintendo Switch specs: less powerful than PlayStation 4.
http://venturebeat.com/2016/12/14/nintendo-switch-specs-less-powerful-than-playstation-4/

The Nintendo Switch game console coming in March won’t be more powerful than Sony’s three-year-old PlayStation 4, according to sources familiar with the system.

Two sources (who asked to keep their names out of this story) confirmed to GamesBeat that the Switch uses Nvidia’s last-generation Maxwell graphics-processing architecture. Nvidia introduced its new Pascal architecture earlier this year, but that technology is not ready for the Tegra chip going into the Switch. The custom Maxwell Tegra (which uses a 20nm process as opposed to the more efficient 16nm process of the Pascal) in the machine is still powerful enough to play Nintendo-style games that rely on quality art over horsepower, but don’t expect Switch software to match the graphical fidelity of the highest-end PS4 games.
Click to expand...

Disappointing from both a performance and power perspective, but not all that surprising. We'll need to see more on specs, but I'm guessing around 1.2 Tflops, just under Xbox One.

Guess we'll just have to wonder what could have been.
 
Which for this device is probably just fine. The Wii U is roughly 1/3 of that performance (just from raw flops numbers.) PS4 is what, 1.4? They're all in the same ball park, and that much performance in that package is still pretty impressive. I will say that I'm pretty disappointed that it's not Pascal (if this is even true) but I guess it does make sense since Pascal wasn't available until late in the NX/Switch design cycle. It's also a custom version of the chip, so we can't just compare it straight across with the X1 chip either. Looking forward to their event to find out more.
 
J3RK said:
Which for this device is probably just fine. The Wii U is roughly 1/3 of that performance (just from raw flops numbers.) PS4 is what, 1.4? They're all in the same ball park, and that much performance in that package is still pretty impressive. I will say that I'm pretty disappointed that it's not Pascal (if this is even true) but I guess it does make sense since Pascal wasn't available until late in the NX/Switch design cycle. It's also a custom version of the chip, so we can't just compare it straight across with the X1 chip either. Looking forward to their event to find out more.
Click to expand...

yeah, and it's a handheld! pricing will be a pretty big factory in success
 
I'll be grabbing it regardless of price (within typical console price range) but yeah, I was really hoping it was Pascal based. Just the tech-guts-nerd part of me anyway. The part of me that is a total Nintendo nerd will be just fine with it however it is I'm sure. :D
 
I won't simply because the new Zelda will be on my WiiU anyways. My hope is that they release a smaller more portable switch in a couple years.
 
You have to imagine that (outside of Zelda), everything except the typical non-Nintendo shovelware will be for the Switch going forward. So if I'm hoping to get a new Smash, Mario Kart, Metroid, etc. I'll have no choice but to buy one. I'm sure they'll probably have a few different SKUs and after a few years we'll likely see different colors and either fat/slim variants...but Nintendo doesn't usually deviate all that much. I can't think of any instance where buying the day 1 version made you worse off than waiting. Then again, we've never had a PS4 Pro or a Scorpio before either.

I think the main thing is that I don't want to see Switch games and immediately notice that they're inferior. I'm not expecting PS4 Pro/Scorpio, but I don't want night and day releases compared to the "old" systems either.
 
Domingo said:
Will still get one (if it's < $300) but nosir, I don't like it.
Click to expand...
I'm standing at no more than $250. Xbox One S is averaging $250 (often with extra items), and will likely continue to do so, so long as Xbox is trailing Playstation.
 
jeremyshaw said:
I'm standing at no more than $250. Xbox One S is averaging $250 (often with extra items), and will likely continue to do so, so long as Xbox is trailing Playstation.
Click to expand...

If you're someone that likes Nintendo's games though, that's not much of an argument. If not, then sure, you can get a cheaper console (assuming the Switch is higher than $250).
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
I'm confused, Will the switch be better or worse GFX power wise, compared to the WiiU?
Click to expand...

Quite a bit better. I've seen estimates between 350 and 600 GFlops for the Wii U. The thing is, almost all of the games for it tend to run at 60FPS, some upscale, some may not, but it always looks smooth. (at least in all of the games I have) So assuming the Switch is between 1 and 1.5 TFlops it's probably around double the performance. Obviously floating point operations aren't the only important performance factor, but it's the only rough measurement we have to go on right now. It's targeted as a 1080 system, and since Nintendo keeps most of their games running at 60FPS these days, I think that's good enough. Look at Bayonetta 2 on the Wii U. Gorgeous game. Now think about what a studio like that could do with roughly twice the power. Sure the PS4s might be faster, but so far, I don't see a lot of games optimized for it to look as silky smooth as the ones for even the Wii U. So...
 
I wasn't expecting a powerhouse but something at least in the range of PS4 and XB1. Maybe the Switch is a little less than that but still seems capable.

It's also not surprising for Nintendo, or for the type of games that Nintendo makes. I bet price was a big factor, and I don't think they would be selling a system for $400.

One thing I wonder about is how aggressive they will go on price. Based on the rumors and my gut, I'm gonna say $249. That was the Wii price and that did pretty well.
 
cybereality said:
I wasn't expecting a powerhouse but something at least in the range of PS4 and XB1. Maybe the Switch is a little less than that but still seems capable.
Click to expand...
The GPU and CPU are encased in a handheld system, apparently with passive cooling. How on Earth would it be possible to match, or even come close, to PS4 or XBONE?

The graphics are going to be comparable to Wii U. But you don't play Nintendo games for the graphics, do you?
 
bigdogchris said:
The GPU and CPU are encased in a handheld system, apparently with passive cooling. How on Earth would it be possible to match, or even come close, to PS4 or XBONE?

The graphics are going to be comparable to Wii U. But you don't play Nintendo games for the graphics, do you?
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. The form factor dictates lower performance. I'm not expecting a significant move in overall performance as a result.

If you buy this, you're buying it for first party Nintendo titles and as a 3DS replacement. If you want third party AAA titles, this isn't going to be for you.
 
gamerk2 said:
Pretty much this. The form factor dictates lower performance. I'm not expecting a significant move in overall performance as a result.

If you buy this, you're buying it for first party Nintendo titles and as a 3DS replacement. If you want third party AAA titles, this isn't going to be for you.
Click to expand...

To a degree yes, but not 100%. I've got a Shield TV, and it performs very well, is a very similar size. It's got a fan, but the Switch also uses a customized version of the IC, so who knows what the exact capabilities are yet. We still have a rough idea of floating point performance though, and it's close enough to the XBOne and PS4 that there's no reason to call it underpowered in comparison. There really hasn't been a Nintendo system since the SNES that was on parity with the other consoles or PCs of the time performance-wise, (well, the GameCube was I suppose) so I'm not sure what people expect exactly. As always, it's probably best to own a PC+Nintendo, or PS4+Nintendo only this time it's portable on top of performing very close to the other base-level consoles of the cycle. So, maybe it won't get every single third party title, but it's powerful enough that it won't suffer the same gap as say the Wii U and PS4/XBOne.

IMO it doesn't actually have to beat them in performance as long as it has ENOUGH performance to play games well at their target 1080/60, which I have no doubt it will do. I'm guessing it will have much better third party support than the Wii U, which is good, but the main reason to buy a Nintendo console is for first party and Nintendo-exclusive third party games. There's also no chance of other hand-held systems keeping up with its performance, so it's kind of in a unique position. (as is usual for Nintendo only this time it's in a better unique position than the last round or two)

Maybe it won't play Prey, or maybe the version it gets will be slightly decreased in the visual department. I'm ok with that, as I wouldn't play it on that system in the first place. Prey screams PC to me, and I would think everyone else on this forum. That aside, I've seen a lot of praise for it from third party devs so far, and a lot of people are excited for it. It doesn't NEED to be an XBox or PS clone. In fact, I'm glad it's not. We don't need a fourth platform to play CoD or GoW on. Nintendo adds variety and alternatives to the other consoles. Nobody is telling you that if you buy a Switch that you can't own anything else, and I don't think anyone thinks that's how it should be. It may not have the performance crown, but for what it is, it should perform more than adequately. I don't know why that's so hard to understand.

Just because Nintendo makes games and hardware, doesn't mean they need to do it the same way everyone else does. That would be stupid and boring.

Sure I wish it was Pascal based, and if it was also the fastest of the base-level non-mid-cycle consoles, sure that would be incredible. However, it's far from necessary, and I think people need to get some perspective. It doesn't have to be to everyone's taste, but I think it will be to enough peoples' taste to make it a worthwhile cycle for Nintendo. I really do agree that more performance is better, and if they could have pulled off a Pascal implementation, that would have been better. So, don't get me wrong. I'm not apologizing for their SoC choice. On the other hand, after seeing what the normal X1 can do, I'm confident that the Switch will be worthwhile despite not being Pascal based.

I like video games. Give me the devices to play them, and I'm happy. We have multiple PCs, and XBOne, PS4, Wii, Wii U, multiple 2DSes/3DSes/DSes/GBAs a Gamecube, and most classic hardware in my house, I have every emulator known to man, and I still want a Switch or two in my house. (I'm greedy, so one for me, and one for the kids :D )

Because... Why the fuck not?

Edit: Reading that blurb, I don't get the feeling that they've actually fully explored the possibility yet, or can't talk about it or something. Nowhere do they say "we doubt that Prey will run on Switch". They say, that Prey has a lot of complex systems, and that it's something they have to consider.

It will probably be on the Void engine (Arkane's modified id Tech 5 engine) which Dishonored 2 runs on. Dishonored 2 is a pretty demanding game, though they have been working on optimization quite a bit lately. If they released it on switch, they'd have the advantage of tuning it to one specific platform as is done on consoles, so they could possibly pull it off. I'm very interested to hear what they say after they make the decision one way or the other. After playing some of the things on the Shield TV, knowing that it outperforms the X360 which Rage ran on, with Tech 5, I have to think that maybe this is possible, especially since Switch probably performs better. I know that Prey will be vastly more complex than Rage, but since it's the same base engine, I have to imagine that it could be made to work without extremely heavy sacrifices. All just guessing on my part, but I don't think it's terribly unreasonable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As long as it isn't too far off from the PS4 and X1, I'm okay with that. It's when devs have to go out of their way to make a lesser version that we have trouble again. That's when Nintendo's stuck only being able to sell first party titles and shovelware...just like with their previous 2-3 systems. People are going to eye roll the lesser version of a game even if it is portable. The last thing we need is another Nintendo system that's only good for their half-dozen notable titles and a whole bunch of sequels to Petz and Angry Birds.
 
Domingo said:
As long as it isn't too far off from the PS4 and X1, I'm okay with that. It's when devs have to go out of their way to make a lesser version that we have trouble again. That's when Nintendo's stuck only being able to sell first party titles and shovelware...just like with their previous 2-3 systems. People are going to eye roll the lesser version of a game even if it is portable. The last thing we need is another Nintendo system that's only good for their half-dozen notable titles and a whole bunch of sequels to Petz and Angry Birds.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. This is why I think the Switch will be fine. It's in the same ball park performance-wise, it does something that nothing else does, it has Nintendo's first party support (which like it or not is a big selling point for most people). I think it's much better positioned than the previous couple of N consoles for third party devs. The other thing that helps this time for Nintendo, is that they aren't running on Power PC. Power PC was great, and definitely had its day, but most currently popular platforms (gaming, tablets, phones, PCs, etc.) are either going to be ARM based or X86 based. The Wii U is pretty much the last Power PC device in the mainstream in recent years. Even though it was a continuation of a widely used architecture, it was still the odd-man-out in the games/mainstream computing space.
 
Domingo said:
As long as it isn't too far off from the PS4 and X1, I'm okay with that. It's when devs have to go out of their way to make a lesser version that we have trouble again. That's when Nintendo's stuck only being able to sell first party titles and shovelware...just like with their previous 2-3 systems. People are going to eye roll the lesser version of a game even if it is portable. The last thing we need is another Nintendo system that's only good for their half-dozen notable titles and a whole bunch of sequels to Petz and Angry Birds.
Click to expand...

Umm, it won't come close to a ps4 pro. It's a flipping mobile handheld.. you're asking to defy physics!!!
 
Verge said:
Umm, it won't come close to a ps4 pro. It's a flipping mobile handheld.. you're asking to defy physics!!!
Click to expand...

I never said PS4 Pro - just normal PS4. Besides, it's only 1/2 handheld. I have a feeling that will be the rallying cry among the "Nintendo can do no wrong" crowd, though. If anything doesn't live up to expectations, the Switch will suddenly be defined as a handheld.
 
Verge said:
Umm, it won't come close to a ps4 pro. It's a flipping mobile handheld.. you're asking to defy physics!!!
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that he didn't say Pro, the thing is, Nintendo has NEVER been about brute force. They've always been more about carefully selected hardware that is capable of what they want to do with it. This can be seen as both positive and negative. On one hand, people don't seem to understand the strategy, and since in their minds more and bigger is always better, Nintendo is always seen with a disadvantage. (even though the quality of their software speaks for itself) On the other hand, they typically have fairly efficient hardware. The Gamecube's games looked better than the PS2, and could easily keep up with the XBox even though it used a slower clocked CPU, only 24MB of RAM, etc. for example. (reason being they used less, but faster 1T static RAM, a nice rendering chip from ATI, and an efficient for the time Power PC CPU.) They go about things with a little more thought I think, and make decisions on what's actually good enough for what they want to achieve. They don't do overkill, they don't lose money on their systems either. At least for the last several generations.

Sure, you can get a slight edge from the competitors. But then you can blow those out of the water too with a moderately priced PC, that is just as at home in the living room these days.

Basically, what it comes down to, is: Is the hardware they developed good enough to play the software that they plan to make available on their platform? The answer is usually yes where they're concerned. IMO the only system that I would consider underpowered from Nintendo would be the original Wii. It had some new gimmicks that made it catch on in the right place at the right time, but it should have been somewhere between how powerful it was, and how powerful the Wii U was later. Then the Wii U should have probably been just a touch more powerful. However in the case of the U, it plays all of the games in its library beautifully. They're fast, smooth, convey what they should excellently. So, yeah, it could have been faster, but it did what it did very well, and the games still look great to this day. The switch should be twice as powerful, which while maybe not above the two direct competitors will be adequate I would think.

We'll know for sure in the next few months, but my money is on it doing well. Hell, it's the first console EVER that I've thought I might want two of in the house on day one.
 
Domingo said:
I never said PS4 Pro - just normal PS4. Besides, it's only 1/2 handheld. I have a feeling that will be the rallying cry among the "Nintendo can do no wrong" crowd, though. If anything doesn't live up to expectations, the Switch will suddenly be defined as a handheld.
Click to expand...


Fine a regular ps4 then LOL. You can't dissipate that much heat, nor power it with a battery yet.

If this is it https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2016/08/22/parker-for-self-driving-cars/ it's 1/2 as fast as a ps4. So classify it however you want, you can't cram a ps4 SOC in a wafer thin tablet. It's dumb to even think that right now.
 
Mchart said:
I won't simply because the new Zelda will be on my WiiU anyways. My hope is that they release a smaller more portable switch in a couple years.
Click to expand...
Well recent rumors are that Zelda is going to be canceled for the Wii U because of poor performance.
 
vegeta535 said:
Well recent rumors are that Zelda is going to be canceled for the Wii U because of poor performance.
Click to expand...

Highly unlikely as the Nintendo site itself advertises it being on the wiiu prominently.
 
They'll have it launch for WiiU even if they don't profit from the Wii U sales of Zelda. They can't risk the bad press.
 
vegeta535 said:
Well recent rumors are that Zelda is going to be canceled for the Wii U because of poor performance.
Click to expand...
Mchart said:
Highly unlikely as the Nintendo site itself advertises it being on the wiiu prominently.
Click to expand...
I can't remember the site but there was a clip of people playing the Wii-U version for several minutes and it looked like it was running at 15 FPS.
 
vegeta535 said:
Well recent rumors are that Zelda is going to be canceled for the Wii U because of poor performance.
Click to expand...

No there isn't. It's a "rumor" started by one guy on a random Japanese site with no proof and no reputation. Even though Nintendo showed the game running on the Wii U at the Game Awards. The only "evidence" provided was that the Wii U version can't be pre-ordered on Amazon.jp at the time even though apparently it never was able to be in the first place. In short it's all a troll being a troll.
 
Derangel said:
No there isn't. It's a "rumor" started by one guy on a random Japanese site with no proof and no reputation. Even though Nintendo showed the game running on the Wii U at the Game Awards. The only "evidence" provided was that the Wii U version can't be pre-ordered on Amazon.jp at the time even though apparently it never was able to be in the first place. In short it's all a troll being a troll.
Click to expand...

It's Nintendo, like thier word means anything these days.

It was supposed to be out 2.5 years earlier as well. We'll be luck if it launches before Black Friday at this point.
 
Verge said:
It's Nintendo, like thier word means anything these days.

It was supposed to be out 2.5 years earlier as well. We'll be luck if it launches before Black Friday at this point.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure they can't be trusted. They delayed a game. Big fucking deal, doesn't make them untrustworthy.
 
Verge said:
They delayed it specifically for their new console.
Click to expand...

Considering how rough the Wii U version's framerate looks when it's shown there probably is some truth to it being delayed for more than solely the Switch version. Even if the Switch version was the only reason and work on the Wii U version was set aside when they did, oh well. The Wii U has sold like shit it's entire life, pushing this as a marque Switch title makes more sense from a business perspective. There's no reason for them to throw out the Wii U version though, it's money they've already spent and it will still sell some copies. Really no different than what happened with Twilight Princess. The real question I think is if Nintendo will do a physical release of the Wii U version or if it'll be digital only or maybe some kind of pack-in with the Switch version.
 
From a consumer stand point I'm puzzled why a lot of people on PC tech forums seem overly concerned about the relative graphics competitiveness of consoles especially as it relates to third party content.

Being on a PC forum one has to assume that crowd is going to have some knowledge about PCs and likely have a gaming one. If graphics were the main concern it isn't like any of the consoles will be matching the PC either.

At the least Switch has the portability factor going for it which so far PC based offerings haven't been done very well aside from possibly in home streaming devices. ARM based Tablet and smart phone devices also seem to tend to serve primarily cater to a different gaming niche with the type of games predominately available and control interface limitations.

Is another traditional console clone really that important? A third entrant isn't really going to make prices lower for existing ones either, at least not any significant point that makes them more affordable. Software prices will be not effected at all. So I don't see why having Nintendo making a PS4/Xbox One direct competitor is very interesting at all. If you want one of those they exist already in the form of the PS4 and Xbox One. Or if you want one with better graphics you can build a PC.

Well actually I do have my suspicions why the Switch might be somewhat polarizing in PC communities and it has nothing to do with it in terms of it as an actual gaming product ;)
 
I think the issue is not that people want the graphics to be on par with other consoles, is that they want the games from other platforms. With previous gens, 3rd party developers never ported popular games because they claimed the Nintendo console was too under-powered.

It remains to be seen what will happen this time, but it's a valid concern. As good as Nintendo first party games are, the console won't be a big success without third party devs getting in on the action.
 
cybereality said:
I think the issue is not that people want the graphics to be on par with other consoles, is that they want the games from other platforms. With previous gens, 3rd party developers never ported popular games because they claimed the Nintendo console was too under-powered.

It remains to be seen what will happen this time, but it's a valid concern. As good as Nintendo first party games are, the console won't be a big success without third party devs getting in on the action.
Click to expand...

Again this just from a consumer perspective, but why is that important?

Are there people on here who don't have either a PC/Xbox One/PS4? Which means if they only buy one device and it is the Switch they won't have access to third party titles?
 
It's not important to me. The graphics look good enough, especially for a hand-held device.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top