[RUMOR] Nintendo Switch CPU and GPU clock speeds revealed - Polidicks

[QUOTE][url]http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-nintendo-switch-spec-analysis[/url][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Spec reveals are never easy. Months - sometimes years - of anticipation build after initial teasers. Rumours circulate, patent applications are scoured for hints of what the platform holders might be planning, anonymous sources spring up telling us exactly what we want to hear - and then reality hits. Recently, Venturebeat essentially reconfirmed a Digital Foundry report from July, revealing that Nintendo Switch is based on Nvidia's Tegra X1, featuring a GPU based on second generation Maxwell technology. For those hoping for Xbox One power in a portable, it was a blow. Uncertainty remains on how Nintendo has customised the X1 processor, but we can go one step further today in revealing how the power of the console adjusts as Switch transitions from home console into a full portable.[/QUOTE] tl:dr The CPU runs at 1020MHz, the GPU while docked runs at 768MHz, while undocked at 307.2MHz, and the memory will run at 1331/1600 on both docked and undocked

Ok. When dealing with nintendo, you gotta focus on the games the system has, not the hardware.

[QUOTE=Firetornado;51551496]Ok. When dealing with nintendo, you gotta focus on the games the system has, not the hardware.[/QUOTE] I disagree Wii U

this "rumour" is based off another "rumour" that was debunked pretty quickly

[QUOTE=AntonioR;51551508]Wii U[/QUOTE] Wii.

[QUOTE=Firetornado;51551511]Wii.[/QUOTE] Wii was successful because it was popular with casual players. They moved to smartphones and tablets now.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;51551514]Wii you was successful because it was popular with casual players. They moved to smartphones and tablets now.[/QUOTE] Good point.

I'd rather Nintendo put out a weaker, cheaper, more interesting console than one solely designed to compete with Xbox and Playstation's hardware. We already have two 'hardcore' consoles fighting for the same market, we don't need a third. If Nintendo goes that route we'd wind up with just a more expensive way to play Nintendo games because, let's face it, people who want to play non-nintendo games already own an Xbox, PS, or gaming-capable PC. Nintendo's target market is now experiences that can't be purchased for either of those three other options. It makes sense too; if they tried to go into that market they'd have to ask for more money for their console and also try to survive in an already brutal space where people hold their allegiance like a badge of honor. The failing of the Wii U is less a story about how their strategy is bad and more telling of how poorly their marketing team handled the console. The Name made the Wii U seem like an add-on to the Wii while the ads didn't help to show people what the console is. You can already tell that Nintendo realized this with just how the Switch is marketed.

No. I want nintendo to stand up and have a powerful console. The Switch is the first nintendo console in 10 years without a gameplay gimmick, so they should at least let the other developers make games for the console. I know nintendo consoles are for playing nintendo games, but i really want them to succed this time, so i hope this isn't real.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51551676]I'm wondering if there will be "dock-only" games, similar to how there are "sorry no 3D" or "NEW 3ds only" games[/QUOTE] I dobut it, but maybe some games will come with a "Plays better in Dock Mode" sticker in the box

At this point, I'm just going to wait until the console comes out before we see how powerful it is. These leaks are interesting, but they all either come from boundless speculation, or "sources from Nintendo" which at this point, equates to "my uncle works for Nintendo, and he said..." Not to mention the apparent rumor that the specs we have seen may or may not be based on dev kits, with the actual console maybe being more powerful or not. Also not to mention NVIDIA's efforts to help developers push as much out of the console's hardware as possible. I'm personally expecting it to be just short of the regular Xbone and PS4 in terms of graphical capabilities, but again, we'll see when it actually comes out. It could match them, or it could be barely even more capable than the Wii U.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51551652]I'd like to get out of the 30fps/720p gaming era as soon as possible.[/QUOTE] Then you'll be waiting for Xbox 2

I'll just post this here: [video=youtube;PzS4LbH5nmA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzS4LbH5nmA[/video] Oh, it's in the article. Still, I'd watch it.

I'd prefer to shell out 100-200 dollars for a less advanced system then 400-500 dollar system so that Nintendo can make the edges sharper and the flames a bit more realistic (also battery performance would take a hit) Can't fucking wait to have one of those and play Mario Party on it

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51551652]I'd like to get out of the 30fps/720p gaming era as soon as possible.[/QUOTE] Well it's nice that Nintendo seems to like targeting 60fps then. MK8 is was 720@60 in single and I think 2 player. SSB4 seems to be 1080@60 as does Bayonetta 2 from what I've quickly looked up. We'll have to wait for some games to come out for the Switch to see if they manage to bump their norm to 1080@60 but either way they'll wind up making their games look good and run well on the hardware.

[QUOTE=darth-veger;51551746]I'd prefer to shell out 100-200 dollars for a less advanced system then 400-500 dollar system so that Nintendo can make the edges sharper and the flames a bit more realistic (also battery performance would take a hit) Can't fucking wait to have one of those and play Mario Party on it[/QUOTE] I think the most significant information from this is the fact that it probably won't be on 16nm, which [I]would[/I] mean it's taking a hit on the efficiency side of things. Though maybe they bumped it down to 20nm, they have that caveat in the article as well. Edit: And well, the clockspeeds themselves. They make sense to me - tablets can allow themselves to run at 2GHz or whatever because they generally have burst loads like loading webpages or whatever, but the Switch will probably have to run at or near its top clockspeed at all times it's in use. It also can't vary much because you can't really scale game logic up or down depending on whether you're on the go.

1080p / 720p = 2.25x more pixels. 768 MHz / 302.7 MHz ≈ 2.54x more cycles/second. The numbers check out fine for 720p/1080p undocked/docked respectively with some extra cycles left. While 720p doesn't sound that great it's certainly better than the 3DS's 240p or the WiiU's 480p screen. And i must mention that it's not resolution that matters it's pixels per degree.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51551822]No, I'll just stick with my PC[/QUOTE] And that's what I meant by Nintendo not needing to worry about competing in the same market space.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51551652]I'd like to get out of the 30fps/720p gaming era as soon as possible.[/QUOTE] I'm tired of this 1080p60 bandwagon, why is that so important? Games are about the mechanics and design, a game should play well and be fun no matter the framerate or resolution. If not, it's a shitty game. I'd rather have 480p fun than 1080p trash. [editline]19th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Shock_Coil;51551837]And that's what I meant by Nintendo not needing to worry about competing in the same market space.[/QUOTE] And this is a great point too, a lot of people I know have a Nintendo system as a secondary to their main one because they know Nintendo games are high in design quality.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51551851]Low frame-rates are not fun. I have a 3DS for my handheld Nintendo needs. But when I buy a console, I expect performance at a minimum standards. 1080 60fps has been such a PC standard for years. It isn't fun going back. (Haha I say as my monitor is only 1440x900, alas desk space is a premium)[/QUOTE] Except low framerates are something I've lived with for so many years, I've never had a PC good enough to run things at even low settings with high framerates. And yet I'm now on a course on game development because I love games that much! Minimum standards is based on personal preference, I wish people would stop pushing 1080p60 as if it's the most important thing anyone could ever have in their life. [editline]19th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51551851]Is it so wrong to ask for a game that can be fun at 1080p?[/QUOTE] Well it's a pretty silly ask, they should make sure it's fun no matter what? I don't understand your point

I had fun with 3D games at 240p and 20fps on the n64, certainly enjoying the Wii U standard enough of 720p with a lot of 60fps. I'll be getting this regardless of specs. Of course 1080p is nice, but intense graphical fidelity is not first on my list, and for the rumored price point I'm not sure why anyone would expect differently

Didn't known leaker Emily Rogers, who had such leaks as "Mother 3 on 20th anniversary" and "Color Splash isn't Sticker Star 2.0", confirm similar specs just recently?

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51551882]You don't have to compromise resolution for a game to be fun. (Oldschool) Runescape is fun, and I can fit 6 of those on a 1080 screen. But you know what'd be great? A fullscreen, full resolution version so it doesn't strain my eyes.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but are you really saying you get eyestrain from anything below 1080p? I mean, you know stretched resolutions are a thing? I'd rather run a stretched 720p30fps Runescape than a 1080p 2fps Runescape (I'm giving a random fps value there, but my point is that it's lower than 30fps)

[QUOTE=TheCactusman;51551911]I'm sorry, but are you really saying you get eyestrain from anything below 1080p? I mean, you know stretched resolutions are a thing? I'd rather run a stretched 720p30fps Runescape than a 1080p 2fps Runescape (I'm giving a random fps value there, but my point is that it's lower than 30fps)[/QUOTE] Stretched or scaled? Stretching in one direction is awful.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51551917]Oldschool Runescape[/QUOTE] And? You know that older games haven't all been updated to use high resolutions right? People wanted to play them at low resolutions because they were good games [editline]19th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=rndgenerator;51551924]Stretched or scaled? Stretching in one direction is awful.[/QUOTE] Scaled is what I meant, apologies. [editline]19th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51551882]leaving the inferior hardware behind.[/QUOTE] I didn't even see this part until now, that's absolutely wrong. Games should be accessible to as many people as possible, I want people to have fun no matter what situation they're in! Inferior hardware just makes you sound even more elitist.

say hasn't the console standard been 1080p/30 with a handful of exception that run 900p or 60FPS? i say for a handheld 720p/30 is solid, since it gets overlocked on dock mode i say there would be 1080p/30 and 900p/60

[QUOTE=TheCactusman;51551844]I'm tired of this 1080p60 bandwagon, why is that so important? Games are about the mechanics and design, a game should play well and be fun no matter the framerate or resolution. If not, it's a shitty game. I'd rather have 480p fun than 1080p trash. .[/QUOTE] But a higher framerate does improve gameplay. Some genres, like fighting and rhythm games, require a high framerate to play well in the first place. I don't care if a game runs 720p or 1080p, but performance should always be a priority.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51551949]It was IntelHD3000. No man should have to game on that. Accessibility? That thing couldn't run half the things I wanted to play. I actually booted up Metro 2033 on it, it was hilarious. Lowest setting, really low resolution, ran at sub 10 fps. I was afraid my computer would break.[/QUOTE] No man should have to, but you did didn't you? And that made you buy a PC because of your love of games? That's the point. There's way too much stagnation in game mechanics currently, but there's about 10 jobs for increasing performance for the 1 poor game designer who has to balance everything. [editline]19th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Durrsly;51551954]But a higher framerate does improve gameplay. Some genres, like fighting and rhythm games, require a high framerate to play well in the first place.[/QUOTE] A playable framerate is the aim though in any case, though. I'm not saying we shouldn't get 1080p60 as a standard, I'm just saying it's not what people should focus on.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51551975]No, I never played Metro 2033 again until I built my computer. I bought a PC because I was tired of really bad framerates, not so much bad graphics.[/QUOTE] Yes, but you played other games that you found fun surely? You had fun on the ol' 3000 at some point. [editline]19th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51551975]60fps is almost erotic in comparison to anything less[/QUOTE] Also that just seems unnecessarily hedonistic.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51551991]Really, I want the same as you, for video games to be good. And they can be beautifully presented in 60 frames. The smoothness of 60 can only complement the good gameplay.[/QUOTE] Exactly, but this is what game companies are seemingly forgetting as of late.