Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2015...

Remember Nintendo are under-clocking the machines CPU heavily to 1ghz whereas Nvidia Shield maxes at 2ghz .... They are also under-clocking the GPU in both docked and un-docked state compared to the standard Shield TV too.

Heat shouldn't be an issue with such underclocking in place ...
It's not the physical heat I'm worried about, more the real heat they'll take if it turns out it was the Nvidia chip from two years ago. It'll be a lot harder for that chip to keep up with the advancements made every year. Perhaps they're already thinking of a successor, the Switch 2 with a more powerful SoC?
 
It's not the physical heat I'm worried about, more the real heat they'll take if it turns out it was the Nvidia chip from two years ago. It'll be a lot harder for that chip to keep up with the advancements made every year. Perhaps they're already thinking of a successor, the Switch 2 with a more powerful SoC?

The old Tegra X1 has been locked down for a long time. Everyone hoped that it wasn't just the standard Tegra and they were waiting for the new refreshed version but sadly no. It's old tech repackaged ...

Given the Nintendo fanatics here and elsewhere have essentially whitewashed the launch titles or lack of, the over priced peripherals and the mess the online is launching or not launching - then the fact Nintendo are utilising 3 year old tech in the new console will be ignored ...

Compare the pre-launch Xbox one criticism from both the public and the press media, I am amazed the press/media have been so quiet about the mess that is the state of the console at launch ...
 
Last edited:
The old Tegra X1 has been locked down for a long time. Everyone hoped that it wasn't just the standard Tegra and they were waiting for the new refreshed version but sadly no. It's old tech repackaged ...

Given the Nintendo fanatics here and elsewhere have essentially whitewashed the launch titles or lack of, the over priced peripherals and the mess the online is launching or not launching - then the fact Nintendo are utilising 3 year old tech in the new console will be ignored ...
Good point :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: MRU
Has it actually been confirmed to be the old Tegra, or is that still based on the old rumors?
Yes because they know based on the official SWITCH hardware specs that it matches the old tegra nanometre 15nm fabrication/production rather than the current production of new Tegra which uses smaller 12nm nanometre production ... Therefore it can only be utlising the older tech.
 
Last edited:
The old Tegra X1 has been locked down for a long time. Everyone hoped that it wasn't just the standard Tegra and they were waiting for the new refreshed version but sadly no. It's old tech repackaged ...

Given the Nintendo fanatics here and elsewhere have essentially whitewashed the launch titles or lack of, the over priced peripherals and the mess the online is launching or not launching - then the fact Nintendo are utilising 3 year old tech in the new console will be ignored ...

Compare the pre-launch Xbox one criticism from both the public and the press media, I am amazed the press/media have been so quiet about the mess that is the state of the console at launch ...
Fine you don't like it move on to whatever console you like thanks
 
No.

You may get away with posts like that on other internet forums, but our little community here does not work like that.

It was just a recommendation nothing more sorry if it came of the wrong way. If I don't like a console personally I just don't post about it but to each their own.

Personally I believe people are making a mistake if they compare a handheld - yes I know Nintendo didn't advertise it as such but it still is one first and for most - against stationary ones of course the others are more powerful. But was the gameboy as powerful as the Sega Gamegear? No it wasn't yet it still sold like crazy because the quality of Nintendo games was far above everything else.

What Nintendo should have done is simple: have the SWitch as the mobile powerhouse and then release something as earth shattering as the Nintendo 64 was i.e. 2 non compromise consoles they didn't which is sad but I'm still looking forward to the Switch. Yes other consoles have more game but most of them are junk because they are either plagued with online requirements or by rmt.
 
Yes because they know based on the official SWITCH hardware specs that it matches the old tegra nanometre 15nm fabrication/production rather than the current production of new Tegra which uses smaller 12nm nanometre production ... Therefore it can only be utlising the older tech.
So you are in fact basing it on rumors. There are no official Switch hardware specs regarding the chipset.
 
So you are in fact basing it on rumors. There are no official Switch hardware specs regarding the chipset.
I guess so, DigitalFoundry's breakdown of all the known and speculated specs is as close to official as we will get until there is an ifixit style teardown once it's in the wild.

All we have fully confirmed by Nintendo are the Clock speeds and GPU speeds which as DF outline are in the Official Nintendo Documentation to developers to let them know the final clock speeds to develop for.

But so far from what is known is that it is looking like Maxwell architecture at 20nm rather than the revised version, and I guess in a few weeks time we will know 100%

More interesting will not be whether it's utilising the old 20nm or newer, but whether Nintendo has actually made any modifications hardware wise to the silicon itself.

The fact that it can actually get games like Zelda BOTW running on the Tegra X1 hardware is an accomplishment in itself though, however it does likely mean we're seeing most of the full potential on day 1.

Personally I would not expect a sudden jump in graphics quality in a year's time. We have to remember that they can only push the docked mode so far as they have to make sure that undocked when the GPU drops from 700 to 376mhz the game still runs even with a 720p resolution. Remember some games like Mario and Splatoon 2 are 720p on TV too.

Still considering some of the awful PS3/Xbox360 ports that appeared on the Nvidia Shield like Ninja Gaiden 3 - it's still looking at what they have managed to get out of the Switch hardware somewhat of an accomplishment.

It will be interesting to see if there are any interior mods to the silicon, and going forward how games developers will handle developing for a device with such differing GPU performance docked and undocked.
 
The fact that it can actually get games like Zelda BOTW running on the Tegra X1 hardware is an accomplishment in itself though, however it does likely mean we're seeing most of the full potential on day 1.
A large part of that is likely Vulcan support, which should in principle provide us with a good boost compared to previous graphical APIs available for the Nvidia Shield.

Personally I would not expect a sudden jump in graphics quality in a year's time. We have to remember that they can only push the docked mode so far as they have to make sure that undocked when the GPU drops from 700 to 376mhz the game still runs even with a 720p resolution. Remember some games like Mario and Splatoon 2 are 720p on TV too.
Unfortunately no. :( But personally I don't mind PS4 level graphics, as long as the games are vibrant, immersive and nails the world they are in. And at that, Nintendo are usually amazing at getting the most out of their consoles. Unfortunately, everybody else does not... Which is likely also why I will skip the Switch at first and see what comes down the road. I won't pay 400$ + Extras to be able to play ~3 games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MRU
A large part of that is likely Vulcan support, which should in principle provide us with a good boost compared to previous graphical APIs available for the Nvidia Shield.


Unfortunately no. :( But personally I don't mind PS4 level graphics, as long as the games are vibrant, immersive and nails the world they are in. And at that, Nintendo are usually amazing at getting the most out of their consoles. Unfortunately, everybody else does not... Which is likely also why I will skip the Switch at first and see what comes down the road. I won't pay 400$ + Extras to be able to play ~3 games.

Yeah graphics for Nintendo first party titles are probably the least of my concern. You only have to look at the likes of Captain Toad, Windwaker and Super Mario World 3D to see that art direction can make a massive difference and really hide technical flaws that a push to realism would create. (Though Starfox on Wii u still sucked).

In 12-18 months if Nintendo can sort out its online system globally and have at least half a dozen great first party AA titles that are new (not direct Wii u ports or 12 Switch) and a $50 price drop, the console would be a no-brainer.

The problem is at launch the proposition is too shaky and expensive. As I've said if I was to buy one here with Zelda and a pro-controller + a fast 128gb micro SD I would be looking at the bones of €600 right now with way too many questions unanswered about the longevity and life of the console.

If I had skipped Wii U perhaps it would be easier to justify ?

I will wait to see what comes, and hope that e3 may hold some light on that vacant schedule from third parties. I just don't want the same issue that plagued both the Wii and Wii U where I would finally get a game for the system and play for a few weeks and then have to wait 8-10 months before the next.
 
I have actually zero problems with Nintendo's hardware. Sure it could be beefier but to compare them to the XBone / PS4 is the wrong approach imho. It mainly shows what's, imho, quite wrong with the industry nowadays: obsession over secondary / technically apsects. Comparing framerates / amount of particle effects and whatnot. That greatly overshadows the fact that a huge bunch of those nextgen games offer little to no nextgen experience. It's basically the old samo, samo with a higher polycount (and stuttering framerates..)

I like an awesome looking game like the next one but looking at the greater picture :

PC>>>>>PS4Pro>>>PS4>>XBone>>>>>>WiiU/Switch

I just fail to see the necessity to have another power house. On the contrary - pushing the mobile angle is quite clever and if Nintendo is known for one thing over many decades than that their titles are extremely fun, extremely polished, quite inventive and worth a console on their own.

It's just a tad too pricey.
 
I just fail to see the necessity to have another power house. On the contrary - pushing the mobile angle is quite clever and if Nintendo is known for one thing over many decades than that their titles are extremely fun, extremely polished, quite inventive and worth a console on their own.
I would imagine most people would prefer to have just one gaming center - I personally would.
 
I have actually zero problems with Nintendo's hardware. Sure it could be beefier but to compare them to the XBone / PS4 is the wrong approach imho. It mainly shows what's, imho, quite wrong with the industry nowadays: obsession over secondary / technically apsects. Comparing framerates / amount of particle effects and whatnot. That greatly overshadows the fact that a huge bunch of those nextgen games offer little to no nextgen experience. It's basically the old samo, samo with a higher polycount (and stuttering framerates..)

I like an awesome looking game like the next one but looking at the greater picture :

PC>>>>>PS4Pro>>>PS4>>XBone>>>>>>WiiU/Switch

I just fail to see the necessity to have another power house. On the contrary - pushing the mobile angle is quite clever and if Nintendo is known for one thing over many decades than that their titles are extremely fun, extremely polished, quite inventive and worth a console on their own.

It's just a tad too pricey.

Strange thing is Nintendo are refusing to push this as a mobile successor possibly scared in case it does fail at retail and in process takes down the 3DS revenue with it.

There were no real games demonstrated or unveiled that show it as an ideal tailored mobile successor. There has been nothing shown to demonstrate how it's a better system for mobile as a whole (despite the obvious massive power improvement over the 3DS) but you would have expected Nintendo to have at least had some game like Mario & Luigi with touch screen controls / input to demonstrate how as a portable it would be better than the 3DS.

So far they seem to be demonstrating it more as a Wii U off-TV experience that isn't confined to the area/perimeter of Wii u base.

However I guess the design problem is simple, as it's not a true handheld (it's a hybrid) it's unlikely we can have experiences that rely on clever touchscreen controls that many DS/3DS titles use, as they always have to factor in the docked mode where a user would have to use a controller and it's differences compared to touch input, the juxtaposition causes quite a dilemma for games design.
 
I would imagine most people would prefer to have just one gaming center - I personally would.

Of course we would - but that's not going to happen. Even if the Switch would be technically superior to the PS4Pro Sony and MS would still buy their exclusives or timed exclusives, eventually even more so, and you wouldn't be that better off anyway.

I for one would have a harder time to decide to buy a PS4/Xbox since they are technically much inferior to a PC but still lack the beauty of Nintendo games. They can play BluRays, that probably the only thing they get going for it. There are so many games out nowadays that I couldn't care less about the few exclusives that aren't as great as they are hyped up to in the first place (IMHO of course).
[doublepost=1485168268][/doublepost]
However I guess the design problem is simple, as it's not a true handheld (it's a hybrid) it's unlikely we can have experiences that rely on clever touchscreen controls that many DS/3DS titles use, as they always have to factor in the docked mode where a user would have to use a controller and it's differences compared to touch input, the juxtaposition causes quite a dilemma for games design.

Speaking for myself: having the WiiU on the go as a handheld when I could use it (long train ride / visiting parents in law ;)) is more than enough for me.

Of course I can understand people wanting it to be on par, at least, with the PS4Pro while also rendering their 3ds useless so they really don't need anything else (granted: the third party games have to be there still) but that's just fantasizing imho. Nintendo needs to think long term and to throw their (successful!) handheld line out of the window would be nuts - while they do get it right imho to add a great (and useful this time ;)) and for now unique aspect to their console by making it some sort of hybrid.
 
Last edited:
I would imagine most people would prefer to have just one gaming center - I personally would.

I would too. I generally don't want 3/4 things plugged into my TV. That's why I really liked the Wii.... GCN compatibility, N64/SNES/NES/Genesis VC. Everything out of that single console. Got my nostalgia fix, many traditional games and some new novel idea (pointing/motion).

The Switch is a huge gamble for N. They are effectively combining their two hardware divisions. Want to know why their stock dropped after the reveal? Upto the Switch, consumers had to buy 2 different consoles, and two different sets of games from Nintendo. Now there will be only one piece of hardware and one set of games. That's a big risk to the bottom line; they're putting their eggs in one basket.

I, as a consumer, see it a little differently. N has some of the best software in the industry. Up to the Switch, their efforts have been clearly split between console and portable. Combining their software development efforts (console and portable) to build for the same system is great ..... can you imagine the number of first party AAA games this thing will get? As a gamer, im stoked. And with software.... hardware sales will follow.

IMHO It would have been a horrible idea for them to build just another PC/PS4/XBO (ie x86 box), as there would be no hardware differentiation.

What I do find surprising, is that they decided to go with the X1, and within a month, I think, Nvidia has announced their X2 shield product.
 
I would too. I generally don't want 3/4 things plugged into my TV. That's why I really liked the Wii.... GCN compatibility, N64/SNES/NES/Genesis VC. Everything out of that single console. Got my nostalgia fix, many traditional games and some new novel idea (pointing/motion).

The Switch is a huge gamble for N. They are effectively combining their two hardware divisions. Want to know why their stock dropped after the reveal? Upto the Switch, consumers had to buy 2 different consoles, and two different sets of games from Nintendo. Now there will be only one piece of hardware and one set of games. That's a big risk to the bottom line; they're putting their eggs in one basket.

I, as a consumer, see it a little differently. N has some of the best software in the industry. Up to the Switch, their efforts have been clearly split between console and portable. Combining their software development efforts (console and portable) to build for the same system is great ..... can you imagine the number of first party AAA games this thing will get? As a gamer, im stoked. And with software.... hardware sales will follow.

IMHO It would have been a horrible idea for them to build just another PC/PS4/XBO (ie x86 box), as there would be no hardware differentiation.

What I do find surprising, is that they decided to go with the X1, and within a month, I think, Nvidia has announced their X2 shield product.
The problem with this is that Nintendo are NOT consolidating. They have announced resolutely that the switch is not replacing the Nintendo handheld and they see it primarily as a home console.

So the hope that their development teams would focus on one device rather than two seperate machines, sadly is not going to happen. They will continue to develop 3DS and whatever is it's successor seperate to the Switch.

So the pool of development is no better now than it was before ....
 
The problem with this is that Nintendo are NOT consolidating. They have announced resolutely that the switch is not replacing the Nintendo handheld and they see it primarily as a home console.

So the hope that their development teams would focus on one device rather than two seperate machines, sadly is not going to happen. They will continue to develop 3DS and whatever is it's successor seperate to the Switch.

So the pool of development is no better now than it was before ....

They said the same thing about the GameBoy when they announced the NintendoDS. I think they called it the "three pillar strategy" at the time. ;)

It's just a marketing/publicity thing to mitigate risks. It'll go like this....

If the Switch is a success, software development teams will start wrapping up 3DS projects and migrate to new Switch projects over time (12-18 months).

If the Switch is "in the middle"; not a success/failure, and third parties havent committed in a meaningful way (ie no AAA titles announced past holiday 2017), they will probably try to pull in resources from the 3DS software teams to fill out the library.

If the Switch is not a success, they will start planning for a successor to the 3DS and keep the software teams where they are.

Of course, all this is speculation on my part.

Right now, the only possible dealbreaker for me is the state of the VC. I dont want to subscribe to their online stuff to be able to buy VC titles.

I am kindof disappointed in the lack of any gritty/core games so far. It would have been nice to have a ResidentEvil/DeadSpace (or something in that vein) announced at least in trailer form.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MRU
They said the same thing about the GameBoy when they announced the NintendoDS. I think they called it the "three pillar strategy" at the time. ;)

It's just a marketing/publicity thing to mitigate risks. It'll go like this....

If the Switch is a success, software development teams will start wrapping up 3DS projects and migrate to new Switch projects over time (12-18 months).

If the Switch is "in the middle"; not a success/failure, and third parties havent committed in a meaningful way (ie no AAA titles announced past holiday 2017), they will probably try to pull in resources from the 3DS software teams to fill out the library.

If the Switch is not a success, they will start planning for a successor to the 3DS and keep the software teams where they are.

Of course, all this is speculation on my part.

Right now, the only possible dealbreaker for me is the state of the VC. I dont want to subscribe to their online stuff to be able to buy VC titles.

I am kindof disappointed in the lack of any gritty/core games so far. It would have been nice to have a ResidentEvil/DeadSpace (or something in that vein) announced at least in trailer form.

I think the strategies you outline are very plausible and along my own thoughts if I were to place bets / speculate ...
 
I, as a consumer, see it a little differently. N has some of the best software in the industry.

There's a major problem with this statement and it goes to the heart of the Switch's, and Nintendo's, forward viability: it's demonstrably false as a value proposition. Want proof? All you have to do is look at the performance of the Wii U as a hardware platform. Nintendo's first part titles cannot move hardware as they used to. Whether that's because of a change in gaming tastes, or franchise fatigue, is a matter of debate. Nintendo software has a great deal of polish. When you own your hardware and release five games per year, you can do that, but a well-burnished gold paddle ball paddle does make playing paddle ball any more enjoyable to someone used to going to the cinema and playing something like Doom or Resident Evil.
 
There's a major problem with this statement and it goes to the heart of the Switch's, and Nintendo's, forward viability: it's demonstrably false as a value proposition. Want proof? All you have to do is look at the performance of the Wii U as a hardware platform. Nintendo's first part titles cannot move hardware as they used to. Whether that's because of a change in gaming tastes, or franchise fatigue, is a matter of debate. Nintendo software has a great deal of polish. When you own your hardware and release five games per year, you can do that, but a well-burnished gold paddle ball paddle does make playing paddle ball any more enjoyable to someone used to going to the cinema and playing something like Doom or Resident Evil.

I acknowledge franchise fatigue. I too feel it. However.... regarding the WiiU (which I do not own).... consider the following:
WiiU: 0 core Mario titles, 0 Metroid titles, 0 new Zelda titles
Wii: 2 core Mario titles, 2 Metroid titles, 2 Zelda titles

WiiU... poor launch library. Wii..launched with Zelda. And from the looks of it N is keen on remastering WiiU titles(MK8d, Splatoon2) for the Switch....so I expect to see Smash and other first party titles ported over pretty quickly in the first year.

I didn't like the WiiU at all. The concept of switching context (focus, attention, control) between two screens on a home console is a horrible idea IMHO.

I'm not entirely sure about the possibility of success for the Switch, but I see parallels with the Wii. In all honesty, I don't really care for the console-portable hybrid proposition, id have been happy with an Ouya type device with a pro controller or an updated Wiimote+nunchuck.
 
WiiU: 0 core Mario titles, 0 Metroid titles, 0 new Zelda titles

Wii U had Super Mario 3D World and New Super Mario Bros U. Both of those are core Mario titles.

Wii: 2 core Mario titles, 2 Metroid titles, 2 Zelda titles

Three core Marios, you forgot Galaxy 2.

And look at the attachment rates for those games, ex NSMB Wii:

Mario Galaxy 1: 11%, respectable but not fantastic; the previous main Mario title, Sunshine, carried a 30% attachment
Mario Galaxy 2: 7.5%, significantly weaker still
Metroid Prime Trilogy: 0.6% Laughable, despite the motion controls being accounted the superior method of play
Metroid Prime 3: 1.8% Also laughable
Twilight Princess: 7.2% Second best-selling Zelda of all time, worst selling core IP launch title ever released. This is one of the things that concerns me about using a Zelda game as a core launch anchor. Not Zelda game has cracked 8m units lifetime.
Skyward Sword: 4% pathetic attachment rate for a Zelda. It barely outsold Majora's mask despite having three times the hardware install base.

The only core titles that sold on the Wii, and had an attachment rate over 10%, was Mario and Smash, the rest were bloody Wii Sports/Fit titles and Just Dance. In other words, a casual console.

WiiU... poor launch library. Wii..launched with Zelda. And from the looks of it N is keen on remastering WiiU titles(MK8d, Splatoon2) for the Switch....so I expect to see Smash and other first party titles ported over pretty quickly in the first year.

And if any of those titles were wide draws, they would've moved hardware. Ex a few cursory titles and a boatload of shovelware, the third-party situation on the Wii was no different than the Wii U, yet it sold over seven times as many consoles. Why? Because the non-core IPs sold it to casuals. There's a reason that Wii Sports has an 80% attachment and the next nearest competitor is Mario Kart at 35%.

I'm not entirely sure about the possibility of success for the Switch, but I see parallels with the Wii. In all honesty, I don't really care for the console-portable hybrid proposition, id have been happy with an Ouya type device with a pro controller or an updated Wiimote+nunchuck.

If you see parallels then you ought to be terribly concerned. Based on my own research, the core Nintendo audience accounted for about 20 - 25% of the Wii sales. That 75 - 80%? That's the casual market and it isn't coming back. The only thing that the Switch can hope to do is to convert most of the Wii U audience (if the generational attrition rate holds steady, it will convert around 70% for a total of a bit over 9m) and cannibalise the 3DS install base. They'll have some measure of success, but the gaming philosophy of the Switch and the 3DS are not the same beyond the situational aspect. Best case scenario, it draws that same 70%, which is around 43m units. Combined, you get 52m, which on the face of things seems like a net positive until you realise that that success, and the probably lack of 3DS successor during this generation, would represent a 30% loss in hardware sales by volume generation over generation, with a resultant loss of software titles sales as well. At which point Nintendo will have essentially a dockable handheld device, in a world where handheld sales are haemorrhaging generationally (154m DS vs 61m 3DS for example), once again relegated to a rapidly decreasing niche market, especially with their domestic audience where portable gaming in increasing but dedicated handhelds account for increasingly smaller percentage; in the West, dedicated portables are decreasing in sales.

This is not a renaissance, it's a Hail Mary. It could work, I've never stated otherwise, but it doing so is against the numbers. Wouldn't be the first time or the last but, like the Wii, it would be a dangerous outlier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkeye_a
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.