Nintendo Switch based on older Maxwell Architecture

[HawkMan]

17 minutes ago, johnnyq3 said:

The 360's processor was a beefed up Powermac processor.  With the demo unit using a Mac G4 or G3 shell to hold the hardware.

Well there's no such thing as as a powermac processor. 

In fact the mac used a PowerPC processor back in the day, a weaker version of the Power5 processor used as the basics for the Cell and the 360. 

[compl3x]

19 hours ago, DirtyLarry said:

Nintendo has and always will be Gameplay > Graphics.

It is the way it is, and the way it always will be.

In order to achieve the portability of the Switch and to keep the price range in the area of people would actually want to purchase the Switch, sacrifices had to be made on the processing power side of things.

This will have zero effect on how much fun one can have playing their games. Just how good it may or may not look.

Clearly this is not the console, nor have they ever been, for graphics enthusiast.

I am not sure how or why people expected Nintendo to now compete in the visuals department when they never have. With a portable console no less.

It just is not a realistic expectation whatsoever.

 

I really don't get why they wanted to make it portable though, and I am hardly the only one who is looking at this and thinking "couldn't you guys have just made a console?". Are they ditching the DS  brand in favour of this portable screen? Seems crazy considering how popular the DS brand is.

 

I agree about the power bit. Nintendo has something others don't: beloved, exclusive IPs. They don't have to participate in the consoles arms race; their fans don't care about it.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

17 minutes ago, compl3x said:

 

I really don't get why they wanted to make it portable though, and I am hardly the only one who is looking at this and thinking "couldn't you guys have just made a console?". Are they ditching the DS  brand in favour of this portable screen? Seems crazy considering how popular the DS brand is.

 

I agree about the power bit. Nintendo has something others don't: beloved, exclusive IPs. They don't have to participate in the consoles arms race; their fans don't care about it.

Well it could be because of the massive drop in handheld sales. The 3DS has sold 60+ million, but the original DS family sold 150+. The sales are healthy in Japan and 60+ million is still a success, but the West favours home consoles and there's only around 2 million 3DS sold a year in EU. It's still a good number, but there has been roughly 5 or 6 million PS4s per year in EU during the same time. Combining the home and portable experiences might not be such a terrible idea to boost their hardware numbers.

[theyarecomingforyou]

The Nintendo Switch is a handheld console masquerading as a home console. That much is clear from the specs, like the fact it's only running at only 720p. It's clearly not going to compete with 4K consoles like the PS4 Pro - in fact you're looking at it being more like the X360 and PS3. You even see this in the titles being shown off, like the decision to focus on Skyrim.

 

It's hard to take a handheld console seriously when the resolution is a fraction of that of most mobile phone. It's not surprising it's running a dated CPU architecture like Maxwell, as it certainly isn't a cutting edge product. It's a budget handheld that despite being marketed at adults was clearly designed for children.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

2 hours ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

The Nintendo Switch is a handheld console masquerading as a home console. That much is clear from the specs, like the fact it's only running at only 720p. It's clearly not going to compete with 4K consoles like the PS4 Pro - in fact you're looking at it being more like the X360 and PS3. You even see this in the titles being shown off, like the decision to focus on Skyrim.

 

It's hard to take a handheld console seriously when the resolution is a fraction of that of most mobile phone. It's not surprising it's running a dated CPU architecture like Maxwell, as it certainly isn't a cutting edge product. It's a budget handheld that despite being marketed at adults was clearly designed for children.

720p is only for the tablet screen when not docked according to the specs

when docked it should output 1080p60 (it also says 4K30 but i'm guessing that's just for videos and streaming content)

 

720p on a handheld is fine IMO anything more just eats into battery life for marginal gains at this point. start bringing better batteries to the public market and then we'll talk powerful handhelds

[+Asmodai MVC]

2 hours ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

The Nintendo Switch is a handheld console masquerading as a home console.

Agreed, are you thinking this is a bad thing though?  I'm thinking it's a good thing as Nintendo handhelds far outsell Nintendo home consoles and it gives them a reason to not get into the spec war with the PS4 and Xbox One.

2 hours ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

It's clearly not going to compete with 4K consoles like the PS4 Pro - in fact you're looking at it being more like the X360 and PS3. You even see this in the titles being shown off, like the decision to focus on Skyrim.

If you seriously thought it was going to compete with 4k consoles you haven't been paying attention.  There is no chance it was ever going to do that.  I'm disappointed it's Maxwell vs Pascal based but even if it were Pascal based a Pascal based mobile capable console wasn't going to get anywhere near 4k either.

2 hours ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

It's hard to take a handheld console seriously when the resolution is a fraction of that of most mobile phone. It's not surprising it's running a dated CPU architecture like Maxwell, as it certainly isn't a cutting edge product. It's a budget handheld that despite being marketed at adults was clearly designed for children.

Most top end mobile phones also cost $600+.  Furthermore the launch Xbox One struggles to hit 1080p (many are 900p) so why in the world would you expect a mobile to hit higher than that in the first place?  Mobile phones have higher resolution screens but they can't play AAA style games native at that resolution so it makes no sense to put a 1440p+ screen on a mobile game console and suck down more power for a screen your GPU can't even support.

 

Additionally the top selling mobile game console on the market right now (3DS) that this device is intended to replace is only 400x320 so 720p on the mobile is fine.  In fact even if it was Pascal I would have been fine with it being 540p when undocked because the GPU/CPU/RAM etc. downclock to conserve battery and that would have been fine for a tiny portable screen if it hit a solid 60fps with quality models, effects, etc.  That way when you dock it and the power ramps up it would be an easy multiplier to convert to 1080p on the TV.  Again there was no chance this thing was ever going to do 4k for anything beyond streaming video (Netflix, Amazon Prime, YouTube, etc.) and even then it remains to be seen if Nintendo will even support those types of apps on their platform.

 

As a handheld gaming device though it destroys everything currently on the market.  If you look at it that way, as you started out saying, it's a very solid device.  The only mobile devices that are going to beat it anytime soon are top end smartphones that cost several times what it does and have underpowered GPUs for their ultra jacked up screen resolutions.  Those high rez mobile screens are great if photos and videos are what you want to look at but they're horrible for games.

[compl3x]

8 hours ago, Andrew said:

The 3DS has sold 60+ million, but the original DS family sold 150+. 

They also existed in completely different consumer environments. When the original DS launched, mobile tech wasn't advanced so the argument for a dedicated gaming device was pretty solid. Now, phones can do everything and while gaming on a phone isn't like a dedicated handheld people can do other things instead of gaming. I accept this is anecdotal but I own a 3DS XL and a Vita and I take them nowhere. When I am out I watch stuff on my phone, listen to podcasts, music with Spotify, check Reddit, read emails, etc. To play games when I am out doesn't occur to me and I am the "hardcore" gamer. 

 

I get where you are coming from on the sales point; although those numbers in markets where tablets and mobile phones exist are still super impressive, but then that point raises a question for me: is the Switch some sort of transition device from Nintendo to eventually abandon handhelds altogether? I'll give Ninty one thing, they do keep us guessing. 

 

5 hours ago, Brandon H said:

720p on a handheld is fine IMO anything more just eats into battery life for marginal gains at this point. start bringing better batteries to the public market and then we'll talk powerful handhelds

How acceptable screen res is depends on the size of the screen. Last I read the Switch tablet is estimated at 6.6 inches. 720p on a 6+ screen is pushing it. I get the battery conservation argument, but if it looks hideous then no one will use it as a portable.

 

Wait and see, I guess.

[HawkMan]

9 hours ago, compl3x said:

 

I really don't get why they wanted to make it portable though, and I am hardly the only one who is looking at this and thinking "couldn't you guys have just made a console?". Are they ditching the DS  brand in favour of this portable screen? Seems crazy considering how popular the DS brand is.

 

I agree about the power bit. Nintendo has something others don't: beloved, exclusive IPs. They don't have to participate in the consoles arms race; their fans don't care about it.

why ?

 

because 20-40 million play regular consoles with game sales in the 10 million range for really big triple A sellers. meanwhile hundreds and hundreds of millions play games on their phones and tablets. even when they're at home and have access to their big screen TV.  The math is simple. People today don't want big picture and consoles, they don't want good quality sound, they don't want good quality graphics. They want comfort. Nintendo offers a gaming devices that replaces their phone and tablets with  a device that offers a better smoother gaming experience with better graphics and much better controls. 

 

It's a big risk, but the potential reward are great, and this is why they have all the big publishers on board for games on the device. it's a device that has the potential to appeal to hundreds of millions, not just tens of millions. 

[HawkMan]

8 hours ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

. It's a budget handheld that despite being marketed at adults was clearly designed for children.

why is it marketed at children just because it's not a powerhouse of performance and graphics. even today, I enjoy playing games on the Wii U more than on the Xbox, even though I love xbox games, especially now that I suddenly find myself with a full time job plus a fiancee with 3 children, well I don't really find time for any games any more.

[compl3x]

6 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

 

because 20-40 million play regular consoles with game sales in the 10 million range for really big triple A sellers.

But Nintendo isn't in the Triple A market that the other consoles are, so they aren't competing there. Additionally, do they think they will lure PS4 or XB1 to their console? Seems doubtful.

 

6 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

meanwhile hundreds and hundreds of millions play games on their phones and tablets. even when they're at home and have access to their big screen TV.  

 

Right, which is proof they like playing games on their phone or tablet, not that they are willing to buy a new device. Unless Nintendo knows something we don't.

 

7 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

They want comfort. Nintendo offers a gaming devices that replaces their phone and tablets with  a device that offers a better smoother gaming experience with better graphics and much better controls. 

 

Nintendo might offer it, but are the kind of people who play Candy Crush on their phone on the bus the kind of people who will buy a Switch? I am sceptical.

 

7 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

I enjoy playing games on the Wii U more than on the Xbox

 

Me too. I just bought Yoshi's Woolly World. Looking forward to playing it.

[theyarecomingforyou]

7 hours ago, Asmodai said:

Agreed, are you thinking this is a bad thing though?  I'm thinking it's a good thing as Nintendo handhelds far outsell Nintendo home consoles and it gives them a reason to not get into the spec war with the PS4 and Xbox One.

My opinion is that it would be better marketed as a true handheld console rather than an awkward hybrid. The tiny, detachable, toy-like controllers detract from the device rather than contribute to it.

 

7 hours ago, Asmodai said:

If you seriously thought it was going to compete with 4k consoles you haven't been paying attention.  There is no chance it was ever going to do that.  I'm disappointed it's Maxwell vs Pascal based but even if it were Pascal based a Pascal based mobile capable console wasn't going to get anywhere near 4k either.

Most top end mobile phones also cost $600+.  Furthermore the launch Xbox One struggles to hit 1080p (many are 900p) so why in the world would you expect a mobile to hit higher than that in the first place?  Mobile phones have higher resolution screens but they can't play AAA style games native at that resolution so it makes no sense to put a 1440p+ screen on a mobile game console and suck down more power for a screen your GPU can't even support.

I wasn't expecting it to be a 4K console, as Nintendo has long since given up trying to compete for performance. However, to run at only 720p in mobile mode is certainly disappointing. What Nintendo should have done is used a 1080p display and allowed developers to specify resolution (i.e. run a 3D game like Skyrim at 720p, a 2D game like Mario at 1080p). As for price, a) there are plenty of mid-range phones with 1080p displays, and b) this isn't a product that will be replaced in two years like a phone, it's going to be on the market for 5-10 years.

 

It just seems a very poorly conceived device, particularly after the disastrous Wii U. It seems like attempt number two at the same failed concept. That's without even going into Nintendo's terrible track record at delivering first-party titles and attracting third-party support. I mean, Zelda: Breath of the Wild was shown at E3 for the Wii U back in 2012 and still hasn't been released - now it's possibly a launch title for the Switch. And graphically it looks terrible. And Nintendo has still yet to properly leverage Pokemon for a 3D title. The company just isn't relevant any more.

[Eric Veteran]

I haven't tried the controllers myself and I could care less what processor it's using as long as it works. At one time game consoles used Zilog Z80s and Motorola 6500-series processors and developers were still able to design compelling games.

[astropheed Veteran]

21 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

I wasn't expecting it to be a 4K console, as Nintendo has long since given up trying to compete for performance. However, to run at only 720p in mobile mode is certainly disappointing. What Nintendo should have done is used a 1080p display and allowed developers to specify resolution (i.e. run a 3D game like Skyrim at 720p, a 2D game like Mario at 1080p). As for price, a) there are plenty of mid-range phones with 1080p displays, and b) this isn't a product that will be replaced in two years like a phone, it's going to be on the market for 5-10 years.

 

I don't think a 1080p display running 720p content is much different to a 1080p display running 1080p content. It's not like a bunch of pixels aren't firing, it's just scaled up and uses all 2.07m pixels either way (I could be wrong here). Sure the GPU would use less power in 720p but it's the display that eats battery. 

 

I think 720p is perfectly fine for a small display. 1080p would look better, but I prefer the compromise Nintendo made for extended battery life; I'd have done the same.

 

@AsmodaiI'm not ignoring your post but I have almost nothing further to contribute that we wouldn't just disagree on anyways. I will just say I don't expect Switch to sell like a Wii, nor did I say I did. I said "if it did" (too lazy to go back for an exact quote). Oh, and, "Chicken and Egg".

[theyarecomingforyou]

2 hours ago, astropheed said:

I don't think a 1080p display running 720p content is much different to a 1080p display running 1080p content. It's not like a bunch of pixels aren't firing, it's just scaled up and uses all 2.07m pixels either way (I could be wrong here). Sure the GPU would use less power in 720p but it's the display that eats battery. 

The issue is the GPU power required, not the number of pixels firing. That's why the phones with 4K displays downscale to 1080p for most apps. It was a cost saving measure, just like Nintendo did with the Wii and Wii U. I'd rather see two models - a budget friendly 720p model and a high-end 1080p model.

[+E.Worm Jimmy Subscriber¹]

On 2016-12-20 at 11:22 AM, DirtyLarry said:

 

Clearly this is not the console, nor have they ever been, for graphics enthusiast.

I was a Mega Drive (Genesis) kid.   But Super Nintendo had, at the time, had a fair shot at being the best at graphics for its Gen.

 

[Eric Veteran]

3 minutes ago, E.worm Jimmy said:

I was a Mega Drive (Genesis) kid.   But Super Nintendo had, at the time, had a fair shot at being the best at graphics for its Gen.

 

Mega Drive was NES-era. SNES and the Genesis were in the same generation. (I agree the SNES had better graphics especially for games that had the SROT chip in them.)

[+E.Worm Jimmy Subscriber¹]

3 minutes ago, Eric said:

Mega Drive was NES-era. SNES and the Genesis were in the same generation. (I agree the SNES had better graphics especially for games that had the SROT chip in them.)

Nope. Mega Drive was a European name for Genesis.  You are thinking of Master System. 

 

 

 

[Eric Veteran]

1 hour ago, E.worm Jimmy said:

Nope. Mega Drive was a European name for Genesis.  You are thinking of Master System. 

 

 

 

Oh, oops... I didn't bother with the Master System. The Genesis did have similar hardware capabilities but I can't remember what the tech limitations in it were. (I had a friend that was a console developer and he used to complain back and forth about one or the other having something stupidly designed. :))

[+E.Worm Jimmy Subscriber¹]

3 minutes ago, Eric said:

Oh, oops... I didn't bother with the Master System. The Genesis did have similar hardware capabilities but I can't remember what the tech limitations in it were. (I had a friend that was a console developer and he used to complain back and forth about one or the other having something stupidly designed. :))

Genesis had "faster" graphics. Snes had more colors. I think. 

 

 

Back on topic....

 

I dont think it will replace DS.

Not sure where it fits.

Or why, if it is for kids, the ad shows adults only.

 

Really hard to see how well it will do for Nintendo.

[+Asmodai MVC]

13 hours ago, E.worm Jimmy said:

I dont think it will replace DS.

Really?  You see a scenario where they can sell the 3DS and the Switch side by side?  I think the 3DS is still $199 right now and I can't imagine the Switch with these specs is going to be much more than that.  I've been hearing around $250 but I think that's even a bit high personally considering you can get an Xbox One S for $250 and I'd think they'd want to be "more affordable" than that.  Maybe if they seriously cut the price of the 3DS but really why keep developing for two sets of mobile hardware?

 

13 hours ago, E.worm Jimmy said:

Not sure where it fits.

Or why, if it is for kids, the ad shows adults only.

I think Nintendo hopes it has wider appeal and so they are marketing to try to get it that... but in all likelihood most of it's users will end up being kids.  Despite my disappointment in it being Maxwell and not Pascal I'm still somewhat interested in it personally.  It's still the most powerful handheld (beats my Vita) and has Nintendo's excellent exclusives.  It's not longer a must get for me though and it will really depend on the price and what nVidia announces for the Shield at CES in January.  If it ends up being $199 and the new shield is more expensive then it will probably be a day 1 purchase for me.  If it's $250 and the new shield is more powerful and cheaper I may end up passing on it.  January should be very interesting next year.

13 hours ago, E.worm Jimmy said:

Really hard to see how well it will do for Nintendo.

Agreed.  I think it they pitch it as a handheld successor to the 3DS that just happens to dock and display on your TV and it's priced resonably (i.e. lower than the Xbox One S) then I think it will do fine.  If they can't get people to stop thinking of it as a primarily home console though and/or it's priced over the Xbox One S I think it's going to have a rough time.