We have had confirmation today that the Nintendo Switch is powered by the Tegra X1. The news has come courtesy of Tech Insights who have examined Nintendo’s latest system and performed a detailed teardown. The site reports that “after subsequent processing of the GPU from the Nintendo Switch, we have determined that the processor is the Nvidia Tegra T210. The T210 CPU features 4 Cortex A57 and 4 Cortex A53 processor cores and the GPU is a GM20B Maxell core.” So that’s that cleared up.

Source / Via

Advertisements

71 Comments »

  1. Most likely a customized Tegra X1 with a little bit of extra features in it. Regardless of what it is it looks like it’s capable of some great visuals. While it wont probably ever best the PS4 in terms of graphical fidelity it will certainly be impressive for the type of system it is. As game development begins to advance Nintendo will most likely make a more powerful Switch that will for the most part be more powerful than the PS4 but be closer in power to the PS4 Pro or maybe on par with it.

    Liked by 3 people

      • Exactly and this is why the Switch will surely get more 3rd party support than the Wii U because the 3rd party developers who were only making games for the 3DS and the Vita will eventually turn their focus over to the Switch, especially since it’s being touted as the most developer friendly gaming platform. A lot of people don’t realize that Nintendo sacrificed power on the Switch so they could corner both the home console and portable gaming markets thus killing two birds with one stone. Sure…..the PS4 and Xbox One may be more powerful consoles but you can’t take your games with you on the go nor can you customize your control methods to your liking. The Switch is the ” Swiss Army knife of gaming systems ” and that will be an huge advantage for it going forward

        Liked by 4 people

        • The Wii U gamepad is more of a Swiss Army knife than the Switch. The Switch lacks a bunch of features that both the Wii U and 3DS had and is incapable of VR. Being a portable home console doesn’t automatically mean it’s the most versatile console ever. People are equating WHERE they can play video games to HOW they play video games and that makes no sense.

          Like

            • Yea, lets ignore the Wii U’s poor marketing and the fact that people didn’t know what it was. Right Mike? Lets also ignore that all the sales figures we have for the Switch are comparing a worldwide release to a staggered releases of other systems and one that is happening at a quiet time before E3 while others launch during holiday seasons. Right, Mike?

              We should immediately assume that the Switch is a hit in just three weeks? Guess we should just ignore that the Wii U released with Nintendo Land and the Switch released with Breath of the Wild? I guess we should also ignore that the Switch is supposed to be a handheld and home console yet we’re only comparing it’s sales to their last home console and not their last home console + handheld? Are we also forgetting that Nintendo is marketing this as a home console but people are judging it’s merits based on it being a handheld? Do you think that puts Nintendo in a good situation, Mike?

              Looks like we have to keep moving the goal post for the Switch’s sake don’t we, Mike.

              Like

              • I’m not ignoring anything. The Switch has better marketing than the Wii U did and seems to have garnered far more interest.

                You’re the one who can’t seem to let go of a dead system. Even Nintendo has moved on.

                Liked by 2 people

                • Of course they moved on. The Switch is their successor to the Wii U. Should they have stuck with the Wii because it got them more success than the Wii U? What the hell is your argument?

                  Like

                    • “Switch from the TV to the new controller”

                      “Play only on the New Controller”

                      The Switch is the very obvious next evolution of the Wii U concept and I think is what Nintendo wanted to do from the start but the tech wasn’t there yet to be affordable. Tbh throughout the entire Wii U lifespan I thought this could be the next step to go fully portable.

                      Like

                    • Yes, off-screen play is just one of the features of the gamepad. Every other example of it’s use in that video (sniper, pitching, catching, putting, throwing shurikens, video calls) are all things that make use of both screens at a time and video calls are completely impossible in any form on the Switch.

                      If the Switch offered a superset of all the features and gameplay possibilities the Wii U offered, then I would agree that that’s what Nintendo wanted to do all along, but it’s not.

                      Like

                    • And most of the games that heavily used those other features weren’t very high sellers. The feature most people cared about was simple off tv play.

                      Like

                    • So Super Mario 3D World, Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, Rayman Legends, new Super Mario Bros U, Mario Party 10, Wii U Party U, and Super Mario Maker weren’t high sellers for the Wii U? News to me.

                      Pretty sure those are 7 of the top 14 selling games on the Wii U.

                      Even Mario Kart 8, the top selling game on the Wii U, used the gamepad for voice chat though they unfortunately didn’t allow it to be used during the actual race.

                      Like

                    • I said most, not all. And most of those big games the best it used was off tv play. If I recall correctly SM3DW didn’t use the screen much. Where’s games like Game & Wario or Star Fox Zero which made heavy use of both the TV and GamePad at the same time? They flopped.

                      Like

                    • 3D World had whole levels that required the gamepad for it’s mic and touch features. Wii Party U used it for handicap mini-games. Mario Party 10 was called Mario Party D&D Edition because of it’s heavy use of gamepad features to control Bowser. Super Mario Maker used it for building courses which was half the game. Wind Waker and Twilight Princess uses it for item management and for a map and anyone who played them agreed the gamepad features improved them and they weren’t even originally designed to use them. Rayman Legends frequently had areas in levels where you indirectly guided a character through part of level using the character controlled on the gamepad to change things in the environment.

                      The only game I mentioned that doesn’t necessarily make heavy use of the gamepad is new Super Mario Bros. U, but one person can use the gamepad to create platforms for the Wii Remote players to use and there even a co-op challenge mode where a Wii Remote player actually has to rely on platforms being made for them.

                      Like

                    • And obviously most people didn’t care otherwise the Wii U would’ve sold better. I liked the GamePad but the Switch is far superior. It also has a touch screen btw.

                      Like

                    • “And obviously most people didn’t care otherwise the Wii U would’ve sold better.”

                      Sure because advertising and it’s specs weren’t a factor at all. Everybody knew that the Wii U wasn’t an add-on for the Wii and it totally didn’t get ports of third-party games that everyone had already played, right?

                      “I liked the GamePad but the Switch is far superior.”

                      Maybe by virtue of being a completely stand alone device, but the gamepad was superior when it came to what it could do to vary gameplay.

                      “It also has a touch screen btw.”

                      Yes, it has a beautiful touchscreen that’s use is totally discouraged by the design of the system. When somebody can show me a way that the touch screen can be used in TV mode then maybe that will be worth mentioning, but I doubt that’s gonna happen. Tell me how many people are gonna think it’s perfectly acceptable for a game to require you to pull your system out of the dock when you want to play it on your TV? There are people who have no interest in portability and just want a home console. With both the Switch and Wii U, they’re forced to buy it with a screen, but at least they can use the one in the Wii U gamepad and they might actually find some use out of it.

                      So much about this system demands that people develop for the lowest common denominator of features in both it’s modes. That’s why there’s only really been one game demonstrated to use the touch screen at all.

                      Like

                  • How on earth is the Switch a worse idea than Wii ? The gamepad was good at getting rid of stuff off the screen, but it was a distraction and hindered some games (especially when you use a different controller. Switch is a handheld/ home console hybrid device, where you can play all games.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    • *Wii U

                      See therein lies the problem. You think that the purpose of the gamepad was just to get stuff off the screen and that’s it. Tell me, how would you port the gamepad levels of Super Mario 3D World to the Switch? I guess we just map the action of blowing to just a press of a button? Sure that’s fun. And I suppose people would have to pull it out of the dock to use touch features? What about Art Academy or Scribblenauts? How about that Wario Ware photography game? Do you think Paper Mario Color Splash’s battle system would have been just as fun if you had to sort through a large card collection with just buttons and a directional pad?

                      I dunno, maybe it’s just a little dumb that certain methods of input that the gamepad and 3DS had were either completely removed or only available in portable mode on the Switch thus discouraging their use at all.

                      Maybe its a stupid idea because many of the things that made the 3DS a good portable (clamshell, all-in-one design, fitting it into a pocket, touch features without obscuring content) were sacrificed in order to make it a console, and anything that made it a unique console (the second screen, touch, mic, camera, TV remote features) had to be removed from the console experience because it needs to be a handheld.

                      It’s also kind of bad idea because the reason that Nintendo has been successful with their handhelds is because they were affordable to the point that people would buy multiple versions in different colors and they were a much easier thing for kids to ask their parents for. That a big reason why it sold 60 million units. Which brings me to something else. Everybody is talking like the Switch would be considered a success if it sells more than 13 million units (lifetime sales of Wii U) and they think it’ll replace the need for a dedicated handheld. That will actually only be true if it can beat 73 million (3DS + Wii U sales) which will be hard becasue it’s dedicated video game hardware that specializes in nothing. It is an oversized portable that offers you about the same gameplay experience as the Vita but with better graphics (but please someone else tell me that they don’t care about specs). As a console, it offers you an identical type of gameplay experience to the PS4 or XBO but with lesser graphics, lower framerate for $50 more, $110 more if you count the value of their pack-in game, and small uncomfortable controller that you can’t charge during gameplay unless you want to spend another $30.

                      Look I get that it sounds like magic. “Oh my god. It’s a system that’s a home console and a handheld.” but it’s doing neither of those things as well as it’s successors so who cares. There are people who find the 3DS XL to be too big, why would they buy the Switch? There are people who have no interest in portable gaming. What does the Switch offer them? What alternatives does Nintendo provide to these people? The answer among systems still supported by Nintendo are the 3DS and nothing.

                      Like

            • I said the gamepad was a Swiss army knife because of it’s available types of input. The gamepad offers a camera, sensor bar for use with a Wii Remote, motion controls, touch, microphone, and a secondary screen and those are useable at one time. The Switch not only ditches the mic and camera but the use of its touchscreen is discourage because it’s not available to use in docked mode.

              Like

              • Well the Switch has multiple control styles as well as the ability to be played docked and undocked so honestly it’s far more adaptable than the Wii U. I have both so I am not trying to be partial to either system. It may not have either a camera or a microphone (actually I think the headphone jack supports in game microphone use but I’ll give that to you since I’m not sure) but those features were seldomly used on the Wii U. Now it is currently missing apps that I do consider adding to the Swiss army knife appeal but I am pretty sure they are coming. Either way I think it has that Swiss army knife feel more than the Wii U did.

                Like

                • “Well the Switch has multiple control styles as well as the ability to be played docked and undocked so honestly it’s far more adaptable than the Wii U.”

                  The Wii U can be played on just a TV, on just a gamepad, on both, and it’s completely possible for people to play games on just the gamepad screen using Wii Remotes, Wii Remotes + Nunchuck, Wii Remotes + Classic Controllers, Gamecube controllers, and Pro controllers.

                  The Wii U offers the same play styles or more, it just can’t be used on the go. It can be used on an airplane though and people have done it before.

                  “It may not have either a camera or a microphone (actually I think the headphone jack supports in game microphone use but I’ll give that to you since I’m not sure) but those features were seldomly used on the Wii U.”

                  I think you’re right about it supporting a microphone through the headphone jack but that’s an added cost though. The gamepad could have offered Cortana-like control of system features or Wii Speak-like features in games since the mic can be shared by others in the room. Sure, one can argue that the majority of games wouldn’t use things like this but having them does add to the versatility of the console as does the second screen even when it comes to virtual console stuff. There were Gamecube games that used the GBA as a second screen. Games like Pacman Versus, LoZ: Four Swords Adventures, and Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles are all games that just can’t be released on the Switch but can on the Wii U. In the future, the Switch wouldn’t even be able to have some Wii U games on it’s virtual console. Even games like Super Mario 3D World on the virtual console would have certain levels that couldn’t be completed. They would have to port and rework these games.

                  On the other hand, can someone make the argument that Snipperclips or Super Mario Oddysey wouldn’t be possible on the Wii U? Snipperclips wouldn’t even have to sacrifice it’s resolution or performance.

                  “Now it is currently missing apps that I do consider adding to the Swiss army knife appeal but I am pretty sure they are coming. Either way I think it has that Swiss army knife feel more than the Wii U did.”

                  That’s because the Wii U didn’t get the support that would have shown what it was capable of (from a gameplay standpoint). One thing I always like to bring up is how, when I play World of Warcraft and I’m typing something to somebody and something attacks me, I wind up typing “wwwwwwwwwwwwww” in the chat because the chat gets control of the same keyboard keys I used to run. Imagine a port of WoW for the Wii U. Most console ports of MMOs require a USB keyboard and the chat log can take up a bit of room on the screen to be readable and the UI has to be reworked. The Wii U would be able to display the chat log, map, and other menus on the gamepad without much reworking since touch can work like a mouse. It can also offer a touch keyboard right on the controller, and if I get attacked and start running, not only will I not type W into the chat, but I can continue the message after I’m done fighting or running away. I would also have the option to just use voice chat since there’s a mic in the controller. If WoW were ported to the Switch, it would still require a USB keyboard and it’s interface will still clutter the screen or it can use an on-screen keyboard which is both slower than the alternatives and more obstructing.

                  People have also brought up the concept of something like a Dungeons and Dragons game on the Wii U with the dungeon master using the gamepad as his own private screen while others play on the TV using other controllers.

                  For what it’s worth, I’ve never played D&D and I got bored of WoW but these are experiences that wouldn’t be possible on the Switch. The D&D idea might be possible on two Switch (one docked, one not) but I doubt a game would sell that literally requires over $600 worth of video game systems to play.

                  Honestly, with the exception of HD Rumble, I don’t see anything new that Switch brings to the table for gameplay. It’s honestly weird to me that there are people with the Switch saying they care about gameplay not specs, when the only thing the Switch has over the Wii U and 3DS is better specs.

                  And I’m not saying the Wii U is overall better either, just that conceptually, it’s more versatile. Obviously the Wii U gamepad could be improved and just through technological advancements made since 2012, the gamepad cold be made smaller and higher resolution with longer batter life with HD Rumble included.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  • I agree with a lot of your points but the point is that even though the Wii U could theoretically play in all the ways you said, the games never came to it to put those play styles into action. I personally liked having 2 screens and I still very much like my Wii U but the Switch has a ton of potential as well and I see it being more of a Swiss army knife console. The switch supports 8 way local multi-player which is pretty cool especially for games like the type you listed (especially mmo’s) and Smash and MK and Splatoon and a ton of others. The system is more powerful period and can be played docked or undocked and just with what comes in the box supports 4 different control options and support for 2 players. Keyboard support could come as well but I agree the ability to pull up menus and a keyboard on one screen while not obstructing the main screen is really cool for a lot of games but sadly Switch can’t do it the same way. The Wii U game pad only had a playable distance of like 20 feet and that sucked but the Switch is pretty much a handheld so it can go where ever you’d want to play. The system is only 2 weeks old so we gotta give it some time to put the various playstyles to use.

                    Like

                    • “I agree with a lot of your points but the point is that even though the Wii U could theoretically play in all the ways you said, the games never came to it to put those play styles into action.”

                      The platforms adoption really shouldn’t factor in that way. If something can be used in a particular way than it can be used in a particular way. Just because nobody did it doesn’t mean it can’t all of a sudden. Get what I’m saying?

                      “I personally liked having 2 screens and I still very much like my Wii U but the Switch has a ton of potential as well and I see it being more of a Swiss army knife console.”

                      Can you list some examples of types of games that can only be done on the Switch or can be done better on Switch than other consoles?

                      “The switch supports 8 way local multi-player which is pretty cool especially for games like the type you listed (especially mmo’s) and Smash and MK and Splatoon and a ton of others.”

                      I don’t see how 8 way local multi-player would be useful in the games I mentioned. Most of those games were based off having a private screen.

                      If you’re referring to the configuration where 8 Switch’s are communicating with each other, that isn’t anything that 8 Wii Us, 8 Wiis, 8 PS4s, 8 Xbox Ones, 8 3DS, 8 DSs, or even 8 PC’s can’t do. If my friends and I had 8 seperate devices adding up to $2,880 (8 Switch’s + 8 copies of a game) or $2,460 if the game supports download play, we better be able connect them. The 3DS already supports 8 3DSs playing Mario Kart 7 off if just one person owns a copy.

                      If you really do mean 8 people playing off one system, I can’t find any info about how many controllers the Switch supports. The Wii U however, does have games that support 8 players (Smash Bros) and 9 players (Runbow) though the system itself is likely capable of using two gamepads + four Wii Remotes/Pro Controllers + four Gamecube controllers which adds up to 10 players… though that really isn’t realistic for games that divide the screen up.

                      “The system is more powerful period”

                      I’m talking about what the systems provide from a gameplay perspective, not specs. If the Wii U had the same SoC and same memory set up, it would still be conceptually different from the Switch and offer a developer different tools.

                      “and can be played docked or undocked”

                      It’s portability effects WHERE you play a game more so than HOW you play a game. Is there any new types of gameplay that being able to dock and undocked it presents? Because the concept of a Swiss army knife is that you’ll always have the tool you need for the job.

                      If you need a second screen, the Wii U and 3DS are the only ones that can give that to you.

                      If you need a private screen experience, the Wii U and devices that support VR are the only ones that can offer this. Any other platform, including the Switch, would require multiple systems for that.

                      If you need touch, both the Wii U and 3DS can give you that at all times while the Switch only offers that in handheld mode. I feel this discourages the use of the touch screen at all or, at the very least, discourages the heavy use of multi-touch features since the TV Mode alternative is the air mouse features of the right JoyCon which can only simulate a single point of touch. To be fair though, neither the Wii U gamepad or 3DS support multi-touch either but they do have some form of touch available at all times. The PS4 sort of has touch.

                      If it needs NFC, both have it.

                      If you need motion controls, the Wii U gamepad and the 3DS offer them but not to the same extent that the JoyCons or Wii Remote Pluses do. In this case, the Wii U does support Wii Remote Pluses. Two Wii Remote Pluses offer two pointers though so they could emulate multiple points of touch.

                      If you need a microphone, the 3DS and Wii U have it.

                      If you need private audio (through controller speaker or headphones), the Wii U, PS4, and Xbox One can do that. Switch can only offer that in handheld mode.

                      If you need a front facing camera, the 3DS, Vita, and Wii U have it.

                      If you need a back facing camera, only the 3DS and Vita have that.

                      “and just with what comes in the box supports 4 different control options and support for 2 players.”

                      I’ll give you that. I’m assuming you’re talking about using each JoyCon as its own controller, using them as one seperated controller, and using them as one controller connected with the grip but… what’s the fourth one?

                      I’m gonna sound like I’m nitpicking for this but the JoyCons are actually two controllers and are recognized as two controllers by the system, they’re just being utilized together just like using two Wii Remotes together. Both would even offer gyroscope and accelerometer data like the left and right Joycons do. When used seperately though, the JoyCons can only be used horizontally or vertically while Wii Remotes can be used horizontally, vertically, and with attachments like the nunchuck or classic controller and still be recognized as one controller. The reason that’s significant is because, if the Switch only supports four controllers, than it only supports 4 individual JoyCons (which wouldn’t work for FPSs for example), 4 pro controllers, or two sets of JoyCons used as two controllers.

                      The feedback the JoyCon and Wii Remotes provide is very different though. The Wii Remotes offer sound and vibration while JoyCons offer HD Rumble. HD Rumble clearly has more potential here as 1, 2 Switch showcases though the Wii Remote’s speakers have can be pretty handy, too.

                      “Keyboard support could come as well but I agree the ability to pull up menus and a keyboard on one screen while not obstructing the main screen is really cool for a lot of games but sadly Switch can’t do it the same way.”

                      Actually, I think the Switch already supports USB keyboards but yea, the Switch would be about as good for keyboard heavy games (MMOs) as any other system I guess.

                      “The Wii U game pad only had a playable distance of like 20 feet and that sucked but the Switch is pretty much a handheld so it can go where ever you’d want to play.”

                      It’s a little further than that especially if there’s a clear space but that’s a limit of the tech at the time. The Wii U has two Wi-Fi chips: a 2.4Ghz one for internet access and a 5Ghz one for the gamepad. 5Ghz frequencies are higher bandwidth but higher frequencies don’t penetrate objects as well. Within about a year after the Wii U was released, a new WiFi standard called 802.11ac came out that could switch between 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz and general supported a higher bandwidth and more antennae. Had the Wii U gamepad been made with this standard of Wi-Fi and it would have done a few things.

                      1. It would it have saved them a module in the Wii U.
                      2. That savings could have gone into more antennae to increase signal strength and range.
                      3. It would have allowed both the Wii U and gamepad to switch between 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz depending on range.

                      All these things together might have allowed the gamepad to increase it’s distance to anywhere within someones house and maybe even just outside it instead of just one room away. Newer video compression standards like HEVC would have also helped increase range a little while also increase the quality of the stream and new screen technology (IGZO) would have increased the gamepads battery life significantly especially when used as a secondary screen.

                      It’ll never be as portable as the Switch but it’s not meant to be a portable, it’s meant to be a controller which is why it has TV remote features and is designed to be ergonomic and not flat like the Switch. Actually, the gamepad was original design with a flat back, circle pads instead of analog sticks, and directional pads and face buttons horizontally aligned with the circle pads (like the Switch) but people complained after it was shown off at its first E3. The next time it was shown off, Nintendo added grips to the back, gave it proper analog sticks, and align the buttons to match the arch of someone’s thumb. It made the gamepad bigger, but it also made it more comfortable.

                      “The system is only 2 weeks old so we gotta give it some time to put the various playstyles to use.”

                      Oh I get you, but I’m not concerned with playstyles so much as I’m interested in styles of games that can be created with it.

                      Like

            • My apologies. I kind of didn’t make the point I wanted to make. The gamepad is the Swiss army knife of controllers, not consoles.

              I was more so making the argument that the Switch is not a Swiss army knife especially since the point of a Swiss Army knife is that it’s self-contained. You don’t need the corkscrew or scissor attachment to get those functions, they’re built in.

              The Switch needs all these little bandages to it’s concept. Without the dock and the ability to detach the JoyCons, it wouldn’t be usable as a home console. Without attaching the JoyCons to it, it can’t be used as a handheld.

              When it comes to input, a game that relies on the touch screen like Art Academy or Scribblenauts, can’t be played in console mode. Something that uses motion controls heavily COULD be used in portable mode but I would argue that’s probably not easy on a 6.2 inch screen. And even though it would be in portable mode, you have to make the console stationary anyway. That’s probably why ARMS can be played without motion controls.

              There’s so much about how the Switch works that feels like it discourages methods of input instead of encouraging them. It feels like people are equating new places to play with new ways to play. And even that argument only really works if portable game systems never existed.

              The Switch is a modular hardware that provides a modular gameplay experience but never something that’s as all encompassing as people are making it out to be.

              Like

    • And that’s the thing, this is next Nintendo console and it is more powerful than the wiiU which was at least ps3 level so if this is more than that, Nintendo is giving you a different experience yet still at least more powerful than the Wii U. The Wii was basically a gamecube with motion controls. They did not make such a technological leap there. I still dont see how anyone could say it isn’t well worth 300 while people are able to make an argument about how close it is to an xb1 at that size. Not sure how successful it will be but a very cool device.

      Liked by 3 people

  2. At this point, I’m not worried about graphics. It sounds like the Switch is about as good as Xbox One which is ay-okay. Honestly this gen hasn’t looked a whole lot better than last gen, its been more like resolution and framerate improvements. The Switch’s capabilities are more than acceptable especially given its a handheld too.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Can we please put this to rest? The Switch is what it is. It’s incredible for what it is. Neither Sony or Microsoft could have built a better handheld and it’s bound to get better with time. Now, for Commander’s sake, go play your Switch and forget about what’s inside it. Let Nintendo worry about powering your shiny new magic box.

    Like

            • Not really. I’m a huge Nintendo fan. I love their games and I want to play them. With the exception of the HD Rumble, I think the concept of the Switch is stupid and I feel the hardware should be better and is overpriced. I’m stuck in a situation where I need to get it to play the games but I would ideally buy hardware I like. Other than that, I’m just generally interested in tech so yea, I’m going to discuss it and complain about the stuff I don’t like.

              I don’t understand this new culture in the Nintendo community where all criticism is looked down upon and if somebody doesn’t like Nintendo’s hardware they should fuck off. That’s not a mindset that’s healthy for the Nintendo community or Nintendo.

              Like

    • Well many sites have stated that it is a custom X1 chip but this article states that after a break down and talks with developers they found this to be more in line with the actual Tegra X1 chip. Either way that is great for a portable system but still lacking in power for a dedicated home console. So guess we will have to wait and see how the games stack up performance wise. Judging by BotW and Dragon Quest II the system needs a lot of work. Hope Nintendo takes care of these issues sooner than later. PS. I love BotW but I loathe the performance issues it has. 60 hours in and I’m barely 25% done! That’s how much I love the game!

      Liked by 1 person

  4. “after subsequent processing of the GPU from the Nintendo Switch, we have determined that the processor is the Nvidia Tegra T210. The T210 CPU features 4 Cortex A57 and 4 Cortex A53 processor cores and the GPU is a GM20B Maxell core.”

    Where in that does it say “Tegra X1”?
    The Parker chip also runs a Cortex A57 CPU.
    More than likely it’s what people are calling an “X2” chip as it’s using the recent Maxwell Gen 2.

    Like

    • Parker uses Nvidia’s Denver cores for it’s big cores, not A57s. Also, the statement you quoted says it uses Maxwell cores while the Parker uses Pascal. Sure, Pascal is pretty much a die shrink of Maxwell but Nvidia doesn’t consider it to be separate from Maxwell Gen 2.

      Like

  5. Ok, the way I see it in terms of third party support, the Switch is going to appeal to a lot of devs that make games for the 3DS since it can be portable. But as for those bigger developers, you know the one that make AAA titles, it’s gonna be a tough sell. No matter what we say about the Switch being good enough “as a handheld”, it’s lack of power for a console is still very much something that is gonna get in the way and complicate things for a number of them. They’re gonna need to downscale their games even further than they already need to do on the other two consoles which they probably don’t want to do to begin with.

    I don’t expect it to get full third party support. No matter how much the Switch sells, it isn’t going to happen. It would be unrealistic to think everyone would just come out and develop for it after not making games on Nintendo platforms for so long. Most of them are gonna wait and see if it sells and if it is worth their time. If everything goes well, the Switch will show that it’s safe and profitable to develop games for Nintendo and they’ll automatically be on board for the next console.

    That is what was SUPPOSED to happen with the Wii U because we even started getting ports of those games and it looked promising, but Nintendo fucked that up bad. And now we are back to square one. So yeah. Don’t expect heavy support. If it can manage to get a big title every now and then, then it’s already making more progress than the Wii U which is a good thing.

    For Nintendo’s next console, I would strongly suggest they focus on making it more traditional like and focus gaining third party support as well as making the console more competitive. If they want to add some other new way to play, make it completely optional in a way that does not compromise the console’s power.

    This means everyone wins. People that want a console that’s up to par with the competition get exactly that while people who don’t want a normal experience but something new can go ahead and get the optional thing for whatever crazy way of playing Nintendo comes up with next.

    Like

  6. I didn’t think I’d ever say this (because of never being a fan of the Wii U Gamepad). But, the Wii U’s Gamepad is actually MUCH more comfortable in my hands than the Switch is. It’s so flat that it’s hard to hold properly. The Joy-Cons needed to have more of a hump in the back for the fingers to grip while playing portably. Playing with the Joy-Cons attached to that plastic grip controller that it comes with fixes the “hard to grip” problem. However, it’s not exactly portable that way.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The original Wii U gamepad that was first shown off at E3 was the same way. It used circle pads, had the direction pad and face buttons right underneath those circle pads, and had no grip on the back.

      People complained and the next time the gamepad was shown off, it had proper analog sticks, the directional pad and face buttons were placed in a more ergonomic position, and that added he grips on the back.

      That’s why I kind of knew the Switch would be less comfortable to hold. However, ergonomics are one of the things that HAS to be compromised for portability’s sake.

      Like

  7. All but the first two paragraphs of this comment are a copy/paste from my comment in the Factor 5 “Switch is between WiiU and XB1” article, since it’d be just as relevant here, I think. And the second paragraph is only minimally modified from the Factor 5 article at that. So if you’ve already read that article’s comment, you can skip this one. :-)

    I’m not entirely sure this article tells us anything we didn’t already know about the Switch (a problem we also had with the Factor 5 article), and unless I’m very much mistaken on this very initial point, then we’re still left conjecturing on this thing’s final, absolute capabilities since both specs detailed enough to answer the question definitively have still not been forthcoming, nor are reliable benchmarks that would likewise settle things for us. Now surely, somewhere, someone knows for sure, but I’m supremely confident that no such representative of that elite small group is to be found anywhere here in the comments – though I’m sure we have our fair share of self-styled impersonators.

    So then that still leaves us with nothing but conjecture. Mine? Somewhere on the higher end of that spectrum rather than on the lower end. I mean, while docked of course.

    Undocked, I think the Switch is basically identical power-wise to the WiiU, only with an extra pinch or two of salt added to push it just over the line set by the previous console. Docked, I think, if developers can figure a workaround for big games on small storage, then with the GPU running at 100% clock, there should be little problem producing visuals that, maybe not equals, but at least approaches what we can expect out of the XB1 – ESPECIALLY when we factor in the PS4-level ease of programming, and better support for the latest hot APIs than even the PS4 and XB1 themselves have.

    Now, what do I base this on? Is it just wishful thinking? Indeed, it is wishful thinking as I am a specs guy and power-junkie who’s hoping for the best. But it’s not wishful thinking of the sort that is not tethered to anything.

    Here’s what I’m basing it on:

    First, the assertion that the UNDOCKED performance is only a hair better than WiiU: both run at 720, and both run in the same frame rates for each game – more or less. But the Switch runs those experiences more smoothly, with less stutter and frame drop, and sometimes even while retaining certain graphical tweaks over their WiiU counterparts, such as better, more GPU intensive lighting and what have you, albeit still at only 720p. Still, a portable handheld system that is more powerful than a WiiU, a PS3, or a 360…..not too shabby!! That’s not me complaining at all!

    Next, docked: There’s a lot of broughaha over how I am Setsuna runs at 60fps on PS4, while only running in 30 on Switch. People see that, and assume that spells the falling of the sky for the system, or at least for our hopes of it being powerful enough for AAA titles.

    Here’s the problem: gone are the days where we had the leaps from Atari to Nintendo to Super Nintendo to N64 to GameCube, where the hardware boosts were paradigmatic and bearing immediate fruit. Nowadays, it takes a few software generations to really start reaping the true “generational leap” potential of the hardware. And the reason that I believe the I am Setsuna thing is not the bomb fall that people think it is and have blown up the internet over is that it’s not a fair comparison. We’re comparing a 4th generation PS4 title to a 1st generation Switch game. Might I remind everyone of just how few of the launch-window titles for PS4, and especially XB1 ran at 60fps, or even how many ran at less than 1080p? Most of them ran in 900p and/or at 30fps (and with terrible anti-aliasing to boot). The full 1080/60/AA thing didn’t really start becoming commonplace until later on in the system’s lives.

    Furthermore: what was one other curious feature of the launch-window library of PS4/XB1? That’s right, moderately enhanced up-ports of PS3 and XB360 games – better enough that they were certainly the version to have if you had both systems, but not so much better that the new rigs became instant must-haves just to get them. Well, it just so happens that we see just that same phenomenon at work in the launch-era titles for the Switch.

    Consider Fast RMX. It’s just a graphically upgraded version of Fast Racing Neo on the WiiU with all the DLC bundled in, and some new goodies as well. But they are both the same game. The fps are the same in both (60), the textures are basically the same but adjusted for screen resolution. However, not only is RMX running at native full 1080 vs 720 of the WiiU, which in turn, was itself not true 720, but 600-something with upscaling. The Switch (docked) is able to run FastRMX in full 1080 at a steady 60fp AND also include enhanced lighting effects, etc, which would be much more GPU intensive than the not-bad, but much less impressive / demanding ones on the older version.

    In any case, this is PRECISELY the kind of differences we saw between the PS3 / PS4 versions of games in the beginning, and now we’re seeing it happening on the Switch as well.

    So, yeah, when you compare launch era Switch games to 4th year PS4/XB1 games, the Switch doesn’t hold up very well. I admit it. But that’s cheating. When we compare launch era Switch games to launch era PS4/XB1 games, the Switch is actually fairing well, and even following in many of the same footsteps of its more conventional stablemates.

    Now, of course, these early showings are no absolute guarantee that we’ll see the exact same thing happen on the Switch. Perhaps the system doesn’t have as much “ceiling” under which to grow as the others. Or even if the CPU/GPU are indeed up to the task of relatively XB1 performance that the storage constraints and the sd card “musical chairs” it’d take to pull off the blockbuster games may keep developers at bay, and we may end up with a Turbografx16 situation where we had hardware that was at least arguably MORE powerful than the SNES and Genesis, yet due to the strangulating nature of small ROM, mapper-less Hu-Cards, was power we saw little-to-none of in real life. So it may well be with the Switch, theoretically capable of anything, but due to practical restrictions, infeasible to achieve.

    There’s also the thought that if you can only get 2.5hrs of battery out of BotW, how much would you hope to get out of GTAV, or Rise of the Tomb Raider? Of course, -IF- any of those games ever made it to the Switch, I think the whole idea would be to play them docked to reap the benefits of a 100% GPU clock and the battery concerns would be largely irrelevant.

    So, I’m aware of all these contingencies that might either a) disprove the higher power narrative, or more likely b) not disprove the narrative necessarily, but render it inert through mitigating circumstances. But as I said at the outset, without detailed enough specs, or solid benchmarks to definitively answer the question, all we have is conjecture, and all I have to go on in my conjecture is what we’re seeing the thing already doing in the wild, and the picture that view is painting for me is looking almost identical to the one we saw at the dawn of the XB1 and PS4 – which is a SUPER ENCOURAGING sign for those who are hoping this thing is on the more powerful side of the spectrum.

    Four closing points, all minimizing the importance of our level of concern over Switch hardware might – one unfavorable to the Switch, and the others very favorable:

    1) Even if this thing were proven to be MORE powerful than the XB1, in the grand scheme of things, that still equates to being behind the curve in 2017. Even if XB1-level performance is within grasp for the Switch, and PS4 performance is almost within reach, PS4Pro performance is not within reach, and the upcoming Scorpio is going to leave the PS4Pro in the dust – let alone the Switch. Heck, Scorpio might even be enough to put the sweats to my KabyLake i5 / GTX 1070 (soon to be SLI) powered gaming PC. So when held in that perspective, yeah, the Switch is no match. So the question is kinda moot – beyond, I suppose, answering the important question of whether or not the Switch is enough of an improvement over the WiiU that like the Wii and WiiU before it, the Switch is roughly one full generation behind it’s contemporaries, or whether the improvement is only incremental over the WiiU, meaning that it has now actually fallen even further behind the competition and is now 1.5-2 generations behind.

    2) But to obsess about power on the Switch is to miss the whole point of the Switch. The Switch is not about power, even though I am quite optimistic that it is remarkably more powerful than a lot of the press about it has implied. The Switch is about tearing down categorical walls and enabling us to play games in environments and scenarios that we had never envisioned before. I played Fast RMX out on the deck while smoking a cigar, keeping the Switch and Joycons low enough that the smoke wouldn’t reach them. Even with a Vita or a 3DS, I wouldn’t really be able to do that, because I’d have to have the system closer – “in the smoke zone” to be able to see what I was doing – and even if I could, it still-wouldn’t be a console-level performance, like what I got herfing it up on the deck this time. It’s fine to discuss performance – quite good even, especially when it’s being widely underestimated – because it helps us set our expectations accordingly. But never has it been truer of a system than it is with the Switch to say that the power’s not the main thing here.

    3) The big fear is that the Switch will flounder because the 3rd parties won’t bring their AAA games to the system because it’s not powerful enough. This is possible. But if the use case is compelling enough, and that’s what draws gamers, and that’s the narrative that rules the day, then even if those games have to be scaled down in detail or in scope, and/or have to create a lot of traffic into and out of our sd slot, then those games may be coming anyway. And even if Skyrim turns out to only be an upgraded PS3 game rather than a downgraded PS4 game, perhaps, than not only does that not definitively put any nails in the coffin of my hopes for this system’s power capabilities because, again, 1st gen, but so what, it’s Skyrim….on the porch, in the car, in a plane, in a house…with a mouse and what have you. Even if it is lesser than the PS4 version, I don’t see that being so damning, as afterallI, being a PC gamer, I get to look down upon and laugh at the PS4 people looking down upon and laughing at the Switch. I’d like to see you jetsetting around with Skyrim on your XB1, eh? Good luck! This facet alone might be enough to draw a fair number of AAAs. Waaaaaaaaaaaayyyy too soon to rule this out, to those of you who so prematurely ejaculate doom and gloom.

    4) In a sense, this is already a victory for the Switch anyway. Consider: we have this tiny little ARM SOC powered tablet, and that we’re even mentioning putting its performance in the same echelon as the big hulking X86 XB1 and PS4…….is a PHENOMENAL feat given the form factor. So, the spectrum of WiiU to XB1 that this system resides somewhere within, if we see it land anywhere XBox of center, or even dead center, then we’ve got something truly incredible in our hands regardless! And if it’s over 80% towards XBox, I’m gonna be ecstatic!

    Cheers!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s