Nintendo Picked The Best Possible Hardware For The Switch

The Tegra X1 is quite literally the best possible hardware Nintendo could have chosen for the Switch. Sure, it is underclocked, but it does provide many benefits over other options for SoCs.

The Tegra X1 has 256 "Maxwell 2" GPU cores, but offers a feature not found on desktop Maxwell GPUs; double speed FP16 support. The Switch has a 2X performance boost when executing FP16 code, this is a modern trick GPUs are starting to use now. The PS4 and Xbox One don't have this feature (but the Pro and Scorpio support double rate FP16).

Unreal Engine 4 was written to make extensive use of FP16. It is used in ALL of their shaders, for example. This is why Snake Pass was ported so quickly to the Switch and performs and looks favorably well against the PS4 version. I am by no means saying that the Switch is anywhere close to the raw throughput of the PS4, but the more modern GPU architecture helps put out impressive results with less effort, thanks to Nvidia's tools.

Sure, we have the immensely powerful Apple A9X, whose CPU cores easily outclasses the ARM A57/A53 big-little configuration found in the X1, but the graphics capabilities of the Tegra X1 make more sense in a game console. The software tools Nvidia is providing to Nintendo is a great asset for developers. This combination of hardware combined with powerful software tools is something Nintendo couldn't have done on their own.

But the PS4 and Xbox One are so much more powerful.

The Switch is a tablet. No desktop grade hardware would make sense in this form factor. The X1 is the best choice for this application.

What about the Tegra X2?

The X2 wasn't ready at the time the Switch went into production. Nvidia's own 2017 Shield TV is still shipping with the X1 chip inside. And the wait wouldn't have been worth it. The performance increase wouldn't have been that large. I'd expect a hardware refresh with the X2 sometime within the next 3 years, though.

What about developing their own SoC?

This would have cost Nintendo tons in R&D and the product wouldn't be as robust as Nvidia's Maxwell 2 architecture and software tools. Developing a modern SoC (something Nintendo has never done) would take tons of time and would increase the cost of the console immensely.

If you aren't convinced, Fast RMX is a great technical demonstration for the Switch. It runs in 900p/1080p (dynamic) at 60FPS with dynamic lighting (light scattering), physically based rendering (PBR) and post processing effects.

Digital Foundry: Fast RMX Analysis

In my view, Nintendo nailed it with the hardware in the Switch. I am excited to see more modern engines such as UE4 take advantage of it.

My phone is more powerful.

Yes, given the concept they did make very smart choices.

However, it remains to be seen if those choices turn into support. I think the Wii U showed that concept alone can't carry a system.

If it's the iPhone 7, then the CPU is faster, but the GPU isn't. The X1 outperforms the PowerVR GT7600 in 3D Mark 2013 and would perform even worse in UE4 due to the lack of modern GPU features such as double rate FP16. Nvidia is way ahead of everyone else in this regard.

Also the fact that the Switch doesn't have the overhead that comes with iOS and Android, developers can take more advantage of the hardware.

Maybe battery life would have benefited from the newer pascal X2.

for what nintendo set out to do it is the best choice they had available to them. the X2 would have been better but it would have meant we would still be waiting for the switch more than likely. its focused more on GPU performance which is where the focus should be for a gaming device. its also very dev friendly and is very much a known quantity.

the hardware also gives them a great degree of flexability in the devices they can make. they can still use it in a more traditional home console format. by adding GSM equipment they could make a phone version. or, with a die shrink or 2, they could make a smaller device. its also very scalable so its a platform that should still be good enough for nintendo for a long time.

at the same time though lets not be under any illusions. AAA multiplat 3rd party support is gone. they are not going to port to the switch. its grand for AA, indie and nintendos own developers but its a selection of hardware made by nintendo for the requirements of nintendo only.

The Switch is plenty powerful enough and you get brilliant games you can't find elsewhere. I never played a Wii U game and thought it was ugly (seriously go play Mario Kart, paper Mario, wind waker remake, Donkey Kong Tropical freeze etc). The Switch is even more powerful than that, has UE4 support finally and is building enough popularity where more third party support will happen :) nice post btw, I do enjoy teck talk like this. Will it get the latest call of duty or whatever other FPS is popular these days? Prob not and I personally could not care less (find those games boring personally). I did not know about that double performance boost! I haz new knowledge now

Well said, Nintendo made a very smart decision with the hardware. Good right up, its rare in system wars.

I'm just not seeing it. As usual, Nintendo made a terrible decision by going with a risc chip when the competition went x86. Now developers are faced with easy porting of software between the Xbox one and PS4, and potentially much more work on the switch with a different architecture and far fewer resources. What Nintendo should have done is put an Intel chip in the thing.

I get that Nintendo fans get excited, but this was a horrible decision that is once again going to bite Nintendo in the ass. This is basically the Wii u 2 and it's entirely too large to use as a portable handheld that will replace the 3ds.

@tjandmia: Switch Mini will replace 3DS. And porting is easy, indie developers do it all the time with no issues. If you cant port...well, get gud.

Seems like a solid $179.99 in 2017 machine to me. lol :P

@Rikusaki:

Double rate Fp16 feature is nice, but the GFLOPS boost must be backed by memory bandwidth.

Qualcomm Snapdragon's Adreno 4xx GPU supports native FP16 with double rate features (reference doc no. 80-NU141-1 B, PAGE 152)

@ronvalencia: Snapdragon sucks, get an Apple.

Apple smashes double gimped TX1 i.e. it's slower than Google Pixel C.

http://www.futuremark.com/hardware/mobile/Google+Pixel+C/review

Ice Storm Unlimited's graphics score is 52536 at 850 Mhz.

Switch's GPU specs.

At 384 Mhz handheld mode, it's 45 percent Pixel C's 850 Mhz tablet mode.

**Increased to 921 MHz in dock mode.

Ice Storm Unlimited's graphics score estimate is 23733 at handheld mode.

@ronvalencia: Cause Apple the best. Apple smashes everything.

@iandizion713: Nintendo and Apple fanboy, classic. Getting shitted on once is one thing, twice is unheard of.

At 384 Mhz handheld mode, it's about 45 percent from Pixel C's 850 Mhz tablet mode. Note why no mobile phone vendor has selected TX1 SoC.

@ronvalencia: Cause none focus only on gaming, duh.

@iandizion713:

Yes and I wonder why is it still so hard for people to understand this common fact by now. Phone multi task for many other things.

Nintendo may have picked the best possible hardware for the Switch...sadly they went & decrease its performance....its obvious they had to do that in handheld...but in docked mode also?. :P

That alone doesn't change CPU/GPU hardware capability.

Nvidia has value added services that Nintendo wanted i.e. good software engineering support from SoC vendor. Qualcomm is worst than AMD on software engineering support.

http://me.ign.com/en/nintendo-switch/126680/news/nvidia-ceo-calls-nintendo-switch-design-ground-breaking

Quoting dear leader Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang

“However, the other factor is whether we could really make a contribution or not. If a particular game console doesn’t require our special skills, what we can uniquely bring, then it’s a commodity business that may not be suited for us.”

Phone vendors with 3rd party SoCs, just rolls out Google's Android based phones, hence they are not interested with Nvidia's value added services.

Both MS and Sony has their own software engineering support teams which doesn't require Nvidia's value added services.

As shown from Scorpio, MS has the software engineering teams to guide AMD towards optimized hardware for existing XBO D3D12 software.

Nintendo has released overclock firmware update which increase the dock mode clock speed from 768 Mhz to 921 MHz i.e. it's very close to Shield TV's 1Ghz.

Switch has 472 GFLOPS Fp32 and 944 GFLOPS Fp16 over 25 GB/s memory bandwidth. Maxwell V2 DCC may increase effective bandwidth to 38 GB/s.

DCC = delta memory compression.

This is a smart post and the words in bold are a red flag.

I'm sorry TC but Nintendo probably picked the worst possible hardware for the Switch. I'm sorry.

should have just made a normal console with normal hardware

instead we got an underpowered and over priced "handheld" with laughable battery life

Qualcomm has software engineering support worst than AMD. Qualcomm doesn't have Gameworks + Nvidia engineer to make life easier for the game programmer.

Read http://me.ign.com/en/nintendo-switch/126680/news/nvidia-ceo-calls-nintendo-switch-design-ground-breaking

You have Nvidia software engineers helping Nintendo's creative teams. Qualcomm... it's another AMD style commodity hardware vendor.

Nintendo picked the best available for the price. TC is right, Nintendo made a genius pick. Its perfect for gaming.

If this is the best they could have picked up. Lets just say their bar was low.

@silversix_: Show us a better one then.

I ain't showing anything to you. Cuz even if i prove you wrong, you'll come up with 'specs don't matter anyways' or something similar. Remember, powerful specs lead to great graphics, and we all know how much of a gimmick graphics are.

@silversix_: Sounds good to me.

this

Nintendo basically made the wiiu 2 and used hardware completely different from what industry developers are using. Once again, it made the dumbest mistake they possibly could. It's getting to the point where even die hard Nintendo fans are starting to realize that Nintendo doesn't have a clue what is doing. The switch is going to be just as much a disaster as the wiiu was. Sad.

Read http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-new-performance-mode-boosts-handheld-switch-clocks-by-25-per-cent.

Sorry, it's another digital foundry link.

Programmers can select 384 MHz or 307.2 MHz in handheld mode. 384 MHz increases battery consumption battery.

Samsung, Intel and GoFlo has 14 nm FinFET tech.

Nice crystal ball you have their! Too bad it's selling better than the Wii U

The WiiU is nowhere to be found in stores and the only thing selling it is Zelda. When that dies down, the switch in in trouble.

LOL!

@FireEmblem_Man: I remember Nintendo fans reacting the same way when we told them the WiiU was going to fail. After its first year, they accepted it.

I hate to think what would have happened if they went with the 'worst possible' hardware. Maybe if they'd done that they would be pedaling last gen hardware with shit performance and shit graphics and just all round fucking AWFUL value for money to play the same games they have given you for 100 years.

But a new Zelda makes it all okay so yeah, people really are that stupid.

Yup. There's reasons beyond just the physical hardware that made this a great choice for Nintendo. It's great business for both Nintendo and Nvidia. Nvidia finally has a strong foothold in the console market.

Nintendo could have done a little better, but not by much. As a handheld, it's definitely an impressive improvement over the 3DS; those two systems aren't even in the same stratosphere when it comes to technical capability. Certainly one of the biggest generational leaps I can remember.

Yep that is why the system literally melts sd cards, bends with use, and has a flimsy plastic screen protector.

@Rikusaki said:

The Tegra X1 is quite literally the best possible hardware Nintendo could have chosen for the Switch. Sure, it is underclocked, but it does provide many benefits over other options for SoCs.

The Tegra X1 has 256 "Maxwell 2" GPU cores, but offers a feature not found on desktop Maxwell GPUs; double speed FP16 support. The Switch has a 2X performance boost when executing FP16 code, this is a modern trick GPUs are starting to use now. The PS4 and Xbox One don't have this feature (but the Pro and Scorpio support double rate FP16).

Unreal Engine 4 was written to make extensive use of FP16. It is used in ALL of their shaders, for example. This is why Snake Pass was ported so quickly to the Switch and performs and looks favorably well against the PS4 version. I am by no means saying that the Switch is anywhere close to the raw throughput of the PS4, but the more modern GPU architecture helps put out impressive results with less effort, thanks to Nvidia's tools.

Sure, we have the immensely powerful Apple A9X, whose CPU cores easily outclasses the ARM A57/A53 big-little configuration found in the X1, but the graphics capabilities of the Tegra X1 make more sense in a game console. The software tools Nvidia is providing to Nintendo is a great asset for developers. This combination of hardware combined with powerful software tools is something Nintendo couldn't have done on their own.

But the PS4 and Xbox One are so much more powerful.

The Switch is a tablet. No desktop grade hardware would make sense in this form factor. The X1 is the best choice for this application.

What about the Tegra X2?

The X2 wasn't ready at the time the Switch went into production. Nvidia's own 2017 Shield TV is still shipping with the X1 chip inside. And the wait wouldn't have been worth it. The performance increase wouldn't have been that large. I'd expect a hardware refresh with the X2 sometime within the next 3 years, though.

What about developing their own SoC?

This would have cost Nintendo tons in R&D and the product wouldn't be as robust as Nvidia's Maxwell 2 architecture and software tools. Developing a modern SoC (something Nintendo has never done) would take tons of time and would increase the cost of the console immensely.

If you aren't convinced, Fast RMX is a great technical demonstration for the Switch. It runs in 900p/1080p (dynamic) at 60FPS with dynamic lighting (light scattering), physically based rendering (PBR) and post processing effects.

Digital Foundry: Fast RMX Analysis

In my view, Nintendo nailed it with the hardware in the Switch. I am excited to see more modern engines such as UE4 take advantage of it.

@SakusEnvoy: Well said, it a mice leap from the awesome 3DS.

@tjandmia: ARM is just as widely used as x86, and it's especially a plus for mobile developers coming from ARM hardware. The problem with the Wii U wasn't that it used different hardware, it's that it used outdated and needlessly complicated hardware that everyone was ready to move on from. The Switch uses off-the-shelf tablet parts that are still widely used today. That's completely different from the Wii U.

OK, it still crap hardware that will limit third party support.

Doesn't matter. It's completely different from the competition and that's why most games are going to miss the switch, just like they did with the WiiU. Developers are having enough trouble with the Xbox one being so weak. The switch is a disaster compared to that.

Nintendo fans can tell themselves how great the switch is as much as they want, but just like the Wii U, NIntendo made a huge mistake with the hardware.