Nintendo Switch: Noticias, comentarios, dudas... • ¿Pagarás por el Online?

xTAZORx escribió:Que ganas de que llegue el 13 de Enero para que se deje de hablar de flops y se hable de la consola y de sus juegos

sahaquielz escribió:

Pochetinno escribió:Nintendo....era tan difícil llegar a 1 Teraflop (de los de 32) en modo sobremesa ???

Si

Pochetinno escribió:

sahaquielz escribió:

Pochetinno escribió:Nintendo....era tan difícil llegar a 1 Teraflop (de los de 32) en modo sobremesa ???

Si

Claro que si. Como el dock solo es un puto ventilador y Nintendo anda quebrada con pokemon go y Mario Run.....

Pochetinno escribió:

sahaquielz escribió:

Pochetinno escribió:Nintendo....era tan difícil llegar a 1 Teraflop (de los de 32) en modo sobremesa ???

Si

Claro que si. Como el dock solo es un puto ventilador y Nintendo anda quebrada con pokemon go y Mario Run.....

Originally Posted by Thraktor
I haven't had time to read through every response here, so I'm probably repeating what others have already said, but here are my thoughts on the matter, anyway:

CPU Clock

This isn't really surprising, given (as predicted) CPU clocks stay the same between portable and docked mode to make sure games don't suddenly become CPU limited when running in portable mode.

The overall performance really depends on the core configuration. An octo-core A72 setup at 1GHz would be pretty damn close to PS4's 1.6GHZ 8-core Jaguar CPU. I don't necessarily expect that, but a 4x A72 + 4x A53 @ 1GHz should certainly be able to provide "good enough" performance for ports, and wouldn't be at all unreasonable to expect.

Memory Clock

This is also pretty much as expected as 1.6GHz is pretty much the standard LPDDR4 clock speed (which I guess confirms LPDDR4, not that there was a huge amount of doubt). Clocking down in portable mode is sensible, as lower resolution means smaller framebuffers means less bandwidth needed, so they can squeeze out a bit of extra battery life by cutting it down.

Again, though, the clock speed is only one factor. There are two other things that can come into play here. The second factor, obviously enough, is the bus width of the memory. Basically, you're either looking at a 64 bit bus, for 25.6GB/s, or a 128 bit bus, for 51.2GB/s of bandwidth. The third is any embedded memory pools or cache that are on-die with the CPU and GPU. Nintendo hasn't shied away from large embedded memory pools or cache before (just look at the Wii U's CPU, its GPU, the 3DS SoC, the n3DS SoC, etc., etc.), so it would be quite out of character for them to avoid such customisations this time around. Nvidia's GPU architectures from Maxwell onwards use tile-based rendering, which allows them to use on-die caches to reduce main memory bandwidth consumption, which ties in quite well with Nintendo's habits in this regard. Something like a 4MB L3 victim cache (similar to what Apple uses on their A-series SoCs) could potentially reduce bandwidth requirements by quite a lot, although it's extremely difficult to quantify the precise benefit.

GPU Clock

This is where things get a lot more interesting. To start off, the relationship between the two clock speeds is pretty much as expected. With a target of 1080p in docked mode and 720p in undocked mode, there's a 2.25x difference in pixels to be rendered, so a 2.5x difference in clock speeds would give developers a roughly equivalent amount of GPU performance per pixel in both modes.

Once more, though, and perhaps most importantly in this case, any interpretation of the clock speeds themselves is entirely dependent on the configuration of the GPU, namely the number of SMs (also ROPs, front-end blocks, etc, but we'll assume that they're kept in sensible ratios).

Case 1: 2 SMs - Docked: 384 GF FP32 / 768 GF FP16 - Portable: 153.6 GF FP32 / 307.2 GF FP16

I had generally been assuming that 2 SMs was the most likely configuration (as, I believe, had most people), simply on the basis of allowing for the smallest possible SoC which could meet Nintendo's performance goals. I'm not quite so sure now, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, if Nintendo were to use these clocks with a 2 SM configuration (assuming 20nm), then why bother with active cooling? The Pixel C runs a passively cooled TX1, and although people will be quick to point out that Pixel C throttles its GPU clocks while running for a prolonged time due to heat output, there are a few things to be aware of with Pixel C. Firstly, there's a quad-core A57 CPU cluster at 1.9GHz running alongside it, which on 20nm will consume a whopping 7.39W when fully clocked. Switch's CPU might be expected to only consume around 1.5W, by comparison. Secondly, although I haven't been able to find any decent analysis of Pixel C's GPU throttling, the mentions of it I have found indicate that, although it does throttle, the drop in performance is relatively small, and as it's clocked about 100MHz above Switch to begin with it may only be throttling down to a 750MHz clock or so even under prolonged workloads. There is of course the fact that Pixel C has an aluminium body to allow for easier thermal dissipation, but it likely would have been cheaper (and mechanically much simpler) for Nintendo to adopt the same approach, rather than active cooling.

Alternatively, we can think of it a different way. If Switch has active cooling, then why clock so low? Again assuming 20nm, we know that a full 1GHz clock shouldn't be a problem for active cooling, even with a very small quiet fan, given the Shield TV (which, again, uses a much more power-hungry CPU than Switch). Furthermore, if they wanted a 2.5x ratio between the two clock speeds, that would give a 400MHz clock in portable mode. We know that the TX1, with 2 SMs on 20nm, consumes 1.51W (GPU only) when clocked at about 500MHz. Even assuming that that's a favourable demo for the TX1, at 20% lower clock speed I would be surprised if a 400MHz 2 SM GPU would consume any more than 1.5W. That's obviously well within the bounds for passive cooling, but even being very conservative with battery consumption it shouldn't be an issue. The savings from going from 400MHz to 300MHz would perhaps only increase battery life by about 5-10% tops, which makes it puzzling why they'd turn down the extra performance.

Finally, the recently published Switch patent application actually explicitly talks about running the fan at a lower RPM while in portable mode, and doesn't even mention the possibility of turning it off while running in portable mode. A 2 SM 20nm Maxwell GPU at ~300MHz shouldn't require a fan at all, and although it's possible that they've changed their mind since filing the patent in June, it begs the question of why they would even consider running the fan in portable mode if their target performance was anywhere near this.

Case 2: 3 SMs - Docked: 576 GF FP32 / 1,152 GF FP16 - Portable: 230.4 GF FP32 / 460.8 GF FP16

This is a bit closer to the performance level we've been led to expect, and it does make a little bit of sense from the perspective of giving a little bit over TX1 performance at lower power consumption. (It also matches reports of overclocked TX1s in early dev kits, as you'd need to clock a bit over the standard 1GHz to reach docked performance here.) Active cooling while docked makes sense for a 3 SM GPU at 768MHz, although wouldn't be needed in portable mode. It still leaves the question of why not use 1GHz/400MHz clocks, as even with 3 SMs they should be able to get by with passive cooling at 400MHz, and battery consumption shouldn't be that much of an issue.

Case 3: 4 SMs - Docked: 768 GF FP32 / 1,536 GF FP16 - Portable: 307.2 GF FP32 / 614.4 GF FP16

This would be on the upper limit of what's been expected, performance wise, and the clock speeds start to make more sense at this point, as portable power consumption for the GPU would be around the 2W mark, so further clock increases may start to effect battery life a bit too much (not that 400-500MHz would be impossible from that point of view, though). Active cooling would be necessary in docked mode, but still shouldn't be needed in portable mode (except perhaps if they go with a beefier CPU config than expected).

Case 4: More than 4 SMs

I'd consider this pretty unlikely, but just from the point of view of "what would you have to do to actually need active cooling in portable mode at these clocks", something like 6 SMs would probably do it (1.15 TF FP32/2.3 TF FP16 docked, 460 GF FP32/920 GF FP16 portable), but I wouldn't count on that. For one, it's well beyond the performance levels that reliable-so-far journalists have told us to expect, but it would also require a much larger die than would be typical for a portable device like this (still much smaller than PS4/XBO SoCs, but that's a very different situation).

TL:DR

Each of these numbers are only a single variable in the equation, and we need to know things like CPU configuration, memory bus width, embedded memory pools, number of GPU SMs, etc. to actually fill out the rest of those equations to get the relevant info. Even on the worst end of the spectrum, we're still getting by far the most ambitious portable that Nintendo's ever released, which also doubles as a home console that's noticeably higher performing than Wii U, which is fine by me.

dani699 escribió:Ante el ataque troll de algunos usuarios, reflotamos:

Originally Posted by Thraktor
I haven't had time to read through every response here, so I'm probably repeating what others have already said, but here are my thoughts on the matter, anyway:

CPU Clock

This isn't really surprising, given (as predicted) CPU clocks stay the same between portable and docked mode to make sure games don't suddenly become CPU limited when running in portable mode.

The overall performance really depends on the core configuration. An octo-core A72 setup at 1GHz would be pretty damn close to PS4's 1.6GHZ 8-core Jaguar CPU. I don't necessarily expect that, but a 4x A72 + 4x A53 @ 1GHz should certainly be able to provide "good enough" performance for ports, and wouldn't be at all unreasonable to expect.

Memory Clock

This is also pretty much as expected as 1.6GHz is pretty much the standard LPDDR4 clock speed (which I guess confirms LPDDR4, not that there was a huge amount of doubt). Clocking down in portable mode is sensible, as lower resolution means smaller framebuffers means less bandwidth needed, so they can squeeze out a bit of extra battery life by cutting it down.

Again, though, the clock speed is only one factor. There are two other things that can come into play here. The second factor, obviously enough, is the bus width of the memory. Basically, you're either looking at a 64 bit bus, for 25.6GB/s, or a 128 bit bus, for 51.2GB/s of bandwidth. The third is any embedded memory pools or cache that are on-die with the CPU and GPU. Nintendo hasn't shied away from large embedded memory pools or cache before (just look at the Wii U's CPU, its GPU, the 3DS SoC, the n3DS SoC, etc., etc.), so it would be quite out of character for them to avoid such customisations this time around. Nvidia's GPU architectures from Maxwell onwards use tile-based rendering, which allows them to use on-die caches to reduce main memory bandwidth consumption, which ties in quite well with Nintendo's habits in this regard. Something like a 4MB L3 victim cache (similar to what Apple uses on their A-series SoCs) could potentially reduce bandwidth requirements by quite a lot, although it's extremely difficult to quantify the precise benefit.

GPU Clock

This is where things get a lot more interesting. To start off, the relationship between the two clock speeds is pretty much as expected. With a target of 1080p in docked mode and 720p in undocked mode, there's a 2.25x difference in pixels to be rendered, so a 2.5x difference in clock speeds would give developers a roughly equivalent amount of GPU performance per pixel in both modes.

Once more, though, and perhaps most importantly in this case, any interpretation of the clock speeds themselves is entirely dependent on the configuration of the GPU, namely the number of SMs (also ROPs, front-end blocks, etc, but we'll assume that they're kept in sensible ratios).

Case 1: 2 SMs - Docked: 384 GF FP32 / 768 GF FP16 - Portable: 153.6 GF FP32 / 307.2 GF FP16

I had generally been assuming that 2 SMs was the most likely configuration (as, I believe, had most people), simply on the basis of allowing for the smallest possible SoC which could meet Nintendo's performance goals. I'm not quite so sure now, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, if Nintendo were to use these clocks with a 2 SM configuration (assuming 20nm), then why bother with active cooling? The Pixel C runs a passively cooled TX1, and although people will be quick to point out that Pixel C throttles its GPU clocks while running for a prolonged time due to heat output, there are a few things to be aware of with Pixel C. Firstly, there's a quad-core A57 CPU cluster at 1.9GHz running alongside it, which on 20nm will consume a whopping 7.39W when fully clocked. Switch's CPU might be expected to only consume around 1.5W, by comparison. Secondly, although I haven't been able to find any decent analysis of Pixel C's GPU throttling, the mentions of it I have found indicate that, although it does throttle, the drop in performance is relatively small, and as it's clocked about 100MHz above Switch to begin with it may only be throttling down to a 750MHz clock or so even under prolonged workloads. There is of course the fact that Pixel C has an aluminium body to allow for easier thermal dissipation, but it likely would have been cheaper (and mechanically much simpler) for Nintendo to adopt the same approach, rather than active cooling.

Alternatively, we can think of it a different way. If Switch has active cooling, then why clock so low? Again assuming 20nm, we know that a full 1GHz clock shouldn't be a problem for active cooling, even with a very small quiet fan, given the Shield TV (which, again, uses a much more power-hungry CPU than Switch). Furthermore, if they wanted a 2.5x ratio between the two clock speeds, that would give a 400MHz clock in portable mode. We know that the TX1, with 2 SMs on 20nm, consumes 1.51W (GPU only) when clocked at about 500MHz. Even assuming that that's a favourable demo for the TX1, at 20% lower clock speed I would be surprised if a 400MHz 2 SM GPU would consume any more than 1.5W. That's obviously well within the bounds for passive cooling, but even being very conservative with battery consumption it shouldn't be an issue. The savings from going from 400MHz to 300MHz would perhaps only increase battery life by about 5-10% tops, which makes it puzzling why they'd turn down the extra performance.

Finally, the recently published Switch patent application actually explicitly talks about running the fan at a lower RPM while in portable mode, and doesn't even mention the possibility of turning it off while running in portable mode. A 2 SM 20nm Maxwell GPU at ~300MHz shouldn't require a fan at all, and although it's possible that they've changed their mind since filing the patent in June, it begs the question of why they would even consider running the fan in portable mode if their target performance was anywhere near this.

Case 2: 3 SMs - Docked: 576 GF FP32 / 1,152 GF FP16 - Portable: 230.4 GF FP32 / 460.8 GF FP16

This is a bit closer to the performance level we've been led to expect, and it does make a little bit of sense from the perspective of giving a little bit over TX1 performance at lower power consumption. (It also matches reports of overclocked TX1s in early dev kits, as you'd need to clock a bit over the standard 1GHz to reach docked performance here.) Active cooling while docked makes sense for a 3 SM GPU at 768MHz, although wouldn't be needed in portable mode. It still leaves the question of why not use 1GHz/400MHz clocks, as even with 3 SMs they should be able to get by with passive cooling at 400MHz, and battery consumption shouldn't be that much of an issue.

Case 3: 4 SMs - Docked: 768 GF FP32 / 1,536 GF FP16 - Portable: 307.2 GF FP32 / 614.4 GF FP16

This would be on the upper limit of what's been expected, performance wise, and the clock speeds start to make more sense at this point, as portable power consumption for the GPU would be around the 2W mark, so further clock increases may start to effect battery life a bit too much (not that 400-500MHz would be impossible from that point of view, though). Active cooling would be necessary in docked mode, but still shouldn't be needed in portable mode (except perhaps if they go with a beefier CPU config than expected).

Case 4: More than 4 SMs

I'd consider this pretty unlikely, but just from the point of view of "what would you have to do to actually need active cooling in portable mode at these clocks", something like 6 SMs would probably do it (1.15 TF FP32/2.3 TF FP16 docked, 460 GF FP32/920 GF FP16 portable), but I wouldn't count on that. For one, it's well beyond the performance levels that reliable-so-far journalists have told us to expect, but it would also require a much larger die than would be typical for a portable device like this (still much smaller than PS4/XBO SoCs, but that's a very different situation).

TL:DR

Each of these numbers are only a single variable in the equation, and we need to know things like CPU configuration, memory bus width, embedded memory pools, number of GPU SMs, etc. to actually fill out the rest of those equations to get the relevant info. Even on the worst end of the spectrum, we're still getting by far the most ambitious portable that Nintendo's ever released, which also doubles as a home console that's noticeably higher performing than Wii U, which is fine by me.

Pochetinno escribió:
Y hasta vendería mi Wii U y PS4 por tenerla y tan contento que me quedara SOLO con ELLA.

DRaGMaRe escribió:Increíble que siendo el subforo con la media de edad más elevada de EOL se vean estas tremendas pataletas por la potencia...
Para los que vengan de 3DS será un salto brutal, para los que vengan de Wii U algo similar y para los que vengan de otra cosa, un paso atrás.
Yo veo un 2 a 1 xD

pakillo_ds escribió:

Pochetinno escribió:
Y hasta vendería mi Wii U y PS4 por tenerla y tan contento que me quedara SOLO con ELLA.

¿Pero primero tendrás que ver qué juegos van a salir para ella no? ¿O vas a jugar con el teraflop?

DRaGMaRe escribió:

pakillo_ds escribió:

Pochetinno escribió:
Y hasta vendería mi Wii U y PS4 por tenerla y tan contento que me quedara SOLO con ELLA.

¿Pero primero tendrás que ver qué juegos van a salir para ella no? ¿O vas a jugar con el teraflop?

Eso mismo pensé yo cuando lo leí. Uno de los mayores sin sentidos que se pueden leer por aquí.

DRaGMaRe escribió:Increíble que siendo el subforo con la media de edad más elevada de EOL se vean estas tremendas pataletas por la potencia...
Para los que vengan de 3DS será un salto brutal, para los que vengan de Wii U algo similar y para los que vengan de otra cosa, un paso atrás.
Yo veo un 2 a 1 xD

Solid.Snake escribió:

DRaGMaRe escribió:Increíble que siendo el subforo con la media de edad más elevada de EOL se vean estas tremendas pataletas por la potencia...
Para los que vengan de 3DS será un salto brutal, para los que vengan de Wii U algo similar y para los que vengan de otra cosa, un paso atrás.
Yo veo un 2 a 1 xD

Eso es porque lo que abunda no son los troles, sino los fanboys, que enciman tachan de troll a todos los demás.

Pochetinno escribió:Tecnología Si hay.

Además Switch no solo es "una tableta" TAMBIÉN ES UN DOCK; donde TRANQUILAMENTE se pudo añadir componentes si Nintendo no fuese tan rastrera........

Pochetinno escribió:El modo dock y sobremesa si pueden ser distintos y bastante
Solo pasar de 720p a 1080p ES BASTANTE y seguiría siendo EL MISMO JUEGO.

Cuanto pagaría???
LO QUE FUERA ; si Nintendo hiciese bien las cosas.

Si Switch hubiese llegado en modo SOBREMESA a mínimo 1 Teraflop; para mí sería la CONSOLA DEFINITIVA.

Y hasta vendería mi Wii U y PS4 por tenerla y tan contento que me quedara SOLO con ELLA.

Pochetinno escribió:Si NX portátil tuviese unos 750 gflops (Tegra X2) y conectada al dock (con un chip extra) llegase a los 2, 5 Teraflops.

Sería mi sueño hecho realidad.

Además como a Nintendo no le interesa llegar a los 4K ni mierdas.... todos los juegos irían a 1080p 60fps y se verían de lujaso.

Vamos Nintendo !!!

Pochetinno escribió:Creo que la consola portátil con los controles debería costar 200 dólares y el dock que aumenta potencia, memoria y te permite conectarla a la TV 100 dólares.
Sería un gran precio.

Dongoros escribió:Madre mia y sin clases hasta el 9 de enero

xDarkPeTruSx escribió:

Dongoros escribió:Madre mia y sin clases hasta el 9 de enero

Al menos en cataluña tienen clase hasta el viernes. Imaginate a partir del lunes que viene....

El hilo rebasa las 2 mil páginas antes del 13 de enero....

Dongoros escribió:Madre mia y sin clases hasta el 9 de enero

Xkings escribió:

Dongoros escribió:Madre mia y sin clases hasta el 9 de enero

+1. Compañero.

En la puta hora que me han dado vacaciones en el curro. Me están dando ganas de ir a currar, no te digo más.

sahaquielz escribió:@Solid.Snake
Trolles y fanboys no son los que opinan que será muy potente o poco potente. Tampoco los que dicen que les gustaría que fuese así o asá.

Trolles y fanboys son los que AFIRMAN tajantemente sin datos y con soberbia. Los que dicen verdades absolutas lanzando puyitas. O los que van de perdonavidas con los demás.
Esa actitud es la que caldea el foro.

Dongoros escribió: NO
Eso es porque venís los 4 tocapelotas de siempre a meter mierda y a no entender que queremos juegos (y preferiblemente de nintendo) y no flops.

Siempre repitiendo Thirds thirds thirds, que no quierp juegos clonicos de futbol, shooter. Queremos juegos originales.

PUTOS PESADOS, a ver si os enterais ya, cojones.

Pochetinno escribió:Y tan difícil era usar 2 tegras uno para la consola y uno para el dock y llegar así al mínimo que se le podría pedir a una consola de SOBREMESA actual ???

Zeta V escribió:

Pochetinno escribió:Y tan difícil era usar 2 tegras uno para la consola y uno para el dock y llegar así al mínimo que se le podría pedir a una consola de SOBREMESA actual ???

Si.

plata 7 escribió:Para quien dice que solo quiere juegos originales que hable por el, no por toda la comunidad.
A mí si que me interesan thirds, prefiero tenerlo en la portátil y llevarlo donde quiera, a tener que andar con la ps4/pc.
Cuanta más variedad mejor, porque que yo sepa que salgan thirds no va a lastrar los originales de Nintendo de ninguna manera.

Pochetinno escribió:Tecnología Si hay.

Además Switch no solo es "una tableta" TAMBIÉN ES UN DOCK; donde TRANQUILAMENTE se pudo añadir componentes si Nintendo no fuese tan rastrera........

Pochetinno escribió:Y tan difícil era usar 2 tegras uno para la consola y uno para el dock y llegar así al mínimo que se le podría pedir a una consola de SOBREMESA actual ???

Para poder pedir PORTS en condiciones??

Es un gran pecado que aparte de querer jugar los juegos de Nintendo TAMBIÉN quiera jugar juegos de otras companías en CONDICIONES ???

Perdon por querer tener una sola consola y no tener o poder comprarme dos.

Solid.Snake escribió:Pues yo no entiendo de flops ni mecánica, solo me interesan los juegos y solo dije que no se le podía pedir a una portátil más potencia que la que ofrece Wii U. Y no lo dije rotundamente sahaquielz, ¿o es que no aporté argumentos? Pero no solo yo, sino la mayoría repetíamos que no existe tal tecnología a la venta, no hay portátil hoy día superior a Wii U ni podría existir una One portátil por temas de batería y calentamiento. Más bien eran otros los que afirmaban que era totalmente factible una One portátil aportando datos falsos. También decíamos muchos que una portátil con potencia Wii U sería algo sorprendente, aunque para los que querían una nueva sobremesa no serviría, menos si tienen Wii U ya.

Pochetinno escribió:

Zeta V escribió:

Pochetinno escribió:Y tan difícil era usar 2 tegras uno para la consola y uno para el dock y llegar así al mínimo que se le podría pedir a una consola de SOBREMESA actual ???

Si.

Cuando Switch este vendiendo como Wii U y sin apoyo third hablamos.....

Pochetinno escribió:Y tan difícil era usar 2 tegras uno para la consola y uno para el dock y llegar así al mínimo que se le podría pedir a una consola de SOBREMESA actual ???

Dongoros escribió:

Solid.Snake escribió:

DRaGMaRe escribió:Increíble que siendo el subforo con la media de edad más elevada de EOL se vean estas tremendas pataletas por la potencia...
Para los que vengan de 3DS será un salto brutal, para los que vengan de Wii U algo similar y para los que vengan de otra cosa, un paso atrás.
Yo veo un 2 a 1 xD

Eso es porque lo que abunda no son los troles, sino los fanboys, que enciman tachan de troll a todos los demás.

NO

Eso es porque venís los 4 tocapelotas de siempre a meter mierda y a no entender que queremos juegos (y preferiblemente de nintendo) y no flops.

Siempre repitiendo Thirds thirds thirds, que no quierp juegos clonicos de futbol, shooter. Queremos juegos originales.

PUTOS PESADOS, a ver si os enterais ya, cojones.

mironet1 escribió:
Es verdad... yo seguro que me la compraré.. juego mas a la 3ds que a la Wii u + PC.. así que seguro que cae Switch..

Pero es como que ... Nintendo podria hacer algo muy muy grande... y va hacer una sobremesa justa para 2017...?¿

Ya se que lo importante son los jugos ( por eso juego mucho a la 3ds) pero... xk cerrarte las puertas a juegos como For Honor, por ejemplo.. ( en caso de cerrarse la puerta) que hasta el dia 13 de Enero no sabemos nada..


Habrá que esperar.. pero estoy cagao en el factor sobremesa, era quizas demasiado el hype que teniamos todos¿?

La verdad es que el Zelda corre super bién.. pero... ya veremos..

Solid.Snake escribió:Pues yo no entiendo de flops ni mecánica, solo me interesan los juegos y solo dije que no se le podía pedir a una portátil más potencia que la que ofrece Wii U. Y no lo dije rotundamente sahaquielz, ¿o es que no aporté argumentos? Pero no solo yo, sino la mayoría repetíamos que no existe tal tecnología a la venta, no hay portátil hoy día superior a Wii U ni probablemente podría existir una One portátil por temas de batería y calentamiento, mucho menos a 250 euros. Más bien eran otros los que afirmaban que era totalmente factible una One portátil aportando datos falsos. También decíamos muchos que una portátil con potencia Wii U sería algo sorprendente, aunque para los que querían una nueva sobremesa no serviría, menos si tienen Wii U ya.

Zeta V escribió:Si existe tecnologia portatil mas potente que una WiiU a la venta

bartletrules escribió:

Pochetinno escribió:Y tan difícil era usar 2 tegras uno para la consola y uno para el dock y llegar así al mínimo que se le podría pedir a una consola de SOBREMESA actual ???

Básicamente eso que ves tan chupado es como coordinar dos computadores diferenciados entre sí para correr un código y obtener un resultado común cuando estén interconectados (esencialmente, computación distribuida creo que se llama, que me lo confirmen los informáticos del foro), pero a la vez ese código tiene que ser funcional en una sóla máquina para cuando opere como tablet.

Sí, pinta fácil la cosa. Y eso no depende de que venda más o menos, una parida es una parida y una idea genial es una ideal genial, aquí y en Etiopía, lo diga un premio nobel o el tonto del pueblo indistintamente.

Me refiero a que no debe ser el camino más inteligente (por algo no abundan las consolas modulares) si lo que se pedía era ofrecerles facilidad a los programadores para trabajar (aunque yo hablo como simple aficionado, no soy profesional de estas cosas más allá de lo que se pueda leer en revistas de divulgación).