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

oso^Yonki escribió:Me la suda la potencia y seguramente la compre de salida... a ver el catálogo de salida, pero comprar otra wiiu por más de 200 creo que no.

devnull_77 escribió:Wenas!.

@senji : Si yo opino como tú, pero como mi plataforma de juego principal es PS4 prefiero no entrar mucho en ciertos debates dentro de este foro, por lo que pueda pasar.
En cuanto al precio, si se confirma especificaciones, yo pagaría con mucho gusto 250 € por un pack de consola más juego, ahí te lo dejo.

Un saludo!.

sahaquielz escribió:

capcom escribió:Llego a casa y veo que hay 20 páginas más. Alguien que me haga un resumen por favor?

Rumores negativos de digital foundry.

Muchos han descorchado el champán.

Xkings escribió:Jodo @Hide_to que radical, ¿no? No sé el caso del que has quoteado, pero los que en algunos ocasiones somos críticos con según que cosas, no creo que merezcamos que se nos tache de trolls.

Solid.Snake escribió:Si al final llega su lanzamiento y se confirma que es una Wii U portátil, respecto a los que siempre decíamos que lo más realista era que fuera eso, ¿seguimos considerados trolls, haters, pesimistas o simplemente gente con los pies en el suelo y no fanboys?

Yo tarde o temprano la compre. De Wii U por ejemplo tengo 2 (una blanca con loadline y una negra ed Zelda sin piratear) y me gusta como consola más quie la PS4, la cual la tengo cogiendo polvo desde que acabé el Uncharted, si bien es verdad que ahora sale el Nier Autómata y el Nioh. Y mi plataforma de juego principal es Xbox One, su retrocompatibilidad con 360 y exclusivos como los Gears y Forza son mis sagas preferidas.

Hide_to escribió:No hombre no, si de ti y de la mayoría no tengo nada que decir, es normal ser critico, yo soy el primero que se ha deshinchado con los rumores de hoy, y el que querría a Nintendo en el top, especialmente en ecosistema, catalogo y tecnología, y por ultimo pero no menos importante en potencia.

Pero a algunos los tengo ya mas que fichados, no suelo decir mucho al respeto, pero es que me la puso tan a huevo.... xD

PD: Lo dicho, mas que encantado de leer tus opiniones sanas por aquí a diario.

DRaGMaRe escribió:Hay que verlo como lo que realmente es, una portátil, la más potente hasta la fecha y ya.
Tendrá el apoyo que tuvo en su día (y tiene) 3DS, no veo nada malo en ello, más bien todo lo contrario y eso que yo soy "anti" portátiles, por lo que no la compraré (entre otras cosas), pero su catálogo seguro que es excelente.

Xkings escribió:

DRaGMaRe escribió:Hay que verlo como lo que realmente es, una portátil, la más potente hasta la fecha y ya.
Tendrá el apoyo que tuvo en su día (y tiene) 3DS, no veo nada malo en ello, más bien todo lo contrario y eso que yo soy "anti" portátiles, por lo que no la compraré (entre otras cosas), pero su catálogo seguro que es excelente.

Pues si estas en lo correcto, implica de facto la retirada de Nintendo de las plataformas de sobremesa, por que lo que tocaba en estos momentos era la sustituta de WiiU y no de 3ds.

Habrá que esperar a ver.

q256 escribió:Por cierto ¿hay alguna porra sobre el precio que tendrá la Switch? yo apuesto por un pack de 399 € con el Breath of the Wild incluido

q256 escribió:Por cierto ¿hay alguna porra sobre el precio que tendrá la Switch? yo apuesto por un pack de 399 € con el Breath of the Wild incluido

NeOz7 escribió:

er_capi escribió:A mí lo que me sorprende es que muchos esperéis confirmar las especificaciones el día 13... Ese día hablarán de juegos, confirmarán el precio y mostrarán imágenes chulísimas para que todos queremos una. Y las especificaciones no se sabrán hasta que salga a la venta y se analice.

Tal vez me equivoco, pero tengo la impresión de que muchos se van a llevar un chasco ese día...

y me parece genial!

tengo la One desde el Day One y me entereado la potencia que tiene en este hilo!! que mal me lo he pasado desde que salio eh!! es que claro, como tiene nose cuantos chorraflops menos la disfrutare menos! en fin...

Xkings escribió:

DRaGMaRe escribió:Hay que verlo como lo que realmente es, una portátil, la más potente hasta la fecha y ya.
Tendrá el apoyo que tuvo en su día (y tiene) 3DS, no veo nada malo en ello, más bien todo lo contrario y eso que yo soy "anti" portátiles, por lo que no la compraré (entre otras cosas), pero su catálogo seguro que es excelente.

Pues si estas en lo correcto, implica de facto la retirada de Nintendo de las plataformas de sobremesa, por que lo que tocaba en estos momentos era la sustituta de WiiU y no de 3ds.

Habrá que esperar a ver.

hector de troya escribió:Un pelín ortopédicas las animaciones de Seasons of Heaven, no? A ver si de aquí a la salida apañan eso un poco xD

sahaquielz escribió:Si. Pero me da la impresión que eso es cuestión de presupuesto. No de switch.

Es un juego indie cualquiera que se ha subido al carro de switch para llamar la atención en este momento.
Pero no tiene nada que enseñar.
Puede que llegue a ser un juego buenísimo. Pero de momento lo que han enseñado no dice nada.

Hide_to escribió:Que yo sepa el mando redondo, podía ser un photoshop de un foro, pero salio en portada en la tan aclamada Eurogamer.

St Keroro escribió:Pongo el post de uno de los expertos de gaf:

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.

Todopc-WII escribió:ES UN RUMOR, que acabara resultando fake como aquel mando, tiempo al tiempo...

Todopc-WII escribió:ES UN RUMOR, que acabara resultando fake como aquel mando, tiempo al tiempo...

sahaquielz escribió:@LostsoulDark

A ver a ver. Tranquilidad.
Me llama la atención lo que has dicho de cuando estén las tres en las tiendas.

Imagínate la Navidad que viene en una tienda.
Tres patallazas con las tres consolas.
Ps4pro con FIFA
Xbox scorpio con COD
Y Switch con Pokémon.

Crees de verdad que switch no tiene nada que hacer frente a las otras?

dani699 escribió:

St Keroro escribió:Pongo el post de uno de los expertos de gaf:

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.

Que no se pierda este post para los nuevos que van entrando al tema.

sahaquielz escribió:@LostsoulDark

A ver a ver. Tranquilidad.
Me llama la atención lo que has dicho de cuando estén las tres en las tiendas.

Imagínate la Navidad que viene en una tienda.
Tres patallazas con las tres consolas.
Ps4pro con FIFA
Xbox scorpio con COD
Y Switch con Pokémon.

Crees de verdad que switch no tiene nada que hacer frente a las otras?

pollasmon escribió:

sahaquielz escribió:@LostsoulDark

A ver a ver. Tranquilidad.
Me llama la atención lo que has dicho de cuando estén las tres en las tiendas.

Imagínate la Navidad que viene en una tienda.
Tres patallazas con las tres consolas.
Ps4pro con FIFA
Xbox scorpio con COD
Y Switch con Pokémon.

Crees de verdad que switch no tiene nada que hacer frente a las otras?

No, no tiene, la gente tiene pokemon en el movil, y la chavalada >10 ha cambiado de gustos.

TARGET: padres que quieren que sus hijos jueguen a Pokemon... el chaval dice.. quiere COD.

sidney_bl escribió:Que Switch vaya a llevar un Tegra no significa necesariamente que vaya a tener una potencia igual o superior a la Shield, porque será un hardware creado según los intereses de Nintendo, y a saber en qué están pensando. Ojalá fuese algo super potente, pero vamos... yo no creo que el salto respecto a Wii U vaya a ser grande.

LostsoulDark escribió:

sahaquielz escribió:@LostsoulDark

A ver a ver. Tranquilidad.
Me llama la atención lo que has dicho de cuando estén las tres en las tiendas.

Imagínate la Navidad que viene en una tienda.
Tres patallazas con las tres consolas.
Ps4pro con FIFA
Xbox scorpio con COD
Y Switch con Pokémon.

Crees de verdad que switch no tiene nada que hacer frente a las otras?

En primer lugar no a todos gusta tanto Pokemon, y en segundo lugar será:

PS4 Pro Uncharted 5
Scorpio El nuevo HALO!!!!

Y no solo es el juego, has visto como luce un Forza Horizon 3 en pantalla HDR!!!! o un GOW4? no he visto Uncharted 4 en pro pero se ha de ver igual de impactante, las consolas desde 360/PS3 han logrado una muy buena sinergia con las ventas de pantallas con nuevas tecnologías, en 2017-18 se disparan las ventas de pantallas 4k/HDR y no porque la gente se saque la lotería, sino porque bajaran de precio como toda tecnología y será adoptada por todos y después que querremos? pues dispositivos con que sacarle jugo a nuestras pantallas, en esta ecuación simplemente Nintendo seguirá sin pintar.

Antonio3DS escribió:Nintendo Switch soportará Vulkan y Open GL 4.5 para el desarrollo de juegos. Me parecen buenas noticias.

http://nintendoeverything.com/switch-su ... pengl-4-5/