They said what the battery size was, only thing they said different from here was that there was no clock speed increase in the enhanced switch
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Details about "New" Switch revision via OS datamine (LPDDR4x RAM, modest GPU performance boost, no "Pro" model in sight)
- Thread starter Atheerios
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, which you can literally find in the official spec sheet. And Logan is not the codename for X1 (That's Erista) but for Tegra K1.
The battery size is 3570 MAh. Their "sources" didn't even get right something that was in the official spec sheet from the very announcement.
Oh I'll have to watch it again I thought he did say 3570, if they got that wrong and the Logan thing wrong too they should redo the whole video at this point lol
They said "About 3300 MAh?"
And yeah, the vidoo has literally no new information, it's just what we already knew from other sources, only some of it wrong.
There's no general consensus per se, but I think 1.5-2.0x in overall power is modest. Something along the lines of PS4-->PS4 Pro, or even GC --> Wii
3DS-->New 3DS wasn't modest overall. 3x CPU and 2x RAM were pretty big for a mid gen, though but due the lack of a GPU upgrade, we couldn't really see the full advantage of it.. and having exclusive games were a bad idea.
No, they said clockspeed likely isn't increased in the handheld. They did give information from the twitter guy in OP that there were clocks up to 1.2GHz for the GPU discovered, which could be in the enhanced model, but who knows.
Thanks I figured as much but these threads moved very fast.
So I wonder what the battery life of the revision will be? I think if we go off the 3570 number from andtech, my guess is the revision probably gives you about 3.5-8 hours battery life. That would be pretty good.
I think my biggest hope is that the revision has some sort of boost mode with it in docked play. Overclock the GPU for some games and give you unlocked frame rates.
Hating OLED is crazy. It's the most beautiful and capable display tech we have right now.
I dont like oled either because of burn in, also micro led is better than oled
Micro led effectively doesn't exist in consumer tech right now.
Burn in is not a factor if you don't play the same game or watch the same channel for hours on end, day in day out. I can understand why that's an issue for some people but it isn't something that will affect me, unless my panel is faulty. But LCDs can also be faulty, so...
I had an OLED phone that was flawless, but the Vita? Green splodges appear under the screen in low light, which kind of ruins the selling point of improved black levels.
Ugh I remember that on vita, when the whole screen was black but turned on I could see stuff in the screen too, made it look dirty
Those higher clock configs are there for a reason, methinks. With the die shrink having been tested since last year, I think this was what Nintendo was waiting for in regards to using those clocks
Sorry for the delay, just saw this.
The "for avid gamers" phrase was to distinguish this enhanced Switch from the smaller cheaper Switch I thought. Something like "this cheaper one is for the more casual price sensitive market while the enhanced one is for avid gamers". I never took it to mean it would be aimed at enthusiasts like us intentionally.
Anyway we still don't know what kind of boost(s) we're looking at (if any) so it's premature to say this will barely make a difference. It still seems like this could potentially offer anything up to a 50% boost overall, which isn't really that small. Knowing Nintendo I think it'll be smaller than that but the bottom line is we just don't know yet.
Yeah, they might just pull a Wii on us. IIRC, Wii was 1.5x more powerful overall over GC. I'll take 1.5x over anything lower.
Like I said, they effectively dont exist yet. They aren't on sale in any finished consumer products, and even when they do go on sale - years from now - they will be too expensive for mass market for a while longer. MicroLed is 10+ years away.
No i think they said the clock speed isnt increased in the lite.
The pro doesn't make sense I think, it won't hit the base Xbox One specs, unless it's TV only and even then Xbox One is a weak hardware already this time, and probably cost a lot. A modest upgrade to the base units are much more reasonable since hardcore might buy it, giving new life to the unit, and there's the Lite to take care of the casuals.
Who knows.. 7nm they definitely could. But they're likely going with 16/12nm. DDR4X does help bring down the watt usage by 0.5 volts.. And if they replaced the A57s with A72/A73, etc, they will save more on power consumption. I believe from what we've seen so far, The Switch Pro only needs like a 2.25-2.5x boost to make it on par with xbone. So 900-10000 TFLOP GPU, and then equivalent 2-2.5x boost in CPU and bandwidth, and maybe 6GB RAM.
I'm not expecting it of course. Its probably going to still be A57 CPU but bumped up.. Maybe up 1.75GHZ or in between, who knows.. Nintendo has a track record of boosting CPU and RAM in revisions..
And GPU increase, we could see 1.20-1.65. I'd be surprised if they didn't increase the RAM in some way, considering the bandwidth is the major bottleneck along with the CPU. They'll get that 1.33x boost for bandwidth, but I don't think it would be enough to push 900p to 1080p. And if the GPU boost is less than 50%, I feel like its not gonna even be worth it for most devs to go back and improve performance..
It won't hit it due to thermal and cost consideration, even then why bother Xbox One has the worse ports this gen already (console/PC side) and I doubt they'll have Pro-only game (3rd party won't, there's no first party game that can be downported like Xenoblade Chronices to 3ds). They could provide a bumped up Pro specs but wouldn't mean that they have 3 units to manufacture? Did 3DS XL sold a lot?
The biggest reason why a theoretical XB1 level pro never made any sense is that nobody (besides maybe Nintendo) would ever make games exclusive to it and not playable on the base Switch, since they'd be locking themselves out of a 40M+ userbase.
So they would still have to release their games on the base Switch. And that then makes you wonder why Nintendo would invest in such a device when there is really no benefit to them or to other publishers.
Instead, using a new more efficient and cheaper chip actually benefits Nintendo- they get more profit per unit. At the same time they can run some games at higher performance levels while quietly unlocking higher performance profiles on the OG Switch as well (which we see they already did for MK11).
A small-moderate boost as a side effect of moving off of 20nm always made sense for this point in the life of the Switch. An XB1 powered mega Switch never really did.
So they would still have to release their games on the base Switch. And that then makes you wonder why Nintendo would invest in such a device when there is really no benefit to them or to other publishers.
Instead, using a new more efficient and cheaper chip actually benefits Nintendo- they get more profit per unit. At the same time they can run some games at higher performance levels while quietly unlocking higher performance profiles on the OG Switch as well (which we see they already did for MK11).
A small-moderate boost as a side effect of moving off of 20nm always made sense for this point in the life of the Switch. An XB1 powered mega Switch never really did.
The double negatives are confusing me?
Also, since xbone base is only 2.5x more powerful across the board at most in CPU, GPU, the gap isn't that wide to lock OG switch games out. Nintendo knows better not to make exclusives like new 3ds. That being said, if AAA third party developers wanted to, that's up to them. But again, I don't think the gap between the two is wide enough that ports would be impossible on switch from xbone/PS4 base. Doom, Wolfeinstein, and Witcher 3 are good examples... but yes, nobody now is confidential we'll get xbone specs. Some are just wondering the possibilities of what could be done vs what will be
I'd much, much rather have color uniformity than self-emitting pixels. And burn-in IS an issue with OLED for a lot of panels especially with videogames due to HUDs no matter how careful you are. Finally, they don't excel in maximum brightness and if you usually have some degree of ambient lighting in your room, other technologies have better maximum brightness while retaining extremely intense contrasts and great color reproduction such as QLED for HDR viewing, while still being cheaper and having none of the uniformity or durability downsides.
Having seen both in a well-lit living room, using HDR on a QLED was better than on an OLED from a purely visual standpoint, so even on that count OLED isn't necessarily better than other technologies.
There's plenty of reasons to dislike OLEDs and I personally would rather not have an OLED panel in any of my devices.
Which double negatives?
And I mean yeah, if they're porting the game to the base Switch too then it would be nice to get much better performing versions on an upgraded Switch. But from the perspective of Nintendo and the publisher what exactly is the benefit there? A few enthusiasts like us upgrade their Switch?
I still think it would be very silly for any third party publisher to put a game exclusively on a theoretical XB1 level Switch, even if Nintendo allows it. They're missing out on a huge chunk of the audience that way.
I must say I use my Switch in portable mode exclusively but I haven't used it in a while because I think I got over it from the murky looking graphics in Doom, Wolf and Xeno. If the new switch improves the resolution in portable mode it would revitalise the Switch for me. Really just hate those murky graphics. Feels like it wasn't ready for proper AAA experience on the go.
If they replace the OG Switch with this, then yeah. There's going to be a decent install base in a few years. I mean its up to the third party devs.. If they'd port a game they normally wouldn't do on the OG switch like he latest cod or assassins creed, but they did on xbone, then its better than nothing. I do I think most games should be able to port on Switch though, unless devs don't want the game running like crap.
And lets not forget.. this theoretical switch pro would benefit gamers who play in handheld mode. A switch that is as powerful as xbone in docked will be able to play OG docked specs in handheld mode.. Xenoblade 2, Doom, etc games that are demanding and normally run like crap on portable will run good and the majority of games will be 600-720p
Okay so I got Mike to elaborate a little on the increased GPU clock:
I'm not 100% sure what this means but I think the base clock is the lowest possible clock speed where every other possible clock speed is a multiple of this base clock. I feel like I remember the base clock for the OG Switch GPU being about 76.8MHz, where every other possible clock speed is a multiple of that (384 is 5x, 460 is 6x, 768 is 10x, etc.).
So if that base clock has been increased then every game will indeed see improvements. The extent of the improvement depends on the increase of course, if it's just to 80 then that'll barely be a difference. Hopefully it's higher than that, maybe closer to 90 or even 100.
I'm not 100% sure what this means but I think the base clock is the lowest possible clock speed where every other possible clock speed is a multiple of this base clock. I feel like I remember the base clock for the OG Switch GPU being about 76.8MHz, where every other possible clock speed is a multiple of that (384 is 5x, 460 is 6x, 768 is 10x, etc.).
So if that base clock has been increased then every game will indeed see improvements. The extent of the improvement depends on the increase of course, if it's just to 80 then that'll barely be a difference. Hopefully it's higher than that, maybe closer to 90 or even 100.
People fail to realise that even if it gets boosted another 27% 1Ghz (or even the famed 921Mhz a hacked Switch can reach) in power that's pretty much another Xbox 360 being duct-taped onto the docked mode. That's substantial to me.
Is there more info or confirmation on the performance boost for this thing? Is it possible there might not be any noticeable improvements? Main reason I ask is because New 3DS didn't have a "boost mode" feature IIrc. Games that weren't designed with New 3DS in mind just ran the same as the original model. Is it possible that cool be the case here too?
games can be updated to use the new modes. Crash Team Racing is doing that as did Zelda and Mario. if there was a mode to use that clock speed at all times, they'd probably use that too
Whoa whoa whoa, not so fast. The standard unit that we use on this board is still duct-taped GameCubes.
Okay so if I'm right about what Mike meant by "base clock" (and I might not be) I think we're looking at exactly a 25% boost in GPU clock speeds across the board.
The previous maximum clock speed was around 921MHz which is a 12x multiplier of the 76.8MHz base clock. The new max is 1228.8MHz, so if we assume it is the new 12x multiplier of this new base clock (again, assuming this is what Mike meant about the higher base clock) then we're looking at a base clock of 102.4MHz. That means the new 5x multiplier (replacing the 384MHz mode of the OG Switch) would be 512MHz, 6x would be 614.4, 10x (aka docked) would be 1.024GHz.
Again this is based on a lot of assumptions and could easily be wrong (probably is).
The previous maximum clock speed was around 921MHz which is a 12x multiplier of the 76.8MHz base clock. The new max is 1228.8MHz, so if we assume it is the new 12x multiplier of this new base clock (again, assuming this is what Mike meant about the higher base clock) then we're looking at a base clock of 102.4MHz. That means the new 5x multiplier (replacing the 384MHz mode of the OG Switch) would be 512MHz, 6x would be 614.4, 10x (aka docked) would be 1.024GHz.
Again this is based on a lot of assumptions and could easily be wrong (probably is).
1GHz for docked mode seems a safe bet for the new Switch as they won't push max clocks.
New 3DS was in some ways (CPU, RAM) a much bigger spec increase over the original than PS4 Pro, but didn't have software taking much advantage of it outside of the flat-out exclusives.
Well your logic seems sound to me at least. It is interesting if they are really using this way of pushing the clocks across the board and not by adding new profiles because that means you we'll see instant improvements with no need to patch anything, at least in games that struggle and/or support dynamic resolution.
Better pray for nVidia messing up again then because otherwise that ain't happening.
To prevent compatibility issues, would it be better to use a different multiplier than to change the base clock?
From tests done, the X1 couldn't handle maintaining the max GPU clock speed for a long period of time in a small form factor like the Switch. This new Switch, thanks to better energy efficiency, may not have that issue.
FWIW (likely nothing) I had a look at the subsequent Tegra module GPU frequencies, and The TX2 base clock is ~44.9 and the Xavier is ~47.5, so maybe that is a rough idea of what improvement to expect (counting Switch as 38.4 instead of 76.8)
I still don't see them going for max clocks. They never have because of potential hardware failures.
I think even 1GHz might be pushing it in Nintendo's eyes but hopefully they land somewhere around there as that should be enough to push dynamic 900p games to 1080p native.
1080p requires 44% more pixels than 900p. I'm no tech expert but I'm not sure if 25% GPU and 25% more bandwidth (something proportional in bandwidth is required) would be enough for that.
Let's look at Xbone base and PS4 as reference. PS4 is at least 1.4x more powerful than xbone base in GPU alone, and the resolutions between Xbone and PS4 multiplat games were usually 900 vs 1080p.
Sounds like it could be accurate to me, nothing unbelievable about it, it's also a nice upgrade if right
What does that work out to in flops?
the responses are quite curious. sounds like the the lite is either binned (doubtful) or just soft locked from the higher docked speeds
Hehe. There's a big change in the GPU DVFS maximum frequency (from 921600 mHz to 1228800 mHz) from "Original"/"Lite" Switch to "New" Switch. This suggests a slightly more powerful GPU (called GPUB01 in public source code).
It also suggests that while both "Lite" and "New" models will have the same GPU, it will be underclocked on "Lite" to match the original Switch's specs.
It also suggests that while both "Lite" and "New" models will have the same GPU, it will be underclocked on "Lite" to match the original Switch's specs.
I'm wondering if there is indeed a difference in cooling then. teardowns will be quite interesting
So if the new switch base clock is increased to 44.9 from 38.4 where does that put the new profiles at?
17% higher if that's how it works, but from the tweet above, 33% might be the real increase.
- Status