Nintendo Switch “Pro” GPU to be Based on Volta Architecture; 4K Support, Massive Performance Improve

SeymourGore

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
3,477
Actually, the Gamecube was the most powerful console of its generation going by the numbers.
  1. Gamecube = 9.4 GFLOP/s (combined)
  2. Xbox = 7.3 GFLOP/s (combined)
  3. PlayStation 2 = 6.2 GFLOP/s

I had no idea the GC was so beefy. With that said, I think it's lack of a DVD drive or HDD held it back hardware wise against its competition.
 

vegeta535

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
6,303
Yes
Actually, the Gamecube was the most powerful console of its generation going by the numbers.
  1. Gamecube = 9.4 GFLOP/s (combined)
  2. Xbox = 7.3 GFLOP/s (combined)
  3. PlayStation 2 = 6.2 GFLOP/s
Eh? We know the flops don't equal power. Nothing that the GC was as technically impressive as the OG xbox.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
25,256
You know that crap don't count. We talking about real games.
You mean like Fire Emblem Heroes, a game that was made by the same company that made NES exclusive title Duck Hunt?
Yes

Eh? We know the flops don't equal power. Nothing that the GC was as technically impressive as the OG xbox.
I actually got the Gamecube number wrong. Combined it is 11.3 GFLOP/s (1.9 CPU + 9.4 GPU). I think what made the Gamecube seem less impressive is because it used a fixed-function shader pipeline instead of a programmable one like the Xbox did. As a result, the Xbox had superior texture and pixel fill rates by comparison.
 

Verge

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 27, 2001
Messages
6,856
Yes

Eh? We know the flops don't equal power. Nothing that the GC was as technically impressive as the OG xbox.
Fill rate and polygon performance were 1/2 xb/ps2, and it was a year newer.
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
14,048
I kind of agree. It's not like you're going to see an official PC version of Breath of the Wild for example even if you see random Nintendo IPs on phones.

Yeah, I'm lucky that my only three followed religiously Nintendo IPs are Zelda, Metroid ad f-zero - they have kindly done me the favor of "unofficially" killing two of those!

The wife however, loves Animal crossing and Pokemon, so she has a Switch Lite. Wasn't worth it buying an overpriced joycon gimmick, when she just wanted a 3ds replacement.

I insted paid 80 bucks for a portable emulation console that's way smaller than that Switch - RGB10 - never owned a PSP or Dreamcast or PSX, and am enjoying the libraries; Nintendo could have had that $200 from me instead, it they hadn't killed home-brew on Lite.
 
Last edited:

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
2,409
That's my situation...I'm stuck buying Nintendo hardware I never want just to play those games. I have no idea if other people like me cave and buy them anyway or if they really are missing out on a goldmine of potential sales elsewhere. What I do know is that I would do just about anything for an 8K/120Hz Mario Kart running on a PC...and I'm not talking about an emulator, either.

You hear that a lot in online forums from Nintendo fans, but I don't think it's nearly as popular opinion as it's made out to be.
Most people that really want to play Nintendo games give in and get Nintendo hardware. Most people that exclusively play on PC and the other consoles consider Nintendo games little kids games and don't want them.
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
19,288
You hear that a lot in online forums from Nintendo fans, but I don't think it's nearly as popular opinion as it's made out to be.
Most people that really want to play Nintendo games give in and get Nintendo hardware. Most people that exclusively play on PC and the other consoles consider Nintendo games little kids games and don't want them.

Frankly, I consider most Nintendo games to be for kids and I don't want them, either. Hence I hate having to buy Nintendo systems.
Yet I do want Mario Kart and Smash. The two games that don't benefit from any of their various gimmicks and actually suffer from Nintendo's horrible online play.
 

Dark12

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 13, 2003
Messages
1,766
Lot of weird nintendo hate here from people who want to play their games.

Buy the system if you want to play them so bad? They are cheaper than the others.
You only wanna play one or two of the games? Oh why didn't you say so? Buy the system.

I do agree they are light years behind on online function. I wonder if they'll ever get that right.
 

variant

Gawd
Joined
Feb 17, 2008
Messages
913
Actually, the Gamecube was the most powerful console of its generation going by the numbers.
  1. Gamecube = 9.4 GFLOP/s (combined)
  2. Xbox = 7.3 GFLOP/s (combined)
  3. PlayStation 2 = 6.2 GFLOP/s
The original Xbox is 20 GFLOP/s.
 

TheSlySyl

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
1,205
I get that I'm definitely a minority here on a PC gaming site, but i'm as much, if not more, of a Nintendo gamer than a PC gamer. If we took my total time among every game ever and split it between all consoles/PC, PC and Nintendo would be pretty close to equal, with Sony way below and Xbox basically nonexistent. Fuck, I play animal crossing while waiting in lobbies for Apex legends. I've spent thousands of hours among the Diablo franchise, just as i've spent thousands of hours playing Pokemon. I spent 150~ hours on The Witcher 3, but I also spent 150 hours on Breath of the Wild. Etc.

I love Nintendo games, I have a Nintendo tattoo, my house is filled with nintendo memoribilia. Probably half of my top games of all time are Nintendo franchises, the other half are PC games. I'm posting this from my (compared to most) pretty damn good desktop where I also have a bulbasaur figure, a fucking impressive as hell light-up Majora's mask and my walls are a map of Hyrule, an original piece of Super Metroid artwork and a map of Skyrim.

I love JRPGs, and the Switch has been fucking JRPG powerhouse for the past few years for the few that haven't been exclusive to playstation, and aside from PERSONA, those have basically been SE titles that make it to PC. (Still waiting on FF7 remake PC. )
I like my indie sprite games. I spent more time on Stardew Valley than I did on probably every Bioshock title combined. Is one better than the other? No. It's just that sometimes I'm in a different mood for a different style of game.
I also, however, love my FPS and western RPGs, and no way in fucking hell will I ever play an FPS on a controller. No way in hell will I ever play a Bethesda title without mods. I've been Mouse/keyboard since the original UT and you can take my mouse aiming away from my cold, dead, palm gripped hands.

So yeah, different people, different likes. For me, Fun wins out overall, and Nintendo games are fun as hell.

I'd still love to play them in 4k, fuck, i'd love BOTW with a steady framerate (even if just a steady 30.) I'm using an Mclassic because the switch jaggies are absolutely fucking terrible on our 75inch TV, but it doesn't change the fact that the games are still worth playing and, for me, well worth buying a console for.

This isn't even getting into the portable aspect of the switch which, until last year, was super, super important for me considering I used to spend about 1/4 of a year in hotel rooms until traveling stopped existing.
 

dpoverlord

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
1,817
I get that I'm definitely a minority here on a PC gaming site, but i'm as much, if not more, of a Nintendo gamer than a PC gamer. If we took my total time among every game ever and split it between all consoles/PC, PC and Nintendo would be pretty close to equal, with Sony way below and Xbox basically nonexistent. Fuck, I play animal crossing while waiting in lobbies for Apex legends. I've spent thousands of hours among the Diablo franchise, just as i've spent thousands of hours playing Pokemon. I spent 150~ hours on The Witcher 3, but I also spent 150 hours on Breath of the Wild. Etc.

I love Nintendo games, I have a Nintendo tattoo, my house is filled with nintendo memoribilia. Probably half of my top games of all time are Nintendo franchises, the other half are PC games. I'm posting this from my (compared to most) pretty damn good desktop where I also have a bulbasaur figure, a fucking impressive as hell light-up Majora's mask and my walls are a map of Hyrule, an original piece of Super Metroid artwork and a map of Skyrim.

I love JRPGs, and the Switch has been fucking JRPG powerhouse for the past few years for the few that haven't been exclusive to playstation, and aside from PERSONA, those have basically been SE titles that make it to PC. (Still waiting on FF7 remake PC. )
I like my indie sprite games. I spent more time on Stardew Valley than I did on probably every Bioshock title combined. Is one better than the other? No. It's just that sometimes I'm in a different mood for a different style of game.
I also, however, love my FPS and western RPGs, and no way in fucking hell will I ever play an FPS on a controller. No way in hell will I ever play a Bethesda title without mods. I've been Mouse/keyboard since the original UT and you can take my mouse aiming away from my cold, dead, palm gripped hands.

So yeah, different people, different likes. For me, Fun wins out overall, and Nintendo games are fun as hell.

I'd still love to play them in 4k, fuck, i'd love BOTW with a steady framerate (even if just a steady 30.) I'm using an Mclassic because the switch jaggies are absolutely fucking terrible on our 75inch TV, but it doesn't change the fact that the games are still worth playing and, for me, well worth buying a console for.

This isn't even getting into the portable aspect of the switch which, until last year, was super, super important for me considering I used to spend about 1/4 of a year in hotel rooms until traveling stopped existing.
I do pc and also buy Nintendo.

It is just fun, cool, weird but awesome.

Online play I think it's their solution to no toxicity and just playing and having fun vs telling someone to uninstall lol
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
19,288
Nintendo's online play is horrendous. It's so bad that I almost wish it wasn't even an option...and it hasn't gotten any better since they started charging for it. It has been just as bad as it is now since the Wii. That doesn't even get into the oddball phone app you have to use to communicate with people. But because it's Nintendo everyone just shrugs, says the word "fun" a bunch of times, and then reminisces about Double Dare and Joe Montana.
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
19,288
Me and my friends just use Discord to chat when playing Switch.

Just like we use discord to chat when we play PC games. 🤷‍♂️

...but what about speaking to everyone else? Opponents, teammates, etc. who aren't necessarily your friends.
 

TheSlySyl

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
1,205
...but what about speaking to everyone else? Opponents, teammates, etc. who aren't necessarily your friends.
...why would I want to do that?

Edit: I don't play the kind of games on Switch where this ever seems like it would be necessary.
 

staknhalo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
1,481
...but what about speaking to everyone else? Opponents, teammates, etc. who aren't necessarily your friends.

1) If I'm playing with just 1 other friend I don't need teammates

2) As for opponents, I let my game talk for me - it often just bullies and picks on me, but regardless
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
19,288
Maybe you guys don't use it, but it's a sorely missing feature that has been baked into the other consoles (and PC games) going back nearly 20 years. People DO use it...but because it's Nintendo, people just shrug and let it go. Apparently basic voice chat and acceptable online play aren't "fun" and "imaginative" enough. Let's just keep giving them a pass so they can keep giving us underpowered lackluster systems that 80's/90's kids will view through rose-tinted glasses.
Online Smash and Mario Kart are so bad that those communities are actually using emulators with rollback netcode and built-in communications because Nintendo's non-free online service is so bad.
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
3,887
Well NVidia has stopped production of the existing chip it uses so they have to replace it with something.
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
3,887
Maybe Nvidia has forced Nintendo to upgrade by stopping production of their old chips?
Doubtful, they kept it going even after they stopped making their Jetson Nano chips and the contract for the unit delivery is over. Moving them over to the new Xavier chips that are 5x more powerful, roughly the same cost, and have the same power draw while being cooler is a win for everybody.
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
5,051
Lot of weird nintendo hate here from people who want to play their games.

Buy the system if you want to play them so bad? They are cheaper than the others.
You only wanna play one or two of the games? Oh why didn't you say so? Buy the system.

I do agree they are light years behind on online function. I wonder if they'll ever get that right.

Its not weird at all, Nintendo has a few amazing franchises that they take forever to update, sometime only getting a single title per console generation if that (SSB, MK, Zelda/Link, and Mario imho) are generally locked to their ecosystem and that ecosystem is decade(s) behind in several ways, online being one of them.

Want to play SSB, well buy the entire system for it and hope a few other titles will launch on it.

Nintendo thrives on the love/hate line.
 
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
641
Hmmm. I’m not sure I buy into the idea that the next Switch will be off the shelf Tegra again. I think there is a real possibility that Nintendo will want something more specific. Something with DLSS Gen 2 in it.

Keep in mind that Nintendo has a design diagram of a dock with a GeForce 960M in it for the original Switch. They ended up not going with it, but the tech exists.

I expect the next Switch will be specced to run current Games at 4K (ish) res. That would take a 4-6X performance improvement which is doable on just a Tegra style SOC. It will probably have 8GB of RAM.

In my dream world the next Switch gets 16GB of RAM, 8 cores, and an external GPU in the base. Something like a 2060 Max Q. BOTW, at 4K60.
 

NeoNemesis

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
2,462
I haven’t touched My Switch since December 2018. They came out big with BotW and Odyssey, which I loved, but they haven’t released anything that appealed to me in over 2 years.
 

dirksquarejaw

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
1,975
I haven’t touched My Switch since December 2018. They came out big with BotW and Odyssey, which I loved, but they haven’t released anything that appealed to me in over 2 years.
want to sell me your switch?
Im looking for something to play with the family.
 

Ski

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
1,036
I haven’t touched My Switch since December 2018. They came out big with BotW and Odyssey, which I loved, but they haven’t released anything that appealed to me in over 2 years.
Hell no, let me buy it dude, I need a graduation gift for my brother. Going to a good cause!
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
14,048
Doubtful, they kept it going even after they stopped making their Jetson Nano chips and the contract for the unit delivery is over. Moving them over to the new Xavier chips that are 5x more powerful, roughly the same cost, and have the same power draw while being cooler is a win for everybody.

Be careful with that "5x" performance increase, it only applies for self-driving cars :d

For the Soc portion, you get at-best 2.5x GPU performance (and they had t cut it down to 384 SPs to fit in 10w (like docked Switch.) That's going to top-out at 2x.GPU.

The CPU is 50% faster n than the A57 per-clock, but the 10w cut only gives you four at 1.2 ghz.

At-most (with a perfect 512 sp cut, so you can slightly under-clock the GPU ), you'll get 2.25x GPU, and 1.8x CPU.

Also, these things are nowhere near the same cost. die size of thee original Tegra X1 is 118 mm², while the Xavier is fucking massive 350 mm2
 
Last edited:

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
3,887
Be careful with that "5x" performance increase, it only applies for self-driving cars :d

For the Soc portion, you get at-best 2.5x GPU performance (and they had t cut it down to 384 SPs to fit in 10w (like docked Switch.) That's going to top-out at 2x.GPU.

The CPU is 50% faster n than the A57 per-clock, but the 10w cut only gives you four at 1.2 ghz.

At-most (with a perfect 512 sp cut, so you can slightly under-clock the GPU ), you'll get 2.25x GPU, and 1.8x CPU.
I meant the current Xavier has roughly 5x the performance of the Nano and both are 15w chips. Best info I can find on the Switch indicates a minor increase in performance and a big increase in battery life while moving to a nicer 1080p screen. But it’s all 100% rumours, so who knows.
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
14,048
I meant the current Xavier has roughly 5x the performance of the Nano and both are 15w chips. Best info I can find on the Switch indicates a minor increase in performance and a big increase in battery life while moving to a nicer 1080p screen. But it’s all 100% rumours, so who knows.


Well, the chip prices are scary. Tegra X1 was 118mm, while the self-driving features bump Xavier up to 350 mm2!

Unless Nvidia has rolled them a custom die to replace their x1+ (recently discontinued) , the price of this is going to be astronomical!

I guess because they still have to support Shield TV,, it's going to be a die shrink then? Xavier consumer cut at 7nm (drops self-driving cruft that would otherwise be useless)!
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
3,887
Well, the chip prices are scary. Tegra X1 was 118mm, while the self-driving features bump Xavier up to 350 mm2!

Unless Nvidia has rolled them a custom die to replace their x1+ (recently discontinued) , the price of this is going to be astronomical! I guess it's going to be a die shrink then?
Very likely, they can’t make too many changes over the old chip or they risk negatively impacting their existing libraries. So they are probably going to cut it back to something in the 1.2x increase, that would let them keep it well under 10w and the size of that chip would be smaller than the previous.

but I’m wondering if we are talking about different Xaviers I’m talking about the NX which is much smaller than the AGX.
 

TheSlySyl

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
1,205
I'm expecting something similar to the current Tegra at a much lower nm (hopefully 7, possibly not) with the expected clock speed boost with the rest of the die being taken up by tensor core equivalents so they can upscale to 4k60 on the fly. The tensor cores will take more power but they won't be active unless its docked.

The super wishful part of me is hoping for an active dock that can do native 4k60 by basically just being a huge ass GPU and the switch is just passing data through the usb-c port to the point that the switch isn't actually using its GPU for anything while docked - but I strongly, strongly doubt that'll happen.
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
14,048
Very likely, they can’t make too many changes over the old chip or they risk negatively impacting their existing libraries. So they are probably going to cut it back to something in the 1.2x increase, that would let them keep it well under 10w and the size of that chip would be smaller than the previous.

but I’m wondering if we are talking about different Xaviers I’m talking about the NX which is much smaller than the AGX.
Xavier NX likely has the same massive die size, just with a bunch of units disabled. Much like your GPU can disable non-functional units, they can disable a whole bunch of stuff for Xavier; when you are selling under a ,million of these a year (for self-driving cars), you don't tend to make multiple custom dies!

But, when you're talking about moving over twenty million units each year, it might be worthwhile to make a custom cut of the chip with only consumer portion for Nintendo!
 
Last edited:

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
3,887
Xavier NX likely has the same massive die size, just with a bunch of units disabled. Much like your GPU can disable non-functional units, they can disable a whole bunch of stuff for Xavier; when you are selling under a ,million of these a year (for self-driving cars), you don't tend to make multiple custom dies!

But, when you're talking about moving over twenty million units each year, it might be worthwhile to make a custom cut of the chip with only consumer portion for Nintendo!
Yeah that’s true, if they built a custom version matching the core counts on both GPU and CPU keeping just the architecture and node improvements that would be both faster and smaller all while being cheaper, put that extra cost savings into a nicer screen and call it a win across the board.
Hopefully sell that version of the chip as the Nano 2 or something because the original Nano was great I have some in some classrooms and the students & teachers love them. Not nearly as much as the Pi4’s mind you, way better documentation there. But the NX and AGX are way overkill for the students and honestly intimidating for them.
 

Verge

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 27, 2001
Messages
6,856
Hmmm. I’m not sure I buy into the idea that the next Switch will be off the shelf Tegra again. I think there is a real possibility that Nintendo will want something more specific. Something with DLSS Gen 2 in it.

Keep in mind that Nintendo has a design diagram of a dock with a GeForce 960M in it for the original Switch. They ended up not going with it, but the tech exists.

I expect the next Switch will be specced to run current Games at 4K (ish) res. That would take a 4-6X performance improvement which is doable on just a Tegra style SOC. It will probably have 8GB of RAM.

In my dream world the next Switch gets 16GB of RAM, 8 cores, and an external GPU in the base. Something like a 2060 Max Q. BOTW, at 4K60.
4k improvement in handheld isn't gonna get you 4k anything :(. Docked will be a stretch.
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
14,048
4k improvement in handheld isn't gonna get you 4k anything :(. Docked will be a stretch.
with Dlss 2.0 to bat for you?

Just because they never ported dlss to the Titan V doesn't mean it's not possible. Those Turing Tensor units are amost identical.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13282/nvidia-turing-architecture-deep-dive/4

It's not going to be enough for handheld 4k, but it will finally be enough horsepower to fake it's way back up to native 720p for portable mode! Anyone care to guess what resolution Doom Eternal potable spends most of it's time at?

ANSWER: varies between 360p and 612p. DlSS 2 will let you bump that back to 720p. (in quality mode)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
641
I'm expecting something similar to the current Tegra at a much lower nm (hopefully 7, possibly not) with the expected clock speed boost with the rest of the die being taken up by tensor core equivalents so they can upscale to 4k60 on the fly. The tensor cores will take more power but they won't be active unless its docked.

The super wishful part of me is hoping for an active dock that can do native 4k60 by basically just being a huge ass GPU and the switch is just passing data through the usb-c port to the point that the switch isn't actually using its GPU for anything while docked - but I strongly, strongly doubt that'll happen.

One benefit of the dock GPU is that it could still use the CPU on the APU, but would have a higher performance budget since no power would be allocated to the graphics portion, and it’s not on battery. Between efficiency improvements in core design, the theoretical larger power budget in docked mode, and the reduced die size, there could be a major leap in CPU compared to the X1.

It still won’t be anywhere near an 8 core Zen 2, but man is it fun to watch developers try.
 

chameleoneel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
4,199
You mean like Fire Emblem Heroes, a game that was made by the same company that made NES exclusive title Duck Hunt?

I actually got the Gamecube number wrong. Combined it is 11.3 GFLOP/s (1.9 CPU + 9.4 GPU). I think what made the Gamecube seem less impressive is because it used a fixed-function shader pipeline instead of a programmable one like the Xbox did. As a result, the Xbox had superior texture and pixel fill rates by comparison.
All GPUs had fixed function units/pipes, which split pixel shaders from vertex shaders, until the Xbox 360. That was the first to market GPU with dynamic shaders.

GCN supported Pixel Shader 1.0, whereas Xbox was 1.1. Which did add a fair amount of programmability to the shader pipeline. However, the key advantage of the Xbox wasn't its shader support. It was the sheer amount of hardware power it had from all angles. Big GPU with lots of clockspeed, lots of VRAM, ,AGP 4x. Big CPU. It was powerful at every corner and it all balanced well.
 
Last edited:
Top