Partner Nintendo 3DS Central Social

Will Nintendo Switch be slower than Some Tablets which have the same Cost?

froggyboy604

froggyboy604

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Manager
Full GL Member
28,660
2007
758
Awards
20
Credits
9,827
Mature Board Viewing
Unlock full profile styling
I don't have high expectations that the Nintendo Switch will be super fast, so I think there could be a good chance that the Nintendo Switch will be slower than some similarly priced tablets made by bigger brands like Microsoft, Apple, and Samsung.

The Switch also comes with a lot of stuff like a TV Dock, video/audio cable, charger, and two controllers, so Nintendo may need to use a cheaper and slower Processor, Graphics chip, RAM, and storage, so they can bundle so many things, but still keep the price affordable for kids, teens and young adults who don't have a lot of money.

The Wii, and Wii U were not very powerful when they were released compared to other consoles, and Gaming PCs and laptops, so I think the Nintendo Switch will continue with releasing exclusive games like Mario and Zelda, and not planning on releasing consoles which are power houses like Sony, and Microsoft to a lesser extent because the Xbox series of consoles are slower than the PS3 and PS4.
 
If its truly slower than current tablets that would be classic Nintendo in a very bad way. They need to a powerhouse in some market.
 
Eh who knows. Even if the specs are lower it will probably benefit from been faster as it has a operating system built just for that device & will do less things than a normal tablet.
 
Demon_Skeith said:
If its truly slower than current tablets that would be classic Nintendo in a very bad way. They need to a powerhouse in some market.
Click to expand...

I think if the Switch is affordable, but is a decent performing console it may work out for Nintendo because there are a lot of people who want a console, but don't have a lot of money.

The Switch may sell better if it is not as expensive as the Xbox One and PS4 which cost $288 for Xbox One 500GB and 300 for PS4 500GB model. I think people who can only afford one console maybe more likely to get the PS4 and Xbox One 500GB which has more games if the Switch is the same price as the Xb1 or PS4. Some people may get a faster tablet like the Microsoft Surface Pro 4 with Windows 10, and Xbox controller to play some Xbox One and PC games from Steam which work with Windows 10 if they are looking for a portable bigger screen device for gaming.

But, If the Switch uses parts which are too slow, bigger games like Grand Theft Auto 5 may have to run at lower video resolution, and quality settings, so the game does not lag on the Switch. Some older Gaming PCs with 4-6GB RAM and older processor and graphics chip lag when playing bigger games like GTA V, so if the Switch uses a slower processor, graphics chip, RAM, and Storage to lower the price of the Switch, games like GTA V may lag when playing on Switch, or the video quality is set to low.

Martin said:
Eh who knows. Even if the specs are lower it will probably benefit from been faster as it has a operating system built just for that device & will do less things than a normal tablet.
Click to expand...

A more basic operating system would help the Switch load games faster, and run smoothly when there is a lot of action from many characters. But, for video intensive games like GTA V, the game may still need a faster CPU, RAM, video chip and video RAM to display Full HD video at higher frame rates on the Switch.

It maybe very hard or not possible to make the Switch come with faster parts, and bundle a lot of extra accessories like controllers, TV dock, HDMI cable, charger, and other stuff, but still keeping the price affordable like $300-400, so Nintendo may need to settle for a slower CPU, RAM, graphics chip, and graphical ram which are the most expensive parts for most consoles, and tablets like the iPad Air 2.
 
Last edited:
Before we can even judge if it's comparable to similarly priced tablets...
Do we even know what the cost of the Switch is?

Though personally I don't think it's going to be anywhere close in power to even the PS4/XB1. (Not even considering the mid-gen models of PS4k/Scorpio.) I think, if anything, it's going to be on par with the U. I doubt it'll be that much more powerful. (I'd hope it's not less powerful... because that would be foolish.) Mostly because in order to keep the battery life somewhat decent they'll have to make compromises in CPU/GPU power.
I could see them, once again, following the idea of sacrificing power for a gimmick.
 
VirusZero said:
Before we can even judge if it's comparable to similarly priced tablets...
Do we even know what the cost of the Switch is?

Though personally I don't think it's going to be anywhere close in power to even the PS4/XB1. (Not even considering the mid-gen models of PS4k/Scorpio.) I think, if anything, it's going to be on par with the U. I doubt it'll be that much more powerful. (I'd hope it's not less powerful... because that would be foolish.) Mostly because in order to keep the battery life somewhat decent they'll have to make compromises in CPU/GPU power.
I could see them, once again, following the idea of sacrificing power for a gimmick.
Click to expand...

According to Gamespot , " UK retailer GameSeek is taking preorders for the Nintendo Switch with a guaranteed price of GBP£198.50 (USD$246.79)."

I think for £198.50/246.79USD, the Switch will have a harder time being very powerful where the Switch has a fast CPU and video chip similar to the original PS4/XB1 with AMD CPU/GPU, and faster higher bandwidth RAM.

The Switch may have a difficult time having better performance as similarly priced tablets released around March 2017 because new mobile chips will be faster when installed in new tablets.

I read on Gamestop that the Switch uses a variant of Tegra processor which is based on the ARM instruction set, which is what is used to power modern smartphones and tablets.

The Tegra X1 is about as powerful as the Xbox 360 console, but the Xbox 360 sometimes displayed games with more detail.

"The Tegra X1 debuted in March 2015 with promises of PS3/Xbox 360 equivalent graphics

As Digital Foundry notes, Doom 3 BFG was natively ported to the Shield platform, and ran at 1080p and 60 frames per second in comparison to the 720p30 presentation on last-generation consoles. However, close comparisons suggested a significantly lower level of model complexity, normal and shadow maps, and texture resolution on the Nvidia hardware by comparison."

Polygon

I bet, the Switch may use the Tegra X1, or a more affordable slower version of the Tegra X1 with less features found in the original X1. There is a chance that the Switch will uses a CPU/GPU similar to the Tegra K1 found on the $199 Nvidia Shield tablet to keep the price at $247, and still come with accessories like a charger, TV dock, HDMI cable, two removable wireless controllers, and built-in Switch tablet features like stereo speakers, headphone/headset jack, video and charging ports for the TV dock, HD multi-touch touchscreen, and microphone which are built-into the Switch's tablet.

The most basic version of Nvidia Shield TV with the Tegra X1 console cost $199, and it comes with a console with 3GB of RAM, 16GB flash ssd storage, wireless gamepad controller, HDMI cable, USB cable and power brick which is a phone charger. The Shield TV does not come have a touchscreen, TV dock, internal battery, built-in speakers, microphone, and other accessories which come with the Switch, so the Switch may use slower parts to keep the price at $247 while coming with more accessories, and extra parts built-into the tablet and TV dock .

There is a chance that the Switch will be more powerful than the Wii U. But, the Wii U can still be more powerful than the Switch. The Wii U uses a PowerPC Espresso CPU with a clock speed of 1.24 GHz, and AMD Radeon "Latte" with a 550 MHz clock speed GPU. The Wii U GPU is based on Radeon R600/R700. PowerPC CPU chips are found in older Apple PCs before Apple switched to Intel Chips, Xbox 360( 3.2 GHz PowerPC Tri-Core Xenon ), and some web servers which uses PowerPC processors. The AMD R600/700 is a video card which was used in more powerful PCs in 2007.

The Wii U console also gets its power from a 75W power adapter plugged into a power outlet, and the console has a better cooling system with a large heatsink and fan, so it can run faster for a longer amount of time without overheating and high power consumption/poor battery life problems like a tablet where its battery life becomes lower, and gets very hot when the CPU, RAM, and GPU usage is high.
 
Last edited:
I believe that they really need to up their game with this new console. After Wii U and 3DS it's clear they need a console that everyone will love when they purchase it and not feel let down but it meaning if it's slower than the average tablet that will be a huge let down and they will have failed again. I don't see it being overly slow to be honest but I guess time will tell.
 
Shortie861 said:
I believe that they really need to up their game with this new console. After Wii U and 3DS it's clear they need a console that everyone will love when they purchase it and not feel let down but it meaning if it's slower than the average tablet that will be a huge let down and they will have failed again. I don't see it being overly slow to be honest but I guess time will tell.
Click to expand...

I think the Nintendo Switch games won't run slowly, but there might be fewer special effects, less realistic graphics, and possibly lower framerates like 30 frames per second instead of 60 fps. Switch games may look similar to the Wii U, or slightly worse in tablet/portable gaming mode to help save power, not drain the battery. The mobile Tegra processor maybe more limited than a PowerPC, or AMD/Intel PC processor which is designed for PCs and consoles which have a better cooling system, and power from a home's wall power outlet or a large battery on a bigger laptop.

According to Arstechnica, the Nintendo Switch's tablet will use a 720P 6.2" inch touchscreen. The Nintendo Switch using a 720P screen could mean that games can run quickly in 720P even with a mobile Tegra processor/video chip, and slower smaller sized RAM like 3 GB DDR3 RAM like how PC users who use a slower computer can still play games like Grand Theft Auto 5 on lower video quality settings and lower video resolutions like 720P(1280×720 pixels) without slowdown or over heating problems because the video chip, and CPU does not need to work as hard displaying a video in 720P vs 1080P which needs a more powerful CPU and video chip.
 
I'm way more interested in 500GB or 1TB PS4 than anything Nintendo is putting out. lol
 
zoldos said:
I'm way more interested in 500GB or 1TB PS4 than anything Nintendo is putting out. lol
Click to expand...

Same for me, if I had to choose only one or two consoles, I will pick the PS4 and Xbox One to play exclusive Xbox games like Fable and Halo. I want a console where I know I will get games from third-party game series like Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy, Grand Theft Auto, etc.

I feel a Nintendo Switch is more of a luxury or secondary console for people who want to play Nintendo Exclusives, and they own another console or Gaming PC for playing third-party games like Grand Theft Auto 5, Destiny, and Final Fantasy.

Plus, the PS4 and Xbox One can be used as a Blu-Ray disc movie player, and Media center box for playing videos from Netflix, YouTube, USB external storage drive, and a PC which is connected to a home network via wi-fi, or wired internet.
 
Yup, agreed. We're not interested in media as we have a Fire TV media box, but games, yes! :grin:
 
Based on the data above I can't see developers supporting it. I mean, again, it's a case where they'd have to put a lot of work in to optimize for the switch. But that's time/money that they could use elsewhere so it's unlikely they'll want to.

Even with the system purportedly having as much power as a PS3/360 I can't see it getting exactly as good graphics purely because of the sacrifices they made to achieve it. Which probably wouldn't be noticeable on a 6 inch screen... but the switch also has to blow that up for a larger one too. So any sacrifices like that they make will be more noticeable. (Especially if they port a game that was on the PS3/360... and the person played some there. Like with Borderlands 2 on PS3 vs Vita. They made some changes like: how many enemies could be on screen at once, draw distances, likely some graphics changes too, etc...)

Now I know graphics aren't the be-all/end-all of things... but the underlying hardware that makes good graphics possible? that does matter a lot to developers.
 
Demon_Skeith said:
whatever PS4 you get, you'll want to upgrade to 2TB.
Click to expand...

I agree, 2TB will be important for gamers who want to play more than a few games at once.

But, 500GB can be a usable amount of space if you mainly rent/borrow physical disc games, or sell most of your old games once you get bored of them, or finish them, and you uninstall games after you no longer rent or own the game because you returned the game, or sold it.

There are also some gamers who only play a few console exclusive games like Kingdom Hearts and some Final Fantasy games on consoles because they own a faster Gaming PC for playing third-party games like Grand Theft Auto 5 which is available on PC.
 
VirusZero said:
Based on the data above I can't see developers supporting it. I mean, again, it's a case where they'd have to put a lot of work in to optimize for the switch. But that's time/money that they could use elsewhere so it's unlikely they'll want to.

Even with the system purportedly having as much power as a PS3/360 I can't see it getting exactly as good graphics purely because of the sacrifices they made to achieve it. Which probably wouldn't be noticeable on a 6 inch screen... but the switch also has to blow that up for a larger one too. So any sacrifices like that they make will be more noticeable. (Especially if they port a game that was on the PS3/360... and the person played some there. Like with Borderlands 2 on PS3 vs Vita. They made some changes like: how many enemies could be on screen at once, draw distances, likely some graphics changes too, etc...)

Now I know graphics aren't the be-all/end-all of things... but the underlying hardware that makes good graphics possible? that does matter a lot to developers.
Click to expand...

I did hear one rumor about the Switch being easy to port games to. We'll have to wait and see.

froggyboy604 said:
I agree, 2TB will be important for gamers who want to play more than a few games at once.

But, 500GB can be a usable amount of space if you mainly rent/borrow physical disc games, or sell most of your old games once you get bored of them, or finish them, and you uninstall games after you no longer rent or own the game because you returned the game, or sold it.

There are also some gamers who only play a few console exclusive games like Kingdom Hearts and some Final Fantasy games on consoles because they own a faster Gaming PC for playing third-party games like Grand Theft Auto 5 which is available on PC.
Click to expand...

Problem is you still have to install games from the discs and that eats up a lot of memory.

zoldos said:
How much is that? We had a 320GB PS3 and didn't run out of space! lol
Click to expand...

You'll have between 350-400 GB of space on a 500 GB PS4 after all the updates for the system and apps included on the PS4. Game sizes have doubled if not tripled since the PS3 days so at best you might be able to have 10 or so digital/installed games on your PS4 at a time. Final Fantasy 15 which just came out will require 50-60 GB of space on your PS4 just for an example.
 
No. 500GB on the PS4 is not enough.

I bought a launch day PS4 that had 500GB. Within a year we had basically filled the PS4's harddrive.

Firstly, the actual amount you get of usable space is about 392GB. (This is due to the conversion of base 2 to base 10 combined with the fact that the OS takes around 60GB for itself.)

Secondly, most triple A games take upwards of 20GB and each of them has to be installed. This isn't like on the PS3 where in many cases they didn't install, or they had much smaller installs. (Even the largest games were often only like 10-12GB in size...)
Battlefield 4 took around 60GB for itself with all it's DLC. GTA 5 on PS4 takes around 50GB. Witcher 3 was around 40GB. Destiny takes around 60GB. So right there it's already used 210GB with only 4 games.

Thirdly any video or screenshots you take will consume space. (Although a few screenshots won't make a huge dent, it can really add up when they're automatically taken each time you earn a trophy. The videos though are another story... easily a gigabyte per 10-15 minutes.)

I've remarked to others in the past that the PS4 really should have started with a 1TB model and then the upgraded version should have had 2TB or 4TB versions later on. (500GB just isn't enough anymore.)
 
Demon_Skeith said:
I did hear one rumor about the Switch being easy to port games to. We'll have to wait and see.
Click to expand...

It may be easy to port games to the Switch. But, most likely it will take some time, and money to port games which some smaller companies, and bigger companies with money problems can't afford to do, and the time and money maybe better used to improve the PS4, PC, and Xbox One version of the game until the Switch has a large userbase like the PS4, PC, and Xbox One which now has a userbase which actively buy games and DLC.
 
How do I get the 2TB drive? I may just get a Sony blu-ray player that has PS Now so I can stream games instead of buying a PS4....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top