Nintendo's Switch Game Console Is Vulkan & OpenGL Conformant

[Passso]

The NES only had one console competitor and it wasn't leaps and bounds beyond it. SNES was superior. N64 was superior. Gamecube beat the PS2 and Dreamcast absolutely, the Xbox only had programmable shaders and more RAM. Nintendo usually competes well on hardware, they have only pulled back on that when they decided to pcomplete on content since the most powerful game console has never won a generation (til now with the PS4 anyway, it's definitely going to win).

At last someone with a little memory

The problem is not about Nintendo "crappy hardware" it is about :

- selling a console cheaper than 300$
- with no loss on sale
- having "something different"

So of course they cannot compete in performance with Sony, whose consoles in reality cost 600$...

Now, back to subject, I like this hybrid console idea and hope 3rd party will follow

[Passso]

Lol, and when they started to stop the improvement you just stop mentioning it:
1996: N64 vs. PS... on par
2001: PS2(6.2 GFLOPS) < GameCube(9.4 GFLOPS) < Xbox (20GFLOPS)
2006: Wii(12 GFLOPS) < PS3(230 GFLOPS) < Xbox 360(240 GFLOPS)
2013: Wii U(350 GFLOPS) < Xbox One(1,300 GFLOPS) < PS4(1,850 GFLOPS)
2017: Switch(0.15-0.4 TFLOPS?) < PS4 Pro(4.2 TFLOPS) < Xbox Scorpio(~6 TFLOPS)

So from 2001 to 2012 there was no noticeable improvement in the Nintendo consoles performance. That's over 10 years. And they are about to do the same again... The Switch seems not to have even 1 TFLOP being clocked at about 700MHz and 300MHz depending if it sits in the docking station.

OMG, so many random/false numbers in only one post I won't even try to fix all!
(The Tegra used in Switch is NOT a X1... )

TFLOPS is not the only way to compare things you know, most of the hardware here had additionnal process units to compute so basically you compare orange to apple to banana

Oh and another thing : Nintendo put their products on the market WAY BEFORE Sony and MS ( always > 1 year), so please put the real years to be at least honest on that

[oooverclocker]

OMG, so many random/false numbers in only one post I won't even try to fix all!
(The Tegra used in Switch is NOT a X1... )

Then you might correct them on Wikipedia. And yes, the Switch does have a Tegra X1 but it had been unsure whether Nvidia has added more shaders. But it looks like the modification was just to set the CPU clock speed from 2GHz to 1GHz and the GPU clock speed from 1GHz to 768MHz when it's docked and 307MHz undocked. So even Nvidia Shield with a standard X1 is significantly faster.

[Passso]

So even Nvidia Shield with a standard X1 is significantly faster.

This is non sense.

[Passso]

Then you might correct them on Wikipedia.

Watch the sources of the article and the way FLOPS are calculated (differently for every hardware) to understand that this graph is BS.

[computerquip]

Did something radical and googled it... and this was the best source I could find in 5 min:
http://venturebeat.com/2016/12/14/ni...playstation-4/

Erm... did you even read what I quoted? Perhaps you should use an extra five minutes to do so.

[computerquip]

Actually, the Linux kernel exports a stable ABI and the Windows kernel does not.

If you bundle everything including glibc, then it won't be the link between glibc and the kernel which breaks.

I'm actually down for people not using glibc and using musl implicitly. Unfortunately, tends to be easier said than done.

[tmpdir]

There's very little reason to port a game to linux. SteamOS is one tiny 1% marketshare one but Bethesda could care less.

I'm a linux fan, using linux exclusively on my personal machines for work and gaming (when possible).

If I was asked by Bethesda or any other game company if they should port a game to Linux I'd say a big fat NO.
It's not worth it from any point of view. There's almost no revenue, it's problematic to keep it working cross distribution (unless open source) and there's bound to be a 10x more support issues coming from the platform with the way drivers and hw compatibility is right now, especially in the gfx cards space.

Why do you think steamos has 1% marketshare? last time I checked the steamOS machines are ignored in the steam surveys and nowhere else are reliable statistics.

[cj.wijtmans]

I'm actually down for people not using glibc and using musl implicitly. Unfortunately, tends to be easier said than done.

musl doesnt have many glibc functions that should have been standard in the first place. when i digged through systemd most of the musl-systemd devs was about "plz implement dis in systemd cuz musl dont habe it" and systemd was rightfully answering "nop we wont do that implement it yourself" and they were right, coming from a systemd "sceptic". So musl should have a musl-staging layer on top of musl for glibc compatability since it contains usefull functions that should be standard.

[JopV]

So why dont they just port their pokemon games to android for a 2$ price tag. Insta billion $$.

Because it would be unplayable without buttons. And it would only gain them money in the short term.

A rumor from last year said that the Switch (then referred to as the NX) would use Android. Considering that the Switch's hardware is basically a refreshed NVidia Shield Tablet (which runs Android) with attached controllers, chances are NVidia approached Nintendo and just licensed the whole platform to them.

If I was at Nintendo, I'd keep everything performance-related NVidia developed – that includes Vulkan and OpenGL drivers – and rely on my proprietary network services and unique controllers for vendor lock-in.

Seriously?

• There is no legitimate reason to use Android.
• Vulkan and especially OpenGL are useless overhead on a console, so they are probably solely there for compatibility purposes. They would be stupid to not make their own graphics API as well.
• Interoperability was a major goal for Nintendo Network, and that's probably what the Switch will use as well.
• "unique controllers for vendor lock-in"? 1) How do you lock people in by controllers, they are super easy to copy or emulate. 2) What should they have done then?

Lol, and when they started to stop the improvement you just stop mentioning it:
1996: N64 vs. PS... on par
2001: PS2(6.2 GFLOPS) < GameCube(9.4 GFLOPS) < Xbox (20GFLOPS)
2006: Wii(12 GFLOPS) < PS3(230 GFLOPS) < Xbox 360(240 GFLOPS)
2013: Wii U(350 GFLOPS) < Xbox One(1,300 GFLOPS) < PS4(1,850 GFLOPS)
2017: Switch(0.15-0.4 TFLOPS?) < PS4 Pro(4.2 TFLOPS) < Xbox Scorpio(~6 TFLOPS)

So from 2001 to 2012 there was no noticeable improvement in the Nintendo consoles performance. That's over 10 years. And they are about to do the same again... The Switch seems not to have even 1 TFLOP being clocked at about 700MHz and 300MHz depending if it sits in the docking station.

First, those numbers are nonsense. The Xbox 360 supposedly having more FLOPS than the PlayStation 3 was the most obvious to me.
Second, raw computing power doesn't mean a lot when it comes to games.
Last, about the Wii ("when they started to stop the improvement"), the reason it had such bad visual quality was because Nintendo put all of their R&D budget into motion controls, a huge improvement. Later, albeit with very different underlying technology, Sony copied it with the Move, Microsoft copied it with the Kinect, Razer copied it with the Hydra, and now we've got the HTC Vive, Oculus Touch, Sixense STEM and Google Daydream controllers. All inspired by that. But apparently it was worthless because GFLOPS 😑