Hardware Does the Switch Tegra X1 SoC punch above it’s weight?

[Mr Swine]

One thing I love with console hardware is how developers will try to squeeze out as much performance as possible during it’s life span.

If we look back there have been tons of games that where seemingly impossible to run on NES, SNES, PS, PS2, N64, GC, Xbox and more.

With the Nvidia Tegra K1 it was said that it was on par with the PS360 hardware and that the X1 was way above it.

Switch with its 20nm Tegra X1 SoC was underclocked and it back then a bit of a bummer. It’s hardware seemed to be a tad better in handheld/undocked mode while much better in docked despite its paltry memory bandwidth.

Yet during the Switch lifespan we’ve gotten really impressive looking games from both Nintendo and third party developers. Games that would melt the Xbox 360 and PS3 even if they had double the ram.

Whenever I play games like Luigi’s Mansion 3, Dying Light, Doom Eternal and more I’m genuinely impressed how much developers are getting out of Switch.

Do you agree, disagree or don’t know?

 

[Spork4000]

The Witcher 3 has no business being on Switch, and yet there it is.

 

[Tangerine_Cookie]

I'd say it's more complicated than just "punching above its weight", but it absolutely does by most common definitions.

Some things to consider, this is not an exhaustive list:

1. The Tegra X1 is an ARM based chip. ARM does cartwheels around the ever-present x64 in power-to-performance ratio. It's a more recent architecture that has had a lot more development thrown into it because of the smartphone boom, and it absolutely does mostly everything better than ye olde x64 that's hauling decades of x86 backwards compatibility thrown in.
2. Developers are actually optimizing code better for Switch. Everyone wants to make games for Switch because the platform has a massive install base and it's attractive; most games released in other platforms are poorly optimized because "they run well enough with headroom to spare" in more powerful hardware. We've actually had a couple of games that ran significantly better on Switch than on PS4, and it was basically because of this.

Comparing raw power numbers never helps, especially when you're talking about wildly different architectures, and games made with different priorities re: optimization. If you do? Yes, the Switch absolutely punches above its weight. If you don't? The Switch is punching to its weight, it's just that it is on a heavier weight class than anyone expected and they have allowed it to pack the boxing gloves with spikes.

 

[MetalLord]

Better to wait two weeks to answer this

 

[Mbolibombo]

I said in another thread the other day, that the fact that this piece is playing on super low power draw and is still able to perform the way it does is massively impressive.

The fact that it at it's fullest capacity in TV-mode doesnt even draw as much as a Series X in rest mode.. yeah that's just crazy.

 

[Raccoon]

The year is 2022 and the world is dying. The most important measure will very soon be "power per Watt," and in this respect the Switch does quite well.

 

[ezidro3]

NVN and Horizon I think does it some favours. Comparing the NVIDIA Shield and Switch versions of titles like Doom 3 and the Switch version always comes out on top in terms of performance and image quality while the Tegra is clocked lower and using less power.

 

[ILikeFeet]

no.

I don't believe in "punching above its weight". this is just what happens when you extract maximum efficiency from the SoC

 

[ShadowFox08]

I also agree with punching above it's weight definition depends on the context.

So I say yes and no.


From a pure flops (lol) perspective vs 2011 AMD PS4/Xbone GPU hardware, one can say it looks like with many games on a surface level. Most people don't know know that Maxwell flops are more efficient per flop than xbone/PS4 (it's newer hardware also after all) while retaining a lot of modern tools, and it does help even further with mixed precision mode enabled with engines that take advantage of it (Unreal Engine 4) from devs.

in the previous and neogaf website, from devs and other regulars have noted that 393 gflops Switch performs closer to a ball park estimate 600 gflops (in AMD flops) in some cases in the right conditions and engines, and I do think that shows in unreal engine games especially like Snake Pass. But there's no hard number.

But now that we are like 6 years in.. We know what it can do, and have an idea tricks that devs can make (as well as engine optimizations) to make switch games look more on par/close the gap more with xbone/PS4 base games that aren't bottlenecked by CPU and RAM bandwidth.
So now it's just a matter of optimizing games on Switch. And when you have some multi ports, it's hard to say if they were fully optimized to squeeze more performance or if they were really bottlenecked on switch sometimes.

I never thought games like Doom 2016 was punching above it's weight on switch ehen you consider all the sacrifices considered (30fps 600p with less detail and effects vs 900p-1080p 50-60fps). Doom is more of an extreme example though. On a GPU perspective, it may be closer to 2.5x weaker than xbone and 3-3.5x weaker than PS4, when fully optimized. CPU is at least 3.5x slower than PS4, and RAM bandwidth is similar or more in gap.

 

[Hermii]

I'd say it's more complicated than just "punching above its weight", but it absolutely does by most common definitions.

Some things to consider, this is not an exhaustive list:

1. The Tegra X1 is an ARM based chip. ARM does cartwheels around the ever-present x64 in power-to-performance ratio. It's a more recent architecture that has had a lot more development thrown into it because of the smartphone boom, and it absolutely does mostly everything better than ye olde x64 that's hauling decades of x86 backwards compatibility thrown in.
2. Developers are actually optimizing code better for Switch. Everyone wants to make games for Switch because the platform has a massive install base and it's attractive; most games released in other platforms are poorly optimized because "they run well enough with headroom to spare" in more powerful hardware. We've actually had a couple of games that ran significantly better on Switch than on PS4, and it was basically because of this.

Comparing raw power numbers never helps, especially when you're talking about wildly different architectures, and games made with different priorities re: optimization. If you do? Yes, the Switch absolutely punches above its weight. If you don't? The Switch is punching to its weight, it's just that it is on a heavier weight class than anyone expected and they have allowed it to pack the boxing gloves with spikes.

I mean, going by that logic every console ever made punches it’s weight, because the proof is in the pudding. It’s obviously capable of running whatever it’s running.

 

[Boyfriend]

while it's punching above its weight in terms of expectations i think it's more a matter that the power argument is poorly phrased. the fact that games like the witcher 3 are capable of running on it shows that generational leaps aren't nearly as important as evangelists make them out to be

 

[Tangerine_Cookie]

I mean, going by that logic every console ever made punches it’s weight, because the proof is in the pudding. It’s obviously capable of running whatever it’s running.

Have you actually read my entire post?

 

[Dekuman]

It's everything. Tegra X1 with a proper cooling goes a long way, although the ShieldTV 'innovated' it if you want to call it that. And you can go further back to something like the Ouya which used a mobile Soc Tegra 3 with a dinky fan. But Switch's cooling solution is certainly much better than the Ouya's so I think ShieldTV was its more direct predecessor to Switch in terms of cooling.

So having solved that and established stable clocks on the X1 with ShieldTV while Switch was in development, Nvidia worked on the NVN which I would argue is the other half. Switch without NVN will just be another mobile SoC androix box chip.

Very interested to see what they can do with the next Switch.

while it's punching above its weight in terms of expectations i think it's more a matter that the power argument is poorly phrased. the fact that games like the witcher 3 are capable of running on it shows that generational leaps aren't nearly as important as evangelists make them out to be

Power is important but I think a lot of it is wasted in pushing resolution not everyone will benefit from, and in effects no everyone notices. Not saying it's good or bad, but as DF often will bring up, smart cuts to both will go a long way in getting a game to run on Switch, usually at half fps, so 30 instead of 60.

Witcher 3 is very interesting in that it didn't run particularly well on consoles to begin with, was a 30 fps game on XBONE and PS4 and was supposed to be the next-gen flagship game when it launched. For it to launch in a box that no one thought could run it was something else.

And I'll be frank, no one really was thinking of impossible ports when Switch launched in March 2017, this included many Switch fans. When Doom showed up in in the Sept 2017 direct, it changed the whole expecations game. And if it wasn't doom it would have been another game, and you can tell it was a concerted strategy on Nintendo's end. Every year there's 5-10 games like that hitting the Switch. 2018 saw stuff like Civ6,Divinity,Cities Skylines, Wolfentsein etc.

 

[CM132]

I don't care about third party on Switch, but all first party games look great. It's funny that Nintendo releases the weakest hardware possible and then makes one of the most impressive games ever made (BOTW). And BOTW also works on previous hardware with cpu architecture from 20 years ago lol.

I'm currently playing XC3 and the amount of things happening on screen is insane. Nintendo's guys are hardware wizards.

 

[Dekuman]

I don't care about third party on Switch, but all first party games look great. It's funny that Nintendo releases the weakest hardware possible and then makes one of the most impressive games ever made (BOTW). And BOTW also works on previous hardware with cpu architecture from 20 years ago lol.

I'm currently playing XC3 and the amount of things happening on screen is insane. Nintendo's guys are hardware wizards.

they didn't release the weakest hardward possible though.

 

[Deleted member 1324]

Yes when you compare it to Shield games which have higher clocks to play with.

No when you considering it’s in between PS360 and PS4XBO hardware wise but can run the latters ports with drastically reduced visual settings and at much lower resolutions and at times half the framerate because that makes sense.

Like with any console the first party / exclusive games is where it shines with the likes of Mario Odyssey, Splatoon 2/3, Luigi’s Mansion 3 and Mario Rabbids 1/2 all looking superb.

 

[Deleted member 645]

Better to wait two weeks to answer this

 

[jnWake]

Not a technical opinion in the slightest but I don’t feel the Switch has really “punched above its weight”, since one of its most impressive looking games (IMO) was available at launch. Hence, initial expectations for what was possible on the Switch were pretty high so I don’t feel it has truly punched above its weight.

Maybe BotW2 will be the one.

 

[ShadowFox08]

It's everything. Tegra X1 with a proper cooling goes a long way, although the ShieldTV 'innovated' it if you want to call it that. And you can go further back to something like the Ouya which used a mobile Soc Tegra 3 with a dinky fan. But Switch's cooling solution is certainly much better than the Ouya's so I think ShieldTV was its more direct predecessor to Switch in terms of cooling.

So having solved that and established stable clocks on the X1 with ShieldTV while Switch was in development, Nvidia worked on the NVN which I would argue is the other half. Switch without NVN will just be another mobile SoC androix box chip.

Very interested to see what they can do with the next Switch.


Power is important but I think a lot of it is wasted in pushing resolution not everyone will benefit from, and in effects no everyone notices. Not saying it's good or bad, but as DF often will bring up, smart cuts to both will go a long way in getting a game to run on Switch, usually at half fps, so 30 instead of 60.

Witcher 3 is very interesting in that it didn't run particularly well on consoles to begin with, was a 30 fps game on XBONE and PS4 and was supposed to be the next-gen flagship game when it launched. For it to launch in a box that no one thought could run it was something else.

And I'll be frank, no one really was thinking of impossible ports when Switch launched in March 2017, this included many Switch fans. When Doom showed up in in the Sept 2017 direct, it changed the whole expecations game. And if it wasn't doom it would have been another game, and you can tell it was a concerted strategy on Nintendo's end. Every year there's 5-10 games like that hitting the Switch. 2018 saw stuff like Civ6,Divinity,Cities Skylines, Wolfentsein etc.

I don't get why people are raving doom 2016 as an "impossible port" for switch after performance was known. 600p 25-30fps with cuts to lighting, shadows, textures and overall detail vs 900-1080p 50-60 fps xbone/PS4 is not impressive to me. If anything, it's one of the more extreme examples of disparities between ports, as there seemed to be more bottlenecks (certainly bandwidth, and perhaps CPU) involved or unoptimized engines/work.

 

[Dekuman]

I don't get why people are raving doom 2016 as an "impossible port" for switch after performance was known. 600p 25-30fps with cuts to lighting, shadows, textures and overall detail vs 900-1080p 50-60 fps xbone/PS4 is not impressive to me. If anything, it's one of the more extreme examples of disparities between ports, as there seemed to be more bottlenecks (certainly bandwidth, and perhaps CPU) involved or unoptimized engines/work.

It's less impressive retrospectively based on what else came out since and also less impressive compared to the Doom Eternal port from the same studio because less custom work was done on it.

But given this was a launch window title, It's an impossible port because of its recency in 2017 as a major recent release and people didn't expect it. It is also not just 'people' as you derisively call it , when DF covers it and calls it essentially as such, I think it perfectly captures the zeitgeist of the moment. A lot of the praise also went towards the completeness of the port in terms of content. A lot of prior Doom impossible ports to say GBA or Doom3 on Xbox had content reorganized.

 

[Deleted member 1324]

The Witcher 3 port will always be far more impressive to me simply because it struggled to run at a solid 30fps on Xbone and PS4 for the first six months of release in 2015. With DOOM, DOOM Eternal and Wolfenstein II they could instantly make the ports possible by cutting the target framerate from 60fps on the other consoles to 30fps on Switch. Also the fact that it’s open World and has so much dialogue is also mega impressive from a storage point of view.

 

[Dekuman]

The Witcher 3 port will always be far more impressive to me simply because it struggled to run at a solid 30fps on Xbone and PS4 for the first six months of release in 2015. With DOOM, DOOM Eternal and Wolfenstein II they could instantly make the ports possible by cutting the target framerate from 60fps on the other consoles to 30fps on Switch. Also the fact that it’s open World and has so much dialogue is also mega impressive from a storage point of view.

There's a clear evolution of impossible ports on Switch. It started with just toggling settings I think the first port that kind of tweaked people expecting Switch to just be be a 360 equivalent was Snake Pass because that ran on UE4, looked fine and was a multiplat release on PS4 and XBONE also and 30fps on the base units and Switch. I think that kind of planted the idea that maybe Switch wasn't just going to be running late ports and last gen games.

Snake Pass though was just playing with UE4 toggles on the custom Switch branch of the engine. Witcher 3 was several steps in where custom work was done and kind of a culmination of impossible porting to the Switch, which is a combination of playing with toggles to reduce or remove effects, optimizing the code, managing CPU/GPU really well, and redoing geometry. I'm not sure if a lot of the latter was done for Witcher 3, but a lot of more recent impossible ports also do the geometry part, most notably the Life is Strange True Colors or Crash 4 port.

(edit: my comments on Snake Pass toggling settings is likely a gross simplicaiton ands probably undersells Sumo's work on the game, but it very much was just taking the UE4 branch on Switch for a test ride)

 

[ILikeFeet]

There's a clear evolution of impossible ports on Switch. It started with just toggling settings I think the first port that kind of tweaked people expecting Switch to just be be a 360 equivalent was Snake Pass because that ran on UE4, looked fine and was a multiplat release on PS4 and XBONE also and 30fps on the base units and Switch. I think that kind of planted the idea that maybe Switch wasn't just going to be running late ports and last gen games.

Snake Pass though was just playing with UE4 toggles on the custom Switch branch of the engine. Witcher 3 was several steps in where custom work was done and kind of a culmination of impossible porting to the Switch, which is a combination of playing with toggles to reduce or remove effects, optimizing the code, managing CPU/GPU really well, and redoing geometry. I'm not sure if a lot of the latter was done for Witcher 3, but a lot of more recent impossible ports also do the geometry part, most notably the Life is Strange True Colors or Crash 4 port.

(edit: my comments on Snake Pass toggling settings is likely a gross simplicaiton ands probably undersells Sumo's work on the game, but it very much was just taking the UE4 branch on Switch for a test ride)

it helps that Snake Pass was a comparatively smaller game than the others you listed

 

[Dekuman]

it helps that Snake Pass was a comparatively smaller game than the others you listed

I knew this was going to be nitpicked. I only cited it was the game that gave people an inkling the Swich hardware wasn't a portable 360 which was widely held at the time. Not that it was an impossible port. Granted most people were in honeymoon phase playing BOTW and not a lot of discussions yet as to its true capabilites

It's also worth noting the base XBONE ans PS4 versions ran at 30 fps sub 1080p on release. Not sure if it got patched later but that's the other major takeaway. The Switch version compared very favorably to the other two platform which was a point of discussion in the ResetEra DF thread at the time

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

I don't think it's seems out of line on a historical basis, but I think people have become unused to a situation where such a thing was both necessary and feasible. Last century all the time we'd see things like Capcom CPS-2 games being reproduced well enough on Sega Genesis. Complete recreations like that fell out of common practice, though, so this didn't really carry on to Wii, the other major time this century where getting "impossible" ports would've been useful. There's no longer an "arcade" level of machine with major original content looming over the home-only machines, so nobody gets to be impressed that they managed to get Street Fighter VI working on a mere PS5.

 

[Mr Doggo]

I'm currently playing XC3 and the amount of things happening on screen is insane. Nintendo's guys are hardware wizards.

Depends on the team lol. Game freak, intsys for fire emblem

 

[Hermii]

I don't think it's seems out of line on a historical basis, but I think people have become unused to a situation where such a thing was both necessary and feasible. Last century all the time we'd see things like Capcom CPS-2 games being reproduced well enough on Sega Genesis. Complete recreations like that fell out of common practice, though, so this didn't really carry on to Wii, the other major time this century where getting "impossible" ports would've been useful. There's no longer an "arcade" level of machine with major original content looming over the home-only machines, so nobody gets to be impressed that they managed to get Street Fighter VI working on a mere PS5.

The call of duty Wii versions. might fit the category?

 

[ShadowFox08]

The call of duty Wii versions. might fit the category?

The call of duty Wii versions were pretty amazing. Down porting from 360 version to a much weaker hardware while still looking good for an online multiplayer, and most gameplay intact at 480p 30 fps. Hats off to the Treyarch Wii team. Especially with COD4, Black Ops and Wii (Waw wasn't shabby either).

 

[SiG]

I honestly want to see what demoscene developers can do with the hardware.

 

[Hermii]

I honestly want to see what demoscene developers can do with the hardware.

shinen are demoscene devs.

 

[ILikeFeet]

The call of duty Wii versions were pretty amazing. Down porting from 360 version to a much weaker hardware while still looking good for an online multiplayer, and most gameplay intact at 480p 30 fps. Hats off to the Treyarch Wii team. Especially with COD4, Black Ops and Wii (Waw wasn't shabby either).

while these were bespoke, the fact that the DS had multiple CoDs were amazing. CoD on the 3DS would have been really cool

 

[Deleted member 1324]

I knew this was going to be nitpicked. I only cited it was the game that gave people an inkling the Swich hardware wasn't a portable 360 which was widely held at the time. Not that it was an impossible port. Granted most people were in honeymoon phase playing BOTW and not a lot of discussions yet as to its true capabilites

It's also worth noting the base XBONE ans PS4 versions ran at 30 fps sub 1080p on release. Not sure if it got patched later but that's the other major takeaway. The Switch version compared very favorably to the other two platform which was a point of discussion in the ResetEra DF thread at the time

Side note. I loved Snake Pass and it was very pretty especially in handheld mode (and especially coming from the 3DS XL!) in the early days of Switch.

 

[ShadowFox08]

while these were bespoke, the fact that the DS had multiple CoDs were amazing. CoD on the 3DS would have been really cool

Yeah DS having Cod was pretty wild too. I never played them, but saw pics.

Really flabbergasted we haven't gotten Cod on Switch yet. Cod mobile would have been an easy 900p-1080p 60fps for regular online multiplayer, and 30fps in battle royale would have been doable.

 

[curl-6]

It has certainly overachieved relative to what most people expected of it prior to and shortly after launch.

The common perception around that time was that it was essentially a portable Wii U, and that ports of AAA PS4/Xbone games were an impossibility.

Doom was a true pioneer in terms of reshaping this perception, and from there such ports got more and more demanding and impressive; Witcher 3 is the obvious showpiece, but games like Dying Light, World War Z, and recently Zombie Army 4 and Bright Memory Infinite also push the hardware very hard.

The Tegra X1 was always a very capable piece of kit for its time, especially in terms of energy efficiency, it just took time for developers to really invest in getting the most out of it, and once they did, they kept pushing harder and harder as the system's massive success made it worth the squeeze.

So yes, it terms of both exceeding expectations and performance per watt, I would say the Switch punches above its weight.
It's been fascinating for me personally, as someone who enjoys technical stuff, to see just how far it can be pushed, and I'm sure there are still games yet to come that will push the envelope even further.

 

[GamerJM]

I think so, but I also think it peaked kinda early, at least that's the sense I get. Seeing something like DOOM 2016 running on the console within its first year was absolutely incredible, and is in retrospect kind of unprecedented. But outside of the Witcher 3, I don't feel like we've been as wowed within the last couple of years, and Idk if the Switch has something in it like God of War II on the PS2, or Titanfall 1 on the 360; games released on consoles in their twilight years which showed just how far they could be pushed, in a way it felt like nothing had up until that point. I feel like this has more to do with the ease of development on the Switch that devs can push it so far so early than it does anything else though.

 

[ILikeFeet]

I think so, but I also think it peaked kinda early, at least that's the sense I get. Seeing something like DOOM 2016 running on the console within its first year was absolutely incredible, and is in retrospect kind of unprecedented. But outside of the Witcher 3, I don't feel like we've been as wowed within the last couple of years, and Idk if the Switch has something in it like God of War II on the PS2, or Titanfall 1 on the 360; games released on consoles in their twilight years which showed just how far they could be pushed, in a way it felt like nothing had up until that point. I feel like this has more to do with the ease of development on the Switch that devs can push it so far so early than it does anything else though.

Outside of Nintendo, no one has any reason to push the switch to its limits like some of the games you mentioned. That's the inevitable conclusion of having hardware that falls a step too far outside the realm of "easy porting"

 

[Serif]

It's consistently exceeded expectations, which isn't saying much. Folks have low expectations for this device. Which made sense when it was new in 2017, but in 2022 despite hundreds of games worth of evidence, there is unironic disbelief that it can run x and y 2d pixel art indie or ps360 port. Annoying.

 

[Dcubed]

I think so, but I also think it peaked kinda early, at least that's the sense I get. Seeing something like DOOM 2016 running on the console within its first year was absolutely incredible, and is in retrospect kind of unprecedented. But outside of the Witcher 3, I don't feel like we've been as wowed within the last couple of years, and Idk if the Switch has something in it like God of War II on the PS2, or Titanfall 1 on the 360; games released on consoles in their twilight years which showed just how far they could be pushed, in a way it felt like nothing had up until that point. I feel like this has more to do with the ease of development on the Switch that devs can push it so far so early than it does anything else though.

Modern consoles generally don't get pushed to their limits like they used to. Programming these days is largely platform agnostic (even with console exclusives) and is done with high level languages. The days of developers squeezing out every last drop of performance with assembly programming and console specific tricks is long over. You'll get small advances with SDK and middleware optimisations in the first few years or so, but nothing that is going to really dramatically improve performance.

PS3 & 360 were the last consoles that really got pushed the old fashioned way, which is why you saw such dramatic improvements with those consoles as time went on. By contrast, both PS4 and Xbone peaked very early on, with newer games not really evolving much over their launch window counterparts; since multiplatform (PC-lead) development became the norm, and games now are largely built on multiplatform middleware and high level programming languages that no longer allow programmers to "code to the metal" anymore. The same then happened with Switch and PS5/Series X.

In fact, we actually have a pretty good example that just got shown off today by Digital Foundry, in the form of an analysis for Splatoon 3...

​

Basically identical performance & visual fidelity as with Splatoon 2, despite launching 6 years later; the only real visual advancements coming from generalised, platform agnostic upscaling techniques that have been developed within the last 3 years or so.

These days? What you see is what you get with console and PC hardware. You won't be seeing any real advances in same-console performance over its lifetime anymore.

 

[Bonejack]

Layman's opinion: It absolutely does, especially since it's iirc not running in full theoretical available performance in either mode (handheld/docked).

Of course, a lot of those impossible ports/projects or the "how did they do that?!?!?!" ones are also a beatiful work of scalability and sometimes genius optimization.

But the lil thing absolutely did more than people thought it could be doing.

 

[10k]

The TX1 not being bottle necked by A57's or a 25GB/s memory buffer would be interesting to see.