@wolfpup7: "<<<Docked Switch is underpowered by comparison to Xbox One>>>
So what? It's a very nice level of power. It's better in 2017 than 3DS was in 2011."
"That's not a portable. The Pixel C, which uses the same CPU/GPU, is $500-besides being completely inappropriate for games."
This right here, folks. This is how you damage control. Remember, you don't have to be right, you just have to keep moving the goal posts. If someone compares it to a console, point out that it's portable. But if someone compares it to a tablet point out that it's docked clocked speeds outperform most tablets. Or better yet, switch the topic entirely. "Those may be more powerful, but they aren't for gaming." As though being a gaming device were an excuse for being less powerful.
And if someone calls you on that, insist that undocked Switch beats Tablets because tablet makers are liey liey lie faces. Off course, don't provide any ACTUAL evidence of this.
Now, I'm going to say one last thing about this and then I'm out. Damage control to your heart's content after that. But here's the thing. Android devices *are* notorious for cheating... in *benchmarks*. Most of them are programmed to detect benchmarks and then jump right to max clock and stay there the whole way through. But that's not the same as lying about your clockspeeds. Two completely different things.
Now you might think that they also lie about their clock speeds, but I doubt it. Android manufacturers don't advertise their GPU clock speeds (NVidia's K1 page: https://goo.gl/aWS7gA). To find them out you actually have to look up what GPU they use and then use something like notebook check to look up the speed of the GPU there (Notebook Check for the K1: https://goo.gl/W1B28o). And when you look up those clock speeds what you're looking at are what the chip maker (e.g., Qualcomm--makers of Snapdragon) recommends the manufacturer (e.g., Samsung) sets the clock speed at. Chip makers have NO incentive to mislead in that case.
Third, even IF Android devs are being misleading about their clock speeds, is there any reason to think Nintendo's not? I don't see any room in that thing for fans. So if thermals are a problem for other devices, then it will be a problem for the switch as well.
Fourth, NVidia is one of the few companies that isn't cheating in benchmarks (https://goo.gl/swpSdR). So, assuming that there's two sorts of cheating going on, why think Nvidia's on cheating in one way but not the one in which almost everyone else is?
Fifth, and this is the big one. I actually looked up the stats for the Tegra K1--not a typo: K1 as in pre-X1--it's GPU clock speed is... wait for it... 950 MHz. (See the above link) Now, let's just hypothetically assume you're right. NVidia's being misleading about the clock speeds for the K1 (though nothing else apparently). And let's assume Nintendo's a paragon of honesty. And let's assume that NVidia only gets around 33% of it's listed speed. That would give a real clock speed of... 316.67. Slightly higher than the undocked Switch's 307.2. Price for a K1 Shield: $199.
Tl;dr. It's still made by NINTENDO. So yeah, it's underpowered.
@mathi4s: First, there's no "self-fulfilling prophecy fallacy." Second, if everyone's saying bad things about it, that's a sign that it's not going to do well. Maybe this is a self-fulfilling prophecy--people say it will do bad, so no one's excited, so no one buys it, so it does bad (still not a fallacy)--but if it is, then you can be pretty sure that it's true. Third, you may think the games look good, but it's become pretty apparent that Nintendo games just don't have the appeal they used to: with the exception of the wii, they've had fewer console sells every generation.
@wolfpup7: First off, The shield is plenty more powerful than the Switch. The switch uses a "custom" X1. Because Nintendo gonna Nintendo, custom means "underclocked." See: https://goo.gl/DfGkKX. Here's the money quote
"As things stand, CPU clocks are halved compared to the standard Tegra X1, but it's the GPU aspect of the equation that will prove more controversial. Even **while docked**, Switch doesn't run at Tegra X1's full potential. Clock-speeds are locked here at 768MHz, considerably lower than the 1GHz found in Shield Android TV."
As for costing a lot more money. Try $100 less. https://goo.gl/ZxCNIK.
Second, if you want to compare it to tablets, you should compare the *undocked* Switch to tablets. In that case, the Switch gets crushed by many much more affordable tablets.
Tl;dr Docked Switch is underpowered by comparison to Xbox 1, PS4, Nvidia Shield TV (and even integrated GPUs (i.e. GPUs in non-gaming laptops) http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-630.187948.0.html.) Undocked switch is underpowered next to pretty much everything.
@Iconoclysm: Oh stop it. You're not that stupid. You know the PS Vita hasn't dropped in price--and as a result hasn't sold. It was 250 at launch 5 years ago. A better comparison is the soon-to-be released Nvidia Shield TV. The switch uses a gimped version of the same tech as Shield TV and costs $100 more (see: https://goo.gl/ZxCNIK).
@wolfpup7: Damage control much? Nintendo clearly means for this to be a competitor to the Xbox 1 and PS4. And it's less powerful than those. Second, it's also running old shield tech. This is underpowered relative to tablets. The only way you can say it's not is by comparing it to old Nintendo tech. Give me a break.
@psx_warrior:With the exception of the wii, sales of nintendo home consoles have decreased every generation. And even the wii wasn't all that successful after the initial "wow" wore off (there's a reason nintendo released the wii U a year before the Xb1 or PS4). So, there's a lot of pessimism around them right now. Plus, they seem to be repeating the mistakes of their previous generation: it's underpowered, still places too much emphasis on what strikes a lot of people as a gimmick and motion controls (groooooan) even got a significant amount of air time. Dunno if it's Switch is "teh doomed," but I'm definitely in the "show me" stage.
@epayson85: "So basically paying $420 to play Zelda lol. No thanks." I think that's been nintendo's problem for a while now. There's basically two sorts of people that buy nintendo consoles. People who buy them because they want to play Mario and Zelda and don't care about other games and people who buy it to play Mario and Zelda and already have another console or gaming PC for their primary gaming needs. In either case, the only appeal of a nintendo system is first party exclusives. And for most gamers, that's not a compelling reason anymore.
RS13's comments