Nintendo switch clock speeds: 307.2MHz

Wii: 101 million, 360: 84, PS3: 80, at least according to Wikipedia. Also, you have to wonder how many of those units sold because an older one died (360: RROD, PS3: YLOD, Wii: can't think of anything).

 

I wonder what the numbers would look like if we did hours played.

 

You say who won based on games saes not just consoles.

i bet 40 millions wii had just wii sport as game lol

 

As long as those Wii owners have fun with Wii Sports, I don't see an issue with that?
"$MYFAVORITEGAME didn't sell well/isn't available on $CONSOLE, so $CONSOLE must suck!!exclamationmark!"

But just to humor you: Do you count only first party games, overall sales (including profits "wandering off" to third parties), a mix thereof (please elaborate), or even only specific games? Do used games factor in (they're just as fun as store-bought ones!)? Does DLC count extra?

 

You're only kidding yourself, bro

 

Was purely my opinion not a fact.

 

I type in AMERICAN, which is why Google says I spell theater right.

The Soviet Union was extremely strict on which and how many Western (which includes Japan, even though it's not really) products were available. To my knowledge, the NES was never legally sold in the USSR, and by 1992 the SNES/MD(Genesis) were out, so NES sales for the most part tapered off (I don't have exact figures, since I'm not sure they exist).

Honestly, I think all the manufacturers could say they "won" the seventh gen. The Wii outsold both consoles, as was pointed out. The 360 sold really really well in places that aren't Japan, and the PS3 helped Sony establish the Blu-Ray as the dominant media format, for a few years until streaming caught on.

 

So the clock speed is 300 Mhz...

 

When portable.

 

Seems like it's the clock of the GPU though? GPUs always have lower clocks than their contemporary CPU.

Anyways frequency is hardly an indicator nowadays, a 800MHz mobile core m CPU is much more "powerful" than any 800MHz - 1GHz CPU from way back.

 

No, it wasn't. It was an (opinion based) argument. And it was a flawed argument at that, bro

 

Yes, but the point made here is that the very same hardware that's running at 1GHz in other systems is capped at a much slower pace by Nintendo. Personally, I prefer a quiet console, but some people seem to care more about muh FPS than not having a leaf blower in their living room.
Maybe they'll get around to releasing a non-portable revision eventually, with a decent cooling solution and no more underclocking. I'd probably buy that.

 

Ok, why don't you take a seat over there and pat yourself on the back.

 

Something something *your mama so fat joke* something something

Seriously though, it's rumors, but it's also just the GPU power, we don't have other info like CPU power......
I'm most interested in the Switch as the other consoles are focused so much on the power it makes PC look good in comparison. (Can you Microsoft Office on that ish!?)

 

Aw, thanks bro. I will

Yes, it was. It was licensed for a short period in mid 90s under the Dendy brand. Prior to and after that it remained unlicensed.

 

I totally agree

 

It's well deserved - make sure you give it a good one.

 

Anyone own one of them Shields? How's the battery life?
'Cause I just read a claim* that the Switch will only last for three hours (and that's with the vastly reduced clock speed, unlike the Shield). That's at the lower end of what you would get out of a friggin Game Gear...

* golem.de (in german, it's bound to be on english sites too but I just haven't stumbled across one yet.)

 

I wish they left the clock speed up to the USER in portable mode.

 

I'm not musical myself, but I'm told by people who are that the Beatles rewrote the rules of popular music, and pushed what was possible and even acceptable, to a much greater degree than anyone else before or since. They weren't and aren't the be-all and end-all, of course - John Lennon himself said that without Buddy Holly the Beatles would never have existed, and certainly music has moved on a lot since the 1960s, but even so, many of their songs are still great, even after fifty years (how many of today's acts do you think will even be remembered in fifty years time?). There isn't one greatest band ever, of course, as it's largely subjective, but I can't think of even one band who have more of a claim than the Beatles, not even Queen.