- Boards
- Nintendo Switch
- The switch is almost as powerful as the XBOX ONE...problem is the architecture
 this guy explains it pretty well |
|
Incoherent ranting.
Komm suesser Tod
|
|
The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware.
|
|
sandstormflygon posted...
The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware. @sandstormflygon everything looks good enough already why waste time focusing on graphics too much when there are importantier stuff |
|
DrChocolate posted...
sandstormflygon posted...The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware. He think he's knows what the switch can run |
|
Is this the level Nintendo fanboys are sinking to?
Even my most peaceful and calm posts are somehow designed to belittle those that disagree with me even a little, get used to it~!
|
|
LimboStudios posted...
Is this the level Nintendo fanboys are sinking to? you've got a pretty horse there.
People die when they are killed.
Among horse, Red Hare. Among men, Lu Bu. |
|
sandstormflygon posted...
The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware. Did you help to create the Switch to know what it can run and what it cannot? And when did good graphics = good game? You're a fool if you think toning down a game a little bit wouldn't positively affect a games sales figure. How blind are you exactly? The major selling point of the Switch is the portability and Nintendo's current sales # has been the best it has ever been because of that. How many of these Switch games that are selling so well has uber omg type of graphics? You wait and see how well the Switch version of Skyrim will sell. You must be a Microsoft or Sony couch potato who thinks anything less than a 4k TV and a "powerful" home console isn't gaming or worth having. Get with the times. On the go gaming is where its at now whether its on your cellphone or 3ds or Switch.
Favourite JRPG's: The Last Story, Xenoblade Chronicles, Arc Rise Fantasia.
N3DS FC: 2208 9375 0944. Currently Playing: Monster Hunter Gen & Pokemon Sun.
(edited 6 days ago)
|
|
Nothing in particular he says is "wrong", but his conclusion that the Switch is powerful enough to compete with, and surpass, the other consoles is just spitting in the face of mathematics (which he doesn't even mention, for those who didn't listen to it, he's literally just belching out anecdotal theories).
(edited 6 days ago)
|
|
NewMoonShadow posted...
Nothing in particular he says is "wrong", but his conclusion that the Switch is powerful enough to compete with, and surpass, the other consoles is just spitting in the face of mathematics (which he doesn't even mention, for those who didn't listen to it, he's literally just belching out anecdotal theories). he says some games look better which is due to skilled graphics artists, just like how no PC game look better than uncharted 4... but the Switch is powerfull enought to receive PS4 and Xbone ports whitout execive time consuming downgrades like the Wii U(Switch is closser to the XBONE than the wii u in terms of power) the main problem itself is that it has a diferent architecture and programing Switch is closer to the Xbone than to the switch when it comes to performance https://www.gamespot.com/gallery/console-gpu-power-compared-ranking-systems-by-flop/2900-1334/9/ Wii U 0.352 TeraFLOPS Switch 1.01 TERAFLOPS Xbox one 1.31 teraFLOPS
(edited 6 days ago)
|
|
sandstormflygon posted...
The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware. Why did devs waste money making inferior versions of games for the PS2 and the 360?
CreviceCretin - Mario games are for little kids grow up and kill something.
^ 213 people agree that it's ignorance at its finest. |
|
Karmic Dragon2003 posted...
sandstormflygon posted...The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware. to be fair, way more people owned those consoles.
People die when they are killed.
Among horse, Red Hare. Among men, Lu Bu. |
|
Karmic Dragon2003 posted...
sandstormflygon posted...The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware. Many multiplats were better on the 360.
Komm suesser Tod
|
|
PS2 had such a massive lead in sales that it got the lead versions of almost all games. Then the games were quickly ported to the Gamecube and XBOX with a few improvements that were easy to do.
The situation for the Switch is different. Now the significantly more powerful PS4 and Xbox One have a massive lead in sales, and porting the games to the Switch isn't an easy job. It's not impossible, but hard.
Super Mario Kart is the single best Mario Kart ever!
|
|
monkmith posted...
Karmic Dragon2003 posted...sandstormflygon posted...The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware. The 360 sold 10 million in a year. Switch did 5 million in 4 months. So, not really. |
|
ncb1397 posted...
monkmith posted...Karmic Dragon2003 posted...sandstormflygon posted...The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware. not the point (not that you don't realize that). when they were still pushing ports to the 360/ps2 after their sequels came out, the number of both those systems in the wild was huge compared to the new ones.
People die when they are killed.
Among horse, Red Hare. Among men, Lu Bu. |
|
In terms of the GPU, Switch is not as strong as XB1. It's about 1/2 of what XB1 can do when docked and about 1/4-1/5 undocked. Don't really have to worry about undocked mode since that will have a resolution drop (if we go from 1080p to 720p) that lessens the load of about 66.6%. So, devs can simply work with docked mode. Reduction of effects, textures, etc to get it down to at least over half the needed load would be enough. It wouldn't visually turn an XB1 game into a PS2 like some may exaggerate. It'll be like toning down a PC game one notch at maximum.
In terms of RAM, most of what gets loaded is GPU-based, like textures. If you're reducing the assets to work with the GPU, then you've already done the work of fitting into the RAM. In terms of the CPU, Switch is actually pretty close. Don't let the ARM architecture and half the cores fool you. Benchmarks demonstrate that the Cortex A57 cores (mobile) at equal clock frequencies to Jaguar cores (also mobile) actually surpass them significantly, especially on the low end. The reduced clock speeds still give the ARM cores an edge. From there, it's about effectively working with 3 out of 4 ARM cores (maybe even partial of the 4th if the OS is handled similarly like the 3DS's CPU) for games that generally worked with up to 6-7 cores (since 1-2 cores get used for the OS of the others with all their active features). Only about 3 cores are used efficiently for game logic because there's only so much parallel processing that can be done for a game world, with any more cores getting affected by diminishing returns. Game engines can partially use these other cores for tasks like getting things ready for the GPU (such as building command lists), but in the case of the Switch, having a reduction already with regard to the GPU, what the game engine does for that won't be as much as the other systems. All in all, while for Switch the game logic may have to be toned down a bit, it won't require nearly as much of a downgrade as stuff done for the GPU, and that's only needing a reduction to half the load. So, can the Switch runs these other games? It has the power for them should the devs choose to put some work into downscaling. Funny thing is, they're already adept to downscaling since they do this even for PS4/XB1. They start with much higher-quality assets, then drop them down to fit the platforms. So people using the "downscale hardship" excuse need to go looking for another excuse. DrChocolate posted... Wii U 0.176 AMD TFlops Fixed that for you, but this is only with regard to raw Flops using FP32. Unlike the rest, Switch using the more efficient Nvidia GPU to get more out of each flop and having access to double-speed FP16, Switch is roughly around the area of 0.615 AMD TFlops docked. Could it be ~0.944 TFlops if it used only FP16? Theoretically, but not only would that bring about a lot of precision-lacking results, but it could only do that if everything processed could be done in doubles to take full use of double-speed FP16 (which takes two sets of FP16 values and processes them with the same single operation, like addition, to get 2 results in the same amount of time as one set of FP32 values), and that is highly unlikely.
"When you've got no argument, say something bad about <x>."
Perfectly explains why the Nintendo boards are toxic and are full of trolls/haters. |
|
Devs have stated Switch is easy to develop for...
Any information provided on GFaqs can and will be used against you as bullying material.
If you keep talking about me, I will keep pointing out your obsession. |
|
NintendoGamer83 posted...
Devs have stated Switch is easy to develop for... Those devs don't matter and/or are being paid by Nintendo to say that. Am I doing it right, guys?
CreviceCretin - Mario games are for little kids grow up and kill something.
^ 213 people agree that it's ignorance at its finest. |
|
Karmic Dragon2003 posted...
NintendoGamer83 posted...Devs have stated Switch is easy to develop for... Yup. That's right
Any information provided on GFaqs can and will be used against you as bullying material.
If you keep talking about me, I will keep pointing out your obsession. |
|
DrChocolate posted...
NewMoonShadow posted...Nothing in particular he says is "wrong", but his conclusion that the Switch is powerful enough to compete with, and surpass, the other consoles is just spitting in the face of mathematics (which he doesn't even mention, for those who didn't listen to it, he's literally just belching out anecdotal theories). Um, yeah, no. Most modern AAA games would require extensive downgrades to run on the Switch. (Switch is closser to the XBONE than the wii u in terms of power) ... And? I would be wildly disappointed in it if it WASN'T, considering the Wii U was basically a slight upgrade on the X-Box 360, which was close to 8 years old by the time it came out. You can't even find parts that weak these days. Even modern phones probably have more power than a 360 or a Wii U. the main problem itself is that it has a diferent architecture and programing I'm not saying this isn't a concern... but it really has nothing to do with what the system is potentially capable of, which is what the guy in the video is trying to talk about. He's basically making the claim that, with knowledge of how to use the hardware, the Switch will be capable of outputting video equal to that of its competitors, which is absolute nonsense just by looking at the raw mathematical data. And... no. It can be pretty definitively stated that it will not. Especially after the PS4Pro and X-Box One X become the competitor's standards. Switch is closer to the Xbone than to the switch when it comes to performance 1: As we established, the Wii U was pretty weak even for its time (Just like the Wii before it), and is actually pathetically weak by current standards. 2: As is typical with Nintendo consoles, people are trying to compare the Switch to older hardware instead of the new stuff. PS4Pro = 4.2 TFLOPS per second X-Box One X = 6 TFLOPS per Second So... yeah, Nintendo is still wildly behind the curve, even if you try to argue that it's not by comparing it to 4-year-old hardware. |
|
ncb1397 posted...
monkmith posted...Karmic Dragon2003 posted...sandstormflygon posted...The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware. Wow, that went right over your head. |
|
NewMoonShadow posted...
Xbox One S and PS4 slim are new machines. Less than a year old. Xbox One X and PS4 Pro have tiny install bases. |
|
Karmic Dragon2003 posted...
NintendoGamer83 posted...Devs have stated Switch is easy to develop for... And every dev would probably say the original Xbox was easy to develop for as well...Ease of development says absolutely nothing about hardware capabilities.
Super Mario Kart is the single best Mario Kart ever!
|
|
This board just oozes insecurity, lol. Poor kids can't catch a break...
NintendoGamer83 posted... Karmic Dragon2003 posted...NintendoGamer83 posted...Devs have stated Switch is easy to develop for... Sure... now comes the part where you act like an adult, and allow people to have their opinions, no matter how crazy they might sound, without calling them some cute little name. Impossible for both of you, rest assured. XD
"They were like 11 year olds on the internet for the first time in the late 90's; NO idea how to handle criticism or negative opinions" - Kevin Smith
|
|
NewMoonShadow posted...
2: As is typical with Nintendo consoles, people are trying to compare the Switch to older hardware instead of the new stuff. These newer systems are nothing more than 4k alternatives. The older systems are still the baseline for all development with Sony/MS. Devs can't even develop only for these newer systems. You want to say that Nintendo is behind the curve, yet none of those other systems can even run when not plugged into the wall, nor can such power come in such a small form factor as the Switch at this time. The Switch is strong for what it is dealing with.
"When you've got no argument, say something bad about <x>."
Perfectly explains why the Nintendo boards are toxic and are full of trolls/haters.
(edited 6 days ago)
|
|
ncb1397 posted...
NewMoonShadow posted... Sorry, no, shoving the same hardware into a new case doesn't qualify as a new machine. |
|
NewMoonShadow posted...
ncb1397 posted...NewMoonShadow posted... Okay, those machines are irrelevant. Sony's current gen console has a an install base of ~2 million and it has been out almost a year. Everyone freak the f*** out!!! BTW, the manufacturing technology for the Xbox One S and PS4 Slim only existed in the last year or so.
(edited 6 days ago)
|
|
NewMoonShadow posted...
ncb1397 posted...NewMoonShadow posted... I'd hardly say the XB1S is the same hardware in a new case, considering the original XB1 did not have 4K playback.
"When you've got no argument, say something bad about <x>."
Perfectly explains why the Nintendo boards are toxic and are full of trolls/haters. |
|
DiscostewSM posted...
NewMoonShadow posted...ncb1397 posted...NewMoonShadow posted... It got a performance boost as well. |
|
ncb1397 posted...
NewMoonShadow posted...ncb1397 posted...NewMoonShadow posted... Holy s***, will people please pay attention to what the actual topic of discussion is about? Nobody's talking about which console is "better" or which is "selling better" or which is "winning", the discussion is about raw computing power and graphical capabilities. Nintendo consoles ever since the Wii have been well behind the curve, this is an indisputable fact of mathematics. Arguing against this is just being a deluded fanboy completely detached from reality. Especially now with consoles releasing with 4 and 6 times the processing power of the Switch, arguing that it will someday look as good as current X-Box One titles is questionable at best, and completely irrelevant at worst. By the time such technical mastery over the Switch is ever attained, its competitors will have moved well beyond that point. I love the Switch. I love the games on it, I love the JoyCons, I love basically everything about it with a few nitpicks. But raw power is not one of its advantages, nor is it a reason to even own the thing. Pretending it can match the X-Box One in graphical/processing power is just being deluded, and putting the focus on the wrong thing anyway.
(edited 6 days ago)
|
|
NewMoonShadow posted...
ncb1397 posted...NewMoonShadow posted...ncb1397 posted...NewMoonShadow posted... Forget the numbers for a second.... IMO, there are Switch games that look just as good as Xbox One games (or so close that it doesn't matter). Sunset Overdrive:  Splatoon 2:  Graphical quality is very comparable. Resolution for instance is almost the same between the two. Sunset Overdrive runs at 900p 30 fps(with drops) while Splatoon runs at 864p-1080p 60 fps.
(edited 6 days ago)
|
|
@DrChocolate
2016 account, so most likely a troll. Also, Switch has less than half a teraflop while docked, it is around 1/3rd an xb0ne while docked...
The internet, where people come to be a dumbass.
|
|
ArabrockermanX posted...
@DrChocolate Comparing nVidia GPUs vs AMD GPUs like that doesn't yield accurate comparisons. If an AMD tflop equaled an nVidia tflop, high end AMD GPUs would beat high end nVidia GPUs. It is the opposite though, the NVidia GPUs trounce AMD's. |
|
So what I am gathering in this topic is that there are a s*** ton of replies of people who have no f***ing idea how game development works/ how much/little power the switch has
oh wait this is gamefaqs of course hahaha
i5 6600k | GTX 1080 | 16Gb
|
|
sandstormflygon posted...
The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware. people say devs won't waste time/money on making superior versions of their game for xbox one x people say devs won't waste time/money on making inferior versions of their game for switch devs just love middle of the road gaming i guess. |
|
brubie posted...
sandstormflygon posted...The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware. More like going with whichever route will lead them to good profit. If making superior versions for XB1X granted a lot of money, they'd do it. If making inferior versions for Switch granted a lot of money, they'd do it. Doing one doesn't mean they wouldn't do anything else if more than the one granted lots of money.
"When you've got no argument, say something bad about <x>."
Perfectly explains why the Nintendo boards are toxic and are full of trolls/haters. |
|
Wtf happened to Undercooked? Wasnt it supposed to be easy to port to this thing?
Let me catch you buying a console at launch! >:(
|
|
Cooldawg86 posted...
Wtf happened to Undercooked? Wasnt it supposed to be easy to port to this thing? What happened to it?
Komm suesser Tod
|
|
Lol no it's not. It's slightly more powerful than Wii U. It's not even close to X1 let alone PS4.
I'm just a drone and life is a nightmare. I'm just a drone, I know that it's not fair. Nobody cares, cause I'm alone and the world is having more fun than me
|
|
TalesRevenant posted...
Lol no it's not. It's slightly more powerful than Wii U. It's not even close to X1 let alone PS4. I wouldn't take your word for if its raining outside let alone anything else.
Any information provided on GFaqs can and will be used against you as bullying material.
If you keep talking about me, I will keep pointing out your obsession. |
|
TalesRevenant posted...
Lol no it's not. It's slightly more powerful than Wii U. It's not even close to X1 let alone PS4. Every benchmark we have of actual games suggests otherwise. Heck, minecraft runs at the same resolution and a higher framerate than the PS4 version (lower draw distance though). Regardless, "close" is an inherently relative term. The moon is close by, relatively speaking...
(edited 6 days ago)
|
|
ncb1397 posted...
TalesRevenant posted...Lol no it's not. It's slightly more powerful than Wii U. It's not even close to X1 let alone PS4. Minecraft could run on a potato. It’s probably not the best benchmark.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." -Mark Twain
|
|
Fauch posted...
Cooldawg86 posted...Wtf happened to Undercooked? Wasnt it supposed to be easy to port to this thing? There's some frame drops in the single-player tutorial, so people are pretending those frame drops exist outside of that small part of the game.
CreviceCretin - Mario games are for little kids grow up and kill something.
^ 213 people agree that it's ignorance at its finest. |
|
Ryanator20x6 posted...
ncb1397 posted...TalesRevenant posted...Lol no it's not. It's slightly more powerful than Wii U. It's not even close to X1 let alone PS4. Pick your benchmark. Snake Pass on Switch holds up nicely against PS4 http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-snake-pass-on-switch-holds-up-nicely-against-ps4 |
|
ncb1397 posted...
Ryanator20x6 posted...ncb1397 posted...TalesRevenant posted...Lol no it's not. It's slightly more powerful than Wii U. It's not even close to X1 let alone PS4. Yes, that’s a better benchmark, but do keep in mind that the hardware is very different. Also there is half the RAM.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." -Mark Twain
(edited 6 days ago)
|
|
ncb1397 posted...
Ryanator20x6 posted...ncb1397 posted...TalesRevenant posted...Lol no it's not. It's slightly more powerful than Wii U. It's not even close to X1 let alone PS4. Heh, even if one claimed the game was unoptimized for PS4, you'd bet your ass it would be even more so on Switch because of it using an unfinalized build of UE4 at the time.
"When you've got no argument, say something bad about <x>."
Perfectly explains why the Nintendo boards are toxic and are full of trolls/haters. |
|
Ryanator20x6 posted...
Yes, that’s a better benchmark, but do keep in mind that the hardware is very different. Also there%u2019s half as much RAM. Take note though about how much actually gets allocated to games. On PS4, it's only about 5GB max out of 8GB (4.5GB conventional memory, 0.5GB OS-controlled flexible memory), with the other 3GB for the OS. With Switch, it's said to be roughly 3.2GB for games with 0.8GB for the OS. Then to go further, because Switch is certainly not going to have the kind of detail in textures, models, etc as something like the PS4, those assets will be reduced on Switch. Honestly, RAM is not going to be an issue here.
"When you've got no argument, say something bad about <x>."
Perfectly explains why the Nintendo boards are toxic and are full of trolls/haters. |
|
DiscostewSM posted...
Ryanator20x6 posted...Yes, that’s a better benchmark, but do keep in mind that the hardware is very different. Also there%u2019s half as much RAM. Yeah exactly...I feel people really don't understand how scaling down textures etc can greatly reduce the needed RAM. Or that Capcom have stated that they managed to cut the RAM needed for Switch' OS by roughly half. This would give the Switch almost 3.5GB of RAM for gaming use...which is no slouch. |
|
Only games Switch can run are Wii U type games
Cuckle doodle doo
|
- Boards
- Nintendo Switch
- The switch is almost as powerful as the XBOX ONE...problem is the architecture
- Boards
- Nintendo Switch
- The switch is almost as powerful as the XBOX ONE...problem is the architecture
TalesRevenant posted...ncb1397 posted...
TalesRevenant posted...
Lol no it's not. It's slightly more powerful than Wii U. It's not even close to X1 let alone PS4.
Every benchmark we have of actual games suggests otherwise. Heck, minecraft runs at the same resolution and a higher framerate than the PS4 version (lower draw distance though). Regardless, "close" is an inherently relative term. The moon is close by, relatively speaking...
No it doesn't...And close isn'ta relative term. It literally is a Wii U 1.5. It's not even close to X1 let alone PS4. What do you not understand about that? Is that hard for you to comprehend? It cannot, factually, run X1 or PS4 games. Engrave that in your head. And yes...let's use Minecraft and f***ing indie games to magically say a system is more powerful than it actually is.
Jesus the mental gymnastics...
The system is factually running tech that is years old and not even close the specs of X1 and PS4 is not even in this discussion. It's pretty much a Wii U 1.5, hence, why every f***ing game, including Nintendo's own look like straight up Wii U games.
I don't understand why the fanboys of this board have to be so damn delusional. Why can't you just admit the system is weak? Especially when there are facts contradicting the bulls*** you just spewed. People have broken down the system and found what's inside it. It's a damn modified Tegra X1 mobile chip. Just use your brain and figure out the rest. As a handheld, it's powerful. As a console? It's a spruced up Wii U. Wii U=/=X1.
With Snake Pass being 864p on PS4 and 675p on Switch docked, it's closer than you think. And we didn't need to call 30 Gamestop locations to confirm that."When you've got no argument, say something bad about <x>."
Perfectly explains why the Nintendo boards are toxic and are full of trolls/haters.TalesRevenant posted...It cannot, factually, run X1 or PS4 games.
Factually, it runs Disgaea 5, which is a PS4 game.3DS FC: 0490-7858-5102/NS FC: SW-6739-0520-9699/PSN: freedumbdclxvifreedumbdclxvi posted...TalesRevenant posted...
It cannot, factually, run X1 or PS4 games.
Factually, it runs Disgaea 5, which is a PS4 game.
I wouldn't take his comments seriously.Any information provided on GFaqs can and will be used against you as bullying material.
If you keep talking about me, I will keep pointing out your obsession.Didn't watch that, but battery life is one reason you can't fully utilize the systems full potential without major sacrifice.freedumbdclxvi posted...TalesRevenant posted...
It cannot, factually, run X1 or PS4 games.
Factually, it runs Disgaea 5, which is a PS4 game.
Remember when that was a PS4 exclusive?
It isn't now."When you've got no argument, say something bad about <x>."
Perfectly explains why the Nintendo boards are toxic and are full of trolls/haters.I really think that the problem lies with the CPU, rather than the GPU. 300 MHz is not a lot. Just because some PS4 and Xbox One games can make the jump doesn’t mean all of them can. Every game is different."Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." -Mark TwainRyanator20x6 posted...I really think that the problem lies with the CPU, rather than the GPU. 300 MHz is not a lot. Just because some PS4 and Xbox One games can make the jump doesn’t mean all of them can. Every game is different.
There is a reason some games drain more battery than others.
That is a thing.
Putting a game on Switch that only last for an hour handheld is bad marketing.Ryanator20x6 posted...I really think that the problem lies with the CPU, rather than the GPU. 300 MHz is not a lot. Just because some PS4 and Xbox One games can make the jump doesn%u2019t mean all of them can. Every game is different.
Yup, CPU is the biggest problem. Half the core count. Recent PS4 and Xbox One games should be optimized to use up to seven cores.
The GPU is DX12/Vulkan class, it supports all the features needed to run PS4 and PC ports, albeit the graphics themselves need a hefty downgrade.
People need to think in terms of how PC versions can scale from maximum settings on the latest and greatest down to minimum on 5+ year old GPUs.Super Mario Kart is the single best Mario Kart ever!(edited 6 days ago)godplaysSNES posted...Ryanator20x6 posted...
I really think that the problem lies with the CPU, rather than the GPU. 300 MHz is not a lot. Just because some PS4 and Xbox One games can make the jump doesn%u2019t mean all of them can. Every game is different.
Yup, CPU is the biggest problem. Half the core count. Recent PS4 and Xbox One games should be optimized to use up to seven cores.
The GPU is DX12/Vulkan class, it supports all the features needed to run PS4 and PC ports, albeit the graphics themselves need a hefty downgrade.
People need to think in terms of how PC versions can scale from maximum settings on the latest and greatest down to minimum on 5+ year old GPUs.
The GPU is massively weaker on Switch due to thermal constraints.Daisy amiibo sass!
Switch FC - 5067-3358-4023Ryanator20x6 posted...I really think that the problem lies with the CPU, rather than the GPU. 300 MHz is not a lot. Just because some PS4 and Xbox One games can make the jump doesn’t mean all of them can. Every game is different.
Switch's CPU runs at 1Ghz, not 300Mhz, and doesn't change between docked and undocked modes. I've already mentioned how it's not really that far off CPU-wise in actual use."When you've got no argument, say something bad about <x>."
Perfectly explains why the Nintendo boards are toxic and are full of trolls/haters.(edited 6 days ago)sandstormflygon posted...The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware.
Except the more power they're given, the more linear, automated driven our games generally become. Devs lose creativity to abuse horsepower and we suffer. For every HZD we get 8 CoD. Most devs won't gain anything from developing for the twins other than breaking even, whereas an original, creative title using fewer resources will be more profitable.
The future is very short-sighted if all you're looking for is power. The Switch is a godsend in a sea of mediocrity.Switch - PS4 - Wii U - PS3 - 3DS - GameCube - Xbox One.
X1X is the ultimate form of compensation for an embarrassed company and community.DiscostewSM posted...Ryanator20x6 posted...
I really think that the problem lies with the CPU, rather than the GPU. 300 MHz is not a lot. Just because some PS4 and Xbox One games can make the jump doesn’t mean all of them can. Every game is different.
Switch's CPU runs at 1Ghz, not 300Mhz, and doesn't change between docked and undocked modes. I've already mentioned how it's not really that far off CPU-wise in actual use.
That’s not what I’ve heard. Supply a source.
Here is mine: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/12/nintendo-switch-nvidia-tegra-x1-specs-speed/"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." -Mark Twain(edited 6 days ago)Ryanator20x6 posted...DiscostewSM posted...
Ryanator20x6 posted...
I really think that the problem lies with the CPU, rather than the GPU. 300 MHz is not a lot. Just because some PS4 and Xbox One games can make the jump doesn’t mean all of them can. Every game is different.
Switch's CPU runs at 1Ghz, not 300Mhz, and doesn't change between docked and undocked modes. I've already mentioned how it's not really that far off CPU-wise in actual use.
That’s not what I’ve heard. Supply a source.
Here is mine: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/12/nintendo-switch-nvidia-tegra-x1-specs-speed/
Um....When docked, the Switch's GPU runs at a 768MHz, already lower than the 1GHz of the Shield Android TV. When used as a portable, the Switch downclocks the GPU to 307.2MHz—just 40 percent of the clock speed when docked.
While GPU performance is variable, the rest of the Switch's specs remain static. Its four ARM A57 CPU cores are purported to run at 1020MHz regardless of whether the console is docked or undocked,
They're just reiterating what DF said, which is that the CPU is 1Ghz (1020Mhz to be precise), whereas the GPU is 768Mhz docked and 307.2Mhz undocked.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-nintendo-switch-spec-analysis"When you've got no argument, say something bad about <x>."
Perfectly explains why the Nintendo boards are toxic and are full of trolls/haters.(edited 6 days ago)DiscostewSM posted...Ryanator20x6 posted...
DiscostewSM posted...
Ryanator20x6 posted...
I really think that the problem lies with the CPU, rather than the GPU. 300 MHz is not a lot. Just because some PS4 and Xbox One games can make the jump doesn’t mean all of them can. Every game is different.
Switch's CPU runs at 1Ghz, not 300Mhz, and doesn't change between docked and undocked modes. I've already mentioned how it's not really that far off CPU-wise in actual use.
That’s not what I’ve heard. Supply a source.
Here is mine: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/12/nintendo-switch-nvidia-tegra-x1-specs-speed/
Um....When docked, the Switch's GPU runs at a 768MHz, already lower than the 1GHz of the Shield Android TV. When used as a portable, the Switch downclocks the GPU to 307.2MHz—just 40 percent of the clock speed when docked.
While GPU performance is variable, the rest of the Switch's specs remain static. Its four ARM A57 CPU cores are purported to run at 1020MHz regardless of whether the console is docked or undocked,
Oh boy, letters, uh..."Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." -Mark TwainDiscostewSM posted...In terms of the GPU, Switch is not as strong as XB1. It's about 1/2 of what XB1 can do when docked and about 1/4-1/5 undocked. Don't really have to worry about undocked mode since that will have a resolution drop (if we go from 1080p to 720p) that lessens the load of about 66.6%. So, devs can simply work with docked mode. Reduction of effects, textures, etc to get it down to at least over half the needed load would be enough. It wouldn't visually turn an XB1 game into a PS2 like some may exaggerate. It'll be like toning down a PC game one notch at maximum.
In terms of RAM, most of what gets loaded is GPU-based, like textures. If you're reducing the assets to work with the GPU, then you've already done the work of fitting into the RAM.
In terms of the CPU, Switch is actually pretty close. Don't let the ARM architecture and half the cores fool you. Benchmarks demonstrate that the Cortex A57 cores (mobile) at equal clock frequencies to Jaguar cores (also mobile) actually surpass them significantly, especially on the low end. The reduced clock speeds still give the ARM cores an edge. From there, it's about effectively working with 3 out of 4 ARM cores (maybe even partial of the 4th if the OS is handled similarly like the 3DS's CPU) for games that generally worked with up to 6-7 cores (since 1-2 cores get used for the OS of the others with all their active features). Only about 3 cores are used efficiently for game logic because there's only so much parallel processing that can be done for a game world, with any more cores getting affected by diminishing returns. Game engines can partially use these other cores for tasks like getting things ready for the GPU (such as building command lists), but in the case of the Switch, having a reduction already with regard to the GPU, what the game engine does for that won't be as much as the other systems. All in all, while for Switch the game logic may have to be toned down a bit, it won't require nearly as much of a downgrade as stuff done for the GPU, and that's only needing a reduction to half the load.
So, can the Switch runs these other games? It has the power for them should the devs choose to put some work into downscaling. Funny thing is, they're already adept to downscaling since they do this even for PS4/XB1. They start with much higher-quality assets, then drop them down to fit the platforms. So people using the "downscale hardship" excuse need to go looking for another excuse.
DrChocolate posted...Wii U 0.176 AMD TFlops
Switch 0.393 Nvidia TFlops docked (0.157 non-performance undocked, 0.197 performance undocked)
Xbox one 1.311 AMD TFlops
Fixed that for you, but this is only with regard to raw Flops using FP32. Unlike the rest, Switch using the more efficient Nvidia GPU to get more out of each flop and having access to double-speed FP16, Switch is roughly around the area of 0.615 AMD TFlops docked. Could it be ~0.944 TFlops if it used only FP16? Theoretically, but not only would that bring about a lot of precision-lacking results, but it could only do that if everything processed could be done in doubles to take full use of double-speed FP16 (which takes two sets of FP16 values and processes them with the same single operation, like addition, to get 2 results in the same amount of time as one set of FP32 values), and that is highly unlikely.
@DiscostewSM I have been meaning to ask you. The A57 comes with a neon Simd co processor. How can that come in play with game performance?PSN/XBL: OMNIRYU
Switch FC: 5419 6809 0486-Lo- posted...sandstormflygon posted...
The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware.
Except the more power they're given, the more linear, automated driven our games generally become. Devs lose creativity to abuse horsepower and we suffer. For every HZD we get 8 CoD. Most devs won't gain anything from developing for the twins other than breaking even, whereas an original, creative title using fewer resources will be more profitable.
The future is very short-sighted if all you're looking for is power. The Switch is a godsend in a sea of mediocrity.
LOL, no. I like it and all, but you're really overstating its value.ncb1397 posted...NewMoonShadow posted...
ncb1397 posted...
NewMoonShadow posted...
ncb1397 posted...
NewMoonShadow posted...
PS4Pro = 4.2 TFLOPS per second
X-Box One X = 6 TFLOPS per Second
So... yeah, Nintendo is still wildly behind the curve, even if you try to argue that it's not by comparing it to 4-year-old hardware.
Xbox One S and PS4 slim are new machines. Less than a year old.
Sorry, no, shoving the same hardware into a new case doesn't qualify as a new machine.
Okay, those machines are irrelevant. Sony's current gen console has a an install base of ~2 million and it has been out almost a year. Everyone freak the f*** out!!!
BTW, the manufacturing technology for the Xbox One S and PS4 Slim only existed in the last year or so.
Holy s***, will people please pay attention to what the actual topic of discussion is about? Nobody's talking about which console is "better" or which is "selling better" or which is "winning", the discussion is about raw computing power and graphical capabilities.
Nintendo consoles ever since the Wii have been well behind the curve, this is an indisputable fact of mathematics. Arguing against this is just being a deluded fanboy completely detached from reality. Especially now with consoles releasing with 4 and 6 times the processing power of the Switch, arguing that it will someday look as good as current X-Box One titles is questionable at best, and completely irrelevant at worst. By the time such technical mastery over the Switch is ever attained, its competitors will have moved well beyond that point.
I love the Switch. I love the games on it, I love the JoyCons, I love basically everything about it with a few nitpicks. But raw power is not one of its advantages, nor is it a reason to even own the thing. Pretending it can match the X-Box One is just being deluded, and putting the focus on the wrong thing anyway.
Forget the numbers for a second....
IMO, there are Switch games that look just as good as Xbox One games (or so close that it doesn't matter).
Sunset Overdrive:
Splatoon 2:
Graphical quality is very comparable. Resolution for instance is almost the same between the two. Sunset Overdrive runs at 900p 30 fps(with drops) while Splatoon runs at 864p-1080p 60 fps.
You are embarrassing.Tom Brady is the GOATYou gamers should stick to playing games.It's geeks who really make or break a TV show or movie or videogame.ArsenicSteel posted...You gamers should stick to playing games.
And you should stick to trying to be clever.What a mess Nintendo fanboys can't accept the fact that the switch is much weaker than other system and developers don't have to develop for Nintendo for whatever reason.@omniryu posted...DiscostewSM I have been meaning to ask you. The A57 comes with a neon Simd co processor. How can that come in play with game performance?
Well, the point of the SIMD (single instruction multiple data) as the acronym implies is being able to process multiple sets of data at the same time with single instructions. Kind of like the double-speed FP16 I mentioned with Nvidia's GPU (starting with the Tegra X1). The Neon tech is a packed SIMD architecture, like an extension to existing SIMD operations. How does that help with game performance? Well, you've got a lot of data that must be processed using the same data types and same instructions. Why do each one at a time when you can do them in bulk? Say you have 4 sets of 32-bit values all of the same type you want to add together (not add 4 values together, but 4 sets of 2 values each) to get 4 results. Explaining in simple terms, to add 4 sets together with the CPU, you'd need to do it as 4 separate instructions. With the SIMD, you call one instruction and it processes those 4 sets in parallel. It's invaluable with things like vectors and matrices. It isn't just limited to math operations. Various logical operations, conversions, etc are included.
To summarize, lots of data needing to be processed can be done in less time with the Neon SIMD co-processor."When you've got no argument, say something bad about <x>."
Perfectly explains why the Nintendo boards are toxic and are full of trolls/haters.DiscostewSM posted...@omniryu posted...
DiscostewSM I have been meaning to ask you. The A57 comes with a neon Simd co processor. How can that come in play with game performance?
Well, the point of the SIMD (single instruction multiple data) as the acronym implies is being able to process multiple sets of data at the same time with single instructions. Kind of like the double-speed FP16 I mentioned with Nvidia's GPU (starting with the Tegra X1). The Neon tech is a packed SIMD architecture, like an extension to existing SIMD operations. How does that help with game performance? Well, you've got a lot of data that must be processed using the same data types and same instructions. Why do each one at a time when you can do them in bulk? Say you have 4 sets of 32-bit values all of the same type you want to add together (not add 4 values together, but 4 sets of 2 values each) to get 4 results. Explaining in simple terms, to add 4 sets together with the CPU, you'd need to do it as 4 separate instructions. With the SIMD, you call one instruction and it processes those 4 sets in parallel. It's invaluable with things like vectors and matrices. It isn't just limited to math operations. Various logical operations, conversions, etc are included.
To summarize, lots of data needing to be processed can be done in less time with the Neon SIMD co-processor.
@DiscostewSM
So stuff like assisting with shader, lighting, physics, or even particle can be done with Simd?
What about emulation? Can it assist in emulation?PSN/XBL: OMNIRYU
Switch FC: 5419 6809 0486(edited 5 days ago)sandstormflygon posted...The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware.
oh you mean like when now some ps3 games look and play better than some ps4 games, and the switch doubles in power the ps3?PSN: Akiradeviruman
quickposter posted... Numbers indicate nothing.Bellagio_6 posted...You are embarrassing.
sunset overdrive looks like crap compared to Final fantasy type 0, and not the ps4 version, the psp/psvita version.PSN: Akiradeviruman
quickposter posted... Numbers indicate nothing.dunnyrega posted...sandstormflygon posted...
The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware.
oh you mean like when now some ps3 games look and play better than some ps4 games, and the switch doubles in power the ps3?
What ps3 game looks better than a ps4 game?sandstormflygon posted...dunnyrega posted...
sandstormflygon posted...
The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware.
oh you mean like when now some ps3 games look and play better than some ps4 games, and the switch doubles in power the ps3?
What ps3 game looks better than a ps4 game?
Literally none.sandstormflygon posted...dunnyrega posted...
sandstormflygon posted...
The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware.
oh you mean like when now some ps3 games look and play better than some ps4 games, and the switch doubles in power the ps3?
What ps3 game looks better than a ps4 game?
Idk, but just having more memory for higher quality texture makes the PS4 better than the ps3PSN/XBL: OMNIRYU
Switch FC: 5419 6809 0486DiscostewSM posted...In terms of the GPU, Switch is not as strong as XB1. It's about 1/2 of what XB1 can do when docked and about 1/4-1/5 undocked. Don't really have to worry about undocked mode since that will have a resolution drop (if we go from 1080p to 720p) that lessens the load of about 66.6%. So, devs can simply work with docked mode. Reduction of effects, textures, etc to get it down to at least over half the needed load would be enough. It wouldn't visually turn an XB1 game into a PS2 like some may exaggerate. It'll be like toning down a PC game one notch at maximum.
That's an incredibly simplistic and misleading example. About half is an incredibly best-case scenario, and realistically you're probably looking at more towards 1/3rd or 1/4th when docked. Additionally, you're assuming you're going from 1080p to 720p...but clearly many Xbox One games run at 900p or less, in which case the Switch would have to run at resolutions well below 720p when docked to achieve the same level of graphical quality.
Additionally, the "GPU" has little to do with texture quality, since higher quality textures have virtually no affect on the actual load on the GPU itself.In terms of RAM, most of what gets loaded is GPU-based, like textures. If you're reducing the assets to work with the GPU, then you've already done the work of fitting into the RAM.
That's definitely not the case. Not only is the Switch's RAM amount notably different (~3.5gb vs ~5.5GB usable), but the bandwidth it provides is substantially less, ESPECIALLY in regards to its GPU performance. While the Xbox One has its eSRAM to rely on framebuffer (and some secondary attribute) rendering, and the PS4 of course has massive amounts of bandwidth in general, the Switch is relying on its paltry system RAM for both system operations and GPU operations, which is very limiting and as little as 1/6th of what the Xbox One or PS4 can offer. So even if you can just assume that downgrading textures alone would be enough to get it working on the Switch, bandwidth is also a significant issue.In terms of the CPU, Switch is actually pretty close.
No, it isn't. Half (or less) the usable cores for games, and even if the per-core performance was similar (which is almost certainly isn't, I'd like to see these benchmarks that puts the A57 near the Jaguar at 1ghz vs 1.6ghz), that is an absolutely massive downgrade. And along with RAM, CPU usage is the hardest to downgrade without impacting the game itself (in fact, nearly all CPU functions are related to gameplay or game-related aspects, not graphics), so porting a game that utilizes the full CPU power available on the Xbox One or PS4 is going to be an uphill battle.So, can the Switch runs these other games? It has the power for them should the devs choose to put some work into downscaling. Funny thing is, they're already adept to downscaling since they do this even for PS4/XB1. They start with much higher-quality assets, then drop them down to fit the platforms. So people using the "downscale hardship" excuse need to go looking for another excuse.
There's virtually no need for "downscaling" between the PS4 and Xbox One. In nearly every case, all they do is drop the resolution, or at best disable a small number of non-essential effects. Things like texture and asset quality don't have to be altered, which is often different from how things would have to be done for the Switch (especially because of the significant difference in RAM and CPU attributes).
Simpler games, especially those made for lower end and multiplatform systems through universal engines, will fair better. Games that take more advantage of the Xbox One and PS4's hardware though would be incredibly difficult to get working on the Switch. I can't even imagine how awful something like AC Unity would fair."Walking tanks must exist somewhere for there to be such attention to detail like this in mech sim." - IGN Steel Battalion reviewNo it is not. It is not even close; and that's fine. Switch is for nintendo games anyway. If you bought a switch with the intention of playing AAA multi-platforms in it, then the fault is on you.FC: 1092 - 2294 - 8760It's a tablet. It's not going to play current gen console games well or at all.(edited 4 days ago)Damn, this topic is awesome. Delusions, denial, Discostew getting beautifully refuted..."Links to GameFAQs statistics is trolling. It doesn't matter the ToU says nothing about that. I decided it is and it is upheld." - GameFAQs modYou mean it is almost close to Wii U. In other words, trapped between PS3 and Wii U and nowhere close to PS4 Pro when it should eclipse it instead of being a Super Vita minus the features and games.ncb1397 posted...monkmith posted...
Karmic Dragon2003 posted...
sandstormflygon posted...
The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware.
Why did devs waste money making inferior versions of games for the PS2 and the 360?
to be fair, way more people owned those consoles.
The 360 sold 10 million in a year. Switch did 5 million in 4 months. So, not really.
Now now that doesn't count... Like how everyone dreamcast game ran like s*** on the PS2 yet the dreamcast died cuz the PS2 was "better"(edited 4 days ago)SSjYagami posted...You mean it is almost close to Wii U. In other words, trapped between PS3 and Wii U and nowhere close to PS4 Pro when it should eclipse it instead of being a Super Vita minus the features and games.
Lol Vita having games... I have one and there isn't s*** on it cept for obscure jrpgs as of late all the major games already came out... Hell not even a gta game came to it like on the pspRyanator20x6 posted...I really think that the problem lies with the CPU, rather than the GPU. 300 MHz is not a lot. Just because some PS4 and Xbox One games can make the jump doesn’t mean all of them can. Every game is different.
No the problem is the bandwidth. the CPU and GPU scale fine with Xbone and PS4 being 2-3x as weaker(assuming devs fully optimize Switch's GPU with mixed precision mode), but the RAM bandwidth sucks, and could be holding back getting demanding AAA 3rd party ports from performing as intended.
We've already seen some games scale pretty well on switch versions(lego city undercover, snake pass).. But the big test is the AAA 3rd party games like Call of Duty.Less is more. Everything you want, isn't everything you need.(edited 4 days ago)sandstormflygon posted...The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware.
We need a new Final Fantasy Tacticskislev posted...sandstormflygon posted...
The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware.
By your logic, why should devs make games on anything other than the PS4 Pro and soon to be X-box X. or even better.. the PC?
Hint: Because people are willing to buy them.Less is more. Everything you want, isn't everything you need.DiscostewSM posted...brubie posted...
sandstormflygon posted...
The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware.
people say devs won't waste time/money on making superior versions of their game for xbox one x
people say devs won't waste time/money on making inferior versions of their game for switch
devs just love middle of the road gaming i guess.
More like going with whichever route will lead them to good profit. If making superior versions for XB1X granted a lot of money, they'd do it. If making inferior versions for Switch granted a lot of money, they'd do it. Doing one doesn't mean they wouldn't do anything else if more than the one granted lots of money.
yeah, middle of the road, mediocre, mass market appeal. devs love that for their games as it gets the most dollars.Andros-2K7 posted...sandstormflygon posted...
The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware.
Did you help to create the Switch to know what it can run and what it cannot? And when did good graphics = good game? You're a fool if you think toning down a game a little bit wouldn't positively affect a games sales figure. How blind are you exactly? The major selling point of the Switch is the portability and Nintendo's current sales # has been the best it has ever been because of that. How many of these Switch games that are selling so well has uber omg type of graphics? You wait and see how well the Switch version of Skyrim will sell. You must be a Microsoft or Sony couch potato who thinks anything less than a 4k TV and a "powerful" home console isn't gaming or worth having. Get with the times. On the go gaming is where its at now whether its on your cellphone or 3ds or Switch.
That explains why COD skipped the console.characterz3ro posted...Andros-2K7 posted...
sandstormflygon posted...
The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware.
Did you help to create the Switch to know what it can run and what it cannot? And when did good graphics = good game? You're a fool if you think toning down a game a little bit wouldn't positively affect a games sales figure. How blind are you exactly? The major selling point of the Switch is the portability and Nintendo's current sales # has been the best it has ever been because of that. How many of these Switch games that are selling so well has uber omg type of graphics? You wait and see how well the Switch version of Skyrim will sell. You must be a Microsoft or Sony couch potato who thinks anything less than a 4k TV and a "powerful" home console isn't gaming or worth having. Get with the times. On the go gaming is where its at now whether its on your cellphone or 3ds or Switch.
That explains why COD skipped the console.
Yeah, sadly, the Switch isn't getting any current AAA third party support. Sure, WWE and the 2K games are coming but those aren't the major releases and they release on any console so the Switch gets those games by default. The only reason Skyrim is coming is because it's a 6 year old game, of course the Switch can run Skyrim but wait until Bethesda drops support or just release shovelware for the Switch. Bethesda is just trying to squeeze every single ounce of money from Skyrim.Some Switch games do look better than Xbone games, for what it's worth.The same thing was said about the lack of Wii U ports.Nipple rubbing intensifies...Bellagio_6 posted...You are embarrassing.
he was on a roll with the bad posts in this topic wasnt he?
havent seen a streak like that in a while.finally a new .Hack game! its been too long old friend.BobVance posted...It's a tablet. It's not going to play current gen console games well or at all.
The thing people need to understand is that Switch supports everything that the current gen consoles do. The biggest problem is that the CPU has half the core count. The hardware itself is modern but the horsepower is lacking.
The Wii vs Xbox 360 was much worse than the Switch vs Xbox One.
Wii had a single core CPU vs the 360's multicore CPU
Wii had 88MB total RAM vs the 360's 512MB total RAM
Wii had DX7 class GPU vs the 360's DX9 class GPU (with some features not available on PC until DX10 GPUs)
For the Wii, games needed to be fully remade. For the Switch, they just need to be downgraded alot.
In theory, everything GPU related could be scaled down easily. The RAM disadvantage is also something console programmers have been used to since always.
It's the CPU that's problematic, because CPU tasks are typically affecting the gameplay itself.
A game like Battlefield 1 wouldn't be possible on the Switch, primarily because of the CPU. But a game like Tomb Raider, which is more of a corridor game, would be possible.Super Mario Kart is the single best Mario Kart ever!(edited 4 days ago)@ncb1397 posted...ArabrockermanX posted...
@DrChocolate
2016 account, so most likely a troll.
Also, Switch has less than half a teraflop while docked, it is around 1/3rd an xb0ne while docked...
Comparing nVidia GPUs vs AMD GPUs like that doesn't yield accurate comparisons. If an AMD tflop equaled an nVidia tflop, high end AMD GPUs would beat high end nVidia GPUs. It is the opposite though, the NVidia GPUs trounce AMD's.
In this case it should be fairly close, console games are optimized to the hardware frequently which will reduce Nvidia's advantage. Also, even if we ignore all of that, we are still talking about the GPU being under half the xb0ne's while the Switch is docked.
Devs have to aim for the undocked specs as their baseline...The internet, where people come to be a dumbass.How hard is it for people to understand the nobody wants to work with the switch because it to weak. For games to have a chance it would take a lot of investment and it just isn't worth it for most developers.sandstormflygon posted...How hard is it for people to understand the nobody wants to work with the switch because it to weak. For games to have a chance it would take a lot of investment and it just isn't worth it for most developers.
Huh, I thought I just saw DQ Builders 2 announced for Switch and reaffirmation on the Switch version of XI. Guess I was mistaken - nobody wants to work with Switch.3DS FC: 0490-7858-5102/NS FC: SW-6739-0520-9699/PSN: freedumbdclxviNobody cares.
Game 1: Latest graphics, only runs on certain systems that can also run VR (like PSVR). AKA 'technology demo'.
Game 2: Updated graphics, runs on the Switch that can't do VR, but can handle most of the latest graphics effects.
There might be a limit to what the Switch can do, but the graphics so far have been great. Some developers cry that they have to optimize their code. Too bad!- Boards
- Nintendo Switch
- The switch is almost as powerful as the XBOX ONE...problem is the architecture
- Boards
- Nintendo Switch
- The switch is almost as powerful as the XBOX ONE...problem is the architecture
TalesRevenant posted...ncb1397 posted...
TalesRevenant posted...
Lol no it's not. It's slightly more powerful than Wii U. It's not even close to X1 let alone PS4.
Every benchmark we have of actual games suggests otherwise. Heck, minecraft runs at the same resolution and a higher framerate than the PS4 version (lower draw distance though). Regardless, "close" is an inherently relative term. The moon is close by, relatively speaking...
No it doesn't...And close isn'ta relative term. It literally is a Wii U 1.5. It's not even close to X1 let alone PS4. What do you not understand about that? Is that hard for you to comprehend? It cannot, factually, run X1 or PS4 games. Engrave that in your head. And yes...let's use Minecraft and f***ing indie games to magically say a system is more powerful than it actually is.
Jesus the mental gymnastics...
The system is factually running tech that is years old and not even close the specs of X1 and PS4 is not even in this discussion. It's pretty much a Wii U 1.5, hence, why every f***ing game, including Nintendo's own look like straight up Wii U games.
I don't understand why the fanboys of this board have to be so damn delusional. Why can't you just admit the system is weak? Especially when there are facts contradicting the bulls*** you just spewed. People have broken down the system and found what's inside it. It's a damn modified Tegra X1 mobile chip. Just use your brain and figure out the rest. As a handheld, it's powerful. As a console? It's a spruced up Wii U. Wii U=/=X1.
With Snake Pass being 864p on PS4 and 675p on Switch docked, it's closer than you think. And we didn't need to call 30 Gamestop locations to confirm that."When you've got no argument, say something bad about <x>."
Perfectly explains why the Nintendo boards are toxic and are full of trolls/haters.TalesRevenant posted...It cannot, factually, run X1 or PS4 games.
Factually, it runs Disgaea 5, which is a PS4 game.3DS FC: 0490-7858-5102/NS FC: SW-6739-0520-9699/PSN: freedumbdclxvifreedumbdclxvi posted...TalesRevenant posted...
It cannot, factually, run X1 or PS4 games.
Factually, it runs Disgaea 5, which is a PS4 game.
I wouldn't take his comments seriously.Any information provided on GFaqs can and will be used against you as bullying material.
If you keep talking about me, I will keep pointing out your obsession.Didn't watch that, but battery life is one reason you can't fully utilize the systems full potential without major sacrifice.freedumbdclxvi posted...TalesRevenant posted...
It cannot, factually, run X1 or PS4 games.
Factually, it runs Disgaea 5, which is a PS4 game.
Remember when that was a PS4 exclusive?
It isn't now."When you've got no argument, say something bad about <x>."
Perfectly explains why the Nintendo boards are toxic and are full of trolls/haters.I really think that the problem lies with the CPU, rather than the GPU. 300 MHz is not a lot. Just because some PS4 and Xbox One games can make the jump doesn’t mean all of them can. Every game is different."Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." -Mark TwainRyanator20x6 posted...I really think that the problem lies with the CPU, rather than the GPU. 300 MHz is not a lot. Just because some PS4 and Xbox One games can make the jump doesn’t mean all of them can. Every game is different.
There is a reason some games drain more battery than others.
That is a thing.
Putting a game on Switch that only last for an hour handheld is bad marketing.Ryanator20x6 posted...I really think that the problem lies with the CPU, rather than the GPU. 300 MHz is not a lot. Just because some PS4 and Xbox One games can make the jump doesn%u2019t mean all of them can. Every game is different.
Yup, CPU is the biggest problem. Half the core count. Recent PS4 and Xbox One games should be optimized to use up to seven cores.
The GPU is DX12/Vulkan class, it supports all the features needed to run PS4 and PC ports, albeit the graphics themselves need a hefty downgrade.
People need to think in terms of how PC versions can scale from maximum settings on the latest and greatest down to minimum on 5+ year old GPUs.Super Mario Kart is the single best Mario Kart ever!(edited 6 days ago)godplaysSNES posted...Ryanator20x6 posted...
I really think that the problem lies with the CPU, rather than the GPU. 300 MHz is not a lot. Just because some PS4 and Xbox One games can make the jump doesn%u2019t mean all of them can. Every game is different.
Yup, CPU is the biggest problem. Half the core count. Recent PS4 and Xbox One games should be optimized to use up to seven cores.
The GPU is DX12/Vulkan class, it supports all the features needed to run PS4 and PC ports, albeit the graphics themselves need a hefty downgrade.
People need to think in terms of how PC versions can scale from maximum settings on the latest and greatest down to minimum on 5+ year old GPUs.
The GPU is massively weaker on Switch due to thermal constraints.Daisy amiibo sass!
Switch FC - 5067-3358-4023Ryanator20x6 posted...I really think that the problem lies with the CPU, rather than the GPU. 300 MHz is not a lot. Just because some PS4 and Xbox One games can make the jump doesn’t mean all of them can. Every game is different.
Switch's CPU runs at 1Ghz, not 300Mhz, and doesn't change between docked and undocked modes. I've already mentioned how it's not really that far off CPU-wise in actual use."When you've got no argument, say something bad about <x>."
Perfectly explains why the Nintendo boards are toxic and are full of trolls/haters.(edited 6 days ago)sandstormflygon posted...The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware.
Except the more power they're given, the more linear, automated driven our games generally become. Devs lose creativity to abuse horsepower and we suffer. For every HZD we get 8 CoD. Most devs won't gain anything from developing for the twins other than breaking even, whereas an original, creative title using fewer resources will be more profitable.
The future is very short-sighted if all you're looking for is power. The Switch is a godsend in a sea of mediocrity.Switch - PS4 - Wii U - PS3 - 3DS - GameCube - Xbox One.
X1X is the ultimate form of compensation for an embarrassed company and community.DiscostewSM posted...Ryanator20x6 posted...
I really think that the problem lies with the CPU, rather than the GPU. 300 MHz is not a lot. Just because some PS4 and Xbox One games can make the jump doesn’t mean all of them can. Every game is different.
Switch's CPU runs at 1Ghz, not 300Mhz, and doesn't change between docked and undocked modes. I've already mentioned how it's not really that far off CPU-wise in actual use.
That’s not what I’ve heard. Supply a source.
Here is mine: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/12/nintendo-switch-nvidia-tegra-x1-specs-speed/"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." -Mark Twain(edited 6 days ago)Ryanator20x6 posted...DiscostewSM posted...
Ryanator20x6 posted...
I really think that the problem lies with the CPU, rather than the GPU. 300 MHz is not a lot. Just because some PS4 and Xbox One games can make the jump doesn’t mean all of them can. Every game is different.
Switch's CPU runs at 1Ghz, not 300Mhz, and doesn't change between docked and undocked modes. I've already mentioned how it's not really that far off CPU-wise in actual use.
That’s not what I’ve heard. Supply a source.
Here is mine: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/12/nintendo-switch-nvidia-tegra-x1-specs-speed/
Um....When docked, the Switch's GPU runs at a 768MHz, already lower than the 1GHz of the Shield Android TV. When used as a portable, the Switch downclocks the GPU to 307.2MHz—just 40 percent of the clock speed when docked.
While GPU performance is variable, the rest of the Switch's specs remain static. Its four ARM A57 CPU cores are purported to run at 1020MHz regardless of whether the console is docked or undocked,
They're just reiterating what DF said, which is that the CPU is 1Ghz (1020Mhz to be precise), whereas the GPU is 768Mhz docked and 307.2Mhz undocked.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-nintendo-switch-spec-analysis"When you've got no argument, say something bad about <x>."
Perfectly explains why the Nintendo boards are toxic and are full of trolls/haters.(edited 6 days ago)DiscostewSM posted...Ryanator20x6 posted...
DiscostewSM posted...
Ryanator20x6 posted...
I really think that the problem lies with the CPU, rather than the GPU. 300 MHz is not a lot. Just because some PS4 and Xbox One games can make the jump doesn’t mean all of them can. Every game is different.
Switch's CPU runs at 1Ghz, not 300Mhz, and doesn't change between docked and undocked modes. I've already mentioned how it's not really that far off CPU-wise in actual use.
That’s not what I’ve heard. Supply a source.
Here is mine: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/12/nintendo-switch-nvidia-tegra-x1-specs-speed/
Um....When docked, the Switch's GPU runs at a 768MHz, already lower than the 1GHz of the Shield Android TV. When used as a portable, the Switch downclocks the GPU to 307.2MHz—just 40 percent of the clock speed when docked.
While GPU performance is variable, the rest of the Switch's specs remain static. Its four ARM A57 CPU cores are purported to run at 1020MHz regardless of whether the console is docked or undocked,
Oh boy, letters, uh..."Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." -Mark TwainDiscostewSM posted...In terms of the GPU, Switch is not as strong as XB1. It's about 1/2 of what XB1 can do when docked and about 1/4-1/5 undocked. Don't really have to worry about undocked mode since that will have a resolution drop (if we go from 1080p to 720p) that lessens the load of about 66.6%. So, devs can simply work with docked mode. Reduction of effects, textures, etc to get it down to at least over half the needed load would be enough. It wouldn't visually turn an XB1 game into a PS2 like some may exaggerate. It'll be like toning down a PC game one notch at maximum.
In terms of RAM, most of what gets loaded is GPU-based, like textures. If you're reducing the assets to work with the GPU, then you've already done the work of fitting into the RAM.
In terms of the CPU, Switch is actually pretty close. Don't let the ARM architecture and half the cores fool you. Benchmarks demonstrate that the Cortex A57 cores (mobile) at equal clock frequencies to Jaguar cores (also mobile) actually surpass them significantly, especially on the low end. The reduced clock speeds still give the ARM cores an edge. From there, it's about effectively working with 3 out of 4 ARM cores (maybe even partial of the 4th if the OS is handled similarly like the 3DS's CPU) for games that generally worked with up to 6-7 cores (since 1-2 cores get used for the OS of the others with all their active features). Only about 3 cores are used efficiently for game logic because there's only so much parallel processing that can be done for a game world, with any more cores getting affected by diminishing returns. Game engines can partially use these other cores for tasks like getting things ready for the GPU (such as building command lists), but in the case of the Switch, having a reduction already with regard to the GPU, what the game engine does for that won't be as much as the other systems. All in all, while for Switch the game logic may have to be toned down a bit, it won't require nearly as much of a downgrade as stuff done for the GPU, and that's only needing a reduction to half the load.
So, can the Switch runs these other games? It has the power for them should the devs choose to put some work into downscaling. Funny thing is, they're already adept to downscaling since they do this even for PS4/XB1. They start with much higher-quality assets, then drop them down to fit the platforms. So people using the "downscale hardship" excuse need to go looking for another excuse.
DrChocolate posted...Wii U 0.176 AMD TFlops
Switch 0.393 Nvidia TFlops docked (0.157 non-performance undocked, 0.197 performance undocked)
Xbox one 1.311 AMD TFlops
Fixed that for you, but this is only with regard to raw Flops using FP32. Unlike the rest, Switch using the more efficient Nvidia GPU to get more out of each flop and having access to double-speed FP16, Switch is roughly around the area of 0.615 AMD TFlops docked. Could it be ~0.944 TFlops if it used only FP16? Theoretically, but not only would that bring about a lot of precision-lacking results, but it could only do that if everything processed could be done in doubles to take full use of double-speed FP16 (which takes two sets of FP16 values and processes them with the same single operation, like addition, to get 2 results in the same amount of time as one set of FP32 values), and that is highly unlikely.
@DiscostewSM I have been meaning to ask you. The A57 comes with a neon Simd co processor. How can that come in play with game performance?PSN/XBL: OMNIRYU
Switch FC: 5419 6809 0486-Lo- posted...sandstormflygon posted...
The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware.
Except the more power they're given, the more linear, automated driven our games generally become. Devs lose creativity to abuse horsepower and we suffer. For every HZD we get 8 CoD. Most devs won't gain anything from developing for the twins other than breaking even, whereas an original, creative title using fewer resources will be more profitable.
The future is very short-sighted if all you're looking for is power. The Switch is a godsend in a sea of mediocrity.
LOL, no. I like it and all, but you're really overstating its value.ncb1397 posted...NewMoonShadow posted...
ncb1397 posted...
NewMoonShadow posted...
ncb1397 posted...
NewMoonShadow posted...
PS4Pro = 4.2 TFLOPS per second
X-Box One X = 6 TFLOPS per Second
So... yeah, Nintendo is still wildly behind the curve, even if you try to argue that it's not by comparing it to 4-year-old hardware.
Xbox One S and PS4 slim are new machines. Less than a year old.
Sorry, no, shoving the same hardware into a new case doesn't qualify as a new machine.
Okay, those machines are irrelevant. Sony's current gen console has a an install base of ~2 million and it has been out almost a year. Everyone freak the f*** out!!!
BTW, the manufacturing technology for the Xbox One S and PS4 Slim only existed in the last year or so.
Holy s***, will people please pay attention to what the actual topic of discussion is about? Nobody's talking about which console is "better" or which is "selling better" or which is "winning", the discussion is about raw computing power and graphical capabilities.
Nintendo consoles ever since the Wii have been well behind the curve, this is an indisputable fact of mathematics. Arguing against this is just being a deluded fanboy completely detached from reality. Especially now with consoles releasing with 4 and 6 times the processing power of the Switch, arguing that it will someday look as good as current X-Box One titles is questionable at best, and completely irrelevant at worst. By the time such technical mastery over the Switch is ever attained, its competitors will have moved well beyond that point.
I love the Switch. I love the games on it, I love the JoyCons, I love basically everything about it with a few nitpicks. But raw power is not one of its advantages, nor is it a reason to even own the thing. Pretending it can match the X-Box One is just being deluded, and putting the focus on the wrong thing anyway.
Forget the numbers for a second....
IMO, there are Switch games that look just as good as Xbox One games (or so close that it doesn't matter).
Sunset Overdrive:
Splatoon 2:
Graphical quality is very comparable. Resolution for instance is almost the same between the two. Sunset Overdrive runs at 900p 30 fps(with drops) while Splatoon runs at 864p-1080p 60 fps.
You are embarrassing.Tom Brady is the GOATYou gamers should stick to playing games.It's geeks who really make or break a TV show or movie or videogame.ArsenicSteel posted...You gamers should stick to playing games.
And you should stick to trying to be clever.What a mess Nintendo fanboys can't accept the fact that the switch is much weaker than other system and developers don't have to develop for Nintendo for whatever reason.@omniryu posted...DiscostewSM I have been meaning to ask you. The A57 comes with a neon Simd co processor. How can that come in play with game performance?
Well, the point of the SIMD (single instruction multiple data) as the acronym implies is being able to process multiple sets of data at the same time with single instructions. Kind of like the double-speed FP16 I mentioned with Nvidia's GPU (starting with the Tegra X1). The Neon tech is a packed SIMD architecture, like an extension to existing SIMD operations. How does that help with game performance? Well, you've got a lot of data that must be processed using the same data types and same instructions. Why do each one at a time when you can do them in bulk? Say you have 4 sets of 32-bit values all of the same type you want to add together (not add 4 values together, but 4 sets of 2 values each) to get 4 results. Explaining in simple terms, to add 4 sets together with the CPU, you'd need to do it as 4 separate instructions. With the SIMD, you call one instruction and it processes those 4 sets in parallel. It's invaluable with things like vectors and matrices. It isn't just limited to math operations. Various logical operations, conversions, etc are included.
To summarize, lots of data needing to be processed can be done in less time with the Neon SIMD co-processor."When you've got no argument, say something bad about <x>."
Perfectly explains why the Nintendo boards are toxic and are full of trolls/haters.DiscostewSM posted...@omniryu posted...
DiscostewSM I have been meaning to ask you. The A57 comes with a neon Simd co processor. How can that come in play with game performance?
Well, the point of the SIMD (single instruction multiple data) as the acronym implies is being able to process multiple sets of data at the same time with single instructions. Kind of like the double-speed FP16 I mentioned with Nvidia's GPU (starting with the Tegra X1). The Neon tech is a packed SIMD architecture, like an extension to existing SIMD operations. How does that help with game performance? Well, you've got a lot of data that must be processed using the same data types and same instructions. Why do each one at a time when you can do them in bulk? Say you have 4 sets of 32-bit values all of the same type you want to add together (not add 4 values together, but 4 sets of 2 values each) to get 4 results. Explaining in simple terms, to add 4 sets together with the CPU, you'd need to do it as 4 separate instructions. With the SIMD, you call one instruction and it processes those 4 sets in parallel. It's invaluable with things like vectors and matrices. It isn't just limited to math operations. Various logical operations, conversions, etc are included.
To summarize, lots of data needing to be processed can be done in less time with the Neon SIMD co-processor.
@DiscostewSM
So stuff like assisting with shader, lighting, physics, or even particle can be done with Simd?
What about emulation? Can it assist in emulation?PSN/XBL: OMNIRYU
Switch FC: 5419 6809 0486(edited 5 days ago)sandstormflygon posted...The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware.
oh you mean like when now some ps3 games look and play better than some ps4 games, and the switch doubles in power the ps3?PSN: Akiradeviruman
quickposter posted... Numbers indicate nothing.Bellagio_6 posted...You are embarrassing.
sunset overdrive looks like crap compared to Final fantasy type 0, and not the ps4 version, the psp/psvita version.PSN: Akiradeviruman
quickposter posted... Numbers indicate nothing.dunnyrega posted...sandstormflygon posted...
The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware.
oh you mean like when now some ps3 games look and play better than some ps4 games, and the switch doubles in power the ps3?
What ps3 game looks better than a ps4 game?sandstormflygon posted...dunnyrega posted...
sandstormflygon posted...
The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware.
oh you mean like when now some ps3 games look and play better than some ps4 games, and the switch doubles in power the ps3?
What ps3 game looks better than a ps4 game?
Literally none.sandstormflygon posted...dunnyrega posted...
sandstormflygon posted...
The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware.
oh you mean like when now some ps3 games look and play better than some ps4 games, and the switch doubles in power the ps3?
What ps3 game looks better than a ps4 game?
Idk, but just having more memory for higher quality texture makes the PS4 better than the ps3PSN/XBL: OMNIRYU
Switch FC: 5419 6809 0486DiscostewSM posted...In terms of the GPU, Switch is not as strong as XB1. It's about 1/2 of what XB1 can do when docked and about 1/4-1/5 undocked. Don't really have to worry about undocked mode since that will have a resolution drop (if we go from 1080p to 720p) that lessens the load of about 66.6%. So, devs can simply work with docked mode. Reduction of effects, textures, etc to get it down to at least over half the needed load would be enough. It wouldn't visually turn an XB1 game into a PS2 like some may exaggerate. It'll be like toning down a PC game one notch at maximum.
That's an incredibly simplistic and misleading example. About half is an incredibly best-case scenario, and realistically you're probably looking at more towards 1/3rd or 1/4th when docked. Additionally, you're assuming you're going from 1080p to 720p...but clearly many Xbox One games run at 900p or less, in which case the Switch would have to run at resolutions well below 720p when docked to achieve the same level of graphical quality.
Additionally, the "GPU" has little to do with texture quality, since higher quality textures have virtually no affect on the actual load on the GPU itself.In terms of RAM, most of what gets loaded is GPU-based, like textures. If you're reducing the assets to work with the GPU, then you've already done the work of fitting into the RAM.
That's definitely not the case. Not only is the Switch's RAM amount notably different (~3.5gb vs ~5.5GB usable), but the bandwidth it provides is substantially less, ESPECIALLY in regards to its GPU performance. While the Xbox One has its eSRAM to rely on framebuffer (and some secondary attribute) rendering, and the PS4 of course has massive amounts of bandwidth in general, the Switch is relying on its paltry system RAM for both system operations and GPU operations, which is very limiting and as little as 1/6th of what the Xbox One or PS4 can offer. So even if you can just assume that downgrading textures alone would be enough to get it working on the Switch, bandwidth is also a significant issue.In terms of the CPU, Switch is actually pretty close.
No, it isn't. Half (or less) the usable cores for games, and even if the per-core performance was similar (which is almost certainly isn't, I'd like to see these benchmarks that puts the A57 near the Jaguar at 1ghz vs 1.6ghz), that is an absolutely massive downgrade. And along with RAM, CPU usage is the hardest to downgrade without impacting the game itself (in fact, nearly all CPU functions are related to gameplay or game-related aspects, not graphics), so porting a game that utilizes the full CPU power available on the Xbox One or PS4 is going to be an uphill battle.So, can the Switch runs these other games? It has the power for them should the devs choose to put some work into downscaling. Funny thing is, they're already adept to downscaling since they do this even for PS4/XB1. They start with much higher-quality assets, then drop them down to fit the platforms. So people using the "downscale hardship" excuse need to go looking for another excuse.
There's virtually no need for "downscaling" between the PS4 and Xbox One. In nearly every case, all they do is drop the resolution, or at best disable a small number of non-essential effects. Things like texture and asset quality don't have to be altered, which is often different from how things would have to be done for the Switch (especially because of the significant difference in RAM and CPU attributes).
Simpler games, especially those made for lower end and multiplatform systems through universal engines, will fair better. Games that take more advantage of the Xbox One and PS4's hardware though would be incredibly difficult to get working on the Switch. I can't even imagine how awful something like AC Unity would fair."Walking tanks must exist somewhere for there to be such attention to detail like this in mech sim." - IGN Steel Battalion reviewNo it is not. It is not even close; and that's fine. Switch is for nintendo games anyway. If you bought a switch with the intention of playing AAA multi-platforms in it, then the fault is on you.FC: 1092 - 2294 - 8760It's a tablet. It's not going to play current gen console games well or at all.(edited 4 days ago)Damn, this topic is awesome. Delusions, denial, Discostew getting beautifully refuted..."Links to GameFAQs statistics is trolling. It doesn't matter the ToU says nothing about that. I decided it is and it is upheld." - GameFAQs modYou mean it is almost close to Wii U. In other words, trapped between PS3 and Wii U and nowhere close to PS4 Pro when it should eclipse it instead of being a Super Vita minus the features and games.ncb1397 posted...monkmith posted...
Karmic Dragon2003 posted...
sandstormflygon posted...
The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware.
Why did devs waste money making inferior versions of games for the PS2 and the 360?
to be fair, way more people owned those consoles.
The 360 sold 10 million in a year. Switch did 5 million in 4 months. So, not really.
Now now that doesn't count... Like how everyone dreamcast game ran like s*** on the PS2 yet the dreamcast died cuz the PS2 was "better"(edited 4 days ago)SSjYagami posted...You mean it is almost close to Wii U. In other words, trapped between PS3 and Wii U and nowhere close to PS4 Pro when it should eclipse it instead of being a Super Vita minus the features and games.
Lol Vita having games... I have one and there isn't s*** on it cept for obscure jrpgs as of late all the major games already came out... Hell not even a gta game came to it like on the pspRyanator20x6 posted...I really think that the problem lies with the CPU, rather than the GPU. 300 MHz is not a lot. Just because some PS4 and Xbox One games can make the jump doesn’t mean all of them can. Every game is different.
No the problem is the bandwidth. the CPU and GPU scale fine with Xbone and PS4 being 2-3x as weaker(assuming devs fully optimize Switch's GPU with mixed precision mode), but the RAM bandwidth sucks, and could be holding back getting demanding AAA 3rd party ports from performing as intended.
We've already seen some games scale pretty well on switch versions(lego city undercover, snake pass).. But the big test is the AAA 3rd party games like Call of Duty.Less is more. Everything you want, isn't everything you need.(edited 4 days ago)sandstormflygon posted...The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware.
We need a new Final Fantasy Tacticskislev posted...sandstormflygon posted...
The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware.
By your logic, why should devs make games on anything other than the PS4 Pro and soon to be X-box X. or even better.. the PC?
Hint: Because people are willing to buy them.Less is more. Everything you want, isn't everything you need.DiscostewSM posted...brubie posted...
sandstormflygon posted...
The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware.
people say devs won't waste time/money on making superior versions of their game for xbox one x
people say devs won't waste time/money on making inferior versions of their game for switch
devs just love middle of the road gaming i guess.
More like going with whichever route will lead them to good profit. If making superior versions for XB1X granted a lot of money, they'd do it. If making inferior versions for Switch granted a lot of money, they'd do it. Doing one doesn't mean they wouldn't do anything else if more than the one granted lots of money.
yeah, middle of the road, mediocre, mass market appeal. devs love that for their games as it gets the most dollars.Andros-2K7 posted...sandstormflygon posted...
The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware.
Did you help to create the Switch to know what it can run and what it cannot? And when did good graphics = good game? You're a fool if you think toning down a game a little bit wouldn't positively affect a games sales figure. How blind are you exactly? The major selling point of the Switch is the portability and Nintendo's current sales # has been the best it has ever been because of that. How many of these Switch games that are selling so well has uber omg type of graphics? You wait and see how well the Switch version of Skyrim will sell. You must be a Microsoft or Sony couch potato who thinks anything less than a 4k TV and a "powerful" home console isn't gaming or worth having. Get with the times. On the go gaming is where its at now whether its on your cellphone or 3ds or Switch.
That explains why COD skipped the console.characterz3ro posted...Andros-2K7 posted...
sandstormflygon posted...
The switch isn't anywhere close to the Xbox one in terms of power. Also why should devs waste money making inferior version of their games. Some games could be made to run on the switch but that would require a lot of effort just to make portable yet inferior port of a game. Most devs won't really gain anything from that. Developers should focus on the future and push games to their best but they can't do on the switch limiting hardware.
Did you help to create the Switch to know what it can run and what it cannot? And when did good graphics = good game? You're a fool if you think toning down a game a little bit wouldn't positively affect a games sales figure. How blind are you exactly? The major selling point of the Switch is the portability and Nintendo's current sales # has been the best it has ever been because of that. How many of these Switch games that are selling so well has uber omg type of graphics? You wait and see how well the Switch version of Skyrim will sell. You must be a Microsoft or Sony couch potato who thinks anything less than a 4k TV and a "powerful" home console isn't gaming or worth having. Get with the times. On the go gaming is where its at now whether its on your cellphone or 3ds or Switch.
That explains why COD skipped the console.
Yeah, sadly, the Switch isn't getting any current AAA third party support. Sure, WWE and the 2K games are coming but those aren't the major releases and they release on any console so the Switch gets those games by default. The only reason Skyrim is coming is because it's a 6 year old game, of course the Switch can run Skyrim but wait until Bethesda drops support or just release shovelware for the Switch. Bethesda is just trying to squeeze every single ounce of money from Skyrim.Some Switch games do look better than Xbone games, for what it's worth.The same thing was said about the lack of Wii U ports.Nipple rubbing intensifies...Bellagio_6 posted...You are embarrassing.
he was on a roll with the bad posts in this topic wasnt he?
havent seen a streak like that in a while.finally a new .Hack game! its been too long old friend.BobVance posted...It's a tablet. It's not going to play current gen console games well or at all.
The thing people need to understand is that Switch supports everything that the current gen consoles do. The biggest problem is that the CPU has half the core count. The hardware itself is modern but the horsepower is lacking.
The Wii vs Xbox 360 was much worse than the Switch vs Xbox One.
Wii had a single core CPU vs the 360's multicore CPU
Wii had 88MB total RAM vs the 360's 512MB total RAM
Wii had DX7 class GPU vs the 360's DX9 class GPU (with some features not available on PC until DX10 GPUs)
For the Wii, games needed to be fully remade. For the Switch, they just need to be downgraded alot.
In theory, everything GPU related could be scaled down easily. The RAM disadvantage is also something console programmers have been used to since always.
It's the CPU that's problematic, because CPU tasks are typically affecting the gameplay itself.
A game like Battlefield 1 wouldn't be possible on the Switch, primarily because of the CPU. But a game like Tomb Raider, which is more of a corridor game, would be possible.Super Mario Kart is the single best Mario Kart ever!(edited 4 days ago)@ncb1397 posted...ArabrockermanX posted...
@DrChocolate
2016 account, so most likely a troll.
Also, Switch has less than half a teraflop while docked, it is around 1/3rd an xb0ne while docked...
Comparing nVidia GPUs vs AMD GPUs like that doesn't yield accurate comparisons. If an AMD tflop equaled an nVidia tflop, high end AMD GPUs would beat high end nVidia GPUs. It is the opposite though, the NVidia GPUs trounce AMD's.
In this case it should be fairly close, console games are optimized to the hardware frequently which will reduce Nvidia's advantage. Also, even if we ignore all of that, we are still talking about the GPU being under half the xb0ne's while the Switch is docked.
Devs have to aim for the undocked specs as their baseline...The internet, where people come to be a dumbass.How hard is it for people to understand the nobody wants to work with the switch because it to weak. For games to have a chance it would take a lot of investment and it just isn't worth it for most developers.sandstormflygon posted...How hard is it for people to understand the nobody wants to work with the switch because it to weak. For games to have a chance it would take a lot of investment and it just isn't worth it for most developers.
Huh, I thought I just saw DQ Builders 2 announced for Switch and reaffirmation on the Switch version of XI. Guess I was mistaken - nobody wants to work with Switch.3DS FC: 0490-7858-5102/NS FC: SW-6739-0520-9699/PSN: freedumbdclxviNobody cares.
Game 1: Latest graphics, only runs on certain systems that can also run VR (like PSVR). AKA 'technology demo'.
Game 2: Updated graphics, runs on the Switch that can't do VR, but can handle most of the latest graphics effects.
There might be a limit to what the Switch can do, but the graphics so far have been great. Some developers cry that they have to optimize their code. Too bad!- Boards
- Nintendo Switch
- The switch is almost as powerful as the XBOX ONE...problem is the architecture
- Boards
- Nintendo Switch
- The switch is almost as powerful as the XBOX ONE...problem is the architecture
- Boards
- Nintendo Switch
- The switch is almost as powerful as the XBOX ONE...problem is the architecture
No comments:
Post a Comment