View Post

[Mr Puggsly]

Pemalite said: 

Mr Puggsly said:

You missed my point entirely.

I'm saying there is enough evidence that the UE4 engine actually works well on Switch, PS4, and X1 on the CPU side. UE4 games have generally done pretty well at targeting 30 fps and even 60 fps on X1/PS4. Its often at the compromise of resolution and other visual aspects though. Its most prevalent on X1 where they target 720p/60 fps.

Hence, the DF guy said hitting 60 fps is difficult because of the CPU. I'm saying UE4 games seem to run okay on the CPU side but really struggle on GPU. The Switch running this game at 60 fps is proof of this, while the resolution of the game takes a huge hit.

I don't think the CPU is what holds back the Switch most of the time either.
ARM A57 is getting old (5+ years) and the Switch only has 3x CPU cores available for games and they only clock at 1Ghz... But they can still pull their weight... Being a 3-wide design unlike the narrower 2-wide with the Jaguars certainly help matters, that's for sure.

The GPU is still clearly the biggest hindrance followed by memory bandwidth... Especially for newer engines which are pushing an array of effects.
Maxwell is efficient sure, much more so than AMD's efforts and is punching above it's weight... But it just lacks the resources to drive home those resolutions... It just doesn't have the fillrate.

Agreed, I had a similar discussion with someone before. In a nutshell he said the CPU and GPU of X1 and PS4 weren't well balanced compared to the Switch, but I believe the opposite.

I used Ark as an example because that game runs surprisingly okay on Switch, even with many dinosaur models on screen, flying over the world, etc. There isn't a CPU problem on Switch per se, developers are struggling with its limited GPU.

With this game, considering its running 60 fps with UE4, it shows the Switch CPU is actually pretty good. While the resolution could probably be 1080p with GPU power equal to X1.

Last edited by Mr Puggsly - on 18 February 2019