Pemalite said:
bdbdbd said:
Yeah, the controllers have their own batteries, but judging by the Switch trailer, the controllers are wireless, meaning you need to have some sort of a receiver/transmitter for the controllers, and I'd be willing to bet it consumes power.
|
It will likely use Bluetooth which is extremely energy efficient.
| bdbdbd said:
If you're a high-end tech enthusiast, what's the point in debating about the tech in videogame consoles you know them not being high-end anyways. I can understand the point being for the sake of discussion, but even then it's pointless if your only argument is that "company X shouldn't be doing a product for it's customers".
|
First and foremost, I am a PC gamer. I do enjoy my tech.
But I also wish for Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony to succeed and be competitive, competition breeds innovation and allows for tech to advance even more rapidly.
And just so we are clear, there is more to tech than just the performance of a system.
Thus, I will happily ridicule any platform which doesn't strive to push boundries in technology, that's not a bad thing either, that's a good thing, these companies need constructive criticism to change and get better and to appeal to our wallets.
Being apologetic does nothing.
For example, Microsoft was heavily ridiculed for the Xbox One, it's price, it's performance, so Microsoft boosted the Clockrate of it's SoC, got rid of Kinect which freed up GPU resources and DRAM... Optimized it's various software stacks. You name it. The consumer won.
DonFerrari said:
I see you talking often about Gflops not being everything, and on the surface I can understand that GHz aren't precise measure of capacity, Gflops not being the only variable, that you also have bandwidth, efficiency, coding, etc...
But just not to stay on the hyperbolic a 100Tflop could run worse than a 100Gflop CPU or GPU... on the real world what would be expected deviations... like last gen GPU performing at 1Tflop would be roughly equivalent to this gen GPU at 850Glops, etc.
|
You are correct. It is hyperbole.
But it's not impossible, I was using it as an example.
If you took a 100 Petaflop GPU, gave it no cache, no GDDR memory, 1 Render-Out-Put Pipeline of questionable capability, 1 Texture mapping unit of questionable capability, 1MB/s of bandwidth to system Ram... Then it will be slower than a 100Gflop GPU which suffers from none of those shortfalls.
If we took a Radeon 5870 for example with it's 2720 Gflop of performance and compare it against a Radeon 7850 which is 1761 Gflop, the Radeon 7850 is going to be faster, even in compute tasks, despite it being almost a Teraflop slower.
But don't take my word for it: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1062?vs=1076
The Radeon 7850 is based on Graphics Core Next which is arguably the true successor to the Radeon 5870's VLIW5 architecture as well. (VLIW4 being a cost-efficient reworking based on VLIW5.)
Flops alone tell us nothing. It's literally a theoretical number, that ignores the rest of the GPU.
|
