By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - So Switch raw power is 80% of Xbone or more when Docked ?

I was reading the post on Tieba. The image was first leaked from a9vg.org, another video game site in China, famous to be anti-Nintendo, and lots of trolls.
They are commenting you should not trust the guy who leaks the image, that guy has been trolling for a while.

Back to the technical part tho, both Maxwell and Pascall have only 256 cuda cores, only the upcoming Volda has 512 cores.
Which makes it highly suspicous.

But of cause, some of them are getting hyped, because the 4 CPU cores may be Denver2.
If really it's the case, then the Switch is actually pretty powerful.
4 Denver2 CPU cores 16nm FF
+
512 GPU cores 16nm FF
=
mobile beast



Around the Network

All I'm saying is early leaks did say "about as powerful" as Xbone, so there might be some truth behind these leaks.



I didn't see any games looking like they are running on something 80% the power of the Xbox One.

But let's say it is;, you have to remember that the real graphical capabilities of the switch, are dictated by the handheld mode.

EVERY GAME has to run in handheld mode, meaning that the dock mode will be able to improve stuffs like framerate, resolution, or maybe have more players playing on one system. But don't expect the dock mode to be used at its full capacity. One other way to say it is that games are kind of developed for the handheld mode, then upgraded for the docked mode. They are not build for the dock mode, then downgraded for the handheld mode

Let's take a more concrete example, let's say FF XV could run on the dock mode at 720p, and a bit of downgrading, if the game can't run on the handheld mode because it needs to be massively downgraded, then the game can't be ported to Switch.

So you won't have games looking like Xbox One games on Switch, even on docked mode.



Pemalite said:

aLkaLiNE said:
NVidia flops>AMD flops

In addition to improvements over the architecture itself. It's useless looking at TFlops between the two and making assumptions

 

Wrong.

It depends on the GPU architecture in question. If AMD has the more efficient architecture, then it will have an advantage.

Vega should beat Fermi for example.
Regardless, the flops are irrelevant, it's a theoretical number, the other parts of the chip are arguably just as much, if not more important and have an influence in total performance as well

 

It's rather disingenuous of you to only partially quote someone telling them they're wrong and then turning around and agreeing with the part of the statement that you cut off.

 

I did do a little reading though and from what I understand, NVidia scales other parts of their gpu together while AMD does not which generally means that NVidia cards are more thoroughly able to max out from what I understand. And this isn't about fermi vs vega either. This is about maxwell vs GCN2.0.



512 cuda cores?
it is a monster mobile!

btw, any info about memory bandwidth?



Around the Network

512 cuda cores?
it is a monster mobile!

btw, any info about memory bandwidth?



512 cuda cores?
it is a monster mobile!

btw, any info about memory bandwidth?



512 cuda cores?
it is a monster mobile!

btw, any info about memory bandwidth?



512 cuda cores?
it is a monster mobile!

btw, any info about memory bandwidth?



512 cuda cores?
it is a monster mobile!

btw, any info about memory bandwidth?