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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - How do the visuals on the Nintendo Switch compare to those of the Xbox 360 & PS3?

 

The Nintendo Switch hardware is...

A big leap over 7th gen 71 40.11%
 
A minor leap over 7th gen 72 40.68%
 
About the same as 7th gen 24 13.56%
 
Actually WORSE than last gen 10 5.65%
 
Total:177
curl-6 said:
Azuren said:

Six times the RAM one sixth the size in a casing one twentieth the size with a GPU ten years newer with one tenth the size with one tenth the fan.

Look, it's clear I'm not convincing you that I'm free to be skeptical until I have enough good evidence in my hands, nor are you convincing me that SPECZ are the end of the conversation.

Casing size doesn't make a Gigabyte of RAM count for less, 3GB is 3GB. And fabrication size shrunk massively from 2005 to 2015, allowing the same number of transistors or even considerably more to fit into a vastly smaller space.

You're free to remain skeptical, and it is clear at this point this discussion is at a dead end, so yeah, no point continuing this.

No, but it does decrease airflow, and is coupled with the smaller fan and portable form factor. Just another round of circumstances surrounding this that makes it significantly more involved that just "what has more RAM and hertz?"

 

I'll be back after I give Dark Souls a go on Switch.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Around the Network
Azuren said:
curl-6 said:

Casing size doesn't make a Gigabyte of RAM count for less, 3GB is 3GB. And fabrication size shrunk massively from 2005 to 2015, allowing the same number of transistors or even considerably more to fit into a vastly smaller space.

You're free to remain skeptical, and it is clear at this point this discussion is at a dead end, so yeah, no point continuing this.

No, but it does decrease airflow, and is coupled with the smaller fan and portable form factor. Just another round of circumstances surrounding this that makes it significantly more involved that just "what has more RAM and hertz?"

One of the benefits of smaller fabrication processes is lower power demands, and hence less heat.



Azuren said:
curl-6 said:

Again, we have the specs, they clearly show Switch has significantly more graphical muscle than PS3/360, and real world performance reflects this disparity. There's no need to wait, the evidence is conclusive.

You keep saying that, but no.

The Switch does have more muscle than the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360. This shouldn't even be up for debate.

One of the biggest limitations last generation was Ram. Or lack there-of. Not exactly an issue on the Switch.

Azuren said:
curl-6 said:

Yet again; We. Have. The. Specs.

And hardware optimization is a thing; So. The. Specs. Aren't. The. Whole. Story.

But damn is a big part of that story though.


Azuren said:

Except optimization is unique on each side, because the hardware between the PS3, 360, and Switch are all drastically different from one another.

 

And the question has a factual answer for arguably one game (not giving Skyrim the point since Bethesda has been practicing that game for ten years). I'm waiting for a trend before saying anything, whereas you just seem gung-ho to declare a victor.

The Switch isn't even a year old at this point, so it goes without saying that games will look better in several years time on the Switch, where-as the 7th gen consoles were pretty much tapped out.

Skyrim isn't leveraging all the visual effects the Switch can do either, but it certainly does leverage a vast majority of the Xbox 360's and Playstation 3's from a hardware feature set perspective.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

I feel like it is slightly better than 7th gen, but well below 8th. Of course, it is really difficult for me to compare, as I've not played any game on Switch that I also played on XB or PS. We know for sure that it is well below PS4 and XB1, as there have been a ton of side-by-side comparisons. But, aside from Skyrim, there's not much in the way of AAA games to directly compare. Even with Skyrim, the comparisons aren't really fair, as the devs have the advantage of having ported the game and remastered it a whole bunch already.

For me though, it doesn't matter. I buy Nintendo systems to play Nintendo games. Nintendo, in turn, makes games that don't need cutting edge tech to look great. From what I've seen so far, the Switch does this job perfectly. (I will say that BotW certainly could have made use of better hardware. But, it was still beautiful in its own way.)



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
NPCmates said:

I was thinking the same thing not specifically GoW 3 but exclusives on the ps3/360 themselves. I have a Switch and the more cartoony graphics look good but so far the more realistic stuff like Skyrim and Doom really don't look great. Maybe in time they will look better. 

To be fair none of the realistic looking stuff looked good on PS3 or Xbox 360 either. I think a poster said this way earlier in this thread(?) or in another thread, but people really remember the 7th gen graphics being way better than they really are. I remember I used to think this gen suffered too much from diminishing returns, and in some ways it still does, but a huge selection of 7th gen games look significantly worse than games of this generation. Even just the difference in power between a Switch and a 7th gen console, which might seem quite small compared to a fully fledged 8th generation upgrade, is still enough to see a big difference in image quality. 

Still, DOOM on Switch DOES look like a PS3 version of the game ... 

Oh I completely agree I remember people complaining this gen wasn't a jump at all and people see remastered games and are like nothing is different.....its like maybe you should go look back at what it used to look like haha
I know the Switch is technically more powerful and the only true test is if you had developers make the same game for Switch/ps3/360 ect which was done kinda with Skyrim and though ps3 looks pretty bad Switch and 360 version look pretty much the same.
I have much respect for them getting all games into the portable space.



Around the Network
quickrick said:
OTBWY said:

You see, this is why people accuse you of cherrypicking. GTA V on 7th gen console dip below 30 constantly. The PS3 version almost never stays 30 during driving of all things. Since you love DF so much: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzMZ_Cz7iI Most of the fps issues you mentioned on the Switch have been patched away already. Repeating "but b-but korok forest" doesn't change the fact that BotW is stable throughout, while GTA V on last gen is not. The visuals and IQ (lol) of BotW and GTA V is nothing but subjective because of the difference between artistic choices. Breath of the Wild has a different style of visual artstyle which emphasizes brighter and more vibrant colours. The amount of assets, even the fields with many blades of grass, is much more than any version on the PS3 or the 360 can handle in a playable form.

frame rate was only improved in the switch version, not the wiiu. this isn't going no where, until there is zelda port on ps3/360 or GTAV port on wiiu, this is all baseless speculation, and a waste of time. 

On what do you base this? I am playing on the WiiU version , and most of the launch day bugs and slow downs have been fixed. The game is far more stable in frame rate than when it launched. When it is not, it is still a huge cut above this DF video of GTA V. 

 

Again, and I repeat: Is this your own observation, or do you go by word of mouth? If this is your observation, then be more specific. Where there is slowdown in Wii U, it is rare. Where it does happen, most gamers would be excused for finding it reasonable (it is not as if other games do not slow down here and there under AI or object load). 

 

I am not sure which update it was that fixed things, but now starting a new game is day and night in terms of the early game experience -- late game was more stable anyway.

 

I can cross compare on both Switch and Wii U. Aside from the slightly inferior visuals, both games nowadays run very well. If you nitpick BotW for its framerate, then you must at least be ready to extend fairly the same expectation down to the other games you compare.

 

I'll repeat, then: On what basis do you say this? Is it first hand? On my current run, after over 50 hours if playing, I still can remember slowdown occuring rarely, mostly when I was running the game during and right after launch period. I haven't experienced anything that suffocates the game down to 20 FPS for months. When and if it happened, the drop was momentary and absolutely nothing that I would not still find reasonable on any number of PS3/360 game.



Azuren said:
curl-6 said:

Casing size doesn't make a Gigabyte of RAM count for less, 3GB is 3GB. And fabrication size shrunk massively from 2005 to 2015, allowing the same number of transistors or even considerably more to fit into a vastly smaller space.

You're free to remain skeptical, and it is clear at this point this discussion is at a dead end, so yeah, no point continuing this.

No, but it does decrease airflow, and is coupled with the smaller fan and portable form factor. Just another round of circumstances surrounding this that makes it significantly more involved that just "what has more RAM and hertz?"

 

I'll be back after I give Dark Souls a go on Switch.

You seem to have a massively skewed memory. Obsession with comparing everything to God of War 3 is disingenuous. Switch is still in its first year, and when we compare equivalent launch titles on PS3, the difference between the two systems becomes profound:

 

https://kotaku.com/the-ps3-had-12-games-at-launch-heres-what-they-looked-513396910

 

The moment you realize one system was the size of a small fridge, whereas the other is smaller or at least equivalent to a 7" tablet you have to be very impressed with how Switch performs. It's a handheld, after all.

 

Can it surpass PS3 in all circumstances? No. Cell could still do some nifty things that are impressive even today.



SecondWar said:
Mnementh said: 

PS4:

o_O

Out of sheer curiosity, what game is that? I think it would look bad against PS1 games.

Oh, I thought by now everyone has heard about the gem which is Life of Black Tiger:

https://www.playstation.com/en-us/games/life-of-black-tiger-ps4/



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Helloplite said:
quickrick said:

frame rate was only improved in the switch version, not the wiiu. this isn't going no where, until there is zelda port on ps3/360 or GTAV port on wiiu, this is all baseless speculation, and a waste of time. 

On what do you base this? I am playing on the WiiU version , and most of the launch day bugs and slow downs have been fixed. The game is far more stable in frame rate than when it launched. When it is not, it is still a huge cut above this DF video of GTA V. 

 

Again, and I repeat: Is this your own observation, or do you go by word of mouth? If this is your observation, then be more specific. Where there is slowdown in Wii U, it is rare. Where it does happen, most gamers would be excused for finding it reasonable (it is not as if other games do not slow down here and there under AI or object load). 

 

I am not sure which update it was that fixed things, but now starting a new game is day and night in terms of the early game experience -- late game was more stable anyway.

 

I can cross compare on both Switch and Wii U. Aside from the slightly inferior visuals, both games nowadays run very well. If you nitpick BotW for its framerate, then you must at least be ready to extend fairly the same expectation down to the other games you compare.

 

I'll repeat, then: On what basis do you say this? Is it first hand? On my current run, after over 50 hours if playing, I still can remember slowdown occuring rarely, mostly when I was running the game during and right after launch period. I haven't experienced anything that suffocates the game down to 20 FPS for months. When and if it happened, the drop was momentary and absolutely nothing that I would not still find reasonable on any number of PS3/360 game.

https://youtu.be/w6NkNgI1ssw?t=4m25s



JRPGfan said:
SecondWar said:

Out of sheer curiosity, what game is that? I think it would look bad against PS1 games.

^ Legend of Mana

^ Spyro games

I thought I might have been exaggerating but, man I wasn't. And people say Godzilla looks bad. Thanks for giving it some comaprisons.