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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Fortnite Nintendo Switch (undocked), Galaxy S9+, iPhone X Graphics Comparison

John2290 said:
KLAMarine said:

I'm having a hard time believing this.

Asphalt Legends. I've seen it in person and it is jaw dropping. Its better looking than the crew 2 which its style is most comparable and a few others in its own way and that particular style. It beats many a game I've played on ps4 and I've got over 400 or so now not counting VR titles in my library and tend to dive well into the vast majority of them. Its not the only title either, there are a few other racers, FPS and TPS games, some free to play and some not that would make you think twice,they may not beat anything outright but they wouldn't go amiss on PS4 or X1. 

GOWTLOZ said:

There aren't any. Asphalt 9, the best looking racing game on mobiles, is behind Gran Turismo 6 and Forza Motorsport 4, PS3 and Xbox 360 games in terms of detail while running at half the framerate of those games, but with better post processing and higher resolution. They are nowhere near even cross gen racing games on PS4.

It's way, way better looking than the games you mentioned. It easily beats The crew on ps4,maybe even Horizon,while not following the style of the sequels and looks more comparable to The crew 2. I'm finding it hard to believe you've played it or you played it on the an underpowered device or have taken Youtube footage at face value because it would clearly be at home among the ps4 and x1 library two or three years in. You'd need to be a blind man not to see it. 

I haven't played The Crew so can't say.

Digital Foundry said that the cars in Asphalt 9 were made of upto 200k polygons. GT 6 had cars with 500k polygons and 16 of them in a race. The environments in Asphalt 9 are absurd, they are pretty but lack authenticity. GT 6 environments and even moreso Forza Motorsport 4 environments look much more realistic. I know that's not a measure of graphics but I think Asphalt stylises environments because the devs know it would look shit if they tried for a realistic approach.

I looked up The Crew and from what I'm gathering it looked like crap at release but got a huge graphical upgrade with Wild Run update.

I'd like to mention that Asphalt 9's stylised graphics look nowhere near NFS Rivals on PS4, a cross gen open world game.



Around the Network
John2290 said:
GOWTLOZ said:

I haven't played The Crew so can't say.

Digital Foundry said that the cars in Asphalt 9 were made of upto 200k polygons. GT 6 had cars with 500k polygons and 16 of them in a race. The environments in Asphalt 9 are absurd, they are pretty but lack authenticity. GT 6 environments and even moreso Forza Motorsport 4 environments look much more realistic. I know that's not a measure of graphics but I think Asphalt stylises environments because the devs know it would look shit if they tried for a realistic approach.

I looked up The Crew and from what I'm gathering it looked like crap at release but got a huge graphical upgrade with Wild Run update.

I'd like to mention that Asphalt 9's stylised graphics look nowhere near NFS Rivals on PS4, a cross gen open world game.

I agree the environments look shit but when the game is in motion it just looks fantastic. Maybe DF can throw a load of numbers around but to my eye on an Iphone 10 the game looks great, regardless of how many polygons there or how much motionblurr is used. I hate when people say Rise of the tombraider on PC at ultra 4k looks better than Uncharted 4 or LL on Pro simply because the hardware is more powerful and the numbers say it is when in fact Uncharted 4 and LL look much better, same goes here. I don't like mobile gaming as much as the next guy but you have to give credit where credit is due and Asphalt isn't a big budget game like GT so the comparisons are unfair but still holds it's own among ps4 multiplats racers. By the end of the gen most ps4 multiplats will have ported to mobile anyway with the success of fortnite everyone will wanna follow suit and if any of them don't go for parity or trying to be less harsh on the battery across devices and allow for the latest flagships to use what's under the hood those games will look just as good as they do on the ps4. Case in point, in the same way Xcoms mobile port looks just as good as it did on ps3. 

The case you made for Rise of the Tomb Raider is the same case with Asphalt 9. Higher resolution, higher resolution textures and better post processing than PS3 racing games. The motion blur just hides the awful lack of detail everywhere. Gran Turismo 6 and Forza Motorsport 4 are more visually stunning than Asphalt 9 while having far more complex physics simulation and running at 60fps on less powerful hardware. You may ask why, well same as Rise of the Tomb Raider. Asphalt 9 is made to run on multiple specs such as lower end mobiles so it allocates resources as such while it also has to run alongside multiple background applications while not sucking the battery. I don't see most PS4 multiplats ported to mobiles, Fortnite already runs at 1080p 60fps on PS4 while having less complex graphics. Something like Overwatch, yes. Something like Batman Arkham Knight, hell no. Also ofc these games are too big to be on an iphone. 30+ GB is the norm and it wouldn't fit on a phone.



John2290 said:

I hate when people say Rise of the tombraider on PC at ultra 4k looks better than Uncharted 4 or LL on Pro simply because the hardware is more powerful and the numbers say it is when in fact Uncharted 4 and LL look much better.

"in fact", it's more like an opinion at the end of the day, though running TLTR at 4k is an objective fact given the hardware used to run it. The other games looking better *to you* is just your opinion, not a textbook fact that all have to agree to.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

curl-6 said:
Trumpstyle said:

The fortnite mobile version proves that mobile performance for gaming is greatly exaggerated.

Galaxy s9 officially has 350 gigaflops (exynos version), the snapdragon 845 has 737 gigaflops but this in fp16 so we need to halve it, then we get 368 gigaflops. We don't know the gigaflops number for the iphone 8/X as Apple won't reveal it. 

According to anandtech, most phones GPU loses between 50-20% performance when pushed to the max (in the manhattan 3.1 offscreen test). But this is only when pushing the gpu to the max, what happens when a game pushes the CPU and GPU to the max at the same time? We get performance worse than Switch console in undocked mode.

Switch has 150 gigaflops when undocked.

So 13 years later Nintendo switch(undocked) and top smartphones still can't beat Xbox 360, that console have 240 gigaflops :)

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13039/the-lg-g7-review/3

Pemalite already covered this, but FLOPS are not an accurate measuring stick of performance between chips of different architectures released ten years apart. That's like saying a tugboat has more horsepower than a formula 1 car, therefore the tugboat is faster.

Yes ofc I know Flops isn't everything. But they are very important, like Switch and the high end phones can do more advanced graphical effects, but it doesn't translate to a better looking game overall as game developers can design around the flaws of older gpu architectures and make them look better or similiar. We can go full mumbo-jumbo talk about bad xbox 360 flops, but result speaks louder.

 

Show me a switch mobile or smartphone game that looks better than Halo 4, you can't as it doesn't exist.



6x master league achiever in starcraft2

Beaten Sigrun on God of war mode

Beaten DOOM ultra-nightmare with NO endless ammo-rune, 2x super shotgun and no decoys on ps4 pro.

1-0 against Grubby in Wc3 frozen throne ladder!!

Pemalite said:
Trumpstyle said:

The fortnite mobile version proves that mobile performance for gaming is greatly exaggerated.

Galaxy s9 officially has 350 gigaflops (exynos version), the snapdragon 845 has 737 gigaflops but this in fp16 so we need to halve it, then we get 368 gigaflops. We don't know the gigaflops number for the iphone 8/X as Apple won't reveal it. 

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13039/the-lg-g7-review/3

Here we go again.
Gigaflops isn't the be-all, end-all in regards to performance.
A GPU with less Gigaflops can beat a GPU with more Gigaflops.

Trumpstyle said:

According to anandtech, most phones GPU loses between 50-20% performance when pushed to the max (in the manhattan 3.1 offscreen test). But this is only when pushing the gpu to the max, what happens when a game pushes the CPU and GPU to the max at the same time? We get performance worse than Switch console in undocked mode.

Switch has 150 gigaflops when undocked.

So 13 years later Nintendo switch(undocked) and top smartphones still can't beat Xbox 360, that console have 240 gigaflops :)

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13039/the-lg-g7-review/3

The newer the GPU, generally the more efficient it is and the more powerful it is.

Top Smartphones and the Switch are most certainly superior to the Xbox 360 in every scenario that actually matters.



 

Dude we don't haft to disagree with everything, you can give me compliments from time to time. I know Flops isn't everything, as we can see comparing Nvidia and AMD Gpus. Nvidia Flops is usually 30% faster. And I agree somewhat with your respond, except Xbox 360 is probably more powerful than than switch undocked or the most powerful smartphones when fully used.

We can see this in digital foundry comparison of LA noire where ps3 beats switch undocked both in graphics and performance, this despite switch having 4gb RAM.



6x master league achiever in starcraft2

Beaten Sigrun on God of war mode

Beaten DOOM ultra-nightmare with NO endless ammo-rune, 2x super shotgun and no decoys on ps4 pro.

1-0 against Grubby in Wc3 frozen throne ladder!!

Around the Network
Trumpstyle said:
curl-6 said:

Pemalite already covered this, but FLOPS are not an accurate measuring stick of performance between chips of different architectures released ten years apart. That's like saying a tugboat has more horsepower than a formula 1 car, therefore the tugboat is faster.

Yes ofc I know Flops isn't everything. But they are very important, like Switch and the high end phones can do more advanced graphical effects, but it doesn't translate to a better looking game overall as game developers can design around the flaws of older gpu architectures and make them look better or similiar. We can go full mumbo-jumbo talk about bad xbox 360 flops, but result speaks louder.

Show me a switch mobile or smartphone game that looks better than Halo 4, you can't as it doesn't exist.

Switch games like FAST RMX and Outlast II comfortably surpass Halo 4 or any game on 360 graphically. Halo 4 may be extremely impressive for its ancient hardware but it also has its drawbacks such as some pretty low res assets.

Any tricks used to make games on last gen systems look better can equally be applied on Switch, except the visual ceiling will be higher on the Switch due to superior specs.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 19 August 2018

Trumpstyle said:

Yes ofc I know Flops isn't everything. But they are very important

They are not very important.
Flops are theoretical number, not real-world one, they have about as much use and accuracy as using "bits" to determine a platforms capabilities, the sooner you realize that, the better.

There is also more needed to render a game than the flop numbers imply.

Trumpstyle said:

like Switch and the high end phones can do more advanced graphical effects, but it doesn't translate to a better looking game overall as game developers can design around the flaws of older gpu architectures and make them look better or similiar.

That has nothing to do with flops.

Trumpstyle said:

Show me a switch mobile or smartphone game that looks better than Halo 4, you can't as it doesn't exist.

Challenge accepted. And courtesy of Digital Foundry.

Want more? Because they exist.
Halo 4 has a fairly simplified rendering pipeline with allot of the visuals baked.

Trumpstyle said:

I know Flops isn't everything, as we can see comparing Nvidia and AMD Gpus. Nvidia Flops is usually 30% faster.

No they aren't.
Flops are no faster or slower than each other, which just proves you don't really have an understanding of what a flop actually is or how it relates to the capabilities of a graphics processor.

Trumpstyle said:

And I agree somewhat with your respond, except Xbox 360 is probably more powerful than than switch undocked or the most powerful smartphones when fully used.

The Switch has proven with games that it is more capable than the Xbox 360.

Trumpstyle said:

We can see this in digital foundry comparison of LA noire where ps3 beats switch undocked both in graphics and performance, this despite switch having 4gb RAM.

One game which was never originally designed for the Switch's hardware or ISA in mind is your argument?

My counter argument is going to be Skyrim, low framerates, resolution, stutters abound on the Playstation 3, Switch also has better visuals.

Last edited by Pemalite - on 19 August 2018

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

Pemalite said:
Trumpstyle said:

Yes ofc I know Flops isn't everything. But they are very important

They are not very important.
Flops are theoretical number, not real-world one, they have about as much use and accuracy as using "bits" to determine a platforms capabilities, the sooner you realize that, the better.

There is also more needed to render a game than the flop numbers imply.

Trumpstyle said:

like Switch and the high end phones can do more advanced graphical effects, but it doesn't translate to a better looking game overall as game developers can design around the flaws of older gpu architectures and make them look better or similiar.

That has nothing to do with flops.

Trumpstyle said:

Show me a switch mobile or smartphone game that looks better than Halo 4, you can't as it doesn't exist.

Challenge accepted. And courtesy of Digital Foundry.

Want more? Because they exist.
Halo 4 has a fairly simplified rendering pipeline with allot of the visuals baked.

Trumpstyle said:

I know Flops isn't everything, as we can see comparing Nvidia and AMD Gpus. Nvidia Flops is usually 30% faster.

No they aren't.
Flops are no faster or slower than each other, which just proves you don't really have an understanding of what a flop actually is or how it relates to the capabilities of a graphics processor.

Trumpstyle said:

And I agree somewhat with your respond, except Xbox 360 is probably more powerful than than switch undocked or the most powerful smartphones when fully used.

The Switch has proven with games that it is more capable than the Xbox 360.

Trumpstyle said:

We can see this in digital foundry comparison of LA noire where ps3 beats switch undocked both in graphics and performance, this despite switch having 4gb RAM.

One game which was never originally designed for the Switch's hardware or ISA in mind is your argument?

My counter argument is going to be Skyrim, low framerates, resolution, stutters abound on the Playstation 3, Switch also has better visuals.

Asphalt 9 cars has 90k polygons, Forza Motorsport 4 cars has 800k, lol at your asphalt 9 game, it's not even close. As I said before, yes newer architecture can do more advanced effects but it doesn't mean a better looking game. Asphalt 9 just pumps motion blur and some graphics effects to the max so you can't see the details of the game.

I actually downloaded that game to my phone as soon that video from digitalfoundry got out. It was the most ugly looking mobile game I ever played, image quality is hilariously bad and pumped with so much aliasing I gave the worst looking mobile game I ever played, also average fps was about 20 (my guess). But it's probably runs better on latest iphones (iphone8/X).

About Skyrim, betheasda game developers for fallout and elder scrolls just can't do good graphics. Switch hardware is probably a lot easier to fully use than xbox 360.

Edit: forgot sources

https://forzamotorsport.net/en-US/games/fm4/features

"The Xbox 360 meets its graphical apex with Forza Motorsport 4. Experience an unprecedented level of detail with 800,000 polygon cars and some of the most beautiful environments ever seen"

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-asphalt-9-legends-is-one-of-the-most-beautiful-mobile-games-weve-seen

"The cars themselves are rich in detail, with some models featuring in excess of 90,000 polygons."



6x master league achiever in starcraft2

Beaten Sigrun on God of war mode

Beaten DOOM ultra-nightmare with NO endless ammo-rune, 2x super shotgun and no decoys on ps4 pro.

1-0 against Grubby in Wc3 frozen throne ladder!!

curl-6 said:
Trumpstyle said:

Yes ofc I know Flops isn't everything. But they are very important, like Switch and the high end phones can do more advanced graphical effects, but it doesn't translate to a better looking game overall as game developers can design around the flaws of older gpu architectures and make them look better or similiar. We can go full mumbo-jumbo talk about bad xbox 360 flops, but result speaks louder.

Show me a switch mobile or smartphone game that looks better than Halo 4, you can't as it doesn't exist.

Switch games like FAST RMX and Outlast II comfortably surpass Halo 4 or any game on 360 graphically. Halo 4 may be extremely impressive for its ancient hardware but it also has its drawbacks such as some pretty low res assets.

 

 

Any tricks used to make games on last gen systems look better can equally be applied on Switch, except the visual ceiling will be higher on the Switch due to superior specs.

Fast RMX is just a car game, those game just give an illusion of good graphics, when you stop and look at the details(characters, ground, grass) graphics goes back 10 years. I admit Outcast 2 looks better than Halo 4 but nothing is happening in that game, you just walk around in the dark.

A better comparion would be Halo 4 and Doom on portable switch. About the assets, yes ofc xbox 360 has 512 mb of ram so they gonna be low.



6x master league achiever in starcraft2

Beaten Sigrun on God of war mode

Beaten DOOM ultra-nightmare with NO endless ammo-rune, 2x super shotgun and no decoys on ps4 pro.

1-0 against Grubby in Wc3 frozen throne ladder!!

Trumpstyle said:
curl-6 said:

Switch games like FAST RMX and Outlast II comfortably surpass Halo 4 or any game on 360 graphically. Halo 4 may be extremely impressive for its ancient hardware but it also has its drawbacks such as some pretty low res assets.

Any tricks used to make games on last gen systems look better can equally be applied on Switch, except the visual ceiling will be higher on the Switch due to superior specs.

Fast RMX is just a car game, those game just give an illusion of good graphics, when you stop and look at the details(characters, ground, grass) graphics goes back 10 years. I admit Outcast 2 looks better than Halo 4 but nothing is happening in that game, you just walk around in the dark.

A better comparion would be Halo 4 and Doom on portable switch. About the assets, yes ofc xbox 360 has 512 mb of ram so they gonna be low.

FAST RMX does not "go back ten years", it's using visual effects that didn't even exist in gaming 10 years ago. On a purely technological level, it outclasses what's possible on the Xbox 360.

As for Doom vs Halo 4, in terms of graphics, Doom is basically a generation ahead of Halo 4, retaining pretty much a full suite of PS4-standard techniques like PBR, GPU accelerated particles, volumetric lighting, subsurface scattering, temporal supersampling, bokeh depth of field, etc.