| JRPGfan said: Supposedly its GCN gen2 inside the PS4.... which is the amd 250-290 line. |
Technically you are right, it has more in common with GCN 1.1 as it's based on the technology introduced with Bonaire from the Radeon 7790.
It's not a significant overhaul like what we got with GCN 1.2 though.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/6837/amd-radeon-7790-review-feat-sapphire-the-first-desktop-sea-islands/2
It does mean that the Playstation 4 did receive some improvements namely to the geometry and ace units, but overall, it's not a departure from GCN 1.0, hence why it can still be compared to a Radeon 7850/7870 rather than something from the 200 series.
It still didn't receive any efficiency overhauls like Delta Colour Compression (GCN 1.3), primitive shaders (GCN 1.5), draw stream rasterization (GCN 1.5), improved culling (GCN 1.4) and so on.
| JRPGfan said: Anyways heres the arch to arch thing you want so much: A "R9 270x" is 2,560, while a" Geforce 960" is 2,308 in Single precision flops. refernce: Techpowerup.com |
Umm... The Radeon 270X is a Graphics Core Next 1.0 part. It's a Radeon 7870 with higher clockrates.
| Cobretti2 said: This 24% performance ratio that you calculated. Does this apply on average in general between all amd v nvidia in recent times? So using PS4 pro as an example, 4.2TFLOPs, If a switch 2 was to be close in performance to that, it would need to be about 3.2TFLOPS? If that is correct then as my original post I am not sure what tech the others think a mobile chip that runs at 10watts could be released in the next 2 years to even come close to that. I mean the tech available it may be able to run in portable mode at 720p? PS5 is rumored to be 9.2 TFLOPS. Even if Nintendo managed to make a system like that with 3.2TFLOPS, it will struggle to get ports and the effort to port down is far more costly than porting the game to three platforms with similar performance. I just can't see how Nintendo will bring this raw power game in the next 10-20 years if they continue down the switch approach. unless, have 3rd party developer tools become so good and versatile that they can simply scale down 4K to 720p gfx easily for portable mode? Granted lighting effects would be reduced etc but if this can be done with say a months work, then ports make be cost effective. If it takes a year to port the game to Switch 2, then devs will most likely skip. |
The point that is being conveyed is that... It doesn't matter, games need more than just flops.
| JRPGfan said: It changes based on newer/better technologies and designs. |
No. No. No.
AMD GPU's, especially Graphics Core Next are compute monsters, they get more flops than nVidia's contemporary parts (Maxwell/Pascal) in the real world and on paper, hence when you throw a task like... Folding@Home or Bitcoin mining, AMD was able to match/exceed nVidia in asynchronous compute only scenarios.
It's games that became the Achilles heel for GCN, because AMD didn't invest enough into the other parts of the chip that runs games and thus bottlenecks came into play with GCN, like geometry throughput and bandwidth.
Otherwise flops across AMD and nVidia are identical, they are the same math. But the flops people throw around on forums are theoretical numbers which don't take into account any other part of the GPU.
| EricHiggin said: Switch doesn't exactly have the luxury of bulking up like a next gen console does, if it needs to, due to it's capabilities and performance. A Switch 2 has to remain relatively the same size as it is now. Since consoles aren't as space limited, internal density isn't near as important as in a Switch, but the fact remains, that Nin cannot just carelessly decide to increase the size of Switch by any amount if they want more power next gen. |
Not exactly. If Nintendo increases display size, then they could go with a larger internal volume, which means a larger battery to drive a more power hungry SoC.
6.2" is actually rather small in 2020, especially as phones start looking towards 7" displays. (Granted the Switch retains a 16:9 aspect which phones don't.)
| Cobretti2 said: YES we get it that Nvidia per FLOP performance is better than AMD, but it is not even 2x better. |
They are identical. It's the same math.
| Slownenberg said: I'd say Switch 2 will have faster CPU than PS4 Pro, certainly more RAM, and a bit worse GPU though close enough that it won't make much of a difference (I mean PS4 and X1 have like have a half-tflop difference and its not like that made a difference in what games they could run). Overall I expect a PS4-like performance in docked mode and something less than that in portable, though in portable that'll be offset by the fact that games will be running probably in much lower res since its a tiny screen. PS4 Pro only came out what like 3 years before PS5/XSeries are launching, so it is certainly reasonable to think that PS5/XSeries games can be ported to PS4 Pro with some graphical adjustments, and therefore the same with PS5/XSeries ports to Switch 2, even if Switch 2 is slightly less performant overall than PS4 Pro. |
On paper I would assume that the specs will look inferior, that's the nature of opting for mobile hardware, but real world capabilities will be more impressive than the specs imply.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
