AND not even those numbers are correct.

Yes i know, but effort/time/cost to port play a factor. If the gap is too big, those things increase. Look at Switch it has outsold XBOX ONE, where are all the big publisher ports? Not counting those butchered half arse attempts we seen.

I would  presume snapdragon 855 or exynos 990 or the Kirin 990 would be close to Xbox One (original) than ps4, so i can not see a sub US$300 portable with the power of PS4 for at least 4-5 years.

The iPad Pro will most likely beat the PS4 this year. The problem with comparing power is that different types of devices are strong at different things. So yeah raw throughput in the GPU won't equal the PS4 most likely, but the CPU of the iPad Pro is so powerful it would be easy to make better looking and faster running (focus on 60fps) games with it. And let's not even get started on SSD speed which is very important imo. I'd take the SSD running iPad Pro over current gen consoles anyday (one of the reasons I like the Switch).

The 1650 Super is almost exactly 3x times faster than the GPU in the PS4, so it would only take about 1280/3 = 427 turing CUDA cores to make the Switch equal a PS4. Those would have to run at 1.5 ghz however, so 7nm is key (or 512 shaders instead). 7 years of progress :)

I want a rational iOS-style update. No more of this beginning from scratch BS, that strategy does not work and they have to stop repeating it.

Nintendo signed with Nvidia for 20 years.

OLED 1080...

4k when docked...


games that are not indie....

Another quick note is most people have no idea how far AMD has come. The OG Switch's APU consumed 15 watts. AMD just announced an 8 core 16 thread Ryzen 3000 APU for laptops that is also only 15 watts. It runs at 1.8 Ghz all cores (4.2 Ghz boost) and only 15 watts. Intel just launched their 10th gen 6 core 15 watts chip, 1.1 Ghz.

AMD has 2 more cores, and 64 percent higher clock speed and performance than Intel right now in the same power consumption... It's pretty astonishing. Not that they will (because the CPU will cost more than the Switch) but thermally they could actually stick the 8 core CPU in the PS5 in a Switch. GPU would be massively reduced of course.

Source?

I'm actually wondering if PS5 and maybe XBSX have similar Ryzen mobile cores in them. The U or H part anyway. Jaguar was mobile as well, and it would allow for much more GPU performance. Those Ryzen mobile cores will still decimate the Jaguar cores.

A Ryzen 3400G desktop APU is 12nm, has 4c/8t CPU, and 11CU GPU. It's basically PS4 level of performance at 65w. The Ryzen 4800 mobile APU is 7nm, has 8c/16t CPU, and 8CU GPU. It's GPU is clocked much higher than the 3400G though, and the Vega arch has been significantly optimized in the 4800 APU.

The Ryzen mobile 4800U should be right around PS4 performance at just 15w, and doable in a handheld. That's x86. With an Nvidia ARM CPU, they should be able to do the same below 10w.