| Micolash said: The graphical upgrade from PS3 to PS4 is mediocre at best and sometimes you can't even tell the difference |
Wut.
Soundwave said:
If it can run PS4/XB1 ports at 960x540 on the road, it'll be fine. Will get a good amount of third party support specifically from Japan, probably will be the first Nintendo console since the SNES to have proper Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest (DQX being online doesn't count) games and the first to have a mainline Kingdom Hearts game. |
It will only get the ports if the console sells in sufficient quantities.
If it bombs like the Wii U, don't expect anything outside of the initial launch window.
For instance the Wii U missed out on the likes of most Frostbite powered games that even ended up on the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. (Everything from Battlefield 3 to Dragon Age: Inquisiton.)
There is also more to rendering a game than simply just lowering the resolution too, some effects simply don't get less demanding by dropping the resolution.
Tegra also has different performance characteristics than AMD's APU's, especially when it comes to more modern graphics techniques, where AMD typically comes out ahead, that will hamper porting efforts and you may see some serious cutbacks to graphics.
Soundwave said:
A portable would have several cheats it could employ though ... first and foremost those games on a portable screen will look just fine even at 960x540. That means they can run on the portable at 1/4th the pixels, which also means suddenly a 500 GFLOP GPU in portable mode probably would be able to run a lot of ports. Here's a Nvidia 730M laptop mobile GPU btw (550 GFLOPS) ... it can run PS4/XB1 only games like Assassin's Creed Unity at 720p even: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7o4l1NEoxs Here's it running Fallout 4 (another PS4/XB1 only title): |
What kind of Gflop?
What is the relationship of Gflop's and Resolution?
Geforce 730M cannot be compared to Tegra on flops alone.
Anything less than 720P on a mobile device is unacceptable in my eyes.
| niceguygameplayer said: From what I gathered, the Wii U is a little weaker than the PS3. The NX may be a little stronger than PS3. That would keep costs down and still provide pretty good graphics. |
The Wii U is actually a little bit faster than both the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, when games are made it's way.
It needs to be allot faster than the last gen consoles though, they are showing their age and games tend to look extremely terrible on those platforms now.
You also need orders of magnitude more performance just to double the graphics quality now as well.
Soundwave said:
Again at 960x540 makes a big difference, at that resolution a 500 GFLOP Tegra X1 even punches at the weight of a 2 TFLOP processor because it only has to render 1/4th the pixels of a console that has to do it at 1080p. A Vita is a 38 GFLOP machine, trying to get FF13 (from 250-300 GFLOP consoles) to run on it is a much bigger problem. If a Vita was 100-120 gigaflops, I think yeah maybe FF13 would be possible at 640x480 or something. Also I don't think Nintendo is using stock Tegra X1 either, they're probably using the Pascal successor to X1, which will be announced/shown this month by Nvidia (the Tegra X2 basically). |
No.
I don't think you understand what "flops" is truly about.
| Soundwave said: We don't know. I just showed a mobile Nvidia processor ... albiet a laptop one that's only 550 GFLOPS running PS4/XB1 only games at 720p no less. Can the Pascal Nvidia Tegra X2 (16nm) match the Nvidia 730M (28nm) from Jan 2013? I'm thinking it probably can. Not only is the power envelope closing but the architectural advances will be huge too. |
You cannot compare two different processors on flops alone.
For instance if the Geforce 730M has superior bandwidth, larger caches, more polymorph engines, more ROPS, more TMU's, then the Tegra could be built at 16nm, have twice the Gflop's and still be slower.
| curl-6 said:
I'm forced to agree with fatslob here, you're being way, waaaay too optimistic regarding NX. |
Makes 3 of us.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
