Clarifying the 1.5TFLOPS of the SWITCH for those who just see the numbers.

[Solid-Stark]

vivster said:

OdinHades said:
When it comes to gaming, Teraflops are nothing more than a buzzword, FP16 or not. Just stop caring about that shit so much. It's getting worse than those MHz wars back in the days when AMD ran circles around Intel despite having less of dem MHz. Or how about the famous bit wars. What matters at the end of the day is what's on the screen. Even the Wii U with its 3.5 Nanoflops did some very impressive graphics after all. And then you have a game like Mafia 3 that looks like horseshit but will friggin' destroy your 10 Terfalop Titan X for no appearent reason.

Seriously, just stop it.

I think from all the specs that exist, FLOPS are the most descriptive for power comparison. Because they are a logical combination of the two most important factors in gaming graphics, cores and frequency. It's the best buzzword we have so far. Certainly better than MHz or bits or the worst one of all, RAM.

We should be happy that we're getting ever closer to real world performance.

But i'd say FLOPS give you a ballpark estimate, a rather large one. The best measure of real world performance are literal examples. We know what the Xone and PS4 can do, and until we have a Switch example it will be hard to draw accurate conclusions. Especially since we only have the FLOP number.

Another take on this FLOP topic is how many FLOPS were required for an ARM chip to compare to last gen consoles (230ish FLOPS). 500 or so? And even then it's with environmental assumptions.