bonzobanana said:
Why do you think the Switch is more powerful in cpu performance? There are 8 jaguars in a ps4 or xbone and x86 processors tend to punch a bit above arm chips? Wasn't it something like 38,000 mips for ps4 and more for xbone and can't see the Switch matching that, 4 arm A57s are just under 37,000 mips at 2ghz and can't see them going above 2ghz but more likely less. Also cisc optimisation in the code will definitely deliver more power for the Jaguars. I'm thinking more like 80% as powerful at 2ghz. Still a fantastic amount of cpu performance for the little tablet but don't think its fair to state over. Unless you believe there is more cpu's than the original development kit. Remember its shared memory and of low memory bandwidth 25.6GB/s there has to be space in the SOC for cache and frame buffer memory. Also factor in that new claimed battery life of 5-8hrs, performance surely has taken some sort of hit to achieve that. |
The Jaguar is a low-powered, low-end mobile CPU. Jaguar is less powerful than a Intel i3 core. Its just not a powerful CPU.
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/189706-nintendo-switch/74543387
Additionally, latest is that NS is using a new Tegra SOC that uses BIG.little with an A73 and A57. The A73 is significantly a better chip. (see my comparison thread referenced in sig)
Also, x86 and ARM... its just not a difference anyone should care about anymore. Hit up comparisons of ARM vs i3 and i5 desktop chips, better of equivalent in benchmarks. Industry is moving towards ARM for many reasons and all middleware supports port between the two without issue.
Even AMD is moving https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/221282-amds-first-arm-based-processor-the-opteron-a1100-is-finally-here
