| Teeqoz said: Both the PS4 and the Xbox One uses 7 CPU cores for gaming. The Pascal Tegra X2 is capable of 1.5 Tflops FP16, which is 750 Gflops FP32. If you are presuming that it will be cut down to save power for handheld mode, you will have to go lower than 500 Gflops. |
The 7th core is not 100% for games. It is also used for other tasks.
Flops is a pointless metric, it has no direct relationship with power consumption.
| DanneSandin said: Yes! I remember your old thread very fondly! Great to see you taking on the Switch as well! So... I'm illiterate when it comes to tech, so could someone maybe explain what all of this means? I've heard that the Switch will be similar to the XboxOne in power (when docked), but going by these specs that doesn't seem likely. But I know nothing of these sort of things, so who knows, right? What will the graphics be like? The draw distance? How will this effect AI and everything else? |
It has about half the capability of the Xbox One, even if the specs tell us it's even less than that. - Maxwell does have an efficiency edge over Graphics Core Next.
And Denver is nothing to sneeze at.
With that in mind, there is diminishing returns everytime you double your graphics quality, so the Switch should be able to seem like it can get close enough to the Xbox One if it maintains a moderate resolution.
DanneSandin said:
So it will look half as good as Xbox One? Isn't that kinda what Wii U already does? |
The Wii U is closer to the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, it usually has better lighting and texturing thanks to the better GPU and more memory though.
| Puppyroach said: Considering Nintendo´s insane tallent of producing high-quality Graphics even on underpowered systems like the Wii, they will likely compete with MSony in that department with the Swith despite having lower performance in the system. |
Nintendo doesn't really make graphical-powerhouse games on underpowered hardware.
Nintendo gets away with what it does because the models it uses are fairly light on polys and don't need things like subsurface scattering, tessellation and tons of mapping and shader effects.
Nintendo do have some amazing art direction though, even low-quality assets seem to seamlessly fit in, mostly thanks to the fact Nintendo doesn't push for realism. - That's a good thing, it gets me excited to see what they can do with more modern hardware capabilities.
| DanneSandin said: The question is, for how long will the Switch get ports? Soon enough the Pro and Scorpio will be the standards, which means that NS will slip even further away from being competable with most games released. That kinda has me a bit worried actually. |
Depends on how successfull the hardware is.
If it's a runaway success, then developers will likely take notice and port more games.
I'm hoping Nintendo releases a version of the switch one day, that ditches all the mobile stuff, but retains the same game library etc'.
| superchunk said: So I saw this post in GAF : http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=226082642&postcount=4058 It details the GPD WIN portable device. What is remarkable about this device is that : 1) it is less powerful than rumored NS 2) it plays Witcher 3, Rise of the Tomb Raider, GTA V, Fallout 4, etc. (see gaf link for videos or hit youtube) These are low quality but it shows the scale that 3rd parties can use with the right technically sufficient hardware. |
The Atom X7 z8700 should be able to beat the Tegra in most CPU tasks, but Tegra should win in GPU tasks, no question. - Anandtech seems to back that up when comparing Surface to Shield.
But we need to put these chips into perspective, they are low-end chips by PC standards.
| fatslob-:O said: I'll wait until more tech journalists insist that such is true ... That being said, the Maxwell microarchitecture is still arguably more advanced from a feature set standpoint than the Volcanic Islands microarchitecture featured in the HD twins. Conservative rasterization and fragment shader execution ordering are huge selling points for optimizations on the Switch. Other enhancements to functionality includes target independent multisampling, coverage to color conversion, post-depth coverage and multisample coverage override ... If Switch were using shrinked Maxwell then it would be too sad to be the case since SHIELD console struggled with ports of native sub-HD twin games like Metal Gear Rising and Resident Evil 5 LOL ... |
Arguably? Nah. It most certainly *is* more advanced.
Maxwell is an amazing microarchitecture, Pascal just refined it and took advantage of clock room.
But can it beat a GPU when developers are building games to take advantage of the various strength's and weakness's of Graphics Core Next? We know that there are a few edge cases where nVidia hardware tends to fold and AMD's hardware, shines. - How will that translate on the Switch remains to be seen.
| superchunk said: CPU is better. The Jaguar CPU is a low-end x86 mobile chip. There are plenty of devices with just ARM A57s in them that show they are better than a Jaguar CPU. A57 is the min chip in the NS CPU though it may actually have A73 as well. |
Links? Intrigued. I would guess that a Quad-core arrangement of A57's would beat a Quad-core arrangement of Jaguar.
However... Jaguar isn't arranged in a Quad-core configuration in the consoles.
8x Jaguar Cores should be roughly equivalent to a Haswell Dual-Core running at 3ghz, which places it faster than Core M which in-turn beats out Tegra in CPU tasks.
Plus the Xbox One has a larger CPU performance edge than the 9% clock advantage entails when compared to the PS4 thanks to the eSRAM and DDR3 memory subsystem (Aka. Lower latency) which has translated to real-world gains.
Not only that but the Playstation 4 Pro and Xbox One S as well as Scorpio take it up a notch again.
| superchunk said: LPDDR4 is better than DDR3 in the Xbox One. The difference is that NS will have 3.2GB vs 5GB avail for games and running at 26GB/s vs XboxOne's 68GB/s. This is why I say they are comparable. (PS4 has better GDDR4 as well as faster) However, in the long-haul of game develpment, PCs can run any current AAA game at low to mid-settings on just 2GB of RAM in the GPU. NS will be fine in this area. |
No it's not.
Just because it is based on DDR4 technology... Doesn't make it better than DDR3.
DDR1 can be faster than GDDR5, it depends how wide you wish to take it, The Xbox One has a significantly wider memory bus than the switch could ever possibly hope to have and thus has the advantage by default.
As for the PC... You forget that games use the GPU memory PLUS the system memory. You can't just take a 2Gb GPU and think the entire game is run on that... It doesn't. Often games will take Gigabytes of System memory as well.
Also PS4 has GDDR5. Not GDDR4.
The Switch is held back by it's memory sub-system, it is the weakest part of it IMHO.
| superchunk said: The X1 is a better CPU than Jaguar. Yes, Nintendo will tweak it so it may end up being lower powered, that is true. |
Nintendo won't be tweaking anything. They aren't allowed to unless they have a license.
They can only "suggest" things to nVidia.
Same goes for Microsoft and Sony, they aren't allowed to look at the chips that power those consoles, only make suggestions.
| superchunk said: Tegra X1 has 8 cores ... X2/P1 etc has 6 ... I seriously doubt it wil lhave 4 cores as that one devkit rumor stated. Again, there are quad-core PCs similar or lower in power playing the current-gen games at lower settings now. |
Nope. Big.Little.
Atom X7 z8700 can give Tegra a good run for it's money anyway.
An Atom x7 Z8700 verses an 8-core Jaguar with a Radeon 7770 GPU would bend over the Atom and call it sally. No contest. Not even in the same league.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
