By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
curl-6 on 20 December 2016
Edit Thread
Pemalite said:
curl-6 said:

You do get better performance per watt, yeah, but at the end of the day, Xbox One S can consume more than 70 watts when running a game, while a portable will have to make do with about a tenth of that in order to have decent battery life while not only powering the CPU/GPU/RAM, but also the screen.

And why would you deem such a scenario impossible? The Xbox One S is using old inefficient technology. (Not stating the Switch is using cutting edge either but.)

Again, Volta powered Tegra should drop next year, which should be Xbox One levels of performance, built at the same 16nm Finfet at TSMC and use a fraction of the energy.

nVidia has the efficiency edge even against AMD.
Even nVidia's 28nm maxwell chips can give AMD's 14nm Polaris chips a run for it's money in regards to performance/effeciency.

And there are a ton of reasons why.

nVidia does have the efficiency advantage, but we're talking about a console that, even its circa 2016 revised form, uses upwards of 70 watts during gameplay, versus a portable that will need to run on like 3-4 watts and not only power the chip itself, but also a screen. You'd need about 20 times more performance per watt, and the gap isn't that big.

Let's be honest; you're a tech savvy guy, from the moment Switch's form factor was revealed, with a March 2017 release window, you knew, as did I, that it would not be on par with the Xbox One in terms of power.