Pemalite said:
curl-6 said:
Halo has far better lighting, shaders, and effects, and more detail. ARMS looks very basic graphically, hell I'd even say 2008's Gears of War 2 looks better.
|
Halo 4 achieved what it did because it used lower-poly assets for things like rocks, buildings, etc'.
Allot of Halo 4's lighting, shaders and shadow effects were baked/pre-calculated. Not dynamic and real time.
Halo 4 achieved what it did not because of technical wizardry or unlocking some amazing hidden potential of the console, but because of fantastic Art and an intelligent use of finite resources.
It actually has multiple graphics regressions from Halo 3 which had Tessellated water, double buffering, HDR lighting.
ARMS is using more dynamic, real-time effects.
It's also why the jump from last Generation to this Generation wasn't seen as a massive jump in graphics by some, dynamic, real-time effects are freaking expensive and held back the perceived graphics jump.
But ultimately they do look better in motion and makes development easier.
bonzobanana said:
4GB seems a funny amount of memory when the memory bandwidth is meant to be 25.6GB/s and the GPU gflops are sub 400 or 150 approx when portable. It seems like too much memory for the rest of the system. 2GB would be ample for this performance level for a console. I guess it depends on how much memory the OS takes.
|
One of the big issues with Tegra based systems was memory amounts. 2Gb systems seem to struggle.
3Gb and 4Gb allows the system to breathe.
Raw bandwidth and flop numbers are not telling the entire story.
monocle_layton said:
Must have been cheaper to go for 4gb since most mobile developers ship their phones/tablets with 4 gb of memory. Going for 2gb probably would've Made more problems that can be avoided by just going with 4.
|
Ram is cheap. 4Gb isn't that more expensive than 2Gb these days, plus the console needs to be a little-forward looking.
fleischr said:
How would the Switch be more powerful than WiiU with only 2GB of RAM? Even with better architecture? |
Because RAM has zero processing components?
bonzobanana said:
Well it is actually fairly close in power to wii u/ps3/360 in portable mode but gets a boost to graphics only in docked mode to allow higher resolutions. It isn't significantly more powerful than wii u anyway but can run code off cartridge and the OS in the background may be significantly simplified compared to wi u. wii u actually used 1GB of its memory for the OS which is huge and not the norm.
|
It is vastly superior to the Wii U, Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. Yes. Even in Portable mode.
arthurchan35 said:
its almost cetain its 4gb, but no sure its ddr4 or ddr3 |
Doesn't matter. It wouldn't be using DDR4 or DDR3. It will be using LPDDR4 or LPDDR3, but with the bandwidth figures we have, they would both be the same speed.
LPDDR4 however does use less power and thanks to scales of economy should end up cheaper than LPDDR3 over the long run.
bonzobanana said:
The switch cpu performance is about 2x wii u
|
Nope.
bonzobanana said:
switch gpu is about 150 gflops in portable mode compared to 176 gflops for wii u plus possible 24 gflops if the wii gpu can assist.
|
Your use of flops in this context is pointless, you are not telling anyone about the systems performance capabilities.
bonzobanana said:
Memory bandwidth is likely to be 25.6GB/s shared for Switch compared to 12.8GB/s for wii u but the wii u also has a 32MB pool of high speed memory at about 70GB/s I think.
|
Raw numbers indicates squat. You do know Switch uses various forms of compression to garner more bandwidth than the raw number implies right? Compression technology that the WiiU doesn't support at a hardware level?
bonzobanana said:
Looking at game performance for Zelda between wii u and Switch in portable mode we are seeing same resolution and possibly a more consistent frame rate on Switch but we will have to see final software as it was an early build of the wii u game.
|
They are roughly equivalent with that game.
Which is to be expected, Zelda was built originally as a Wii U title, not a Switch title, the fact that a launch game on the Portable-mode Switch looks as good as end-of-generation Wii U says allot.
Wait for Digital Foundry to do a proper analysis on the release, you might find the Switch in portable mode has more consistent performance.
bonzobanana said:
It is struggling to increase the resolution of 720p portable games to 1080p docked as expected with many falling below at 900p native resolution. This may indicate a memory bandwidth issue when docked or some other currently unknown issue.
|
Bandwidth is certainly a key issue in driving up the resolution, but it's not the only one.
But with that in mind, you do know there is more to graphics than just the resolution, right?
bonzobanana said:
Lets not forget if the wii u has 176 gflops for its main gpu and up to 24 gflops asisst from its wii gpu plus 70GB/s of high speed memory for its frame buffer that is pretty good compared to 150 gflops and 25.6GB/s shared memory. When I say a overall 30% increase I'm not exactly being unfair I'm giving the nvidia alot of allowance for its later architecture possibly too much.
|
Again. There is more to performance than flops.
You are ignoring the superior Polymorph engines, Render-Output-Pipelines, Texture Mapping Units, CPU capability, Integer performance, Half Precision and Double Precision floating point performance, compression, culling and so much more.
The Switch's GPU is far more efficient and can do far more effects.
|
