| NATO said: Here's your difference: PS4/Xbox can handle high res textures being used extensively, switch can't. |
And there are lots of reasons for that.
The Switch only has 16 Texture mapping units verses the Xbox One's 48, the Playstation 4's 72 and the Playstation 4 Pro 144.
The Xbox One's TMU's however operate at 853 - 914mhz verses the Switch's 307.2mhz - 768mhz.
The Playstation 4 and Playstation 4 Pro are 800mhz and 911mhz respectively.
Meaning in a worst-case scenario the Switch has a texture fillrate of 4,915.2 verses the Xbox One's 40,944.
Giving the Xbox One an 8.33x texture fillrate advantage over the Switch, the Xbox One is considered underpowered.
The Playstation 4 has a texture fill rate of 57,600 and the Playstation 4 Pro, 131,184, more than double the regular Playstation 4 and 26.68x better than the Switch.
Tegra can punch a little above it's weight thanks to it's tiled-based approach which results in more aggressive culling and less wastage... But it's not going to bridge that gap.
Whilst docked the Switch's fillrate will jump to 12,288, giving the Xbox a theoretical advantage of 3.33x.
Bandwidth is an issue on the Switch at 20 - 25Gb/s. (Thankfully Delta Colour Compression also increases the usable bandwidth.)
That will also impact texturing.
Result is, the Switch is not a texturing powerhouse... And it's not because of storage, speed or capacity or the lack of Ram. - Although the Ram capacity could limit things as well, but I doubt it, streaming textures from a cart which has a ton of bandwidth compared to optical storage, can save a ton of memory.
Disclaimer: This is theoretical performance, not real-world. Numbers are meant as a guide only to give a rough idea.
It's sad, because if Nintendo wen't with a Pascal based Tegra... Texturing could have been increased by 50% without using a single watt of more power.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
