Pemalite said:
Peh said:
1. I take it as a no then :)
|
I have already proven you wrong on this point. Don't change the goal posts. Your original claim was incorrect, plain and simple.
However, there are a few games on Gamecube that had screen tearing. Look it up and stop wasting my time, otherwise I shall just assume you are trolling.
Peh said:
2. Why it's not up to Nvidia? You have to explain your claims if you want to have a healthy discussion/debate/ whatever. As I already stated, I can play the game, too. It's still their GPU which does the communication with the display. You have to give me a reasoning to think otherwise. Do you understand? Nvidia is still developing the chip.
|
1. As per what I stated previously, as long as the screen supports variable refresh rates, the majority of the work is on the software side with Freesync.
I would appreciate it if you read my prior posts properly so I am not forced to repeat myself. Thanks.
And you are correct. The GPU does do communication with the display, GPU's are also highly programmable rather than just being fixed function, Nintendo is also allowed to make customizations to the SoC at the silicon level to add or remove any particular blocks.
There is no reason that Freesync or a derivative-of couldn't have been included in the Switch from the beginning.
Peh said:
3. You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you know what a HDMI Standard is? The numbers indicate the version of the HDMI and what it is capable of. Devices with a hdmi only support that standard which is built into them. It's not that a console with HDMI 1.4 can now support 2.0, because it cannot reach the necessary bandwith needed for it to work in this case. Adaptive Refreshrate comes with HDMI 2.1 You cannot upgrade the inferfaces to this standard on the fly. So your whole argument doesn't follow. It's a non sequitar. None of the current available consoles do HDMI 2.1, because devices with HDMI 2.1 will be released by 2nd Q 2017. Do you now get it why your argument doesn't make any sense to the point, at all? It's great to know, but completey besides the point.
|
2. I never stated that you could update the interface standard on the fly. So whatever you are trying to pick at here is without any kind of merit.
Peh said:
7. Again, you have an issue with reading comprehension. I haven't said consoles I said " but the N64 was made for CRT's in its mind." <- Here! That's all I need to show how bad your reading comprehension is. Just the same as on your wall. You put words and meaning in my mouth that I never intended to say and I never did say. Go up to the post of mine.
|
3. I have already proven the Nintendo 64 was not built for any particular display technology in mind. CRT TV's often exceeded what the Nintendo 64 could output visually.
Peh said:
If the N64 would support those higher resolution and bandwidth than you would have a point there and I would be wrong. But this is not the case. REREAD my post. Multiple times if you have to actually understanding what I wrote.
|
4. The Nintendo 64 does support multiple resolutions.
Peh said:
And that why I said on your wall that you get on my nerves, because it is so difficult to argue with you. You cannot maintain focused on what is being said!! You drift away and comes up with some weird argument that has nothing to do with what I originally said and claim that I am incorrect.
|
5. Whatever your personal feelings are, I don't care. That's not my circus, not my problem, so keep them out of it.
I will argue the points you present. That is all. Don't like it? Stiff.
|
1. Unless there was no certified interface for adaptive refresh rate during the development of the Switch. Which actually is the case here. HDMI 2.1 was announced in january 2017 and the specifications are still not known but it was said, that they will come in 2nd Q 2017. So, explain to me, how should they implement HDMI 2.1 if that was not available?
2. The point is, whatever you said in justifying FreeSync or any solution for adaptive refresh rate was purely meaningless and a waste of everyones time.
3. Yet again, you fail to understand the point here. CRT TV's were the most common TV's during that time. It does not exceed the resolutions determined by PAL, NTSC and SECAM. There is still nothing wrong with my original statement.
4. Context! Does the N64 renders at a higher resolution than the common RCT TV during that time which were PAL, NTSC and SECAM depending on region? No, it does not. My point stands.
5. I don't know what "stiff" means, but by going with the context I assume that you are telling me to fuck off. I don't think that you have the right to tell me where to post and where not to post. You should work on providing better arguments.
