| bonzobanana said: Again lets not forget the Switch is signficantly lower performance than the Shield box and this a summary of how the Shield compares to 360 and PS3. The Shield isn’t completely devoid of mainstream fare, either. It’s powerful enough to handle some games from the previous console generation, including Borderlands 2, Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance, Portal, Half-Life 2, and Resident Evil: 5. Unfortunately, there aren’t many of these games, and their visual quality doesn’t quite hold up to their original console versions. If your primary goal is to revel in last-gen gaming, consider picking up an Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 on the cheap. As you can see below 360 on left, Shield on right, shadows and lighting quality reduced on Shield and that's with double the cpu resources of Switch and somewhere between 2-3x the gpu resources of Switch as the Shield operates at full gpu speed and doesn't have to downclock for a portable mode. I'm just making the point my predictions are based on the evidence, those who are claiming the Switch is higher performance are those making the stretch. We already know the much more powerful Shield box struggles to match ps3 and 360. This is hardly that surprising its a mobile chipset with low cpu resources. |
Using Shield performance as a benchmark for the Switch is a flawed argument as Shield lacks the sort of specialized low level API that Switch benefits from, which massively boosts realworld performance. Shield ports like RE5 are effectively crippled because they don't have "to the metal" access to the hardware, it's like a car being stuck in first gear.
I've seen you making these massive essay-length posts downplaying Switch's hardware capabilities on 4 different websites, no offense, but you seem almost obsessed.
