bonzobanana said:
When you state that it can be very misleading to people. wii u was in theory more advanced than 360 and PS3 in so called architecture but it was a very low performance version of that architecture compared to high end for their time versions of earlier architecture of the ps3 and 360. That's why gflops are important because it helps give a rough indication of power across different generations and architecture. So even if there is some technical improvements in the architecture of Switch compared to PS4 and Xbox one clearly the Switch is massively inferior in performance. The huge downgrades in Doom to get it working on Switch compared to PS4 and Xbox one. Even games like LA Noire on Switch struggle to repeat the same experience as ps3 in many ways, draw distance is much reduced and there is actual slowdown on Switch where the gameplay itself becomes sluggish along with the frame rate drops. Many games drop below 720p to maintain frame rates. The Switch is a nice console but lets not get ridiculous about its performance. In cpu terms it is less than 360/PS3 in gpu terms much better docked and broadly similar in portable mode. Space is at a premium on Switch due to use of cartridges and flash memory so there is a push to downsize games but on the other hand there is that huge 4GB of memory which gives the system a significant boost in performance and the game engines it can handle. The Switch is performing exactly as expected for a Tegra chip with a down clocked CPU. Nintendo could be 2 generations away from offering anything as powerful as the Xbox one or PS4 in a hybrid format. I mean its about 400 gflops docked, sub 200 gflops portable and PS4 is 1800 gflops that is a huge gulf that I'm not sure can be achieved in one generation for a hybrid. The important thing is many games simply don't need a huge amount of power. If you want huge sprawling realistic detailed worlds then power is important but the Switch achieves a good level of performance with the huge benefit of portability. No need to pretend somehow the Switch is competitive with PS4 or Xbox one in performance terms it isn't and no one seriously thinks it is. |
Gflops are totally irelevant when you comparing different tech and architecture, especially if there is difference 5-10 years between them. Also fact is that Wii U didnt had good tools and APIs and did not supported some modern engines.
Yeah but Doom works, and its still same game. We already talk about LA Noire, and DF basicly pointed that, that LA Noire is only one specific case because hole game and engine is build around very complex PS3 CPU and to use it most of it, thats actualy only one of few multiplatform games (game is later ported to Xbox360) that runs worse on Xbox360 compared to PS3. So porting such a specific game that from start build to run with specific hardware on mind, can't have best transition on totally different hardware. Every other multiplatform game runs and look better on Switch compared to PS3/Xbox360 versions.
| Jumpin said: I think “since the SNES” is a bit of a short site. I think by year 3 Switch will be well ahead of SNES at the same point in its lifecycle. It’s what happens in year 4-6 that will be questionable, since SNES had arguably the best 4-6 of any console. |
SNES had full 3rd party support, not single one Nintendo platform didnt had full 3rd party support after SNES, and Switch will of course not have full 3rd party support.
| Nem said: So... i disagree. |
I wrote, after SNES, not on pair with SNES.
