The wisdom of the 6Tf vs 4Tf

[DonFerrari]

Hynad said:

The Switch isn't even 1 TFLOPS and it's outselling the XBox One and XBox One X, selling at a similar pace as the PS4.
Let that sink in.

The wisdom of less than half a TFLOPS vs 6 TFLOPS.

If we go that route we can talk about NES and PS2 selling over 80 and 160M with negible power to today standards =p

And not to forget that the main point people like to put for Switch success is it portability not it lack of power.

EricHiggin said:

DonFerrari said:

Seems like they compromised a little on FM7 compared to 6 to get the 4k60fps

CPU limitations most likely. Even with Phil pointing out how balanced the console was supposed to be, the GPU is much more impressive in terms of performance than the CPU. They had some good idea's and used some smart techniques to allow the CPU as much room to breathe as possible, but it's still a Jaguar in the end. They shouldn't have said 4k/60 no compromises initially. It started massive hype, but was pushing the marketing to an extreme. Just 4k/60 would have been much easier to forgive when they announced it would also checkerboard. Even as successful as the PS4 has been, it still has to compromise between 1080p/30 and 900p/60, PS just didn't market the PS4 as 1080p/60 no compromises.

The problem XB may have later on, is if they use a decent CPU that hits 60 fps consistently for XB2, what is going to happen if those same games can't hit 60 fps on the base XB1X in 4 years? We've already seen this with PUBG. It's another reason why I wonder how long XB1X is really going to remain relevant because if it holds back 'next gen' then it may really piss off hardcore XB fans who want or buy an XB2. How many of those XB fans will have upgraded to XB1X and already be unhappy they aren't getting 60 fps due to XB1S, then look at XB2 and wonder is this going to end up the same thing again? Why buy a 100% true 4k/60 no compromises XB2 console, if you know all the games will only end up 30 fps because of XB1X?

It's possible that CPU had hold FM7 a little. But I won't call Phill a liar on the balance statement. If their intention is similar to PS4Pro, meaning same game as on the base but prettier, then the framerate and player count shall be similar then the increase in CPU capacity need to be just enough to cover the increase in GPU for graphics while having similar performance on the rest.

Also a new CPU could also make it harder for the crosscompatibility.

And sure enough that may be an issue for next gen. Even on the low powered portable level CPU in 3 years will be much higher than what it was 4-5years ago when they put together PS4+X1. So the CPU will really put the gens apart.

VAMatt said:
I am glad that both of them did mid-gen upgrades. Personally, I hope this trend continues. I see no reason why defined generations need to exist anymore. The hardware companies can release upgraded hardware as often as they wish, and devs can make games that work for as many of those consoles as they want. That's more choice for everyone.

As for the Pro vs. X sales discussion.... I think its too early to draw any real conclusions. But, I think many people have already pointed out the seemingly common sense explanations for what we think has happened. A bigger leap, longer period for excitement to build, more marketing, and objectively a lot more power would all seem to favor the X. The only negatives for X relative to Pro that I can see are the price, and the smaller original user base from which to pull upgraders.

Time to the market could be considered another negative. But on the rest I would say you are about right except that if they make mid gens or genless 2-3y refreshes we will have some issues. Tailored games to a HW usually take 2-3 years to show up enjoying the potential of the platform. If we are changing HW every 2-3y we won't ever see the HW maxed out, so we'll be tossing money away on bruteforcing the game.