Kristof81 said:
Of course. Considering differences in architectures of those two systems (not to mention PS3), the exact comparison is pretty much impossible. But even in raw numbers, the picture is very clear. Switch isn't just a marginally better system, but also isn't a giant leap in performance, like PS4 for example. 7th gen ports will run and look better than on X360, period. That's why, from all four answers "A minor leap..." in my opinion, is the most appropriate answer. |
I'm a big fan of nvidia GPU's and no question the Switch graphic hardware is more powerful but that chart doesn't allow for the huge 256GB/s bandwidth between the 360 GPU and its dedicated 10MB of video memory which is often cited for being why many 360 games outperform PS3. The wii u has only 12.8GB/s of main memory bandwidth but again 32MB of high bandwidth memory. Same design philosophy in xbox one too with its own 32MB of high bandwidth memory. It's a design approach in all 3 consoles that does work well for compensating for lower main memory bandwidth.
I think when comparing Switch and the older consoles really the only weaknesses that come into play are low CPU performance and maybe lack of memory bandwidth, the GPU architecture is hugely improved and in the case of docked performance is clearly at a much higher performance level. Add to that the much larger main memory negates much of the memory shuffling, streaming solutions the 350, PS3 and wii u are forced to do which can slow down those systems the larger the game engine becomes. Seeing the ps3 really slow down with games like Skyrim where it simply hasn't really got the memory to comfortably handle that game is not something the Switch has to worry about.
Again my view is as weaker hardware the Switch won't get the more ambitious games of today which will be reserved for the more powerful consoles and PC except for a few cutdown compromised versions occasionally and will only get a small number of conversions of ambitious games of the ps3/350 era even though it could enhance such games unless CPU intensive so ultimately the Switch will never have the wide range of impressive ambitious games as last gen or current gen purely for commercial reasons. There will always be pressure on Switch games to be simplified not just because cartridges are expensive especially for third party developers but also because Switch has very limited storage. I mean how many 50GB games can you fit in 32GB or 32GB with a 64GB micro SD card?
LA Noire on Switch has superior resolution and textures which shows hte superior GPU at work but inferior frame rate, much less animated objects in distance and actual gameplay slowdown compared to PS3 and 350 which shows the weaker CPU struggling. Generally the gameplay experience is much better on ps3 and 360 but eye candy is better on Switch.
We are also seeing many Switch games go sub 720P in portable mode below that of 360 and PS3. If it wasn't for the huge memory advantage of Switch and the later architecture of the GPU there may be a case to say portable Switch is inferior to PS3 and 360. As it is I would put portable Switch performance as broadly at the same level as PS3 and 360 in my opinion. Especially as many games on Switch will try to lower the performance level in order to maximise battery runtime when in portable mode so there is always pressure to use less resources undocked.
Again though delivering pretty much 360/PS3 performance on a portable console is pretty amazing. I'm still actually pretty happy with the ps3 and 360 performance level although ps4 and xbone is nicer. I don't think I'm alone with that either especially with the huge success of the Switch worldwide. I think we are all very happy with the performance level the Switch is delivering, its not like realistically we could have expected much more from a portable system. My only issue is I wished they tweaked the CPU's a bit higher maybe 1.4Ghz? Just to plug the CPU shortfall over 360 to prevent issues like we see in LA Noire.
