| bonzobanana said: I have made the point myself about better optimisation of bandwidth but still there seems like a shortfall and if anything your values seem to confirm it. As I said previously the xbox one has a pretty recent GPU architecture but still benefits from that 32MB of ultrafast memory to supplement main memory bandwidth which is in itself much higher anyway than Switch. |
The Xbox One has more bandwidth by default than the Switch.
The Xbox One has eSRAM to lend a hand to lend a hand for things like bandwidth intensive render targets.
But in terms of architectural efficiency... Maxwell beats Graphics Core Next.
Graphics Core Next does come into it's own once you start to leverage Asynchronous Compute however, but when you start to compare the Switch against the XBox 360, the Switch starts to look more favorable.
| bonzobanana said: My point about graphics cards was a low end chipset of recent times as used in Nintendo hardware vs high performance of the past which share similar gflops output and I'm sure I've seen PC benchmarks where the older cards actually came out faster because they weren't compromised as much. Your comparison seems more like mid range to old high range. |
My comparison was to prove the point that GPU's of different architectures cannot have their performance determined by just using flops.
| bonzobanana said: In the case of the wii u the Radeon GPU after all the debate about 176 or 352 gflops it was really down to the exceptionally low power draw of the wii u that confirmed it couldn't be 352 gflops and likely a mobility radeon GPU rather than desktop version. |
And yet was most likely a Very Long Instruction Word (VLIW) 5-way derived Radeon GPU architecture, which had all the accompanying advantages over the R580 derived GPU in the Xbox 360.
| bonzobanana said: With games like Xenoblade 2 dropping to 368p at times and Doom and very low resolutions too both at 30fps as well. |
Doom is doing some good effects though. Unless you disagree? Then you need to point me towards an Xbox 360 game that has hardware accelerated particles which have hardware accelerated lighting and shadowing.
The Switch is doing things with Doom that the Xbox 360 simply can't.
| bonzobanana said: Some Switch games suffer from slower frames rates when docked. This must surely be a CPU or memory bandwidth issue. However where a game has to drop resolution significantly to maintain frame rates in portable mode it feels like its a GPU performance issue. The CPU is the same and memory bandwidth better for lower resolutions. |
Could be a combination of all of the above. Or none at all.
Until you look at the performance profiling for the engine running on the actual hardware, the only thing you can make is accusations, which is not something I can adhere to.
| bonzobanana said:
|
Well, the CPU is more efficient even at those lower clocks, that isn't really up for debate.
Even having just 3-cores for gaming is fine.
But the clocks is what holds things back. I'll probably do some more research on this at a later date and so how both chips compare on this front at some point, just haven't had the time recently.
| bonzobanana said:
|
That would be nice. But probably unlikely. Battery life is fairly short on the Switch, higher CPU clocks would erode that farther.
| bonzobanana said:
|
In some tasks it would be faster than the Cell... Especially with Integers.
The Cell was very specific where it could really show it's capabilities... And games/game engines have tons of different demands.
The best Analogy would be a car race... Where the 8-core Jaguar/4-core Tegra can cruise down to the finishing line at 100 miles per hour.
The Cell however will do 50 miles per hour for the bulk of the race... But when the road conditions are just right, it can peak to 150 miles per hour.
The Cell has the higher potential speed, but it will loose the race every time as it's not able to maintain that speed under all conditions.
| bonzobanana said: I tend to look at what developers are achieving with hardware as well as the spec numbers. See what's happening on screen and where the compromises are especially where the compromises are repeated by many different developers. I think you always have to factor in real world evidence. |
Real world evidence is what I live by.
However, keep in mind that the Switch hasn't been on the market for a year yet... We have yet to see the best looking and most demanding games on the platform... The Xbox 360, Playstation 3 and Wii U are done. Finished. Tapped out.
| bonzobanana said:
|
Maxwell beats Graphics Core Next in terms of efficiency every day of the week. (Outside of Asynchronous Compute that is.)
Graphics Core Next obliterates VLIW4 in terms of efficiency every day of the week.
VLIW4 was a substantial improvement over VLIW5 in terms of efficiency as it was a more balanced layout.
I have already shown an example of a Graphics Core Next GPU out-performing a VLIW5 GPU with almost a teraflop extra of single precision capability, that same kind of performance divide would exist between a VLIW5 GPU and the R580 as well.
And the Xbox 360/Playstation 3 GPU predates Graphics Core Next, VLIW 4 and in some aspects, VLIW5.
The newer the GPU, the more work it can do per flop, that's the crux of it.
| bonzobanana said: To me it looks much more like the 4GB of main memory is the real saviour, room for better graphics, textures without the constant need to swop/stream data of 360 and PS3. |
That's a massive part of it.
7th gen consoles were extremely memory limited.
| bonzobanana said: I honestly wonder if the PS3 and 360 had that available memory if it couldn't both speed up and allow more sophisticated game engines. |
It could.
| bonzobanana said: PS3 especially was a nightmare. I remember running Fallout 3 with DLC at 480i on my PS3 just because it helped reduce slowdown which was awful in Operation Anchorage and the other DLC. |
Net Immerse/Gamebryo/Creation Engine was just never a good fit for the Playstation 3.
| bonzobanana said: Capcom's pressure on Nintendo to boost memory from 2GB to 4GB on Switch I feel was a great move I just wish they asked for higher CPU clocks at the same time. |
Even just a 20% higher clocked CPU would have helped significantly.
| bonzobanana said: You have made a case for the Switch graphic hardware but despite being a big Nvidia fan myself I'm not convinced by it at this point for portable performance. Yes great for docked and easily superior to 360/PS3 no question. |
I'm not an nVidia ardent fan. I primarily sit in the AMD camp as they typically provide better price/performance.
Here we can see the Microsoft Surface Pro beat the Geforce 7800GT and 7900GS.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/6877/the-great-equalizer-part-3/3
The Playstation 3 has a 24:8:24:8 core layout running at 550mhz with 22.4GB/s of bandwidth.
Which means it should fall below the Geforce 7800GTX in terms of capability. (As it has more ROPS and bandwidth.)
Tegra K1 is beating the Microsoft Surface Pro by 50% or more.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/8296/the-nvidia-shield-tablet-review/5
The Tegra X1 is beating the K1 by another 60% - 80% and in a few instances by 400%.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/9289/the-nvidia-shield-android-tv-review/4
So we can account for the fact that the Switch is just 30% of the clockspeed of the X1 and still come out on top.
Ergo. Switch beats the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
