| Trumpstyle said: Yes ofc I know Flops isn't everything. But they are very important |
They are not very important.
Flops are theoretical number, not real-world one, they have about as much use and accuracy as using "bits" to determine a platforms capabilities, the sooner you realize that, the better.
There is also more needed to render a game than the flop numbers imply.
| Trumpstyle said: like Switch and the high end phones can do more advanced graphical effects, but it doesn't translate to a better looking game overall as game developers can design around the flaws of older gpu architectures and make them look better or similiar. |
That has nothing to do with flops.
| Trumpstyle said: Show me a switch mobile or smartphone game that looks better than Halo 4, you can't as it doesn't exist. |
Challenge accepted. And courtesy of Digital Foundry.
Want more? Because they exist.
Halo 4 has a fairly simplified rendering pipeline with allot of the visuals baked.
| Trumpstyle said: I know Flops isn't everything, as we can see comparing Nvidia and AMD Gpus. Nvidia Flops is usually 30% faster. |
No they aren't.
Flops are no faster or slower than each other, which just proves you don't really have an understanding of what a flop actually is or how it relates to the capabilities of a graphics processor.
| Trumpstyle said: And I agree somewhat with your respond, except Xbox 360 is probably more powerful than than switch undocked or the most powerful smartphones when fully used. |
The Switch has proven with games that it is more capable than the Xbox 360.
| Trumpstyle said: We can see this in digital foundry comparison of LA noire where ps3 beats switch undocked both in graphics and performance, this despite switch having 4gb RAM. |
One game which was never originally designed for the Switch's hardware or ISA in mind is your argument?
My counter argument is going to be Skyrim, low framerates, resolution, stutters abound on the Playstation 3, Switch also has better visuals.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
