Nintendo Discussion - Switch TFLOPS : 1,024 ? 0,79 ? 0,393 ? - View Post

Pemalite said:
 Amnesia said: How many TFLOPS the Switch has at the end ?

There is no speculation.
Flops is calculated via Clockrate X Number of Pipelines X Instructions Per Clock... And it has been a known quantity for ages now.

Docked: 307.2MHz X 256 X 2 = 157,184 Flops. Or 157Gflop.

Undocked: 768Mhz X 256 X 2 = 393,216 or 393Gflop.

For Half Precision tasks... Double those numbers as packed math allows for two operations to be executed at once. - Thus we get 314Gflop and 786Gflop respectively.

That's right, the Switch is: 157, 314, 393, 786Gflops. Depending on clocks and precision being used.

 Amnesia said:It seems that there has been a lot of speculation with this first value of 1 TFLOPS, letting many of us imagining that a game well optimised on Switch could almost match with the XBOX1 having only 1,3x more...

Flops isn't everything. Even if the Switch had the same or more Flops than the Xbox One, it would still loose.
Flops is a theoretical number, not a real world one... And games need more than flops, alone flops is pretty useless, just like how bits is pretty useless in gauging a chips entire capability.

The Switch however is certainly using a Graphics Chip which is more efficient than what the Xbox One has, so it's capable of doing more work per flop... The Xbox One just has brute force on it's side and really starts to come into it's own once Asynchronous Compute and the ESRAM is leveraged.

It's not always a black and white comparison... Everyone is just fixated on a singular arbitrary number and you will always end up being wrong because of it.

 Amnesia said:My friend who is an eternal pessimist about the Switch thinks that there is not that much compared to the WiiU.

It is a big step up above the WiiU, Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, the games have proved it.

 Lafiel said: It unfortunately seems that there isn't all too much use in video games for half-precision calculations from what I read about the topic (it also came up with the PS4 Pro). Certainly not enough to speed up the code by a factor of 2, maybe a 10-20% gain is realistic if it's used to full extend.

Reduced precision comes with the caveat of reduced visuals. - So developers will use it where the visual trade off is worth the performance increase to bolster image quality elsewhere.

For example:

 Mr Puggsly said: Most laptops on the market can't play games as well as the Xbox One. The laptops that can cost significantly more than a Xbox One. For the record, the Xbox One X is pretty great. Its not really fair to compare your laptop to a Switch because the Switch is significantly smaller.

Ryzen 2500U and 2700U is budget hardware that can match the Xbox One. (I have a 2700u notebook.)
Low-end laptops can match the Xbox One these days, with the exception of those running with Intel Decelerator Graphics.

Low-end Geforce parts like the MX150, 1030 can all turn in better results than the Xbox One as well.

But the fact that AMD's integrated graphics can beat the Xbox One is just a testament to how old 8th gen is getting and how quickly GPU hardware has evolved.

 Nate4Drake said: You have been just reported.

Stating you have reported someone isn't really constructive, best to just report and move on rather than announce it.

 captain carot said: Doom, Wolfenstein 2 and the likes show that Switch is far from a PS4One, yes. At the same time i can play those games on the go on a real mobile device, which is pretty great. And basically that's what Switch is about. Playing Doom at the hotel balcony late at night on a Greek island is something i couldn't have done with any other console.

Actually, there are several other handhelds that could have done it, they are PC and Android based however.

 Nate4Drake said: I never said PS3 is more powerful than Switch.   But I consider Uncharted3 a more impressive Game than anything on Switch, from a tech point of you. Geometry, details, textures, scale, animations, etc.   Where is the non sense?

Uncharted 3 came out... When exactly during the PS3's lifecycle?
And the Switch is how old?

Best to compare the visuals of games at similar timelines in a consoles lifecycle as developers learn the various nuances of the hardware... That's how you make a proper assessment.
Uncharted 3 was certainly a technical marvel given the constraints it was working in though.

But, the Switch's GPU hardware is capable of more effects than the DX9 based hardware in the PS3, so it will be interesting to see how Developers leverage that GPU in the following years.

Sure. But considering Switch was released 11 years after 360 and 10 after PS3, maybe it's legitimate to not be impressed by it, and almost shocked that games like Uncharted3 still look more impressive than most Switch games, even if Switch is younger in its life cycle.