| Bofferbrauer2 said: I know Flops are irrelevant, hence why I said Navi with similar performance, not similar flops. But Since both the PS4 and Vega are GCN, comparing their performance by TFlops was a legit way to get them to the same level more or less. |
Nope. Vega/Graphics Core Next 5 is a more efficient GPU than the Graphics Core Next 1.0 derived Graphics processors in the base Playstation 4 and Xbox One.
Thus making Tflops irrelevant.
Just because they are "Graphics Core Next" doesn't mean they have the same performance per clock, AMD actually did allot of engineering work updating Graphics Core Next over the years.
| Bofferbrauer2 said: Dropping the clock speeds doesn't cut it. I'll have to check if I can find a test in English, but the 3700 U can't hold the GPU speed at all and drops to about 800 Mhz under full load (CPU at it's base clock of 2.3Ghz). At that point, it can reach at best 2/3rd of the PS4's performance. The 35W 3750H also can't hold the clock speed, but at least only drops to 1150Mhz under fullload (with same CPU clock).o this yet. |
I have a 2700u Ryzen mobile chip in my notebook and done extensive clock/TDP/voltage scaling testing... It's basically the 14nm version of the 12nm 3700u, so not much difference.
You can hold the Graphics Processors Clock if you reduce your Central Processors clock... In games that aren't CPU intensive you can actually see some rather dramatic increases in performance. - For most titles I actually limit my CPU clock to 70% of it's base clock, not allowing it to turbo... Good thing Ryzen has decent IPC.
It's tied to TDP, once you hit your TDP limit on both the CPU and GPU, then the clocks between the two get "leveled out" so to speak.
But the clockspeed of the Graphics Processor isn't what is holding back AMD's APU's. - It's actually memory bandwidth, DDR4 2400mhz on a 128bit memory bus isn't doing anyone any favors in regards to performance, especially once allot of bandwidth hungry alpha effects start getting thrown around.
You don't need the same flops or clockrates or CU's to match the base Playstation 4 in terms of performance... Or even memory bandwidth for that matter, GPU's have come a long way since 2013 on the efficiency front making such comparisons directly useless, even if they are all Graphics Core Next. (Which I would argue Navi falls under Graphics Core Next anyway.)
| CrazyGamer2017 said: And before you answer that this would defeat the purpose and the very name "Switch", I would like to say that since the announcement of the Switch Lite, this point is now irrelevant as that system cannot "switch" either so it would not entirely be illogical to have a Switch Pro that is only for your TV as the Lite is only for portable use. |
Well. No. It doesn't make the "Switch" name irrelevant, you can still "Switch" between form factors... The same game runs on all those devices. - Which was always the argument I used when I suggested that Nintendo could release a mobile and fixed-only TV SKU of the Switch... (Which is now coming to fruition with the Switch light.)
Obviously I ended up being correct on my predictions a few years ago that Nintendo would build devices that didn't Switch, much to the chagrin of a few users who said I was fundamentally wrong as it would undermine all of their advertising efforts.
Money talks and building more cost-effective devices that target certain demographics always made perfect sense.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
