| Bofferbrauer2 said: The Denver cores were based upon the A72, and not very good ones. In fact, due to the way scheduling works on them, having them working concurrent to the A57 could actually cost performance. Because the Denver doesn't want to share what's in his memory, the A57 might have to calculate the whole thing all over again to get the results in the Denver cache if he needs them too. This might actually be the reason why Nintendo opted for the X1 instead. |
Just like Tegra X1, you wouldn't run Denver in conjunction with A57... Except for the IO/Interrupt core... Running multiple CPU clusters is just to much of a power hog, which is why the Switch is only running A57 rather than A57+A53.
Without a doubt that, Denver2 is far better than A57 in terms of IPC.
| Bofferbrauer2 said: Oh, and while the GPU is more powerful, it's not 50% more. While the TX2 at Max-Q settings has about the same performance as a TX1, at Max-P, that only increases to a 20-40% performance lead over the TX1 while consuming a similar amount of power. Either way, this discussion is a bit pointless, as the original X2 will certainly not be used in the Switch going forward, and even some future chip based on the X2 might be changed internally. |
Once you start taking the improved bandwidth into account, the GPU will definitely be able to breathe, especially in fillrate heavy scenarios.
The Switch is bandwidth limited.
I am probably being conservative by stating "50%" when there is more than a 100% gain in real-world bandwidth.
The point of Pascal though is that, nVidia re-architected the GPU to operate at higher clockrates with minimal impact on power usage... We saw it on the PC with the move from Maxwell to Pascal.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
