Pemalite said:
Doctor_MG said:
The ESRAM in the Xbox One is 32MB. You can't take the ESRAM bandwidth and add it to the total RAM bandwidth and call it a day. That's literally like saying the 360's RAM bandwidth was over 250GB/s (it wasn't). While ESRAM can help with bandwidth limitations, it's more often used for framebuffers.
|
If they were using it purely for the framebuffer, 16MB of ESRAM would have sufficed for drawing a 1080p image.
Rather, they used it for render targets because at this point deferred renderers were finally gaining traction.
eSRAM has gotten a second life anyway... Case in point RDNA2 with it's Infinity Cache... The 6600XT for instance has just 32MB, just like the Xbox One.
SRAM caches definitely have a place... As AMD has showcased with Infinity Cache. (Essentially a chunky L3 for the GPU.)
sc94597 said:
Where are you getting this from?
It seems highly unlikely that the Switch 2 is going to release with a chipset that is "roughly a base Xbox One." GCN 1.0 is pretty ancient compared to Ampere (about eight years older), this Switch 2 likely will have far faster memory (LPDDR5 > DDR3, and no the 32 MB of eSRAM doesn't totally make up for it), and of course a much better CPU than the Jaguar in the XBO.
Even if we looked at theoretical performance of the rumored, hypothetical Switch Orin Chip, it is estimated to compute 1.9 FP32 TFLOPS, whereas the XBO only was estimated to compute 1.3 FP32 TFLOPS. And again, with the much better CPU, newer architecture, and better ram bandwidth this theoretical performance likely will be better realized in actual games.
The Switch 2 likely won't be able to play at 4k, but 1080p (or close) and with DLSS 60fps (or higher) definitely is doable. 540p -> 1080p seems to only be a scenario that will happen for the seemingly inevitable Series S to Switch 2 ports, akin to what the Steam Deck does, but likely better if these specs are true or to improve battery life by running games at lower power settings.
|
The issue with the Xbox One is that the eSRAM came at the expense of GPU resources, cutting back the Render Output Pipelines, Shader Pipelines, Texture Mapping Units for a high-speed cache... The result was a game of sacrifices rather than leveraging eSRAM to increase efficiency. - Which it can.
If Microsoft hypothetically had an identical GPU/Ram setup to the Playstation 4 and retained that 32MB of cache, there would have been no doubt the Xbox One would have had a graphics edge by a significant margin.
Alistair said:
Most games have backwards compatibility because it takes 5+ years to make many games now. Rockstar made 5+ games for the PS3 but only ONE game for the PS4.
The PS5 is not at all similar to a PS4 Pro Pro. It has a MASSIVE increase in CPU power allowing for game engines that won't even boot up on the PS4. It has 100x faster storage than the PS4, again, allowing new engines that can't even load up on the PS4.
And GPU wise, yeah it is only twice as fast, but it is RDNA2 and has many features that the PS4 can't use. Not just ray tracing, but DirectX 12 level features. The GPU is the smallest improvement, mainly allowing double the frame rate of old PS4 Pro games until those features are put to use.
|
Playstation 4 has Ray Traced games.
The Playstation 4 however lacks hardware accelerated Ray Tracing.
Remember, Ray Tracing is essentially an algorithm, so games that use any form of bounce lighting (I.E. Global Illumination) is thus Ray Traced.
Soundwave said:
Historical precedent says Nintendo always makes a separate home console and portable ... until they didn't (and this point was hotly debated for a long time here with lots of people being in denial over a hybrid system not being possible because Nintendo had never done it before).
|
WiiU was a hybrid system. You can game independently of a TV.
It was a fixed home console with mobile (albeit limited) characteristics.
|
I don't know if many people would describe the Wii U as a hybrid system, more like a stationary console that has a controller with a screen on it that can play games on it.
Technically I think even PS4 could do this if you had a Vita. But that's actually not the point, the point of contention and controversy prior to the Switch unveiling was Nintendo will not abandon the 2-system per generation setup they had going for almost three decades by that point because it was established tradition that Nintendo must have 2, even 3 distinct hardware products per generation (one portable, one home console at minimum).
You can watch the hilarious reactions of people like Supermetaldave64 who were 100% sure the Switch could not be a hybrid, or if it was it couldn't be the only system Nintendo would make, there had to be a standard home console only and they were stunned by the Switch reveal.
Having followed gaming for generations going back to the 80s even, there is no generation where certain trusted historical precedents aren't broken. Rules always change and evolve, 12 years ago if you told people here that Nintendo would amalgamate their home console and portable hardware into one unified device no one would believe you.
If you said Playstation 5 and XBox Series X would have no major exclusives 2 years into their product cycle even from Sony and Microsoft themselves, no one would've believed that even 5 years ago.
Companies only adhere to "historical precedents" if it serves their purpose in the present day/future, if it doesn't, they abandon and change things all the time. Also just announcing a new hardware doesn't really mean a whole lot, everyone knows Playstation 6, XBox Next, Switch 2, etc. etc. are already into development, Switch 2 probably nearing the end of its development cycle if it isn't in the full on prototype stage already.
Last edited by Soundwave - on 23 September 2022
