Chrkeller said:
Soundwave said:
Was the Switch just at par with the XBox 360 or below it? 393 GFLOPS docked (this is underclocked too) + more modern architecture was certainly a step beyond the XBox 360 which is rated at 250 GFLOPS.
So why is it so unbelievable to you that the Switch 2 would be something similar relative to the PS4 (better performance)?
I mean if you want to play the "Nintendo's history!!!" card, every one of their portable successors has been clearly a full generation upgrade over the previous system. Yes or no?
The DS wasn't just "sorta" better than the GBA ... it was clearly a full generation ahead (real 3D polygons, PSOne/N64 tier 3D not just well 3x better than the GBA). So was the GBA over the GB. So was 3DS over DS. Switch is clearly a full generation ahead of the 3DS and more. The Switch isn't "just barely an XBox 360 or PS3" either ... it's clearly better than both of those systems. It can run games like DOOM Eternal and Witcher 3 that the XBox 360 or PS3 wouldn't be able to.
Yes Nintendo doesn't always go for cutting edge, but I think you're being overly dramatic here as well, if Nintendo operated the way you say they do, the Switch would be probably below the XBox 360, not a 1.5x improvement in teraflop performance.
|
Because of price, form factor and battery life. We have been through this many times previously. We don't agree and time will tell.
|
You've done no research on this issue though. Have you looked at the specs of the Tegra T239? You're just saying that on the basis of "Nintendo history", but you don't even know Nintendo's history that well either because if they operated the way you say they do, like the DS for example would be a rudimentary 3D system like the Atari Jaguar, not on par with the Playstation 1 at all when in fact it's better than the PS1 in many ways.
