| Chrkeller said: I think you worry too much about being the smartest in the room and lose sight of illustrations. And you are right, I am sure it is more complex than I made out, most things are. But my illustration is still fine. Increasing fps requires jumps in memory bandwidth. The Switch is likely stuck at 30 fps max, and will need sacrifices to hit 30 fps, that was the point. Sometimes I think you should ask yourself "what are they trying to illustrate" before replying to people. As a simple question, is the memory bandwidth of the switch 2 going to be a bottle neck for modern third-party games? |
It's not about being the "smartest". - Nor do I care for such irrelevant garbage or how people perceive me, that's small world stuff.
The point I am trying to convey is that there is more to a systems capabilities than just a single facet... Be it bits, flops or memory bandwidth.
Case in point...
* Switch.
21.3–25.6 GB/s of bandwidth.
* Playstation 3.
20.8-25.6 GB/s of bandwidth.
The Switch wipes the floor with the Playstation 3.
Or take the Radeon 5700XT with 17% higher memory bandwidth than the Radeon 6700XT, the 5700XT should win right? No, it gets obliterated, at every resolution. Things like Infinity Cache, Delta Colour Compression, variable rate shading, mesh shaders, and sampler feedback and more all add to RDNA2 receiving massive performance boosts even when everything else is kept equal.
A graphics chip is the sum of it's parts, not a singular aspect.
Will the Switch be a 30fps console? Probably. Xbox Series X and Playstation 5 have 30fps games. - Does it matter? Probably not.
Will it have 60fps games? Absolutely. It's developer discretion on what the framerates end up being rather than the hardware itself.
Remember the Super Nintendo had 60fps games... And that console only had a 3.58Mhz CPU and 128kb of Ram, developers make the decisions on what the game ultimately ends up being.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
