| Chrkeller said: Rog Ally X is also 24 gb of ram and $800 via Z1 exteme chipset. So yeah, it little to do with the S2 because the S2 will much cheaper and less power. Funny thing is I knew that would be your response, and part of it is sad given the comparison is disingenuous. |
You are shifting the goal post.
The original argument was whether 120GB/s of bandwidth was up to task. And it is. I've proven it.
Nothing to do with the CPU, nothing to do with RAM capacity, nothing to do with the GPU capabilities, it was Ram bandwidth.
But if you would really like to see a handheld console with 16GB of Ram run those cherry-picked games...
Here is the Legion Go handheld with 16GB of Ram playing the same games. Same performance.
Keep in mind the Switch 2.0 is likely going to be nVidia powered, so it's going to have a more efficient ARM CPU and a more efficient Tegra GPU, which can return better results... And a more efficient Operating System and better low-level API's that incentivizes efficiency over a bloated Windows/DirectX12 setup.
| Chrkeller said: At the end of the day can I see developers looking at the S2 maxed at 112 gb/s and reacting to a potential port with "nah, too much effort?" Yeah I can. Funny thing is most people in this thread agree... but some reason I have your panties twisted. |
Does it actually matter who has agreed? There are many hilarious instances where groups or even the majority of individuals got together and "agreed" on something that turned out to be wrong. Even when electing a new leader for their nation.
If you surround yourself with people who think like you, then you are going to feed into your own confirmation biases and ignore facts and evidence... It's a reinforcement of your own beliefs rather than a challenge of it.
The perfect example is individuals who believe the Earth is flat, will often surround themselves with other flat-earthers and use each other to reinforce their belief systems, whilst claiming the evidence provided by science as being incorrect.
This is the exact same logic you are using here.
| Chrkeller said: What is the best way to offset low memory bandwidth? Increase the ram. And what do you hope? The 12 gb rumor is wrong and it ends up 16 gb..... to offset the memory bandwidth bottleneck.... which is the bottleneck I highlighted on PAGE 1. But YOUR temper tantrum has us in page 21. I'm not wrong. |
You don't "offset" low memory bandwidth with increased Ram capacity.
You increase it with another tier of cache. I.E. eSRAM/eDRAM/L4.
This is why AMD has infinity cache on it's GPU's, this is why Microsoft had eDRAM on the Xbox 360, this is why Nintendo opted for eSRAM on WiiU and the Gamecube had 1T-SRAM and more.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16202/amd-reveals-the-radeon-rx-6000-series-rdna2-starts-at-the-highend-coming-november-18th/2
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1864/inside-microsoft-s-xbox-360/8
And as demonstrably demonstrated in my previous quote... Reducing Ram capacity from 24GB to 16GB had no impact to performance.
Ram capacity never increases performance. It only prevents a "reduction in performance" when there is more data than what can be held in Ram... This is basic computing knowledge that has been established over the last 40 years.
You are hilariously wrong.
More evidence:
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
