The Switch is stronger than the Wii U with better archeticture after all, so I can't help but feel people are exaggerating the gap.
397 Gflops vs 1840 Gflops.
Theres no exaggeration going on.
Except that's not the real-world gap.
Guys nothing against you and i know you are just trying to point out a difference, but seeing those games against one another yet again... i can already feel the console/fanboy war thats about to start just beacuse of this comparision... should have used other games.
To the OP: Captain Yuris post says it all, you can put a /thread at the end of it.
It's a fair comparison.
Zelda is currently the most technically impressive game on Switch and Horizon is the most technically impressive game on Playstation 4.
I don't think anyone assumes that the Switch can be in the same league as the Xbox One/Playstation.
With that, the Switch is capable of performing every single graphics effect as the Xbox One and Playstation 4, it just doesn't have the horsepower to do it.
A lot people like saying that the Switch is about 1/3 of an Xbox one in docked mode and about 3.5 times a Wii U in docked mode. Portable mode is around 1.5 times a Wii U.
Based on what metric?
But these of course are rough estimates and take into account that newer technology tends to run more efficient than older technology. A long with the fact that a NVidea Flop is historically better than a AMD flop, but we don't know if thats true on the switch.
They aren't "estimates". Flops are theoretical numbers.
And flop is a flop. Neither are actually better on nVidia or AMD hardware.
The reason for the big performance difference isn't actually purely because of the flops.
At the end of the day, if a demanding game is 1080p 60fps on the PS4, it will probably be 720p and 30fps on the Switch.
Going to be more to it than that.
It's exaggerated I would say. The switch is far closer to xbone than Wii U at this point and with engines like unreal 4 and developers claiming time and again the ease of portability unless you count really intensive games almost all games can be ported to switch at not that much hassle if the developers are serious about it. I mean how long did it take for snake pass to be ported? Two months or something?
You sure about that? So far the Switch's most graphically intensive games have been Wii U ports. (Zelda, Mario Kart.)
And the only real upgrades there have been resolution and framerates.
The Xbox One has shown us what it can do with Frostbite powered titles and Gears and has set itself apart generationally from the Xbox 360.
The Switch thus far has demonstrated it's closer to the Wii U in overall capability than many would like.
Yes, emulate. How criminal. Frankly PC gamers need to stop stealing games and actually buy their damn games.
Strawman argument. Emulation isn't stealing. Emulation is legal. Please stay on topic.
3gb vs 5.5gb (ram usable for games) is what's going to kill Switch's chances of getting games like Witcher 3 or the next Elderscrolls/Fallout, regardless of the GPU/CPU deficit.
Those kinds of games can generally scale downwards really well.
The Switch by default of having significantly less hardware to play with, will generally run with lower quality texturing which will help save on Ram.
Maybe integer operations run on one machine better than on the other, but for floating point it is different. Maybe one benchmark performs badly, but if you reorder commands it goes much better. Basically you have areas like: integer, floating point, memory bandwith, transfer data to graphic memory, shaders, ...
Bit of a simplification.
Even taking something like floating point, you have Half Precision, Double Precision, Quarter Precision, Single Precision, Iterative refinement to deal with matrix inversion and eigenvectors... etc'.
Same thing with integer with octet, short integer, long integer, long long integer and more.
This. The Switch is weaker, how much is and will be ever unclear. But it is stronger than every handheld before too. And it can play the same game on TV and on the go. Most customers will probably not compare fine differences in graphics, they will ask if the platform has the game they wanna play and if they can play it together with their friends online (which means they need the same platform).
I think the original guestimates on the Switch's performance capabilities relative to the competition have thus far remained pretty accurate, time and game releases have only cemented those educated guesses.
Well, it's not as powerful as the Xbone either, so we can narrow it down to being between the Wii U and Xbone really.
As soon as we discovered that "NX" was going to be Tegra powered, that was where that console was going to be in the performance hierachy. That didn't change with the clock downgrades either.
On paper? XB1 is about 7x more powerful than a Switch in handheld mode and about 3.5x stronger than a docked Switch. PS4 is about 9x more powerful than a Switch in handheld mode and about 4.5x more powerful than a docked Switch.
In practice? XB1 is probably somewhere around 5x more powerful than a Switch in handheld mode and about 2.5x stronger than a Switch that is docked. PS4 probably around 7x more powerful than a Switch in handheld mode and 3.5x more powerful than a docked Switch.
Based on what metrics?