Pemalite said:
Miyamotoo said:
Comparison with PS3 and Xbox 360 is bad, because PS3/Xbox 360 games ruined terrible, while most of Nintendo games run at 720p/60fps, so good visual without fps problems. Wii U was great 720p machine, a am pretty sure Nintendo will try to go 1080p with NX.
|
And do you know why the Wii U has a higher proportion of 720P/60fps games?
1) Because the graphics were last gen level and could take advantage of the Wii U's performance advantage over the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 to bolster framerates.
The NX doesn't get that advantage considering it's the slowest device out of all the Platforms of this current generation.
2) The Wii U had a higher proportion of Exclusives relative to Multiplats compared to the Xbox or Playstation... If you ONLY look at the Multiplats on the Wii U, you might find more are 30fps than you might otherwise realise.
It's still not a frame of reference to expect every NX game to be 1080P, that's a silly idea when the NX will not only be weaker than the Xbox One and Playstation 4 and those platforms don't have everything at 1080P.
Miyamotoo said:
Don't agree, like I wrote Wii U games look great and work good even for today standards, same cant be said for huge majority of PS3/Xbox 360 games.
Thats point, I dont expect graphic level of PS4/XB1 for NX games, with all effects, details, polygons...I expecting a little more improved Wii U games graphics running at 1080p, and because Nintendo art style those game will again look great, they dont look "old". Saying that I dont expect that majority of 3rd party games runs at 1080p.
|
It's not about you even agreeing or not.
I am not talking about how the games "look" I am talking about the graphics effects that are being employed, the Wii U's games simply aren't pushing graphical effects, this literally cannot be disputed.
You aren't same frame reconstruction, you are not seeing insane Tessellation factors, you are not seeing high resolution multi-layered texturing, you are not seeing advanced forms of lighting and shadowing and extremely complex pixel shading effects.
In-fact, Nintendo has NOT pushed graphics effects in several generations now, mostly because they CANT. They don't have the hardware to do so, this is a physical limitation.
Nintendo games have poor graphics effects, great art, but poor graphics.
If you disagree with that, then you really should learn more about how games are made, the technologies employed to render said games and the hardware that empowers it, you might actually learn something.
And not expecting Xbox One/Playstation 4 levels of graphics means you are fine for a console to be stuck in the last generation, again. - If you are content with 2007 levels of graphics, then good for you, I expect something a little more.
1080P isn't some "magical" bullet that makes everything pretty either, 720P can look better than 1080P.
Miyamotoo said:
OK, its semi custom.
OK, so higher performance with Pascal, only 20-30% performance makes difference.
I dont know what exactly is difference between Maxwell and Pascal, but logic says to me that I can expect around 30% better performance.
|
You don't know the performance improvement and I would wish people would stop peddling their "ideas" as truth.
Remember we aren't seeing a drastic shift in fabrication geometries here... And Tegra isn't as "big" as the Desktop chips, typically it employs slower memory technologies, has fewer polymorph engines, has less L1/L2 caches, has less ROPS, has less Texture Mapping Units etc'.
And compared to AMD has laughable Async capabilities.
But if we were to look at the differences between Maxwell and Pascal... nVidia with the use of delta color compression managed to bolster memory bandwidth by 17%-20% thanks to better compression.
Plus you get faster context switching, geometry projection aka Simultaneous Multi-Projection.
Pascal wasn't a drastic radical change over Maxwell (Tegra X1), it was a little more efficient, with a little more focus on half-precision FP and a few tweaks here and there, it was a more of an evolutionary change.
nVidia also optimised the pipline and chip layout so that they could take advantage of 16nm FF and drive up the clockspeeds, which is where the bulk of the performance came from, again... Something that might be counter productive in a mobile chip and something that won't be as drastic considering Tegra is at 20nm unlike Desktop Maxwell at 28nm.
Thus if we were to drop a Pascal chip that is identical to the Maxwell based Tegra, with the same memory, CPU etc', but kept the architectural advantages... You might see a 20% performance improvement in a best-case scenario when you are completely bandwidth bound.
I must stress "when you are memory bandwidth bound". - If you are limited by texturing or compute, then the gains will be far far far less.
Of course there is more to it than that, but the idea is, Pascal isn't a game changer for Tegra, certainly not the kind of leap we saw with Tegra K1 to X1 that's for sure.
nVidia's main focus with Tegra "X2" is likely going to be on the CPU and memory side, they have done a fair bit of work with the Denver 2 CPU based on ARMv8 for instance.
|
). Jokes aside wheat I can see most of the people have very little knowledge yet sharing lots of tech info (without understanding or maybe sharing after understanding). And lots of guess work by many people.
