| bonzobanana said: You have massively over-stated the required level of performance boost and you are totally at odds with the reality of what is achieved by games in general. Including a huge range of 60fps games by both Nintendo and other publishers. With exceptionally low cpu resources the wii u has provided many rock solid 60fps games but has struggled to achieve 1080p resolutions. Many games including fps games like black ops 2 have maintained 60 fps games. I think part of the issue may be you are taking a PC perspective where games simply push more frames based on the hardware performance level rather than a game developed from the ground up to achieve a certain frame rate with given hardware where the engine will be fully optimised to work at a certain frame rate. However even if your figures are right and it is as high as 40% which I don't believe for a minute it is for a game designed from the ground up for 60fps. The wii u already runs games like mario kart at 60fps with a rubbish 32bit 9000 mips cpu and the Switch has a far superor 64bit quad processor of 19000 mips approx which probably can achieve 2.5x approx performance. Huge amount of headroom there. For the ps3 and 360 the 360 was also about 19000 mips in total but the older architecture gpu needed much more assistance from the cpu plus again older 32bit architecture. Again there is headroom there to achieve higher frame rates. I honestly don't get what your problem is the Switch has extra cpu performance, huge amount of extra memory, a much later gpu architecture with a huge amount of features that will assist both cpu and gpu performance. So your saying when DICE did Black Ops II on 360 they lost getting on half the cpu performance by going to 60fps. How can you even give a figure of 40% when the cpu performance of different systems varies enormously and is not a constant with some systems having a higher or lower ratio of cpu power compared to their gpu. The game engine itself would dictate how much extra processing is required per frame and this would never be a constant compared to the all the other logic processes going on depending on game. Not forgetting the Maxwell architecture is based around optimised VR performance and reducing the load on the system.
|
Its hard making this point to you because you seem not to understand the basics....... I will try and be as concise as possibble.
The issue here isn't that the switch cannot run games at 60fps, that not what we are debating. The discussion we are having is going from 30fps to 60fps.
If a game is made from the ground up to run at 60fps on the switch in in mobile mode, then of course nothing needs to be done to get itto run at 60fps in docked mode and at a higher resolution. The higher GPU clock will cover how much harder the GPU has to work to push out more pixels and the higher memory clock in that mode will also cover the bandwidth bump required for the larger frame buffer going from 720p-1080p.
But taking a game that is designed to run at 720p/30fps in undocked mode to 1080p/60fps or even 720p/60fps in docked ode is impossible. That is because the CPU clock is locked across modes. If they are using all 1GHz of that CPU to run game logic and are running at 30fps, getting the same game logic to run at 60fps will require a CPU bump of at least 30-50% (depending on the game engine). The GPU is not the issue here, there is enough of a bump in the GPU to go from 720p@30fps to 720p@60fps but the CPU will prevent this from happenning. But not from 720p@30fps to 1080p@60fps. I am not overstating anything, you just ned to try and understand what is being said and then you will see it for yourself. I don't know how else to explain this to you.
And it seems you are having two seperate arguments simultaneously. If what you are talking about is taking the PS3/360 "like" games and running the at a higher rez and framerate? Then absolutely, the switch has enough power to do that. But thats a redundant argument cause we aren't livig in a world where the current AAA games are being made for the PS3/360 anymore. The Witcher 3, New COD, BF1, FF15, ME:A, Next GTA6, RDR2....etc are not being made for the PS3/360. So its kinda silly measuring the performance of hardware coming out in 2017 against hardware released in 2005/2006. What we should be talking about is the liklyhood of getting PS4/XB1 ports over to the Switch, not getting ports for hardware thats not even being supported anymore.
And really, you need to just drop the VR talk. You keep talking about specs like you are living in a bubble or that because its nintendo theywill do some sort of tech wizardry and get chips to do the impossible. Look at it this way, even the Base PS4... hell even the PS4pro, that are all signifactly waaay more powerful than the switch can only do passable VR. Use that as your yardstick. When you talk like that, its kinda hard to take you seriously.
And i hvae no problem with the switch, just pointing out tht what you are saying about it isn't accurate.
