Forums - Gaming Discussion - Exactly how much difference is there between the PS/XB and the Switch?

JRPGfan said:
KrspaceT said:

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.

Its just aparently it doesnt matter all that much... you run abit lower resolution, turn off a few effects ect.

People dont care that much.  Its why people that believe scorpio is going to make a massive differnce are fooling themselves.

 

Also Snake Pass & Lego City Undercover are kinda horrible ports, to use as compairisons.

They put more work into the switch versions than they did the other systems.

  What? snake pass on switch was the less worked version of all 4, the ps4 and xbox was already being worked on for 6 months, they got the switch version running at basic level in a week and just had a couple of weeks to work on it, that's why some stuff were missing on launch like graphic effects and time trial.  they had to patch it later with the update and where the hell did you take that lego had more work put on switch than the other versions? warner never said that, you're just pulling data outta nowhere to make your narrative.



“On my business card, I am a corporate president. In my mind, I am a game developer. But in my heart, I am a gamer.” - Satoru Iwata

Around the Network
F.Scofield said:
JRPGfan said:

397 Gflops vs 1840 Gflops.

Theres no exaggeration going on.

Its just aparently it doesnt matter all that much... you run abit lower resolution, turn off a few effects ect.

People dont care that much.  Its why people that believe scorpio is going to make a massive differnce are fooling themselves.

 

Also Snake Pass & Lego City Undercover are kinda horrible ports, to use as compairisons.

They put more work into the switch versions than they did the other systems.

  What? snake pass on switch was the less worked version of all 4, the ps4 and xbox was already being worked on for 6 months, they got the switch version running at basic level in a week and just had a couple of weeks to work on it, that's why some stuff were missing on launch like graphic effects and time trial.  they had to patch it later with the update and where the hell did you take that lego had more work put on switch than the other versions? warner never said that, you're just pulling data outta nowhere to make your narrative.

In the lego games, the draw distance is set futher than the PS4 or XB1 versions.... so you dont notice texture pop ins as often.

on DF they showed fences ect, where just invisible because they where out of load distance, while the polls for the fences wherent.

It looked bad. I think the Switch version is better for that simple reason.

Also time spent/set aside to port something doesnt nessarily mean more work was done. The Lego game looks like a lazy port for PS4 & XB1.

(or maybe they learnt from the mistakes or errors, after seeing the final results of the ps4/xb1 ports)



Also a big factor in its performance level is how it switches between the low power 150 gflops and 384 gflops modes on the fly. This isn't normal for consoles and clearly the Switch does it instantly on the fly. From all accounts the Switch doesn't fully utilise that 384 gflops at all but instead just uses the performance boost to either upscale or anti-alias. I've not heard of any games currently that load higher quality graphic assets when you dock the Switch and with the very low 25.6GB/s memory bandwidth I think the docked mode is more bottlenecked.

The figure of 384 gflops may not be realistic at all because most of that performance is untapped so the console can instantly switch to portable mode without having to reload the game. I.e. 2 graphic output drivers a bit like a pc connected to 2 screens but toggles between each display.

If the Switch cpu performance is 16,000-18,000 mips but one cpu core is completely taken for the operating system then we are left with 12,000-13,000 mips in cpu performance, easily much better than wii u but still very much behind xbox 360 and ps3. The ps3 with the dual thread power pc main chip plus the 7 cell processors is something ridiculous like 35,000-40,000 mips, the 360 is 20,000 mips I think. The ps3 loses one cell processor for the operating system and the 360 one of its six threads so I guess the 360 drops to 17,000 mips and the ps3 maybe 32-35,000 mips. Both ps4 and xbox one never pushed the envelope when it came to cpu performance and are around 38-45,000 mips and again one of the 8 cpu's is used for the operating system.

I've said it many times but Skyrim will be a good guide to Switch performance. It's a game on many systems with fairly high demands especially the cpu. It will be interesting to see how the Switch copes. We have seen the Tegra Shield box fail to run good versions of pc ports and that is 2x the cpu power of Switch and I guess 3x the gpu because it does't have to run at a low power portable mode.

Personally I think the Switch will struggle with some 360 and ps3 conversions because of low cpu resources. It isn't as bad as wii u but it is only slightly better.

However the Switch does have a gpu feature set much more advanced than 360 and ps3 and so can achieve new effects and do some functions more efficiently. Tile based rendering assists greatly and makes better use of limited memory bandwidth.

There is no doubt that Switch is a very powerful portable gaming system but also a very weak home console. A large percentage of games do not push the hardware of ps4 or xbox one and for such games the Switch can have comparable if slightly weaker versions.



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?



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

KrspaceT said:

Frankly I feel this a question that no one has really answered. 

 

The fact is that people keep saying that 1st party games can't run on the device, but how far is the Switch from it's fellow consoles anyway. How Snake Pass and Lego City Undercover ran on the Switch compared to the other two makes me question just how big the difference is. 

 

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. 

The question has not been answered because no one needs to ask it. You just need to ask yourself if you want to play 3rd party games or not and then if you want to play Nintendo games or not. And then you choose PC because it has everything.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network

Yes, emulate. How criminal. Frankly PC gamers need to stop stealing games and actually buy their damn games. 



The Democratic Nintendo fan....is that a paradox? I'm fond of one of the more conservative companies in the industry, but I vote Liberally and view myself that way 90% of the time?

Eagle367 said:
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?

Definitely easy to port games too from what has been written from many sources but that doesn't mean it can port more ambitious games if those games need a more powerful gpu or more cpu resources.



JRPGfan said:
Areym said:

I'm not tech savvy in terms of numbers but I think the gap is clearly noticeable to the average/casual gamer. Granted, Nintendo does a fantastic job of working around relatively weaker systems with beautiful art direction but I mean if you put (HERE IT COMES) HZD/Uncharted 4 next to BotW/mario Odyssey, you can see just the raw difference in the graphics, textures, details, etc. If we're talking power or performance of games, Switch games have to be less demanding so I think most Switch games would probably perform better than a PS4/Xb1 game which can be very taxing on the systems. If Switch games keep staying conservative on demand that their games put on the console, I think all 3 will run their games with solid performance. Also, I don't think you're gonna sway anybody with Snake Pass and Lego city comparisons.

Again, I don't know jack shit about nothing but that's my hot take.

Good point.

https://tiredoldhackdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/zelda-botw-16.jpg

vs

http://assets.rpgsite.net/images/images/000/037/209/original/horizon_presse3_008.jpg

 

Artstyle + cel shadeing ect, can hide alot of faults, but like the nature stuff is alot better looking in HZD, so are the characters.

It's always a false direction to compare first party titles. You could only compare them if GG for example would have to make a game (or even the same) on the Switch in that example.

How would Uncharted look if it was ND coding for 360 or Xbone? We don't know and we will never know because you can't really compare them. Different team, different talent, different emphasis on how to make a game.



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.

There is a big difference in power, and when a big third party title launches on both Switch and PS4 the difference will be very apparent.

You pay a price for portability.



LTD: PS4 - 125m, Switch - 110m, XBO - 51m

2020: PS4 - 9m, Switch - 22.5m, XBO - 2.5m, PS5 - 4.5m, XBX - 2.8m

bonzobanana said:
Eagle367 said:
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?

Definitely easy to port games too from what has been written from many sources but that doesn't mean it can port more ambitious games if those games need a more powerful gpu or more cpu resources.

Just read the bolded part



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also