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

bigtakilla said:
Ganoncrotch said:

What games?

do you mean

http://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/nba-2k18-switch#game-details

If you believe NBA 2K18 is a game that will cause issues to the xbone/ps4 then yeah.... But it won't, so no not talking about that game.

Which games was your post chatting about so?



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8

Around the Network
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.

Except that's not the real-world gap.

estebxx said:

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.

cycycychris said:
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?

cycycychris said:
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.

cycycychris said:
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.


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?

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.

KrspaceT said:

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.


Barkley said:

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.

Mnementh said:

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.

Mnementh said:

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.

bigtakilla said:

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.

shikamaru317 said:

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?



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Ganoncrotch said:
bigtakilla said:

If you believe NBA 2K18 is a game that will cause issues to the xbone/ps4 then yeah.... But it won't, so no not talking about that game.

Which games was your post chatting about so?

any AAA budget game that pushes the ps4/Xbone. 



Pemalite said:
JRPGfan said:

397 Gflops vs 1840 Gflops.

Theres no exaggeration going on.

Except that's not the real-world gap.

estebxx said:

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.

cycycychris said:
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?

cycycychris said:
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.

cycycychris said:
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.


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?

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.

KrspaceT said:

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.


Barkley said:

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.

Mnementh said:

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.

Mnementh said:

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.

bigtakilla said:

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.

shikamaru317 said:

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?

@ my reply:

 

True, but we keep getting these threads like it will somehow magically be closer to the xbone if we keep making these, lol. As we've both said, it's an X1.



everyone on here making wrong assumption,

1) Nintendo zelda developer said the switch Zelda is a straight up port using none of Switch features like HD rumble and etc

2) he also said Switch in handheld mode is way stronger than Wii U, we can already see that with Zelda in handheld mode running better than Wii U 720p mode........Mario kart 8 on Switch run in 60 frames in handheld mode even with a second player vs Wii U and this game was another straight up port

3) Nvidia teraflops do not equal same teraflops for AMD

4) Games like Snakepass and etc were made in 1 week after those games were made on other systems for months, and this is why they sent patches out because they wanted the game to come out at same time, but by doing that to get better optimizations they had to patch it week or two later........same as NBA Playgrounds they left out stuff and framerate issues so they can bring the game out same time but they said in 2 weeks a patch will come...........I am not saying patches are good things, but I assume some players will take this type of issue than to wait months for the product like the 3rd party did on the Wii U

5) anyone who think switch graphics horrible just want to think horrible in their eyes, games on it look beautiful even if its not 4k like the Scorpio.........people on here talking crazy about it like the Switch is a ps1 and ps4 is like a ps3 to it when its nowhere close to the truth......

6) it be a while before you can compare any games on the Switch because all everyone doing is comparing games that are not built from the ground up, comparing ports that have different architecture where it take some time to optimize it



Around the Network
Gemmol31 said:
3) Nvidia teraflops do not equal same teraflops for AMD

A Teraflop is a teraflop. It's a theretical denominator.

An AMD Teraflop is identical to an nVidia Teraflop at the same precision.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Any chance more information has popped up on the 'how different the NS and the PS4/X1 power wise' front?



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?