La Noire is not best example, because like DF mention in article hole game on first place is made to use most of PS3 Cell architecture ("heavy reliance on the machine's unique synergistic processing units - SPUs"), so porting game like that to totally different architecture will not give best results, from same reasons La Noire is only one of few games that works worse on Xbox360 compared to PS3. 

But despite that, there again some quite improvements over PS3 version of game, dynamic resolution in docked mode goes from 1920x1080 to 1440x1080 and thats quite difrence in any case compared to just 1280x720 on PS3, Switch version also has better textures, shadows and ambient occlusion than PS3 version. Only things that PS3 version have better are more stable frame rate and better draw distance. So no, Switch version of game dont have worse visuals because it has better, and it's not worse version because it has more improvements over PS3 version.

And basicly this what Pemalite wrote (down), people forgetting this are all Switchs 1st year games, just remember how games looked in first years of PS3/360/XB1/PS4 and how they looked few years later, because by time devs (that goes for 1st party and 3rd party also) are getting more familiar with hardware and they can push much more hardware than they could at beginning.And Switch arledy with 1st year games showed its quite more capable than PS3/360.

That couldn't be option because stronger hardware would mean bigger heating and shorter life of battery for Switch, Switch is quite capable for what its is, it has portable form factor and its around 3x stronger than PS3/360/WiiU.

Switch GPU is from 2015. so I wouldn't said it's dated, like wrote it's quite capable for what it is.

I looked up video of LA Noire for 360 and PS3 from DF, there are spots where PS3 runs better but the disparity is not that significant. They also show the PS3 taking bigger dips. Either way, if the Switch is as powerful as you imply it should be able to brute force through that like 8th gen consoles do. On a side note, you forgot to mention the Switch version also has slow down instead of skipping frames on some spots.

In regard to resolution, not everything is locking 1080p and I was just clarifying that.

The best reflection of what Switch can do is probably going to be Nintendo games. Unless core game developers start using Switch as the lead platform.

In practice, I don't see a consoles that has 3x the power. But its certainly more powerful.

Point is that PS3 version of games runs better than 360 version of game, and situation for most of multiplatform games is that games runs better on 360 compared to PS3. Well Switch is weaker than 8th gen consoles so Its hard to totally brute port of something thats on first place made for one specific hardware in mind, in that case it's obvious you want have best results, I mean even on Xbox One X version of game runs at 30FPS. But despite fact that game is specifkly made for very complex PS3 Cell CPU, there again some quite improvements over PS3 version of game, much higher resolution, better textures, shadows and ambient occlusion, while on PS3 side of game you have more stable frame rate and frame pacing and better draw distance.

 This what DF wrote:

"As things stand, the original LA Noire was built on a custom engine designed with PlayStation 3's Cell processor in mind, and this version was the preferred console edition back in the day. It was quite a sight: PS3 managed to run a massive open-world built around an impressive facsimile of Los Angeles, with fully functioning day-night cycles, weather, physics, wandering NPCs and traffic systems. All this meant a heavy reliance on the machine's unique synergistic processing units - SPUs - and the end result is that the Switch version, reliant on just three available ARM CPU cores operating at 1GHz, can suffer from some obvious drawbacks. The fact is that this is an engine built with PS3 in mind, and the architecture of Switch is different enough that aspects of the game don't make the jump perfectly".

That really don't change nothing, going from dynamic resolution 1920x1080-1440x1080 to 1280x720p is big difrence in resolution.

Well we already seeing for what Switch is capable, MK8 was on Wii U 720p while on Switch is 1080p, all last gen games that were on PS3/360 on Switch are running at 900-1080p and in most cases with better frame rate and better visuals, that alone tell you how much Switch is stronger, for istance Fifa on Switch runs at 1080p and much better visuals compared to 720p and worse visuals on PS3/360, that a quite difrence. But of course, we still talking about Switchs 1st year games, later games will be better looking and more optimized, like I wrote, just remember how games looked in first years of PS3/360/XB1/PS4 and how they looked few years later.

Actually we already seeing around 3x stronger hardware in practices also, but 3x stronger hardware doesnt mean that game will look 3x better, I mean PS4 is around 10x stronger than PS3 but you can also say that we dont see that in practice beacuse  PS4 games dont look 10x better than PS3 games, for instance you need around 2-3 stronger hardware in order just run exatly same game from 720p to 1080p. Also specs dont line in case of Switch and PS4.

Oh, I get your point and I say its not much. If Switch is significantly more powerful I feel like it should be able to brute force the problem like the 8th gen consoles. You mention the improvements on the GPU side, but if all the problems are the CPU side maybe the Switch has a weak CPU. Essentially, if the 360 could handle fine LA Noire fine then why is Switch struggling at all?

I believe the higher resolutions demonstrates the Switch a fairly significant boost in GPU capabilities, but still far from what X1/PS4 are doing. Switch games look like polished last gen games. Meanwhile Doom on Switch looked liked a last gen.

Essentially I'm not denying Switch is more capable than last gen. But in practice, it looks like last gen with more polish.

I was prety clear, but again, Switch is weaker than 8th gen consoles so Its hard to totally brute port of something thats on first place made for one specific hardware in mind, in that case it's obvious you want have best results. La Noire on PS3 was basically handheld like exclusive game, engine is made so it can use most of PS3 specifik CPU, hole game is used so it can use most of very specifik PS3 CPU, so porting game like that on totally different architecture will not gave you best results, espacily when we talking about multipaltform port, not from ground made game specifkly just for Switch hardware on mind, DF confirmed that. That's reason why La Noire is only game where Switch has some shortcomings compared to PS3 version of some game. Fact is that PS3 version of La Noire game works better than Xbox 360 version of game (DF wrote that PS3 version of game was definitive version back than), also its fact that PS3 and Xbox360 have much more similar architecture and Rocksteady already released plenty of games before La Noire on Xbox 360 so they had much stronger optimisation in any case compared to Switch where this it their first game. And no, Switch version of game is not struggling, it actually has more improvement over PS3 version of game than drawbacks.

Its not only point about GPU difference, we also talking about 8x more RAM memory, much more efficient CPU and overall incomparible more modern tech/architecture with support for all modern engines, tools, APIs...all that gave quite difrence compared to PS3/360 hardware, Switch hardware is somewhere betwine PS3/360 and XB1. Doom is Switchs 1st year game, just look how PS3/360 first year games looked, and I dont agree that Doom looks like last gen game.

When you have console that runs game from 720p (PS3/360 version of games) to 1080p with better visuals or better frame rate, it's obvious we don't talking only about more polish. Not to mentine that most people are comparing best looking PS3/360 games with Switchs 1st year games, first years PS3/360 games looked like shit compared to later games.

Again, the game runs fine on 360's inferior CPU, even better in some instances. So even if it was built for PS3, a superior CPU should be able to brute force that issue. So either it was poorly optimized for Switch or there is a optimization problem.

LA Noire visual improvements but again, slow down and frame dips. I find that odd for a much more powerful machine.

In my humble opinion, 7th gen consoles have shooters that are more impressive than Doom on Switch. For example, BF4 on 7th gen looks arguably better than Doom. Granted that was a game actually built for 7th gen in mind. Doom on Switch resembles what a 7th gen release might have been.

First year 7th gen games indeed look like shit.

First year X1 games were much more impressive. I mean BF4 looks great and showed a massive improvement over last gen, Ryse is still gorgeous, Forza 5 still has impressive assets with 1080p/60 fps. Wolfestein: New Order looks good and locked at 60 fps. I believe games like Destiny, Sunset Overdrive, and Forza Horizon 2 may fall in year one as well. So there was some technically impressive year one content.

PS4 launched with Killzone: SF, it still looks great. It also has some of the same X1 content I mentioned.

Switch in comparison, in practice, looks like a more polished 7th gen era. Meanwhile Doom looks like 7th gen.

Just because you find it odd, doesn't mean it cannot occur, that would be a logical fallacy otherwise to assert such a position.

No.
Doom on Switch is using far more intensive and impressive effects than Battlefield 4 on 7th gen.
Physics based particle effects with lighting and shadowing is great.

Ryse was a linear experience that ran at 26-28fps in places with dips into the teens. It also didn't even achieve a 1920x1080 resolution, but was 1600x900.
It was also an average game as far as fun goes.
Now the effects employed were pretty good, but you would also expect nothing less from a Crytek game, running on CryEngine with a decent budget.

But if we were to throw out something like... Dead Rising 4 however... It looked like shit. Doom on Switch is a big step up over that.

Sunset Overdrive whilst a very enjoyable game with lots of character... Wasn't a graphics powerhouse... And could have benefited from 60fps.
It does make up for that with some great animation work and some great art assets though, this is actually probably my favorite Xbox One exclusive.

Destiny and Forza Horizon 2 was also on Xbox 360... And thus could also run perfectly fine on Switch... I wouldn't say they were technically impressive, in Forza's case they opted to rely on allot of baked rather than dynamic details, mostly that's the Xbox 360 being at fault as it lacks the hardware to do allot of dynamic details.

The best comparisons you can use are with games that are available on all platforms, otherwise you enter the realm of subjectivity, especially if you don't have an intimate understanding of the rendering pipelines being employed by these games.

Switch is a step up over 7th gen, especially when you start building games for the hardware feature set, at the moment... Only Doom meets that criteria as far as I know because the likes of Skyrim and LA Noire' aren't going to do it as they are using a 7th gen rendering pipeline. (Aka. Some fixed function, SM3.0 tops.)

I am fairly certain they can already do it for $400 or less.  (Haven't read through most of this thread, but so I apologize is someone already brought this up.)  Here are some relevant points:

- Switch costs more because of the joy-cons and particularly the HD rumble.  Also, cost of manufacturing a Switch is $257.  Downgrade the rumble from HD to normal and it is still not a loss even at $250.

- Making hardware is Sony's specialty.  That means they could make the same hardware as Microsoft or Nintendo and it will cost them less in manufacturing costs.  This specialty combined with my next point is what drove Sega out of the console market.

- Sony has no reservations about selling their hardware at a loss.  The infamous PS3 that had its $600 price at launch actually cost them $840 to make.

- Handhelds can run at a lower resolution and still give the exact same experience as a larger TV screen.  I mean think about it; 720p resolution on a 6" screen is actually better than 1080p on 40"+ screen.  I can say from personal experience that I have gotten framerate drops in Breath of the Wild docked, but have had no problems undocked.  Undocked is technically less powerful when you measure what the processor is doing, but the experience to the player is better.  A PS4 handheld does not technically have to be as powerful as a home PS4 to give the same experience.


So, assuming that Sony already had the design ready, they could put out a $400 PS4 pretty easily.  If there is any sticking point at all, it would be the battery.  That is why the processor/resolution is less powerful undocked on the Switch, and even doing this it still goes through its battery quickly.  I mean Sony, could still put out a powerful console with a really low battery life, but that would doom their system.  One factor that always helped Nintendo in the handheld market is that their consoles always had a much better battery life even though their competitors had a more powerful system.   

Yeah but would it be 100% backwards compatible with all ps4 software? Digital only. 

Evidence please.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

It is entirely dependent on how far you view the screen... Otherwise known as Perceived Pixels Per Inch.
Thus a 6" 720P display could look worse than a 1080P 40" display depending on your viewing distance.