fatslob is way more knowledgeable, and obsoletely destroyed his argument. i don't consider any one who just calls ports shit when the reality is wiiu, and ps3, had disadvantages in there hardware compared to 360 to be knowledgeable spec guy, and many of these guys that sound smart are driven by bias. there are people that sound  knowledgeable but there just feeding bolani, very important to know the difference.

He might be wrong in sales, but he know's he stuff when it comes to tech discussions .

You've been on this site for less than 3 months yet you know which guys are more knowledgeable than others

If you have been on this site for awhile you would know Pemalite is absolutely not biased in Nintendo's favor.

Its hilarious seeing you call out people for being biased  though when other than Lawlight you are the most biased person i call think of on this site.

1000 posts in under 3 months and over 90% of those posts are arguing with people about Nintendo.......

why not? it basically permalite calling ports shit, and dismissing them of being used to compare hardware power, and using exclusives has being the way to judge hardware power, both are not perfect comparisons, but its common sense looking at the same games running on the same hardware gives a much better idea, of how the hardware compares to another, we saw in the ps3 era, first it was uncharted 1 that wouldn't possible on 360, then it was uncharted 2, but gears of war 3 looks better then both, its impossible to compare exclusives because you have to take into account how talented the developer is, the art style, the engine, calculations for AI, and what the developer is going for. while multiplatform games gives you a general idea of how both compare to one another.

i really have no bias, i just wanted to be right about my prediction lol, its not looking good though.

that's why you look at multiple games, some ports might be shit, but its not gonna be the majority of ports, but if you see a repeating trend then it's a hardware problem. lets look at switch for example, some ports are shit, but almost every port shows it power jump over 360/ps3/wiiu in it's GPU by 2.5x which lines up with it's specs. the ps3 had many bad ports because it had some major disadvantages  against 360, like the weaker GPU, and split memory pool , same thing for wiiu with it's weaker CPU, ports usually show where the developer are struggling with the hardware vs the other, it's a much better example then exclusives, if you looked at sony exclusives vs xbone exclusives you would think ps4 is 2x more powerful, a skilled developer makes a world of difference.  

I swear there's more debate about Wii U in this thread than the Switch. Surely just about everyone must be sick of the Wii U vs PS360 argument by now, it's been done to death a gazillion times over the past 6 years.

Just look at the digital foundry videos of comparisons of wii u, 360 and PS3 games to see the final verdict there. All 3 consoles are end of life with no more games so just look at the evidence. In the end the final 176 gflops performance, weak cpu, low memory bandwidth, lack of harddrive worked against the system but the later gpu architecture, ultrafast 32MB of memory and larger main memory helped it out. You can see exactly the games that either benefited or suffered because of that spec. There really were no surprises in the end.

The Switch comparison is different, no question the Switch GPU architecture, gflops and greater memory wins over ps3/360 but there is still the issue over cpu performance and both cartridge and flash memory storage limitations which are factors in games. Unlike the wii u situation which I owned from the beginning and could see the actual performance myself especially on a large projector screen I do not own a Switch and so cannot make a comparison myself but on face value 3 Arm A57's at 1Ghz and games like LA Noire struggling shows a CPU disadvantage.

Is there any actual evidence to say otherwise? Also memory bandwidth is that a factor in Switch how does it compensate for not having a pool of ultra high bandwidth memory or split memory like other designs? Is memory bandwidth a factor at all. I understand the later chipset would be better designed to compress data quickly and efficiently but does this fully compensate for lack of memory bandwidth. Xbox One has much higher memory bandwidth but still benefits hugely from its 32MB memory pool, frame buffer etc despite its fairly recent gpu architecture. Many mobile chipsets burden the CPU more with tasks to keep the chipset simple and battery efficient rather than feature many support processors how does Tegra X1 compare in that regard?

I'm just curious realistically without bias where does Switch CPU resources sit? At the moment I believe it to be between wii u and 360 and this seems to be fair based on benchmarks and real world evidence. If that view is wrong why is it wrong in specific factual terms. Please keep in mind the 1Ghz frequency and the fact 3 cores are used for games rather than compare to the full Tegra X1 running at the maximum 1.9Ghz for all 4 cores. Obviously the fact the chipset is 8 core can be completely ignored. The chipset only runs 4 CPU's at a time and the 'little' chips are inferior and completely disabled on Switch and only switched in on some hardware to save power anyway and do not enhance performance at all, purely there for battery efficiency.

Think what you will. I honestly don't care.

No.

Indeed the games do speak for themselves. There is more to visuals than resolution.

Me and Fatslob often converse and we have great respect for each other, so don't make it out to be something it isn't.

If a port is shit, I.E. Has poor frame pacing, inferior visual fidelity, poor framerates and lower resolutions, despite the hardware being proven to be more capable in the long run, then it is a shit port.

Being a PC gamer for decades you know what a shit port looks like.

And using the word "shit" as a descriptor is fine. It's a word. It's there to be used.

I have criticized *every* single platform. Every single one.
Criticism is a good thing.

I was busy for a few days due to life commitments and I find someone spelling my name incorrectly. Tsk tsk.

In all seriousness, your ad hominem is becoming droll. Time for you to move on and find a legitimate argument.

If you understand how a game engine operates, what the rendering pipeline entails, how a various processing components work together, the tricks that developers use to achieve what they do. Then you can use exclusives to make a comparison.

Up to a point.

In general, Multi-plats are of course a better apples-to-apples comparison because more aspects are created equal. However, you are misconstruing my original statements to assert something out of context. Please stop it. I am not an idiot.

If a port is shit. It's shit. Stop beating around the bush. You call something for what it is, don't play games.

It's well understood the WiiU has several caveats in it's hardware design, I elaborated on those prior, did you not read my posts?

There is another aspect to the WiiU that most people seem to gloss over, it was not a console that actually sold in large numbers, which means the financial incentive to make any decent kind of investment, be it financially and/or development time in porting games across does indeed become tenuous for developers.

The WiiU isn't a 2.5x jump over the Xbox 360/Playstation 3 though. So of course ports that are terrible are going to seem worst by comparison than what the Switch will get.

Also, where did you get the information to justify the assertion that the Switch is 2.5x faster?

Are you sure the GPU is weaker?

Exclusives tend to shine hardware in the best possible light and take advantage of more functional hardware units.

For example... The Xbox 360 had a very rudimentary tessellator, aka. Truform. Games like Halo 3 leveraged it for it's water effects, but it could do that because it was an exclusive game.
However... A game like Bioshock didn't. Which meant that a chunk of the GPU was being unused.

The Xbox One is limited in more ways than just computational capability.

However, I see your point... But you lack a fundamental understanding of how games and engines work.
Titles like Horizon Zero Dawn looks as great as it does due to static/baked details.
A game like Halo 5 however is dynamic-everything.

Exactly right.
Zelda: Breath of the Wild is pretty okay with dynamic effects in some areas which was a step up over a large portion of Xbox 360/Playstation 3 games.
And it achieved that by leveraging more aspects of the GPU than other games.

Gflops isn't really important in the grand scheme of things. A GPU with less Gflops can surpass a GPU with more Gflops in performance, when rendering a game there is more than just single precision floating point going on.

ARM A57's would be able to give the Xbox 360 CPU a run for it's money, the clockrate really hampers things though.

Memory bandwidth is a factor. Switch is fairly lacking there.

The Switch does support a myriad of texture compression schemes natively in hardware, superior to that of the Xbox 360/Playstation 3 and Wii U.
So that gives it an advantage there.

In conjunction to that... It also supports Delta Colour Compression which bolsters bandwidth again. In some instances by 30% or so.

Plus Maxwell has Tiled based Rasterization, so it's able to more efficiently make use of it's limited resources verses immediate mode rendering.
It also has better culling than the Xbox 360, Playstation 3 and Wii U, so it does less work right out of the gate.

So it's only natural with big strides in GPU efficiency (That don't need developers to leverage) that they would be reflected in the ports.

If the Switch's ARM A57 CPU was running at it's full clocks, it would beat the Xbox 360 no contest.

But like the WiiU's CPU, thanks to it's out-of-order design, branch prediction, branch target buffer, better caches, speculative execution and so on... It can handle un-optimised (Aka. "Dirty") code better than the Xbox 360's CPU.

Now I am not actually sure if it's actually faster than the 360 CPU in the real world whilst operating at 1Ghz, because I haven't looked up the data/information to do an appropriate breakdown.
But I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you were right.

like i said before your whole argument is highly subjective, and opinion based, its kind impossible to compare cartoony games since realistic games require way more compute, then cell shaded  games. so comparing different art styles is pointless. You can go post at beyond3d a developer forum that only deals with facts, and claiming WIIU exclusives  look better technically, there will be different opinions, saying its' not true, or you are comparing different art syles, and so on, multiplatform games there is no debate, 360 ran most games better, this is a fact, and to me thats what the best hardware does. besides there is no pc part that has  Vec4+scalar  like xenon so it's impossible to compare to VLIW5 properly.