Ganoncrotch said:
curl-6 said:
Alan Wake was 540p on 360, Homefront was 576p on both PS3 and 360, Tales of Vesperia 576p on PS3. Tony Hawk Project 8, 585p. Tekken 6, 576p on PS3. The list goes on; sub-HD games were abundant on PS3 and 360. Xenoblade 2 is clearly not a well optimized game, probably because, as we recently found out, most of Monolith was tied up assisting with Breath of the Wild.
When you have 32GB of cart space and the same of hard drive space, plus support for expandable memory up to a terabyte, Rayman being 2.9GB was simply a bad call on the part of Ubisoft.
PS3 did have an audio advantage versus the Xbox 360, but at the end of the day, it had to keep sound data in a tiny pool of memory by modern standards, less than a quarter of a gigabyte had to be shared between audio, OS, game logic, etc.
|
If you want to look at outsider games you can even go up to the next gen machine, you got Ark running at 640p/20 on the base ps4 or 720p/30 on the pro, with uncapped framerates but never stable or good in terms of what a machine can do and even worse performance on X1. Telltale games batman also pulls the resolution down to 640p on the PS4 and even lower on the X1.
Always have to understand that badly optimised games do not mean poor hardware.
|
The thing I don't like about that comparison is on all formats there are developers who simply don't have the programming skill to achieve good results. You can find unoptimised games to show any console in a poor light but I personally don't consider Monolith incompetent programmers who chuck out poor unoptimised games and other competent developers have gone down the very low resolution route to keep frame rates up on Switch in portable mode. It's not like there aren't far superior game engines running on ps4 that show how poor Ark is. Xenoblade and Doom are 2 of the most ambitious games on Switch handled by competent developers and both having to make very heavy compromises.
Again though you look at the Switch spec which there really is no debate on its very well documented and there are no surprises really in what performance level it has from competent developers. There is a CPU weakness and the GPU drops to very low performance levels compared to docked in portable mode. Memory bandwidth is a bit limited and there is pressure to keep storage resources low. In that situation there will be games that outperform Switch on PS3 and 360 in certain situations. If you have a game that doesn't require larger main memory of 4GB but has high CPU requirements and storage requirements it may be better on 360/PS3. Again we are seeing this already. Overall no doubt the Switch is more powerful especially graphically when docked but it has some limitations compared to other consoles. I mean you can flat out say its far superior to wii u because it excels in both gpu and cpu terms compared to that console. I can't imagine there is anything that would work on wii u well that couldn't be done on Switch to a higher level but it gets more complicated with ps3 and 360 due to their superior CPU resources and hard drive storage.
As a wii u owner I'd often read how superior it was to ps3 and 360 and then would play the games on my wii u and compare them to ps3 and 360 and realise it was often far inferior, lower frame rates, missing detail, missing features, slow loading, inferior sound, inferior joypad (missing analogue triggers), poor online functionality etc. I still see people today write the wii u is superior to 360 and PS3 and yet I know from experience this is untrue overall. The wii u's is a weaker console that benefits from fantastic Nintendo games. I'm not a Switch owner but looking to buy one at some point and curious about its performance level. It does feel many are ignoring the Switch lack of CPU resources but the games are showing this to be an issue. Portable mode clearly has limited GPU performance too. It's at a lower level in pure gflops. Something like 157 gflops in portable mode or 188 gflops with a performance boost at the expense of battery life. From what I've read 157 gflops is the norm in most games not 188 gflops. That's 19 gflops less than wii u and something like 50-90 less than 360 and PS3 in portable mode. Yes the nvidia is newer tech but many of the improvements in efficiency are taken into account in the gflops figure and other new features are not. Also remember Switch has less memory bandwidth although a lesser issue in portable mode possibly.
In the pc world we aren't seeing claims that the slightly newer architecture and features radically changes game performance. An old high end gpu of 200 gflops compared to a new low end budget one of 200 gflops doesn't magically outperform the older model even if one is DX10 and the other DX12. Sometimes the older model might actually perform better as it may have higher end spec elsewhere, more memory, higher bandwidth memory etc. It was designed with less compromises and cost reductions. On screen you might get one or two improved effects if you are lucky mostly nothing though.
Like the wii u though I'm sure the Switch will have many comparisons with newer and older hardware over its lifetime and the evidence accumulating now clearly show its strength and weaknesses already.
/Update%2073/71-072.gif)
/6-044.gif)
