Difference is that Jaguar in PS4 is 8-core CPU that runs at 1.7GHz while A57 is 4-core CPU that runs at 1GHz. If I recall, A57 vs Jaguar core vs core on same clocks had similar results in benchmarks.
The Playstation 4 Operates at 1.6ghz, not 1.7ghz.
ARM A57 and AMD's Jaguar should be roughly equivalent in performance per clock. But Jaguar operates at a higher clock and has more cores. - But you are just reinforcing my argument at this point.
Remember though... AMD's Jaguar was AMD's absolute worst CPU at a time when even their high-end CPU's were trending towards the low-end. - Perspective.
PS5/XB2 will have huge update in CPU, but possible Switch 2 will also have huge upgrade in CPU side in any case, I mean if just now curently imagine for instance A76 6-core CPU running at 2GHz compared to current A57 4-core CPU runing at 1GHz, we talking about huge difference, and Switch will most likely using more stronger and more advance CPU than latest ARM CPU for potential Switch 2 that would most likely be released in 2023, and that would be most likely enough to runs 4K PS5/XB2 games at 1080p at least in docked mode.
The Switch 2 will also have an increase in CPU capability, it would be pretty asinine to assume otherwise anyway.
The jump from A57 to A72 was 90%.
The jump from A72 to A73 was 30%.
The jump from A73 to A76 was 35%.
The jump from Jaguar to Zen you are probably looking at 400% or more. - 800-900% if it's an octo variant of Zen+.
And that is before we start looking at Zen 2...
Fact is... AMD spent years trailing the industry, where-as ARM hasn't... And that pays off for the current Switch in comparison to the Playstation 4/Xbox One. - But that all goes away next gen as AMD finally has a CPU design worth talking about, the performance delta on the CPU side of the equation is set to grow next gen, that's just a reality of AMD catching up to Intel.
No I didn't forget, I actually wrote its 20nm, and 20nm is reason why they couldnt go with higher clocks, higher clocks with X1 thats 20nm would mean higher heating and less battery life.
It's part of the reason.
The other is that it's a Maxwell derived part. - nVidia made significant engineering changes with Pascal in order to drive up clockrates for the same amount of power.
If they for instance used Tegra X2 you can bet they would use higher clocks for CPU and GPU. Biggest bottleneck for Switch is CPU not GPU, and that was obvious from day one.
I disagree, the largest bottleneck is the GPU. - It simply doesn't have the bandwidth/fillrate to drive higher resolutions... And that is evident in the many games that aren't even in HD/720P.
The CPU doesn't really help in some games though.
I apologize if you're sick of my constant questions on this topic, but overall, how does the ARM Cortex A57 in the Switch compare to the Jags in PS4/Xbone. Like, if the PS4 CPU was a 100, what would the Switch CPU be, like 50?
(I'm just guessing it's around half since games like Doom and Wolf 2 run at half the framerate on Switch without cutting back on CPU stuff like number of AI, physics, etc)
It really depends on the task, some tasks will perform better on ARM, whilst others will be better on the x86 chips.
In short... As how things are implemented currently, Jaguar in the consoles should beat ARM A57 in the Switch, mostly thanks to higher clockrates and core counts.
However, if you were to normalize everything and have equal clocks, bandwidth, latencies, core counts... Then I would think A57 would pull ahead.
It's difficult to really peg down actual performance numbers... Because none really exists.
Things like Physics can also muddy the situation as well... Some games will drive Physics on the GPU, whilst others on the CPU, really depends on where the developer takes things.
GTA5 runs on the Xbox 360. Anything that runs on the 360 could run on Switch.
Anything the Xbox 360 can do, the Switch can do better.
Again, point that some game isn't on Switch (at least currently) doesn't meant that game couldnt run on Switch. Actually we had multiply different insiders saying that current one of biggest problem for some biggest 3rd party games coming to Switch is size/cost/availability of Switch carts, and games like GTAV and CoD are heavily hinted examples. So Pro model still wouldnt solved currently one of biggest Switch problems regardles big 3rd party games. I mean there is reason why no one using even 32GB Switch carts (so 16GB is biggest cards that are using).
Also can't forget that... The Xbox One and Playstation 4 tend to have uncompressed 7.1 audio, which takes up a massive chunk of space. - And then 1080P FMV on top of that.
Carts are technically superior to optical disks on every front, except... Cost.
It costs to have large capacities, so something has to give somewhere.