By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Predict 2019 in gaming

zorg1000 said:
drinkandswim said:

Lol yeah okay the Switch is 360 gflops but running the same games at 4 times the pixels. Get real you guys have no clue.

Ummm its not? 1080p is 2.25x the pixels as 720p, not 4x. Also many Switch games arent 1080p so there goes that argument anyway.

Again, that is not how you compare power, you cannot just look at the number of flops to make a comparison, there is so much more to it than that.

You are right about the pixels. That being said. Dark Souls runs at 720P on Xbox 360 and 1080P on the Switch with a better framerate. On review the article from Gamespot i posted was wrong, but you still cannot discount that Switch is capable of FP16 operations. Thus is still has a max capability of near 800 gflops docked. Although im sure it will never fully reach that it still reaches higher than 393 gflops (obviously games cant use all FP16 operations). The remaining missing 200 gflops are due to Nintendo imposing a cap on the GPU for battery life and heating limitations. So i do apologize about the 1 teraflop article. However the Switch still due to numerous reasons is much closer in Power to a base Xbox One than an Xbox360/PS3 which was the original point i was trying to prove.

 

edit: Dark Souls on 360 actually runs on a reduced horizontal resolution 1024X720. Whereas even in handheld on the Switch it runs at full 720P. Which is about 30% more pixel rendering even in handheld.

Last edited by drinkandswim - on 05 January 2019

Around the Network

I think in 2019 there are some possibilities Nintendo will launch their own VR headset.

It will be the rumored Switch Pro revision: an all-in-one device to play games on TV and VR, with the same library and architecture of the current Switch.

I know it sound crazy but I think there are some hints pointing at it. Also, it would make sense from a business perspective. It would also be a great counter act move for the imminent next gen reveals.

I actually wanted to make a thread about it, but it's too time consuming. Maybe in a few days.

Last edited by freebs2 - on 05 January 2019

drinkandswim said:

https://www.gamespot.com/gallery/console-gpu-power-compared-ranking-systems-by-flop/2900-1334/

heh, "ranking systems by flop". Wii U and Vita would win on that ranking



jason1637 said:

Do you think the Switch will sell over 6m in 2019 and if you do do you think it will be it's peak year. I've heard that Nintendo consoles usually peak early.

Also how down yoy do you expect the PS4 and XBO to be?

Well, if the rumors about December are true then the Switch could very well have passed the 6M mark for 2018, likely pulling ahead of the PS4 to become the #1 system of the year. I guess we'll have to wait and see once NPD results come in.

For 2019, the Switch most definitely will pass 6M, and 7M isn't out of the question. Pokemon Gen VIII will be a significant sales driver, and we could very well see a price cut or hardware revision, which could stimulate sales as well.

I think the PS4 & XBO will be down anywhere from 15% to as much as 25% this year, how much depending on if they get a permanent price cut. And yes, I do think a price cut will fail to generate YoY growth or even keep sales flat. Assuming they sold 1M and 1.2M respectively in December in the U.S., the PS4 & XBO will be at about 53M units LTD combined as of the end of 2018, slightly more than what the 360 & PS3 had sold by the end of 2011, the last year before they started to decline. The market for home consoles in the U.S. does have a maximum size, and likely has only grown as a function of population, so they are reaching a saturation point this generation as they are running out of potential buyers. The PS4 is already on the decline in Japan, it was only up YoY in the U.S. last year because of short-term boosts from three games (GoW, Spider-Man, and RDR2), and if VGC is any indication it may be down YoY for 2018 in Europe. The XBO will likely be in the same boat at the same time; there are already indications that the X1X bump has faded in the U.S., as the XBO was flat in September and down slightly in November (October was up thanks to RDR2).



Visit http://shadowofthevoid.wordpress.com

In accordance to the VGC forum rules, §8.5, I hereby exercise my right to demand to be left alone regarding the subject of the effects of the pandemic on video game sales (i.e., "COVID bump").

drinkandswim said:
zorg1000 said:

That's not a counter argument.

And read what JRPGfan said, all you are doing is spreading nonsense that has been corrected 100 times on this site. If you don't understand how specs work than dont talk about them.

Lol yeah okay the Switch is 360 gflops but running the same games at 4 times the pixels. Get real you guys have no clue.

XB360 was around ~240Gflops
Switch is ~392 Gflops (but newer architecture, so its atleast twice the power of the XB360 imo)

Also look at the ram of the systems:
XB360 = 512 MB + 10mb eDram
Switch = 4GB LPDDR4

A big thing about resolutions is ram size requirements, the Switch haveing more will allow it to do things a xb360 couldnt, and also help run higher resolutions. Theres more to a console than just how powerfull its GPU part is. Stuff like the CPU, Memory Size, Memory Bandwidth ect... all effect how things end up performing.  The PS3 actually had a slightly weaker GPU part than the xb360, but instead a more powerfull CPU (that was hard to program)... in the end some 3rd party games actually ran better on the xb360 because of this.

Yes the Switch is alot more powerfull than the old PS3 or XB360.
Its still very weak compaired to the PS4 or XB1.

 

zorg1000 said:
drinkandswim said:

Lol yeah okay the Switch is 360 gflops but running the same games at 4 times the pixels. Get real you guys have no clue.

Ummm its not? 1080p is 2.25x the pixels as 720p, not 4x. Also many Switch games arent 1080p so there goes that argument anyway.

Again, that is not how you compare power, you cannot just look at the number of flops to make a comparison, there is so much more to it than that.

^ what Zorg1000 said.
Theres more than just how many Gflops/Tflops a consoles GPU part is, to the story.

also hes right about 720p vs 1080p.
Its basically 1m pixels vs 2m pixels (just roughly) so its more like x2 than x4.

Last edited by JRPGfan - on 05 January 2019

Around the Network
JRPGfan said:
drinkandswim said:

Lol yeah okay the Switch is 360 gflops but running the same games at 4 times the pixels. Get real you guys have no clue.

XB360 was around ~240Gflops
Switch is ~392 Gflops (but newer architecture, so its atleast twice the power of the XB360 imo)

Also look at the ram of the systems:
XB360 = 512 MB + 10mb eDram
Switch = 4GB LPDDR4

A big thing about resolutions is ram size requirements, the Switch haveing more will allow it to do things a xb360 couldnt, and also help run higher resolutions. Theres more to a console than just how powerfull its GPU part is. Stuff like the CPU, Memory Size, Memory Bandwidth ect... all effect how things end up performing.  The PS3 actually had a slightly weaker GPU part than the xb360, but instead a more powerfull CPU (that was hard to program)... in the end some 3rd party games actually ran better on the xb360 because of this.

Yes the Switch is alot more powerfull than the old PS3 or XB360.
Its still very weak compaired to the PS4 or XB1.

I agree the article I posted was wrong, but we cant discount that the Switch is capable of FP16 operations just because all the other systems (360/PS3 and Base Xbox One and PS4) arent capable of them. So the max gflops is actually 800 although im not sure if they are running any game on solely FP16 operations.



drinkandswim said:
JRPGfan said:

XB360 was around ~240Gflops
Switch is ~392 Gflops (but newer architecture, so its atleast twice the power of the XB360 imo)

Also look at the ram of the systems:
XB360 = 512 MB + 10mb eDram
Switch = 4GB LPDDR4

A big thing about resolutions is ram size requirements, the Switch haveing more will allow it to do things a xb360 couldnt, and also help run higher resolutions. Theres more to a console than just how powerfull its GPU part is. Stuff like the CPU, Memory Size, Memory Bandwidth ect... all effect how things end up performing.  The PS3 actually had a slightly weaker GPU part than the xb360, but instead a more powerfull CPU (that was hard to program)... in the end some 3rd party games actually ran better on the xb360 because of this.

Yes the Switch is alot more powerfull than the old PS3 or XB360.
Its still very weak compaired to the PS4 or XB1.

I agree the article I posted was wrong, but we cant discount that the Switch is capable of FP16 operations just because all the other systems (360/PS3 and Base Xbox One and PS4) arent capable of them. So the max gflops is actually 800 although im not sure if they are running any game on solely FP16 operations.

The PS4pro is also capable of FP16 operations..... but people dont say its a 8.4 TFlop system thats more powerfull than the Xbox One X.

Why? because in reality fp16 means very little and can often not be used for much.
So its basically irelevant.

The "true" measure is to compair its Fp32 gpu compute vs the others fp32 compute abilities.

Thats why I said switch = 392 gflops, while the xb1s = 1400 Gflops (1.4 Tflops) and PS4 is 1840 Gflops (1.84 Tflops).

 

 

"although im not sure if they are running any game on solely FP16 operations."

In most (3rd party) games I doubt developers even make use of Fp16.
And in those that do (even amoung nintendo 1st party games), its probably less than 10% of the games needed compute power thats Fp16, the majority will be FP32.



JRPGfan said:
drinkandswim said:

I agree the article I posted was wrong, but we cant discount that the Switch is capable of FP16 operations just because all the other systems (360/PS3 and Base Xbox One and PS4) arent capable of them. So the max gflops is actually 800 although im not sure if they are running any game on solely FP16 operations.

The PS4pro is also capable of FP16 operations..... but people dont say its a 8.4 TFlop system thats more powerfull than the Xbox One X.

Why? because in reality fp16 means very little and can often not be used for much.
So its basically irelevant.

The "true" measure is to compair its Fp32 gpu compute vs the others fp32 compute abilities.

Thats why I said switch = 392 gflops, while the xb1s = 1400 Gflops (1.4 Tflops) and PS4 is 1840 Gflops (1.84 Tflops).

Actually if you look at Far Cry 5 it is using quite a bit of FP16 operations.

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/software/ubisoft_details_their_use_of_fp16_compute_rapid_packed_math_in_far_cry_5/1

Its a newer technology but its still going to be relevant moving forward.



JRPGfan said:
drinkandswim said:

I agree the article I posted was wrong, but we cant discount that the Switch is capable of FP16 operations just because all the other systems (360/PS3 and Base Xbox One and PS4) arent capable of them. So the max gflops is actually 800 although im not sure if they are running any game on solely FP16 operations.

The PS4pro is also capable of FP16 operations..... but people dont say its a 8.4 TFlop system thats more powerfull than the Xbox One X.

Why? because in reality fp16 means very little and can often not be used for much.
So its basically irelevant.

The "true" measure is to compair its Fp32 gpu compute vs the others fp32 compute abilities.

Thats why I said switch = 392 gflops, while the xb1s = 1400 Gflops (1.4 Tflops) and PS4 is 1840 Gflops (1.84 Tflops).

 

 

"although im not sure if they are running any game on solely FP16 operations."

In most (3rd party) games I doubt developers even make use of Fp16.
And in those that do (even amoung nintendo 1st party games), its probably less than 10% of the games needed compute power thats Fp16, the majority will be FP32.

Its not typically used in 4K gaming if thats what you mean. But that doesnt discount it as relevant for the Switch. Since max resolution on the Switch is 1080P.



drinkandswim said:
JRPGfan said:

The PS4pro is also capable of FP16 operations..... but people dont say its a 8.4 TFlop system thats more powerfull than the Xbox One X.

Why? because in reality fp16 means very little and can often not be used for much.
So its basically irelevant.

The "true" measure is to compair its Fp32 gpu compute vs the others fp32 compute abilities.

Thats why I said switch = 392 gflops, while the xb1s = 1400 Gflops (1.4 Tflops) and PS4 is 1840 Gflops (1.84 Tflops).

 

 

"although im not sure if they are running any game on solely FP16 operations."

In most (3rd party) games I doubt developers even make use of Fp16.
And in those that do (even amoung nintendo 1st party games), its probably less than 10% of the games needed compute power thats Fp16, the majority will be FP32.

Its not typically used in 4K gaming if thats what you mean. But that doesnt discount it as relevant for the Switch. Since max resolution on the Switch is 1080P.

FP16 doesnt depend on resolution....... its just as good for 1080p as it is for 4k.

In far Cry 5, some parts of the water calculations can be done with FP16.
This means when you are in area overlooking alot of water, or doing things in the water, it might run slightly faster.

But the water part, only makes up a small amount of the stuff the GPU has to do, for you to see the game.
Thats why I said FP16 doesnt make a huge differnce.

There are limits to what you can use this tech for, without heavy drawbacks.
Which is why it wont make a drastic differnce for most of the game.

Think of it as a way to get like +10% performance in certain area's of a game.
Thats pretty much what it amounts too, it doesnt just magically make the Switch twice as powerfull.