Forums - Gaming Discussion - How much do you care about the graphical leap between consoles at this point?

HoloDust said:
Oh dear, I see we have yet another secret sauce in making. /facepalm

It's not "secret sauce", you can understand the basic concept of lower resolution being easier to process yes?

Like you understand rendering at 4K will tax as system more than rendering at say 720p? Right? 

There is no dispute about that. 

DLSS 2.0 simply lets you render at 720p and get an 1800p or even 4K image, and this is not theoretical, it's possible right now in actual games and you can see the difference. The PC game CONTROL already allows this you can have your PC render the game at a laughably low 576p resolution and it creates an image very close to native 1440p. 

There's a video that shows CONTROL running at 512x288 resolution ... this is basically the same pixel count as Perfect Dark on the N64 from 20 years ago ... and honestly for an undocked mode if you had to really go that low, it looks reasonably playable even at a laughable resolution like that. 

You can see it right here at 10:26 into the video, 540p versus 1080p ... 540p is 1/4th the resolution of 1080p, it's almost Wii/GameCube resolution versus 1080p which the PS4 sometimes struggles to hit. The hilarious thing here is the 540p image with DLSS actually looks sharper and better to me than the the real 1080p, lol. 

 

Lets face it, Nvidia is just far beyond AMD, AMD is just now releasing GPUs that can ray trace this fall ... Nvidia had equivalents to that 2 years ago with their RTX Turing GPUs. Maybe in 2 years AMD will have something like DLSS 2.0. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 23 May 2020

Around the Network

Not much TBH. I am thinking of getting the Series X to be able to play newer multiplats with ease, and have a 4K player for the game room.



Retro Tech Select - My Youtube channel. Covers throwback consumer electronics with a focus on "vid'ya games."

Latest Video: Make Your Switch Games Sharper! Improve Picture Quality without Hacks or Mods – Bit Sized, Episode 4

HoloDust said:
Oh dear, I see we have yet another secret sauce in making. /facepalm

If you think twice as fast SSD on PS5 will help bridge a little the gap between PS5 and XSX 10-15% GPU/CPU difference you are beat to death, even he done that in a thread this week. But to believe this reconstruction technique will put Switch 2 at par with PS5/XSX should be taken as gospel.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Soundwave said:
Nate4Drake said:

A portable hardware will never come close to what XSX or even PS5 can offer if you consider the whole architecture, CPU GPU Ram and SSD.  You cannot have a cake and eat it. You want the most powerful Hardware ? It must be a true Home Console inside a big box, like XSX. You want a portable ? You will have an underpowered piece of Hardware like the Switch is. End of the story. 

Wrong. 

There's nothing that special about the PS5 or XSX hardware. Nvidia's 2 year old Turing GPUs are as good if not better and their Ampere based 30-series this fall will blow both of those away. 

The current Switch is DLSS 2.0 was possible in 2015 would be basically very close to the XBox One in power straight up. 

394 GFLOPS to 1.2 TFLOPS yes, but then you have to factor in the Tegra X1 only needing the render 1/4-1/15th the pixel resolution and that gap shrinks very quickly. AMD also routinely claims a TFLOP number and routinely is outperformed by Nvidia GPUs that have lower TF performance as well, so take AMD's teraflop claims with a grain of salt. 

Even shit like SSD, whoopity doo, smartphones already have NVMe drives that are the same thing, Apple's iPhones have had this for 5 years already. UFS 3.1 which is going to be common in Android phones is 3GB/sec by the time Switch 2 is out UFS 4.0 likely is available which would be even faster than that. 

I'm so sorry to disappoint you, but XSX is an incredible piece of Hardware, powerful, balanced, very efficient, and you are getting a fantastic piece of hardware for the money you pay for.  You are talking about Nvidia GPUs which cost 1000$ alone once released, you cannot be serious, and I pretend I didn't read anything about your post.  

 Nintendo Switch was released 3 years and half after PS4, and though it is a very good and powerful portable, it's insanely underpowered compared to PS4, and embarrassingly weak if you consider it a Home Console and the Time of its release.

 Now let's go back to XSX.  A 12,155 TF GPU under custom RDNA2 architecture, a very good CPU, and a very cool Velocity Architecture together with a very fast SSD, all at 499$, I think.   The best Games on this machine will blow you away.   I still can't believe that there are still people on this planet comparing very expensive GPU that cost alone twice the price of a brand new console on day one...

If you have bought a Switch, sure it's not for the specs. It is a very nice "Hybrid" Console/portable with plenty of great and funny games to play. Please stop with your "non sense", and hardware talk.

 



”Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for the stars to change the world.”

Harriet Tubman.

Nate4Drake said:
Soundwave said:

Wrong. 

There's nothing that special about the PS5 or XSX hardware. Nvidia's 2 year old Turing GPUs are as good if not better and their Ampere based 30-series this fall will blow both of those away. 

The current Switch is DLSS 2.0 was possible in 2015 would be basically very close to the XBox One in power straight up. 

394 GFLOPS to 1.2 TFLOPS yes, but then you have to factor in the Tegra X1 only needing the render 1/4-1/15th the pixel resolution and that gap shrinks very quickly. AMD also routinely claims a TFLOP number and routinely is outperformed by Nvidia GPUs that have lower TF performance as well, so take AMD's teraflop claims with a grain of salt. 

Even shit like SSD, whoopity doo, smartphones already have NVMe drives that are the same thing, Apple's iPhones have had this for 5 years already. UFS 3.1 which is going to be common in Android phones is 3GB/sec by the time Switch 2 is out UFS 4.0 likely is available which would be even faster than that. 

I'm so sorry to disappoint you, but XSX is an incredible piece of Hardware, powerful, balanced, very efficient, and you are getting a fantastic piece of hardware for the money you pay for.  You are talking about Nvidia GPUs which cost 1000$ alone once released, you cannot be serious, and I pretend I didn't read anything about your post.  

 Nintendo Switch was released 3 years and half after PS4, and though it is a very good and powerful portable, it's insanely underpowered compared to PS4, and embarrassingly weak if you consider it a Home Console and the Time of its release.

 Now let's go back to XSX.  A 12,155 TF GPU under custom RDNA2 architecture, a very good CPU, and a very cool Velocity Architecture together with a very fast SSD, all at 499$, I think.   The best Games on this machine will blow you away.   I still can't believe that there are still people on this planet comparing very expensive GPU that cost alone twice the price of a brand new console on day one...

If you have bought a Switch, sure it's not for the specs. It is a very nice "Hybrid" Console/portable with plenty of great and funny games to play. Please stop with your "non sense", and hardware talk.

 

Not only that, it is thinking that because that 1000 GPU is stronger than the GPU in PS5/XSX means Switch 2 will be almost equal.

Now make the thinking that miraculously the Switch 2 is almost equal to PS5/XSX because of the DLSS2.0 with a GPU that costs 50 bucks, why would anyone buy the 1000USD GPU?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
Soundwave said:

You also are underestimating that Switch 2 likely will be using a better architecture than the PS5's GPU. Switch 2 would likely be an Ampere or Orin-based part ... PS5 is RDNA2 ... RDNA2 can't even beat Nvidia's 2 year old Turing architecture. A *laptop* version (which is less powerful than the desktop version) of the RTX 2080 outperformed the PS5 on that much balley hooed Unreal Engine 5 test (40 fps vs 30 fps), lol. 

Whait, where did you even get your RDNA2 benchmarks from?

Or are you only referring to the already debunked laptop video?



Nate4Drake said:
Soundwave said:

Wrong. 

There's nothing that special about the PS5 or XSX hardware. Nvidia's 2 year old Turing GPUs are as good if not better and their Ampere based 30-series this fall will blow both of those away. 

The current Switch is DLSS 2.0 was possible in 2015 would be basically very close to the XBox One in power straight up. 

394 GFLOPS to 1.2 TFLOPS yes, but then you have to factor in the Tegra X1 only needing the render 1/4-1/15th the pixel resolution and that gap shrinks very quickly. AMD also routinely claims a TFLOP number and routinely is outperformed by Nvidia GPUs that have lower TF performance as well, so take AMD's teraflop claims with a grain of salt. 

Even shit like SSD, whoopity doo, smartphones already have NVMe drives that are the same thing, Apple's iPhones have had this for 5 years already. UFS 3.1 which is going to be common in Android phones is 3GB/sec by the time Switch 2 is out UFS 4.0 likely is available which would be even faster than that. 

I'm so sorry to disappoint you, but XSX is an incredible piece of Hardware, powerful, balanced, very efficient, and you are getting a fantastic piece of hardware for the money you pay for.  You are talking about Nvidia GPUs which cost 1000$ alone once released, you cannot be serious, and I pretend I didn't read anything about your post.  

 Nintendo Switch was released 3 years and half after PS4, and though it is a very good and powerful portable, it's insanely underpowered compared to PS4, and embarrassingly weak if you consider it a Home Console and the Time of its release.

 Now let's go back to XSX.  A 12,155 TF GPU under custom RDNA2 architecture, a very good CPU, and a very cool Velocity Architecture together with a very fast SSD, all at 499$, I think.   The best Games on this machine will blow you away.   I still can't believe that there are still people on this planet comparing very expensive GPU that cost alone twice the price of a brand new console on day one...

If you have bought a Switch, sure it's not for the specs. It is a very nice "Hybrid" Console/portable with plenty of great and funny games to play. Please stop with your "non sense", and hardware talk.

 

RDNA2 is nothing great, AMD is just now getting to where Turing was 2 years ago, that's what RDNA2 is, two years behind Nvidia. Architecture wise AMD is 2-3 years behind Nvidia. These are not equivalent companies, Nvidia is far bigger and has better graphics engineers, AMD is smaller potatoes. Sorry if you don't like that but it is what it is. 

The RTX 2080 Max Q, which is a laptop GPU apparently outperforming the PS5 on that Unreal Engine 5 test is pretty funny even though people are trying so hard to discredit that news, but the engineer flat out says they were able to run the demo at 40 frames per second (PS5 was locked at 30 fps) and don't give me that nonsense that he's referring to a video clip, a 10 year old phone can run a video clip at 60 fps, gimme a break. 

The Switch would be on par very close to an actual XBox One even with the specs it has now if you added DLSS 2.0 to it, because it would mean then that the Switch basically only has to render 1/10th the resolution or even less.

Last edited by Soundwave - on 23 May 2020

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/242465/the-small-details-will-be-the-true-stars-of-the-next-gen-xbox-and-sony-consoles/1/



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Soundwave said:

The current Switch is DLSS 2.0 was possible in 2015 would be basically very close to the XBox One in power straight up. 

The current Switch does not and can not have DLSS as it lacks Tensor cores that nVidia introduced with Volta.

Soundwave said:

394 GFLOPS to 1.2 TFLOPS yes, but then you have to factor in the Tegra X1 only needing the render 1/4-1/15th the pixel resolution and that gap shrinks very quickly. AMD also routinely claims a TFLOP number and routinely is outperformed by Nvidia GPUs that have lower TF performance as well, so take AMD's teraflop claims with a grain of salt. 

Flops isn't everything. You are conflating multiple different aspects of hardware here and it is highly erroneous.

AMD's GPU's actually beat nVidia in Tflop benchmarks. A Teraflop for AMD is the same as nVidia, it's single precision floating point. Aka. 32bit FP.
The numbers you see in comparisons however are "theoretical" - But without question, AMD beats nVidia on this front in the real world and has done so for years, especially in Asynchronous compute workloads.
If you are doing any kind of intensive FP32 workload, AMD was the GPU to have because it's theoretical and realworld Teraflop numbers absolutely beat nVidia, which is why AMD's GPU's were the GPU's to have during the crypto-craze era... Crypto mining is entirely compute bound. Aka. Uses those Teraflops and not much else.

But here-in lays the issue... Games aren't all about ALU throughput which AMD focuses far more heavily on than nVidia who typically gives more focus to pixel/texture fillrate/polygon throughput... Which are also needed for games... Ergo, nVidia is able to decisively beat AMD in gaming, despite having less real-world and theoretical Tflop numbers.

So no... Don't take AMD's "Teraflop claims" with a grain of salt... The issue lays with individuals who propagate those numbers without any real understanding of what they mean or what they actually do for gaming.

Soundwave said:

Even shit like SSD, whoopity doo, smartphones already have NVMe drives that are the same thing, Apple's iPhones have had this for 5 years already. UFS 3.1 which is going to be common in Android phones is 3GB/sec by the time Switch 2 is out UFS 4.0 likely is available which would be even faster than that. 

Not all Smartphones use nVME. Apple has used it since iPhone 6 AFAIK.

Android typically relies on other technologies.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
Soundwave said:

The current Switch is DLSS 2.0 was possible in 2015 would be basically very close to the XBox One in power straight up. 

The current Switch does not and can not have DLSS as it lacks Tensor cores that nVidia introduced with Volta.

Soundwave said:

394 GFLOPS to 1.2 TFLOPS yes, but then you have to factor in the Tegra X1 only needing the render 1/4-1/15th the pixel resolution and that gap shrinks very quickly. AMD also routinely claims a TFLOP number and routinely is outperformed by Nvidia GPUs that have lower TF performance as well, so take AMD's teraflop claims with a grain of salt. 

Flops isn't everything. You are conflating multiple different aspects of hardware here and it is highly erroneous.

AMD's GPU's actually beat nVidia in Tflop benchmarks. A Teraflop for AMD is the same as nVidia, it's single precision floating point. Aka. 32bit FP.
The numbers you see in comparisons however are "theoretical" - But without question, AMD beats nVidia on this front in the real world and has done so for years, especially in Asynchronous compute workloads.
If you are doing any kind of intensive FP32 workload, AMD was the GPU to have because it's theoretical and realworld Teraflop numbers absolutely beat nVidia, which is why AMD's GPU's were the GPU's to have during the crypto-craze era... Crypto mining is entirely compute bound. Aka. Uses those Teraflops and not much else.

But here-in lays the issue... Games aren't all about ALU throughput which AMD focuses far more heavily on than nVidia who typically gives more focus to pixel/texture fillrate/polygon throughput... Which are also needed for games... Ergo, nVidia is able to decisively beat AMD in gaming, despite having less real-world and theoretical Tflop numbers.

So no... Don't take AMD's "Teraflop claims" with a grain of salt... The issue lays with individuals who propagate those numbers without any real understanding of what they mean or what they actually do for gaming.

Soundwave said:

Even shit like SSD, whoopity doo, smartphones already have NVMe drives that are the same thing, Apple's iPhones have had this for 5 years already. UFS 3.1 which is going to be common in Android phones is 3GB/sec by the time Switch 2 is out UFS 4.0 likely is available which would be even faster than that. 

Not all Smartphones use nVME. Apple has used it since iPhone 6 AFAIK.

Android typically relies on other technologies.

Yes of course the current Switch doesn't have DLSS, my point is *if* that technology was available back then for them and they could have implemented it, something that would increase the performance of the Switch significantly. They could render as low as like 512x288 undocked (N64 level resolution) and 540p docked and achieve 720p undocked + full 1080p docked no problem. Games like Zelda BOTW would run even above 1080p, at 900p a DLSS 2.0 could reconstruct that maybe even a full 4K resolution, but certainly 1440p or 1800p would be doable. 

AMD's GPUs have for years struggled to match performance of Nvidia GPU's that are 1-2 years older and have or often times run hotter on top of that in many cases. That's all I meant, when people see like a 2070 Super is "only" 9TFLOPS, that may well perform equal to a PS5 (10TF) or even XSX (12TF) ... it wouldn't surprise me. The RDNA2 architecture they have coming now is basically what Nvidia had almost two years ago with Turing.

Apple has used NVMe for about 4-5 years now. Android makers like Samsung favor UFS, UFS 3.1 can get up to 3GB/sec which is basically as fast as an NVMe drive. By the time Switch 2 is out there probably will be UFS 4.0 available if Nintendo wants it and that will probably be even faster.