Right. It could easily be 20 or 25.
Nintendo Switch Technical discussion [SOC = Tegra X1]
- Thread starter Alucardx23
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nintendo nintendont
Right. It could easily be 20 or 25.
This thread keeps getting crapped on by the same few members. Rather than keep cleaning up, we'll start issuing temp bans. Keep agendas out (even when it's obvious what someone's is) and stick to talking the facts. And I suggest everyone stop drawing conclusions until we have the final game released - we've seen games release at 30 fps get patched to 60 on different platforms, even.
True, but at
Snake Pass runs at a significantly lower resolution and typically one step lower on all settings compared to other platforms. Doom runs at a much lower resolution and closer to low settings compared to medium on other consoles. Snake Pass, Doom and NBA 2K18 are all suggesting the same thing. Ports to Switch will be lower resolution, in portable mode 540p seems like a likely target, lower settings across the board with some effects excluded all together, and 60fps games will likely be 30fps.
Possibly, but user impressions all seemed positive. I am pretty confident that DF is pretty sensitive to framerate drops, and if it was running at 20-25fps, they wouldn't have come away impressed. There is still over 2 months left to iron things out. I believe they will make it a priority to maintain that 30fps in the final product.
It's more the question of "performance" here. Doom seems to be heavily "modified" here. The good thing about the switch is, it has all the modern features, but not the performance of current-gen consoles. They took half the framerate (with one blow you just need half the computing power). Than they reduced the resolution significantly. 540p is just a guess, but even if it is just half the pixel count of xb1/ps4, we now need (because of the 30fps) only a quarter of the computing power the other consoles deliver.
Then they also reduced texture quality and other effects, too. So there is now less than a quarter of the power needed to get the thing running.
There is really nothing special about that right now, it is just nice how good the game still looks. Much of the visual experience should already be compensated just because of that small Switch screen in portable mode.
Don't forget, the switch has still more computing power than xb360 or ps3, so that's the level were the switch is going. E.G. Rage should also run and look good on this device.
Doom for the switch really shows how graphics have developed in the years. You don't need much to get nice looking/modern graphics, but you need much computing power if you want to increase the visual experience a bit.
Why did you feel like you had to explain all that to me? That is nothing I do not know already. I will just add that geometry on the other hand seems to be left untouched and that is impressive. When Doom was announced for Switch I was expecting to see lower polygon count models and that does not seem to be the case.
In any case, since:
a) DF (not me) went ahead and did a video comparing it to the low spec PC version,
b) found that Switch version is broadly equivalent to the PC version and felt like it played better than it,
c) Switch uses 5W of power undocked and the PC used probably does not consume less than 50W (Athlon X4 has a TDP of 25W, GT1030 has a TDP of 30W, plus motherboard, RAM, HDD...) plus monitor,
d) the conclusion can only be that the Switch is indeed something special by being extremely efficient, since it compares quite favourably against a system that consumes 10 times its power! Yes, when compared with a more modern CPU, the difference is probably not as pronounced, but it will not be at parity for sure.
I cannot see how anyone can deny this. When it was revealed that Switch was indeed using an off the shelf Tegra X1 we were all quick (myself included) in saying it would bomb. After all games that look way worse than Doom ran like a dog on Shield TV (Android is probably one of the culprits as well there), which uses the same chipset. Switch is starting to punch above what most of us expected when it was launched.
Last edited:
Well doom 3 shield sure does not look as good as doom switch, but it's running at 1080P/60fps so it might be as capable as the switch, if optimised specially for the device, who knows.
Well Doom 3 is very old game. I'm talking about ports from the PS3 / Xbox 360 era like Resident Evil 5. DF tested it and it ran awfully bad, most of the time under 30 fps.
You seem to forget that the switch has a state of the art GPU. Not the fastest, but it has all the new features inside. Doom 3 (and also the port) is just an old game, heavily optimized on old architectures (if I correctly remember it used heavily the stencil buffer etc), doesn't use newer features and as Karamzov wrote, it was a full-HD title. Now we seem to be sub-HD which really takes much pressure from the GPU and memory-system. If the 520p are correct it would be less than 4 times the pixel count of a full-hd title.
Yes the switch is a low power system, but does it really only consume 5w, I remember something about 15W because of the screen and the cooling solution?
There were also some games on the ipads that really looked impressive, but most times it only were the "new" features that made those games so impressive looking technically it was not so much for the GPU.
But I really don't get it why DF is so impressed with this game. We saw games on the PSP back than and the games almost looked like PS2 games, than the Vita came out and the games looked almost like PS3 games (thanks to the small screen), now the Switch is out and the games almost look like PS3/xbox360 + "new GPU-features"-games. That's not impressive at all, just evolution. Yes a revolution if you only saw a 3DS-games before, but not if you had a Vita before.
11 Watts drawn when docked. 9W max brightness. 7W min brightness. Source. So some 6+ watts-ish portable mode excluding screen.
DOOM confirmed to be running 30fps:
http://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/...at-30fps-multiplayer-download-is-9-gb-w504975
(yes I know Rolling Stone but it is via Glixel a gaming outlet that was folded into them)
http://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/...at-30fps-multiplayer-download-is-9-gb-w504975
(yes I know Rolling Stone but it is via Glixel a gaming outlet that was folded into them)
We have official screenshots from bethesda probably from docked version, it clearly looks sub hd.
I'm sorry but I have a PS Vita and the majority of games for it do not really look like PS3 games. They look more like HD versions of PS2 games with the odd first party like Uncharted looking better.
But even worse is saying that PSP games looked like PS2 games. I'm sorry but did you have one at all? They were closer to PS1 last games than anything PS2.
Still, your point is not without merit. Let's say that they are experiencing the same awe that most people did when PSP and Vita were presented. The difference is that back then no one had reactions like "it sucks, it's a fail etc, not impressive, etc.." Is it because its Nintendo, the black Swan of the console market? Why were those consoles impressive at the time and now suddenly Switch isn't? At least it does something no one did before, connect to a TV (yes PSP had TV out but lacked detached / external controls, so it was not practical to play like that). I seriously don't get all the hate and indifference. Don't we want for companies to innovate and bring new ideas, concepts etc? Like I said before, I've never owned a Nintendo device in my life, but I applaud their attitude.
Last edited:
Is this a joke ? Snake Pass doesn't even run at 900p on PS4 and runs at 30fps. Doom basically runs at 1080p on PS4 and at 60fps... it's not even comparable, i'm sorry.
With doom, we have a much lower resolution, lower assets and an unstable framerate at 30fps. In Snake Pass, the Switch version (undocked) only has a lower resolution and lower assets.
1536x864 vs 844x475 = +213%
1920x1080 vs 960x540 (could be even lower) = +300% (actually +700% if you include the framerate difference)
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...ke-pass-on-switch-holds-up-nicely-against-ps4
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-doom-face-off
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-hands-on-with-doom-on-switch
Even if the final version is a little better, that doesn't change anything to my point.
Last edited:
You are too hung up on your opinion that Snake Pass is unimpressive on PS4/X1, and therefore you want to simply dismiss the results in its entirety. You are ignoring the fact that while it may be true that Snake Pass isn't all that impressive on PS4/X1, perhaps its not that impressive on Switch either. Think of it this way, Doom will likely render at a higher resolution than Snake Pass on Switch. This is why we need many titles to compare to get a definitive answer regarding what it takes to move AAA multi plat titles form PS4/X1 to Switch. So far, big reductions in resolution are pretty much a guarantee, and if the game is 60fps on PS4/X1, then the move to 30fps on Switch seems likely.
These consoles are not unique like the old days. There is no secret sauce. Switch ports wont feature some soft of magic, and will be pretty easy to spot the compromises the developer made to make the port happen. In portable mode the Switch is a 200Glfop machine, or about 1/8th the performance of the PS4. A 540p version of Doom, a pretty darn impressive PS4 game, on a portable unit released within the same generation is pretty impressive.
I believe some people are getting hung up on the idea that Switch is a home console, and want to make direct comparisons. Switch from a hardware perspective must perform under the same constraints as a dedicated portable, and therefore should be evaluated as such. Perhaps you are not up for making compromises on your home console experience in lue of having portability, but then you simply aren't a potential Switch candidate, and that is ok, but you do not make up the landscape of the consumer market in its entirety. Just like PC guys who cannot fathom gaming on an Xbox One or PS4, it doesn't make them bad products, but simply target a different consumer.
The game runs at the same resolution on PS4/XB1. You already have a clear indication that it doesn't utilize the PS4 hardware.
This is contradicted by all the other evidence we have so far : Doom, Xenoverse 2, DQH2, 2k18.
Snake Pass gap >>
Doom gap >>>>>
See above.
Maybe, but not by much...
960x540 vs 844x475 = +29%
Could be better or could be worse in the final game : http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=249548409&postcount=961
Let's see.
And if the game is 30fps ? No port ? If Snake Pass is a good example, like you said, then we should have no problem to see 900p/30fps AAA games (XB1 version) ported on Switch...
Snake Pass : 900p/30fps on XB1
Andromeda : 900p/30fps on XB1
Last edited:
How exactly? All these titles have the expected sacrifices in order to convert to Switch. Doesn't Dragonball even render in 1080p 60fps single player with two players on screen? Not suggesting that it is the pinnacle of what is possible, but none the less holds up rather well on the conversion to Switch.
60 fps games will always make the transition easier because the reduction to 30fps frees up a significantly amount of resources. Its the quickest simplest compromises to make, and developers are wise to make it.