Can Doom 2016 be ported to PS360 gen? *ripped & torn*
- Thread starter 386dx
- Start date
It would be much more difficult, seeing as how 360 and PS3 used DX9 level hardware and Doom is using a more modern feature set than was supported on those consoles. With enough work and scaling back I am sure it is possible. The 512MB of ram would be another huge hurdle. That limitation alone could result in some really low resolution textures.
But considering what they did with the impressive and still incredible GTA V.
But considering what they did with the impressive and still incredible GTA V.
Im not sure I follow. GTA V is a very impressive achievement on PS3/360 that was later ported with improvements to newer more powerful and much more modern hardware. Doom would be the opposite scenario. Porting to far less modern and far less powerful hardware with extremely limited memory aka PS3/360; makes porting Doom to Switch look straight forward. With Doom on Switch it supports every feature that the PS4/X1 do, it just doesn't have the brute horsepower they do.
phoenix_chipset
Regular
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The Wii U cpu cores were completely ancient, so to say that modern arm cores aren't much better than pentium 3 esque per clock performance (disregarding cache advances and other tweaks) is simply ignorant.
The reason you don't see "cpu heavy" games on arm platforms (until the switch) is because arm chips have primarily been stuck in android devices, where there is neither the market for AAA games nor the low level hardware access for proper game development. What a surprise that mod would like your post lol.
Ok, I understand this would be more difficult but still the final graphic results would be "better" than the Switch port?
Are you just honestly asking that? Or you think that they would be better than Switch? The final results on PS3 would probably be worse than the Switch. Like Goodtwin said, 512 MB (shared between CPU and GPU by the way!) would be such a big bottleneck that graphics would necessarily look worse, unless you expected it to run heavily under 30 FPS. Plus dealing with DX9 era graphics there would be features missing on hardware. You could maybe implement them on software but it would bring performance down even more. Xbox 360 is a bit hard to judge given its somewhat more recent GPU with more flexibility (unified shaders), features (DX10-esque level) and EDRAM. In terms of graphics quality I think it would be PS3 < X360 < Switch, just because Switch has a more modern feature set and is way more efficient with the resources it has (e.g. FP16 support, Tiling rasteriser, Lossless Delta Compression, etc...). X360 could brute force it by using more power, but I still think Switch would come up ahead in the end.
I was asking that cause I'd expect that a mobile ARMv8 based console would theorically maybe still be not close to what the 360 has shown with its latest games beside the feature set of the gpu or the amount of ram. I'd theorically still expect a 80 watt consuming home console to be still more powerful of a 15-20W (?) portable ARM based one. But happy to know if I am wrong.
I was asking that cause I'd expect that a mobile ARMv8 based console would theorically maybe still be not close to what the 360 has shown with its latest games beside the feature set of the gpu or the amount of ram. I'd theorically still expect a 80 watt consuming home console to be still more powerful of a 15-20W (?) portable ARM based one. But happy to know if I am wrong.
You cannot just remove those things and make comparisons like that. They are fundamental to the systems you are comparing. Its like you are trying to compare two cars in a race, while one is missing two wheels
Additionally, like I said, its possible that some functions that the GPU does perform on the Switch would have to be offloaded to the CPU (or be completely removed, affecting graphical fidelity), increasing its workload with the corresponding performance impact. I don't know why you would expect a 12 year old system to beat a 2 year old one. There is a decade of improvements in performance and efficiency between them. Theoretical Flops don't tell the whole story, its how efficiently you can use them and I believe the Switch has the upper hand in that.
But if we compare a motorcycle with a car, results will probably be different..You cannot just remove those things and make comparisons like that. They are fundamental to the systems you are comparing. Its like you are trying to compare two cars in a race, while one is missing two wheels
Additionally, like I said, its possible that some functions that the GPU does perform on the Switch would have to be offloaded to the CPU (or be completely removed, affecting graphical fidelity), increasing its workload with the corresponding performance impact. I don't know why you would expect a 12 year old system to beat a 2 year old one. There is a decade of improvements in performance and efficiency between them. Theoretical Flops don't tell the whole story, its how efficiently you can use them and I believe the Switch has the upper hand in that.
I'd agree comparing two home console, but with a portable one probably other things were reduced to save power consumption beside having more features that not always will be implemented on games. Maybe the raw power of an old cpu/gpu like the 360 still could compete. But mine is just a theorical point of view, I understand mobile architectures really improved a lot.
I imagine that for highly optimised vectorised code the 360 CPU might still perform in a way the Switch would struggle to match (even more so for the PS3).
But there are probably more cases where Switch would win handily, with less effort needed. I imagine culling and decompressing on the GPU could be be a lot faster. And branchy, pointer chasing stuff like scripting should be a lot faster on Switch CPU. And most games aren't GTA V.
But there are probably more cases where Switch would win handily, with less effort needed. I imagine culling and decompressing on the GPU could be be a lot faster. And branchy, pointer chasing stuff like scripting should be a lot faster on Switch CPU. And most games aren't GTA V.
Riddlewire
Regular
I think so too. Maybe the X360, the PS3 is out of the question here given that it's technically older than the Xbox 360. The handicap for the X360 version would be, graphics api aside, things like compression, now technology allows for a much more efficient bandwidth use and compression and X360 used a more raw brute force approach despite it's eDRAM having 256GB/s of bandwidth. That was crazy, in today's world, where 4k graphics cards have around 400GB/s of bandwidth available..
it would be a major effort, a lot more complex than the Switch port, I'm going to assume the limited ram is the worst part of it,
but it's probably possible, we have a few example of titles mainly made for the PS4/XBone running on the 360 like Rise of the Tomb Raider, Titanfall, newer CODs, it's the same game but visuals are very different, we also have games like FIFA 18 which in the old consoles (and the Switch!) runs on a totally different engine and have some significant differences to gameplay.
but it's probably possible, we have a few example of titles mainly made for the PS4/XBone running on the 360 like Rise of the Tomb Raider, Titanfall, newer CODs, it's the same game but visuals are very different, we also have games like FIFA 18 which in the old consoles (and the Switch!) runs on a totally different engine and have some significant differences to gameplay.
It had 256GB/s eDRAM, sure, but you could only utilize the full amount if you were doing 4x MSAA. If MSAA was off, you got "only" the base 64GB/s performance - which isn't exactly terrible either for its time.
PS3 had what, 25GB/s to its GPU RAM?Similar threads
