Could we also think that maybe Doom (regarding the Switch version) could easily run on the X360? I imagine ARMv8 cpu being really powerful for the watt required but looking at screenshots, I was surprised but not that much.
But considering what they did with the impressive and still incredible GTA V.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.
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.That's not quite correct.
ARM-CPUs are really very specific. They are really really good when it comes to power consumption, but not for general purpose code. And still the Switch only has 3 cores. It might be better than the cores in the WiiU, but not much. There is a reason why we don't see any cpu-heavy games on ARM-platforms. The cores give us enough compute performance for most things (like giving the GPU something to do), but outside of that ARM cores are still far away from anything we are seeing in the desktop segment (even jaguar cores). Just don't take geekbench or any browser results. ARM has strength, and those benches most times just uses the strength of ARM but a weak spot on x86 cpus.
Ok, I understand this would be more difficult but still the final graphic results would be "better" than the Switch port?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.
Ok, I understand this would be more difficult but still the final graphic results would be "better" than the Switch port?
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.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.
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 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..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.
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?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..