phoenix_chipset
Regular
It's as cutting edge as the Xbox one and ps4 were frankly. Which is to say no console is cutting edge anymore
"Cutting Edge" *cut-off thread*
- Thread starter phoenix_chipset
- Start date
Considering the price-point targets for consoles I'd argue Xbox One X was pretty cutting edge.
phoenix_chipset
Regular
It‘s a nice machine and its gpu is on par with amd‘s best mid range card, but it´s also not vega\gtx 1080\ti with hbm\gddr5x. And then there´s the obvious cpu limitation.
In terms of power per dollar though it‘s excellent.
You can't ignore the price range of consoles though was my point. As there is just not going to be a $800, $1000, $1200 console.
So I consider X1X cutting edge in terms of a console.
Anyway getting off topic for this thread.
phoenix_chipset
Regular
Even so, it‘s a 2017 machine with a cpu that gets whooped by a 1st gen i7 circa 2009.
I can just as easily say switch was cutting edge for a mobile device, considering the price. Doesn‘t make it cutting edge though.
Every multi plat game is worth comparing, no single game can offer a clear cut picture of what is and isn't possible on Switch. Even though Ark isnt a performer on any platform to date, the performance does tend to match up with the platform at hand. Basically the PS4 build outperforms the Xbox One build, and that difference lines up pretty well with the GPU performance deficit Xbox One has. Ark will be interesting to see because most of the Switch ports so far have been 1080p 60fps on PS4, but Ark is a 30fps game on PS4. The 60fps games being cut to 30fps for Switch has seemingly been the low hanging fruit, and I would think that trend will continue. After seeing both Doom and Wolfenstein 2 make the jump to Switch, is there any real reason to believe COD couldnt show up on Switch this year? The COD games on Wii were 30fps and still had a pretty good fanbase.
We have enough comaprisons so far... it's not a single game... it's several much better optimized games than Ark : Doom, Sonic, Xenoverse 2, Dragon Quest, etc.
The answer is clear : the Switch is very far from the XB1/PS4.
You won't rewrite the history with such a joke as Ark... we all know that unotpimized games give uninterpretable results. See Redout on X.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
No.
1- Xbone and PS4 used custom chips built in 28nm, which was ~1.5 years-old at the time. There was nothing more cutting edge than 28nm until the Snapdragon 810 and apple A8 released almost a year later.
The Switch released with a SoC built on the 20nm process that was over 3 years old in Q2 2017, and mobile 16FF SoCs had been in actual consumer devices for 1.5 years by then.
2 - The Xbone and PS4 used brand new custom chips at release, with unprecedented power/performance ratios that pulled almost as much power at the wall in AC as similarly-powerful dedicated cards did from the PSU in DC at the time (120-140W).
The Switch released with a 2 year-old left-over SoC that failed in its original market because it couldn't compete with Qualcomm and Samsung offerings in power efficiency (you know, that one thing you'd want in a mobile device).
3 - Xbone and PS4 used GCN2 GPUs (given the ACE amount for async performance), just half a year after the first graphics card with a GCN2 chip appeared in the market, Bonaire in the HD7790.
The Switch released with an iGPU from the Maxwell 2 architecture, which was 2.5 years-old in Q2 2017 (first Maxwell 2 was the GTX 980).
4 - XBone and PS4 used Jaguar CPU cores, which were formally revealed in mid-2013, (a little over 1 quarter before the consoles' release), and actual PC solutions with it didn't really appear in the market until very late 2013 / early 2014. One can say the PS4/XBone consoles carried the first Jaguar cores to ever reach consumer shelves.
The Switch released with CPU cores from ARM that were first revealed 5 years before Q2 2017 and had been present in consumer products since Q4 2014, so 2.5 years before.
Honestly, the Switch still carrying Cortex A57 cores is closer in timing to the PS4 Pro still carrying Jaguar cores. Main difference being that the Pro had BC concerns whereas the Switch broke BC from previous gens completely.
By all means, praise the Switch's formerly-failed SoC all you want. But calling it "as cutting edge as the Xbox one and ps4 were" is just a plain and obvious falsehood.
Let's just cut that bullshit, please.
It's not even fair to call Microsoft's, Sony's and AMD's efforts in building dedicated and customized platforms for gaming as being remotely similar to Nintendo's and nvidia's lack of efforts in simply refurbishing a chip that had been built for Android tablets (and failed).
I'll rather praise id Software and Nintendo's software teams for accomplishing so much with so little, than to praise Nintendo for being misers.
phoenix_chipset
Regular
I like that you´re just using dates for jaguar as proof of it being cutting edge when the original i7 beats even the highest clocked and most engineered chip in the 1X. Also, the 7970 has all the features of bonaire and pitcairn and came out a full year before. This is ignoring the gtx 700 series.
And before i‘m even met with - Jaguar is a laptop part vs. I7 which is desktop - there are only 4 core jaguar´s on PC opposed to the 8 in console so the comparison is fair.
As for Nintendo being misers or not, you don‘t have any idea what kind of deal Nintendo got with tegra, you just like the idea of them taking a loss because of your childish hate for them. That or, you cling to the idea of them being incompetent.
And before i‘m even met with - Jaguar is a laptop part vs. I7 which is desktop - there are only 4 core jaguar´s on PC opposed to the 8 in console so the comparison is fair.
As for Nintendo being misers or not, you don‘t have any idea what kind of deal Nintendo got with tegra, you just like the idea of them taking a loss because of your childish hate for them. That or, you cling to the idea of them being incompetent.
Last edited by a moderator:
To me the Switch as a whole is pretty cut edge, lots of memory, up to date SOC, complicated design and assembly, active cooling.
Now it could have been better but with "if one could put Paris in a bottle" / sucky translation.
The issue I have with Nvidia/Nintendo deal is the details we are lacking ie most. The actual SOC does the job but Nintendo needs something better, by better I mean something that could scale to lower power consumption while maintaining the performances level and something that could scale further in the other direction too. Nintendo also needs something relatively cheap.
Nintendo needs to replace the DS line soon, needs a more proper/affordable home system. What Nintendo does not need is many different development platforms and hardware. I hope they are not stuck in Nvidia palms with nothing else coming than what Nvidia design for its own needs as it does not meet Nintendo requirements (or what I think they should be):
A real new DS, a Wii 2 both running the same games. Having something as the Switch set-up too many technical constrains but also limit their reach thanks to the costs associated to the design.
For something cheap and to have decent port Nintendo needs too follow ARM guidance wrt DynamIQ and maximize bang per bucks (perfs/Watts, perfs/mm2, perfs/€€€). Some extra GPU resources would help both low power operation and higher power mode.It needs if not cutting edge but better/newer process/lithography. The thing needs to get as tiny and cheap as can be while fitting the perfs requirement, one thing is for sure Nvidia as nothing like that, I hope Nintendo signed a solid deal (anyway sometime I wonder if the whole "business" (at large not even speaking of video games only) is sensical /there are others considerations going, cross ownership of share, "courtesy"..., etc.).
Now it could have been better but with "if one could put Paris in a bottle" / sucky translation.
The issue I have with Nvidia/Nintendo deal is the details we are lacking ie most. The actual SOC does the job but Nintendo needs something better, by better I mean something that could scale to lower power consumption while maintaining the performances level and something that could scale further in the other direction too. Nintendo also needs something relatively cheap.
Nintendo needs to replace the DS line soon, needs a more proper/affordable home system. What Nintendo does not need is many different development platforms and hardware. I hope they are not stuck in Nvidia palms with nothing else coming than what Nvidia design for its own needs as it does not meet Nintendo requirements (or what I think they should be):
A real new DS, a Wii 2 both running the same games. Having something as the Switch set-up too many technical constrains but also limit their reach thanks to the costs associated to the design.
For something cheap and to have decent port Nintendo needs too follow ARM guidance wrt DynamIQ and maximize bang per bucks (perfs/Watts, perfs/mm2, perfs/€€€). Some extra GPU resources would help both low power operation and higher power mode.It needs if not cutting edge but better/newer process/lithography. The thing needs to get as tiny and cheap as can be while fitting the perfs requirement, one thing is for sure Nvidia as nothing like that, I hope Nintendo signed a solid deal (anyway sometime I wonder if the whole "business" (at large not even speaking of video games only) is sensical /there are others considerations going, cross ownership of share, "courtesy"..., etc.).
Last edited:
The problem I have with this is ”very far”, which is a value statement that really is subjective.
Earlier, when the specs got known, the dominating sentiment here was that ”Switch isn’t powerful enough to run third party titles”. Then Snakepass came out, and the tune was ”Yes, but that’s an unoptimized indie title!”. When Skyrim was discussed it was always assumed it used the PS360 code and assets. Until it was shown that it actually was SE. Then DOOM, and now Wolfenstein, and I have to say even this early footage of Wolfenstein looks pretty good.
Nobody is claiming that the Switch is as powerful as the XB1 or PS4, but it is running the same titles, and not just the lightest weight ones. There mere fact that the latest Nintendo portable is capable of running the same titles as Microsofts and Sonys current stationary consoles at all is remarkable - and something that was widely rejected as impossible here.
And the mere fact that you will be capable of enjoying Nazi blasting goodness on your flights has to be considered a step forward for humanity. ;-)
But it is not really an up to date SoC.
It could be deemed more current if it was X2 but even then as a SoC it is more of a jump than a real evolution, which is why Nintendo could launch an X2 model as a 1.5 version that would not give any performance-visual decision design headaches when a game would need to work with say Switch 1 and Switch "boost"/1.5/whatever called.
Cutting Edge would be if Switch moved to a Volta SoC design; but there are no public Jetson models yet.
Even though some may think Tegra no longer exists beyond X1 it is more of semantics, because the requirement comes back Jetson development boards and ironially even Nvidia still use wording Tegra within their papers/blogs.
I would not call XBOX1 or PS4 cutting edge as well (in some ways they are advanced), but then I would strongly say one cannot really compare them to the Switch or TX2; different design scopes-focus.
Some weeks ago I saw someone actually playing Doom in portable mode. I have to say I was not impressed. Texture quality was really not the best and it looked very pixelated. It looked like a PS360 game, IMO. I found the downgrade more easily seen live than on YouTube videos. Previously the videos looked good, but live is kinda meh.
So we are currently at ”Yeah, OK, it runs PS4/XB1 games, but they look kinda meh portable!”
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-dooms-impossible-switch-port-analysed : how would you call a resolution that is basically below 720p, half the framerate yet still unstable and assets even lower than the low settings on PC ?
I call that a very large gap...
But this is not my point. We all know that...
It's wrong. Nobody said that. However, if you want to port a game like Origins on Switch, be prepared to see something that is completely different than the original game.
Until now, you have either : indie games/remasters or AAA games runing at 60fps on XB1/PS4.
Last edited:
Err, are you asking me to publicly quote shame some of our old time contributors? That’s not really something I do.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
I'll just bother replying to the tiny bits that are (barely) tangibly worthy of a reply.
Cutting-edge: "the most modern stage of development in a particular type of work or activity"
I wonder what you think of the "original i7" with a 130W TDP beating the latest Core i7-7Y75 in both single and multi-core sustained performance. Gosh what have those guys been doing for the past 10 years?!
Sea Islands introduces a greater number of ACEs (8 in the PS4 and XBone, 2 on Tahiti) for improved compute resource allocation, new instructions and significant gains in geometry performance (see R9 290X vs HD7970 with equal number of geometry processors):
Effort and investment from Nintendo was probably just as low as they could possibly do. Reports even say that devs had to chime in and ask for more RAM to get things working, otherwise Nintendo would be content even with just ripping out most of the Shield TV's PCB with 3GB and throw it inside a tablet.
Which is what makes them misers regarding the SoC for their 2017 console.
In mobile mode it frequently runs at 896*720. Volumetric lighting, ambient occlusion, texture resolution, LOD at mid to large distances, foliage density and pretty much almost all features that made Skyrim SE in the 8th-gen consoles.. well, the SE version.. are either toned down or missing.
Sure, it's using the newer version with the Creation Engine updated for Shader Model 5.x GPUs, as it should, but that doesn't make it automatically closer to the PS4 version than the PS360 one.
My personal opinion is that it stands in the middle between the PS360 and the PS4. The difference to the 7th-gens is obvious in terms of texture resolution and geometry detail, but so is the difference to the 8th-gens in almost everything else.
Take a look at the top multiplatform sellers from major publishers in the last 2 years: there's no Call of Duty, no Assassin's Creed, no Destiny, no Ghost Recon, no The Division, no Resident Evil 7, no Battlefield, no Battlefront, no Overwatch, no Final Fantasy XV, no GTA V.
But you're convinced that an indie title and 3 games from the same publisher (out of those a 6 year-old game that was ported to 5 other platforms) are enough to refute the dominating sentiment that the switch won't be popular with 3rd parties due to a performance deficit?
Nah, the publishers have had a Wii before, and investing in it didn't go so well IIRC.
The Wii U had more multiplatform AAA games on its launch window (Assassin's Creed 3, Batman Arkham City, CoD Black Ops 2, Mass Effect 3, Need for Speed Most Wanted, Splinter Cell Black List) than the Switch has had in its first year.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cutting-edge
Cutting-edge: "the most modern stage of development in a particular type of work or activity"
I wonder what you think of the "original i7" with a 130W TDP beating the latest Core i7-7Y75 in both single and multi-core sustained performance. Gosh what have those guys been doing for the past 10 years?!
No, it does not.
Sea Islands introduces a greater number of ACEs (8 in the PS4 and XBone, 2 on Tahiti) for improved compute resource allocation, new instructions and significant gains in geometry performance (see R9 290X vs HD7970 with equal number of geometry processors):
No, they didn't take a loss with purchasing the refurbished, old and failed TX1.
Effort and investment from Nintendo was probably just as low as they could possibly do. Reports even say that devs had to chime in and ask for more RAM to get things working, otherwise Nintendo would be content even with just ripping out most of the Shield TV's PCB with 3GB and throw it inside a tablet.
Which is what makes them misers regarding the SoC for their 2017 console.
How much of it is "SE" and how much is PS360 assets (or rather PC version's minimum settings) is up for discussion.
In mobile mode it frequently runs at 896*720. Volumetric lighting, ambient occlusion, texture resolution, LOD at mid to large distances, foliage density and pretty much almost all features that made Skyrim SE in the 8th-gen consoles.. well, the SE version.. are either toned down or missing.
Sure, it's using the newer version with the Creation Engine updated for Shader Model 5.x GPUs, as it should, but that doesn't make it automatically closer to the PS4 version than the PS360 one.
My personal opinion is that it stands in the middle between the PS360 and the PS4. The difference to the 7th-gens is obvious in terms of texture resolution and geometry detail, but so is the difference to the 8th-gens in almost everything else.
And >1 year after release, the 4 multiplatform games that came out, of which 2 are using the same engine, aren't nearly enough change that sentiment.
Take a look at the top multiplatform sellers from major publishers in the last 2 years: there's no Call of Duty, no Assassin's Creed, no Destiny, no Ghost Recon, no The Division, no Resident Evil 7, no Battlefield, no Battlefront, no Overwatch, no Final Fantasy XV, no GTA V.
But you're convinced that an indie title and 3 games from the same publisher (out of those a 6 year-old game that was ported to 5 other platforms) are enough to refute the dominating sentiment that the switch won't be popular with 3rd parties due to a performance deficit?
Nah, the publishers have had a Wii before, and investing in it didn't go so well IIRC.
The Wii U had more multiplatform AAA games on its launch window (Assassin's Creed 3, Batman Arkham City, CoD Black Ops 2, Mass Effect 3, Need for Speed Most Wanted, Splinter Cell Black List) than the Switch has had in its first year.
Also, people keep saying that the Switch is very impressive, but the reality is that the Vita was more impressive for its time. Vita ports were much closer to the 360/PS3 games from a technical standpoint.
Since the Wii, Nintendo hasn't demonstrated any particular ability to produce outstanding hardware... but we should believe the Switch is exceptional based on some mysterious data...
Since the Wii, Nintendo hasn't demonstrated any particular ability to produce outstanding hardware... but we should believe the Switch is exceptional based on some mysterious data...
It is a modern architecture, the feature set of either CPU or the GPU lacks nothing. It is not outdated by any mean.
The X2 should have better power characteristic but it is still a big chip and the balance between CPU/CPU seems failed with gaming in mind. If they can Nintendo should pass.
Well the thing is the new tegra are no longer designed to fit within the power envelop or phone or tablet, not even close. The same applies to productions costs, Nvidia is evolving in segments which are a lot less competitive than tablet/phone SOC.
Clearly the not the PS360 generation but those systems were pretty crazy in many regards still we got something not cutting edge but pretty great nonetheless a lot of RAM compared to the consoles of the past. Nintendo also went that way 4GB is an amount Sony considered for the PS4 for a long while. If it is about the SOC only there is not much to argue, not the greatest thing around at release.
I'm pretty positive with the system because it is a massive step from prior Nintendo hardware and the overall goals for the system are pretty crazy. Now as others I've my doubts about the deal with Nvidia and how this will develop, Nintendo got quite some things right, they can't get stuck, they need to capitalize on their success: they need hardware to move their strategy forward, Nvidia does not have such hardware at hand.
Last edited:
I'm not sure anybody find the hardware exceptional, anyway clearly the Vita was a beast actually too ahead of the curve. Its price, cost and the associated business model killed it.
Similar threads
- Locked
