Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2016 - 2017]
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
-
- Tags
- digital foundry
- Status
Silent_Buddha
Legend
You know this is the emulated WiiU version, don't you?
Just because you mentioned "well documented ..."
I'm curious what's responsible for the sometimes bad framerate in Zelda on the Switch console ... handheld ... well maybe "handsole".
- CPU
- Memory Bandwidth
- GPU
Whoops, for some reasons I was thinking they had started emulating the Switch which would have been impressive even given the documentation available on the SOC. I'd completely forgotten there is also a Wii-U version.
Regards,
SB
ProspectorPete
Regular
Is this what CDPR initially implemented on Witcher 3 to spite Sony? I can't believe why developers would do that (if the other platform just drops to 29)
That would be instantaneous frame rate which is a meaningless information.
Frame rate is number of frames over a second and can be anything in [0, monitor frequency] range. (Unless you drop frames but that shouldn't happen IMO)
Individual frame duration is interesting to see how bad it goes at worse.
Emulating Switch should be helluva lot easier. Heck, any Maxwell+ nVidia GPU should be extremely compatible straight away, and hackers can work with Tegra emulation as a basis. I imagine there's even a Tegra virtual machine for developers already!Whoops, for some reasons I was thinking they had started emulating the Switch which would have been impressive even given the documentation available on the SOC. I'd completely forgotten there is also a Wii-U version.
Regards,
SB
phoenix_chipset
Regular
Haha... although CDPR is more pro MS, I don't think so
It's my understanding that there are different groups within the development for different ports and this can lead to differences in addition to ones that crop up due to hardware.
I guess if a game would never drop a single frame, double buffering would be ok.
I knew it! We haven't had the old 'what is framerate' argument in quite a whiles, so bound to be a revisitation about now.
Defining framerates and methods of describing framerate fluctuations *spawn
phoenix_chipset
Regular
Another switch game with double buffered sync. I hope double buffering isn't set as the default v-sync method for the hardware.
This seems to be the first cross platform console title benchmarked so far...
PS4 is solid 60 fps (except occasional 50 fps drops in boss battle). Switch is 30 fps when nothing happens, but drops to 20 fps in every single combat. PS4 has better shadow quality, better geometry quality, longer draw distance (foliage), more decals and volumetric lighting (god rays). Switch doesn't seem to compete that well against PS4 as a home console. PS4 Slim (+ bundled Uncharted 4) is 15$ cheaper than Switch.
But Switch beats PS Vita hands down in this game. It is definitely the best portable gaming device around. I might actually consider buying it, if Blizzard ported Overwatch to it (and they managed to get it running at 60 fps at 720p handheld mode).
Rikimaru
Veteran
Switch has worse performance compared to Vita.
This is a disaster....
No, it doesn't. As soon as they enter the mobile mode switch can't hold the 30fps while exploring. It runs better on the vita. It looks nicer on the switch, but if you want to play this mobile, the vita seems to be the better option (higher framerates during battles).
About that "double buffered vsync" shouldn't that mean that the game would reach 20 or 30 fps. But it fluctuates quite much.
Isn't tegra prepared for gsync? That would be really a nice addition, but I don't think nintendo would invest in such a feature (because the display must also support it)
you mean, $70 for the joycons, buy the shield tablet (somehow tape the joycons on the tablet ^^) and start "switching"?
The Vita version looks like it's from the PS2 era. I wonder how this conversation would go if the Switch version was 60 fps but had no detail like the Vita version.
Looks like Switch is getting its share of half assed efforts, even from Nintendo themselves. I look forward to seeing how Skyrim turns out.
Looks like Switch is getting its share of half assed efforts, even from Nintendo themselves. I look forward to seeing how Skyrim turns out.
Interesting choice by the developer. Seems like they put very little priority on the framerate. They could have easily scaled this game down further for a better framerate. Graphically its not on par with the PS4 version, but its leaps and bounds beyond the Vita version. They mentioned the PS3 build being a decent match for the Switch version, but the Switch is running it at 1080p instead of 720p. The developer chose better visuals at the expense of framerate. When traveling it seems to run fine, but every single combat encounter dips the framerate. Even a drop to 900p would have probably been sufficient to iron things out.
Sure it's not meant to compete with PS4, but it seems devs who have ported the game have no clue how to сut the content or optimize, all their graphics cutoffs just look wrong.
Switch would certainly benefit from more detailed geometry near the camera and from half or quarter res blending and less particles and, with 4 GB of ram, it can certainly handle much higher res textures then those on the walls in eurogamer's screenshots, world space volumetric lighting on the other hand works pretty well in Zelda and it's also used constantly across the whole game, so dunno why it wasn't used here either.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Hilarious?
Hilarious?
That the vita is outperforming the switch obviously. That should not happen under any circumstance.
- Status
Similar threads
