Benetanegia
Regular
No it's not a better comparison at all. Consoles don't use Puma+ cores running at 2.2 Ghz, they have Jaguar cores running at 1.6 Ghz.
- Status
No it's not a better comparison at all. Consoles don't use Puma+ cores running at 2.2 Ghz, they have Jaguar cores running at 1.6 Ghz.
With 4.5W TDP, they rarely run at 2.2GHz.
But those Puma cores were also available before the implementation of the A57 cores you want to compare with.
Wasn't one crucial point of sebbi, that A57 cores were not available at the time, especially not in an 8-core variant? If you dig out benchmarks of a processor available 1.5 years or so after the release of the consoles, I should be allowed to compare those scores to a CPU released only half a year after the consoles, isn't it? And in the benchmarks you have chosen, the X1 in the Shield arguable loses against the older AMD chip despite having more than twice the bandwidth, a process advantage as well a higher TDP (it has likely faster graphics, but that wasn't your point). Maybe the Jaguar CPU cores weren't such a bad choice at their time neither.
Or to put it differently: Arguing that a later core design may be faster is kind of pointless.
Last edited:
Benetanegia
Regular
But those Puma cores were also available before the implementation of the A57 cores you want to compare with.
Irrelevant. We are comparing performance of A57 to the peformance of the consoles. Any other CPU is completely irrelevant. It seems like you all have completely lost track here. The idea is not to compare A57 with just every other contemporary CPU you can think of.
Yeah, but I fail to see how that is relevant either. Before the consoles how many 8-core Jaguars were there exactly? And after? Ok then... how many 8 core Puma? No?
And I don't think AMD just happened to design and manufacture the console SoCs for no real purpose and had them just laying around in 2013, not knowing what to do with them until Sony and MS said "hey maybe we could use them"...
As for the timeframes I've already agreed multiple times that A57 wasn't around at the time, but that's not something that has ever been contested, not from my end at least, so I don't understand why I have to constantly repeat this, post after post after post and still get the exact same argument back again on the next reply...
And yet, A57 was available since late 2012, even if no one used it until 2 years later. Heck both Apple A7 and Nvidia Denver launched to market before A57 implementations, but that doesn't really mean much either. It wouldn't have been completely imposible to create a SoC based on A57 on time, if it had been planned for as long as console SoCs were planned and with ARM and say Nvidia or Imagination on board.
No, if you want to stay relevant. How A57 compares to every other CPU is irrelevant. The only relevant comparison is to the cores present in the consoles, and those use Jaguar.
My point was the extra clocks helped a lot more than expected, as well as the higher bandwidth. Nothing compared to the PS3/X360 or even the friggin' Vita, but
Well I think Nintendo are more concerned with mobile technology development, and while I was one who thought the Switch was a hybrid but in reality it is more in line with being a fully focused handheld with some options to plug into a TV (going by the information so far suggesting the docking station only provides more power demand/maybe higher clocking of the core Switch and connectivity).
Their competition is what could be done with the next set of tablets and smartphones.
The Tegra X1 was already losing to some of the top current smartphones in terms of single-multi core benchmarks, while the top current Ipad Pro is nearly a match for the full shield console in certain benchmarks (yeah gaming is a different matter especially with Nvidia background optimising games), in mobile form the Tegra X1 is being pushed to some extent by current top mobile platform models and next gen will have the advantage.
I think this is the risk that Nintendo is seeing, especially as reports are suggesting that casual mobile gamers are focusing more on tablets/smartphones these days in Japan, a market Nintendo do not want to be squeezed out of.
Here is an example but one could expect even better of where the challenge would be perceived from in Asia-Pac: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10766/huawei-announces-hisilicon-kirin-960-a73-g71
And whatever comes out later on with the Adreno 530 and afterwards.
Both the Adreno and Mali (especially the G71-Bifrost) are getting better with focusing on gaming engine requirements.
A primary reason I think this is a custom SoC based upon the latest tech from Nvidia rather than the Tegra X1 Maxwell.
Cheers
Last edited:
What's the slowest SOC that could run a Skyrim port? I think a Tegra K1 could pull it off at 1024x600. Shrink that to 16nm and win! I really think you guys need to be more pessimistic in your Nintendo predictions. I think every Nintendo speculation thread in the past 10 years has overshot the mark.
It needs to be cheap-ish and it needs to have battery life.
I think a Tegra K1 could pull it off at 1024x600. Shrink that to 16nm and win! I really think you guys need to be more pessimistic in your Nintendo predictions. I think every Nintendo speculation thread in the past 10 years has overshot the mark. It needs to be cheap-ish and it needs to have battery life.
And going by 3DS and WiiU, it will sacrifice power and tech to achieve those goals and still fail to meet either.
[/TROLLPOST]
I'm not aware of the competition offering a hybrid console that can potentially play modern games / engines on the go. It's all relative
Sony PS4 and MS Xbox allow for remote gaming / game streaming on the go so thats an incorrect statement. It's all relative.
There are a few rays of hope this time around. From what I understand, the team that made Wii and Wii U didn't create the Switch. Nvidia is heavily involved as well. With the passing of Iwata, and Miyamoto saying he's not involved in the creation of the Switch http://www.gamespot.com/articles/mario-creator-miyamoto-not-working-on-nintendos-nx/1100-6428486/ it seems this system is being made by people a little more tech savy. I say that just by how sleek this thing looks in comparison to most past Nintendo systems (minus the DS Lite, DS Lite was sexy as fuck) this system might be a bit more competently built..
I'll be honest: I'll be happy if Nintendo just keeps shit standards compliant but lower "power" for the next several consoles they make. Being able to use similar techniques between consoles, even if you have to adjust for "power", will make porting jobs much easier.
And yes, I know power is a nebulous term(I put quotes around it for a reason) and I know often stuff has to be re-written entirely if porting from X to Y thing can do Z if Y is much slower, but not always. It depends on the game and the engine. Easier ports, even if the game isn't that stressful on the original hardware or gonna sell incredible amounts of copies, are always a good thing, you know?
And yes, I know power is a nebulous term(I put quotes around it for a reason) and I know often stuff has to be re-written entirely if porting from X to Y thing can do Z if Y is much slower, but not always. It depends on the game and the engine. Easier ports, even if the game isn't that stressful on the original hardware or gonna sell incredible amounts of copies, are always a good thing, you know?
I'm pretty sure this will be based on a custom Maxwell. too much evidence pointing that way, from the dev kits to sources, even Digital foundry says all sources point to Maxwell, but one other tidbit nobody really noticed a ubi developer gave a strong hint, he has known about the switch for a while now. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=220889631&postcount=117 my question is, does this have a chance of running ps4/xb1 ports properly?
720p, with the same graphics, and frame rate.
phoenix_chipset
Regular
I agree, the switch would not be my first choice, i'd rather have a traditional console with more power. But, due to diminishing returns and a stifling of technology (compared to the past) I stand by that 3x is a good boost. Again, esp. if you consider the new HD twins' cpu an acceptable generational leap.
Oh yes they are, donkey kong tropical freeze and Mario 3d world trash Ps3 games that go for a "cartoony" style, and they run at a blistering 60fps. I mean get real, Nintendo has always been around the top of the heap in terms of engineering and art direction.
The Wii gets a lot of crap, but really the graphics it was capable of were more than acceptable, aside from the resolution. And even then, just don't play the games on a 55 inch TV and they'll look fine.
Just look at some Wii (and GC games, for that matter) on Dolphin ; they look great. I'm okay with Xbox and gamecube graphics as well, really it's all up to the developer nowadays as to whether or not they can make a pleasing looking game. Panzer dragoon orta looks a million times better than your average blurry, chromatic aberration infested post processed mess we see these days. And the Wii was more capable than that console.
With Wii U, literally my only gripe was a lack of AA and AF on said 60fps titles. With max AF and some Smaa, games like Bayonetta 2 and Mk8 would look sublime.
Not really, the jump from 360 to Xbox one is about half the jump of PS2 > Ps1 or Gamecube > N64. 360 > Xbox one was a much larger visible jump as well.
phoenix_chipset
Regular
And I know there's no exact comparison of all these machines, but looking at flops and available bandwidth, saying Xbox one is around 6x the 360 makes more sense. 3x as far as the cpu goes.
Have you tried Vita streaming... It's fucking awful even with an optimal network.
Even on the lowest end of guesses it's 2x WiiU GPU, a quantum leap in CPU terms with 4x more RAM. If publishers see a market for their PS4/XB1 games on NS they will port the game to work even if it's at a lower resolution with lower asset quality and framerate. As I said before go look at Rise of the Tomb Raider or Forza Horizon 2 on 360, both paired back but still up and running on a console around six times weaker than XB1. It's all about potential cash for publishers at the end of the day. Who's to say Nintendo won't pay for a few big name ports aswell.
Also are you sure he's a current Ubi employee ?, I only ask as I've seen him post for years but was always under the impression he was a former developer from the PS360 days, not current projects.
- Status
Similar threads
