RAM requirements alone are enough to make those games too demanding for the 360. This gen may not have been much of a leap in terms of hardware power, but most games coming out today would never be able to run on a 360 or PS3.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
What is the actual power of the Nintendo Switch?
- Thread starter BlackBanditSho
- Start date
RAM requirements alone are enough to make those games too demanding for the 360. This gen may not have been much of a leap in terms of hardware power, but most games coming out today would never be able to run on a 360 or PS3.
capylikesgames
Banned
I want to say in between Xbox One and Xbox 360? But maybe closer to Xbox One. PS3 and Wii U were so weird, they had advantages to 360 that were overall underutilized. It's definitely a step above last gen, because it's running some Wii U titles at higher res. I think it's even using an Nvidia chip that they themselves measured using the 360 as a reference point in their presentation.
This website rules sometimes
Why are you using a different metric for PC, though? And one that sucks for that matter
Looking at the linked results it doesn't. None of the serious sources give concrete answers about performance relative to existing consoles. Digital Foundry is more concerned about the end result and thus their articles don't express things in a way that would be convenient for the OP's question. GAF is actually the best place to get this answer but you have to sift through a bunch of jokes and stupidity before someone with knowledge gives a proper answer.
TransTrender
Gold Member
Is this 4chan copypasta or did you write all of that out?
What are you basing the "considerably more powerful" on? The NFS MW port? Architectural advances definitely make a huge difference, but what are these receipts that you have? How are you so sure that BotW couldn't run on a 360?
A reason that some games are PS4/Switch instead of XB1 is likely due to more sales potential based on form factor or target audience. Also, where are the receipts that say it is in the same ballpark as the the XB1? We know the XB1 was a bit harder to optimize for due to the ESRAM to start with.
Why would "Switch partners" come out and trash the power of the system? When have developers ever done that for a system they're actively trying to sell games for? I can't think of any, even the trash Payday 2 devs.
You're making a lot of very bold statements without there being a whole lot of direct comparisons library-wise between Nintendo and the others. If you have actual information, and not just jeff rigby-tier speculation about how the Wii U is so much more powerful than the HD Twins and the Switch is the same power as an XB1 then fine. You can't just come in and say "My post is the most accurate, believe me because I'm going against the grain of popular opinion" and expect anyone to jump on board.
Actually, I think you just got me. Can't be serious.
Yes, undoubtedly. The limiting factor for the Switch is thermals and battery capacity. A more power efficient model would fix both of those issues and allow for more horsepower in handheld mode.
Angel Whispers
Member
Can't stress this enough: Those are a bunch of fancy die shots and hot-aired words which don't actually confirm anything. I've seen it before, and it should be disregarded, because for it to be true, the collective horse's mouth (Nintendo, Nvidia and "third party" developers) would have to be lying - This is what I mean by a lack of robustness. They would be lying in that case, and research into this matter would determine that all have questions to answer. There are all sorts of technicalities and even legal reasons why it couldn't be an off-the-shelf Tegra X1, let alone an underclocked one. Furthermore, for that to be true, you would have to reconcile it with the fact that it is playing games that wouldn't be possible on those specs (Because the Tegra X1 was already struggling to keep up with games from the 7th Generation), while it never had the full-cream edition of Unreal Engine 4 on it. I suspect that many people have seen "Tegra" and simply assumed "It's an X1 chip" - the collective horses mouth has stated otherwise explicitly. Why their word isn't believed, but rumour mills and speculations are, I don't know. We don't actually know what customisations were made, but "clock speed" on its own isn't a "custom design". Some laptops share the same processor, but have different clock speeds; they aren't advertised and sold as "custom processors". There's a reason for that - They're not custom processors.
With compromise, effort and ultimately, resources
It would run like crap considering what we got on the WiiU with BotW performance. It's doable but much like factor rogue squadron games showing up on Xbox OG it would require decent port skills and time to really be worth it. In this specific case the ram alone considering what someone else has already brung up will make problems and threaten the scope of the game of the alone.
Oh I don't disagree that it probably wouldn't be a great experience, but he said they couldn't handle it. Not to mention that the Wii U trades off power in other areas. The game is built to target the system's strengths after all.
I'm not seeing anything "considerably more powerful", and I owned 2 Wii Us and bought most of the big games.
I understand your frustration with conjecture (though you seem to hold plenty of your own), but to say that, in practice, Switch is comparable to XB1 is just ludicrous. I mean, if you're going to make a claim like that, what could you possibly have to back it up with? XB1 launched with Ryse, a game that is, from a technical standpoint, FAR beyond any Switch game currently out.
ShadowFox08
Member
Based off of ports we've seen already on Switch VS PS4: Theoretically one scenario could ideally look like this(in terms of displaying power differences) for a AAA third party multiplat ports, if devs optimized the Switch version:
PS4: 1080p, 60fps
Xbone: 900p, 60fps
Switch: 720p, 60fps with nearly identical graphical fidelity but some minor downgrades to any combination of lighting, shadows, polygons, anti-aliasing, particle effects and/or textures vs Xbone and PS4
This is just one combination. They could have the same resolution, but half the frame rate for some games as well as a downgrade in some other effects(if devs choose to do so) also.
I don't know about demanding AAA 3rd party games like call of duty though, especially single player. I haven't taken the bandwidth to account, since that is Switch's biggest weakpoint. But I'm really really curious to see how it would work. All of this is just my hunch and based off of empirical evidence from what we've seen so far. So I'm thinking PS4 is at least 3x as powerful as Switch, and Xbone is 2x as powerful, after you count all the under the hood optimizations from working with a much newer and more efficient nvidia hardware vs older AMD architecture+mixed precision mode(not saying its a god send or anything) on unreal 4 engines.
ehhh current gohan was kind of implied to be on par with SSB4 Goku from the first 3 punches at least. PS4 Pro being goku with kaioken x10 is fairly accurate in GPU performance at least. lol
If there's anything I learned from the wii generation era for third party ports on wii, anything is possible. The Wii is easily like 20x weaker than the 360 in GPU power, but we managed to get really good ports of the call of duty games, despite the resolution downgrade, frame rate cute in half(to 30fps), and graphic fidelity of course(polygons, textures, lighting, shadows, particle effects, etc). The core gameplay was identical the 360/ps3 to a T minus a few missing features and the cut frame rate.
So that 360 game ported from a PS4 game you're talking about is definitely doable, but it will be scaled down significantly. It's more of a matter of if devs would make profit from the game in the first place to have it ported if anything.
PS4: 1080p, 60fps
Xbone: 900p, 60fps
Switch: 720p, 60fps with nearly identical graphical fidelity but some minor downgrades to any combination of lighting, shadows, polygons, anti-aliasing, particle effects and/or textures vs Xbone and PS4
This is just one combination. They could have the same resolution, but half the frame rate for some games as well as a downgrade in some other effects(if devs choose to do so) also.
I don't know about demanding AAA 3rd party games like call of duty though, especially single player. I haven't taken the bandwidth to account, since that is Switch's biggest weakpoint. But I'm really really curious to see how it would work. All of this is just my hunch and based off of empirical evidence from what we've seen so far. So I'm thinking PS4 is at least 3x as powerful as Switch, and Xbone is 2x as powerful, after you count all the under the hood optimizations from working with a much newer and more efficient nvidia hardware vs older AMD architecture+mixed precision mode(not saying its a god send or anything) on unreal 4 engines.
ehhh current gohan was kind of implied to be on par with SSB4 Goku from the first 3 punches at least. PS4 Pro being goku with kaioken x10 is fairly accurate in GPU performance at least. lol
If there's anything I learned from the wii generation era for third party ports on wii, anything is possible. The Wii is easily like 20x weaker than the 360 in GPU power, but we managed to get really good ports of the call of duty games, despite the resolution downgrade, frame rate cute in half(to 30fps), and graphic fidelity of course(polygons, textures, lighting, shadows, particle effects, etc). The core gameplay was identical the 360/ps3 to a T minus a few missing features and the cut frame rate.
So that 360 game ported from a PS4 game you're talking about is definitely doable, but it will be scaled down significantly. It's more of a matter of if devs would make profit from the game in the first place to have it ported if anything.
I wish you would've put this sentence in the beginning so I knew ahead of time to disregard anything you post.
RoninChaos
Member
Same as any Nintendo console- it causes Nintendo heads to lose their minds and try to defend Nintendo to the death for some of their decisions. At least it's got a great pro controller. That thing is AWESOME.
ShadowFox08
Member
I've only owned Nintendo consoles since the SNES days, and I'm always critical of their decisions. I've supported them this long because of their games, and I don't have the time/want to multitask with a bunch of other consoles.
lol that's total bullshit
Mister Wolf
Member
PC is Beerus.
ShadowFox08
Member
Who knows. Double the items for all 12 players in a race will definitely take more processing power.
I actually doubt Nintendo had double items in mind when making the wii u version though tbqh.
Fuck it. I'll bite, but power scaling(especially with kaioken) is questionable as it is..
Switch: SSB Goku (in Black Saga)
Xbone: Fused Zamasu
PS4: SSB Vegito/Beerus
PS4 Pro: Current SSB Goku kaioken X10
Scorpio: Whis
PC: Grand Priest
I don't even think Zeno has a power level, and just can destroy whatever the hell he wants cause "magic." Also, I think
Grand Priest is running the show.
primasaurus
Member
Wii U is actually more powerful than the PS3, and the Switch (docked) is far more powerful than the Wii U, it has full Unreal Engine 4 support as of now, so yes it is more than capable of playing last gen AAA games
Thats not how it works....BotW was designed for WiiU and just ported to Switch to be ready for launch.
Woah hold your horses, even when docked it's way way short of an Xbox One so temper your expectations.
Basically when undocked it's a bit more powerful than a WiiU, and when it's docked it's still show roughly the same graphics but in higher resolution.
nogoodnamesleft
Banned
While this is true, nothing on switch so far looks even remotely close to a launch Xbox one game (ryse) in terms of pure visual prowess. In fact I doubt we will ever see anything even close to that. People saying it's a bit less than an Xbox one I can't agree with. Maybe the fact that it can support current modern engines but that's it.
Wiiu was more powerful than ps3/360, switch is more powerful than wiiu. And then xbone and PS4 are above that. That's the simple way of looking at it. The other thing is switch uses modern tech compared to the dated tech in wiiu, and even according to some is more efficient than PS4 in some regards. Obviously​ not as powerful overall, but efficiency is very important.
ShadowFox08
Member
Xbone is 2-2.5x more powerful than the Switch in docked mode. Looking closer to 2x in GPU if devs optimize the Switch version of games to the fullest.
Also, devs don't have to just increase the resolution in docked mode. If they want, they can increase graphical fidelity or framerate instead. Minecraft is a good example.
ShadowFox08
Member
GPU and RAM(albeit slower RAM), but definitely not CPU. Games were hard to make for the architecture, and the clockspeeds were low. It was pretty bad compared to 360's CPU. Enough that it was embarrassing to see AAA 3rd party ports run better on 360 than on Wii U with more stable framerate and/or more objects on screen.
MilkyJoe
Member
Atari Jaguar Alien vs Predator was worth a purchase for that game alone. And DOOM was fantastic.
D.Lo
Member
No that's Wonderboy.
Maybe not with little compromise, but yeah, that's pretty much the gist of it.
The specs are right there on the Switch dev portal. It's just an X1. Stop lying to yourself. Everyone has accepted it.
First off - Ryse is still one of the best looking games this gen, so the fact that you have to bring this up to make your point says alot. Also there arent any Switch games that go for a more realistic style and are developed by a team know for graphical showcases like Crytek.
Obv. the One is much more powerful - but how much of it will you see on the screen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXX31BFwFs0
This is what people are talking about when they say that Switch is strong enough to handle current gen games. If a new TR for PS4/XBO were to be announced the whole thread would be about people saying that the game running on Switch would be impossible. The question isnt if it can or cant run....but is there enough money to make on Switch to greenlight a port.
Discokuningas
Member
Ok then. How do you explain difference in Mario Kart? 720p to 1080p with fixed frame rate? And that is just a port from very different architecture. Just like Zelda.
I mean, it's been about a generation ago...
But, besides that, Switch could handily beat the performance from last-gen consoles.
llien
Member
I'm not aware of the tech details, to be honest, but your claim of 2.5 times faster mode when docked goes well beyond wildest things I have ever seen in this world, could you please share a link to what makes you think it's a 2.5 boost?
The first search result is this very thread.
Lovely and ironic.
Monty Mole
Member
It was like 6 years ago. And Switch is a larger form factor than Vita and also has an internal fan to keep it cool. Tablets and 'Plus' phones have made the larger form factor far more accepted today, as long as the device remains relatively thin.
Switch is 1.25x of Wii U
while Switch is also 0.3x of Xbox One.
those are not same "slightly's". Also Xbox one itself having to do a lot compromise lately to catch up with current gen games 720p etc..No way they run at Switch.
also You have to remember those games have to run both docked and handheld . So switch power is just wii u because of this parity rule.
Completely unfounded statement.
GFLOPS for Switch (393) are about 2x the Wii U (176). A little more. I'm assuming he is taking the extra .5x to account for the upgraded architecture.
Doctor_Thomas
Member
I definitely find hardware power easier to understand with DragonBall.
sure bud, whatever it suits you.
Yes. But it will have like ten minutes of battery life.
What kind of response is that? You literally have NO evidence that Switch can't run those games. Especially considering most multiplatform AAA games are also on PC, meaning that they're capable of running on low graphics settings and resolutions.
I would say it's more or less in the middle of PS3 and Xbox One. It's pretty powerful for a handheld, but not that much for a home console.
It's capable of running MarioKart 8 at 1080p and 60 in docked mode, when Wii U only could 720p. That's a huge step from a home console to a handheld.
Breath of the Wild, meanwhile, was just a rushed late port. If Mario Kart could improve all that, I still don't understand why they didn't focus on Zelda for Switch earlier and optimize it better for launch.
It's capable of running MarioKart 8 at 1080p and 60 in docked mode, when Wii U only could 720p. That's a huge step from a home console to a handheld.
Breath of the Wild, meanwhile, was just a rushed late port. If Mario Kart could improve all that, I still don't understand why they didn't focus on Zelda for Switch earlier and optimize it better for launch.
This.
Wii U was actually more powerful than the PS3 in raw power, so it's more between Wii U and Xbox One.
It feels like people are being overly ridiculous in response to all the port begging. Damn near any game(maybe not 4x) can run on any "modern" hardware with enough sacrifices. Also, it seems as if big Western 3rd parties decided long ago that porting games to Nintendo hardware isn't worth it. I guess I would pull my hair out too like some on this forum if I only owned a Nintendo system.
Mr.Deadshot
Member
Most powerful handheld ever but judging on Zelda and Mario Kart not that much stronger than the Wii U is my impression.
But let's wait for Mario Odyssey and Xenoblade 2. Those two might surprise us.
But let's wait for Mario Odyssey and Xenoblade 2. Those two might surprise us.