Support NeoGAF

[OrangeGrayBlue]

I'd be pretty sure chinner already knows

Doesn't do much for my situation

-----

Also, in threads like this I think it's worthwhile to set aside the numbers and just compare some screens. These 3x more powerful or 2.5x more powerful discussions sometimes feel kind of arbitrary. It's hard to say what that increase in power actually translates to as soon as we start talking about anything other than resolution. So, why not compare some similar games from Wii U to Switch? I don't think MK8D or other upgraded ports are fair comparisons. They weren't built for the Switch and they likely don't represent the full capabilities of the system. I think one of the more fair comparisons is Super Mario 3D World compared to Super Mario Odyssey: same franchise, same developers, but built from the ground up (presumably) for their respective systems.


3D World:

Odyssey:

I think this is one of the best direct comparisons we're going to get. Everyone can decide for themselves how significant an improvement this represents. Also keep in mind Odyssey may be bumped to 900p or 1080p by the time it launches.

 

[ozfunghi]

It's different levels of precision for floating point variables, precision meaning the maximum amount of digits in the variable I believe. FP32 is called full precision and FP16 is called half precision, and there are some things in games that require the use of FP32 precision but others which could be done simply with FP16 precision. Most consoles are built to handle FP32 precision and even though the code can have FP16 variables, these consoles get no benefit from running that code versus FP32 code- they process the two in the same way.

For a lot of mobile devices including the Switch and also the PS4 Pro the architecture is built to handle either 1 FP32 variable or 2 FP16 variables at a time (I think this is a simplistic way to describe it but it should be fairly accurate), such that it can effectively process FP16 variables twice as fast as FP32 variables.

I'm in no way an expert on this so someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's basically how I understood it from reading the various NX speculation threads and some light googling.

Basically. And about a year ago (or close to), i asked Blu and Thraktor about how common these calculations are that can be run in FP16... and it depends from game and developer, but it seemed that they are actually quite common and would provide a reasonable boost compared to a FP32 only system. Basically, it wouldn't be far fetched to get around a 35% boost from being able to run FP16 code.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=221642295&postcount=936

 

[MrCunningham]

No they hadnt even started they just decided to cancel it in favour of a switch version, i cant see the vita version being easier to do, its just too weak

I just meant that the UE4 engine would be easier to port to vita, given that the Vita really isn't all that different from the ARM devices that UE4 already supports.

But the game itself... they would have to resize a lot of art assets, and possibly cut up area into smaller chunks wit more loading. Maybe reduce effects.

 

[Rushersauce]

I just meant that the UE4 engine would be easier to port to vita, given that the Vita really isn't all that different from the ARM devices that UE4 already supports.

But the game itself... they would have to resize a lot of art assets, and possibly cut up area into smaller chunks wit more loading. Maybe reduce effects.

Vita means outdated, and I mean... It can barely run UE3.

And you are waaaaay overstimating what the Vita can do. Lmao

 

[Skittzo0413]

Basically. And about a year ago (or close to), i asked Blu and Thraktor about how common these calculations are that can be run in FP16... and it depends from game and developer, but it seemed that they are actually quite common and would provide a reasonable boost compared to a FP32 only system. Basically, it wouldn't be far fetched to get around a 35% boost from being able to run FP16 code.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=221642295&postcount=936

Right I remember that. It would certainly be interesting if any developers could tell us if this advantage is being utilized at all though, because otherwise I doubt we'll ever know.

I feel like I remember Thraktor mentioning that UE4 uses FP16 by default for all pixel shaders, so that would give UE4 devs a big benefit without much work it seems.

 

[ozfunghi]

Right I remember that. It would certainly be interesting if any developers could tell us if this advantage is being utilized at all though, because otherwise I doubt we'll ever know.

I feel like I remember Thraktor mentioning that UE4 uses FP16 by default for all pixel shaders, so that would give UE4 devs a big benefit without much work it seems.

Yup, the shaders for one, but not exclusively.

 

[Polygonal_Sprite]

Doesn't do much for my situation

-----

Also, in threads like this I think it's worthwhile to set aside the numbers and just compare some screens. These 3x more powerful or 2.5x more powerful discussions sometimes feel kind of arbitrary. It's hard to say what that increase in power actually translates to as soon as we start talking about anything other than resolution. So, why not compare some similar games from Wii U to Switch?

You need 2.25x the GPU power to run the same game at 1080p which was previously 720p.

When docked Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and Fast Racing Neo both show that Switch can not only do this but also improve texture filtering in MK8D and FRN aswell as improved lighting aswell as double the framerate in 4 player multiplayer mode.

Breath of the Wild was also dumped on WiiU with little optimisation and ran at 900p with a much more stable framerate than the WiiU version. After the optimisation patch it's now a much more stable 30fps outside of one particular area.

When it comes to Mario, remember that 3D World had tiny levels in comparison to Odyssey. The shaders and lighting aswell as materials have also seen massive upgrades in Odyssey.

 

[blu]

After my fist proper playsession with Splatoon2 I can say its lighting model is a quantum advancement over the original. Some of the surface materials in there are finger-licking good.

 

[MrCunningham]

Vita means outdated, and I mean... It can barely run UE3.

And you are waaaaay overstimating what the Vita can do. Lmao

Vita has a quad core Cotex A9 and a decent PowerVR graphics chipset. 512mb general purpose RAM and 128MB of vRAM. This hardware isnt different from what you would find in an Android and some of the older iOS devices. UE4 supports those kinds of chipsets but runs in a lower tier OpenGL es renderer instead of the full renderer. Obviously it would'nt produce the same kind of visuals found in something like the Switch in handheld mode, but it could still potebntially run UE4. UE4 would also more than likely be easier to port to vita than the Wii-U due to the already supported chipsets.

There are UE3 games that run on he Vita, but the engine was never desighned to work with this hardware in the way that UE4 was. So UE4 may actually get better performance here.

It will be interesting to see what the port team will do with Bloodstained.

 

[Astral Dog]

Idk but Rabbids is the most graphically impressive so far.looks cgish

 

[frankie_baby]

Vita has a quad core Cotex A9 and a decent PowerVR graphics chipset. 512mb general purpose RAM and 128MB of vRAM. This hardware isnt different from what you would find in an Android and some of the older iOS devices. UE4 supports those kinds of chipsets but runs in a lower tier OpenGL es renderer instead of the full renderer. Obviously it would'nt produce the same kind of visuals found in something like the Switch in handheld mode, but it could still potebntially run UE4. UE4 would also more than likely be easier to port to vita than the Wii-U due to the already supported chipsets.

There are UE3 games that run on he Vita, but the engine was never desighned to work with this hardware in the way that UE4 was. So UE4 may actually get better performance here.

It will be interesting to see what the port team will do with Bloodstained.

I totally expect them to cancel it

 

[VanWinkle]

It is one generation better.

Nah. Wii U to Switch isn't even close to the power gap as PS3 to PS4.

 

[Polygonal_Sprite]

Idk but Rabbids is the most graphically impressive so far.looks cgish

I agree that it's a lovely looking game but you know that particular scene is a cutscene right?

 

[shiyrley]

Is this because of the power difference, or because they didn't have PowerPC support for frostbite?

The Xbox 360 is PowerPC.

 

[Shadow Broker]

How much would have Nintendo had to lose for the power to be equal to the Xbox One is what I'm wondering. I always thought that was a bit of a mistake but it does seem to be working out for them anyways.

Does the battery technology exist where it can run a portable X Box one for a minimum of 3 hours?

I haven't read the whole thread yet but can someone dumb this down for us not tech people.

Like with Dragon Ball or Wii U duct tape together reference?

Wii U compared to Switch docked

And

Wii U compared to Switch undocked

 

[mavericktopgun]

Idk but Rabbids is the most graphically impressive so far.looks cgish

This isn't realtime is it?

 

[Skittzo0413]

I agree that it's a lovely looking game but you know that particular scene is a cutscene right?

This isn't realtime is it?

Judging by the rest of the footage from E3 that looks like it's in-engine, not prerendered. Obviously it is a cutscene though.

 

[YuriLowell]

What does the 360 do better than the Switch?

Voice chat.

 

[AlexFlame116]

Idk but Rabbids is the most graphically impressive so far.looks cgish

I really really like how Peach looks here. Don't know why. Maybe it's because the only other character there is a rabbid.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

You need 2.25x the GPU power to run the same game at 1080p which was previously 720p.

When docked Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and Fast Racing Neo both show that Switch can not only do this but also improve texture filtering in MK8D and FRN aswell as improved lighting aswell as double the framerate in 4 player multiplayer mode.

Breath of the Wild was also dumped on WiiU with little optimisation and ran at 900p with a much more stable framerate than the WiiU version. After the optimisation patch it's now a much more stable 30fps outside of one particular area.

When it comes to Mario, remember that 3D World had tiny levels in comparison to Odyssey. The shaders and lighting aswell as materials have also seen massive upgrades in Odyssey.

I know about the resolution improvements, that's why I said the talk of power increases start to become arbitrary once we move away from resolution. Resolution bumps are a pretty straightforward calculation, but things like shaders and lighting in Odyssey (and more complex geometry as far as I can tell) combined with more expansive worlds, as you mentioned, are harder to define in a "3x processing power" kind of figure. I think it's simpler to just look at the screens and acknowledge the results.

 

[sfried]

I agree that it's a lovely looking game but you know that particular scene is a cutscene right?

It's all rendered in real-time. Text boxes appear in these scenes, and they don't move forward until you prompt it too (which means the animation cycles/loops until next scene).

You should also check out this games unviel as its clearly shown it's "Actual gameplay" when they're running around the field showing the incredible draw distance and backgrounds (for a game of its type no less). It's confirmed that the game uses the Snowdrop engine, the same engine used for games such as The Division.

 

[Astral Dog]

I agree that it's a lovely looking game but you know that particular scene is a cutscene right?

Cutscenes in Mario are realtime 🤔

the other parts look just as good!

 

[ozfunghi]

Right I remember that. It would certainly be interesting if any developers could tell us if this advantage is being utilized at all though, because otherwise I doubt we'll ever know.

I feel like I remember Thraktor mentioning that UE4 uses FP16 by default for all pixel shaders, so that would give UE4 devs a big benefit without much work it seems.

Apparently, DICE has said that for the projects they're working on, they get a 30% boost on PS4 pro due to FP16. I don't have a quote, but somebody responded on an old youtube video of mine (Mario Kart) as a response to this topic, lol.

That's a nice bump though. That would bring the Switch to an equivalent of about 530 Gflops.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Nah. Wii U to Switch isn't even close to the power gap as PS3 to PS4.

There's also an abnormally long stretch of time between the PS3 and PS4 (7 years) which kind of skews what constitutes a "generation". It could be argued that the jump from PS3 to PS4 is actually more than a generational leap (which is an admittedly nebulous, undefined benchmark). Until this most recent revision, consoles were often replaced on a timeline of 4, and more commonly 5, years. This most recent revision is the first time consoles have lasted for 7 or 8 years before finally getting a successor.

 

[sfried]

For those in doubt that it's rendered in real-time, check out Eurogamer's direct capture video. It helps the game itself looks a lot of fun, too.

Edit: Adding this time stamp to highlight a particular cutscene.

 

[Rushersauce]

Vita has a quad core Cotex A9 and a decent PowerVR graphics chipset. 512mb general purpose RAM and 128MB of vRAM. This hardware isnt different from what you would find in an Android and some of the older iOS devices. UE4 supports those kinds of chipsets but runs in a lower tier OpenGL es renderer instead of the full renderer. Obviously it would'nt produce the same kind of visuals found in something like the Switch in handheld mode, but it could still potebntially run UE4. UE4 would also more than likely be easier to port to vita than the Wii-U due to the already supported chipsets.

There are UE3 games that run on he Vita, but the engine was never desighned to work with this hardware in the way that UE4 was. So UE4 may actually get better performance here.

It will be interesting to see what the port team will do with Bloodstained.

If I can see a UE4 game running on an IPAD 2 (faster than VITA), I'll believe you.

 

[frankie_baby]

Apparently, DICE has said that for the projects they're working on, they get a 30% boost on PS4 pro due to FP16. I don't have a quote, but somebody responded on an old youtube video of mine (Mario Kart) as a response to this topic, lol.

That's a nice bump though. That would bring the Switch to an equivalent of about 530 Gflops.

We also had a ubisoft dev say they got 30% boost on their switch project in one of the NX threads

 

[ozfunghi]

We also had a ubisoft dev say they got 30% boost on their switch project in one of the NX threads

My mysterious friend posted a link. http://gamingbolt.com/mass-effect-a...kerboard-rendering-30-improvement-due-to-fp16

Lastly, the developer also revealed how PS4 Pro’s support for FP16 GCN instructions brings about 30% improvement in performance while rendering the game in checkerboard mode.

 

[Polygonal_Sprite]

Apologies. I thought like most 'In engine' cutscenes it had various graphical effects and extra animations not possible in real time added.

The game really does look great. Taking nothing away from Ubisoft but it really shows how much more eye candy you can achieve when you target smaller areas and 30fps.

 

[AlexFlame116]

I might as well ask here.

Actually do we have a Switch thread or OT? I have a question about my Switch but I don't want to derail OP's thread.

 

[MrCunningham]

If I can see a UE4 game running on an IPAD 2 (faster than VITA), I'll believe you.

Ehh, I don't have any examples of that, but Epics website does list the ipad2 as supported hardware, though with an older 4.7 build of the engine... https://wiki.unrealengine.com/IOS_Device_Compatibility

You do make a god point, Vita may be a quad core cortex A9, but I guess it is clocked lower than the iPad2s dual core A9 at 1ghz. Vitas cores seem to run just below 500mhz. But the vita may have a better graphics core than the Ipad 2, they both come from the same generation of PowerVR mobile chip family, but the Vita has a quad core GPU, vs the dualcore in the iPad2. RAM, Vita has 512mb just like the iPad2, but it may be slower (I am unsure?). But the vita does make up for it slightly with dedicated VRAM. But at the same time, I never said that the Vita would handle UE4 well, I said it could potentially run it. Which I think is true. I dunno, maybe they could run a game like Bloodstained on the machine if they downgrade it in areas. Or with the development , maybe they will cancel it?

 

[ozfunghi]

I might as well ask here.

I haven't seen one yet, but i only started following Gaf for Switch news last month, when i got mine. You can start your own dedicated thread i believe, or maybe start an OT (maybe ask a mod).

 

[LordKasual]

See, this is where you confuse me. On one hand you mention that switch can't compete with the x1 as if it's reasonable to expect a tablet that weighs two-thirds of a pound to do so, and then on the other hand you admit that the Switch is powerful for a handheld and it is indeed a handheld soooo... I don't quite understand your qualms.

Also, I don't know what Nintendo calling the Switch a portable would have to do at all with the 3rd party response to it. I think 3rd party developers are capable of recognizing that the Switch is a portable/works as a portable without that being dictated to them by nintendo.

I also disagree that the Switch is going to lose ports as a matter of not being able to handle the games. In some instances, sure, but in a number of instances I think we'll see that plenty of games will work on switch if you just lower the resolution and eliminate some shader/lighting effects. It's exactly what was done for Snake Pass. Not exactly my definition of a "gimped" port but YMMV. It's nothing like the Wii where a "port" essentially required developing a conpletely different game with new models, textures, etc.

I dunno why that's confusing, of course a weak console would be better as a handheld comparatively. I don't actually have any issues with that...but the console is still far away from playing the most exciting new titles. So....yeah.

And, you say it doesn't matter....but I think it kinda does, to me anyway. If Nintendo was to no longer support the 3DS platform, then perhaps developers would develop for the next best thing? Of course, they would never waste money doing that because of the existing install base of the 3DS. But still. Nintendo just announced a game I actually want to play (Metroid: Samus Returns) for a handheld system that isn't the Switch, with no news or promise of a port -- and THOSE are the ports I would actually give a shit about, because unlike Rocket League (that i can play them on 3 other superior platforms) the 3DS is its own little thing....and I have no desire to own one. I would prefer it if this was no longer an option, but that's just my personal opinion, isn't really based off any kind of market analysis or any shit like that.

And as far as ports go? Lowering resolution is only going to do so much, it's not always that simple. Some games are just inherently more CPU/GPU intensive, and key features would fail / start looking really terrible when you start nerfing its features. There comes a point where it just becomes too much trouble to get things working the way they should.

Breath of the Wild is an example of this, the game was clearly tailored around its limitations, so it hides them in away that isn't extremely jarring to the player. But most games aren't built that way, the limitations may be tailored to a much higher minimum than the Nintendo Switch could provide nearing its maximum, and at that point the port would probably either be extremely ugly, run jarringly poor, or simply be unstable. And im sure developers really would rather just not bother dealing with those complaints from fans who couldn't care less about the specifics behind the why.

 

[ozfunghi]

I dunno why that's confusing, of course a weak console would be better as a handheld comparatively. I don't actually have any issues with that...but the console is still far away from playing the most exciting new titles. So....yeah.

This is really very subjective and up to the developer. Compared to the current gen homeconsoles, the Switch is a lot more powerful than the Vita was compared to the PS3 and 360. Yet the Vita did get Assassins Creeds and Calls of Duty and the likes. Developers know the Switch will sooner rather than later, fill the gap of the 3DS as well as (already) the WiiU. Due to that fact, it was always clear it would sell much better than the WiiU as well as the Vita. So basically it's up to the developers to actually try and get the most out of the system. But still some devs seem unwilling to touch the Switch with a ten foot pole, as if it were a GBA they are asked to develop for in 2017.

 

[Lonely1]

Ehh, I don't have any examples of that, but Epics website does list the ipad2 as supported hardware, though with an older 4.7 build of the engine... https://wiki.unrealengine.com/IOS_Device_Compatibility

You do make a god point, Vita may be a quad core cortex A9, but I guess it is clocked lower than the iPad2s dual core A9 at 1ghz. Vitas cores seem to run just below 500mhz. But the vita may have a better graphics core than the Ipad 2, they both come from the same generation of PowerVR mobile chip family, but the Vita has a quad core GPU, vs the dualcore in the iPad2. RAM, Vita has 512mb just like the iPad2, but it may be slower (I am unsure?). But the vita does make up for it slightly with dedicated VRAM. But at the same time, I never said that the Vita would handle UE4 well, I said it could potentially run it. Which I think is true. I dunno, maybe they could run a game like Bloodstained on the machine if they downgrade it in areas. Or with the development , maybe they will cancel it?

Vita is clocked at 333Mhz on CPU and 111Mhz on the GPU (400/222 with wifi disabled). The IPad2 is 1.2Ghz/250Mhz. The vita does has the faster video memory, but idk how would that affect its performance vs the iPad.

 

[lwilliams3]

Vita is clocked at 333Mhz on CPU and 111Mhz on the GPU (400/222 with wifi disabled). The IPad2 is 1.2Ghz/250Mhz. The vita does has the faster video memory, but idk how would that affect its performance vs the iPad.

With its default clockspeed, each of PSVita's CPU runs 3x slower than the Switch, and its A9's rating is 2.5 DMIPS vs the A57's 4.1-4.5 DMIPS. So, in terms of raw power, we have something like this for Switch.

PSVita -> Switch

CPU: Over 5x

GPU: 10x/13x/26x

RAM: Almost 10x

The thing that really surprised me is that Wii U's CPU is likely less than 2x stronger than the PSVita despite the big difference in clockspeed. Makes you understand more why devs were disappointed with Wii U's CPU.

 

[Cow Mengde]

After my fist proper playsession with Splatoon2 I can say its lighting model is a quantum advancement over the original. Some of the surface materials in there are finger-licking good.

I need to check out more footage of the game then.

 

[Felensis]

So on a sidenote: Shouldn't the Switch be capable of 4K + HDR thanks to the X1? I'm talking about the UI and media apps, of course. Even though HDR could be a option for games if you look at PS4. Which HDMI standard does the dock use?

I would love to see my popping Nintendo games in HDR glory!

 

[Pokemaniac]

So on a sidenote: Shouldn't the Switch be capable of 4K + HDR thanks to the X1? I'm talking about the UI and media apps, of course. Even though HDR could be a option for games if you look at PS4. Which HDMI standard does the dock use?

I would love to see my popping Nintendo games in HDR glory!

IIRC, the dock is only capable of outputting 1080p.

I don't remember where I read that though, so take it with a grain of salt.

 

[kc44135]

Not powerful enough for Virtual Console, apparently.

 

[Bobo Dakes]

Voice chat.

My dude walked right into that one.

 

[LelouchZero]

2x when handheld. 4x when docked.

1/3 Xbox One when docked.

I think it might be somewhat closer to 1/4 of the Xbox One's GPU when docked, however there are also things like architectural and memory differences to take into consideration so I'm not quite sure.

I also think theoretical handheld GPU performance is somewhere between 1/7 and 1/10 of the Xbox One's GPU depending on the clock speeds, as there is supposedly a performance mode which can increase the GPU's clock speed to 384MHz. My speculation is based on looking at the GTX 750 Ti's clocks, I chose this as the 750 Ti appears to be based on a GPU architecture similar to what is in the Nintendo Switch, and this GPU performs fairly close to the Xbox One's GPU.

How FP16 can be used to optimize performance is another story, there appears to be some confusion on that subject which I regrettably added to, my apologies.

 

[lwilliams3]

I think it might be somewhat closer to 1/4 of the Xbox One's GPU when docked, however there are also things like architectural and memory differences to take into consideration so I'm not quite sure.

I also think theoretical handheld GPU performance is somewhere between 1/7 and 1/10 of the Xbox One's GPU depending on the clock speeds, as there is supposedly a performance mode which can increase the GPU's clock speed to 384MHz. My speculation is based on looking at the GTX 750 Ti's clocks, I chose this as the 750 Ti appears to be based on a GPU architecture similar to what is in the Nintendo Switch, and this GPU performs fairly close to the Xbox One's GPU.

How FP16 can be used to optimize performance is another story, there appears to be some confusion on that subject which I regrettably added to, my apologies.

Well, if you divide Switch's theorical FLOPS number (393) with XB1's (1310), it is exactly 30%. A lot of posters round it up because it is technically closer to 1/3 than 1/4, and that a 2nd-gen Maxwell chipset is newer and should be a little more efficient than the GCN1.2 architecture in the XB1 and PS4.

I like that you looked at a second-gen Maxwell chip to analysis the specs more.

 

[ShadowFox08]

What is Switch's weakest link here in regards to ports? Would it be the CPU or RAM bandwidth? The CPU is like twice as weak as ps4's or so, but would the Switch need the same CPU power for CPU demanding AAA third party games, or is the current CPU power ok(not to mention amount of RAM and GPU scale proportionally)? And then there's the bandwidth which is much more than 3x less than xbone/ps4, though I keep hearing tile based rendering would help compensate a bit.

 

[Toni]

About as big as my di-

.....

So not that big, then.