I imagine most games on PC/Xbox One/PS4 could be ported to the Switch but it would take a lot more time and money to port to the Switch than between those three platforms and at this point most third parties don't think it's worth it.
-
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
I imagine most games on PC/Xbox One/PS4 could be ported to the Switch but it would take a lot more time and money to port to the Switch than between those three platforms and at this point most third parties don't think it's worth it.
Yeah you are right ofc. but this is really superficial. Some people in this thread say you can port rise of the tomb raider to the switch. You can also, technically, "port" a ps4 game to a ps2. But as you say, this things are not financial feasable because of the power gap is too far away to justify the potential revenue that is gained by this. Why discuss something that has no reallife application?
Memorabilia
Member
I just came in here to see pix of shit duct-taped together. Disappointed.
But rise of the tomb raider did get a stellar port to the Xbox 360 so if they feel like they have a financial incentive they can do good ports to much inferior hardware.
seems like you did not read my post at all, ok then
I just got linked back to this thread from that vid... This thread is so meta.
I don't understand why you would use an example like porting ps4 games to ps2 and try to make a point from it when we have examples of ports to old hardware that isn't ancient like the PS2.
How about the power to kill a yak, from 300 yards....WITH MIND BULLETS!
That's telekinesis Kyle.
Do we know that FIFA is a PS3 port? Also, worth noting that Gamecube wasn't just the last time they 'achieved' parity with competitors, it was the last time they tried.
That's telekinesis Kyle.
Do we know that FIFA is a PS3 port? Also, worth noting that Gamecube wasn't just the last time they 'achieved' parity with competitors, it was the last time they tried.
to examplify the point that because something is technicly possible its not feasible
1)As i have already said before i didn't say that the power gap between docked and undocked is comparable to the one between PS4 and Vita, it was just an example to make the concept clear, i could have used PS3 and Vita, PS3 and PS4 and so on, it wouldn't have changed anything because that part of my post wasn't about actual power but about the limits of the docked mode.
2)Killzone Mercenary WAS based on a ps3 game, it was made with a modified version of the Killzone 3 engine, search on internet if you don't trust me. Obviously Mercenary isn't exactly like Killzone 3 but you are probably the only one to think that Killzone looks like a XBox game.
3)Using as examples bad ports of games that were made for completely different hardwares ported by third party developers that didn't have much confidence with vita is the very definition of cherrypicking exactly like posting Virtua Tennis 4 to say that Vita is as powerful as the PS3 is cherrypicking.
Comparing the best first party exclusives, that's how you do fair examples and infact Killzone 3, Killzone Mercenary, Zelda and Horizon are all among the best first party exclusives hence the best way to compare what an hardware can do.
About Lego City, Snake Pass etc they are like the Vita games multi with PS4 except that Switch is more powerful than Vita.
They are nowhere near ambitious and comparable to Borderlands 2 and NFS:MW, Lego City is a last gen enchanced port, Snake Pass is an indie game, while Borderlands 2 and NFS:MW were native AAA games on the PS360, when Switch will get ports of native PS4 AAA games(for example the new Need for Speed and the inevitable Borderlands 3) we can make comparisons.
Milly Osworth
Member
Unlimited Power.
If wii could get ps3 and xbox ports then Switch can get ps4 and xbone ports theyvwould just probably look like ps3 or xbox 360 games or so.
geordiemp
Member
Not really that close to Xb1, it only has 3 CPU cores for games and more than likely the main culprit is the 25 GB/s bandwidth, depending on the type of game.
XB1 68 gbs and with fast embeded RAM and Ps4 has 176 gb/s.
So I would expect a game like injustice 2 to port well to Switch, but say a RDR2 large open world AAA it would be closer to 360 / Ps3.
Well, I am also comparing cell to arm to x86 here, so it's just a rough estimate.
family_guy
Member
The Switch version is not using the Frostbite engine.
Wait, is that true? I am a Switch owner so I would be tickled pink if Switch could achieve up to 900 gflops.
I'm also massively intolerant of fanboy bullshit though, and my bullshit meter is pinging. Is what you're saying true??
family_guy
Member
Doesn't matter. The undocked performance is what you should be paying attention to and is the basis for development. Anything after that when it's docked is mostly a resolution bump.
it'll obviously never be able to handle, say, a port of RDR2 or elder scrolls 6 but i think some of the mid-late gen output will be impressive per its limitations. it's not on track to be a flop so its not like there's no incentive to push he mileage on the thing
it's 'underpowered' but not a potato either
it's 'underpowered' but not a potato either
Nice write up but there is a correction to be made. The jump the new 3ds made from og 3ds was CPU related, going from 2x arm 11 @ 233 mhz to 4x arm 11 @ 804 mHz (or thereabouts). The gpu didn't get touched.
wii u is closer to 170GFLOPS. Switch is 350ish when docked. So while it barely bests a 360 the hardware is more modern which is beneficial but not enough to get it anywhere close to a modern console.
the kids in the spec thread have been hot boxing their own farts for months. it's become a breeding ground for future misterXmedia's. so much spec twisting to get to whatever imaginary horsepower they want.
KillerMan91
Member
Yeah. I don't know why people focus so much on docked performance. Handheld mode is the limitation when it comes to big third party ports as games have to work in handheld mode too. it's just so far away from even Xbox One and even Xbox One struggles with performance in decent amount of games. I mean something like FFXV had resolution of only 720p on Xbox One and still couldn't hold steady 30fps. Try to port that to handheld mode Switch.
Sora the Cat
Member
?? WiiU was already more powerful than Xbox 360 and ps3. As anyone who owns one can easily tell.
Switch is more powerful than a WiiU but nowhere near an XBO.
Toadthemushroom
Member
Need for Speed Most Wanted is a very good port, it was by Criterion Games, runs off the exact same engine and is the best you can expect from Vita in terms of how it'd handle a AAA open world driving game.
I'm sorry, but Killzone Mercenary is not a very good example to use at all. It was developed over a three year period specifically for the PS Vita, so it's been built to show off its strengths, much like how Resident Evil Revelations did on the 3DS. If you ported Killzone 3 - a game designed for PS3 hardware in mind, down to the Vita, you'd get very unfavourable results.
That you're trying to instead compare BotW to Horizon is ridiculous, the games share nothing in common from a technical perspective and one was built for the Wii U for 3-4 years before getting a Switch port in March 2016.
And dismissing Snake Pass as an "indie game" and not being "ambitious" goes against what the experts at Digital Foundry said in their tech analysis of the game.
Anyway this is the last I'm saying on this topic about console-to-handheld ports. I still think it's ridiculous that you think it's fair to compare 1) Killzone Mercenary to Killzone 3 as a good example of PS3 games that scale to Vita and 2) BotW to Horizon as something similar to your comparison in 1) for the Switch. I've already explained why that is. I'm surprised that you don't think NFS: Most Wanted is a good example of PS3 tech scaled back to Vita, because it's quite possibly the best console-to-Vita port on the format, full stop. Just because it has a lot of compromises doesn't really make it unimpressive, because Criterion did an amazing job on hardware that's basically an iPad 3.
Picking NFS Most Wanted was not me trying to cherrypick or show Vita's capabilities in a bad light, but picking Killzone Mercenary is the very definition of misleading, because it's not a direct port of a PS3 game but a game built from the ground up around Vita's limitations, like how Resident Evil Revelations on 3DS was not Resi 5 even though it shares the same engine and a lot of tech/shaders with Resi 5.
God, I loved Klax. But I played it on the TG16.
Projectjustice
Banned
That's basically wrong.
Skittzo0413
Member
According to the Digital Foundry leak the Switch GPU runs exactly 2.5x faster than the base undocked speed when in docked mode, which would indeed be a 2.5x boost. So since the Switch is already more powerful than the Wii U in handheld mode it's gotta be at least 2.5x more powerful in docked mode (GPU wise at least).
These numbers are all sorts of wrong. I don't remember the PS3 and 360 numbers off the top of my head but the Wii U was 176 GFLOPS and the Switch is 157-196 GFLOPS undocked (dev's choice of two power modes) and 390 GFLOPS docked.
Yet as we all know flops don't tell the whole story, as we can already see undocked Switch is clearly more powerful than the Wii U (and the Wii U is more powerful than the 360 and PS3).
the thoroughbred
Member
Gohan, Vegeta saga or Gohan Cell Saga?
frankie_baby
Member
It doesnt only have 3 cpu cores for games, that was old info, it'd be hell inefficient if the switch's minimal OS needed anywhere like a whole CPU core to run
Honestly this annoys me so much. At what point are people so in love with a faceless organisation that they're quite happy to lie to make it look good. It's so pathetic.
geordiemp
Member
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-street-fighter-x-tekken-face-off
Nah, Switch could do 720p60 in a fighting game, ps3 and 360 were doing it 5 years ago.
Your being too harsh, my point was that it always has been easier to do a driving game or fighting game or small map game to a higher tech on these genres..It is always amusing when posters point to say Kart or Forza and start to think open world games would run like this.
3 vs 6,
3.5 vs 6.5
Whatever, the point stands, some engines and games spread across lots of cores due to the weak console CPU's, who knows if some games could cut this in almost half. PC's are a different story, running almost 6 x faster work per core its not even funny.
Skittzo0413
Member
I doubt it's an intentional lie, there's so much misinformation about both the Wii U and Switch out there.
I mean, for a while everyone was claiming the Switch had a 1 TF GPU since the TX1 is technically capable of 1 TF FP16. That doesn't make it a bold faced lie, just misinformation coming from a lack of due research.
You're probably right, but I think there's an element of wilful ignorance as well. Cherry picking information, that kind of thing.
Seems like an obvious thing to say but the quality of the graphics will depend on the resolution.
720p in portable mode means slightly more powerful than WiiU/360/PS3.
The major improvements are increased RAM, ease of development and more modern feature set. In docked mode it can 'up-res' the same assets you are seeing in portable (I'm not expecting all new effects and textures due to memory constraints).
Once you start going past last-gen quality you will hit non-native resolution on the portable screen (see Snake Pass as an example). I could see a few current gen ports working at 480p portable/720p docked with some reduced effects depending on the bandwidth.
720p in portable mode means slightly more powerful than WiiU/360/PS3.
The major improvements are increased RAM, ease of development and more modern feature set. In docked mode it can 'up-res' the same assets you are seeing in portable (I'm not expecting all new effects and textures due to memory constraints).
Once you start going past last-gen quality you will hit non-native resolution on the portable screen (see Snake Pass as an example). I could see a few current gen ports working at 480p portable/720p docked with some reduced effects depending on the bandwidth.
family_guy
Member
Yep. It's a reality few want to accept. Of course they'll just point to stuff like Lego City Undercover being close to PS4/Xbox One versions to support their argument despite the fact that the game was designed to work on Wii U specs to begin with. I don't even think a port performing better is beyond the realm of reasonable expectations. That should be like the bare minimum. We got games like the Uncharted Collection and Last of Us go from 720p 30fps on PS3 to 1080p 60fps on PS4. With a good development team, last gen ports should be relatively easy to do. Current gen ports to Switch are a different matter.
You literally talk without knowing shit you talked son , not try to be harsh as this but injustice 2 is one of the most heavy graphical games of this gen , you just cant dismiss lol fighting game sure do 60 fps
Zombegoast
Member
After the Ps4 reveal, I really hate Cerny. Bigger number isn't better unless it's the same architecture like Xbox One and Ps4. The 750ti is comparable if not slightly better than the Ps4's
Look at the GT 740 and see how it runs GTA 5. Now take in what the Switch can do with the Maxwell architecture and TBR.
Look at the GT 740 and see how it runs GTA 5. Now take in what the Switch can do with the Maxwell architecture and TBR.
Let's be real for a moment here: it's an expected sales problem, not a "power" problem. Publishers don't port their games to everything that can possibly run them just because. Just look at how PC was ignored in the PS2/GB/XB1 and early PS3/360 years, while now pretty much every non-exclusive gets a PC port.
Larger companies take longer to turn their ships around and most AAA devs didn't really expect or were at least unsure the Switch to be a roaring success back when Nintendo let them know about it. Even Nintendo underestimated it. Most seem to still be in "wait and see" mode (at least until E3), waiting to see if Nintendo can get a healthy userbase by themselves before dipping their toes.
Larger companies take longer to turn their ships around and most AAA devs didn't really expect or were at least unsure the Switch to be a roaring success back when Nintendo let them know about it. Even Nintendo underestimated it. Most seem to still be in "wait and see" mode (at least until E3), waiting to see if Nintendo can get a healthy userbase by themselves before dipping their toes.
Blackquill
Member
I need to buy a Switch, Piccolo is my favorite DB character
frankie_baby
Member
We dont know what the exact figure is but if its say 3.75 cores then that would be significantly better than 3
Can you explain me why in a simple way?
Also, what do you think about the difference between a PC processor and a tweaked mobile processor?
TechGAF, explain to me.
llien
Member
XB1 7850 (1.3Tflop) and PS4 7870 (1.84) are, I'd say, in the same ballpark as Maxwell 750Ti (1.4Tflops)
Look at console optimized Doom results, that's what Cerny was taking about:
http://www.techspot.com/review/1173-doom-benchmarks/page2.htmlOILER]
Even if that were 100% confirmed it doesn't answer my question. I was asking if we know it's a PS3 port, and if the answer is that it's "rumoured to not be using same engine as the PS4 version" then I'll count that as a no.
numbers are from wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_gaming_platforms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tegra#Tegra_X1
If you have better sources - post a link.