Neither. Its gonna be 60fps with respectable graphics
It looks horrendous in that video, so hopefully that means they're trying to hit 60
Archaic by even last gen standards shader tech, and a fraction of the memory would probably be the biggest issues. You'd have to do some fairly heavy downgrades across the board in a straight port. You could use Cell to offload some of the GPU deficits, which is what devs ended up doing to get similar to 360 performance out of the thing. Basically the same issues you'd have porting a 360 title to the PS3, you'd come across porting a Switch title, but significantly exacerbated.What bottlenecks does the PS3 have that Switch games can't be ported to it?
There is video footage and a comparison thread, and in both cases because it was streamed + YouTube compression looks wise then if it was direct videoHave you played it or are you speculating?
What bottlenecks does the PS3 have? Fucking really? Like, 1/8th the memory and the PS3's is split.
What bottlenecks does the PS3 have? Fucking really? Like, 1/8th the memory and the PS3's is split.
Correct, but i don't know why im been quoted in your reply. That's not an statement i constructed.Of course it matters that its portable, games are designed around two specifications for handheld and home play but you can't separate one from the other thats why Nintendo went to Nvidia
Exactly, that is why in that very post you quoted i describe it as a hybrid console. It is hybrid beyond the scope of working as a portable (more than a "handheld") and/or stationary console. Because it's also a hybrid in terms of input interfaces for example, is a platform that can offer a variety of ways to interact with a given software: Traditional, touch screen or motion controls.And? That doesn't remove the fact that it IS a handheld.
It has a handheld form factor.
It has a screen, a battery, and everything a handheld has. It's listed on Wikipedia's handheld consoles page.
It's a handheld. It's also a home console.
Crysis 3 was running on a Shield TV in case you are interest. Btw, im stating a fact not saying any other thing about your opinion.I believe memory bandwidth is much more important, especially when comparing a mobile device to home console. Using the Gamecube example again, it had 24mb vs 3DS 64mb, but the Gamecube memory moved data insanely fast. The difference wasn't 3x apart when you look at the games visually.
And the PS3 was still handling games from more advanced engines like Crysis 3 or MGSV late into its life. Again, modern architecture isn't a bandaid for raw power deficiency.
Yeah, having a group that breaks down the differences between game versions so that consumers know exactly what they're paying $60 for is so sad. I cry every time a game doesn't reach 8k/1 million fpsDF made this industry sadder
What bottlenecks does the PS3 have? Fucking really? Like, 1/8th the memory and the PS3's is split.
It kind of is when there was a concerted effort to make sure engines could run on that newer architecture, under wildly different technical capabilities.Again, modern architecture isn't a bandaid for raw power deficiency.
So I checked out the demo again on my aforementioned GTX 860M laptop, and while it runs better than I remember it running (I don't think Vulkan was an option in the original release of the demo), it still only manages to maintain 60fps in areas where there's little to nothing going on on screen, more frequently staying in the 40s or low 50s. And that's on low settings, at two-thirds of native resolution.
My GPU, while obviously dated, *should* still be a good deal more powerful than Switch's downclocked Tegra X1, so while I certainly don't know enough about the technical side of things to say what's possible or not, it'd be quite the feat of optimization if it really does run at 60fps. I'll believe it when I see it confirmed, personally.
So I checked out the demo again on my aforementioned GTX 860M laptop, and while it runs better than I remember it running (I don't think Vulkan was an option in the original release of the demo), it still only manages to maintain 60fps in areas where there's little to nothing going on on screen, more frequently staying in the 40s or low 50s. And that's on low settings, at two-thirds of native resolution.
My GPU, while obviously dated, *should* still be a good deal more powerful than Switch's downclocked Tegra X1, so while I certainly don't know enough about the technical side of things to say what's possible or not, it'd be quite the feat of optimization if it really does run at 60fps. I'll believe it when I see it confirmed, personally.
Yeah the game wasn't coded to the metal to your specific rig. That would be an advantage to the Switch.
Obviously, but I would still expect real-world performance to be at least twice what Switch can do given the huge on-paper advantage in FLOPS of an 860M.
But like I said, I don't claim to be an expert on the technical side of things, so I could be wrong.
It kind of is when there was a concerted effort to make sure engines could run on that newer architecture, under wildly different technical capabilities.
This is why there was never an attempt to get UE4 or idTech 6 to run on PS3, and why Switch can run both competently under similar GPU and CPU limitations.
Isn't a GT 640 FP performance considerably higher than the switch on portable mode? I mean, even so, that video dosn't look very good either, with lots of drops and sttutering...
That doesn't really mean much IMO.
Look at 3DS. The PICA200 is at least 5 years newer than the Dreamcast/PS2/Gamecube/Xbox. It's definitely a more capable chip, but it's still clocked @266mhz to stop the 3DS from melting itself. When you look at the games on 3DS too, with just the exception of RE:Revelations, it's still graphically closer to the PS2 era consoles than a PS3.
You're not wrong.
There's going to be some other drawback just based on pure technical capability. Given what we saw I'd wager either framerate or resolution.
edit: I mean it's always possible there's some other cut that isn't readily apparent, but I feel safe in heaping id praise if it looks this good, runs at 60fps and somehow manages to hit 720p docked.
Possibly a stupid question, can they use the Vulkan API?
Obviously, but I would still expect real-world performance to be at least twice what Switch can do given the huge on-paper advantage in FLOPS of an 860M.
But like I said, I don't claim to be an expert on the technical side of things, so I could be wrong.
DF made this industry sadder
Graphics wise that is incredibly unsurprising, but I don't quite get what custom built means in this case. It's definitely the same id tech 6 engine which should be fairly easy to port to Switch as it's likely that NVN is basically Vulkan, and obviously changes will have to be made to the game (graphical settings, texture quality, etc.), but does that require the use of the term "custom built"? Since that's the case for the other two consoles too?
Vulkan is an evolved form of Mantle for PC, bringing 'coding to the metal' to PC so I can;'t see how vulkan helps Switch which won't have to deal with a heavy OS like W10.
Agreed, and that's what I expect too.Predicting surprisingly-good performance with noticeable resolution compromises (overall and textures,) but not in a laughable sense. Will look decent and play well. Won't satisfy tech fetishists, of course. The obvious visual downgrades revealed by the footage seem like a respectable trade-off for proper DOOM performance on a portable console, imo.
Probably because the differences between PS4 and Xbox are so minimal in terms of settings that they did not want to set false expectations among gamers who aren't that acquainted with the differences in hardware capacity.Graphics wise that is incredibly unsurprising, but I don't quite get what custom built means in this case. It's definitely the same id tech 6 engine which should be fairly easy to port to Switch as it's likely that NVN is basically Vulkan, and obviously changes will have to be made to the game (graphical settings, texture quality, etc.), but does that require the use of the term "custom built"? Since that's the case for the other two consoles too?
Agreed, and that's what I expect too.
60fps target with occasional dips and/or dynamic resolution. I just hope it reaches 720p in portable mode at least in some areas. I hate when games are below native res 100% of the time.
Looks great. Seems a lot of current gen games can be ported to a decent level.
It looks like someone smeared Vaseline all over the screen *and* it's probably 30fps.
Great if you don't have a PC or PS4 or XB1, I guess. Not really worth it for portable, Switch doesn't even have proper triggers.
What do analog triggers bring to a game like DOOM?
Immersion
Right.
Tell that to the millions who fire guns by clicking a mouse.
I don't play PC shooters because I don't like using a mouse.
It looks like someone smeared Vaseline all over the screen *and* it's probably 30fps.
Great if you don't have a PC or PS4 or XB1, I guess. Not really worth it for portable, Switch doesn't even have proper triggers.
It looks like someone smeared Vaseline all over the screen *and* it's probably 30fps.
No, it's actually significantly closer to the PS3 than the PS4. And the games show it. They look like PS360 games with a resolution boost and some other improvements. They absolutely do not look close to what the PS4 can do. Just look at something like Horizon. Nothing on the Switch looks like it belongs to the same generation as that game. And that's ok. It's a handheld.
It looks like someone smeared Vaseline all over the screen *and* it's probably 30fps.
Oh, and it's $60.
Great if you don't have a PC or PS4 or XB1, I guess. Not really worth it for portable, Switch doesn't even have proper triggers.
It's really, really blurry.
Damn, I haven't heard anyone say that about a game in a long time. Heh, heh.
We know almost nothing about the game right now. Best to wait until next week when previews come out so we can get a better idea of what they're going for with the game.
I just hope it has gyro aiming. That's my most requested feature.
Amen to that.
While I hope for 60 FPS and I will be very disappointed if it's only 30 FPS, the real deal-breaker for me is motion control. I can't stand duel analog, I don't even want to humor that control scheme, and the duel analog is the reason why I never got into FPS (don't game on PC except for WOW) despite being interested in the genre.
I do think motion control is in the game, though, since Skyrim apparently has them and DOOM on PC uses the Stream controller's motion controls as an option from what I've heard. So, here's hoping because I am interested.
Let use doom
Doom 3 on PS3 720p with fps dips
On The switch architecture it runs 1080p at 60fps much more fluidly on shield machines.
Doom 2016 would be a joke on PS3 if possible and yet with the switch system it's pretty comparable.
Good day keep your useless spec talk I got reality.
Yep.
Even when porting from 360 devs had a difficult time. Split memory pool, and higher RAM OS allotment alone made for some significant headaches. Then you toss GPU deficiencies in comparison, and a hefty reliance on the CPU to overcome that, and you've got a lot of bottlenecks even when porting between 360 and WiiU to PS3.
Porting from a much newer architecture, with a unified pool of memory at 8x the capacity... Hell in some ways it'd probably be harder to port from Switch to PS3 than it is to port from PS4 to Switch.