-
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.
Bethesda: Doom on the Switch Graphics Not One-to-one, Custom Built (USGamer)
- Thread starter Kureransu
- Start date
Have you played it or are you speculating?
Thunder Monkey
Banned
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.
Not quite the challenge of porting a PS4 title to Switch, but similar. Architectures are just so wildly different, with such a massive memory gulf.
foxuzamaki
Doesn't read OPs, especially not his own
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 video
Thunder Monkey
Banned
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.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Even the WiiU had 1GB of unified memory available to games and more effective shader power in comparison with last gen systems. What I'm interested in knowing is how the CPU of the Switch stacks up against 360 and PS3.
Refreshment.01
Member
Correct, but i don't know why im been quoted in your reply. That's not an statement i constructed.
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.
Just like a Transformable, 2:1 or "Phablet" at it's core, the concept parts from an specific device but what matters is the end functionality of the product. And there are Switchs being bought that are never to be used as a handheld, even when they are played on the go.
How much relevant is it's "power" to define the device as a handheld when the Wii had a far bigger gap against it's competition yet it was 100% a console. Nintendo could have easily made an stationary device that is just as "weak" as the Switch if they deemed worth it to pursue another ginmick insteas of the Hybrid console one.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFs8zxcShHQ
moltonasty
Member
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 fps
JordanN
Banned
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.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
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.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Basically Nintendo was really lucky Nvidia needed to offload some mobile SoC's on the cheap.
Father_Brain
Banned
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.
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.
Like posted earlier, 600p mobile and 720p docked seems fair if it really hits 60 fps.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
If it looks this good, and is 60fps, the lighting and motionblur downgrades probably wouldn't be enough for it to run at 720p. 540p?
Hell we'll find out. Speculation is fun though.
Unknown Soldier
Member
As long as they pull off 720p 60 fps then it's going to be just great. Get ready to go back to Hell.
Father_Brain
Banned
Thunder Monkey
Banned
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.
Smiles and Cries
Member
they should have confirmed the Framerate so people could get the complaints out of the way, unless it is a solid 60fps
flipswitch
Member
Possibly a stupid question, can they use the Vulkan API?
60fps should be their priority, and just adjust graphics to meet that requirement.
60fps should be their priority, and just adjust graphics to meet that requirement.
JordanN
Banned
PS3 was going to be replaced by PS4. Considering the time when UE4 and idTech 6 games did come out, PS3 no longer mattered.
But regardless, this all misses my point. I don't deny the system is old and technology has advanced since 2006. But last gen clearly showed, developers didn't need to abandon the hardware for 7 years because there was a lot of power to work with that shoving new hardware wasn't going to make the games expire any faster. I mentioned Cryengine (Crysis 3) which scaled from high end PC's but also was still made to run on PS3. Where was the bottleneck there that Switch has an advantage over?
It's also not maxwell/pascal so certain things have to be considered. The've done studies and gains on those architectures vs older nvidia archictures are clear.
Also no in portable mode I would easily assume it's less but how much less is what I'm wondering. I'm sure blu and a few others could calculate that situation much more accurately though.
I never show the video cause it's a positive in performance or fidelity just potential which basically as the other topics will show people didn't think Doom would ever show up. To go from unlikely to a reasonably solid port, though more details would be is very nice. We already know with one annoucement and can clearly see it has better assets, fidelity and performance. Don't know why some people can't be happy not necessarily you though
I'm not like tre in my expectations and until I know resolution or graphical details it won't mean much to have expectations other then it's doom and I'm game for a double dip.
Means plenty in the context of Doom3 and Doom 2016 performance between the various architectures of the discussion. . Nothing you mentioned has the context of what is going on when considering PS3 vs Switch.
I wasn't mentioning maxwell cause it's new I mentioned it because various advancement in it from how it renders thing to it's effieciency shit on Nvidia GTX 7800 chip which besides ram is one of the few things that is actually improved in the PS4 unlike the cpu. Clocks and flops aren't meaningless but if you're comparing old nvidia tech to maxwell/pascall you had better account for certain factors which some clearly aren't. A PS3 can't even begin to fathom pulling off Doom 2016 and it's Doom3 performance is among the lowest of the skus it's on. Not the same for tegra architecture. Sorry it's just a flat out no one system can compete with PS4 the other couldn't fathom of doing practically or theoretically. Various devs including those that made uncharted and god of war disagree on the system not being maxed out, last time I checked both of those franchise are easily among the best looking PS3 games.
Just to stick it in crysis 3 shield was going to be impressive before it got gutted and we have videos can't say the same ever about crysis on PS3 be it 2 or 3. PS3 is immense but this is one area where it clearly lacked. Lets also not forget skyrim PS3.
Father_Brain
Banned
I'd be impressed if it maintains 60fps even at Snake Pass resolution, honestly.
They can and they are.
Ricerocket
Member
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.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
I think it's pretty clear that whatever they've done for Switch is probably a lot more than just running it on low PC settings. It's highly likely they've simplified lighting techniques and other demanding features to be less accurate and expensive than the settings available on PC. Texture quality is probably one area where it will still look fairly good in small places, but some of those long distance shots in the trailers didn't look amazing and I think it's when you get into large open areas that we'll see where the cuts have made the most difference.
Thats only for Console/PC warriors to fling stones at each other. Everyone else just uses it to make a more informed decision about whether to buy a game, or where they want to play it.
OmegaDL50
Member
Not necessarily. Remember in the case for the PS4 and XB1 they are based similarly to the PC version as all three versions are x86 / x64 architecture.
For the Switch however is based on ARM. While ARM SoC's can run x64 code. The biggest benefit in this case is advantage of the middleware it has available to it. All of the modern engines notably Unreal 4, Unity, and the Vulkan and Open GPL API's are available here. This makes the Switch much closer to the PS4 and XB1 as compared to the PS3 and 360. Some may not consider it amount to much but the modern API and engines counts for a lot in this case.
It helps in situations where your CPU isn't strong.
No disagreement than windows is bloaty os with it's own overhead for gaming.
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.
Naked Snake
Member
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.
godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
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.
I fully expect it to reach 720p dynamically in portable mode. Texture res might suffer, and obviously lighting will take a hit, but I predict some nice 720p content in portable mode. At 60fps.
In fact, I take the "custom" part of all this to mean taking advantage of tile-based rendering and dynamic res to balance performance vs presentation rather than "rebuilding the engine."
OmegaDL50
Member
To be honest I picked up both DOOM and Wolfenstein: The New Order during the recent Bethesda / iD Software sale on Steam.
I think to believe I have a competent PC able to run DOOM. i7 6600k and GTX 1070. I did not install the game yet due to it's intimidating file size, although I plan to give it a test drive some time this weekend.
Despite having access to the best version of the game. The fact there is a version available for the Switch in the works greatly appeals to me for many reasons. I want to see the Switch version do well in both terms of performance and sales. Still to have what many to consider the best single player FPS of 2016 to be playable on the go whenever / wherever, just seems really cool.
I look forward to seeing the results that the press has experienced and what they will share with us in a week.
I think to believe I have a competent PC able to run DOOM. i7 6600k and GTX 1070. I did not install the game yet due to it's intimidating file size, although I plan to give it a test drive some time this weekend.
Despite having access to the best version of the game. The fact there is a version available for the Switch in the works greatly appeals to me for many reasons. I want to see the Switch version do well in both terms of performance and sales. Still to have what many to consider the best single player FPS of 2016 to be playable on the go whenever / wherever, just seems really cool.
I look forward to seeing the results that the press has experienced and what they will share with us in a week.
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.
Jaded Alyx
Member
What do analog triggers bring to a game like DOOM?
Immersion
Jaded Alyx
Member
I don't play PC shooters because I don't like using a mouse.
Jaded Alyx
Member
Ok....so?
I don't play shooters on console because I don't like dual-analog aiming.
My favourite colour is red, and I wear size 9 shoes.
Any time you compare performance between home-only setups and a phablet, there will be disparities. You can't play your home console or PC on your lunch break (unless you work from home,) nor can you get industry-leading graphical fidelity on a portable console.
Specs are not everything. Context is also very relevant.
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.
There's a ridiculously huge RAM difference though right?
moltonasty
Member
I usually play at 144 hz G Sync @ 1440p or at 4k/60 fps on my LG Oled.
Doom on the Switch has been my dream game since I saw the Switch announcement early this year. Even at 30 fps sub native resolution, the prospect of playing this on the go has me absolutely ecstatic to double dip on this game. And I suspect I'm not the only one who feels that way.
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.
You and me, both, man. I won't even entertain the idea of picking up this game if it doesn't have gyro aiming. I really can't get into dual analog in shooters and playing DOOM with gyro/IR has been my dream since it was announced. I hope they have it, because I'll be there day one if that's the game...even if the game runs at 30fps. I have to show support for gyro aiming more than 60fps.
Doom 3 BFG edition wasn't exactly a graphically demanding game and the less than stellar port isn't representative of last gen console performance.
Also "switch architecture" is a reference to the fully clocked Shield android TV no? That console had poor performance with last gen console ports of MGS:R and RE5. So yeah lets not write off last gen consoles based on one single port.
I wouldn't go that far. Any decent GCN title is going to lean heavily on compute shaders for bandwidth and geometry optimizations. Maxwell may have bandwidth saving optimizations like color compression and tiled rendering but it also has less bandwidth than even last gen. In terms of compute it sits in the middle of last gen and XBO, assuming you use the upper bound of 786 gflops at half precision, which isn't a realistic measure of shader power since some portion of your workload would have to run at full precision. At full precision it's closer to the last gen consoles, although much better at achieving higher ALU utilization.
It's also worth pointing out that the Switch's entire lineup looks like it could easily be down ported to WiiU and by extension, last gen as well. Although I'm still amazed by how well games like Titanfall, Rise of the Tomb Raider, CoD Advanced Warfare, MGSV and Destiny translated over to last gen.