basically it just means it's using newer chip-making processes to make the chip smaller and faster. It's sort of a no-brainer that a new chip would use some updated processes and likely run faster than one made 7 or 8 years ago.
Smaller chips are a combination of faster and more power efficient than chips of a larger process size. The smaller the chips the less electrical impedance there is. That’s what makes processors hot. Less heat means less energy wasted and more potential to run the processor at a faster rate
its meant for people in the tech space that can cross compare numbers with on the market devices. some basic specs give you a ball park estimation of what you kind of expect. Albeit, this is from WCCFTech, which theyll post just about any rumor, so take with huge grain of salt.
for laymans, ill do some of the cross comparison now.
5nm is the fabrication process used in AMDs current top end gpus, and current generation GPUs. In apple terms, same process used on its A14/A15 (iPhone 12-14) and M1/M2 (all current macbook devices) chips (only difference between the two generations is bleeding edge vs matured process, but they are effectively the same size).
For comparisons sake, the 5nm process is used by Nvidia’s current generation RTX 4000 series gpus, but a special process for it (cusotmized basically for Nvidia). The clocks likely refer to CPU clocks so I will drop discussion of gpus here and move onto Nvidia’s CPU offerings.
Nvidia essentially only puts CPUs on its enterprise and developer parts (the Tegra line, which is how the Switch ended up using it). Nvidias “Thor” would be the only device using 5nm, but little is known about Thor so I would refer to last gen Orin, which have development boards already on the market (in the same way the Tegra X1 in the switch also has Development boards on the market).
Orins Wikipedia section on pure numbers, the 2 middle SKUS, the 2 NX models are the ones that would likely go into a switch due to their TDP (10-25W), as 10W is the typical handheld TDP and 15-25 tends to be the TDP of devices when “Docked”. Since last gen orin was capable of holding 2.2 Ghz CPU docked, then the switch SOC at least on paper, is closer to the full clocks when compared to the older Tegra X1 in the switch (which had it clocked to 1000 Ghz essentially, which is almost half of what the chip was designed for ~1800 which is seen in the commercially available Nvidia Shield TV). The CPU is a Arm Cortex A78, so I’d compare it to phones using it such as phones using the Snapdragon 888 cpu, but downclocked. Also forgot to put out there, Orins GPU is essentially similar to the Nvidia RTX 2050 mobile if you need some remote idea on how it would perform graphically.
Opinion post starts here:
Im on the boat who believes Nvidia is going to use Orin (or a varient of Orin just shrunk down to 5nm, as Orin is a 8nm product) as Nvidia does not like to do custom designs for any customer. It’s the reason why Apple for instance, dropped nvidia and the last Nvidia GPU used in an apple product i believe was the GTX 670. The choice sounds like a very Nintendo thing to do, because 1. Nintendo has a history of choosing the lower end part nowadays and 2. Nintendo prefers to have their consoles sold at profit and not at a loss, so theyre more inclined to pick the cheaper device of any option. Given that Orin is an early covid design, it makes sense of the timeline as it would kinda be similar to the switch (the Switch launched in 2017, used the Tegra X1 which was in devices in 2015). Orin was produced early 2022, and the next Switch would likely launch in 2024
Nothing until they actually announce something. Rumors aren’t to be trusted at all, Nintendo has a history of disappointing on specs and making up for it with interesting gameplay.
Billboard trees and lack of fog, detailed reflections and shadows were tradeoffs of last gen that at that time weren’t as perceivable as they are now, when compared side by side. I wonder what the next gen would look like? Accurate RTAO, RTGI, RTR and no ghosting artifacts? It definitely feels like we’re near the end phase of graphical fidelity. I mean we can improve infinitely but it’ll come at extremely diminishing returns and insane amounts of pixel peeping.
Maybe the focus would shift towards realistic animation blending and pixel accurate collision physics once everything is path traced and uses photogrammetry. Thanks for listening to my ramblings.
I’ve got a 7900XTX Ultra, and FSR2 does literally nothing, which is hilarious.
100% resolution scale, 128 FPS.
75% resolution scale … 128 FPS.
50% resolution scale, looking like underwater potatoes … 128 FPS.
I don’t know how it’s possible to make an engine this way, it seems CPU-bound and I’m lucky that I upgraded my CPU not too long ago, I’m outperforming my friend who has an RTX 4090 in literally all scenes, indoor, ship, and outdoor/planet.
He struggles to break 70 FPS on 1080p Ultra, meanwhile I’m doing 4K Ultra.
I had no idea it was a problem on Radeon GPUs. I saw a few people complaining about not seeing the stars, but I didn’t have a clue what they were talking about since it was always fine for my Nvidia card.
Ugh. A part of me wants to give AMD a chance for my next upgrade and push back against Nvidia’s near-monopoly of GPUs but I really don’t want to deal with how everything kinda-sorta works on Radeons.
I’ve exclusively been on AMD since like 2015 and my GPUs “kinda-sorta working” has not been my experience at all lol. Literally have never had brand-specific problems. The only brand-specific issues I’ve had were trying to get my laptop with an Nvidia GPU to work properly under Linux.
I have a suspicion that developers do less testing, optimization, and bugfixing for AMD cards due to reduced market share and that’s why more of these brand-specific coding errors slip through for them. It’s unfortunate but I can’t deny I’ve seen some weird bugs in my time.
Oh of course. I don’t actually blame AMD for those kinds of bugs. But it’s the reality as a user, at least in my experience… but it’s been like stupid long time since I’ve used a machine with an AMD card.
Some games are built specifically for AMD from the ground up and have been optimized like crazy. Depends on the game and the devs mostly. And let’s not forget that if devs want it to run well on PS5 and Xbox Series x/s, then they better have good AMD optimization.
How can an AMD sponsored game that litteraly runs better on all AMD GPU vs their NVIDIA counterpart, doesn't embark any tech that may unfavor AMD GPU can be less QA-ed on AMD GPUs because of market share?
This game IS better optimized on AMD. It has FSR2 enabled by default on all graphics presets. That particular take especially doesn't work for this game.
I’ve been red only in my rig for over a decade and the only problems I’ve had are that I play the same games as everyone else perfectly fine and I have more money in my wallet due to not spending as much on parts. That and the bulldozer generation CPUs heated my house like crazy, there’s no denying that lol
Ugh… the last part is still happening? Like are the new CPUs also so hot or whatever would somebody call it?
I am tempted to build a new PC all AMD for costs alone although the AM4 probably won’t last as long as the Am3 did sadly. But the summer is already terrible with my Intel… no need for more heat.
No bulldozer chips have been gone for like 6-7 years. They last two ryzen generations have been far more energy/heat efficient than intel. Ryzen is the better choice by far right now
Current Intel is worse than current AMD for CPU heat and Nvidia is currently cooler than AMD on GPU. Also we’re on AM5. AM4 lived for a relatively long time, no indication that AM5 won’t be a long runner as well. Intel changes socket more often as well so for longevity AMD is almost always the best, except at the tail end of a socket.
Huh. Didn’t even know they replaced am4 until this comment 😂 my am4 ryzen 5 paired with an rx6700xt still does everything I want it to do. And if it starts slacking I have plenty of upgrading left to do.
Well, it’s surprisingly an 8/10 game graphics aside. There is no mtx, they still fix their game despite low player count on steam. (no idea how many players on the EA play/Gamepass or console. But on PC if you meet the requirement you can run the game really smoothly. (I run 6800XT so at default 1440p/60fps no issue at all. )
I originally bought it for science and see how UE5 features run on my machine from a released game, and it does surpass my expectation. Also see what’s currently possible with those UE5 tech.
It does have kinda bad luck release timing wise, but it fits a good “alt” game you can play without any commitment. (no season pass, no battle pass, no grinding requirements/mission, semi open world but the main plot can be done without doing those exploration/puzzles. ) So I’d assume the sale can last longer people can play this game with more modern PC build.
All thats well and good, but marketing simply failed. Literally the first I and many others heard of it was the 751 peak player count. Maybe itll get more popular as time goes on, but thats a hell of climb.
Lol, I bought on EGS cause I know developer will get more money out of that purchase.(12% and they don’t have to pay UE royalty for sales on EGS. I do this pretty much for all unreal engine games.)
But I think the honest hw spec probably scare off a lot of potential PC buyers of this type of game. If somehow they have a demo as show case + spec check then people might be more willing to try or even buy.
wccftech.com
Aktywne