To use the PS5 as an example, it’s based on Zen 2 and RDNA 2, both of which are now deprecated. It would not be surprising for Nintendo to match them at this point in the cycle.
I feel like I’m in the minority when I’m looking forward to Nintendo making a high-powered console for once. The last time their hardware was on par with or better than the rest of the industry was the Gamecube, which was an amazing little system.
I dont think itll be high powered, thats just the reporter adding something for clickbait.
Im one to believe in Bobby Kottick mentioning that the Switch 2 is roughly the power of a PS4 as he was in contempt of the court when his leak of its performance was discussed. the handheld likely has better cpu performance though vs ps4, as its basically in the same playing field as the steam deck is, both companies who can sit and make thir 30% cut from developer games.
Tldr, dont expect Series S perf, expect steam deck performance with better battery and DLSS support to 4k (i personally believe itll target 1080p60, and use DLSS Performamce preset to upscale to 4k, as 1440p tvs arent common)
You’re not. I’ve been wanting this since the GameCube, the last Nintendo system that was built with performance in mind and advertised as such. The Wii was a step in the wrong direction, and it was all downhill from there as far as my head canon is concerned. I’m glad that Nintendo is finally catering to fans like us again after waiting patiently for 22 years.
Maybe I’m in the minority (doubtful since the switch is super popular) but I don’t need the Switch2 to be better than current/next gen as far as hardware goes. It’s portability, flexibility and funativity are what sells the thing for me. I’ve got a PC if I want to play fancy pants AAA games. One day, I’ll probably have a Steam Deck. I like playing Zelda and Mario, etc. on my Switch like it’s a the Super-Mega-Gameboy that I dreamed about as a youth. I sometimes play it docked, but probably 80+% of my game time on it is in handheld mode.
If the Switch 2 was basically a PS5-esque console (non-mobile, regular console), I’m sure I’ll eventually pick one up to play Nintendo exclusives, but mostly that would just hasten my purchase of a Steam Deck.
I’ll believe they made something on the same level as the competitors when the console actually comes out. An unreleased demo console is not something you should be using as a benchmark for how good the visuals are since the product will most likely go through a significant amount of changes in-between the demo and release.
Even then, there’s the chance that if the console is coming out a few days later, there is no guarantees they didn’t use an old demo console that is outdated compared to what will be released or wasn’t made specifically with the goal in mind of overselling the console by pouring resources into making the demo console actually better than the release one.
Nintendo never makes high power consoles that’s not really their area. So I’d be surprised if this is true.
And what does PS5 equivalent graphics even mean? We just talking screen resolution or are we saying it can push the same poly count. I’d be prepared to accept it might get 1080p maybe 4k on a good day, but that’ll only be on low poly assets.
Apparently the ps5 comparison is because they ran the same tech demo that the ps5 did 2 years ago. But that doesn’t really mean anything. At this point Nintendo may still be working with a wide range of specs on prototypes before finalizing a decision about what the console will be.
I don’t doubt it… Nintendo is always years behind.
The PS5 came out in 2020 and this Switch2 is probably a year away. So that would make their hardware be roughly 4 years old in terms of power. Plus if this is roughly the size of the current Switch, it won’t be pushing more than HD-resolutions (current Switch is only a 720 display), so getting PS5-level graphics on a 1080 screen these days is not particularly complicated or expensive.
Current switch does 1080 docked already , so while I hope it’ll have at least 4k menus and 4k light games, I’d settled for 1080 again with some sorta more advanced AA for first party games
God of war 2016 PS 4 original setting at 720p on steam deck is about 30 fps. On ROG Ally afew frames less if you run it at 15 watts, at 45 watts Ally can probably do 720p at 50ish fps but less than an hour of battery. Ally is the top of line 2023 AMD tech apu and cost $700. Mobile technology is amazing right now, but it’s just not at a level where it can do 3 years old desktop graphics at a reasonable cost/power consumption.
I compared my wealth to Bill Gates and turns out he makes more money just existing for 1 minute than I will make in my entire life. But we are comparable.
And even if some prototype device is, that doesn’t mean the production device will be, once things like heat and power usage have to really be accounted for.
It doesn't even matter a lot if it does have really good graphics capability. Nvidia is good at that (though whether they'd price that where Nintendo wants is questionable). The question is what Nvidia can give in a CPU, because the only ARM CPU out there that's actually interesting in terms of efficient per core performance is Apple.
There's no such thing as a "gaming chip" when it comes to CPUs. Are you trying to tell me that you can't plug a GPU into the PCIe slot of an Ampere Altra? Do you honestly believe that a game compiled for ARM magically won't run on a server chip due to some kind of hardware block that detects games and says "nope, not gonna run that?"
Also, Nvidia makes the processor in the Nintendo Switch, and I linked chips from two other manufacturers in my comment.
There are performance traits you have to have to be even in the vicinity of functional for gaming, and they're the opposite of what you need for a server. Yes, I'm saying that if you put a gaming GPU into any of those chips, the performance would be fucking terrible. You need fast clocks and IPC with low latency, not lots of cores and high bandwidth. High "Performance per core" in terms of server parts does not mean that it can do anywhere close to the same work per core a consumer, gaming focused chip can do. The design parameters are completely different.
The processor in the Switch chip is the reason the Switch has such a limited AAA library. It's not mediocre. It's not serviceable. It's fucking terrible.
And it’s been true since the very first console. The Master System was more powerful than the NES, and the Genesis/Mega Drive was more powerful than the Super NES (arguably; the Sega CPU was far more powerful than Nintendo’s). Same is true for its portables.
They’ve always prioritized per-unit margins. It’s a conservative approach, but it means profit on every console sold.
So there’s a 0% chance this console is actually as powerful as a PS5. However, there’s a good chance there are hardware and software techniques being used to upscale a lower resolution image.
Dodaj komentarz