developer.arm.com
I wasn’t referring to DLSS.
how does it not make me correct? you aren’t even arguing in honest here. You used a range TDPs for ARM based CPU and the TDP of a x86 CPU range and concluded that because the ARM based doesn’t match the x86 CPU it is therefore not possible to match it. ARM and x86 have two very different goals in mind and using TDP to gauge their potentials is, as ILikeFeet said, missing the forest past the trees.
Yea that’s obvious. Arm 78 performs much better than zen 2 at low wattage, but it won’t be nearly enough to compensate for the huge wattage disparity. Especially not if there is a node disadvantage in addition (Samsung 8, vs tsmc 7).
Granted. It's 6-7x more powerful so it's a weird mix in between.
To be fair, the Zen GPU is about 40-50% more efficient per flop than the 2011 GCN GPU on xbone/ps4. So PS5 probably is closer to 9x more GPU performant than PS4.
I think you are right about 360 to xbone being more impactful in GPU than PS4 to PS5.. But to be fair, a lot of ps5 games focus on 4k resolution instead of 1080p resolution. Probably more of a cross gen thing... But I'm curious to see what happens when last gen consoles are no longer supported.. How many devs will go balls to walls and do a 1080p game with detail cranked up to 11.
That's why I'm truly want Nintendo to call Drake as a clear new generation because 6-7x upgrade (likes og PS4 to PS5) is huge + dlss & others. Don't worry because Drake can play all current Switch games in high quality & framerate also. Current Switchs price will be reduce in a hope that it's will exceeding PS2 sales in 3 years from now or just satisfy with the 3rd place
Just an additional note: since that covers their history of right up to the end of 2019, we're still only at 32nm at minimum for XtraROM process node, when there's an opportunity to shrink further to 28nm and net further gains, but... there's a possibility that just because Macronix began mass-producing XtraROM at 32nm doesn't mean those are the chips Nintendo was buying, either.
Don‘t know if option 3 is exactly about that, but having soft launch of new hardware and a transition period is actually better than the usual console cycle we have imo. While we’d get in 6 years a bigger upgrade/new console (like drake or more), there‘d be every 2-3 years smaller ones (like die shrink, better battery live, new screen etc.).And this is what I don't like, imagine buying an expensive system, and knowing it's immediately getting replaced by another
Consoles aren't phones
Btw, where is the "6-7 years come from? By my math 2023 to 2026 only gives Drake a sad 3 years life cycle, not to mention the possible $500 price point
I can't find a reason to justify the purchase, and we're better off waiting for Switch 26
fuse.wikichip.org
You are setting up yourself for a massive disappointment. Tech doesn't move that fast for a good decade now.
And honestly, it genius to try and mirror Apple from their position bc they dont push the cutting edge like the other platform holders. Consumers are already programmed to upgrade mobile devices on regular intervals without worrying about a complete reset.
marketing does matter. we've seen companies botch marketing and hurt their once dominant positions. can't take things for granted.
Bayonetta on the Switch is a blurry mess. 720p with weird frame rates on later levels is not excusable for a 2010 game ported from the Wii U. On top of that, it is a very brown/grey game, so playing it on a TV always feels hard. Theoretically, Drake should address this and many other games (looking at you, Xenoblade 2). However, we do not know if the games are ready for that update natively or if Nintendo has to patch them 1-by-1 (the most probable scenario). The latter could mean many of them never get a patch to run at 4K/60.
Maybe the closest thing would be DS, which was totally not a GBA successor until it kept getting the same kind of games and didn't bomb.
I think the Switch will be part of their lineup for a long while, the same way they have had a handheld forever. Whether is stays the switch and whether they pursue a second platform like VR is an open question
I don't see why a VR option wouldn't be part of the Switch lineup as well. Would be a mayor selling point of a premium Switch with access to the full Switch library and can switch between portable, tabletop,tv and a new VR mode.
Uhh, interesting, seems like N3's more or less a failure if N3E is so different. That buys a year for Samsung and Intel.N3E Replaces N3; Comes In Many Flavors
TSMC outlines a number of 3-nanometer class node changes and flavors.
No duh, we already knew this.
yeah probably. It'll certainly be interesting to see comparisons between ports optimized for Drake vs SteamDeck having to run PC games and with the proton layer.
backstage pass
Unlike the Steam Deck which is meant to run stuff designed for PC which creates images at about every conceivable resolution, Switch has always been a fixed platform. Games are either going to be providing a 720p image in portable, or when docked a 1080p image that the system then scales to 480p or 720p if necessary. Even games that docked render at 540p still do their own scaling and have 1080p UI slapped on top, so the system isn't receiving a 540p image it can then do some generic scaling operation on. For taking unpatched Switch 1 games and outputting them at even higher resolutions, should be feasible.
And advantage 3 is of course dlss.
Doesn't seem to be the case when a bunch of posts itt just a couple pages ago were asking and/or thinking that would be reality.
Nor did your reply? or the other 100+ posts where people weren't even on-topic here. eg: upcoming title speculation on a hardware thread or the ones where users made a dedicated post just to say they're lost in the tech discussion because they aren't knowledgeable in the field.
It doesn't? I just said if they made the aforementioned software tweaks, they could definitely get away with doing so.
you said delaying Drake to 2024 could give them the ability to add FSR1.0 to the OS, which doesn't make any sense, timescale-wise. it's a bolt-on feature since it's spatial scaling and it won't even improve anything other than waste memory. the IQ wouldn't even be better since Switch games are too low res in the first place
I think they were saying that using FSR as a system-wide performance boost would give Nintendo enough headroom on the current Switch’s performance to be able to push the Drake launch out and maximize sales of the current generation, or something.
Except I never said that though? my implication was that they could get away with it, not that they would need to do it in order to have enough time to ship the new hardware.
Not every switch game's dynamic res. dips below 480p. specially when docked. I think this would work better by being enabled only when the console's docked.
Almost nobody in this thread has indicated that they are expecting any major boosts for games that are not patched. That's an opinion you appear to be inventing.
Is FSR even used in games? It's there in the graphical API but so far no technical analysis has proven the use of FSR in first party games.
I'm not going to waste my time screencapping every post itt where someone thinks and/or wishes that unpatched games ran at a higher resolution on the upcoming hardware.
Yes, in-game render resolution varies. But a system setting doesn't tinker with that. Unless all of the in-game scaling before the UI is slapped on is done using one preset system algorithm that would be replaced with a system update. Which is beyond my knowledge to deny, but seems doubtful.
I've got a Steam Deck and tinkered with its FSR a bit. The point is if I set a game to 960x600 resolution or whatever, it can then use FSR to scale to 1280x800; as opposed to nearest neighbor, bilinear, or just leaving it with big black borders. If the game is already set to 1280x800 mode, systemwide scaling doesn't come into play as it's already receiving and displaying native resolution.
Theoretically, sure, it could take a 1080p image, do some extra scaling to 2160p, then scale it back down to 1080p for output--except that taking a system with fixed specs and telling it to suddenly do more work each frame is asking for something from nothing.
As someone who reads and engages in this thread daily I can tell you confidently that there is barely anyone here who expects this to happen. Possibly no one.
I mean there is precedent (xbox fps/ res boost), but MS BC team is the best and probably best funded in the business. I expect Nintendo BC to be on par with PlayStation at best.
