Current Events > "I don't get it, why isn't Switch as powerful as PS4/X1, it's 2018!"

(+) Yeah! (+)

---

wheres my 4k?
---

Aren't there tablets stronger than the switch tho

soulunison2 posted...

Aren't there tablets stronger than the switch tho

more expensive
---

You can literally get credit-card-sized "PCs" with specs that almost match the Switch, for under $100. Sure, that's generally not including a screen, but you can get 1080p (let alone just 720p) screens for well under $200.
---

ImCallingYouOut posted...

soulunison2 posted...

Aren't there tablets stronger than the switch tho

more expensive

So it is possible then

soulunison2 posted...

Aren't there tablets stronger than the switch tho

As far as GPU performance, only Tegra X2 tablets. As far as I know, that would only be the NVIDIA Shield X2.
---

My girlfriend's iPhone X is more powerful and it's a phone.
---

Slip-N-Slide posted...

My girlfriend's iPhone X is more powerful and it's a phone.

That simply is not true. Especially the GPU. And even more so when you consider the passive cooling in the iPhone X. If it were to hit its peak GPU output, it'd run so hot it'd likely be unusable.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

Slip-N-Slide posted...

My girlfriend's iPhone X is more powerful and it's a phone.

That simply is not true. Especially the GPU.

Well doing a quick search for benchmarks seems to say otherwise. I'm not going to bother looking into it because having a powerful system hasn't been something Nintendo have even tried to do in well over 15 years, it's not the point of their systems.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Smartphone-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.149363.0.html
---

Slip-N-Slide posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

Slip-N-Slide posted...

My girlfriend's iPhone X is more powerful and it's a phone.

That simply is not true. Especially the GPU.

Well doing a quick search for benchmarks seems to say otherwise. I'm not going to bother looking into it because having a powerful system hasn't been something Nintendo have even tried to do in well over 15 years, it's not the point of their systems.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Smartphone-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.149363.0.html

So this topic is one big phony

If you think a passively cooled tiny-ass phone with a tiny battery can even manage to hit its theoretical benchmarks, let alone for a length of time to game with it, I'm sorry to point out that simply isn't the case.

Hell, we just now found out that Apple was deliberately underclocking older iPhones at baseline to avoid exactly that. An iPhone-sized battery can't actually output that much power and sustain it.



They dump almost 50% of their performance within minutes - and that's even when they're under heavy load.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

If you think a passively cooled tiny-ass phone with a tiny battery can even manage to hit its theoretical benchmarks, let alone for a length of time to game with it, I'm sorry to point out that simply isn't the case.

Hell, we just now found out that Apple was deliberately underclocking older iPhones at baseline to avoid exactly that. An iPhone-sized battery can't actually output that much power and sustain it.

But the point is a mobile chip in a smartphone is already notably more powerful than the X1 chip in the Switch. Way to move the goalposts and bring up their potential future throttling through firmware which is besides the point.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

[image]

I like the very precise scale on the X axis.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

soulunison2 posted...

Aren't there tablets stronger than the switch tho

As far as GPU performance, only Tegra X2 tablets. As far as I know, that would only be the NVIDIA Shield X2.

There are no X2 tablets.

Coffeebeanz posted...

If you think a passively cooled tiny-ass phone with a tiny battery can even manage to hit its theoretical benchmarks, let alone for a length of time to game with it, I'm sorry to point out that simply isn't the case.

Hell, we just now found out that Apple was deliberately underclocking older iPhones at baseline to avoid exactly that. An iPhone-sized battery can't actually output that much power and sustain it.



They dump almost 50% of their performance within minutes - and that's even when they're under heavy load.

No, it can definitely hit it and do it better. The X GPU is insane.

The problem isn't all that other stuff you mentioned. It's that it's a fucking $1000 phone, thus not comparable. The X1 is the cheapest yet most powerful out. The Switch moreso cheaped on build quality and screen, in lieu of the shitty Joy-Con tech.
---

Nintendo's official excuse, sorry, press release stated that they wanted this product in the market before anyone else released something similar.

For a more technical explanation, the Switch utilizes ARM architecture in it's design which is considerably less powerful than the x86 architecture present in modern consoles.

For a less technical explanation, Nintendo feel as if they don't have to play by the rules.
---

iPhone X vastly underperforms its benchmarks in real world use.

Hell, it got wrecked by the objectively tech-inferior Note 8 - by freaking EverythingApple

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI1YELmjh9g

"The conclusion is that the Note 8 is just as fast or faster than the iPhone X in nearly every task performed in real-world settings"

Despite the fact that the Snapdragon 835 is supposed to benchmark less than half the performance of the A11.

It's because iPhones never, ever actually run at their published performance metrics.
---

This is why i stopped visiting ns board. People just don't get it. Even if they call it home console and use tv + docked mode it doesn't turn mobile tablet components into desktop or laptop ones.

Its impossible to put ps4 or ps4 pro specs into ns sized device without having 20min battery life or simply over heating the device.

One valid criticism is the clockspeeds of tegra x1. Maybe nintendo cheaped out with the cooling or refused to sell it above its current price. Most likely scenario is imo that it was intentional, so they can sell Switch pro model with higher clock speeds, little bit more ram and bigger battery, without actually changing anything too much. Like selling same hardware to us twice.
---

idk what point the TC is making, but Switch runs powerful enough for what it's meant to do. People aren't buying it to play max-specs-tier photorealistic games, they're buying it because it's fun and versatile and has a shit ton of games.
---

ForestLogic posted...

idk what point the TC is making, but Switch runs powerful enough for what it's meant to do. People aren't buying it to play max-specs-tier photorealistic games, they're buying it because it's fun and versatile and has a shit ton of games.

In all seriousness, this.

If you want power, you go Sony or Microsoft. Or, y'kno, PC.
If you want innovation, that's when you go Nintendo.

(And of course, an even more important factor, you go for the system that has the games you want.)
---

DarkTransient posted...

ForestLogic posted...

idk what point the TC is making, but Switch runs powerful enough for what it's meant to do. People aren't buying it to play max-specs-tier photorealistic games, they're buying it because it's fun and versatile and has a shit ton of games.

In all seriousness, this.

If you want power, you go Sony or Microsoft. Or, y'kno, PC.
If you want innovation, that's when you go Nintendo.

(And of course, an even more important factor, you go for the system that has the games you want.)

The difference this time is that the diminishing returns of GPU performance relative to perceptible game visuals means the Switch's graphics seem a lot more acceptably close to current-gen consoles than the Wii's ever did.

The PS2 era to the PS3 era was a -massive- jump in visual fidelity and game complexity.

Going from Xbox 360 to Xbox One (or PS3 to PS4) felt like an upgrade visually, but not really gameplay-wise. And even the visual upgrade was less impressive. I actually can't think of a single game that couldn't realistically be back-ported to the previous generation with a downgrade to textures and resolution. Hell, Bethesda basically did that with Doom on Switch. It works just fine enough that you don't feel like you're missing out that much.

I'd say the Switch's graphics are close enough to PS4/X1 that the added portability more than makes up for that gap.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

DarkTransient posted...

ForestLogic posted...

idk what point the TC is making, but Switch runs powerful enough for what it's meant to do. People aren't buying it to play max-specs-tier photorealistic games, they're buying it because it's fun and versatile and has a shit ton of games.

In all seriousness, this.

If you want power, you go Sony or Microsoft. Or, y'kno, PC.
If you want innovation, that's when you go Nintendo.

(And of course, an even more important factor, you go for the system that has the games you want.)

The difference this time is that the diminishing returns of GPU performance relative to perceptible game visuals means the Switch's graphics seem a lot more acceptably close to current-gen consoles than the Wii's ever did.

The PS2 era to the PS3 era was a -massive- jump in visual fidelity and game complexity.

Going from Xbox 360 to Xbox One (or PS3 to PS4) felt like an upgrade visually, but not really gameplay-wise. And even the visual upgrade was less impressive. I actually can't think of a single game that couldn't realistically be back-ported to the previous generation with a downgrade to textures and resolution. Hell, Bethesda basically did that with Doom on Switch. It works just fine enough that you don't feel like you're missing out that much.

I'd say the Switch's graphics are close enough to PS4/X1 that the added portability more than makes up for that gap.

But that isn't going to matter to someone who makes a big deal out of "muh specs".
---

I actually managed to fit my Switch into my pocket today to bring with me when I was out waiting for my girlfriend to pick up her new glasses.

Honestly if they had opted for the flat joystick slider things the 3DS has, on the Joy-cons, the Switch would 100% fit easily into most pockets. It's the joysticks sticking up that hold it back. (That said, I still usually take it in my backpack)
---

ForestLogic posted...

I actually managed to fit my Switch into my pocket today to bring with me when I was out waiting for my girlfriend to pick up her new glasses.

Honestly if they had opted for the flat joystick slider things the 3DS has, on the Joy-cons, the Switch would 100% fit easily into most pockets. It's the joysticks sticking up that hold it back. (That said, I still usually take it in my backpack)

You could just remove the joy cons and put them in a side pocket.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

ForestLogic posted...

I actually managed to fit my Switch into my pocket today to bring with me when I was out waiting for my girlfriend to pick up her new glasses.

Honestly if they had opted for the flat joystick slider things the 3DS has, on the Joy-cons, the Switch would 100% fit easily into most pockets. It's the joysticks sticking up that hold it back. (That said, I still usually take it in my backpack)

You could just remove the joy cons and put them in a side pocket.

I considered that once but I usually have my phone in my other pocket, so no room for joy-cons.

As long as I'm not doing anything super active, I don't have much trouble getting it to stay in my pockets, with joy-cons and all. Though I need to get new jeans because my main pair ripped today D: Hopefully I can find good new ones that have roomy pockets like my old ones.
---

Think it's being a bit too kind to say Nintendo's leading the forefront of innovation. Making increasingly asinine controllers ill-suited for normal games while still largely making normal games isn't innovative. Nor is going "what if home console, but NOT a home console???" a particularly impressive avenue of thought to pursue.

This is all the while Nintendo being behind the times or really lacking in other newer areas like online or additional game content.

Nintendo's success stems from strong first party name recognition you have to play on their consoles to experience, targeting the casual/non-gamer market, and gaming on the go.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

iPhone X vastly underperforms its benchmarks in real world use.

Hell, it got wrecked by the objectively tech-inferior Note 8 - by freaking EverythingApple

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI1YELmjh9g

"The conclusion is that the Note 8 is just as fast or faster than the iPhone X in nearly every task performed in real-world settings"

Despite the fact that the Snapdragon 835 is supposed to benchmark less than half the performance of the A11.

It's because iPhones never, ever actually run at their published performance metrics.

You always do disingenuous shit like this and straight up make up shit to further your biases.

I'm talking about GPU and you post a video comparing CPU and RAM related benchmarks with less than real world usage with no actual GPU comparisons. You do the same shit everytime you talk about how cheap the Note 8 was at launch with $450 off when you had to have gotten the Note 7 to even be eligible for that.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

To be fair, this picture is misleading because you can't play the Switch like that. You would either need to dock it to use the TV or attach joycons to play in handheld mode and both increase the size by a little bit, even though its still smaller than the rest.

Or I guess you could play like that, but then you need to set up the tablet in a position where you can comfortably use it as a screen, then it loses the advantage that the other consoles have where you can just stow them away anywhere and use them.

I'm pretty sure the other picture isn't right scale-wise either. But anyway, I think comparing the Switch to other handhelds is more fair than comparing it to consoles. Sucks that its not as powerful but it being portable balances it out imo. And the exclusives are the big selling point anyway.

008Zulu posted...

For a less technical explanation, Nintendo feel as if they don't have to play by the rules.

I mean, they dont. At least, nothing that has happened to this point would suggest that they do
---

Slip-N-Slide posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

If you think a passively cooled tiny-ass phone with a tiny battery can even manage to hit its theoretical benchmarks, let alone for a length of time to game with it, I'm sorry to point out that simply isn't the case.

Hell, we just now found out that Apple was deliberately underclocking older iPhones at baseline to avoid exactly that. An iPhone-sized battery can't actually output that much power and sustain it.

But the point is a mobile chip in a smartphone is already notably more powerful than the X1 chip in the Switch. Way to move the goalposts and bring up their potential future throttling through firmware which is besides the point.

And the iPhone X is $1,000. Now who's moving goalposts?
---

So how do I play games like GTA V or fighting games on the iPhoneX?
Touchscreen?
---

CookieMarvin posted...

008Zulu posted...

For a less technical explanation, Nintendo feel as if they don't have to play by the rules.

I mean, they dont. At least, nothing that has happened to this point would suggest that they do

They literally make the rules. Always have, and will until they die.
---

ForestLogic posted...

idk what point the TC is making, but Switch runs powerful enough for what it's meant to do. People aren't buying it to play max-specs-tier photorealistic games, they're buying it because it's fun and versatile and has a shit ton of games.

This.

I didn't even think of the specs when I bought mine, I bought it to play Nintendo games.

It does that.
---