23.10.2016, 10:49
0
Cyphox schrieb:Bin zu faul zum Lesen, hängt Nintendo durch seine "Innovation" also wieder technisch hinterher, ja?Als Handheld? Wahrscheinlich nicht. Als stationäre Konsole? Absolut.
Heinrich Reich schrieb:[...]Ja, ich bin gespannt. Kann man bisher schwer einschätzen, das Gerät.
So richtig viel Power hat der Tegra ja nun nicht (also im Vergleich zu Desktop-PCs).
Aber gut - alles nur Spekulation. Warten wir einfach mal noch ein paar Infos ab .
Zitat:[...]
The Tegra X1 debuted in March 2015 with promises of PS3/Xbox 360 equivalent graphics, systems which were ten and nine years old at that time, respectively, and even then, this promise proved somewhat unsubstantiated. As Digital Foundry notes, Doom 3 BFG was natively ported to the Shield platform, and ran at 1080p and 60 frames per second in comparison to the 720p30 presentation on last-generation consoles. However, close comparisons suggested a significantly lower level of model complexity, normal and shadow maps, and texture resolution on the Nvidia hardware by comparison.
Put more simply, Doom 3 BFG ran faster and in higher resolution on Tegra, but it looks a lot worse in every other regard. Call it a wash, I suppose.
As Digital Foundry also points out, Nintendo’s new console doesn’t appear to be running Android, meaning developers on Nintendo's Switch will likely be able to secure performance increases and better looking games than Tegra has previously provided. And if the Switch is using the next generation of Tegra mobile chipsets, we could see even more performance improvements. The previous Tegra chip used a GPU derived from the same family as Nvidia’s 900 series of video cards, whereas the new generation moved to the hardware driving Nvidia’s recent 1080, 1070 and 1060 GPUs. These graphics cards are much more power efficient than their predecessors and more powerful to boot, suggesting the evolution in architecture might also help Nintendo get more out of Tegra.
[...]
http://www.polygon.com/2016/10/20/122881...comparison