Is Gamecube to Switch similiar to PS2 to PS3 Graphically?

As far as graphics go would you say the Switch is only about 1.5 gens ahead of the gamecube? The gamecube and wii were the same graphically and the wii u and switch are more or less the same. So in a way, the switch, a ninth gen console, is only a gen ahead of the gamecube, a 6th gen console.

Are you trying to say Nintendo are a bunch of cheap bastards blah blah blah blah inb4lock

Because comparing the best of the last hardware to the worst of the new hardware is always the best way to do it

No, it's not much more than Wii U, it's last gen.

Switch and Gamecube are about the same visually tbh. Wind Waker actually looks better than BotW.

This really only applies to Nintendo's consoles though

Why?

Launch games never represent the graphics power of a new console

Yeah. That's a fair comparison. I still want one.

Nintendo were only graphical masters with NES, SNES and Gamecube. Every other Nintendo system has been behind or even way behind the competition.

Does that matter? Not unless you want it as your primary system with lots of third party support. I don't fall into this category as PS4 will remain my primary.

Its going to haunt the Switch for its entire existence. They're going from one underpowered system to another underpowered system. With the Gamecube to Wii the GC was on par with the other 2 systems from that gen and then went to the Wii the gen after that.

The Switch being not that much stronger than the Wii U which launched in 2012 is embarrassing.

The Flopitch will never touch the greatness of GameCube.

Ill wait and see until the switch comes out.

But ps2 to ps3 was a fairly large leap, and I would say the switch should have better graphics than the ps3, even if only a little better.

@Telekill: N64 was pretty good at 3D compared to the competiton but was kinda shit at 2D.

@Juub1990: N64 was crap on a lot of levels including 3D as everything looked really muddy.

The worst part of N64 was the controller.

@Telekill: It had a much higher poly count, the models were more detailed and the resolution was higher than that of the competition. The N64 was actually quite a bit more powerful than the competiton but had really odd design decisions.

@Juub1990: Muddy graphics is muddy graphics regardless of actual capability.

That said, N64 did have some incredible games.

@Telekill: Textures were muddy. Not the graphics overall.

@Juub1990: I think it's safe to say same diff. Still muddy.

Other consoles launch games generally show substantial improvements over the previous gen' best, that's not the case with Nintendo where even the best looking games still don't really up show the previous gen's best.

But the Wii-U was just barely PS3/360. That was 2 gen's ago. Switch is about 1.5 gens behind (and maybe full 2 gens if we are comparing to the Pro and Scorpio).

Wasn't PS1 also supposed to be pretty shit at 2D games for some reason? I remember lots of complaints of imperfect 2D ports on PS1 that it took until PS2 to finally get right.

I wasn't aware of those issues with N64, I thought it's big issue was the cartridges limited game size to 64MB compared to 700MB for CD-ROM games. Of course cartridge had some advantages too on smaller games, but production/inventory costs and 1/10th the maximum game size were just killers for Nintendo.

In b4 iandizion claims its not about graphics, its about the games, if I wanted graphics I would play on my PC

Comparing GFLOPS:

PS2 (6.2 GFLOPS) -> PS3 (400 GFLOPS) = 64% increase

GC (9.4 GFLOPS) -> Switch (512 GFLOPS) = 54% increase

In terms of GFLOPS, the PS2-PS3 jump looks bigger than the GC-Switch jump.

Its not all about the Gflops, memory and Mhz you need to take the gpu architecture in to consideration. For instance you could take a high end graphics card and compare it to a budget card with similar speeds but with a improved architecture. The budget card can surpass the high end card just from the fact it can handle things better like DirectX, tessellation, lighting etc.

A combined PS3 and 360 would not be able to run the UE4 engine in real time like the switch depite being faster.

I can't even come up with a clever quip for this idiocy. It's next level idiocy.

Troll or fool?

Wow, lol. That's why its getting PS3/X360 ports. What a shame. Mind blown.

Gamecube is on par with ps2 graphically

Not that it is particularly important to your point, but I have no idea what your % math is? PS3 is 64 TIMES not %. That's a 640% increase

Also, where is your switch number coming from? Not doubting, but I'd seen the rumors at >700 GFLOPS (docked; this is why some delusional people were thinking it was more powerful than the X1 - because at 16-bit that is over 1.4TFLOPS and people were misusing that stat) - which would be 74X or 740% greater.

In other words, the GFLOPS rating jump is enormous, in either case, and depending on the accuracy of your GFLOPS ratings the narrative flips from "less than" to "greater than" PS2-PS3

Here's another thing.

Project CARS 2 Developer On Title Coming To Nintendo Switch: “I Just Don’t Think It’s Possible”

Must've been a typo. I meant 64x and 54x increase.

The 512 GFLOPS is based on rumours of it being equal to the Tegra X1, which is reportedly 512 GFLOPS (FP32) or 1 TFLOPS (FP16).

Have you seen how 16-bit mode looks like on a screen?

As far as hardware power / performance, both the Wii U and Switch are 7th gen consoles, that's one full generation beyond GameCube.

The original Wii was just 1.5x faster than GameCube so it belongs in the same generation (6th gen) as the PS2 and original Xbox.

PS4 and Xbox One are true 8th gen consoles in terms of hardware.

Scorpio will be right in between the 8th gen and whatever 9th consoles like PS5 are.

it's like a more powerful Wii U with a slimmer GamePad with remote play that extends to anywhere

Yep it is. Also I heard somewhere that the switch especially in docked mode can range from somewhere like 40% as powerful as the Xbox one to like 80% as powerful as the xbox one.

@super600:

I don't believe that even in docked mode, Switch is anywhere close to 40% of Xbox One power, let alone 80%

Switch is more more like 20% (aka 1/5th) of Xbox One in docked mode, and of that, Switch in handheld mode is 40% as fast as it is in docked mode, roughly Wii U level.

Updating from Wii U to Switch is like upgrading from Radeon HD 4650M (DX10.1 Feature Level 10_1) to GeForce GT 920 MX (DX12 Feature Level 12_1) in Switch's dock mode.

Updating from Wii to Wii U is like upgrading from Radeon 7000 (DX7) to Radeon HD 4650M (DX10.1 Feature Level 10_1).

Switch has GPU similar to GeForce GT 920 MX in power. Tegra X1's GPU shader model should be similar to future Shader Model 6 with native support e.g. half, half2 hardware features. Tegra X's IGP is only Maxwell V2 variant with proper support for half and half2 hardware features.

XBO has GPU similar R7-360, Shader Model 5.1 native, future Shader Model 6 partially native and emulation mode.

PS4 has GPU similar R7-265, Shader Model 5.1 native, future Shader Model 6 partially native and emulation mode.

PS4 Pro has GPU similar to RX-470D + 2 features from future Vega. PS4 Pro's shader model should be similar to future Shader Model 6 with native support e.g. half, half2 hardware features.

half = single speed FP16, reduces memory bandwidth consumption at per operation hence it can fit more shader operations with the same memory bandwidth.

half2 = double speed FP16, doubles shader operations when shader math operation doesn't need 32 bit quality.

Incoming GPU's native support for FP16 is like X86 and ARM's 16 bit instruction performance boosters.

I think Switch is more powerful than the PS3 even though they play the same version of Fifa and can't handle current gen games.

XBO's result is at least 8X over GeForce GT920MX's Forza 6 Apex result.

Don't underestimate memory bandwidth and this POV is applicable for both AMD and NVIDIA GPUs.

Oddly enough, hardware power doesn't define hardware generations on consoles. Weird, right?

A portable PS3 or 360 basically. We knew this before it was even announced.

It took me until the October reveal to realize what it is.

That's why I started the post with "As far as hardware power / performance" :)

Power wise the Switch is only impressive as a portable gaming system.

The system will lag behind with current graphically demanding game engines. Certainly it will not be viable for future state of the art game engines.

The Switch's ability to be successful will depend if it gets software that can leverage the consoles strengths.

Doesn't matter what you started your post with, that isn't going to change the facts, unless you're talking alternative facts.

Look at this.

Nintendo Reiterates That Their Main Focus With Nintendo Switch Is About Fun, Not Power

The PS3 was not 400 GFLOPS.

My 8800gt was 336 GFLOPS yet I was able to play games at much higher settings and resolutions than the PS3 while getting higher frame rate.

For example I was able to run Crysis 2 at higher settings at 1680x1050 and still get over 40fps while the PS3 struggled at below 720p resolution (1024x768) with lower settings and still stayed below 30fps a lot of the time.

It's actually quite a bit stronger than the PS3 or 360 just not a "gen ahead" kind of jump.

I feel like either you guys are too young to remember or just forget how much worse games looked last gen.

No, I expect the switch should be more powerful than the Wii U. We'll have to wait and see, but it should be.

My concern isn't the graphics. It's the CPU. Is it adequate to handle physics and ai? Unfortunately, Nintendo have become notorious for ignoring this aspect, just because their games don't ofake good use in those areas.