I just recently discovered something similar to Switch, a kickstarter project for a handheld PC. I don't have anything to do with them, but since it's obviously not worth writing an article on NL about it (I sent it to NL as a news tip), I wanted to discuss this here.
I'm not a fan of handheld gaming myself, I think it's highly inferior to stationary gaming out of several reasons. But that's not what I want to discuss here.
Obviously (I learned that through several discussions on NL) a lot of you are fans of handheld gaming. So what do you think about this? Apart from the fact that it doesn't have Nintendo games, it basically achieves the same thing. Although I think 5 hours of battery life could be a little bit too short.
My first thought was: This is a blatant copy of the Wii U Gamepad/Switch Gamepad. And then I found photos that even confirm the connection or at least that the Wii U Gamepad was an inspiration:
During discussions about the Switch's graphical prowess, I always stated that it can't even come near PS4/XB1 levels and although I know that GFLOPS don't equal graphical prowess in general, they do give us an understandable indication:
This could also be relevant for finding out how much performance Switch can deliver.
Given that Switch will be running on a Tegra successor, if you look at that diagram, the Switch could maybe reach ~250-300 GFLOPS (just an assumption).
EDIT: Ok, according to some gaming journalist, the Switch could maybe even reach 1000 GFLOPS, which would mean it surpasses the Smach - if the information is accurate. But still, 1TFLOP is not really much...
But this diagram also shows that this Smach Z won't be very powerful (which doesn't come as a surprise since it only features a Radeon R7). It's supposed to be a gaming PC and yet it's only half as powerful (regarding GFLOPS) as the PS4 (which isn't nearly as powerful as a proper - not even highend - gaming PC)?
What's also interesting is the fact that this Smach and the Switch will probably be on a similar price level. Still, I think both devices are not interesting enough for me.
The only reason Switch could become interesting for me are the games, whereas the Smach could only be interesting for me to have a portable PC. But not for portable usage, only for stationary usage (visit someone, connect hardware, mouse and TV/display to it).
Anyway, just wanted to share this information with you guys and also maybe start a discussion about this.
@TomJ Well if the rumours are true (at all, it could be even worse), it might only slightly surpass it. Which would still be a lot lower than the PS4.
At least with previous generations, the Nintendo console always was on par with the competitions last-gen console. But this time it won't be. Because this time Nintendo opted for a handheld marketed as a home console...
Nintendo handhelds don't need nuclear power to be awesome... It's what they do best.
But the fact that they may try to pass it off as a home console first might damage it in the long run. After all, it will be remembered as an inferior home console instead of a good handheld.
No chance in hell will they have 5 hours of battery life. At least not while gaming. They are using a notebook GPU, in a much smaller form factor. And on top of that, amd are not doing very power efficient GPUs.
@shani
1. AMD typically have more GFLOPs for the same performance as NVidia
2. AMD typically consume more power for the same performance
3. The Tegra is specifically designed to be super power efficient, this isn't
4. When comparing GFLOPS on a graph they should be using a log-scale
5. PC != Higher performance than the PS4, I for one would love a PC like this if it was done well
6. Nintendo doesn't have a patent on portable consoles. This is no more copying Nintendo than the NGage was
7. PCs have overheads that don't exist on consoles (especially true for this sort of form factor)
On paper this is a great idea. Having the whole PC library on the go would be excellent (although can be done to an extent with a good enough laptop...which doubles as a laptop!)
But...compatibility, compatibility, compatibility. Can they guarantee that my Steam library will work with it, and to sufficient performance? Will I be able to patch controller support into games without full gamepad support?
Switch games will be made and optimised with the Switch in mind, so I expect higher quality gaming on that device.
@skywake:
1. Interesting, I didn't know that!
2. Sadly, this is true (although they got better at that with the current generation).
3. This is also true and probably the reason why they used a Radeon R7 (less energy, but also less performance).
4. Good to know! 5. Now this is the one point where I have to disagree with you. PC != Higher performance than the PS4? What makes you say that? Compare any game you want. Ok, not any game. ^^ Not games that come with low graphics themselves (indie title or bad console port) or take place in confined spaces. Compare big, demanding open-world games like GTA V, Far Cry 4 or the Witcher 3.
Unless low-end hardware is used (and unless it's not a terrible port), the PC version always offers more performance in every aspect: higher resolution, higher fps, more AA, higher level of detail, higher texture resolution, higher distance scaling, higher shador resolution, higher reflection resolution, better post FX and tesselation, higher population density and variety and more detailed display of things like water and vegetation.
And it doesn't have to be high-end hardware. Something like a R9 280/380 or GTX 960 with an FX-8350 or i5 4670k should already trump a PS4.
And I'm speaking from experience here. I've compared those three games I mentioned above (although with my R9 290, not a lower model) and in all three cases the PS4 version looked ridiculously bad in comparison (= not in absolute terms).
6. Also true. My comment didn't relate to portables though but only to the design of the device, which is similar to the Wii U Gamepad (and the Switch Gamepad is similar to the Wii U Gamepad too). Also similar to the Vita, of course.
7. Well, yes, but... the overhead has become way smaller, because modern OS (although I can only speak for Windows 10 right now) have adressed/solved this issue already. DX12 for example operates on a deeper level and therefore pretty much all games run faster on Win10.
@Buizel Regarding compatiblity: Why shouldn't it be compatible? It's a PC. The only problem I see is that it won't be able to run high-demanding games like GTA V. And their kickstarter says something about fully customizable controls, so I assume they have som key-binding tool for that. The Steam Controller is a beautiful example how this should work, you can customize the hell out of it up to the tiniest details.
@Therad That's true, I also found those benchmark titles (and their benchmarks) disappointing. And yes, AMD cards use more power than nvidia cards. Although the current generation of AMD cards got way better at energy efficiency. My system is still running on a R9 290, which offers great performance (especially with resolutions >1080p, like playing on three monitors), but has a terribly high power consumption. It's the only reason I'm thinking about swapping it with a 390 or something else, because the TDP difference is about 100W with the same level of performance. I would also consider a Geforce if they weren't so expensive with no reason whatsoever (aside from Nvidia's abuse of monopoly and the fact that there's still huge demand despite their shortcomings).
@shani What I meant was more of a general PC issue than specific to this device. Unlike console games, PC games can't possibly be optimised for every system out there, and I've heard of cases of not-very-demanding games failing to run on high-end rigs. After a bit more of a read, and seeing that you can map the controls (supposedly to either XB360 or keyboard controls), I'm a little less concerned. Still, the suggestion that Windows may not be as easy to use as Linux is a bit of a concern.
Aside from that (which is perhaps my main gripe with PC gaming in general), looks great. PC gaming on the go, and also the potential to stream at home Wii U style. I'd definitely consider it if I had a bit more money to spend on PC gaming.
@Buizel Well from what I know, 95% of those cases are just bad/lazy console ports. The other 5% are incompetent users (overestimating the power of their hardware, not knowing their hardware, not downloading the latest drivers, ignoring commonly known solutions for their problems etc).
But even then, I rarely experienced anything like that. Watch Dogs was an example of a terrible port that demanded disproportionally more power than comparable games. It was really badly optimised. It demanded more performance than it should. Still - and my hardware wasn't high-end at that time - I was able to somewhat enjoy it (the story is just lame and the protagonist is unlikeable).
The thing is: these kind of problems are always resolved through patches eventually. But people are often too lazy to acknowledge that ("the game was terrible at launch, so it will always be terrible") or the bad first impression just continues to exist and will be amplified by the internet.
For example, Batman: Arkham Knight apparently suffered from being a terrible port. But the developers resolved this issue later.
I had never heard about that game until recently and when I tried to find some info about it, 90% of the google results just adressed the problems it had shortly after the release. Despite the fact that those problems didn't exist anymore. So a simple-minded gamer might only see those results and think that game is still terribly optimised when in reality, it seems to be running fine if you look more closely and read more recent user reviews (I haven't played it myself). So while the issues might've been resolved for a long time, the bad reputation stays.
And these kinds of problems didn't exist back when the PC market was completely independent from console development. But the rise of Playstation and Xbox lead to the situation we have now: Many games are developed for consoles first and then ported to PC. I find this highly annoying and think it should be the other way around. Because the beauty of PC games is that they're scalable for any kind of hardware. If you develop it for PC, the console version will just be the PC version with low-end graphics. But the development in general would benefit from this because the games don't have to be initially designed on inadequate hardware. GTA V for example could've been a better game if it was developed for PCs first. Instead, it was developed for underpowered PS3 and Xbox360 hardware, which meant Rockstar had to use a lot of tricks to make the game barely playable. They had to leave out a lot of things in the initial design of the game. Later on, they tacked-on a few additional things for the PC version and they did quite well. But they didn't reach the full potential of that game.
@shani
I'm sorry but no, PCs aren't automatically more powerful than the PS4. The idea that just because something is less capable it's automatically not a PC is nonsense. For example Intel sells a PC on a stick for about the same price as a 3DS. Completely useless for gaming outside of a few indie titles and use as a Steam Link style device. But it's still a PC. It's entirely possible for someone to build a PC that's like the Switch. These guys aren't even the first ones to try. And when someone does it well and for a reasonable price? I'll be the first in line.
And it's a similar story with overheads on PCs. If you have a modern desktop gaming PC you can have stuff running in the background and not have it be an issue. You can have a game be slightly less efficient than it is on consoles and it not be a big deal. Because you just throw more horsepower at the problem. But that doesn't mean that there isn't an overhead. If you put a PC as capable as the Switch and the Switch alongside each other? The Switch would win every time.
Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
An opinion is only respectable if it can be defended. Respect people, not opinions
The Smach Z is certainly something I'll keep an eye on.... however, for the moment I've decided to go with a GPD Win. It's quite impressive what this little system can run, and as it's using Windows and the controls are recognised as an Xbox pad, Xbox One game streaming is excellent.
I must admit that I'm still quite intrigued by the Morphus X300 though......
@-SD-
That GPD device is kinda what I was thinking about, I'd seen it before somewhere else. The only issue with it is the price for what you're getting. A third generation device of this type that's half the price, twice as powerful and a little bit less clunky? Now that'd be interesting.
Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
An opinion is only respectable if it can be defended. Respect people, not opinions
@skywake Ok sorry, when I wrote PC, I obviously meant 'gaming PC'. Not some PC on a stick (who would seriously throw that into a discussion about games and performance?!). I thought this was obvious.
And why are you so hung on the 'overhead'? Because from my experience, on a modern PC with a modern OS (no, not Windows XP), your so-called overhead barely makes up more than 1% of the computing power. Have you even followed recent developments or measured it yourself? Because it's not just "throwing more horsepower at the problem" - this statement suggest that your knowledge is heavily outdated.
@-SD- Wow, that device looks really interesting! Way more interesting than that Smach thing. It might not have a dedicated graphics chip but it has a keyboard!
@shani
I threw the PC on a stick into the discussion because you were dismissing the PS4 spec as "not a gaming PC". People get so caught up on the idea that PCs are high spec beasts. That's not necessarily true. The device you've created this thread for is as much a "gaming PC" as something with a GTX 1080 is. Calling it not because of the spec is completely arbitrary and so isn't really worth doing at all IMO.
In terms of overheads on PC? I note that you mentioned DX12 as your example of the overheads not existing anymore. I think it's worth pointing out that the few games that have supported DX12 thus far haven't given a massive boost in performance. Some games even have a reduction in performance for DX12. You're buying into the marketing bullet points here. This isn't really a thing that exists for PCs yet.
It's also worth noting that Windows 10 is notorious for having background processes randomly hog resources. It's not just the GPU but also CPU and RAM. Things you are less likely to notice if you have a gaming PC with a quad-core i5 or something. But far more of an issue for a portable device as you've linked to. That's before we start talking about optimisations for the specific specs of a console.
Basically, my point in talking about overheads was that. You can't compare the Switch to a comparable portable PC spec and say it'll be able to do about the same. It won't. The Switch will run rings around it. But as someone who likes the concept? I look forward to future versions of this idea.
Forums
Topic: Smach Z vs. Switch
Posts 1 to 16 of 16
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.