Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nintendo's Switch Game Console Is Vulkan & OpenGL Conformant

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by srkelley5 View Post
    The NES only had one console competitor and it wasn't leaps and bounds beyond it. SNES was superior. N64 was superior. Gamecube beat the PS2 and Dreamcast absolutely, the Xbox only had programmable shaders and more RAM. Nintendo usually competes well on hardware, they have only pulled back on that when they decided to pcomplete on content since the most powerful game console has never won a generation (til now with the PS4 anyway, it's definitely going to win).
    Lol, and when they started to stop the improvement you just stop mentioning it:
    1996: N64 vs. PS... on par
    2001: PS2(6.2 GFLOPS) < GameCube(9.4 GFLOPS) < Xbox (20GFLOPS)
    2006: Wii(12 GFLOPS) < PS3(230 GFLOPS) < Xbox 360(240 GFLOPS)
    2013: Wii U(350 GFLOPS) < Xbox One(1,300 GFLOPS) < PS4(1,850 GFLOPS)
    2017: Switch(0.15-0.4 TFLOPS?) < PS4 Pro(4.2 TFLOPS) < Xbox Scorpio(~6 TFLOPS)

    So from 2001 to 2012 there was no noticeable improvement in the Nintendo consoles performance. That's over 10 years. And they are about to do the same again... The Switch seems not to have even 1 TFLOP being clocked at about 700MHz and 300MHz depending if it sits in the docking station.
    Last edited by oooverclocker; 20 December 2016, 02:08 AM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by birdie View Post
      It's based on the Maxwell arch so it's not 100% Vulkan compliant - I mean in theory it is, in practice many things will be implemented in software and consequently they will be very slow/more or less unusable. Even Pascal is not 100% implemented in hardware in regard to Vulkan/D3D12 but at least it's much much better than Maxwell.
      Not too sure where you're getting this from. Source?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
        Dunno, all times there is breakage with glibc in Steam games it's Steam's bundled glibc that got reinstalled out of the blue and the fix is always "go and nuke it together with some other random garbage libs".
        Sounds like we've both been encountering the same issue... the biggest cause of compatibility problems on Steam was an ill-advised attempt to avoid compatibility problems. I've not seen problems for some time, though, so I assume they've changed how they're doing things to avoid the problem.

        The one problem I *do* have with glibc ABI is that code typically can't run on an older version of glibc than it was compiled for - so if you want to distribute binaries that will work on a variety of distros, you need to compile/link against the oldest one you want to support... unless you mess around with setting up a cross-compiling toolchain with older gcc/glibc, you can't compile it on latest Fedora and have it run on current CentOS...

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Almindor View Post

          No it's not. Even now games fail on steam in "non supported distroes" due to gnu libC ABI breakage and other magical abstraction hoopla.
          I'm quite at home with programming, coded a few projects including a game and supporting closed source deployment on linux is not simple at all.

          You provide your .so library with your game but it won't work because GLIBC_VERSION error which goes all the way down to libc incompatibility. And because linux refuses to abstract the kernel syscalls interface from a particular language's runtime library it will never work properly.
          It might get a bit more stable but there's always ABI breakage possibility.

          All they'd have to do is introduce a "libkernel" before libc written in pure compliant C and literally never changed except for additions and it'd be nice and backwards compatible. Add major versioning for those breakage needs and all things would work nicely.
          Actually, the Linux kernel exports a stable ABI and the Windows kernel does not.

          If you bundle everything including glibc, then it won't be the link between glibc and the kernel which breaks.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by oooverclocker View Post
            BTW Linux desktop market share is 2.3%, just not with Steam installed and you all know why. Chicken-and-egg...
            I have a hard time taking these statistics seriously at face value, even with a truckload of salt. No way OS X percentage is that low considering the Macbooks, Macbook Pros and Macbook Airs I see all over the place.

            Comment


            • #36
              Bethesda is not a friend of Linux, they try their best to avoid it sadly. Also its possible they just made a OpenGL port for the switch and not Vulkan.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Delgarde View Post

                Sounds like we've both been encountering the same issue... the biggest cause of compatibility problems on Steam was an ill-advised attempt to avoid compatibility problems. I've not seen problems for some time, though, so I assume they've changed how they're doing things to avoid the problem.

                The one problem I *do* have with glibc ABI is that code typically can't run on an older version of glibc than it was compiled for - so if you want to distribute binaries that will work on a variety of distros, you need to compile/link against the oldest one you want to support... unless you mess around with setting up a cross-compiling toolchain with older gcc/glibc, you can't compile it on latest Fedora and have it run on current CentOS...
                Glibc's symbol versioning is a compatibility nightmare done in the name of compatibility, I wish we all used musl. However, it iss possible to link in a compatible way with newer glibc - see my answer here http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4...37664#39537664

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                  I have a hard time taking these statistics seriously at face value, even with a truckload of salt. No way OS X percentage is that low considering the Macbooks, Macbook Pros and Macbook Airs I see all over the place.
                  Well, I just see them on TV usually which is called product placement even having the brand covered(people recognizing it as a MacBook the ad does still work) just like pretty much everyone would drive a Mercedes-Benz etc. instead of Toyota...
                  The cases that I see Apple notebooks in the hands of people I know are very rare and these people are usually people that have no idea of technique and use them very infrequently because most of them just do everything on there iPhone.
                  Of course it's pretty likely that Linux users sit in front of their computer all day in contrast so yeah, these netmarketshare numbers don't tell you the number of actual devices 100% accurately, given that Apple users also tend to use the computer less in summer than Linux users that are more likely nerds living downstairs.

                  But still the growth of 40% within just one year adding more and more common users and PC beginners is still there which means that we might be at least 3% up to 4% next year and of course if you like to sell software or games you don't care whether there are billions of MacBooks laying somewhere in the dust as long as there are less Linux computers but being regularly in use so these people are likely to buy your products to use them in that specific time.
                  Last edited by oooverclocker; 19 December 2016, 11:56 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Almindor View Post

                    I agree with you on the technical side of things here, but it just doesn't make business sense. Bethesda is in it for the money. I port my projects to as many platforms as I'm able and also always try to get them portable from the get-go. But doing that as a commercial entity has to have commercial sense, and right now, with the state of linux gaming it doesn't make one.

                    It's like asking a US company to make their electronics work with power plugs from that one country in the world with 1 million people and a special power standard that tends to change every now and then too.
                    I used to work in the video games long time ago, most of the projects I did was for console (NDS, XB360, and PSP), I did a few mobile as well. My boss (who was with Ubisoft for a decade before forming his own company) said that it's much easier on the business area comparing to (then) mobile market. Basically on console, you have one set of hardware to support, and most of the time it's just one hardware. Also you have much fewer competitors, as they are selected by the first party, and getting developer license is not easy (most of the companies I know failed to obtain one. Well I lived in the country that consoles are more in the gray market anyway.)

                    Last time I talked to him, I was surprised when I know how much lower cost on the console compared to PC or Android, due to much less variety on hardware and configurations. iOS is pretty much more like console, and that attracts all sort of developers. It becomes bloody read ocean nowadays, and you have to spend quite a lot on the marketing side. By developing games for consoles, you have much more chance to be listed on the store, especially on the first page, or even top ten, so it reach more people than says Play Store or App Store, etc.

                    With that said I don't have the experience first handed, and the situation might have changed.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Bethesda are a bunch of lazy people, as a business sure they go where the money flows which you can see in how they develop things. Focus on a part of a game, release that part on a public stage (because of the title people eat this for breakfast and then some), when the buzz is high enough release a date for the release-date (no proof what so ever though), release the application not entirely completed (granted this is now a thing with patches later), and let the community finish the minor things with bug fixes and such (and add more content essentially).

                      I mean Bethesda wanted to sell mods, sure it's nice that the mod creator was going to gets funded one way or another, but since Bethesda put up the service naturally Bethesda wanted a portion of the pot (again, it's a business).
                      Although got to say, Doom did well all things considered so maybe there is hope for good traditional releases (with no Linux port what so ever included, which is a bummer), but hey at least old Bethesda games is getting open sourced.. about 16 years later, later is better than never...

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X