|
|
|
|
|
|
by paulpan
1330 days ago
|
|
|
I think "design" is overused in this case. Sure some users base their purchase decision on actual design/look of a console, but that's a rarity. Success is more dictated by 4 main constraints or factors:
- Game selection and support
- Price point
- System performance (including storage)
- Innovative-ness or accessibility Successful consoles typically met at least 3 of the above. For example the Nintendo Switch had very mediocre system performance, but it had great (1st party) game support, priced lower than competing XBox and PS4, and seemed very approachable for all demographics. |
|
|
Nintendo Switch had the most powerful GPU of any mobile device released at its time. Furthermore it has 4 GB of RAM. Just the Cortex A-57 CPU wasn’t bleeding edge any more, having been replaced by the Cortex A-72 by the time of the Switch with a higher IPC of 16%. It was a well balanced system.
You might be mistaken because mobile CPU performance grew in an unparalleled explosive fashion, and the Cortex A-72 was already replaced by the A-73, A-74, A-75, A-76, A-77, A-78, and A-710 by now. But this is unfair to a system where its design was frozen already 6 years ago.
It just means that, if a successor Switch is built the same way, and a Cortex A-78 is used, its CPU would have ca 2.6x IPC. If it ran at twice the clock speed, its CPU performance would be 5.2x.
You’re being unfair because CPUs grew so much.