Skip to content

Two Tribes Says Rive Runs Smoother On The Switch Than The PS4 Version

We have gotten some new information in regards to how smoothly Rive, classic 2D side-scrolling platformer mixed with shooting elements, will run on the Nintendo Switch. The game will play at 1080p normally, while portable mode will allow it to run at 720p. The game will also be a solid 60 frames per second. But that’s not all, as Two Tribes’ Collin van Ginkel confirmed that the Switch version of the game is smoother than the version on Playstation 4:

It’s kind of surreal seeing the game run so smoothly on such a humble device. It was never intended as a portable game, but it’s a perfect fit for it!

We’ve spent a few months really digging into what makes the Switch hardware tick and it now runs smoother than the PlayStation 4 version, with less noticeable save points for instance.


23 thoughts on “Two Tribes Says Rive Runs Smoother On The Switch Than The PS4 Version”

    1. This just shows the difference between AMD and nVidia. My heart belongs to AMD, no doubt, but nVidia GPUs (if we don’t care about price points) are vastly superior. Last time I checked nVidia’s Cuda core ran 45-50% better in most games compared to AMD’s GCN — even though they had the same amount of tflops. According to Steam, their userbase is more or less 80% nVidia, which makes them so powerful business wise, that they can pay companies to make sure engine, games etc get more time, resources and optimisation favors nVidia rather than AMD. That’s why, even though Switch’s X1 can achieve 1 tflops (which it doesn’t because of underclocking) can achieve, GPU wise, results comparable to the Xbox One’s 1.4 AMD tflops. Too bad Switch is underclocked. That’s why the Switch can do cross-plattforms titles like Doom even though they were developt for PS4/BONE/PC(okey, Doom is a bad example since it’s one of the few games this decade to favor AMD, but never mind that)

      Bottom line: I expect the more fluent picture on Switch to be a result of the cross-plattform’s engine to be more nVidia frendly because of better optimisation for the pascal architecture and cuda cores — or nVidia cards as a whole.

      Have You, as a computer concluded with another conclusion, or have I analysed it satisfying, Commander?

          1. Nintendo First Order Commander Quadraxis

            ||It seems the system is too sensitive to any offensive language and sentence structure, or it could be some type of random bug, I’ll notify the ambassador…||

      1. King Kalas X3 {I only buy exclusives that interest me on Switch. For everything else that interests me, there is PS4.}

        Did you use any words that have a sexual term in them? When I try to use sc*mbag or c*cky, it triggers the awaiting moderation bullshit so I have to replace one of the letters with an asterisk or something else to stop it.

          1. King Kalas X3 {I only buy exclusives that interest me on Switch. For everything else that interests me, there is PS4.}

            Xbone is triggering the “awaiting moderation” crap now!?

          2. King Kalas X3 {I only buy exclusives that interest me on Switch. For everything else that interests me, there is PS4.}

            Nope. It can’t be that word then since my comment went right through with no issue.

    1. I also think it’s about the egnine. It’s probably more optimised for nVidia since they almost always cash out to developers to prioritise them before AMD. Nah, I don’t think Cortex A57 is bottlenecking here either. And even though X1 doesn’t have Pascal’s 16nm finFETT, Maxwell is pretty strong and pretty comparable. But it’s more about optimisation than power here if I were to guess. I wrote a longer comment here, but it hasn’t showed up yet.

      1. Well the CPU in the Nintendo Switch is an 8-Core CPU ( 2x Quad Core CPUs) which has two CPUs inside that help separate what part does what and unloads stuff of the GPU. So really, the GPU is able to do more which is why I feel DOOM on Switch might actually get a Frame Rate upgrade later on when they’ve finished optimizing it.

        1. First time I heard of that Switch has 8 cores. Checked it up on Wikipedia and yupp, they confirmed 8 cores, even though I read plenty times it only cointained the more powerfull A57-cores, and that’s something you can look up on nVidia’s own site. What to belive what to belive…?
          ANYWAY the CPU isn’t the main topic here, it that juicy GPU.
          If you replace the (dot) with a . You should get a printscreen of my earlier comment.

          I also think Doom could go further. The GPU on Switch isn’t far from Xbox One’s APU in power, and nVidia tend to be more optimised. You can’t really compare specs with those GPU cores with a glance, since there is more to it than just “teraflops”, which have become a popular term/word/slogan/phrase the recent years. But I think they really could push 60FPS in docked mode.

        2. I saw your comment on the IGN reporter who ssid Switch is weaker than Wii U: There are you at it with the 8-cores again. It’s not correct Gremlin, it only has 4. X1 only has 256 Cuda cores and can be compared to GTX 1030. It’s not that beefy, but it’s more powerful than Wii U, and quite respectfully for a handheld device. Wii U didn’t use ArM CPU, but a PowerPC, so comparing clockspeed alone isn’t indicating that much btw.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: