By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Soundwave on 22 May 2020
Edit Thread
DonFerrari said:
Soundwave said:

Apple crossed/matched XBox One level performance two years ago with the Apple A12X chip ... Nvidia prior to that was fairly even with Apple's big ticket offerings, the Tegra X1 is pretty equivalent to the Apple A9X that launched that same year for example. Since then Nvidia has gone quiet on future Tegra X processors likely because Nintendo has asked them to as they are the main vendor for said chip and if Nvidia was talking years in advance about it everyone and their grandma on the internet would be saying it's the Switch 2 chip. 

By 2023 they should be able to do something in raw power that I think is beyond a PS4, the same way the Switch Tegra X1 is beyond a PS3/360 (especially docked). 

But when you factor in DLSS 2.0 or 3.0 ... that performance jumps massively, that is something that wasn't available in the past and means the same chip now only has to render like 1/4-1/8th the pixels or even less. That's a huge game changer. 

So suddenly a chip that's PS4+ becomes close to an actual PS5 in terms of the games it can run. 

Remember the Tegra X1 launch in May 2015, so that is 18 months after the PS4/XB1 and it is able to run PS4/XB1 games, and some pretty beefy ones at that ... Witcher 3 and DOOM are not low end PS4 titles. With no advantage of DLSS at all. 

PS5 in November 2020 versus a new Switch 2 in say summer/fall 2023 is actually a bigger time gap by over a year long than the gap between PS4 and Tegra X1. Nvidia has way better graphics engineers than AMD ... AMD can't even beat Nvidia's Turing architecture which is 2 years old now even on a smaller node (7nm vs. 12nm) which is sad.

Yes sure, PS5 and XSX are so badly designed that Switch 2 on portable mode will be almost at the same level... sure.

Weren't you the one accusing others of drinking kool-aid and believing claims of the SSD performance from UE5? Putting NVidia CEO claims on November that their old notebook card was superior to PS5 and XSX before it even being revealed?

There's nothing wrong with any of that actually. It's been well known for several GPU cycles now, AMD cards struggle to keep up with OLDER Nvidia cards even when they have the benefit on a newer manufacturing process (ie: 7nm versus 12nm). 

The 2 year old Turing architecture does outperform the RDNA AMD architecture. Sorry if that upsets you but it's not a big secret or something in the PC world. Ampere will be even better than Turing and that arrives this fall. 

Nvidia is simply a far larger company with better engineers, Sony and MS choose AMD for cost reasons and backwards compatibility at this stage, not because they are the best GPU provider. They simply aren't.  

If the current Switch had DLSS 2.0 type technology it would be about on par with an XBox One, it can already run games like the Witcher 3 and DOOM which are fairly high end games, add DLSS to that equation and now the Switch can render at even far lower resolutions while getting a better looking end image at the same time. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGzq7KU5lF4

You can see here, the 394 GFLOP Switch does OK against a 4 TFLOP PS4 Pro, but understand if it had DLSS 2.0 it would perform considerably better than that, the image would be far sharper for starters and resolution could be reduced natively to allow for more effects. So at what point do you get a result where the differences become quite small.

So if Switch 2 to PS5 is basically the same as Switch 1 is to PS4/XB1 ... yes, DLSS will close a lot of that gap. The main issue Switch games have now is the bluriness that results from rendering at a low resolution but DLSS is custom made to take even lower resolutions than the Switch renders at now and giving the player an image that looks very hard to distinguish from a high resolution image. That's why it's a big deal.