By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Soundwave said:

Yes of course the current Switch doesn't have DLSS, my point is *if* that technology was available back then for them and they could have implemented it, something that would increase the performance of the Switch significantly. They could render as low as like 512x288 undocked (N64 level resolution) and 540p docked and achieve 720p undocked + full 1080p docked no problem. Games like Zelda BOTW would run even above 1080p, at 900p a DLSS 2.0 could reconstruct that maybe even a full 4K resolution, but certainly 1440p or 1800p would be doable. 

Switch already has games that drop to 640x360 like with Wolfenstein and Doom.

Witcher 3 drops to 810x456.

So we are already dealing with really really low gaming resolutions anyway.

DLSS, not sure if you have used it. It isn't some magical silver bullet, it helps, but it's not a cure-all and I *really* dislike how it over-sharpens everything, which brings with it some visual artifacts. - It's just one of many tools at a developers disposal to help bolster visual quality.

Volta has Tensor cores, that came out in 2017, the same year as the Switch, so the technology did exist when the console debuted, but Nintendo didn't opt for the most powerful SoC anyway or even went with a semi-custom design.

The issue is moot. The Switch doesn't have DLSS and probably will never have DLSS... And there is no guarantees that Nintendo will use DLSS with Switch 2 either, Nintendo does what Nintendo does.

Soundwave said:

AMD's GPUs have for years struggled to match performance of Nvidia GPU's that are 1-2 years older and have or often times run hotter on top of that in many cases. That's all I meant, when people see like a 2070 Super is "only" 9TFLOPS, that may well perform equal to a PS5 (10TF) or even XSX (12TF) ... it wouldn't surprise me. The RDNA2 architecture they have coming now is basically what Nvidia had almost two years ago with Turing.

I actually agree. AMD is behind nVidia technologically by a couple of years.
Just your methodology to getting to that conclusion prior was not what I agreed with.

Soundwave said:

Apple has used NVMe for about 4-5 years now. Android makers like Samsung favor UFS, UFS 3.1 can get up to 3GB/sec which is basically as fast as an NVMe drive. By the time Switch 2 is out there probably will be UFS 4.0 available if Nintendo wants it and that will probably be even faster. 

UFS is based upon SCSI stack, nVME is optimized for NAND.
nVME should in theory offer efficiency advantages over UFS.

I would assume Nintendo would continue with upgrading their current NAND progressively like they have done from Wii > Wii U > Switch. - Just a low-cost solution.

--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--