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

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.

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.

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.

Lets move the DLSS 2.0 point to what a hypothetical PS5 to Switch 2 could very well be, because the advantages become far more apparent there. Lets say a game like Witcher 4 is on PS5. It's a pretty beefy game lets say and can't run at full 4K even on a PS5, it runs at 1800p. OK. 

If they really wanted to, they could then run the Switch 2 version using DLSS 2.0 at 

PS5 1800p = (5,760,000 pixels)

Switch 2 undocked 1080p " DLSSed" from 640x360 =  (230,400 pixels)

Switch 2 docked 1440p "DLSSed" from 1024x576 = (589,824 pixels)

This is a freaking monstrous disparity, the PS5 has to render over 20x the resolution as the Switch 2 undocked now and 9x docked. Do you think the PS4 would be able to run the Switch version of Witcher 3 at 20x the undocked resolution? Or even docked at 9x the resolution? Not a chance. 

Because the Switch 2 has such a resolution overhead advantage here it means now likely things like being able to increase the frame rate or bump effects settings from low to medium becomes much more feasible. Yes you can quibble that the image quality isn't quite 100% on (too sharp sometimes maybe), but it's still going to be a better image quality than the blur-fest of current Switch-PS4 ports with better graphics settings possible. How much can you really complain because you can't exactly put a PS5 in your coat pocket. 

Regarding NVMe or UFS 3.1 ... I mean why doesn't Nintendo just source the same NVMe part as Apple? It must be mass produced at a huge level these days and Apple's been using those drives by 2023 for 8+ years. If not UFS 3.1 is still extremely fast, 3GB/sec is not a joke and by 2023 that will be common and widespread by hundreds of millions of Android devices, likely even faster UFS 4.0 is available by then. Nintendo will have options on this issue.  

I'm still waiting you to explain if DLSS 2.0 is such a godsent how will they still convince people to buy 1000 USD cards when their 200 USD variation with DLSS 2.0 basically erases almost all differences from your own speculation.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."