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

The Tegra X1 was a pretty damn powerful chip for a portable device that was supposed to release in 2016, Nintendo's hardware decisions are not that weird of late, the days I think of Miyamoto getting to do whatever he wants on hardware just because he has some preference are over. 

Powerful, yes. Class leading? Not really.

Tegra X1 was not the fastest SoC on the market at the time the Switch debuted, Tegra X2 could have offered 50% more performance at the same TDP easily enough. (Your typical Maxwell to Pascal jump.)

Not to mention the Switch castrated clockrates to ensure that power consumption remained in check.

And... Additionally, only had 4GB of Ram which could have been boosted to 6-8GB fairly cheaply.

Soundwave said:

DLSS is not about cutting edge power ... it's the exact opposite ... it lets lowered powered hardware punch way above its weight. It's basically tailor made for a system like the Switch, Nvidia doesn't have a big incentive to push this for PC GPUs because otherwise people would just buy cheap GPUs. But for a Nintendo system it makes perfect sense. 

DLSS is reliant on the cloud and Tensor cores.
No internet? No DLSS.

What can the Switch not guarantee? That's right. Internet due to the Wifi connectivity.

...And because DLSS requires internet connectivity, it increases data traffic which not only reduces the consoles portable battery life, but if you are using mobile data, extra data charges on top of it. (Important if you have data caps.)

Soundwave said:

DLSS on Switch can mean they can keep their games locked at insanely low resolutions, you may never have to render even above 960x540 really (docked). And Tensor cores are basically part of all modern Nvidia graphics chips, even modern Tegra designs like the Tegra Xavier has Tensor cores. 

Nintendo likes to have a "clean" presentation.
That means minimal post-process effects and "enhancements" to the image like Anti-Aliasing. - We need to remember that DLSS does bring with it various artifacts in the visuals due to over-sharpening, it's not perfect in every game.

Not only that, but hardware tends to have an "efficiency curve". - Where once you exceed a certain resolution threshold, there is a corresponding exponential hit to performance.
The Switch only has 25GB/s of bandwidth, so that is a fairly chunky bottleneck, which is one of the bigger factors limiting it to achieving 1080P even in docked mode with the majority of games.

If Switch 2 targets 1080P and has 150GB/s or more of memory bandwidth, then running games at 540P is probably not going to net developers with much additional performance to bolster visual fidelity in other areas as clearly you aren't going to be fillrate limited.

KratosLives said:
Can anyone tell me how big of a leap the cpu is compared to base ps4. 10X, 20? More?

Between PS4 and PS5? Around 10x when leveraging Ryzens newer capabilities, might even be more, I did a deep-dive ages ago with a breakdown of capabilities.
Probably closer to around 5-8x when dealing with more traditional workloads.

But that is a catastrophic leap.

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