How much do you care about the graphical leap between consoles at this point?

[Pemalite]

RolStoppable said:

Pemalite said:

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.)

First time I am reading this. So DLSS is dependent on external processing, a.k.a. the cloud. It's not an advanced form of resolution upscaling that is performed by the local device alone.

For a full detailing of how it works.
https://www.nvidia.com/en-au/geforce/news/nvidia-dlss-your-questions-answered/

https://www.anandtech.com/show/15648/nvidia-intros-dlss-20-adds-motion-vectors

https://au.pcmag.com/sound-cards/66143/testing-nvidias-dlss-20-higher-frame-rates-for-free

In short, nVidia's super computer has pre-calculated 16k images for the game locally being rendered to, being compared to.
That is allot of data, DLSS is only supported on a few PC titles... And that data is constantly being updated.
Where-as with a console, you would expect it be unanimously supported... That is 4804 games on Switch, and that's just the half life of the console, that number could double. - That's a ton of data.

Leynos said:
Be glad Switch even had 4GB. Nintendo wanted 3GB. Capcom asked them to add 4GB of ram.

I should iterate that I am a tech enthusiast. - I always want more, I always want better.
Ram is cheap.