zeldaring said:
sc94597 said:
DLSS 3.0 is an entirely different beast from DLSS 2.0. DLSS 2.0 improves image quality beyond the internal render resolution regardless of that render resolution and even is better than native target resolution in numerous cases. Even FSR does this, which is why there are countless videos of how best to use FSR with the Steam Deck (native resolution of 1280 x 800) to improve battery life with minimal image-quality loss (if any.)
DLSS 3.0, because the goal is temporal interpolation (producing missing frames, and not just missing pixels) has a few quirks that will have to be worked out. But the Switch 2 likely won't even support DLSS 3.0 anyway. Ampere's Optical Flow Accelerator (OFA) isn't fast enough. That's why the 3000 series Nvidia GPU's don't have DLSS 3.0 (or at least according to Nvidia that is why, which seemed suspect until they announced 3.5 for all RTX GPU's.)
One of the things that has hindered the original Switch is that games have to work well in both portable and docked mode, and in portable mode you can't have a battery life of 30 minutes because the game is pushing the platform to its limits. DLSS 2.0 allows for far more flexibility in this sphere, even for Nintendo themselves. You'll rarely have situations where resolution falls to 360p (i.e Xenoblade 2), for example, like we've seen on the Switch.
My guess is that the internal resolution will always be between 720p - 1080p, and the effective resolution (after applying DLSS) will be between 1080p and 1440p when docked, with many games targeting 60fps that wouldn't otherwise have. If Nintendo were savvy, they'd put a VRR screen in the device, and many games could even target stable 40fps or 50fps without much screen-tearing.
While PS5 level visuals/framerates is indeed hyperbolic, being able to meet or even exceed the Series S in many cases (or at least there will be trade-offs where there is no clear better version) is certainly doable. That is all the Switch 2 needs to do to keep up with the current generation.
|
Aright let's make a bet then. Most ports will be inferior to series S. Winner get's to put a signature on the bottom of each post of what ever he wants.
|
Alright, with a few conditions.
1. The comparison would be between a docked Switch 2 and a Series S. An undocked Switch 2 with an Orin architecture likely would be between the Steam Deck and a Series S (which aren't really that far apart anyway, see Digital Foundry's video "Steam Deck vs. Xbox Series S".)
2. If the Switch isn't using an Orin architecture (or something comparable, like say a Snapdragon 8 Gen 2) but something else, then the bet is void. For example, if Nintendo negotiates a Tegra Thor (with ADA Lovelace architecture) -- the Switch 2, even as a portable, almost certainly will match a Series S, even without DLSS being a big boon for it. An RTX 4050 laptop is almost twice as powerful as the Series S, and one would expect a Tegra Thor chip to be something like 60-70% as powerful as a full-powered AD107 (chip in an RTX 4050 laptop.)
3. We define "superior" as the tie-breaker between: a. more stable; higher framerates, b. effective image quality, and c. visual/graphics effects. So if Series S is better in the first two, but worse in the third it wins that game. If they are comparable on one category, one is better on the other, and the other is better on the third category, then that is considered a draw (1 Switch 2, 1 Neutral, 1 Series S.) Digital Foundry videos can be used as the neutral metric of comparison.
4. At least five multiplatform releases need to happen before we call the bet.
