sc94597 said:
This is never said. You can point out the time-stamp where you are confused and I can help you. The question was about performance not quality. At 4:13 "Would this theoretical performance be enough to run 4k DLSS on Switch 2 to enable 4k gaming in dock mode. To investigate this question we can look on PC and do some fuzzy maths to see where Switch 2 might end up." He then goes on to compute the hypothetical overhead from doing 4k DLSS on Switch 2 (assuming Orin Ampere @10W): 10.5 ms. For a game to run at 60fps, you are targeting 16.67 ms (1sec/60) per frame. His point then is that the DLSS overhead takes up about 60% (10.5/16.67) of the frame-time, leaving only 6.17 ms to render the frame. Or in other words, to achieve 60fps at 4k, the Switch would need to run a game at about 162 FPS at 720p. Then he suggests that 30fps, is a more attainable goal, because for 720p->4k the overhead only takes 30% of the frame-time. Switch 2 would only need to run the game at 33.3 ms - 10.5 ms = 22.8 ms or roughly 40 FPS at 720p to achieve this. The argument was never about image quality, it was about performance. He then does go on to talk about image quality between performance mode vs. ultra-performance mode vs. native, but that is an entirely separate discussion from the frame-rate discussion. Nowhere in the video is it stated that the image quality (rather than the graphics quality) is better at 30fps than 60fps. Because it isn't. Ultra performance mode is ultra performance mode regardless of the framerate (if anything a higher framerate helps a tiny bit.) Likewise performance mode is performance mode regardless of the framerate. Graphics quality might improve by choosing a 30fps target rather than a 60fps target, but that is for the same reason graphics quality always improves (independently of DLSS) by choosing a lower frame-rate target, you have more resources to render extra effects. |
Maybe i was high but i could have sworn he said that, can't find it though then my fault.
