| Soundwave said: FSR is shit compared to DLSS too, DLSS provides a very clean looking image that most people are not going to be able to tell a big difference from actual native res and then add in on top of that you're getting basically free anti-aliasing, something current Switch games suffer from a lack of and it's just laughable to me that as a Switch 2 dev you'd want to brute force 4-8x the pixel count for no real big gain in visual fidelity. 540p to 1080p even is very, very acceptable and that's coming from me, I'm an image quality enthusiast. I was so disgusted visiting my friend at a Best Buy that he worked at at their TV/OLED section that I made him get me the remotes for all their flagship big screen TVs and recalibrated the settings for each one manually. His manager even offered me a job, but I'm not working minimum wage at retail no way, lol. If 540p to 1080p DLSS can pass on a big screen display as acceptable, "Joe Fucking Average" gamer is going to be more than fine with that on a 8 inch screen, it's not even worth arguing. For a TV mode, once you give DLSS 720p pixels even, it can produce good visuals on very large displays. Keep in mind we are talking about a general public who don't even know what a damn real 4K image looks like most of the time. Most people don't understand that Netflix "4K" streams are dog shit bit rate, lower than even 1080p physical Blu-Ray and many PS5/XSX games aren't doing 4K native either. Most people don't know native 4K from their ass. Nintendo is going to be more than fine with DLSS from much lower resolutions, 99% of people are never going to know any better and think they are just playing native resolution. |
I wouldn't necessarily call "FSR.. shit compared to DLSS." It is about a half-step below DLSS, in their current iterations. Ultra Quality FSR ~ Quality DLSS, Quality FSR ~ Balanced DLSS, etc. The advantage for the Switch 2 is that it can use either upscaling solution, so even if AMD did catch up and exceed Nvidia in certain instances, the Switch 2 can easily just use FSR too. So for those titles where DLSS is superior Switch 2 can use that, and for those where FSR is superior (assuming AMD catches up) then it can use that.
I personally can tell a significant difference between 540p -> 1080p and 720p -> 1080p, even on a handheld display. It looks better than native 720p but doesn't quite achieve native 1080p's image quality, whereas 720p -> 1080p exceeds native more often than not. I don't think Nintendo or third parties will need to go that low in terms of native resolution in all but the most demanding titles. The Switch 2 has enough memory bandwidth to consistently produce native 720p that can be upscaled to 1080p. I expect most games will do this. And you likely won't get much of a performance benefit from going down to 540p anyway. It would be a last-ditch solution to get a game to run acceptably in the most demanding titles, is my guess. The average Joe probably would indeed be fine, but if there is little cost to run the title at native 720p then it isn't really an issue.
What is more critical than even DLSS, imo, is that the display supports VRR. Variable 40-60 HZ has become a standard on gaming handhelds. The difference in how a game "feels" between 30fps and 45 fps (- 11 ms), is much more significant than between 45 fps and 60fps (- 5.5 ms.) as long as you don't have screen-tearing because your display doesn't support VRR. That would be the real game-changer when it comes to parity. Games that are running at a solid 45 fps or variable 45-60 hz won't feel too different from a solid 60fps as far as responsiveness.
