How will be Switch 2 performance wise?

[JRPGfan]

Soundwave said:

sc94597 said:

It almost never makes sense to run a game at native resolution these days. DLSS Quality/FSR Ultra Quality (sometimes even FSR Quality) often give better image quality and frame rates than native in their current forms.

So if the target is 1080p and the native resolution is 720p, often you get a better than native 1080p image quality.

For handheld mode this image quality isn't just "okay", I think it is pretty great. I play games on my Rog Ally at this resolution often and the image is very clean.  

Combine it with a VRR screen (hopefully Nintendo goes this route) that let's you play at least at 40hz, and you have an excellent gaming handheld. High-end for 2023, and probably mid-range for 2024 when the Switch 2 likely releases, given that next-gen APU's are releasing soon. 

For larger displays, a 1440p target from say 840p/900p (for Nintendo games), isn't too bad at console-gaming distances. For PC gaming, sure you probably want at least an internal 1080p -> 1440p, but if somebody is playing on a 50 inch TV (probably the average size), sitting a few meters away, the image shouldn't be too bad. 

This will be a substantial upgrade from the original Switch. Because of the Series S and other gaming handhelds existing, obviously 3rd party support is going to be more viable than with Switch and Wii with respect to their competitors. 

I think this is something most people in this thread can agree on, independently of the semantic argument over "comparable." 

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. 

FSR at 1440p->4k is almost as good as DLSS.
The area where DLSS shines, compaired to fsr, is at low res upscaleing.
Like 540p -> 1080p ect (thats where DLSS kicks FSR's arse).

No joke, but at higher resolutions, DLSS vs FSR, is near identical.... esp if your sitting on a bit away from the TV/Monitor.
You need to zoom way in, and take screenshots/recordings to spot minor differences between the two.