By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 on 12 January 2024
Edit Thread
Chrkeller said:

I think people really need to understand resolution is just one piece of visuals. Many other factors include fps, texture quality, anisotropic filtering, lighting, shadows, reflections, SSAA, etc. All of which eat memory bandwidth.

Point being 1080p 120 fps ultra settings versus 1440p 30 fps low settings.... not a contest. The former wins by a landslide.

Resolution is being given too much emphasis.

Resolution is the easiest way to scale with memory bandwidth bottlenecks though. We see this with the Rog Ally and its 100 GBps memory bandwidth. The simplest way to scale frame-rate is to reduce internal resolution by changing the FSR setting or target resolution. You can also scale these other things too, but the Rog Ally (and probably Switch 2 as well) already run games at low-medium PC settings so there isn't much else to scale there. 

The Rog Ally is effectively a 720p -> 900p/1080p machine that plays demanding games at low-medium settings at either a fixed 30fps or variable 30-45 fps when in its 15W mode. Given the Switch 2's specs, we should expect similar, depending on the target TDP of the Switch 2 maybe a bit more like the 25W mode of the Rog Ally, which can do 40 - 60 fps variable at 720p -> 900p/1080p in demanding titles. I think that is what we should expect for the Switch 2 for demanding AAA 3rd party games. For Nintendo's first party games, which tend to depend on less demanding assets but nice visual effects, I think 900p -> 1440p docked is definitely a possibility. 

It is not unreasonable to expect the Switch 2 to be comparable to a mid-end 2024 gaming handheld, just as non-hybrid consoles are comparable to mid-end PC's of the year they release.