JRPGfan said:
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.
|
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.
|
Well the Switch 2 should never be rendering at higher resolutions to begin with. It's a monumental waste.
720p to 1440p DLSS looks terrific. Most normal gamers sitting on their couch several feet away from even 65-77 inch display are not going to know any better.
540 to 1080p DLSS is a laugh, you can approximate this if you have DLSS titles like Alan Wake II or Cyberpunk 2077 ... set the game to "windowed" mode on your full size monitor, in that case I was getting a display image of roughly 13 inches on my 4K monitor PC monitor (way larger than a Switch 2's hypothetical 8 inch display but at least in the same ball park) and even at 13 inches display ... toggling back and forth between native 1080p and 540-to-1080p DLSS is extremely hard to tell a difference.
A developer would be utterly stupid IMO to try and brute force native res on a machine like the Switch 2. You're asking the system to push so many more pixels for almost no benefit. If I'm a Switch 2 developer working on even a remotely challenging type of port for the system, I'm sticking with 540p (1080p DLSS) and 720p (1440p DLSS) as my main resolutions and not a single pixel more.
A ROG Ally is basically a portable PS5/XSX ... like on no planet can you seriously state that's "just a PS4" when its running Starfield and Alan Wake II in playable states even at 15 watts only. Indoor areas it even climbs above 40 fps for Starfield and some areas in AW2 too as well. We have portables that can already run PS5/XSX tiers, we've had it for a while. The Steam Deck is almost 2 years old.
Last edited by Soundwave - on 12 January 2024
