RUMOR: Nintendo Switch 2 leaked factory images/specs/renders

[sc94597]

Chrkeller said:

sc94597 said:

Your 4070 also has system memory to swap from (or allocated CPU tasks to) and far more, higher performant, cores than the base PS5. As far as memory bandwidth is concerned, the PS5 and 4070 are in similar ballparks. 

A more recent GDDR6 version of the 4070 (versus the original GDDR6X version) has just released with essentially insignificant performance differences from the original at 1080p and 1440p, resolutions that most people use this GPU for. 

Although -5% loss of memory bandwidth wouldn't suggest there would be much of a difference anyway. 

https://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4070-gddr6-vs-gddr6x-tested-99-performance-at-1440p-1080p-98-at-4k

CPU bottlenecks are far more rare these days than in the 8th generation (and prior.) At the performance targets that Switch 2 and Series S aim for (30-60fps) I don't think either system is going to be (or is, in the Series S case) very CPU-bound in most titles.

Any idea what is driving Avowed and Snake Eater being capped at 30 fps on consoles?  Rumor has it MH Wilds will be capped as well.  

Game developers know most console players prefer prettier games than higher frame rates, so they push for higher quality visuals and set a 30fps target to achieve them, only to later add performance modes. I am almost certain that somebody will get Avowed to play at 60fps on a Ryzen 5 3600 (a CPU weaker than the series X's) without over-utilizing that CPU (pegging it at 100% utilization on any core) by pairing it with the proper GPU and dialing in reasonable graphics settings. 

When Starfield originally released on the Series X it was limited to 30fps. People argued it was because the Series X's CPU was bottlenecking the title. Now it has a 60fps performance mode. If it were indeed a CPU bottleneck, we wouldn't expect the game's performance to scale well with internal resolution changes. 

Last edited by sc94597 - on 21 September 2024