HoloDust said:
Those Geekbench results are CPU only. CPU can affect overall GPU performance and induce bottlenecks - as I said, it has almost nothing to do with DLSS which is GPU dependent. Switch 2, it seems, will have custom DLSS solution which, from what's been seen so far, has lower precision and shorter accumulation window for temporal data. Maybe not always, and not in all titles, but from Hogwarts it is obvious that its DLSS implementation, at least in some cases, is not as good as standard DLSS (though it doesn't look too good in CP2077 as well, just not as pronounced everywhere). |
I disagree with your viewpoint about DLSS being fully GPU dependent as seen lots of evidence that contradicts that.
In fairness I don't know much about Geekbench 6, I thought it was more browser/office focused etc and included graphic hardware tests related to video editing etc.
There is also the issue regarding the Cortex A78c cores being on a 10/8Nm fabrication process when it was designed and the figures they have given is for the best fabrication process of 5Nm.
Fabricating a new ARM CPU design on an older fabrication process can limit the chip's performance and efficiency. While the design itself may be advanced, the older process may struggle to deliver the dense transistor layouts and tight feature sizes needed to fully realize the design's potential. This can result in a chip that is larger, consumes more power, and may not reach the performance levels of a similar design built on a more modern process.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Performance Limits:
Older fabrication processes have larger transistor dimensions and wider spacing between transistors. This means that the overall size of the chip will be larger, and the transistors will take up more space, potentially limiting the number of transistors and thus the overall performance of the chip.
Power Consumption:
A larger chip and older fabrication processes can lead to higher power consumption. This is because transistors in older processes are less efficient and leak more power, and the increased size also means more power is needed to drive the chip.
Cost:
While older processes may be cheaper to use, the limitations on performance and efficiency might not be cost-effective in the long run. A more powerful, efficient chip, even if slightly more expensive to manufacture, might offer better overall value.
Design Tradeoffs:
Designers may have to make compromises in the architecture to work around the limitations of the older process. This could mean using less complex designs, reducing the number of cores, or making other sacrifices that impact performance and efficiency.
Potential for Optimization:
Despite these limitations, there are ways to optimize designs for older processes. For example, designers can focus on power management techniques, optimize the layout of the chip, and use more efficient memory architectures.
Ultimately I feel like the Nintendo Switch 2 is a very budget design with a very dated chipset and a very low cost implementation of that chipset with regards fabrication. It literally is a design and a fabrication process from 2020 and really its only the excellent DLSS upscaling that saves it and makes it more competitive with other platforms but whether we will ever know the true spec and performance is another matter as Nintendo are aggressively protecting the console from hacking/modding with the system quick to brick if anything is out of place like voltages and I'm guessing it is impossible to replace the battery yourself as it will self-brick. All battery replacements will likely have to go through Nintendo. However what will reveal the true spec is its final performance of retail models, yes it will be more guess work that anything but we will get an overall reasonable picture. Any videos about teardowns are probably going to be videos about bricked Switch 2s as well. I just hope there is a youtuber happy to brick his Nintendo 2 to give us full details of the final retail hardware.
