Hardstuck-Platinum said:
Does it? I know it's a good performance relative to it's 10w power draw but Cyberpunk is an old game now so I don't see how this can be seen as positive. Also, that there is even comparisons to the PS4 version at all is a seriously bad sign because that console is 12 years old and technologically really wasn't that great when it came out. 1.6GHZ CPU is prime example.  |
It beats the Playstation 4 as it's running Phantom Liberty that the PS4 couldn't even run at all.
I would also argue that Cyberpunk should not have been released on Xbox One or Playstation 4 as it's full of frame time spikes, low fps, poor texture and asset streaming resulting in a sub-par and janky experience.
It sets a good precedent as it adopts many of the modern rendering features, but scales it down into a handheld with a very good presentation, something that the Switch 1 could never hope to achieve.
The fact it's able to approach the Series S despite having a fraction of the CPU power, fraction of the memory bandwidth and less GPU compute is a testament to the efficiency of nVidia's Tegra SoC and the port itself... And this is a day 1 release, we have an entire console generation of developers learning how to use this chip more effectively.
Hardstuck-Platinum said:
I seriously don't understand this reaction to what I wrote. Yeah, I get that I'm in the minority with my opinion but there was always going to be someone that came into this thread saying they're not impressed by CP 2077 performance. It's impressive for 10 watts but the ARM CPU that's clocked at 1.0ghz in the Switch 2 seriously needs an overclock mod. It's capable of running at much higher frequencies so it's a shame it's stuck at 1.0GHZ until someone mods it. |
Nintendo may adjust or add different clockspeed profiles later on in the consoles lifecycle like they did with the OG Switch.

www.youtube.com/@Pemalite








