Pemalite said:
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.
|
I would agree it's a good showcase of the Switch 2's hardware efficiency and improvement over Switch 1, but a good precedent? I'm not sure. Based on this performance can we be sure that Path of exile 2, Witcher 4 and Elder scrolls 6 will run on here? Not everyone likes Nintendo first party games so I'm sure others will want to know too.
Biggerboat1 said:
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. |
I think it's because your comment comes across as overly negative & omits key information.
Like complaining that comparing S2 to a PS4 is itself damning as the latter is old tech, but failing to mention or weigh the fact that we're talking about a plug-in high power draw console vs a handheld with a comparatively tiny power budget. Which devices in the same category & budget as S2 are destroying PS4 & handily beating Series S? I'm disappointed that S2 wasn't on Lovelace which apparently would have provided an extra 30% GPU performance, but it wouldn't have been a night & day difference - I can still appreciate what S2 is.
And it doesn't really matter how old a game is, but how demanding it is & CP 2077 is up there. |
Handily beating Series S? Cmon now lets not exaggerate here. Switch 2 is well designed and well priced and clearly very popular, but CP 2077 I think is a warning shot of it's limitations. You hear the story that Nintendo didn't send out Switch 2's to big journalists to be reviewed early? maybe this game was why.
