By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 on 18 August 2025
Edit Thread
Otter said:
sc94597 said:

We're talking about a >30% improvement in a real-world cross-generation game in docked mode, not "5-8%." 

Again, Cyberpunk 2077 is running with 32% more pixels on average, sticks to its 30fps target more consistently, has higher resolution textures and superior scene geometry/LoD management, and this is with DLSS cutting into resources to provide an even better effective image-quality than +32% (without it) would provide. Where the game has the most issues on Switch 2 is in content that isn't even on PS4/Pro.

We're not talking about something "on paper" like floating point performance here, but the actual real world performance in a benchmark title.

This is PS4 tier IMO but yes, this is just a vibe thing. Especially if we're looking at consoles in the past and what we're used to seeing on distinctly different hardware... i.e Dreamcast vs PS2 vs Xbox. Huge differences in hardware capacity within 2 years of each other. 

30% more rasterized performance here or there is not crazy significant in the console space and you're more or less looking at the same game just slightly sharper image quality or fewer drops. Ala PS4 vs Xbox One. 

I'd say PS4 tier is maybe underselling it but that's just us using another console as a reference point. In reality it's actual performance can't be tied into a neat little box. Will depend on the game/use case. Hopefully we see Nintendo utilise those  "modern feature sets" as that's the most obvious way we'll see it clearly separate it's capacity from last gen. I'd say Cyberpunk much increased level of playability makes a good use case too, looking beyond resolution and more at how DLSS fixes all the terrible artefacts, or faster asset streaming makes the popin less of an eye-sore, or the FPS almost being stable for the main game. 

Sure, which is why I originally asked how one is defining "PS4-tier" here. If 30-50% isn't considered significant enough to leave it, then PS4 Pro is also "PS4-tier". 

But yeah the other point I made is that the Switch 2 also supports modern (9th generation) rendering features, like: hardware ray-tracing, mesh shaders, VRS, etc. 

Chrkeller said:
sc94597 said:

So you don't care about resolution, and care mostly about frame-rate (which is still significantly worse on PS4.) That's fine. Others care about the opposite or both. Which aspect people prefer is indeed largely subjective. 

The point is that objectively, the Switch 2 (docked) is outperforming the PS4 (and that is without accounting for the DLSS penalty) by >32%, in the one demanding cross-generation game they share. This also roughly corresponds with other cross-generation games. 

I am not bent out of shape, just disagreeing with your narrative that people are bothered by your PS4 comparison because they think PS4 is weak, rather than it just not being representative of what we've seen in like to like comparisons.  

Overall the S2 isn't behind PS4 Pro. The one area (besides external shadows) the PS4 Pro out-classes Switch 2 is in internal resolution, but the point Richard made is that DLSS has a performance penalty and the effective image quality (from the first analysis Digital Foundry did) is roughly a trade-off. Textures, SSR, and geometry/LoD management are better on Switch 2 than PS4 Pro as well. 

so roughly the S2 is a ps4 pro.  I will ensure to use ps4 pro tier.  

Maybe in this thread, or another thread there was a poll and PS4 Pro/One X were put into their own tier separate from One/base PS4, if I recall correctly. Some people tend to think of the mid-gen refreshes as something "different" for better or worse. But yeah, PS4 Pro tier as far as raw performance is fair enough.