Forums - Gaming Discussion - How much do you care about the graphical leap between consoles at this point?

curl-6 said:
Soundwave said:

Apple crossed/matched XBox One level performance two years ago with the Apple A12X chip ... Nvidia prior to that was fairly even with Apple's big ticket offerings, the Tegra X1 is pretty equivalent to the Apple A9X that launched that same year for example. Since then Nvidia has gone quiet on future Tegra X processors likely because Nintendo has asked them to as they are the main vendor for said chip and if Nvidia was talking years in advance about it everyone and their grandma on the internet would be saying it's the Switch 2 chip. 

By 2023 they should be able to do something in raw power that I think is beyond a PS4, the same way the Switch Tegra X1 is beyond a PS3/360 (especially docked). 

But when you factor in DLSS 2.0 or 3.0 ... that performance jumps massively, that is something that wasn't available in the past and means the same chip now only has to render like 1/4-1/8th the pixels or even less. That's a huge game changer. 

So suddenly a chip that's PS4+ becomes close to an actual PS5 in terms of the games it can run. 

Remember the Tegra X1 launch in May 2015, so that is 18 months after the PS4/XB1 and it is able to run PS4/XB1 games, and some pretty beefy ones at that ... Witcher 3 and DOOM are not low end PS4 titles. With no advantage of DLSS at all. 

PS5 in November 2020 versus a new Switch 2 in say summer/fall 2023 is actually a bigger time gap by over a year long than the gap between PS4 and Tegra X1. Nvidia has way better graphics engineers than AMD ... AMD can't even beat Nvidia's Turing architecture which is 2 years old now even on a smaller node (7nm vs. 12nm) which is sad.

DLSS can help with pixel fillrate but to be fair there is more to it than that; bandwith, CPU, SSD, etc.

I'm sure Switch 2 can exceed PS4 but I'm very skeptical of it getting "close to PS5."

Are you also skeptical that the current Switch can get "close to PS4"? Because it already does with games like Witcher 3 and DOOM. You can also see games like Resident Evil 3 Remake and Star Wars Battlefront are able to run on a portable GPD Win 2 which is not much better than an existing Switch. 

DLSS makes that far easier and it does impact your bandwidth when you only have to render at a fraction of the resolution to boot.

Arm A78 as a CPU core, which releases later this year will be comparable to Zen 2 AMD cores. By 2023 that CPU will be cheap. 

You also are underestimating that Switch 2 likely will be using a better architecture than the PS5's GPU. Switch 2 would likely be an Ampere or Orin-based part ... PS5 is RDNA2 ... RDNA2 can't even beat Nvidia's 2 year old Turing architecture. A *laptop* version (which is less powerful than the desktop version) of the RTX 2080 outperformed the PS5 on that much balley hooed Unreal Engine 5 test (40 fps vs 30 fps), lol. 

SSD is another overhyped thing, UFS 3.1 which is mobile flash storage can get up to 3GB/sec which is faster than what the XBox SX is using and Apple just flat out has been using NVMe drives in iPhones/iPads for 5 years now. 

If Nvidia gives Nintendo a Switch 2 chip that's akin to the Tegra X1 was for 2015, but in 2023, with DLSS, yes you are going to get PS5 level games. They may not render at anywhere close to the same resolution, but if your eyes can't tell the difference anyway, what does it matter? I mean shit, that 540p DLSS image on Control to me actually honestly looked sharper and cleaner than native 1080p. I've seen other tests where 576p was scaled up to 1440p and it looks very close. It's ridiculous. Even N64-era (1990s-era) resolutions like 512x288 look playable for an undocked mode if need be. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 22 May 2020

Around the Network
Soundwave said:
curl-6 said:

DLSS can help with pixel fillrate but to be fair there is more to it than that; bandwith, CPU, SSD, etc.

I'm sure Switch 2 can exceed PS4 but I'm very skeptical of it getting "close to PS5."

Are you also skeptical that the current Switch can get "close to PS4"? Because it already does with games like Witcher 3 and DOOM. You can also see games like Resident Evil 3 Remake and Star Wars Battlefront are able to run on a portable GPD Win 2 which is not much better than an existing Switch. 

DLSS makes that far easier and it does impact your bandwidth when you only have to render at a fraction of the resolution to boot.

Arm A78 as a CPU core, which releases later this year will be comparable to Zen 2 AMD cores. By 2023 that CPU will be cheap. 

You also are underestimating that Switch 2 likely will be using a better architecture than the PS5's GPU. Switch 2 would likely be an Ampere or Orin-based part ... PS5 is RDNA2 ... RDNA2 can't even beat Nvidia's 2 year old Turing architecture. A *laptop* version (which is less powerful than the desktop version) of the RTX 2080 outperformed the PS5 on that much balley hooed Unreal Engine 5 test (40 fps vs 30 fps), lol. 

SSD is another overhyped thing, UFS 3.1 which is mobile flash storage can get up to 3GB/sec which is faster than what the XBox SX is using and Apple just flat out has been using NVMe drives in iPhones/iPads for 5 years now. 

If Nvidia gives Nintendo a Switch 2 chip that's akin to the Tegra X1 was for 2015, but in 2023, with DLSS, yes you are going to get PS5 level games. They may not render at anywhere close to the same resolution, but if your eyes can't tell the difference anyway, what does it matter? I mean shit, that 540p DLSS image on Control to me actually honestly looked sharper and cleaner than native 1080p. I've seen other tests where 576p was scaled up to 1440p and it looks very close. It's ridiculous. Even N64-era (1990s-era) resolutions like 512x288 look playable for an undocked mode if need be. 

I guess it depends how you'd define "close". I think its achievable that Switch 2 can be as close to PS5 as Switch 1 is to PS4, and I'd be very pleased with that result, just as I am currently satisfied with the Switch's graphical capabilities.

So long as it can get PS5/XSX ports like the Switch 1 gets PS4/Xbone ports, and exceeds the graphics of current consoles, that'd be enough for me. Unless Nintendo really cheap out, I expect that to happen.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 22 May 2020

Soundwave said:
curl-6 said:

So if that's whats currently available, any idea about what could be available for a release in 2023?

Apple crossed/matched XBox One level performance two years ago with the Apple A12X chip ... Nvidia prior to that was fairly even with Apple's big ticket offerings, the Tegra X1 is pretty equivalent to the Apple A9X that launched that same year for example. Since then Nvidia has gone quiet on future Tegra X processors likely because Nintendo has asked them to as they are the main vendor for said chip and if Nvidia was talking years in advance about it everyone and their grandma on the internet would be saying it's the Switch 2 chip. 

By 2023 they should be able to do something in raw power that I think is beyond a PS4, the same way the Switch Tegra X1 is beyond a PS3/360 (especially docked). 

But when you factor in DLSS 2.0 or 3.0 ... that performance jumps massively, that is something that wasn't available in the past and means the same chip now only has to render like 1/4-1/8th the pixels or even less. That's a huge game changer. 

So suddenly a chip that's PS4+ becomes close to an actual PS5 in terms of the games it can run. 

Remember the Tegra X1 launch in May 2015, so that is 18 months after the PS4/XB1 and it is able to run PS4/XB1 games, and some pretty beefy ones at that ... Witcher 3 and DOOM are not low end PS4 titles. With no advantage of DLSS at all. 

PS5 in November 2020 versus a new Switch 2 in say summer/fall 2023 is actually a bigger time gap by over a year long than the gap between PS4 and Tegra X1. Nvidia has way better graphics engineers than AMD ... AMD can't even beat Nvidia's Turing architecture which is 2 years old now even on a smaller node (7nm vs. 12nm) which is sad.

Yes sure, PS5 and XSX are so badly designed that Switch 2 on portable mode will be almost at the same level... sure.

Weren't you the one accusing others of drinking kool-aid and believing claims of the SSD performance from UE5? Putting NVidia CEO claims on November that their old notebook card was superior to PS5 and XSX before it even being revealed?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Soundwave said:
curl-6 said:

DLSS can help with pixel fillrate but to be fair there is more to it than that; bandwith, CPU, SSD, etc.

I'm sure Switch 2 can exceed PS4 but I'm very skeptical of it getting "close to PS5."

Are you also skeptical that the current Switch can get "close to PS4"? Because it already does with games like Witcher 3 and DOOM. You can also see games like Resident Evil 3 Remake and Star Wars Battlefront are able to run on a portable GPD Win 2 which is not much better than an existing Switch. 

DLSS makes that far easier and it does impact your bandwidth when you only have to render at a fraction of the resolution to boot.

Arm A78 as a CPU core, which releases later this year will be comparable to Zen 2 AMD cores. By 2023 that CPU will be cheap. 

You also are underestimating that Switch 2 likely will be using a better architecture than the PS5's GPU. Switch 2 would likely be an Ampere or Orin-based part ... PS5 is RDNA2 ... RDNA2 can't even beat Nvidia's 2 year old Turing architecture. A *laptop* version (which is less powerful than the desktop version) of the RTX 2080 outperformed the PS5 on that much balley hooed Unreal Engine 5 test (40 fps vs 30 fps), lol. 

SSD is another overhyped thing, UFS 3.1 which is mobile flash storage can get up to 3GB/sec which is faster than what the XBox SX is using and Apple just flat out has been using NVMe drives in iPhones/iPads for 5 years now. 

If Nvidia gives Nintendo a Switch 2 chip that's akin to the Tegra X1 was for 2015, but in 2023, with DLSS, yes you are going to get PS5 level games. They may not render at anywhere close to the same resolution, but if your eyes can't tell the difference anyway, what does it matter? I mean shit, that 540p DLSS image on Control to me actually honestly looked sharper and cleaner than native 1080p. I've seen other tests where 576p was scaled up to 1440p and it looks very close. It's ridiculous. Even N64-era (1990s-era) resolutions like 512x288 look playable for an undocked mode if need be. 

Your definition of very close is Witcher 3 running on Switch.... I guess we are all blind to see those differences between the versions.

Very low end PCs is very close to enthusiast PCs then.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
Soundwave said:

Apple crossed/matched XBox One level performance two years ago with the Apple A12X chip ... Nvidia prior to that was fairly even with Apple's big ticket offerings, the Tegra X1 is pretty equivalent to the Apple A9X that launched that same year for example. Since then Nvidia has gone quiet on future Tegra X processors likely because Nintendo has asked them to as they are the main vendor for said chip and if Nvidia was talking years in advance about it everyone and their grandma on the internet would be saying it's the Switch 2 chip. 

By 2023 they should be able to do something in raw power that I think is beyond a PS4, the same way the Switch Tegra X1 is beyond a PS3/360 (especially docked). 

But when you factor in DLSS 2.0 or 3.0 ... that performance jumps massively, that is something that wasn't available in the past and means the same chip now only has to render like 1/4-1/8th the pixels or even less. That's a huge game changer. 

So suddenly a chip that's PS4+ becomes close to an actual PS5 in terms of the games it can run. 

Remember the Tegra X1 launch in May 2015, so that is 18 months after the PS4/XB1 and it is able to run PS4/XB1 games, and some pretty beefy ones at that ... Witcher 3 and DOOM are not low end PS4 titles. With no advantage of DLSS at all. 

PS5 in November 2020 versus a new Switch 2 in say summer/fall 2023 is actually a bigger time gap by over a year long than the gap between PS4 and Tegra X1. Nvidia has way better graphics engineers than AMD ... AMD can't even beat Nvidia's Turing architecture which is 2 years old now even on a smaller node (7nm vs. 12nm) which is sad.

Yes sure, PS5 and XSX are so badly designed that Switch 2 on portable mode will be almost at the same level... sure.

Weren't you the one accusing others of drinking kool-aid and believing claims of the SSD performance from UE5? Putting NVidia CEO claims on November that their old notebook card was superior to PS5 and XSX before it even being revealed?

There's nothing wrong with any of that actually. It's been well known for several GPU cycles now, AMD cards struggle to keep up with OLDER Nvidia cards even when they have the benefit on a newer manufacturing process (ie: 7nm versus 12nm). 

The 2 year old Turing architecture does outperform the RDNA AMD architecture. Sorry if that upsets you but it's not a big secret or something in the PC world. Ampere will be even better than Turing and that arrives this fall. 

Nvidia is simply a far larger company with better engineers, Sony and MS choose AMD for cost reasons and backwards compatibility at this stage, not because they are the best GPU provider. They simply aren't.  

If the current Switch had DLSS 2.0 type technology it would be about on par with an XBox One, it can already run games like the Witcher 3 and DOOM which are fairly high end games, add DLSS to that equation and now the Switch can render at even far lower resolutions while getting a better looking end image at the same time. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGzq7KU5lF4

You can see here, the 394 GFLOP Switch does OK against a 4 TFLOP PS4 Pro, but understand if it had DLSS 2.0 it would perform considerably better than that, the image would be far sharper for starters and resolution could be reduced natively to allow for more effects. So at what point do you get a result where the differences become quite small.

So if Switch 2 to PS5 is basically the same as Switch 1 is to PS4/XB1 ... yes, DLSS will close a lot of that gap. The main issue Switch games have now is the bluriness that results from rendering at a low resolution but DLSS is custom made to take even lower resolutions than the Switch renders at now and giving the player an image that looks very hard to distinguish from a high resolution image. That's why it's a big deal. 



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Soundwave said:

Are you also skeptical that the current Switch can get "close to PS4"? Because it already does with games like Witcher 3 and DOOM. You can also see games like Resident Evil 3 Remake and Star Wars Battlefront are able to run on a portable GPD Win 2 which is not much better than an existing Switch. 

DLSS makes that far easier and it does impact your bandwidth when you only have to render at a fraction of the resolution to boot.

Arm A78 as a CPU core, which releases later this year will be comparable to Zen 2 AMD cores. By 2023 that CPU will be cheap. 

You also are underestimating that Switch 2 likely will be using a better architecture than the PS5's GPU. Switch 2 would likely be an Ampere or Orin-based part ... PS5 is RDNA2 ... RDNA2 can't even beat Nvidia's 2 year old Turing architecture. A *laptop* version (which is less powerful than the desktop version) of the RTX 2080 outperformed the PS5 on that much balley hooed Unreal Engine 5 test (40 fps vs 30 fps), lol. 

SSD is another overhyped thing, UFS 3.1 which is mobile flash storage can get up to 3GB/sec which is faster than what the XBox SX is using and Apple just flat out has been using NVMe drives in iPhones/iPads for 5 years now. 

If Nvidia gives Nintendo a Switch 2 chip that's akin to the Tegra X1 was for 2015, but in 2023, with DLSS, yes you are going to get PS5 level games. They may not render at anywhere close to the same resolution, but if your eyes can't tell the difference anyway, what does it matter? I mean shit, that 540p DLSS image on Control to me actually honestly looked sharper and cleaner than native 1080p. I've seen other tests where 576p was scaled up to 1440p and it looks very close. It's ridiculous. Even N64-era (1990s-era) resolutions like 512x288 look playable for an undocked mode if need be. 

Your definition of very close is Witcher 3 running on Switch.... I guess we are all blind to see those differences between the versions.

Very low end PCs is very close to enthusiast PCs then.

The point is when you add DLSS into this mix, the Switch version would grow pretty close to indisquishable next to the PS4 version. 

For starters, you can actually render at an ever lower resolution than the Switch is now, go 640x360 undocked, and 540p docked say (right now its 540p undocked, 720p docked), but here's the big deal ... DLSS 2.0 can take an image rendered that low and scale it up to 720p/1080p/even 1440p no problem. 

So yeah it's a big deal. And DLSS 3.0 probably is going to be even better than that. Nintendo may be able to go down to some absurdly low resolutions like 320x240 (we're talking like N64 1990s resolution) and DLSS will reconstruct back up to 1080p quite possibly. 

So if Nvidia can give Nintendo the same gap that current Switch has to the PS4/XB1 that Switch 2 has to PS5 ... that gap shrinks considerably when you have to account for Switch 2 being able to render at insanely low resolutions and being able to get basically a "free" 720p-1080p undocked, 1440p-full 4K final image. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 22 May 2020

Oh dear, I see we have yet another secret sauce in making. /facepalm



Slownenberg said:

Just wondering if people still get all super excited about upgraded graphics at this point? For me personally it's hard to imagine getting that excited by the graphical difference between PS4/XBO graphics and PS5/XBS graphics. I haven't seen what the new systems will do yet, but how excited can you get for incremental improvements at this point.

To me its kinda like, oh great we already had hyper realistic graphics and now we have slightly more hyper realistic graphics..whoopee...

Hell, I thought graphics were getting pretty damn good on the Gamecube and Xbox haha, though I do appreciate the jump to HD. And I even appreciate the difference between the current home consoles and the Switch (and I am looking forward to the graphical upgrade of the next Nintendo system to put in on par and them some of the current home consoles with hyper realistic graphics, but I doubt I'd care much beyond the next gen ie Switch 2). When I look at say PS4 graphics I honestly think to myself, who cares about wanting better than this? Maybe that's why I only care about the Switch these days, freedom to play anywhere I want is much more important to me at this point than small upgrades in super realistic graphics.

Alright graphic whores...onslaught me with insults! ;p

I do care a lot about improvements in Graphics, IQ, geometry, lighting, effects, but mostly I do care about the massive improvements about the New CPUs inside XSX and PS5.   All the components are great Next Gen, the SSD as well. Mark my words, you will be blown away by the best Games on XSX and PS5. Just forget about PS4 and X1, very old technology, mostly the CPU and HDD !



”Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for the stars to change the world.”

Harriet Tubman.

Soundwave said:
DonFerrari said:

Your definition of very close is Witcher 3 running on Switch.... I guess we are all blind to see those differences between the versions.

Very low end PCs is very close to enthusiast PCs then.

The point is when you add DLSS into this mix, the Switch version would grow pretty close to indisquishable next to the PS4 version. 

For starters, you can actually render at an ever lower resolution than the Switch is now, go 640x360 undocked, and 540p docked say (right now its 540p undocked, 720p docked), but here's the big deal ... DLSS 2.0 can take an image rendered that low and scale it up to 720p/1080p/even 1440p no problem. 

So yeah it's a big deal. And DLSS 3.0 probably is going to be even better than that. Nintendo may be able to go down to some absurdly low resolutions like 320x240 (we're talking like N64 1990s resolution) and DLSS will reconstruct back up to 1080p quite possibly. 

So if Nvidia can give Nintendo the same gap that current Switch has to the PS4/XB1 that Switch 2 has to PS5 ... that gap shrinks considerably when you have to account for Switch 2 being able to render at insanely low resolutions and being able to get basically a "free" 720p-1080p undocked, 1440p-full 4K final image. 

A portable hardware will never come close to what XSX or even PS5 can offer if you consider the whole architecture, CPU GPU Ram and SSD.  You cannot have a cake and eat it. You want the most powerful Hardware ? It must be a true Home Console inside a big box, like XSX. You want a portable ? You will have an underpowered piece of Hardware like the Switch is. End of the story. 



”Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for the stars to change the world.”

Harriet Tubman.

Nate4Drake said:
Soundwave said:

The point is when you add DLSS into this mix, the Switch version would grow pretty close to indisquishable next to the PS4 version. 

For starters, you can actually render at an ever lower resolution than the Switch is now, go 640x360 undocked, and 540p docked say (right now its 540p undocked, 720p docked), but here's the big deal ... DLSS 2.0 can take an image rendered that low and scale it up to 720p/1080p/even 1440p no problem. 

So yeah it's a big deal. And DLSS 3.0 probably is going to be even better than that. Nintendo may be able to go down to some absurdly low resolutions like 320x240 (we're talking like N64 1990s resolution) and DLSS will reconstruct back up to 1080p quite possibly. 

So if Nvidia can give Nintendo the same gap that current Switch has to the PS4/XB1 that Switch 2 has to PS5 ... that gap shrinks considerably when you have to account for Switch 2 being able to render at insanely low resolutions and being able to get basically a "free" 720p-1080p undocked, 1440p-full 4K final image. 

A portable hardware will never come close to what XSX or even PS5 can offer if you consider the whole architecture, CPU GPU Ram and SSD.  You cannot have a cake and eat it. You want the most powerful Hardware ? It must be a true Home Console inside a big box, like XSX. You want a portable ? You will have an underpowered piece of Hardware like the Switch is. End of the story. 

Wrong. 

There's nothing that special about the PS5 or XSX hardware. Nvidia's 2 year old Turing GPUs are as good if not better and their Ampere based 30-series this fall will blow both of those away. 

The current Switch is DLSS 2.0 was possible in 2015 would be basically very close to the XBox One in power straight up. 

394 GFLOPS to 1.2 TFLOPS yes, but then you have to factor in the Tegra X1 only needing the render 1/4-1/15th the pixel resolution and that gap shrinks very quickly. AMD also routinely claims a TFLOP number and routinely is outperformed by Nvidia GPUs that have lower TF performance as well, so take AMD's teraflop claims with a grain of salt. 

Even shit like SSD, whoopity doo, smartphones already have NVMe drives that are the same thing, Apple's iPhones have had this for 5 years already. UFS 3.1 which is going to be common in Android phones is 3GB/sec by the time Switch 2 is out UFS 4.0 likely is available which would be even faster than that.