Just a small correction on the whole "switch has x flops" thing.
Ever heared of the phrase (or a variation of it) "a chain is only as strong as its weakest part" ?

Until Nintendo unlocks the docked profile for handheld play, the only guaranteed "flops" for devs are the ones from the handheld profile.
Which means, Switch has 512 gFlops * 307 MHz / 1000 MHz = 157 GFlops, not 393 GFlops.

This is further substantiated by nintendos policity which states that every game MUST run (good enough) when undocked,
and devs are free to choose whether or not they use the docked clock speed profile when docked.

It does require the same base material, doesnt it?

The question would be whether or not the switch 2 could even manage to draw them at all.

If detail on the textures itself is removed, as an example, even a DLSSed image will look like a PS2 game rendered in 4k.

Nintendo would have to deliver something that is strong enough - in handheld mode - to ensure the same level of detail on textures as the PS5/XSX

versions of the game (even if at a lower base resolution).

AMD had a algothemic shader/contrast sharping thingy, that along with lowering resolution abit, actually gave better performance & looks than DLSS1/Native resoution. So while DLSS is great, there are limits.

DLSS 1, yes, DLSS 2.0 is a different ball game, it kicks the shit out of AMD's solution and I'm guessing DLSS 3.0 will go even further. Reconstructing images maybe from even like SNES resolution? Wouldn't surprise me. 

AMD in general can't stack up to Nvidia. RDNA2 which they are releasing this fall (and the PS5 apparently isn't even RDNA2 proper, it's some kind of cheaped out RDNA 1.5 hybrid, lol) will just be catching up to Nvidia's Turing architecture from 2 years ago. 

That's pretty sad. They're cheap, that's about the best you can say for them. They're out of their element trying to match up with Nvidia here. 

I think Switch 2's main advantage is that developers know, with a unified handheld/home consoles base, and with the success of the third party games that launched on Switch 1, that there is a way to make money off a Nintendo device again. And if they know that, they will come, regardless of what limitations the device has. If they can sell 1-3 million copies of a game on Switch, it's worth porting or hiring another studio to port it.

Many probably wish they could go back and do that with Switch 1, but they instead were cautious because of how bad Wii U sales were. I think it's safe to assume that Switch series will at least sell 3DS+WiiU level combined each generation, with the ceiling closer to Ds+Wii.

nVidia typically builds it's own CPU cores. Aka Denver. And thus does not generally rely on already established Cortex designs.

Don't equate me with someone who drinks "console advertising kool-aid". I'm a PC gamer primarily.
I think I have demonstrated over the years on this forum to have a slight understanding of technology, don't you think?

The iPhones are NOT running NVMe drives like the Samsung 970 Evo with 4x PCI-E lanes, 2GB of built in DRAM... That drive alone will happily consume 6w or more of power at load... Do you honestly think a handheld can sustain that? No. No they can not.
And that isn't even the fastest and thus most power hungry drive on the market either... Food for thought.

Apple took the Macbook SSD nvme controller and modified it for the iPhone, it's still not the same as a desktop or laptop nvme drive... And it is certainly far removed from the next-gen consoles which have employed extra silicon to aid in the compression and accelerate transfers.

Rather Apple has taken PCI-E over a MIPI M-PHY physical layer.
MIPI M-PHY is the definer of the physical characteristics of the interface, where-as PCI-E is what we do with the channels.

In short... A mobile device is physically limited, so you cannot use the highly parallel nature of memory transactions to increase bandwidth exponentially... Thus a Switch 2 will always be behind something more forward thinking.

The Playstation 4 was already having games leveraging Ray Tracing. It's not a new concept.
But hardware Ray Tracing will enable all sorts of things going forward.

Developers will come to grasp it's various nuances and leverage that substantial amount of compute hardware effectively over time, no doubt about it... As for performance, it's to early to speculate how extensive AMD's implementation is.

I never argued that DLSS wasn't beneficial.

However, it's effectiveness does vary game to game, scene to scene.

Personally? I am actually happy with 1440P with the visual settings dialed up on PC and pushing 144hz instead... And if I have the hardware overhead, you bet I will super sample a 2160P image.

However... You also need to remember that the next-gen consoles do have their own alternatives to DLSS... The Xbox Series X/S for example will be leveraging Direct ML, which is Microsofts alternative, so there is absolutely ZERO reason why the Xbox Series S/X cannot also render a game at 540P and dial up the settings even further still. (Unlikely, but it's a scenario.)
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/direct3d12/dml-intro

Silly comparison in my opinion, I understand what DLSS does and it's implications.

Not to mention Zen2 is possibly one of the best CPU designs out currently...

And Apple reduced the prices of the ARM devices too. Why? Because the ARM chips are lower performing than AMD or Intels best. (Although more energy efficient.)

Apple can also reduce it's cost overheads as it cuts out the middleman, very good value proposition for a company that loves money.

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/312234-apple-a12z-arm-performance-vs-x86

Except the Xbox One @300Gflops would be faster than the Switch.
It would still have 8x 1.75Ghz Jaguar cores which beats the Switch.
It would still have the ESRAM to boost memory transactions.
It would still have 8GB of DDR3 memory on a 256bit interface @68.3GB/s.


I thought this forum had finally moved from flops as a determiner for performance...

If everything was kept equal, same CPU cores, Memory etc' and the only difference was the GPU's, the Switch would win hands down, Maxwell is a far more efficient GPU architecture than Graphics Core Next 1.0.

AMD's main counter to DLSS is Radeon Image Sharpening. Not the same. But does a good job.

AMD arnt cheap, they are competitively priced with nvidia.
Its just nvidia make really big die, really power hungry and expensive GPUs.
Something AMD refuses to do, they dont even compete for the top end of the market, they let Nvidia make those 1200-1500$ GPUs.

Yes DLSS 2 is better than DLSS, but again, the degree to which, is exagerated by you.
Also the rumor that PS5/XSX are RDNA 1,5 is just that a rumor, which supposedly has been proved wrong. It is RDNA 2, and more than that, it has customisations, that are ahead of its time (ei. PC GPUs with RDNA 3, will first start haveing some of these things).

Why is it like this?
Well because amd do research along with Sony and Xbox on these things (ei. they ask them questions, ask them to do z,y,x, and amd put their minds to it, and develope these things, and lateron they can use some of their findings in new PC GPUs).

Erm, no.

At single-core an the same clock speed.

And that's precisely the problem, since that's the only case where it comes anywhere close to Ryzen.

The A76-78 also consume more power than an A75 or it's predecessors, especially at higher clock speeds. Ever wondered why before there were 4 big and 4 Little cores, but now it's always a 2+6 or even a 1+1+6 configuration? Well, now you know.

Switch has 4 A57 at 1 Ghz. At roughly the same consumption at 7nm a quad-core A78 would only be clocked at 1.2-1.4 Ghz at best. That would only be one third of the clock speed with just half the cores and a quarter of the amount of threads of a Ryzen in the next-gen consoles.

As for the GPU performance, while Ampere is certainly better than Maxwell, the TDP constrains will still keep the uptick relatively small. I expect a 50-60% improvement at best right now, so getting close to the XBOS in raw performance.

I think this will only lead to more playstation exclusives

It won't. Nintendo has never accelerated a new platform for sake of specs. But a Switch 2 and Xbox Series S spec gap will obviously not be as big as a Switch 2 and Xbox Series X/PS5 gap. Or especially the massive, massive gap between Switch and Xbox Series X/PS5.

The Game Boy Color, which is either a successor or mid-gen refresh to the Game Boy depending on your view, didn't come out until 9 years after the Game Boy. That's crazy. Developers had been begging for a Game Boy successor with better specs. Nintendo started plans for Project Atlantis in the mid-90s. It would've launched in 1996 or 1997 and had specs similar to the Game Boy Advance. But oh boy, would that have been expensive in the mid-to-late 1990s, and would've had poor battery life.

Even mid-gen refreshes with better specs (DSi and New 3DS) could've launched earlier than they did. Both launched about 4 years into the platform's life, instead of 3. Clearly, Nintendo didn't have big worries about DS and 3DS specs.

And on the home console front, that certainly hasn't been the case either. Switch (a hybrid) came out about 4.33 years after the Wii U. But that accelerated release was not about specs. I mean Switch was only going to have the same amount of RAM, 2 GB, as Wii U initially. Though of course the other specs would be improved. The accelerated release was due to Wii U being a failure.

The Nintendo 64 (originally Ultra 64) was supposed to come out in 1995. It didn't come out until 1996 in Japan and North America. Clearly Nintendo was not overly concerned about the aging specs of the SNES.

Switch 2 will launch in 2023 or 2024. I think 2022 is cutting Switch too short as Nintendo's main platform, especially if it's in the first half of 2022. But 2025 is too long. The Switch specs will be very antiquated by then and consumers will have lost quite a bit of interest.

TL:DR - The Xbox Series S and its specs will not force Nintendo's hand to get the Switch 2 out sooner to close the specs gap, which is more feasible than the Switch 2 ever competing with Xbox Series X and PS5 specs.