Wasn't Ampere GPU's ray tracing performance much better than RDNA2 ?

It is, RDNA2 is shit at ray tracing, not that it'll really benefit the Switch 2 *that* much, because of the portable form factor you're not going to see that many games with meaningful ray tracing I don't think. 

It's not really a big deal to be honest, it 's one of those things if they did want to do something like an enhanced dock that has extra power so you can turn on ray tracing for TV play, that wouldn't actually be too bad, but it would be one of those things where like 1/8 Switch 2 owners has one. 

exactly. The secret ingredient is do the same thing with current technology and improve everything a little bit in whatever ways they've come up with from the experience of making the first Switch.

The hardware should be an iterative update. The software, specifically their whole online setup, is where they can innovate and by innovate I just mean catch up to where the Xbox was 20 years ago lol.

The GBA analogy is flawed.

The GBA might have sold more than the Gameboy over its lifespan. It started out quicker, but that's largely because Pokemon really revolutionized the handheld industry. The best sales year the Gameboy had were the last 3 years before the GBA, which were the ones after Pokemon came out. 

More importantly though, the Gameboy Advance was an absolutely massive leap over what the Gameboy or Gameboy Color were capable of.

The upgrade in visual was staggering. There are tons of games that you can do on GBA that could not be done in a remotely comparable quality on GBC.

For the Switch 2, that's unlikely. We are going to get games that are going to look pretty similar to those on the Switch, just with better lighting or resolution. Which is nice, but nowhere near the leap we saw from GBC to GBA. 

Kind of seems like you missed the point they were making in Kung Fu Panda. It was about the importance of perception. The customers had to be convinced that the product was somehow special or exciting. Likewise, Nintendo has to convince people their new product is exciting or special. They can't just say there is some undefined secret feature, and I don't think they can convince people based on the type of visual upgrade that would be possible. So, I think that their business will likely contract with a straight iterational upgrade. If Nintendo wants to settle for 100m or so, then that's their call, but that's a pretty big drop. Actually selling more units would probably be preferable.

The generational leap from Switch to next gen will obviously be a lot more than "better lighting and resolution". Generational leaps are a lot smaller these days than they were 20+ years ago, but at least don't downplay the fact that Switch 2 is gonna be much more powerful than Switch. Next gen Nintendo games will do stuff that the Switch could not remotely do. Switch 2 will likely all together be a bit more capable than PS4/XB1 given likely similar specs but new techniques and stuff like DLSS. Sure its no N64 to GC leap haha, cuz leaps like that are long gone, but its a gonna be a hell of a lot more than lighting and resolution. Lighting and resolution (and probably framerate) woulda been a Switch Pro type update, not a new system.

But the main point is, Nintendo doesn't need some gimmick to excite people. The times when Nintendo failed or lost significant share in the market in the past were either from popular new entrants into the market (Genesis, PS1, Xbox to a lesser extent) or when they came up with a failed gimmick that wasted resources without making a better system / better games (3D screen, WiiU async gameplay) or from either technology choice blunders or when their top games didn't stand out (N64 and GC).

Right now they don't have to worry about a new entrant into the market because they've got the portable/hybrid space on lockdown and the other two companies are gonna stick to what they know which is consoles. And Zelda didn't just sell 18.5 million copies in a month and a half because of a hardware gimmick, but because the game is awesome. Nintendo just needs to iterate on the Switch, provide the generational upgrade everyone expects, and work to improve their weaker parts (like online usability) and keep putting out a top notch stellar library of games next gen.

Are they gonna sell 150+ million like the Switch? Probably not. Cuz a hybrid system hits the market for the first time only once, and people open world Zelda is only new once and likely Animal Crossing launching right as a global pandemic hits and becoming a phenomenon only happens once. But I doubt Nintendo is going to be complaining if they follow up the Switch with a 100+ million selling system.

They can excite gamers by putting out a great upgrade to the Switch concept that refines and improves everything about the concept while providing a generational tech upgrade and keep bringing out the games everyone talks about.

So what are you doing when playing games? Mindlessly running around mashing buttons without paying attention to any details other than what your sword is slashing?

You've been enjoying playing NieR: Automata with a barely stable 30fps and terrible resolution on Switch. Well lately I've been playing DMC5 Special on Series X at 4k 120fps with VRR, yet I still managed to find time in-between to notice the small details like when Vergil does certain swings with his Mirage Sword he will actually switch from holding Yamato with his left hand to place it on his waist, then smoothly picks it back up afterwards without the animations ever looking janky or unnatural.

I noticed several similar things the first time I played Breath of the Wild, like the way grass would react when running through it and then slashing it. Game artists and animators put countless hours into these things, because those little differences to details that can surprise the player and increase immersion help seperate the average generic titles from the great and memorable ones.

I'm not sure who stated "We are in the era of ray tracing", but this thread isn't about what features are necessary for Switch 2. On that point I don't agree that ray tracing is absolutely necessary, since ensuring ports of third party titles isn't that important to a Nintendo system anyway. But this thread was specifically about a 'secret sauce' feature that would give Switch 2 a novel difference over it's predecessor. This somehow turned into a debate about DLSS vs Ray Tracing, and not only was it proven that DLSS isn't that important when other similar methods can be used without dedicated hardware, DLSS is also just a basic method for improving performance with no real novelty or special aspect to it at all, so it's barely even on topic. Ray Tracing is at least unique and still has a lot of untapped potential, if Nintendo has any inspiration to explore it.

Tegra is big in Industrial/Automation/Signage/Embedded and most of all, Cars.

It's also positioned to be a big driver of A.I as well.

But you are right, Tegra didn't take off how nVidia originally envisaged, it was meant to be big in Phones and Tablets, but nVidia found that mobile is far more competitive than PC and Console and just couldn't iterate fast enough to keep up.

However, they did do the right thing and leveraged PC technology to find high-growth markets, which they are now capitalising on.
...The fact Nintendo can piggyback off those designs is just a massive bonus.

Quick check... And my mistake, so it does.

Either way, doesn't really change my point.

The evidence we have currently is that it's up to the developers on whether they have Ray Tracing PLUS 60fps. It's achievable. - Which I have proven prior.

Just like 30fps without Ray Tracing is a thing, it's entirely up to the developer.

Conventional methods of rendering, like screen-space effects tend to introduce artifacts into the rendered scene, which I find extremely noticeable, Ray Tracing resolves it completely.
Ray Traced lighting is stupidly impactful to a scene, if you "stop noticing it" then you need your eyeballs checked.

One thing to also keep in mind is that many games that *do* have Ray Tracing, also usually have the option to turn it off if you don't care for it.
It's good having choice.

Taking the option of Ray Tracing away because on the off chance a developer *might* (Again, no guarantees) provide 60fps? You aren't doing anyone a favor.
Having the hardware capability there literally hurts no one, but opens up possibilities and choice.

I never asserted that DLSS "doesn't mean crap" - Don't put words in my mouth and don't lie.

Real time lighting is not the same as hardware based ray traced lighting or even global illumination.
Real-time lighting existed on the Playstation 1/Nintendo 64. - The Nintendo 64 used hardware Transform and Lighting for it's real-time lighting effects for instance... Which meant when you fired say... A rocket down a hallway, the walls would light up.

The original Xbox also had games that used Ray Tracing, albeit software based and often only a single bounce light, Conker is a notable title for this... As was Shrek with it's Deferred Renderer.

Many games from the 7th generation used baked lighting in it's assets, which are pre-computed lighting passes on a scene, which you guessed it, was done using a ray tracing algorithm.

Games have literally benefited from Ray Tracing for years and you didn't even know it... But somehow you think it's unimportant? Give me a break.

Ray Tracing can also reduce hardware demand, because instead of doing your Global Illumination pass on the GPU's pipelines via software, you can now do it on the dedicated RT cores, meaning you can use those pipelines for non-lighting tasks.

This can be done in Unreal Engine 5 where you can offload Lumens GI operations from software... Into hardware, providing a speedup or a visual boost, entirely up to the developer.

And yet... Many games, game engines and technology are still cross-platform... So we are still being held back by last gen hardware.

Remember for years people struggled to get a PS5, so development had to include 8th gen hardware or risk alienating your userbase.

And you are right, we are almost at the half way point of the generation, but it doesn't conflict with the above.

Aren't you going to be upset when it includes hardware RT cores then? Or will you be one of those turncoats who will start supporting RT because your favorite platform has it?

Nintendo will -never- close the power-gap with Microsoft or Sony, they gave up on that decades ago, anyone who believes otherwise is literally delusional.

Nintendo is building it's console technology around handhelds, you are limited on TDP, Power and cost. It's that simple.

Fidelity FX. And it is still a thing, just not heavily promoted anymore as the industry has moved on.

Makes perfect sense, you just can't look at the bigger picture and discern the difference. That is okay, I am here to assist.

Hardware feature set parity pertains to the functional hardware blocks that enable specific techniques. - This is NOT to be confused with performance, but rather capability.

For example Tessellation is done on nVidia's Polymorph engines, which has feature set parity with AMD's tessellation units. - That means when a developer develops it's game leveraging tessellation, they be sure it will function correctly regardless if it's AMD or nVidia... Because they have hardware feature set parity.

Before Direct X 11 standardised Tessellation, this didn't occur... AMD's tessellation units relied on a thing called "N-Patches" which were pieces of data that told the tessellator where to tessellate, how much and when... Which meant that it wasn't compatible with nVidia's implementation of that rendering technique.

Hardware feature set parity means that those techniques are present and compatible, so games don't need to be overhauled at a base technical level to make them run.

I am a PC Gamer.

I have seen what Ray Tracing can do. Clearly you have not.

The fact you don't understand "hardware feature set parity" or whether games were upscaled/rendered at 4k on 8th gen consoles is just reinforcing my point that you have no idea what you are talking about.


Try harder and try to keep up.

If you just want more of the same, just stick to the current Switch, lets not let progress get in the way of enabling new experiences, shall we?

Yes.

Amperes RT cores can work independently of the SM cores, so while they're doing BVH traversal or ray-primitive intersection math, the rest of the SM can still be processing shader operations.

nVidia's RT is simply more efficient than AMD.

Some of the best selling Switch games were just old WiiU games at a higher resolution and/or framerate.

From a hardware perspective, the Switch 2 will likely have less functional hardware units than the Playstation 4, but likely see massive gains in efficiency and technology which will make up the difference in a big way.

Nintendo's approach to VR has been all over the place. 

They said they weren't interested in VR, but then did Labo VR and clearly poured a ton of love into it. 

I don't think Nintendo wants kids (in particular) like strapping on a mask for hours on end and/or falling down the stairs wearing a headset. 

But that doesn't mean an expansion of the Labo VR concept maybe with a more permanent kind of plastic holder (instead of a cardboard) thing which they encourage people to use for 15-20 minutes bursts couldn't be a neat idea for the Switch 2. Especially if the screen is a 1080p display ... that would be a large upgrade over Labo VR on Switch 1 and the same resolution as PS4's VR headset. 

Which is a decent enough way for people to experience VR with their family in bite size segments without having to spend a ton of money or buy a VR specific piece of hardware 

It also would fit into Nintendo's history of having ideas that start off in rudimentary basic form and then end up fleshed out in later products (ie: Nintendo experimenting with 3D decades before making the 3DS, Nintendo experimenting with touchscreen during development of a GBA, the Wii U being sort of like a test run for the Switch concept, etc. etc. etc.). Almost all their ideas even their "revolutionary" ones don't just come out of nowhere usually they are things that they have tinkered with in the past. 

Problem with hair, RT and many others things.... looks good with a still screen. But during normal play there is so much going on the benefits get buried via everything else on the screen. Take RC Rift, there is so much going on appreciating reflections in windows just is inconsequential. However 60 fps and 120 hz is massive during heavy gameplay.

I'm beating a dead horse but switch 2 focusing on 60 fps and 120 hz is my preference. Hopefully software developers prioritize the correct tech, especially given the next hybrid will be limited to a large degree in power. 

The switch 2 isn't going to be a RTX 4060.  So what a PC can do is completely irrelevant to switch 2 discussions.  The switch 2 isn't going to be 4k 60 fps RT.  Something has to give. 

As for secret sauce. Maybe the standard dock is just an output but there is a sold separately dock that legit increases fidelity. Like a pro dock.