By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - VGC: Switch 2 Was Shown At Gamescom Running Matrix Awakens UE5 Demo

sc94597 on 08 September 2023
zeldaring said:
sc94597 said:

DLSS 3.0 is an entirely different beast from DLSS 2.0. DLSS 2.0 improves image quality beyond the internal render resolution regardless of that render resolution and even is better than native target resolution in numerous cases. Even FSR does this, which is why there are countless videos of how best to use FSR with the Steam Deck (native resolution of 1280 x 800) to improve battery life with minimal image-quality loss (if any.) 

DLSS 3.0, because the goal is temporal interpolation (producing missing frames, and not just missing pixels) has a few quirks that will have to be worked out. But the Switch 2 likely won't even support DLSS 3.0 anyway. Ampere's Optical Flow Accelerator (OFA) isn't fast enough. That's why the 3000 series Nvidia GPU's don't have DLSS 3.0 (or at least according to Nvidia that is why, which seemed suspect until they announced 3.5 for all RTX GPU's.) 

One of the things that has hindered the original Switch is that games have to work well in both portable and docked mode, and in portable mode you can't have a battery life of 30 minutes because the game is pushing the platform to its limits. DLSS 2.0 allows for far more flexibility in this sphere, even for Nintendo themselves. You'll rarely have situations where resolution falls to 360p (i.e Xenoblade 2), for example, like we've seen on the Switch. 

My guess is that the internal resolution will always be between 720p - 1080p, and the effective resolution (after applying DLSS) will be between 1080p and 1440p when docked, with many games targeting 60fps that wouldn't otherwise have. If Nintendo were savvy, they'd put a VRR screen in the device, and many games could even target stable 40fps or 50fps without much screen-tearing. 

While PS5 level visuals/framerates is indeed hyperbolic, being able to meet or even exceed the Series S in many cases (or at least there will be trade-offs where there is no clear better version) is certainly doable. That is all the Switch 2 needs to do to keep up with the current generation. 

Aright let's make a bet then. Most ports will be inferior to series S. Winner get's to put a signature on the bottom of each post of what ever he wants.

Alright, with a few conditions. 

1. The comparison would be between a docked Switch 2 and a Series S. An undocked Switch 2 with an Orin architecture likely would be between the Steam Deck and a Series S (which aren't really that far apart anyway, see Digital Foundry's video "Steam Deck vs. Xbox Series S".) 

2. If the Switch isn't using an Orin architecture (or something comparable, like say a Snapdragon 8 Gen 2) but something else, then the bet is void. For example, if Nintendo negotiates a Tegra Thor (with ADA Lovelace architecture) -- the Switch 2, even as a portable, almost certainly will match a Series S, even without DLSS being a big boon for it. An RTX 4050 laptop is almost twice as powerful as the Series S, and one would expect a Tegra Thor chip to be something like 60-70% as powerful as a full-powered AD107 (chip in an RTX 4050 laptop.) 

3. We define "superior" as the tie-breaker between: a. more stable; higher framerates, b. effective image quality, and c. visual/graphics effects. So if Series S is better in the first two, but worse in the third it wins that game. If they are comparable on one category, one is better on the other, and the other is better on the third category, then that is considered a draw (1 Switch 2, 1 Neutral, 1 Series S.) Digital Foundry videos can be used as the neutral metric of comparison. 

4. At least five multiplatform releases need to happen before we call the bet. 



Around the Network
zeldaring on 08 September 2023
sc94597 said:
zeldaring said:

Aright let's make a bet then. Most ports will be inferior to series S. Winner get's to put a signature on the bottom of each post of what ever he wants.

Alright, with a few conditions. 

1. The comparison would be between a docked Switch 2 and a Series S. An undocked Switch 2 with an Orin architecture likely would be between the Steam Deck and a Series S (which aren't really that far apart anyway, see Digital Foundry's video "Steam Deck vs. Xbox Series S".) 

2. If the Switch isn't using an Orin architecture (or something comparable, like say a Snapdragon 8 Gen 2) but something else, then the bet is void. For example, if Nintendo negotiates a Tegra Thor (with ADA Lovelace architecture) -- the Switch 2, even as a portable, almost certainly will match a Series S, even without DLSS being a big boon for it. An RTX 4050 laptop is almost twice as powerful as the Series S, and one would expect a Tegra Thor chip to be something like 60-70% as powerful as a full-powered AD107 (chip in an RTX 4050 laptop.) 

3. We define "superior" as the tie-breaker between: a. more stable; higher framerates, b. effective image quality, and c. visual/graphics effects. So if Series S is better in the first two, but worse in the third it wins that game. If they are comparable on one category, one is better on the other, and the other is better on the third category, then that is considered a draw (1 Switch 2, 1 Neutral, 1 Series S.) Digital Foundry videos can be used as the neutral metric of comparison. 

4. At least five multiplatform releases need to happen before we call the bet. 

Deal. the only request the 5 ports have to be technically demanding games, No indie games. it will be signature bet for 6 months.



Oneeee-Chan!!! on 08 September 2023
zeldaring said:
sc94597 said:

You are ignoring the economics of this issue. 

Nintendo has a deal with Nvidia that Asus, Valve, etc likely aren't able to get because 1. they will sell an order of magnitude fewer units (Steam Deck sold 1.6 million in 2022) and 2. they are smaller companies with less brand recognition limited to the x86 platform. Nintendo is about five times the size of Valve and 25 times the size of Asus in net-worth. The Switch will sells 10-50 times as many units as a Steam Deck/ROG Ally in a given year. 

There is also the matter that an APU + discrete GPU costs (both in terms of money and power) a lot more than the unit package that is an Nvidia Tegra chip. These companies don't go ARM because  Linux for ARM (and Valve's client) is in its infancy. Other platforms don't even support it. 

Also DLSS is hardly a Nintendo exclusive. There is a reason why Nvidia is dominating the GPU market despite being far more costly -- it's the feature-set that Nvidia GPU's have, whether we are talking about DLSS (for gaming) or CUDA (for GPGPU compute in video editing, 3d-modeling, and Generative AI.) 

DLSS is gonna be useless for switch 2 on most games. people keep talking about DSLL and they don't even know how it works.

Most of the people on this site are just gamers, and it would be odd if they knew how to make a game on DLSS.
Don't rely on YouTube.

I wish you were familiar with the specs of the next gen switch and could explain like a game developer how the DLSS doesn't work.



zeldaring on 08 September 2023
Oneeee-Chan!!! said:
zeldaring said:

DLSS is gonna be useless for switch 2 on most games. people keep talking about DSLL and they don't even know how it works.

Most of the people on this site are just gamers, and it would be odd if they knew how to make a game on DLSS.
Don't rely on YouTube.

I wish you were familiar with the specs of the next gen switch and could explain like a game developer how the DLSS doesn't work.

What do you mean? These are gamers with 40 series GPU's which has the most advanced DSLL features, they are playing games with the DSLL features.



Oneeee-Chan!!! on 08 September 2023
zeldaring said:
Oneeee-Chan!!! said:

Most of the people on this site are just gamers, and it would be odd if they knew how to make a game on DLSS.
Don't rely on YouTube.

I wish you were familiar with the specs of the next gen switch and could explain like a game developer how the DLSS doesn't work.

What do you mean? These are gamers with 40 series GPU's which has the most advanced DSLL features, they are playing games with the DSLL features.

Do you have amnesia 🙄
You just remember what you said before.



Around the Network
Soundwave on 08 September 2023

PS4 Pro in your pocket is pretty damn sweet as is, that said I don't really see a big reason why the Switch 2 can't do what's being claimed in these recent leaks.

The Matrix Awakens demo on Switch 2 if legit (and I believe it is because CVG and Eurogamer have a good track record, Eurogamer leaked the entire Switch several months before launch, it also corresponds with the Tegra X1 unveiling where Nvidia demoed it with the Unreal Engine 4 Elemental engine to show it off) ... it probably is not just a random demo.



It's a DLSS demo to show how DLSS can function on the Switch because I don't think it could run it without that. That's straight from CVG too, they say it's using DLSS.

That's exactly the kind of demo you would want to show developers to show what your chip can do.

I also suspect DLSS is hard wired into the Switch 2 dev kit itself. Like why render at even 1080p when you don't have to. DLSS provides basically free anti-aliasing too. I think it will be the auto default in the dev kit and specifically tuned for the Switch 2 chip (like Tegra T239). Nintendo likes to do that sort of thing anyway, with the N64 every polygon had to be Z-buffered, anti-aliased, etc. etc. automatically. To break out of that you had to write custom microcode. The GameCube/Wii were kinda the same deal too, it was polygons with all the effects on.

Also DLSS 3.0+ is supported by all RTX cards (so likely Switch 2 as well). It's just the frame generation aspect that only works on 40 series cards, though who even knows if Nvidia is telling the truth about that (why buy a 40 series card if frame generation lets a 20 series card for example double its frame rate). The main thing DLSS 3.0+ adds past the frame generation stuff is "ray reconstruction", which I'm not sure I understand exactly but it makes ray tracing easier and denoises it or something? Sounds like that could help the Switch 2 add ray tracing for a lower performance cost. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 08 September 2023

zeldaring on 08 September 2023
Oneeee-Chan!!! said:
zeldaring said:

What do you mean? These are gamers with 40 series GPU's which has the most advanced DSLL features, they are playing games with the DSLL features.

Do you have amnesia 🙄
You just remember what you said before.

yea because it needs 60fps/1440  to actually be a great experience and get the best benefits from it. its not made for weak hardware in mind.

https://hardforum.com/threads/dlss-is-the-true-revolution-in-gaming-not-ray-tracing.2028518/page-2  

A nice thread with many impressions on DSLL3. 

Last edited by zeldaring - on 08 September 2023

Norion on 08 September 2023
Soundwave said:
Norion said:

How does needing hours to render a single frame for big budget films change the fact that path tracing is a huge leap over traditional methods in video games and will cause a big increase in visual fidelity when it becomes standard in them?

The performance cost is going to decline overtime, you just need to compare how much better 4000 series cards are at ray tracing compared to 2000 series ones so eventually it won't be difficult for even mid-range hardware to do path tracing.

It's far more than just the water, it's the entire environment that gets a big boost to fidelity and it doesn't prove your point at all since you don't need a GPU anywhere near that expensive to run it. It's literally a clickbait title, come on. A game as demanding as Cyberpunk has path tracing now and you don't need a top end GPU to run it thanks to DLSS. The point is that even games with simple visuals due to a low budget will benefit a lot from it by having far better lighting than anything on the PS4.

Here's another example too from Blender (a 3D computer graphics program), EEVEE is basically baked lighting, Cycles is ray tracing basically (real time light bounces accurately processed). First look how closely EEVEE is able to match Cycles. Secondly understand the EEVEE version took like 1/7th the time to render as the Cycles version. 

In a video game where you are moving fast, are you really going to notice the difference here that much? Sure in a Hollywood movie that's blown up and meant to be shown on a 200 foot screen, they will go for max fidelity ... but for a video game. I don't know if it's necessary to take the massive processing hit. 

I imagine it'll be this sort of scenario with at least some games for gen 10 consoles. You can have really high quality lighting with path tracing in a quality mode at 30 fps or notably worse lighting at 60 fps with a performance mode.

zeldaring said:
Norion said:

How does needing hours to render a single frame for big budget films change the fact that path tracing is a huge leap over traditional methods in video games and will cause a big increase in visual fidelity when it becomes standard in them?

The performance cost is going to decline overtime, you just need to compare how much better 4000 series cards are at ray tracing compared to 2000 series ones so eventually it won't be difficult for even mid-range hardware to do path tracing.

It's far more than just the water, it's the entire environment that gets a big boost to fidelity and it doesn't prove your point at all since you don't need a GPU anywhere near that expensive to run it. It's literally a clickbait title, come on. A game as demanding as Cyberpunk has path tracing now and you don't need a top end GPU to run it thanks to DLSS. The point is that even games with simple visuals due to a low budget will benefit a lot from it by having far better lighting than anything on the PS4.

Maybe with PS5 pro but path tracing and ray tracing are so taxing.

Yeah I did say the PS6 and next Xbox will be able to do it but proper ray tracing isn't really gonna be a thing this generation on console. 



sc94597 on 08 September 2023
Soundwave said:

Also DLSS 3.0+ is supported by all RTX cards (so likely Switch 2 as well). It's just the frame generation aspect that only works on 40 series cards, though who even knows if Nvidia is telling the truth about that (why buy a 40 series card if frame generation lets a 20 series card for example double its frame rate). The main thing DLSS 3.0+ adds past the frame generation stuff is "ray reconstruction", which I'm not sure I understand exactly but it makes ray tracing easier and denoises it or something? Sounds like that could help the Switch 2 add ray tracing for a lower performance cost. 

DLSS 3.0 is pretty much defined by optical multi-frame generation. 

DLSS 3.5 is the ray construction. 

The fact that Nvidia didn't lock 3.5 to their 4000 series gives more credence to their argument that the OFA in the older cards isn't fast enough for 3.0. If it were purely to sell 4000 series chips they wouldn't backtrack and provide support for 3.5 in the older architectures. 

Really I think Nvidia should separate the DLSS versions out into different things. DLSS 2.0 should be rebranded DLSS Super Resolution (DLSSSR) & DLAA, DLSS 3.0 should be rebranded DLSS OFG (Optical Frame Generation), DLSS 3.5 should be rebranded DLSS RR (DLSS Ray Reconstruction), and then they could version each one of these as they improve them. 



Kyuu on 08 September 2023
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:
Kyuu said:

DLSS2 is not the game-changer some people make it out to be. FSR2 is comparable when upscaling from higher resolutions. Native 1080p reconstructed to 4K via FSR2 delivers comparable image quality to native 4K. Switch 2 using DLSS is hardly going to shrink the gap between it and PS5.

DLSS's real advantage over FSR is upscaling from low resolutions. So for Switch 2's typical native resolutions, DLSS is a lot more suitable than FSR. But for typical PS5 resolutions, FSR2 (and TSR) isn't far behind DLSS2.

Except DLSS is better than FSR2 even at higher resolutions in a wide variety of games. You can check out hardware unboxed who also did comparisons against DLSS vs FSR 2 in 26 games where DLSS looked better than FSR2 or at worst, tied in image quality. Upscaling from 1440p or lower using DLSS is no contest vs FSR2 in favor of DLSS as it looks significantly better.

DLSS is better in practically all scenarios, but the difference on higher resolutions is minor and grossly exaggerated. DLSS might do wonders to Switch in handheld mode, but in docked mode its typical multiplats will at best be in line with Series S.

It's a huge win for Switch 2 when compared to Switch 1 or PS4 which didn't even do FSR2 (FSR1 is a piece of crap). But it's just not a big advantage vs PS5's common reconstruction methods. Both Switch 2 and PS5 will have significant reconstruction advantage over their predecessors, and yet some act like FSR2 is a total non-factor. It's dumb.

On topic:

Series S vs Switch 2 will be interesting. Since Switch's popularity is guaranteed to utterly vanquish the Series S, it will have the luxury of more games being better optimized and tweaked specifically for it, as opposed to Series S gradually getting treated like an afterthought. If Switch 2's specs are on the higher end of what we're expecting/hoping, those specific ports will look clearer and play better on it. But ultimately it'll depend of the engine and design of the games, because CPU, storage system and RAM might prove serious bottlenecks for Switch 2 in several instances.

To get Series S like effective-performance out of an affordable handheld would be an incredible outcome. Anything around PS4 Pro or above would be amazing in my book.