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.

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. 

You just say whatever you want to say, but you should be able to explain people's questions in your own words.

I haven't got to experience the technology yet so i'm actually just reading  impressions, and learning about it because it seems like it too good to be true and it looks like it is.  

Yeah,I could easily travel from my daily life to the moon having a conversation with you.

Oh you might want to check out another thread.  Soundwave thinks the switch 2 will run FFVII Remake like the ps5.  When I asked why nobody else is using the chipset other than Nintendo his answer was nVidia doesn't want to play with small players.  People believe it.

And isn't the entire thread based on the premise the switch 2 behind closed door had visuals that rivals the ps5 and series x?  

"The demo is said to have been running using Nvidia’s DLSS upscaling technology, with advanced ray tracing enabled and visuals comparable to Sony‘s and Microsoft’s current-gen consoles"

So how am I exaggerating when the entire thread is literally about matching the ps5 in visual fidelity?

This basically confirms you need VVR display to use DSLL frame generation rendering this method will be useless for home consoles lol. DLSS upscaling has a compute time cost that needs to be factored into the frame time budget but no input lag cost. Basically no performance increases with DSLL  on switch 2. 

Ah yes, I’m sure everybody in this thread will get right to watching this movie length video you posted.

This basically confirms you need VVR display to use DSLL frame generation rendering this method will be useless for home consoles lol. DLSS upscaling has a compute time cost that needs to be factored into the frame time budget but no input lag cost. Basically no performance increases with DSLL  on switch 2. 

Again, you are confusing two very different technologies. FSR 3/DLSS 3 aim to interpolate frames (add new frames where they don't exist already.) In order to do that well you need to have a decent frame-rate in the first place. There is also a significant performance cost associated with it. 

FSR 2/DLSS 2, on the other-hand, are temporal upscaling solutions. They're not interpolating frames, but rather pixels. In the case of DLSS this is by utilizing a convolutional auto-encoder that they've trained to infer pixels from past frame-data. AMD's FSR uses a more traditional method which doesn't use Deep Learning (many-layered neural networks.) The performance cost is relatively minor, in comparison to DLSS 3.0 (and ostensibly FSR 3.0), because in the case of an Nvidia RTX GPU there are specialized tensor  cores designed to do it quite efficiently. Frame-rate improves with DLSS 2 because you run the game at a lower internal resolution, reducing VRAM demands and compute core demands, not because you are interpolating frames. This is the primary method through which people improve their framerates using DLSS/FSR. 

The consoles aren't going to get frame-generation. That doesn't mean that DLSS/FSR are useless. 

Starfield is a primary example of this. Without FSR 2.0, the Series X would run the game at an effective 1440p 30fps, and the Series S at an effective 900p 30fps. Instead, they are upscaled to 4k and 1440p respectively, and look somewhere in-between the internal and target resolutions in terms of image quality. 

PS5 titles (especially exclusive ones) often opt for a different temporal interpolator (most often checkerboarding) but the PS5 does support FSR 2.0 too. 

The idea that DLSS won't help the Switch in terms of performance or meeting graphical fidelity goals is just pure delusion. Temporal interpolators/upscaling solutions, which DLSS is the most successful implementation of currently on the market, are going to be (and arguably already are the) standard for the industry -- on both consoles and PCs.