He also has another wishful thinking, but it just happens to coincide with yours.

He also only suggested possibilities for many things.

Here is Nvidia showing off the Tegra X1 (the Switch 1 chip) for the first time at CES 2015 ... guess what they demoed the hardware running ... Unreal Engine 4 Elemental demo, at the time the gold standard engine demo. 

IMO VGC is correct on this.

Unreal Engine 5 Matrix Awakens demo makes total sense as something Nvidia would show for their latest generation Tegra chip almost 9 years later, but this is something obscure enough that I doubt someone would make this connection if they were lying about a rumor. You'd have to have a long ass memory to remember this. 

Epic and Nvidia probably did the demo, Nintendo is just showing it off to devs. Makes sense. CVG didn't even make this connection in their article either. 

Apologies, I don't know what your trying to say.  

DLSS2 is based on TAA, temporal accumulation is used to render each frame (several previous frames are combined to render the current one), so yeah, frame rate makes a huge differences to TAA and all it's derivatives FSR2 and DLSS2

yea i remember this  and history repeats itself. People talking about how close it was gonna be to compete with ps4 and xbox and they were wrong a usual case with every nintendo system since the GC.

The 4060 Ti 16GB silicon die, also known as the laptop RTX 4070, can run at 35W. Personally I'd prefer a 4060 Ti 16GB GPU in a box for $300 for fall 2024 (at that point the 4060 Ti die is 2 years old and very cheap to manufacture). 35W-50W, a Wii successor with a normal controller but a powerful NVidia GPU in it. No more portables. Imagine that. Portables will always be so limited by power draw, they are disappointing.

Even a laptop using 35W power is a lot more than the 10W the Switch 2 will use.

Actually looking at that it isn't misleading at all. The Switch can do those graphics, it would be pushing the higher end of the machine certainly but at 720p docked ... sure why not. 

The main problem the Switch has is to run PS4 games the resulting image quality is ugly and very low res. If DLSS was possible on it and ports looked a lot cleaner and sharper, I think a lot more devs would try with ports, but the incentive really isn't there when you work hard on a port only for it to look somewhat ugly image wise. 

Nintendo isn't really making these systems anymore anyway, they're basically all Nvidia's design, it's not like a "Nintendo chip". It's Nvidia's chip, they're not going to make a shit chip. Also what Nintendo are we even talking about? The Yamauchi Nintendo? The Iwata Nintendo? Neither exist any more who knows how Furukawa thinks but he is far younger and I'm sure he probably grew up with not only a Famicom/Super Famicom, but probably a Playstation and PS2 also. Very different generation. Nintendo's hardware philosophy under Yamauchi was very different than Iwata, Furukawa seems very different himself thus far (no price cuts for the Switch, paid online service a go, no price cuts or Players Choice titles for software, moving into film production, etc. etc.). 

Also don't forget you can only use DLSS2 with games that support TAA anti aliasing. Almost every game on the Switch 1 can't use DLSS2 anyways. 

What are you talking about? The Switch 1 can't use any version of DLSS. I was just saying if that technology was possible back in 2015, the Switch with the raw power it has would have been able to get a lot more PS4-XB1 ports. 

DLSS 2.0 and 3.0 aren't like separate entities either, lol. The Switch 2 will be able to use DLSS 3.0+ as long as it has RTX cores it just may not be able to do the frame generation aspect but there's more to DLSS 3.0+ than just that. 

I have enjoyed the "Switch 2 will run with current consoles if we ignore all the differences" argument Sound is pushing. Makes me laugh.