uh but that's not the case. Switch 2 should be in the Xb1/PS4 area WITHOUT DLSS. There's no reason to think Switch 2 won't have specs similar to those systems, just as Switch is MORE powerful than 360/PS3. Gap of about 10-11 years for each from the previous console to the Nintendo system.

DLSS is what can likely take Switch 2 from Xb1/PS4 level to Ps4 Pro level. So if its outputting games at PS4 Pro level, but ain't bothering about 4k/60fps like the current consoles, that makes it a hell of a lot easier for Switch 2 to handle current console games.

Fact is that DLSS should make the gap between Switch 2 and PS5/XBSeries significantly smaller than the gap between Switch and PS4/XB1.

Mar1217

Honestly starting to think DLSS digital foundry analysis   was a paid advertising by Nividia, and a damn good one. like they finally talked about the negatives of input lag and how taking a game targeting 30fps to 60fps would not be a game you wanna play only when they started talking about FSR3.    

You keep tripping over yourself.  You claim switch 2 will be ps4 pro but will run FFVII like a ps5.  The ps5 version is 60 fps, improved lighting and far better fog, far better textures, etc.  Jesus man, you are not consistent with your position.  

You want to argue DLSS will get the switch around ps4 pro levels, cool.  I'm not fighting that.  But it sounds like you are finally conceding it won't be comparable to the ps5.  Which is good, because it isn't.  The ps5 jump from 30 fps to 60 fps (performance mode) by itself is a huge jump in console games.

I also think it is funny that DF is being leveraged as THE authority on tech, but yet we are viewing FF7 on the ps5 as being mostly the same as ps4 DESPITE DF praising the ps5 version for all the significant upgrades.  So which is it?  Is DF an authority or not?  

I don't understand how a 1536 core Ampere GPU is PS4 level (HD7850)

Even a 1280 core Ampere GPU is 72% more powerful than the HD7850.

Architecture wise, both the Switch 2 GPU and CPU will most likely trump the archaic PS4 architecture and could be able to give performance akin to a PS4 Pro from the get go. This has already been explained by Pemalite so I don't know by which conspiracy mindset Chrkeller and Zeldaring are trying to put out a theory in which the Switch 2 experiences basically acquires no technological advancement from it's predecessor just because "historically, Nintendo doesn't work with power or leading tech".

While the current speculation is based on some rumor/hearsay and such, theirs just amount to a "contrarian feeling" which amounts to even less.

That is a gross and intentional mischaracterization.  

No doubt it will be a huge leap over the switch.  No doubt DLSS will be a good win.

The only aspect being disputed is the visuals being comparable to the ps5 and that is based on a wide variety of technical reasons which have been posted already. 

I guess people can't dispute the technical limitations, thus we have resorted to silly and baseless attacks.

To get back on actual tech, sure DLSS will help with resolution, but mobile chips are going to struggle with volumetric fog (as an example).  How about mobile chips and limited VRAM to handle highly detailed textures?  How about half the rumored memory speed compared to the ps5?  

And of course not too mention upscaling isn't a nVidia exclusive....  AMD chips can do it as well.  So upscaling is available to the ps5.  And most tech sites have FSR competing nicely with DLSS.

You seem to be under this impression that FF7 on the PS5 looks like 3-5x better than the PS4 version ... it does not. 

The Switch 2 is going to be able to do some of the lighting and fog effects too because it's architecture is way newer and more advanced than the PS4 Pro (Ampere is a better architecture than even the PS5's RDNA1.5). And DLSS 3.0+ has a mode that improves ray tracing lighting performance, on top of the resolution scaling and free AA it gives a hypothetical Switch 2 version. 

To be honest at times I like the PS4 look better, dousing everything in fog isn't always the greatest thing (hello N64). The Switch 2 just by virtue of having a way more modern architecture should be able to do the PS4 graphics but add some of the PS5's lighting and reflections and sure probably even some of the mist/fog effects too. If you do that, in motion the gap between the two to is probably going to become blurry.

Here is Spider-Man Miles Morales on PS4 vs PS5 (this was basically the PS5's big launch title), it's honestly difficult to really tell the difference here, especially at 1:40 in side by side you tell me there's a massive difference there. 

The PS5 cannot run this game at 60 fps either without having to downgrade its graphics (turning ray tracing off). But yet the ancient PS4 can produce a version that also looks extremely similar to it. 

As you get higher and higher up the graphics food chain it becomes obvious the difference are much more subtle and a lot of the extra processing power gets eaten up by calculating things like a reflection in the background or light bounces are that aren't immediately that big of difference in the image to the average joe. 

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.

I’m no expert but aren’t Steam Deck, Rog Ally & Legion Go essentially handheld gaming PCs so they have to use x86 to be compatible with existing Steam/Windows libraries and going with the ARM based Tegra line that Nintendo uses would require games to be developed specifically for them? If that’s the case than it seems like a really good reason why Valve, Asus & Lenovo aren’t using this tech.

As for Nvidia not wanting to play with small players, isn’t that somewhat valid? Nintendo has averaged 20+ million units shipped per year since FY90-91, they can leverage that to get good deals on components because of the high volume. Steam Deck, Rog Ally & Legion Go are niche devices that combined will likely sell less lifetime than Nintendo sells in a single year, they aren’t going to get great deals until they can prove these are mass market devices.

That statement could very well be hyperbole but a couple points being they probably weren’t doing an in-depth side-by-side analysis, the excitement of being one of the first people to see a new gaming device in action & it may have exceeded their expectations. The combination of those factors could easily cause someone to exaggerate.

With that said, I think people are focusing on the wrong things here. Whether Switch 2 is as powerful as Xbox One or PS4 or PS4 Pro or Xbox One X or Series S or PS5 or Series X doesn’t matter, the more important question is whether or not Switch 2 supports the latest engines and can run AAA 3rd party games without major downgrades. If it can do that than who cares which other console it’s technically closest to?