FF7 will be one to watch, as on the one hand the PS4 version had a few issues with texture quality and streaming, which should be fixable with Switch 2's larger RAM pool and faster storage speeds, but on the other the PC version apparently doesn't support DLSS, so Switch 2 may have to just brute force it.

Gonna be interesting to see how it turns out.

Rebirth was shockingly well optimized on PC.  I ran max at native 4k and indoors locked 120 fps.  Outdoors 100 to 120 fps.  

As for Remake, not even sure my gpu fans turned on.  

Madden, FC, Elden, Remake all 30 fps.  Doesn't shock me, was worried about memory bandwidth being a bottleneck. 

I am a bit surprised Remake doesn't have a 40 fps mode, the game isn't particularly demanding.

I wouldn't say any of those are indicative of a bottleneck necessarily; Madden and FC are 30 cos they are ports of the PS5 and Xbox Series versions so just generally built for stronger hardware, (they don't seem to be very good ports either as frame pacing is all over the place) Elden Ring is a From Soft title which are always a bit of a mess, and Remake is based on the Intergrade version, so the upgrades there probably use up the system's extra resources.

Switch 2 does have lower bandwidth than recent home consoles in order to preserve battery life, but I don't think I'd describe it as a bottleneck per se as it doesn't seem to be holding back the rest of the system overly much, relative to say Switch 1.

Well it is a bottleneck.  Especially for fps and resolution.  That is just kind of a fact. 

If Remake (making up numbers) is at 70 gb/s at 30 fps within  the S2's ecosystem...  double fps requires double the memory bandwidth and the S2 doesn't have 140 gb/s.

At this point there is no doubt it is a bottleneck.  Remember the quote where games on the Series S at 60 fps should port over at 30 fps?  Series s is over 2x the memory bandwidth, hence ports of 60 to 30 should work.  

The math adds up.  And to be clear I am saying it is a bottleneck for fps, not graphic settings.

That's not how it works.

There are numerous factors in overall performance from pixel fillrate to texel fillrate to CPU draw calls to polygon rasterization; memory bandwidth is only one element of many.

If Switch 2 had double the bandwidth, it probably still wouldn't get to 60fps on something like FF7 Remake cos it would still be limited by other factors like polygon counts or draw calls.

You want to think 102 gb/s isnt a bottleneck, go ahead.  You are wrong.  There is a reason the Halo Strix is going after 256 gb/s. 

Perma argued with me over this, post launch even he has made comments that 102 gb/s will limit fps and resolution because it will.

And yes, within an ecosystem of hardware doubling fps requires double bandwidth.

Frame per SECOND 

Gb per SECOND 

Sure it computing is complex, but claiming 102 gb/s isn't going to limit fps is nonsense.

Bandwidth is only a "bottleneck" if it's the thing holding the rest of the system back. There's no real evidence that's the case thus far as the games you mention could just as easily be limited by the many other things that factor into a system's performance.

If you doubled Switch 2's bandwidth, you wouldn't magically get 60fps in FF7 or Cyberpunk, cos it would still be limited by other things like draw calls or polygon rendering.

If anything, the system's bottleneck seems to be its relatively low CPU clocks and only 6 core currently being available for games.

And it is holding the system back in terms of resolution and fps.  Resolution can be offset via DLSS but there is no offset for the fps part.  

In terms of picture fidelity didn't you tell me Cyber matches (and sometimes beat out) the Series S?  but the fps is half (when comparing performance modes).  Bandwidth is the bottleneck for fps.  

fps is frames p0r second.  second is a time unit.  a frame is a still picture.  One picture per second = x, then two pictures per second is 2x.  ten pictures per second is 10x.  30 is 30x, 60 is 60x, 120 is 120x.  A picture is a data file.  second is a fixed point, doesn't change.  increase in fps, when keeping fidelity flat, absolutely hits bandwidth and hard.  there are plenty of articles out there proving this.  the example is within a unified piece of hardware, not cross comparing different hardware units.    

It is a bottleneck.  I really don't see how anybody can think otherwise.  In order for the bandwidth to not be a bottleneck, fidelity would have to be significantly sacrificed, including resolution.  If the S2, in something like Madden, is going to have still picture fidelity similar to the series S, fps will be 30 because of the bandwidth bottleneck.  

Not even sure why the comment bothers you, because one it is true and two the S2 is producing good still frames, just less of them compared to hardware with higher bandwidth.  

The problem here is you are taking one aspect of a system's technical makeup as if it's the only factor, while ignoring the numerous other components.

Many things other than bandwidth can bottleneck a system and limit performance, from CPU draw calls to pixel and texel fillrate to asset streaming.

Bandwidth is only one factor among many.

The vast majority of devs simply do not acknolwedge that number. Hopefully by next gen it is common ground across all platforms. But even my LG OLED from 2022 didn't come with 120hz output, so it really isn't a widespread thing for people to take advantage of in home play.