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

Forums - Nintendo - How Will be Switch 2 Performance Wise?

 

Switch 2 is out! How you classify?

Terribly outdated! 3 5.26%
 
Outdated 1 1.75%
 
Slightly outdated 14 24.56%
 
On point 31 54.39%
 
High tech! 7 12.28%
 
A mixed bag 1 1.75%
 
Total:57
Chrkeller on 24 August 2025
Otter said:
curl-6 said:

It's not that unusual for games early in a console's life to still have to make concessions in ambitious titles; Odyssey itself for instance used a lot of tricks like lower rate animation on distant characters, dithered transparencies, and an interlaced 640x720 in portable mode to squeeze 60fps out of Switch 1 while looking as good as it did.

I wouldn't call brief drops to 30fps in a few specific instances a "severe" compromise personally. These sections make up maybe 1-2% of the experience.

I would call that regular optimisation, which goes unnoticed by the player. Some may notice it but I wouldn't expect it to impact their experience.

I haven't played DK yet and avoided video reviews but my understanding was that it drops through an entire boss battle and some specific gameplay sections? Is that wrong? 

If it's a drop for a second or 2, in very rare moments that's fine.

I think that's quite a big difference if their are entire sections which would drop or constantly be dropping at very frequent intervals, as that very noticably impacts player experience. And I'm speaking from the perspective of a designer, having to make that compromise knowing it will leave a negative impression on users would cause some friction imo. Alternatively the devs could of seen themselves as being over ambitious and were just grateful S2 allow the kind of gameplay at all.

Typically internal devs are a strong reference point for a machines needs, so I'm curious whether there was back and forth. 

That is correct, though it was only three boss fights out of many.  And all the sections ran great except a few towards the end.  So basically the vast majority of the game runs fine, but when it does run poorly it is for extended periods.



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Switch OLED

Around the Network
Otter on 24 August 2025
curl-6 said:
Otter said:

I would call that regular optimisation, which goes unnoticed by the player. Some may notice it but I wouldn't expect it to impact their experience.

I haven't played DK yet and avoided video reviews but my understanding was that it drops through an entire boss battle and some specific gameplay sections? Is that wrong? 

If it's a drop for a second or 2, in very rare moments that's fine.

I think that's quite a big difference if their are entire sections which would drop or constantly be dropping at very frequent intervals, as that very noticably impacts player experience. And I'm speaking from the perspective of a designer, having to make that compromise knowing it will leave a negative impression on users would cause some friction imo. Alternatively the devs could of seen themselves as being over ambitious and were just grateful S2 allow the kind of gameplay at all.

Typically internal devs are a strong reference point for a machines needs, so I'm curious whether there was back and forth. 

They're not major shortcomings, but they are all compromises that are noticeable to the trained eye; Odyssey looks great regardless, and the shortcuts they took were the right call, but it was pushing Switch 1 quite hard.

Bananza is 60fps the large majority of the time; there are occasional blips during normal gameplay, but they're uncommon and brief. The only sustained drops to 30fps I encountered are during the final phase of a specific boss, who you fight on two occasions. Depending on how quickly the player beats him, we're talking maybe 20-30 seconds or so at 30fps. These are rather jarring and unfortunate, but they do comprise only a very small percentage of the game as a whole.

Yeah, what I'm trying to stress is that this is a very unfortunate outcome from a designers perspective. 

If you compare it to Odyssey comprises, which one more negatively effected your experience? To me, they are very different weights of compromise from a user perspective.



Otter on 24 August 2025

But if the gameplay is mostly smooth, I'm sure the devs saw it reflective of their ambition in those specific battles not necessarily shortcomings of the hardware.



Chrkeller on 24 August 2025
Otter said:

But if the gameplay is mostly smooth, I'm sure the devs saw it reflective of their ambition in those specific battles not necessarily shortcomings of the hardware.

9/10 levels and bosses are locked at 60 fps, maybe even 9.5/10.  It isn't a problem, just an annoyance.



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Switch OLED

curl-6 on 24 August 2025
Otter said:
curl-6 said:

They're not major shortcomings, but they are all compromises that are noticeable to the trained eye; Odyssey looks great regardless, and the shortcuts they took were the right call, but it was pushing Switch 1 quite hard.

Bananza is 60fps the large majority of the time; there are occasional blips during normal gameplay, but they're uncommon and brief. The only sustained drops to 30fps I encountered are during the final phase of a specific boss, who you fight on two occasions. Depending on how quickly the player beats him, we're talking maybe 20-30 seconds or so at 30fps. These are rather jarring and unfortunate, but they do comprise only a very small percentage of the game as a whole.

Yeah, what I'm trying to stress is that this is a very unfortunate outcome from a designers perspective. 

If you compare it to Odyssey comprises, which one more negatively effected your experience? To me, they are very different weights of compromise from a user perspective.

DK Bananza is a much more ambitious game than Odyssey from a technical perspective, and consequently more difficult to deliver pull off without any hitches.

My experience with DK Bananza was overall very positive; a few sequences lasting less than a minute dropping to 30fps out of like 10 hours of play was ultimately not that big of a thing. It wasn't ideal, but when 99% of the experience is rock solid, the good outweighs any shortcomings by far.



Around the Network
Pemalite on 24 August 2025
Chrkeller said:
Pemalite said:

I just avoid games that are shit on PC... And play them on console. 
Just like I avoid games that are shit on console and play those on PC instead.

But, my 9060XT has proven to be capable and not many games have struggled to maintain 1440P 60fps.

Yes because FF16 runs great on consoles?  Lol, you are odd sometimes.  

I never specified any games that I played on PC or Console. You did. And I am the odd one? You can do better at an attempted insult.

Don't put words in my mouth.




www.youtube.com/@Pemalite

Chrkeller on 24 August 2025
Pemalite said:
Chrkeller said:

Yes because FF16 runs great on consoles?  Lol, you are odd sometimes.  

I never specified any games that I played on PC or Console. You did. And I am the odd one? You can do better at an attempted insult.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Wtf?  I said rebirth ran well and you acted like I was being silly.  I was pleased because 16 was a nightmare.  When I pointed out it ran poorly on PC and consoles this happened.  Lol, seriously man.  

There is a good number of games that run poorly on a 4090 and even worse on consoles... I'm not sure why you even called my statement out. 

Rebirth is a good port and runs well, why that statement bothered you is a mystery.  

Much like the while panel thing, you fight with odd arguments.

Last edited by Chrkeller - on 24 August 2025

i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Switch OLED

Vodacixi on 24 August 2025
BasilZero said:
Vodacixi said:

I played Kingdom Hearts III at 40fps on my Steam Deck because stable 60 was not possible (and even if I could, I rather have more battery life). It was the first time I played a game at that framerate. And it was... Surprisingly smooth. I played the game before at 60fps on PS5 and while it wasn't exactly the same experience it was much better than 30fps for example. Going from 30 to 40 doesn't sound like a huge increase on paper, but 40 felt closer to 60 than to 30 in terms of smoothness.

I'm saying this because I wish more games went for 40 fps when 60 it's not an option. Specially now that the Switch has VRR (on handheld mode at least, which is how I play most of the time).

Isnt that basically "Balanced mode" for a lot of the newer games? 

I tried 40 FPS too and it was definitely better than 30.

Going from 60 to 90 (and 120) was pretty eye opening too lol - had that experience earlier this year with FFVII Remake Intergrade on my gaming PC.

Speaking of Kingdom Hearts - man I hope SE plans to release KH collection (1.5+2.5, 2.8 and 3) on Switch 2 - would instantly buy them so I can play them on my Switch 2 portable. 

Hate how the Cloud versions are the only versions available on Switch.

don't have a gaming PC, so I'm usually stuck with some of these: 30fps, 60fps or unlocked framerate. With KH III on the Deck it was the first time I tried fixed 40.

Honestly, I don't know if I want the KH games on Switch anymore. Having them on Steam Deck already, there's very little incentive to buy them again on Switch 2. The only thing that would make me consider purchasing them is if they got a physical release. But knowing SE, they would probably make them Game Key Cards... And I don't want any of that.

And yes, the Cloud versions were an absolute "fuck you" move by SE. Like... They were terrible in every possible way. Not only having cloud versions on a portable device goes against the nature of the system, but the game themselves were a shitshow. Like... If you are going the streaming route and the console doesn't have to actually run the games, AT LEAST make the games look and run the best they can. But 720/30fps on the entire collection? And with constant connection problems? Ridiculous.

Anyway... Here's some footage of Elden Ring on handheld mode:

https://x.com/CrocOclock/status/1959239323724951910?t=aa31q3YFXtsfX-Gh6k2nRw&s=19

I mean... It's not absolutely locked 30fps, but I don't see the disaster many sites were claiming.



160rmf on 24 August 2025
Vodacixi said:

Anyway... Here's some footage of Elden Ring on handheld mode:

https://x.com/CrocOclock/status/1959239323724951910?t=aa31q3YFXtsfX-Gh6k2nRw&s=19

I mean... It's not absolutely locked 30fps, but I don't see the disaster many sites were claiming.

Making a mountain out of a mole hill is internet's speciality. We have so many fine examples even in this thread



 

 

We reap what we sow

Vodacixi on 24 August 2025
160rmf said:
Vodacixi said:

Anyway... Here's some footage of Elden Ring on handheld mode:

https://x.com/CrocOclock/status/1959239323724951910?t=aa31q3YFXtsfX-Gh6k2nRw&s=19

I mean... It's not absolutely locked 30fps, but I don't see the disaster many sites were claiming.

Making a mountain out of a mole hill is internet's speciality. We have so many fine examples even in this thread

I expect that from certain big sites or reviewers (looking at you, IGN). But literally everyone agreed in this case. Even channels like GVG or NintendoLife, which usually are pretty benevolent with Nintendo, described the Elden Ring handheld experience as borderline unplayable and spending most of the time in the open world at 20fps or lower.

I hope we get some more footage to confirm or deny these claims, but what I see in the only clip we got seems comparable to dock play.