I'm not quite getting the logic here. The game by default runs beyond expectations on RDNA2 dGPU's already (outperforming Ampere even in RT loads you're suggesting), but somehow that means there is more room for the Steam Deck (and AMD iGPU's in general) to be optimized beyond this and not less? Isn't the argument being made that it isn't optimized well on Steam Deck (and other platforms with AMD iGPUs) and could potentially be? 

Also, as I pointed out in another post - this title isn't exceptionally optimized for SW2's GPU as many are making it seem. In docked mode SW2's GPU is about 70% of a 45W TGP RTX 3050 mobile, and in SWO it is performing roughly in line with that (variable 50-70 fps on RTX 3050 laptop vs. 30fps @ same internal resolution and with reduced graphics settings on SW2 docked, 57% of the internal resolution in portable mode as docked mode/RTX 3050m also @30fps.) Performance is basically right in line, if not a bit underwhelming for docked mode, with what you'd expect with scaling based on raw power of these respective Ampere chips/modes. 

What I'm saying is that even AC:Shadows build for Deck it's not custom built port, like Outlaws is on Switch 2. So what I'm saying, again, is that if Deck was given Switch 2 treatment and care, with all the additional reductions, Outlaws would, more likely than not, run fine on it.

Going by benchmarks, they are about the same, with Avatar being slightly more demanding. I think it was DF that mentioned that areas in Outlaws that are most taxing for Switch 2 are heavy vegetation areas, and that Avatar is full of vegetation, so that might be probable issue.

Why isn't it already running fine on Steam Deck though? Why is this a common performance issue on RDNA2 and RDNA3 AMD iGPU's and not an issue isolated to the Steam Deck? Why doesn't this problem exist for AMD's dGPUs? Those are all important questions if we are to extrapolate from micro-architecture comparisons. 

Additionally, what does being a custom port give the SW2 beyond standard Ampere chips running this on PC? See: the RTX 3050 45W example where Switch 2 (docked) is doing about 9.6 fps per TFLOP and the RTX 3050 (45W) with similar (slightly higher) settings is doing about 12-16 fps per TFLOP. Where is SW2's optimization gains beyond generic PC Ampere? I am not convinced "the Switch 2 treatment" -- making a game that looked to be running into CPU bottlenecks, run better by reducing asset density, would help the Steam Deck. 

I am also not convinced that a game that is running at 18-24 fps @260p internally, can be easily optimized to achieve a solid 30fps @540p when it shares the micro-architecture with systems the game was very much optimized for in the initial build (PS5, Series S/X, AMD dGPU's). Unless, the issue really does have something to do with how AMD's iGPU's work vs. dGPU's -- such as infinity cache maybe being a large part of why a 6700 (which originally paired against a 3060ti not a 3060) is on par with a 3060 in this game and not others. Different games benefit differently from this. 

Unless someone in Ubi goes public and tells us why, I doubt we'll figure out.

What I find odd is you thinking that custom made port for Deck would not solve the issues - say Ubisoft really decides to go crazy and waste money, and takes XSS code (since they are same architecture) and distills it further, instead of what we have now as general PC port, that can't go as low on many things as Switch 2 port does (not just asset density).

I already expessed what I think needs to be done. Ray-tracing needs to be replaced with SSR in a lot of places , and where it stays extant it needs to reduce in quality. Basically a combination of the Series S and SW2 modifications (Series S replaces with SSR or it is absent more often than SW2; SW2 reduces ray resolution and stability when extant. Steam Deck would do both.) I also don't think internal 540p, like SW2 handheld, is a reasonable goal unless FSR is discarded for some lighter AA - which probably would be for the best to be honest. If FSR is retained 400p would probably be a good target. 

I think where Steam Deck could be superior to SW2 is that it could retain mesh quality and asset density that have been reduced on SW2 to largely save on CPU resources. Alternatively or additionally, it can also potentially hit a 40fps mode easier, if the SW2 version is indeed CPU-bottlenecked. And of course there would be performance gains by cutting out the compatibility layer. 

All of this (along with the fact that the game has other issues, like SD controller not working) is probably why a year out there hasn't been performance updates for Steam Deck verification or to improve performance on other PC handhelds, unlike AC Shadows that released more recently. Heck AC Shadows even had a native Mac version and is coming to IpadOS

Well, we'll probably disagree on amount of RT reduction (I don't think that currently lighting is as bad on PC lowest settings as it is on Switch 2 with all the instability and "splotchiness", to use DF jargon, so Deck also having Switch 2 level of lighting would certainly help), but in principle yeah, that's what I'm talking about - custom port, as if Deck was actual console, with its strength and weaknesses, direct Vulkan code and all that jazz, instead of just handheld PC that's fed general PC port. Because, if you treat it just as a PC, it's more than natural that it can't keep up vs dedicated handheld that's in about the same performance rank.

I'm curious to see how FF7 Rebirth turns out; it's a PS5 title, but Square seem to be going the extra mile with these ports to present their flagship series in a positive light.

As mentioned in another thread, if will be interesting to see if FF16 eventually makes the jump as well and how that might look/run on Switch 2.

I'm fairly confident about Rebirth actually. I played in the quality mode but reviews said it tends to hold 60 on base PS5 until you get into intense battle, where for me the a lot of the particle effects are actually too much, so I wouldn't mind that being cut down in quality and resolution of FX being halfed. Also worth noting there are no graphical cutdowns besides resolution in the performance mode, so it essentially hasn't been optimised on PS5 at all. 

The issue with the PS5 version at 60fps was the image quality, they used some bad upscalling that made it look worse then it should. Seeing as SE fixed it with PSSR, I imagine they'll get a good resolve with DLSS. I think my only concern at the S2 version would be the pop-in in the open world.

Rebirth overall isn't an especially graphically pushing game despite being gorgeous at a glance. Top mark for character models and cutscenes, but outside of that tts took Remake's graphical benchmark (which is still stunning) and then just upped the scale and density of enviornments a lot. One of the reasons I'm worried about pop-in.

So the two types of DLSS have been confirmed. 

Given this, I suspect by the end of this generation we'll have many more DLSS versions, including some that cost as much as type II, but have the quality characteristics of type I or even better.

Models are improving over time given the same parameter count, and not just because of architectural changes, although you could ostensibly transfer learn from a ViT to a CNN to improve it, and likewise from large models to smaller ones. 

As we also get more RT titles, I would like to see some ray reconstruction, even if it is the older lower-cost preview version. 

That's probably the most exciting part about SW2. Nvidia's evolving feature-set, which has very much been backward compatible, benefits it over time akin to the old "optimizations" that consoles would experience over the course of a generation.

My guess is a SW3 will go hard on neural rendering if it releases in 2031-2033.