DLSS upscaling, ray reconstruction, and DLAA do not "introduce more input lag." Only frame generation increases input latency, and the SW2 doesn't support DLSS FG. 

I didn't search for it actually, I'm been a DF reader for longer than that and it's just hard not to notice that you're still copy-pasting the same arguments.

And it isn't "massively" scaled back, the only real confirmed differences in portable graphics mode are that volumetric lights are off and shadows aren't animated, but on the flipside reflections are running at twice the refresh rate.

The fact you're going off topic to the point of bringing up stuff like your personal controller preference just comes off as obsessive downplaying on your part.

There is zero evidence that the multiplayer not being there at launch is a power issue.

I don't think it is fair to just say 'personal preference' when the controller on Switch 2 is massively inferior for racing games and many others. You wouldn't want to drive a real car with a throttle that was either full on or off, analogue triggers do add a huge amount of enhanced gameplay to the game and it is available on Switch 2 if you pay the huge amount for the official Gamecube controller, it certainly isn't off-topic and it comes up many times for racing games, not just me mentioning either but a huge amount of people disappointed with Switch and Switch 2 controls. You seem to have completely ignored the actual resolutions of Switch 2 in portable mode and lack of graphic features present in portable mode. 

I really don't know what people expect from 8 A78 CPU cores at 1 Ghz these are well known processors and because the Switch 2 is on a mainly dated fabrication process they have reduced cache. They deliver a passmark score of about 2000 however 1 core is taken for gamechat, 1 core is taken for the OS and for a game like this they will also need to process network data if it had network functionality. I've never seen anyone argue that Switch 2 has good CPU performance. Also lets not forget the ARM A78 was designed for 5 and 6Nm nodes not 10Nm. Most of the benefits of the ARM A78 require those nodes. You can't claim the ARM A78 is better and then build it on a 10Nm fabrication meaning its speed and efficiency is massively restricted. I have a Teclast T50 mini tablet and that has a passmark score of 4500 and I know that because I've actually tested it myself. It has a Helio G99 processor on 6Nm. I'm certainly not saying anything controversial, Virtuos stated the CPU performance is at PS4 level (not pro) for the Switch 2. I'm actually stating going by the passmark score of 2000 that it is slightly above that as PS4 scores around 1700. Maybe with reduced cache it scores a bit less than 2000 because that benchmark was on 5Nm but I wouldn't of thought much less myself as they are only run at 1Ghz anyway and normally ARM A78s can go up to 3Ghz on 5Nm. The Switch 2 has very low CPU resources just like the Switch 1 did when it was launched. The wii u launched long after the 360 and PS3 but had significantly less CPU resources than those consoles. Often games that ran on all three consoles had inferior graphics on wii u and a frame rate that would tank much easier, dare I mention it too that those games played better too as they had analogue triggers so different weapons felt different, some had a light trigger, some had a full trigger etc with better recoil effects. I'm just making the point Nintendo does not prioritise CPU performance and lack of CPU performance on Switch 2 will be an issue for many games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEAKPh_h3Eg

This is a thread about performance, not controllers.

The graphics mode on Switch 2 is the only one that's logical to compare to PS4, as the others are all either run at a higher framerate than PS4 or are aimed at saving battery life which isn't a logical comparison for obvious reasons. Graphics mode targets 1080p in portable mode, same as PS4. Volumetric lighting and shadow animations are disabled, but reflections are 30fps rather than 15fps on PS4. That's not "massively scaled back" at all.

And you're misquoting Virtuos, they said the CPU was slightly better than PS4, not on par.

I would completely agree with that on other systems typically PC but on Switch 2 I think you have to factor in its a system with decent GPU resources but very weak CPU performance and we have seen many Switch 2 games with horrible input lag using DLSS so you can't just use the PC norm for Switch 2. PCs typically have very high CPU performance where DLSS was designed for. Games like Skyrim, Cyberpunk and Street fighter come to mind with DLSS and high input lag. This is why I think Nintendo have set CPU resources far too low on Switch 2 its not a comfortable or well aligned level for the GPU. There is a CPU cost for DLSS and on a PC that is insignificant but on Switch 2 it is fairly high. The display panel introduces a lot of lag in itself too so for portable mode its a bigger problem. There was a report before Switch 2 release that portable mode the CPU ran at 1.1Ghz and docked mode 1Ghz which seemed very strange but maybe that really is a thing to help compensate for the very slow panel and lack of overdrive. I mean Codemasters are experts at DLSS and have supported it on their games from the very beginning (F1 2020) but on Switch 2 they don't use it. You don't make decisions like that without a reason. At t he end of the day every bit of data I have read shows the Switch 2 has low CPU resources without question and I would say most of these Switch 2 issues are related to that. However don't get me wrong I'm sure the vast majority of Switch 2 games will have enough CPU resources its just when they try to push the system these sort of problems emerge and there will be sacrifices. Skyrim Anniversary Edition first release had input lag up to 240ms are you saying without DLSS that would be 300ms or more? Their fix was mainly turning off Vsync so the frame data was used by the GPU as soon as available. A passmark CPU score of about 2000 has been available to top end PCs as far back as 2006/2007. Even an old i5 from 2015 can achieve about 6000 passmark CPU score. Steam Deck is 9000, PS5 about 16,000. 

• CPU Bottlenecks: If your system is heavily CPU-bound (weak CPU, strong-ish GPU), DLSS might not improve frame rates, and consequently, will not reduce input lag, and in some cases, might introduce stutter. 
• CPU Bottleneck: If your CPU is too weak to handle the game's logic, DLSS will not help FPS and may slightly increase latency due to the overhead of the upscaling process.

Those warnings above are from PC and what is the lowest PC CPU that you would pair with a Nvidia graphics card with DLSS upscaling? Lets say you have an older PC and just upgraded the GPU for the time being. I would say the absolute minimum would be somewhere around 5000-8000 passmark CPU score. Even 5000 the worst case example is 2.5x the performance of Switch 2 in CPU terms. 

If you are comparing versions of a game you have to compare the full experience surely, both the positives and the negatives and the controller is part of that experience. If another console only had a fully digital controller like the super nintendo which ran Grid Legends are you saying that rubbish controller shouldn't be mentioned in comparison with Switch 2 and the lack of analogue sticks not mention for fine positioning control? I feel you would quickly mention that in favour of the Switch 2 because that is your bias. I have zero bias I feel, I have no loyalty to any games console company or product. I've criticised and praised pretty much every console I've owned.

Fair point about Virtuos quote I'd forgotten that but I actually quoted the passmarks CPU benchmark of 2000 which is slightly better than PS4 so there was no attempt at all to mislead. Both Virtuos and myself are saying exactly the same thing. They never said slightly better than PS4 Pro so its somewhere between PS4 and PS4 Pro which is exactly where a passmark CPU score of 2000 is. So at least we are all agreed on the Switch 2 only having a passmark CPU score of 2000 so there is no argument there so perhaps we can move on from that at least.

So if you give one point for each graphic feature; volumetric lighting, shadow animations and screen space reflections the PS4 gets 2.5/3 and the Switch 2 portable mode at its highest visual setting gets 1/3 plus the native resolution is higher at 900-1080p on ps4 compared to 792-1080p. Isn't 1/3 massively scaled back compared to 2.5/3? It's a mute point anyway as from what I've read the 30fps mode has fairly high input latency and you need to use the 60fps mode to reduce that latency which is on a much reduced visual quality anyway.

No offense, but you have shown again and again in this thread (and apparently historically on the forum for nearly a decade), but every few months or so in this thread in particular, that you'll concoct a reality that isn't there to confirm your bias. For example, this hypothetical (but non-existent) "CPU cost for DLSS." 

The CPU has little specifically to do with DLSS upscaling/AA. DLSS upscaling/AA inference is very much a pure-GPU workload computed on the tensor cores (convolutions, fully connected layers, etc) and CUDA cores (activation functions, pooling, batch normalization, regularization) in the case of CNN models. 

Yes, if a platform is experiencing a CPU bottleneck, reducing GPU-loads (like what happens when using DLSS as a performance crutch) won't do much to increase frame-rate, but that goes in both directions. DLSS isn't going to suddenly cause input latency that wasn't already there because of the CPU bottleneck. And it is still useful to use DLSS to improve image quality, even if you are (or rather, especially when) you're CPU bottle-necked and want to utilize more GPU resources. We see this in many games on Switch 2 that have really good image quality, but are locked to 30fps, likely because of that CPU bottleneck you're pointing out. 

The SW2 does have a weakish CPU for 9th Generation console standards, but that CPU is still more powerful (albeit only slightly more) than the very weak Jaguar CPUs in the 8th Generation consoles. If you're forming a hypothesis about why a Switch 2 game is performing poorly that depends on the weak CPU being the cause then it will have to also be present on these 8th Generation platforms you're comparing it to that have even weaker CPUs. 

Finally,

• Grid Legends doesn't support DLSS on PC, so it isn't surprising that it doesn't support it on Switch 2. 
  
  
• I cannot find any analysis that has found Cyberpunk 2077 to have much higher input lag on Switch 2 than on other platforms. 
  
  
• Street fighter 6 has a similar input latency on Switch 2 to PS4 Pro - 70-72ms versus. 55 - 58 ms on the other 9th Generation platforms. At the maximum this is about half a frame of extra latency for the 8th Gen platforms + Switch 2 versus. 9th Gen. That's not horrible. 
  
  
• Skyrim is an especially poor example, given that it doesn't have these issues at all on systems with weaker CPUs, including the original Switch of course. This is a software optimization issue in a game originally developed by a company well-known for its software optimization issues. It's not a hardware limitation. 

Edit: Also let's not mix up input latency and pixel response time. Street Fighter 6, as an example, has the same input latency in handheld and docked mode. Its screen's poor pixel response causes ghosting and blur, but the input latency is the same as in docked mode. Both response time and input latency influence the feeling of "responsiveness", but they aren't the same thing. 

This thread is specifically about performance though, not controllers and such.

Where are you getting the PS4 dynamic res range from?

You're moving the goalposts now, you said it was "massively scaled back" which that's not really the case. SSR isn't removed entirely in graphics and balanced mode when portable, it remains on the car and trackside. DF never mentioned any latency issue in graphics mode either, at least that I saw; I've played it myself never found it to be an issue.

As sc94597 says, you keep constructing this narrative that the system is weak and going on these long rants where much of what you claim is half-truths, pure speculation, or just straight-up invention.

It's interesting to see Oblivion Remastered come to the Switch 2, in what seems to be a reasonable state, despite the SW2's very weak CPU. That was one game I was a bit concerned about not working well.

I also don't think the 8th Gen consoles could've ran it well. An FX 8300 (and most 4-core; 4-thread i5's) are a stutter-fest when playing this game. I have an i5 4690k + RTX A2000 itx build with DDR4 2400Mhz ram that I use for light image segmentation, and out of curiosity I installed the game on that and it basically stutters every 5-8 seconds after seeming like it would work pretty well at 30fps. Very much like when people would try to play the Witcher 3 or Dragon Age Inquisition with heavily overclocked Pentium G3258's that were popular in budget builds ten years ago. The i5 4690k is on paper +30% as performant as the SW2's CPU (more if we exclude the reserved cores) so that would've seemed like it wouldn't have worked well. 

This also puts Virtuos's comments in perspective. They probably had to do quite a bit of work to get this ported, given the Switch 2's CPU and that is why the developer honed in on it being the bottleneck, when asked. 

Edit: 

Also I am very impressed with FF7: Rebirth's trailer. It looks like it is consistent with Intergrade in terms of general end-result. 

Umm.

The Switch 2 uses a "SoC" known as a "System on a Chip".
That "System on a chip" is known as Tegra Orin.

Tegra Orin has a block on the SoC dedicated to handling networking operations known as the "MAC" or "Media Access Controller" for 10/100/1000 BASE-T Ethernet MAC capabilities.

It also has a block known as the "CAN FD Controller" for communication in automotive industries.

Here is the datasheet for the Tegra chip so you can update your understanding of what the SoC is actually capable of.
https://connecttech.com/ftp/pdf/jetson_orin_nx_datasheet.pdf

Rest assured all modern ARM SoC's offload network processing onto a dedicated processing block, no external chips required.
Doing network processing on CPU cores is a last century idea and drives up power consumption and latency, which is literally the opposite of the design goals that ARM SoC's strive for.

Sony was inefficient with the PS4, hence the external DRAM and ARM Cores, something the Xbox one didn't have, but this wasn't for network traffic itself, it was for managing background tasks and social functions.
Microsoft did it with less overhead on the Jaguar cores and system DRAM. - Both consoles had a south bridge to assist with managing I/O and networking as this is a holdover from PC designs.

Keep in mind that the Playstation 4 also had 65% higher CPU clock than the Switch 2.

The Switch 2 cores themselves, clock for clock are absolutely superior to the Playstation 4... But we also need to remember that the Switch 2 SoC is doing more offloading of the CPU than the Playstation 4.

For example... Developers on the Playstation 4 would need to use the CPU in order to perform decompression tasks, the Switch 2 has a LZ4 decompression block on the SoC that takes that CPU load away, meaning more limited CPU cycles are available for actual gaming.

You need to start looking past the raw paper specs and start looking at the big picture, the Switch 2 SoC is capable of doing more, with less than the ancient Xbox One/Playstation 4 hardware... And the games are showcasing that, often returning better results... Imagine in another 7 years when developers have learned more about the hardware?

Oblivion Remastered actually scales down on PC hardware super well.

It's the scripting and cell loading which causes the stutter and framerate issues, which is an I/O bottleneck and a characteristic of the Game Engine. (Gamebryo in this instance.)

I have zero concerns about the CPU/GPU being enough to run the game... Especially as I have a notebook with an RTX 2050 4GB that has returned good results. (Nothing compared to my desktop PC however.)

I am not sure how it runs on the Xbox Series X/Playstation 5 though as I haven't bothered to run the game on those consoles yet.