I agree with the CPU bottleneck. If the cores run at lower speed than 1.0 GHz now, then they need to adjust the clock rates a bit and free that additional core. Some kind of temporary boost up to 15% would be doable if they can keep it for a couple of minutes, with short breaks in between.

Then switching DLSS to optimized Transformer model would help with artifacts and hair rendering too, I suppose. Overall, RE9 is a pretty solid port, but not fully optimized yet for Switch 2 from what I saw. 

Really the game should just be capped at 30fps by default with the choice to unlock it. With a stable experience you stop noticing frame rate, if it's all over the place, it's very jarring

If they were to lock the framerate they should do 40fps. The people who care about this will have 120Hz displays. 

The game is >40fps the overwhelming majority of the time from the DF (and other's) footage. It seems to drop into the 30's in one area really. 

I think Nintendo really needs to 1. Enable VRR in docked mode like Sony did mid-gen, 2. Free up the CPU resources that are being wasted. 

They should aim for 40FPS more often. It doesn't seem much of a difference on paper over 30FPS, but it's actually quite the upgrade for not much of an impact on hardware.

I'm playing RE Requiem now; it's definitely one of the best looking things I've seen on the platform yet, and I actually did a double take reading it's 540p native as the end result looks much better than that due to using "full fat" DLSS; it's a little soft, but worlds better than say 540p games on other consoles that rely on TAAU/FSR.

Hair is about the only real pain point; there's noticeable upscaling artefacts there similar to say FF7 Remake or Star Wars Outlaws, but everything else is remarkably good so far.

Crazy that RE9's final image quality is much higher on Switch 2 than on Series S. I expect similar results for FF7 Rebirth, because like RE9, it uses a crappy spatial upscaler on base PS5 and presumably Xbox Series consoles.

Yeah once again DLSS proves to be Switch 2's trump card, allowing it to beat Series S for image quality despite running at a lower pixel count. Heck, it even manages to look cleaner than PS5, albeit also softer.

Series S does of course manage a faster framerate due to having more raw power overall, but Switch 2 is punching above its weight here.

The question is why didn't base PS5 and Xbox versions of this and FF7 Rebirth use temporal upscaling like FSR2+ or TSR? I really want to know why they opted for spatial upscaling in these instances. Most AAA games including RE4 Remake used temporal upscalers.

This isn't just a case of DLSS (or PSSR) doing the heavy lifting. Other console versions are just gimped.

Makes one wonder what a Lovelace-based SW2 would've been like, if they planned for a 2025 release from the start. With the power savings, CPU clocks probably would've been able to be a lot higher than they are, and many games that are 30 fps or variable 30-60fps might have been 60fps-able. I wouldn't be surprised if it felt "close" to a "portable PS5", especially if frame-gen entered the picture (say, 45 fps-> 90 fps or 60 fps ->120 fps.)

Personally, I think 30fps -> 60fps FG is at the borderline of playable, but 45 fps ->90 fps actually feels great in cinematic titles. 

Oh and the other good thing about variable refresh rates is when the SW2 is inevitably mod-able and we can most likely overclock the CPU, we'll probably be able to get a consistent 60 fps in games like this. Likewise, with a backwards compatible SW3. 

I also took Village for a spin; as an older crossgen game it holds up really well on Switch 2.

As you'd expect, image quality is a lot sharper than Requiem and framerate is more consistent. Where Requiem looks like a very competent but downgraded port, Village feels like a "full fat" experience free of obvious compromise.