Looking at the game running on a Steam Deck OLED it looks like it's using about 12GB of shared memory on average.

Assuming Steam OS is consuming about 2-3GB of that, that is putting it above the Series S's 8GB capacity for games. 

I am honestly super impressed with the Switch 2's hardware. Not gonna lie knowing Nintendo's history of not being ambitous about specs for 20 years now I had low expectations. I was expecting around PS4 performance even docked with no native 4k capabilities and not able to exceed 60fps. But I am happy to be wrong, I'd never expect to see the word Nintendo with 4k 120fps with the Switch 2 but they did it, and even have some bigger detailed looking 1st party games like Prime 4 running 120fps which is a dream come true for me. Also the 3rd party showings were really impressive with many huge games making the jump to Switch 2 like Elden Ring, Cyberpunk 2077, FF7 Remake, even Madden. It really feels like Nintendo could now be looked at as a legit platform for 3rd party games now as the image that Nintendo is only for family friendly Nintendo games is quickly dying. This is probably the most competitive Nintendo has been with specs since the Gamecube, of course the Switch 2 still isn't on par with PS5, but the gap feels smaller than it ever has been. We'll have to see if this continues once PS6/Next Xbox releases but things looking good right now and far exceeded my expectations.

I honestly expect most AAA 3rd party games to come to Switch too with a few exceptions like those huge games maybe like GTA 6, but I definitely see the Switch 2 getting almost everything and definitely better than Switch 1.

Props to Nintendo, that direct honestly felt like Nintendo has finally adressed the biggest issues that have been plaguing them for decades now (limted online services, underpowered hardware, limited 3rd party support), it felt refreshing to see Nintendo finally adress them in a big way and truly feels like a new era of Nintendo now, it's hard to say much more critiques about them (outside of game prices of course lol).

I'm fairly certain you can't do head to head comparison of Steam Deck and XSS, or any console, when it comes to memory utilization, even if it's shared memory pool on Deck, but sure, I'll give you benefit of the doubt, at least when it comes to XSS.

From what I've seen (DF included) SF6 is somewhat technically shitty on all platforms, and XSS version is especially botched. Hence mine let's wait and see what DF has to say, especially on something that is technically good (like CP2077) before jumping the gun.

Comparison of textures with PS5/XSX should be no brainer, Switch 2 really doesn't have neither memory capacity, memory bandwidth, nor texture fillrate to be anywhere comparable to them, so if there is anything off there, it has nothing to do with hardware, but game and developers in question.

Once again, DLSS will be massive boon for Switch 2 - just yesterday, I have shown my wife and son how Eternal Strands looks in 720p native...and then how it looks in 1440p DLSS Performance (which renders at 720p, so intentional choice of Performance mode) - there was a lot of WOW! in that room. DLSS is actually THE thing that Switch 2 has that stands out and that will make games on it look much better than they should look on equivalent DLSS-less (that was a mouthful) hardware.

I think its a difficult thing to judge as DLSS makes it confusing. If the Switch 2 is rendering at 480p for portable mode and 720p for docked and both are upscaled by DLSS with some artifacts then it doesn't really need to be that powerful to be competitive in resolution. The great thing about DLSS is it means the graphics assets can be smaller so more suitable for cartridges and a portable device with less storage. Also from what I've read previously about PC AI upscaling you can just upscale normal graphics but you can also create graphics that work better for AI upscaling, i.e. you can adjust low res graphics so they look better upscaled. I also think on a portable screen such artifacts are less of an issue. I guess with this type of upscaling what will limit the Switch 2 is more likely to be CPU performance.

The battery is 20Wh Eurogamer stated and the minimum battery runtime is 2 hours so the maximum wattage per hour is 10W but the screen will probably take about half of that meaning you get 5W for portable mode and the fabrication process is Samsung 8Nm. When Samsung released its 10Nm fabrication process it was only meant to be marginally better than Intel's 14Nm process, in fact it annoyed Intel so when they released their 10Nm process they called it 'Intel 7' because it beat the transistor density and power efficiency of other fabricators 8Nm process although I think it only beat the Samsung fabrication process. I feel like the TSMC fabrication process is a fair claim but I could be wrong there. Anyway 5W at 8Nm(maybe 10Nm in reality). 

However I totally accept the fact that if DLSS is delivering higher resolution with great results at lower clocks then yes perhaps it should be compared to consoles that delivered their higher resolutions with brute force. I'm still interested to know what is the real CPU and GPU performance though.

I wonder when the Switch 2 emulators come out and are run on devices that don't have AI upscaling what they are going to look like. They are going to look pretty terrible rendering only at the Switch 2 native resolution and not the upscaled resolution. I don't know what the native resolution of Switch 2 games really are but I've seen videos of 480p upscaled to 4K and the results were still good on pc using AI upscaling. I'm guessing 480p to 1080p and 720p to 4K it will likely be something like that.

Well, I'm guessing there will always be some upscaler as an option in emulators, even if it's only FSR 3 for earlier AMD GPUs - though I think that most people will want to run native resolution higher than Switch 2 anyway, so brute force is most likely option (given how much even low tier PC GPUs, like 3060, are far ahead of what's inside SW2, that shouldn't be a problem).

As for DLSS, I think most likely cases will be with Performance mode, which is 540p to 1080p for handheld or 1080p to 4K for docked. You can go as low as Ultra Performance (360p to 1080p or 720p to 4K), but it starts to show quite a bit. Anything higher that Performance is just added bonus.

(1440p)

(4K)





CP2077, all 4K (open in new tab for full resolution):

DLSS Off (3840x2160)

DLSS Quality (2560x1440)

DLSS Balanced (2227x1253)

DLSS Performance (1920x1080)

DLSS Ultra Performance (1280x720)

120 Hz is for 1080p, with 4K output it only supports 60 Hz (It's HDMI 2.0)

4K 60 is perfectly fine!

You can just emulate all of DLSS's FP8/INT8 instructions on FP16/INT16, which every CPU/GPU supports. It's not any harder than emulating any other aspect of the hardware, it'll just come at a higher cost than native... as it is always the case.

480p to 1080p and 720p to 4K is waaay too expensive to be practical on Switch 2-level hardware. The precious milliseconds you need to do it and still run a game at 30 fps+ are simply not there. You're far more likely to see 720p to 1080/1152p or something.

I think it can safely be rendering 720p with 1080p upscale or straight up 1080p on the device and the 4k is the upscale. I doubt it is 480p. Up-scaling that to 4k, I think, would have too many artifacts.

By the time Switch 2 emulators, and I think it is going to take quite a bit of time (could be wrong), become usable most of us are going to have AI rendering capable graphics cards/chips unless we are running 5-6 year old machines. I daresay, CPUs/GPUs without AI compute units won't even be a thing. Emulator bros will, um, find a way.

Just to be clear. I am strictly talking about docked most performance. I don't think the Switch 2 can do PS5 level compute. Frankly, after listening to some people with more knowledge on this kind of stuff that likely docked mode is closer to PS4 to PS4 Pro compute with up-scaling to reach 4k.