Do you considerna 4050 and 4090 the same hardware like the ps4/switch?  It isn't a trap, but genuine curiosity.  They have the same rendering technology, only difference is raw power.  I don't consider them remotely the same.  

just curious, how close would the potential Switch 2 be to a PS5 or Xbox Series X compared to the Switch to a PS4/Xbone? Farther in specs or closer? What do you think of Digital Foundry’s understanding of Switch 2’s rumored specs? Apparently Switch 2 is potentially PS4/PS4 Pro with more modern tech and NOT accounting DLSS in handheld mode.

Hard to say until it is confirmed.  S2 will be slightly closer to the ps5 then the S1 was to the ps4.  But not by much.  Folks will be quick to use math to claim it is closer but I find that flawed.  Performance isn't linear equation.  

The rumored specs need to be viewed in context.  It will be a very powerful portable device.  Around the Rog Ally but cheaper.  Compared to consoles it is just behind because of power limitations.  122 gb/s and 12 gb ram is a bottle neck.  By comparison the ps5 is 440 gb/s at 16 gb.  Frankly the ps5 at 3 years old us a bit weak for new game engines.  

But I think there are two great pieces in favor of the S2.  One, games are scalable, thus ports should be easier than ever.  Two, ps4 visuals hold up great.  So the S2 will have good looking games.  Old games no longer look and run like crap.  

The S2 vs ps5 vs PC is a silly debate.  Depends all on disposable income and how much someone cares about performance.  

Basically it is all personal preference.

I honestly don't know much about PC hardware, it's not my area.

I never said PS4 and Switch were the same, there's obviously a substantial difference in power, I just don't see the Switch as belonging in the same class as the PS3 when its got some pretty significant advantages over 7th gen hardware.

Fair enough.  I just think people are used to view hardware via timelines of release.  I don't think that is applicable anymore.  Older GPUs can literally smoke newer ones.  

I learned this the hard way.  I knew the ps5 was a 2070s ish gpu.  When I got into PC I grabbed a laptop with a 3050, thinking the 3050 had newer chips....  yeah the 2070S smokes the 3050 and it isn't close.  The 3050 is a dog at gaming.  

PS3 doesn't smoke the Switch though. The decade of technical advances that separate the two are clearly visible, foremost just in the fact that a handheld device outperforms what was once a high end home console.

There's also the difference in rendering, with Switch using most of the same techniques seen on PS4 while PS3 made do with older methods.

I find visual output of Switch and ps3 games very close.  Slight edge to the switch, maybe 15%.  The ps4 smokes the switch.  

And that is the point.  The switch is much newer than the ps3, just like the 3050 is newer than the 2070s, put the output doesn't scale linear.  

Time doesn't dictate performance anymore unless we do same class comparisons.

The S2 will be newer than the ps5, but they will not have the same class of gpu.  Just like the 3050 vs 2070S.

Switch games looks like the best PS3 games, but with better loading times

They don't look close to the best looking PS4 games, as even base PS4 struggle with them sometimes, see how Horizon FW runs on PS4


I'm with Chrkeller on that. Switch is functionally a portable PS3. The fact it can run some PS4 games is not evidence they are closer to PS4 when it fact 80% of its AAA third party library are PS3 ports rather than PS4 ports and most of those PS4 ports are early gen games that don't even push PS4 hardware to begin with. The more late gen games who run on Switch (read Hogwarts Legacy) needed to be reworked and downgraded until they looked like PS3 games, including the loading times between map sessions

There is nothing on The Witcher that makes to me it can't run on a PS3 with worse settings, PS3 can run Skyrim and GTA V. It could totally handle big open worlds, as long there is no graphical fidelity and no need of fast loading times


However there are indeed some games on Switch I believe could not run on PS3, Zelda TOTK comes to mind. It's a game that need many fast physical calculations that cannot be delayed. Switch is clearly ahead PS3 in many things, but overall I'd say they are indeed much closer to it than a PS4

It's not rocket science wiiu was on par with ps3/360. Nothing on Switch really blows alway breath of the Wild and mario kart, even 6-7 years after switch came out those games are still near the top graphically of switch games even the botw sequel is not really a step up graphically, sure it does more still looks like botw graphically. 

Having the features to do what the other consoles can but not the power leaves  us with a ugly game cause no matter what a game running at 720p and dropping lower with a unstable framerate is gonna look like crap to compared to something 1080p and clean. Case in point halo 4 on 360 at 1080p looks much better then doom on switch even though doom is the more advanced game it's gonna be more pleasing to the eye cause the resolution and unstable framerate. 

It's not just graphics. Nintendo came out and said they could not have made Tears of the Kingdom on Wii U. An example that was used is that Breath of the Wild does not have caves, because they could not get that to work properly on Wii U where the game was also launched. Let alone the physics in the second game are again a step ahead. I would also assume non of these 2 games could have been made for e.g. a PS3 or Xbox360.