OdinHades said:
Yeah, I pre-ordered the game although I'm not even interested in playing it just to support that kind of attitude, lol. |
Haha as a physical game collector, I probably won't play it either. Too much work, child to look after no time to play lol
Here, Nintendo Life posted another gameplay. In my opinion, If you dont mind to play the game at 30 or 40fps I think this will be a good experience, because the game looks good on Switch 2.
PS: I'm playing on PC right now at Ultra with Ray Tracing at 1440p, DLSS 4 (Quality) and DLSS Frame Gen Mod (Input Lag is almost null), and I'm getting around 90fps +/-.
PS: My PC Specs:
CPU: Ryzen 7 5800x
GPU: RTX 3070 MLLSE 8GB GDDR6
M.RAM: Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro, 16GB (2x8GB), 3600MHz
MOBA: Asus TUF Gaming B550M-PLUS Wi-Fi II
Storages: Netac Nvme Nv7000 1TB - SSD Sata 960GB
bonzobanana said:
I've now watched a few videos comparing upscaling standards and AMD's offering before FSR 4 gets poor reviews and to be honest those versions are the only ones that would run on my hardware. The Intel upscaling XeSS takes the middle ground and DLSS is at the top. Yes FSR 4 is decent but DLSS updated their technology and took the crown again. It feels like Nvidia is the leader here for sure and Intel takes the middle ground not AMD. After watching the videos of FSR 3.1 or is it FSR 3.2 I can't remember the issues shown weren't terrible but still undesirable. If I needed to use a lower native resolution to get a game working and then upscale I would use it but it looks pants compared to Switch 2 and DLSS which I guess why its not commonly used on Steam deck because in theory it could use it to match or exceed Switch 2 if it was the same quality of upscaling but it definitely isn't. After watching those videos I've come away thinking Nvidia is providing the best upscaling solution but I guess future console hardware that is AMD based will have FSR 4 or better although I think Sony's upscaling technology is something different PSSR or something like that (too lazy to google) and that seems to be better than AMD's offering even though on AMD hardware. I'm convinced Switch 2 is the first in a long time of portable games consoles that focuses on upscaling technology. It just seems a win for hardware pricing and battery life etc. I'm not convinced at this point though that the Switch 2 will have the success of Switch 1 but really my only reason for that is pricing and the fact disposable income's have reduced worldwide. It just feels like the wrong price point to me for both hardware and games. It's going to be a fantastic launch for sure but I'm not convinced it will get the more casual gamers in the same way as Switch 1. I suspect Switch 1 will outsell it at least for this Christmas but we shall see. I think Switch 2 needed Japanese market pricing worldwide. |
PSSR is not as good as FSR 4, the latter is as good if not a bit better than DLSS 3 so AMD has closed the gap a lot. The main issue now is availability cause DLSS 4 is supported by a lot more games currently but I imagine that should improve notably over the next couple years.
And for the last part if the Switch 2 was that cheap worldwide it would have a huge negative impact on Nintendo's bottom line. Considering the prices of the other consoles and how expensive the PS6 will likely be the Switch 2's pricing will be just fine long term.
Well, Switch 2 version looks much better than PS4 Pro version, but this is expected.
Here the comparision video:
IGN interview with CD Projekt Red's VP of technology on how they brought the game to Switch:
They cite faster I/O and more RAM as key advantages Switch 2 has over PS4/XBO.
Someone posted a unboxing video of the physical version of the game.
| curl-6 said: IGN interview with CD Projekt Red's VP of technology on how they brought the game to Switch: They cite faster I/O and more RAM as key advantages Switch 2 has over PS4/XBO. |
Is there a full interview? He mentions that one core was somehow lost and that was a challenge. I wonder if S2 had originally 7 of 8 core for games unlocked.
Having picked this up and given it a go for myself, I can confirm it holds up really well.
You can tell it's upscaled, but its a world apart from similar ports on Switch 1 and it feels like a full fat experience rather than a cut down one.
Crazy stuff to see this looking and running as it does on a handheld chipset.
numberwang said:
Is there a full interview? He mentions that one core was somehow lost and that was a challenge. I wonder if S2 had originally 7 of 8 core for games unlocked. |
Yes I think they had 6.5 cores to use initially and made heavy use of that 0.5 core but then Nintendo took it away and gave them the 6 cores only. So they had to move code back into the main 6 cores. So all launch games are 6 cores but if Nintendo optimises teh firmware and gets it onto 1 core later games will be able to make use of 7 cores. I think this is what happened with PS4, launched with 2 cores used but went to 1 core.
| Shikamo said: Well, Switch 2 version looks much better than PS4 Pro version, but this is expected. Here the comparision video: |
The PS4 has 8.4 Teraflops of fp16 gpu performance and 4.2 Teraflops of fp32 performance. It's a powerful system really but the Switch 2 is rendering as low as 360p in performance mode for its 720p upscaled portable output. The PS4 has dynamic resolution and the minimum resolution is 972p. The PS4 pro on average is rendering at 1080p with 1188p as maximum resolution. Switch 2 in docked is rendering at 540p. Switch 2 is relying heavily on DLSS upscaling. Both systems have strengths and weaknesses in comparison with each other. There doesn't seem to be many big disadvantages to DLSS upscaling. You may get some onscreen artifacts at certain times but there really isn't anything to worry about. It seems such a great feature to allow the Switch 2 to punch above its weight.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
