You keep parroting that "between PS4 and PS4 Pro". It's not. Just like it's not "trading blows with XSS" and "OMG, this looks like PS5". Throw 8th gen technology at it, and chances are there are aspects in which PS4 will beat it. Throw 9th gen tech at it and it will perform better. It sits in some weird quantum state inbetween PS4 and XSS, depending on the game and developers involved.

Agreed.  I think my prediction of the S2 hardware was way more right than it was wrong, but the S2 is 20-30% more powerful than I expected.  It is also getting faster/more support than I expected as well.  For me the S2 is still first party, because of my PC, but for $450 the S2 is damn good.  I can see a lot of people making it their dedicated system for third party. 

As for Elden in particular, hell I had some minor drops into the mids 50s on my 4090...  the game is a PoS from a performance perspective, still a great game.  But I wouldn't use it as a benchmark for anything.    

Not to take away anyones enthusiasm for dissecting tech, but we all need to come back to reality when discussing S2 

1. Cyberpunks 40fps mode is a cute gesture but the game is better optimised for 30fps play. Just as everyone should expect for all graphically ambitious/open world switch 2 titles, particular 3rd party.

2. If a games suffers from 2-3 frame dips (27-30fps), that is simply an optimisation issue, not a hardware one... A stable 30fps is in reach with a few more concessions if the developer is determined and feels their audience cares enough 

3. If you can't enjoy games without perfect frame rates just don't buy consoles, it's really that simple. If you can't stand 30fps in 3rd party games  definitely do not buy a Switch 2 lol. Stick with PC and tweak the settings to your hearts desire

The Switch 2's unified memory is as fast as (actually slightly faster than some of) the 2050's VRAM (at least in docked mode, moderately slower in handheld mode.) So for all intents and purposes it is VRAM. Just VRAM that the CPU also might use, if it needs to. You don't need to consider "system ram" in the case of the Switch 2 because both the GPU and CPU have full access to the 9 GB of resources that aren't dedicated to the OS, and can dynamically utilize it. There really isn't a step where you need to move or copy data from system memory (aka PCI-E copy) to the VRAM for consoles in the same way as PC. In the case of these RTX 2050 laptops, if the 4GB of dedicated VRAM is exhausted then there has to be a data pipeline from the even slower (in RTX 2050's case usually half to 2/3rds as slow) system memory. This increases latency in most cases, and these 9th Generation Games are bandwidth hungry/latency sensitive if anything else. Modern API's like Direct X12 and Vulkan try to mitigate these issues, but none have fully resolved it and developers don't always implement these mitigations. 

Now this isn't to say the Switch 2 can solve all memory capacity issues. Obviously having 16GB of System Ram + 4GB of VRAM might be advantageous compared to Switch 2's 12GB of unified memory (with 3GB allocated for the OS), but in modern 9th Generation titles VRAM capacity can be an independent bottleneck from overall memory capacity and it really has been showing to be this generation. If you have a VRAM bottleneck it doesn't matter if you bought 128GB of system ram, you'll still have a VRAM bottleneck. 

I am curious to see which team is behind this conversion; such ports are rarely handled by the original dev, it's usually an external partner who does the conversion like Panic Button, Virtuos, Saber, etc.

Soooo. he was banned after all

Resolution and DLSS doesn't change install file sizes at all.

I would argue the benefits of a 2050 having more than 4GB of vram is extremely limited... Remember, data can be streamed into VRAM over time as well.

The Switch 2 is definitely a memory starved environment though, it cannot use all it's memory as VRAM... However like the 2050, there comes a point where it's usage of more memory for VRAM is just pointless.

The Switch 2 would have been better served having a full fat 16GB of total memory for the duration of this entire generation... The Series S having only 8GB available to developers (That's 1GB less than the Switch 2) has been one of that consoles biggest bottlenecks, so they both share the same pain point in that regard.

Thank Perma.  That was what I thought.  And it makes sense.  

I do agree 12 gb is low moving, especially when projecting out 2 to 4 years.

Yeah I don't think the Switch 2 has a general advantage here, and if the PC port was a good one the RTX 2050 shouldn't have been heavily disadvantaged. Many PC ports are pretty lazy and don't really attempt to have decent asset and data streaming though. That's clearly the case in Indiana Jones as moving to a 6GB mobile GPU that is only slightly more performant in other titles that aren't VRAM bottlenecked essentially makes the game not only playable, but very much playable (solid 75fps experience at the same settings.) Of course there is no incentive for developers/publishers to optimize for lower end hardware. The Series S also runs the game pretty well with its limited unified memory. 

The Switch 2 obviously can't use all of its memory as VRAM, but it also isn't strictly limited to 4GB as VRAM. Resources can be allocated dynamically for the needs of the game, which is a lot easier from a development perspective. If there are moments where the CPU isn't utilizing a lot of memory resources, and those resources are free, the GPU can utilize them, and vice-versa. 

I do agree though, the Switch 2 probably should have had 16GB. Not much reason why not given its cost, retail price, and the price of ram. Pretty much all mobile PC's have at least 16GB as well. 

Always a good news for those interested in the game. Tech wise, it'll be interesting how well it's gonna run on the "little" machine without too much of a drawback to what's done on other consoles already.