lol indeed, lmao even.

This year barely started and we have some great content already.

What version of DLSS does Switch 2 use and how does it compare to PSSR?

So far there are two types of DLSS used on Switch 2, according to Digital Foundry.

The first resembles the CNN model of DLSS used on PC; this is used in games like Cyberpunk 2077 and Street Fighter 6, and typically upscales to 1080p.

The second is a "lite" version specific to Switch 2; this is used in games like Fast Fusion and Hogwarts Legacy, and can upscale to higher resolutions like 4K and 1440p, but has more aliasing/disocclusion artefacts in motion.

Both are generally better than PSSR.

The lite model is not great.... its worse than even the oldest models of DLSS on pc.
I think PSSR is probably better than the Lite version, tbh.

There are rumors of PS5pro getting FSR4 soon, at that point, it will be far far ahead of the DLSS on the switch.

DLSS "Lite" generally looks fine on Switch 2 provided it's not used in a very fast moving game where each frame is very different from the last, in Hogwarts Legacy for instance it holds up quite well, same for Star Wars Outlaws, both of which take a native 720p and revolve a frame that can pass for a much higher pixel count.

As Curl said there's a lite model, which afaik is exclusive to Switch 2, that is used in more demanding titles where the upscaling needs to be done faster. Then the full model is likely DLSS3. DLSS3 is better than PSSR.

We're unlikely to ever see DLSS4 or later on Switch 2 because of its low speed with AI upscaling and the later models requiring more oomph.

PS5 Pro has much more capable hardware for AI Upscaling, but until it gets PSSR2 it's punching way below what it should in terms of quality. It has the power but not the software.

INT8 TOPS without Sparsity:
PS5 Pro: 300 TOPS
Switch 2: ~45 TOPS

I think there is an important point here.  People see the S2 as punching above its weight, that is mostly because other console upscaling is really poor, thus the S2 can close the gap to a degree.  

Once consoles and PC mobiles get good upscaling, the gap will increase.  FSR has come a long way.  

Meaning rog ally vs S2 is one thing

Rog ally with FSR4 (official support) vs S2 will entirely different 

But credit to Nintendo for knowing how important upscaling is.

Don't think that impacts the Switch 2 at all. 

Nintendo made a system that can run modern gen games, almost assuredly they chose this performance range on purpose knowing it would give them many/most of the next-gen games they would want (Final Fantasy mainline, Monster Hunter games, Madden, FC Soccer, Persona, Yakuza, Call of Duty, Borderlands, Star Wars games, etc.). This is a design choice, not an accident. 

It's like the Atari Jaguar didn't really impact the Super NES, sure it was better hardware that released several years later but it had no impact on the SNES whatsoever because the SNES could run most any game of its day well enough for the mass market to enjoy its games. 

In terms of support, it won't impact the S2.  I meant right now the S2 is above or at the level of PC handhelds.  But the next round of handhelds will support FSR4 and have better chips, meaning it will be the weakest handheld at some point this year or next.  

And when the ps6 gets good upscaling, it can reduce rendered resolution and use power for other things.  I fully expect the ps6 to be built with upscaling in mind.  

In terms of fidelity, not releases, the biggest advantage of the S2 is upscaling.  This advantage will go away at some point via FSR4, which is quite good.

In terms of releases, I am not worried.  Silent Hill F runs on a 1070ti (2017 and 4 generations behind current) all the way up to a 5090.  Games are scalable.  Releases don't classify hardware generations anymore.  We dont live in the 90s anymore.

Edit

Nvidia deserves a ton of credit for the technology and Nintendo deserves credit for recognizing the importance.  Even with my 4090 I render at 1440p and upscale to 4k, versus native 4k.  The difference is massive.  I get 50% more fps.  Easily will take a game from 60 fps to 90 fps, sometimes more.

I doubt even in a year you'll be able to get much for $450 that is better hardware than the Switch 2. At $600-$800? OK, but that's not any different from any other console hardware. It was easy to get better hardware than the PS5 from day 1, a year++ after launch, no problem.

That's always been the case with consoles. The Atari Jaguar and 3DO was better hardware than the Super NES, good for the 10 people who owned one. For the PS2, the GameCube and XBox (let alone gaming PCs) were notably better than the PS2 hardware wise basically as quickly as a year later. Didn't really stop the PS2 from becoming the iconic console of that generation. 

Nintendo didn't accidentally get this performance, they designed a piece of hardware that would let them run next gen games and still be able to be sold at a reasonable cost. That's a notable difference from the Iwata-era, as the Wii and DS product lines were essentially aimed at casual gamers first. 

Frankly every other Nintendo console (as in the home console lineage) past the Wii brand be it NES, SNES, N64, GameCube, Switch 1, and now Switch 2 has all been pretty decent hardware for its time. Wii was just a product line aimed for casuals that had about a 6 year run before it fizzled out then Wii U just flopped outright. Wii-Wii U is old news today, Nintendo has returned to making reasonably powerful consoles that can run the modern 3rd party games of its time for the mass market (millions of gamers) to enjoy.

For regular/"normal" people who getting a Switch 2, they should be quite happy with the hardware that they're getting, they are getting their money's worth, screen quibbles aside. For that money you're not getting anything better, definitely not thinner or lighter either.