Shaki12345
Gold Member
This blog post makes me really hard. Seems like DLSS wasn't fully ready yet.
Nvidia: Nintendo Switch 2 Leveled Up With NVIDIA AI-Powered DLSS and 4K Gaming
Fess
Member
Yeah this is fantastic, should make smaller drops a nonissue.
What's the fps range for gsync btw?
TintoConCasera
I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
If it's just upscaling, that should take a small hit on the CPU and that's it, no?
PeteBull
Member
We know both zelda games running at 1440p60, they ran on og switch in 30fps with dynamic 900p docked(botw) and 720p upscaled (fsr1)to 900p in TotK.
So quick math 1600x900=1.440.000 pixels
switch2 1440p: 2560x1440=3.686.400 pixels but at 2x frames since its 60 vs 30 on og switch so og switch best performance is 1.440.000 vs switch 2 which is double fps so 2x 3.686.400=7.372.800= 5,12x more pixels, not exactly 10x better performance from og switch, but now lets do the same math with 720p which we know was lower bound of dynamic res in zelda's.
720p= 1280x720=921.600 pixels
Now our final math, we divide switch 2 7.372.800 pixels on og switch lower bound dynamic res so 921.600 pixels= exactly 8, so thats raw throutput incrase, w/o dlss/newer featurers etc, just raw power, exactly 8x more, which we easily extrapolate from worst res on both zelda's(which were technical peak of first switch) vs switch 2 1440p at 2x fps.
TLDR: From the data we can tell switch2 is at the least 8x stronger from its predecessor, before dlss/rt or other new feauters, we talking just old vs new gpu raw power and that is minimum, as long as zelda's hold stable 1440p60 ofc
So quick math 1600x900=1.440.000 pixels
switch2 1440p: 2560x1440=3.686.400 pixels but at 2x frames since its 60 vs 30 on og switch so og switch best performance is 1.440.000 vs switch 2 which is double fps so 2x 3.686.400=7.372.800= 5,12x more pixels, not exactly 10x better performance from og switch, but now lets do the same math with 720p which we know was lower bound of dynamic res in zelda's.
720p= 1280x720=921.600 pixels
Now our final math, we divide switch 2 7.372.800 pixels on og switch lower bound dynamic res so 921.600 pixels= exactly 8, so thats raw throutput incrase, w/o dlss/newer featurers etc, just raw power, exactly 8x more, which we easily extrapolate from worst res on both zelda's(which were technical peak of first switch) vs switch 2 1440p at 2x fps.
TLDR: From the data we can tell switch2 is at the least 8x stronger from its predecessor, before dlss/rt or other new feauters, we talking just old vs new gpu raw power and that is minimum, as long as zelda's hold stable 1440p60 ofc
Last edited:
Shaki12345
Gold Member
Nintendo should've mentioned this in the Direct. Raytracing, DLSS, Nvidia name-drop etc.
Baemono
Member
I mean I was even surprised they acknowledged what a framerate was yesterday, yet alone talking about DLSS
DonkeyPunchJr
World’s Biggest Weeb
Best Buy page says preorders start 4/9
Reaseru
Member
Because their characters and worlds are very simplistic in design. Mario nor Kirby are going to get more detailed that they are right now...
And since the Wii, Nintendo's focus are invested in the gimmicks their consoles have to offer than raw graphically power. (And let's face it, putting aside the Wii U, they are being very successful since that change of focus, promoted originally by Iwata.)
Last edited:
RoadHazard
Gold Member
No, that's not how it works at all. It's AI upscaling, and it's done on the GPU. CPU has nothing to do with rendering the pixels.
darrylgorn
Member
RodriGames40
Member
I struggle to believe that, especially after Insomniac just gave us something at least three gens ahead four years ago. Also, they are very much bragging about power this time.
Last edited:
Shaki12345
Gold Member
GTA6 is back on the menu boys.
Killjoy-NL
Gold Member
I suppose it's decent for a hybrid. Good for a handheld, underwhelming for a console.
It kinda makes the €470 high, but not entirely unreasonable.
ValiantInstance
Member
This shouldn't be a surprise. The Tegra chip was out of date in 2017.We know both zelda games running at 1440p60, they ran on og switch in 30fps with dynamic 900p docked(botw) and 720p upscaled (fsr1)to 900p in TotK.
So quick math 1600x900=1.440.000 pixels
switch2 1440p: 2560x1440=3.686.400 pixels but at 2x frames since its 60 vs 30 on og switch so og switch best performance is 1.440.000 vs switch 2 which is double fps so 2x 3.686.400=7.372.800= 5,12x more pixels, not exactly 10x better performance from og switch, but now lets do the same math with 720p which we know was lower bound of dynamic res in zelda's.
720p= 1280x720=921.600 pixels
Now our final math, we divide switch 2 7.372.800 pixels on og switch lower bound dynamic res so 921.600 pixels= exactly 8, so thats raw throutput incrase, w/o dlss/newer featurers etc, just raw power, exactly 8x more, which we easily extrapolate from worst res on both zelda's(which were technical peak of first switch) vs switch 2 1440p at 2x fps.
TLDR: From the data we can tell switch2 is at the least 8x stronger from its predecessor, before dlss/rt or other new feauters, we talking just old vs new gpu raw power and that is minimum, as long as zelda's hold stable 1440p60 ofc
RodriGames40
Member
Excellent for a handheld I'd say, the Rog Ally X throttles to 3.4 tflops under load. This is about the best handheld at the moment, assuming DLSS and RT start being used now.
kevboard
Member
probably yes.
the Switch 2 hardware itself has about 5x the raster performance at the minimum (looking at the updated Switch 1 games and how they run), and from there you can use DLSS to to reach that 10x claim relatively easily.
I also bet they somehow put raytracing into that equation as a multiplier
Last edited:
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
They just said 10x graphics performance. There's not one way to go on about this. I guess the closest you could say is it runs Switch games 10x faster. ie, a 30fps GPU-bound game on Switch would run at 300fps on the Switch 2.
cinnamonandgravy
Member
only question is why only 4k60 and not 4k120?
smelling like hdmi2.0
theyll definitely do a OLED refresh down the line... wonder if theyll include hdmi2.1 then too for 4k120
throw in a few more tensor cores and there you go
smelling like hdmi2.0
theyll definitely do a OLED refresh down the line... wonder if theyll include hdmi2.1 then too for 4k120
throw in a few more tensor cores and there you go
Last edited:
Magic Carpet
Gold Member
Your right I was looking at the calendar wrong and thought today was the 8th. oops
Reaseru
Member
But that's Insomniac focus, the same as the majority of the PS studios. Sony's focus. Big budget for games with high-end and realistic graphics.
Edit: That's why one console costs 800 euros by today's inflation (without a drive) and the other will cost 460 at launch.
Last edited:
RodriGames40
Member
That'd make sense out of Nvidia claims surely.
kevboard
Member
it more so looks to me that many devs barely had time to port stuff, and Nintendo themselves don't usually use temporal AA, so them not using it is no surprise.
the Cyberpunk port could very well use DLSSby the time it's out. it's only been in development for weeks, and isn't out yet.
TintoConCasera
I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
Some dude on the nvidia forum saya there's no range. If the game's running at 20fps and your screen only can go down to 40hz, g-sync will duplicate those frames or some shit like that to avoid any kind of tearing.
That. makes sense, but nerds like us would have liked to hear it.
TintoConCasera
I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
Do a quick google search, DLSS does utilize the CPU.
Bry0
Member
You guys are falling for the marketing speak.
We have had a good idea of what this chip is for a long time. 10x the "graphics performance" could just mean some best case tflop metric or arbitrary "framerate with mfg" ie "5070=4090". That doesn't necessarily mean 10x the framerate. It's not that simple.
We have had a good idea of what this chip is for a long time. 10x the "graphics performance" could just mean some best case tflop metric or arbitrary "framerate with mfg" ie "5070=4090". That doesn't necessarily mean 10x the framerate. It's not that simple.
Last edited:
Fake
Member
Well, I not.
I said last time NS2 would be a base PS4 with DLSS capabilities and I got that right.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
FSR4 on PS5 will end up blowing Switch 2 DLSS out of the water.
kevboard
Member
the Gsync standard basically includes low framerate compensation by default. so yes, in theory it can go infinitely low, but that's of course not optimal lol
Bojji
Member
In 2026?
Fake
Member
You mean PS6, right?
Lysandros
Member
Highly unlikely in my opinion.
Faith restored, that explains the blurriness and jagginess galore shown yesterday
RoadHazard
Gold Member
DLSS is a GPU thing. Please point me to a reliable source saying it does anything with the CPU.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Absolutely not. It seems to be between XB1 and PS4 in raw GPU power, but with some clear advantages in other areas.
Lucifers Beard
Member
I agree. I wanted to know a bit more about the technology powering the console. A separate 30 minute video on this would be great. It's something I find really interesting.
ReasonBeing
Member
I'm leery of Nvidia's claims. They also asserted that the 5070 was equivalent to the 4090.
Last edited:
PeteBull
Member
Ofc but still, we got hard data, aka resolution/fps of games running on switch 2, same games that are running on og switch, hence we can easily compare res and fps so amount of moved pixels, we got first hand info on actual power switch 2 can show in games, not marketing talk, not some theoretical flop numbers but actual difference in big AAA games- its important those games are both top of the line zeldas, since we are sure they squeeze out every bit of juice out of og switch, thats why its very eye opening how they gonna look/run on switch 2.
yamaci17
Gold Member
I think that would still be fair, considering 1080p dlss 4 performance often looks better than native 1080p taa
yeah it technically runs the game at 540p but looks better than the 1080p that PS4 would have, which effectively makes it more performance efficient
I think this is really different than frame generation since with DLSS upscaling you get real frames and lower latency and better image quality (in most cases)
DLSS is like nextgen AA that makes the 540p internal look like 1080p
TAA is like ancient AA that makes the 1080p look like 540p
just my opinion of course. DLSS 4 is truly impressive at 1080p
Last edited:
TintoConCasera
I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
Sorry man, I have no interest in convicing you and you deciding if you believe me or not is up to you. I'm sure you can do your own reaearch if you really care.
yamaci17
Gold Member
upscaling itself is not CPU intensive. it increases GPU framerate, and naturally CPU framerate also has to increase alongside with it. this would be a problem if you have a really strong GPU and a weak CPU but I really don't think it would be the case with Switch 2
enabling DLSS at 1440p on a 5090 with a ryzen 5800x may put you in CPU bottleneck situations
enabling DLSS at 1080p on a 3060 with a ryzen 3600 will not put you in CPU bottleneck situations
i hope I'm being clear
Last edited:
Chittagong
Gold Member
Quite surprised tbh. Nintendo notoriously uses bargain bin parts, not cutting edge custom silicon. Well, not since N64 and GameCube.
Onironauta
Member
B-b-but Digital Foundry said it's not using DLSS? I guess their analysis are not as good as they want us to believ
Edit: my bad, looks like it's not used yet
Edit: my bad, looks like it's not used yet
Last edited:
Lysandros
Member
Don't you think that's way too optimistic? This would be a truly tremendous jump. Why not back it up with (at least) elementary specs (like traditionally done with each new gaming system) if they are that confident then?
viveks86
Member
It's not... yet