Support NeoGAF

[RoboFu]

Nintendo fans have been in such deprivation of graphics power for the last two decades that they now think there is parity between PS5 and Switch 2. And I don't blame you.

No one has ever said that.

That is what you guys have thought in your minds all by yourselves because of how popular the switch 2 has become. You feel threaten in some weird ass way when a game looks close to the ps5.

People have said for a handheld that's suppose to be less or equal to a base ps4 that we are constantly surprised at how games look and run almost always above a base ps4.





But yes the switch 2 is waaaaay better than anything else !

 

[HRK69]

bro you here crying cause i'm correcting false info.

Crying? Not really, just pointing out the pattern

I was replying to your classic guesswork dressed as gospel, served with the usual Switch 2 demolition: lower res, Deck wins, PS4 comps always and huge difference

in 60fps its not 1080p.

I'd love to see your source

mean while you have no problem with people saying switch 2 is near series s

Whataboutism baby. I love those

so go to sleep.

I'm wide awake watching the loop: Drop bearish nitpick → Get memed/ignored

 

[Dampf]

Seems like a great port. But why was this looking so much worse in the direct?

 

[Mr Moose]

You can't use that guy as a source to start threads, he's a banned source.

 

[subzero83]

Crying? Not really, just pointing out the pattern



I'd love to see your source

like the difference here in resolution is night and day and you need a source? source is anyone thats not blind.

 

[HRK69]

like the difference here in resolution is night and day and you need a source? source is anyone thats not blind.

Still guessing

 

[Kurt]

hardware is never judge by the one game. it's a game by game basis. also sometimes pro will look better and sometimes switch 2 will look better when you are dealing with ai. look here DF says series s and ps4 pro IQ are on par in cyberpunk, and they also say the same thing about series s and switch 2

But it's clearly not on par. The IQ and Textures quality are better/ on par with ps5 when looking at the switch 2 version compared on series s as i clearly have shown above.
The amount of NFC and Framerate are better on series s. But the latest has less roll in terms of visuals as the first 2.
There are plenty of metal dave 64 video's which goes indept proving the multiple points the way it is. Comparing real cases. It's the way it is.

I agree that we don't need to look at one game, but multiple good ports already proof that switch 2 is in the middle on avg between ps4 pro and series s.
Outlaw is one of the good examples that even the most expensive pc handheld will run the game worse due ray tracing.

Nintendo fans have been in such deprivation of graphics power for the last two decades that they now think there is parity between PS5 and Switch 2. And I don't blame you.

Nintendo trolls are so desperated to scale down what the device actual can do as the evidence is already there. But why, it begs the question? Maybe because the visuals are not that far of from current gen like it was different from switch 1? Do you work for Sony? You do know that the ps2 vs gamecube gfx difference were much bigger? Oh but that doesnt fit your logic

 

[Baemono]

Seems like a great port. But why was this looking so much worse in the direct?

Remember Outlaws which looked super rough and running at 15fps in the direct ?

Nintendo seems to have a under-promise-over-deliver approach to things

 

[subzero83]

But it's clearly not on par. The IQ and Textures quality are better/ on par with ps5 when looking at the switch 2 version compared on series s as i clearly have shown above.
The amount of NFC and Framerate are better on series s. But the latest has less roll in terms of visuals as the first 2.
There are plenty of metal dave 64 video's which goes indept proving the multiple points the way it is. Comparing real cases. It's the way it is.

I agree that we don't need to look at one game, but multiple good ports already proof that switch 2 is in the middle on avg between ps4 pro and series s.
Outlaw is one of the good examples that even the most expensive pc handheld will run the game worse due ray tracing.



Nintendo trolls are so desperated to scale down what the device actual can do as the evidence is already there. But why, it begs the question? Maybe because the visuals are not that far of from current gen like it was different from switch 1? Do you work for Sony? You do know that the ps2 vs gamecube gfx difference were much bigger? Oh but that doesnt fit your logic

You don't seem to understand that it has dlss with drs so depending on the load and area switch 2 can look better or series s. That's why df said they trade blows. Also you are ignoring 60fps in your comparison of ps2 and gc because 60fps was always seen as something special when achieved consoles.

 

[LordOcidax]

Devs skills are improving with the Switch 2 hardware, next wave of games is going to be fun to watch here.

 

[RoboFu]

Devs skills are improving with the Switch 2 hardware, next wave of games is going to be fun to watch here.

It's like every single thing that gets complained about from the release trailers gets updated in a matter of weeks. Which just shows how fast these Games are being ported which is very impressive for switch 2. Even thrown together quick ports come out pretty good.

 

[KINGMOKU]

This youtuber ps4 footage is not accurate. if you look up up his persona 3 switch 2 vs ps4 comparison they both run 1080p but ps4 looks 720p. also here is steamdeck comparison. plus his resolution numbers are always wrong.



steamdeck looks better at 60fps in handheld and docked mode, and every one is fine with calling SD ps4 level hardware.

And the clock strikes 83.

Welcome aboard!

 

[TheMule1983]

He is here.......... we are all saved lol..

In every single Nintendo thread trolling. What a life.

 

[Kurt]

You don't seem to understand that it has dlss with drs so depending on the load and area switch 2 can look better or series s. That's why df said they trade blows. Also you are ignoring 60fps in your comparison of ps2 and gc because 60fps was always seen as something special when achieved consoles.

'You don't seem to understand that it has dlss with drs so depending on the load and area switch 2 can look better or series s.'
Why should we care about which tech is doing what. If it can reach the better quality using the hardware it has, it the way it is. How something is archieved on a hardware level (including software todo so) should not be relevant in terms of where the console currently stands. It can't be done like that on ps4/ps4 pro. And FSR is not even remotely close. Let alone PSSR which is even worse. It's as simple as that.


lso you are ignoring 60fps in your comparison of ps2 and gc because 60fps was always seen as something special when achieved consoles.

https://i.redd.it/u6wau22zvjlc1.jpeg

It's about the visuals that were clearly a much bigger difference back than, and yet ps2 was still the main console by a very large scale. Nowdays, fancult trying to downscale anything nintendo related at best to protect there beloved sony system. Don't be that guy. It's much closer as it ever has been compared to the ps2 vs gc area.

I also want to make clear that nobody here thinks switch 2 is on par with ps5 or even series s.

 

[scydrex]

The 60 fps doesnt have similar settings as the ps4. Its sharper and has a better draw distance. Aside the fact it run at 60fps

Its yet another proof the switch 2 is mutch ahead of ps4.

Well the ps4 cpu was a piece of crap when it launch. The swtich 2 cpu is better isn't? The ps4 came out in 2013 and back then the jaguar cpu is a piece of
Edit: the ps4 was a 30fps machine mostly. How does the switch 2 version compares to the steam deck?

 

[Kurt]

Well the ps4 cpu was a piece of crap when it launch. The swtich 2 cpu is better isn't? The ps4 came out in 2013 and back then the jaguar cpu is a piece of

Yep, the switch 2 cpu falls between the middle of ps4 and ps4 pro , even in handheld. But it's newer. Also most games are more gpu heavy (which is on par as series s).

 

[Polaris]

The worst part about this comparison is that you're still playing Fallout 4.

 

[subzero83]

'You don't seem to understand that it has dlss with drs so depending on the load and area switch 2 can look better or series s.'
Why should we care about which tech is doing what. If it can reach the better quality using the hardware it has, it the way it is. How something is archieved on a hardware level (including software todo so) should not be relevant in terms of where the console currently stands. It can't be done like that on ps4/ps4 pro. And FSR is not even remotely close. Let alone PSSR which is even worse. It's as simple as that.


lso you are ignoring 60fps in your comparison of ps2 and gc because 60fps was always seen as something special when achieved consoles.

https://i.redd.it/u6wau22zvjlc1.jpeg

It's about the visuals that were clearly a much bigger difference back than, and yet ps2 was still the main console by a very large scale. Nowdays, fancult trying to downscale anything nintendo related at best to protect there beloved sony system. Don't be that guy. It's much closer as it ever has been compared to the ps2 vs gc area.

I also want to make clear that nobody here thinks switch 2 is on par with ps5 or even series s.

Because dlss will get,different results depending on the game and resolution. in motion in loses lot of detail depending on the resolution. Like for example in this comparison fall out 4 in motion ps4 looks much better but in stills switch 2 60fps looks better. Dlss from low resolution usually not not better then 1080p especially when switch 2 uses a low quality dlss in most games. Even olivar from df said fsr2 is better then dlss lite in his opinion.

 

[Hyper_hyper]

Wel i have news for you.

Not even close, like not even close. CP2077 proves that switch 2 is above ps4 pro. Ps4 pro has more pop-ins and lower textures. I mean, in the end the Switch 2 version of Cyberpunk 2077 impressively features texture quality on par with the PS5 and often superior to the Xbox Series S.. IQ as well.




But keep on trying to reach your unexisting goal....

You should calm down. From DF

LOD is very comparable to the PS4 version.

Thanks to faster storage, the Switch 2 loads in-world assets much quicker, objects that can take up to 20–30 seconds to appear on PS4 show up faster here. Still, the Switch 2 has similar issues to the PS4: pop-in, clipping, shimmering, and frame drops, although the framerate is slightly more stable during tested sequences.

The city feels just as empty as on PS4, NPC and traffic density is basically the same, probably due to CPU limitations in keeping 30 or 40fps in performance mode.

Indoor shadows are noticeably improved on Switch 2, spotlights can cast more realistic shadows, like character silhouettes. But for outdoor shadows (trees, foliage, etc.), PS4 actually does way better: shadows on Switch 2 are less stable and more pixelated. Distant shadows also suffer from more aliasing and seem to be rendered at much lower quality.

Frame rate targets are 30 and 40fps, but performance dips during gunfights and while driving.
Phantom Liberty really highlights the Switch 2's CPU bottleneck: even with DLSS and GPU power, when the CPU gets overwhelmed, performance tanks.
For example, in Dogtown, frame times can go over 120ms while driving, making it pretty rough to play. This might explain why the expansion never made it to last-gen consoles.

As for the 40fps mode, it's less compelling—it requires a 120Hz display and aims for a frame time of 25ms, exactly between 30fps (33.3ms) and 60fps (16.6ms)

So, check the comparison video too if you like.

 

[Buggy Loop]

Yes, CPU is vastly better in NSW2.


Graphically, yes. Bunch of games on NSW 2 are at graphics level of PS4, which was expected even before launch. CP2077 vastly prove that. Graphically on par with PS4 graphics, but with better framerate and resolution since DLSS take some lifting

Spoiler: Graphically on par... if you don't move

When moving, for those "wow framerates on playstation is better than Switch 2" retards, it looks 1 gen behind Switch 2. Not even same ballpark. Nice PS2 textures there.

"Traveling through the city center, a small performance drop on switch 2 at 30 fps not seen on the Playstation consoles, but it's pretty obvious to see that once again the level of detail strongly favors the nintendo machine. And it's here where we need to stress again that while it's the same game running the same game content, how the consoles present that content could have both CPU and GPU implications" - Richard Leadbetter

"Cyberpunk suggest that in some respects switch 2 may actually be slower than PS4, but I think that's mostly the frame rate graphs talking. Streaming in data is what causes these CPU bottlenecks and based on the level of detail differences between PS4 and Pro against Switch 2, well Switch 2 may well be streaming in more stuff right? Meaning a heavier CPU load" - Richard Leadbetter

 

[Buggy Loop]

Nintendo fans have been in such deprivation of graphics power for the last two decades that they now think there is parity between PS5 and Switch 2. And I don't blame you.

Are those peoples in the room with you?

Nobody serious thinks there's parity between PS5 and Switch 2. Something has to give. Can it look close? Sure. I mean, if you asked peoples in the street and showed Ratchet and Clank running on a Steam deck, and then it running on a PS5 on TV, they would probably be fooled into thinking it's equivalent. That's the graphic's heavy diminishing return, especially this gen.

I don't see any switch 2 owners going into every single PS5 threads to say Switch 2 is close to that console to start derailing

Unlike all insecure PS fanboys coming in waves into every single Switch 2 threads to downplay it.

 

[Deerock71]

Who's not playing Fallout on big screen?

I'll be playing 40 in handheld.

 

[Hyper_hyper]

Spoiler: Graphically on par... if you don't move

When moving, for those "wow framerates on playstation is better than Switch 2" retards, it looks 1 gen behind Switch 2. Not even same ballpark. Nice PS2 textures there.

"Traveling through the city center, a small performance drop on switch 2 at 30 fps not seen on the Playstation consoles, but it's pretty obvious to see that once again the level of detail strongly favors the nintendo machine. And it's here where we need to stress again that while it's the same game running the same game content, how the consoles present that content could have both CPU and GPU implications" - Richard Leadbetter

"Cyberpunk suggest that in some respects switch 2 may actually be slower than PS4, but I think that's mostly the frame rate graphs talking. Streaming in data is what causes these CPU bottlenecks and based on the level of detail differences between PS4 and Pro against Switch 2, well Switch 2 may well be streaming in more stuff right? Meaning a heavier CPU load" - Richard Leadbetter

Are those peoples in the room with you?

I don't see any switch 2 owners going into every single PS5 threads to say Switch 2 is close to that console to start derailing

Unlike all insecure PS fanboys coming in waves into every single Switch 2 threads to downplay it.

Wow. Huge, huge difference ( it isn't) . I can't even... :/

 

[subzero83]

Are those peoples in the room with you?

I don't see any switch 2 owners going into every single PS5 threads to say Switch 2 is close to that console to start derailing

Unlike all insecure PS fanboys coming in waves into every single Switch 2 threads to downplay it.

I like how a comparison thread is a switch 2 thread. when its comparing ps4, and ps5.

 

[Boy bawang]

It looks like a good port considering that it's a last generation game and that the Switch 2 fares better with modern games in general.

However, the lack of gyro aiming means I have no interest in this in its current state.

 

[Buggy Loop]

I like how a comparison thread is a switch 2 thread. when its comparing ps4, and ps5.

Oh, subzero, you don't need "comparison" in any titles to come in running to shit on it, we all know.

 

[subzero83]

Oh, subzero, you don't need "comparison" in any titles to come in running to shit on it, we all know.

Oh i'm sorry for pointing out the fact that no way in hell was this game running 1080p/60fps in a comparison thread.

 

[RoboFu]

S subzero83 dude you need to slow down. I do not want to see you banned, you make me laugh.

Oh i'm sorry for pointing out the fact that no way in hell was this game running 1080p/60fps in a comparison thread.

Buuuttt, thats what this video source says... a source you have used many times. So are you saying your sources are bad?

 

[subzero83]

S subzero83 dude you need to slow down. I do not want to see you banned, you make me laugh.


Buuuttt, thats what this video source says... a source you have used many times. So are you saying your sources are bad?

I always said his resolution numbers were off. his comparison are good with current gen consoles but with the ps4 he doesn't have the equipment for proper comparison on youtube because it uses a 1080p connection games will look blurrier then they really are.

 

[HRK69]

I do not want to see you banned

 

[CrustyBritches]

Because of that, you could say that there is a generation between steamdeck and switch 2.

That's going a bit far. The Deck has more RAM, faster CPU, faster SSD speeds with higher capacity, better screen, better controls, and seems to match the Switch 2 pretty easily in this game. I'll give you power consumption, though.

 

[40Hz]

I agree that we don't need to look at one game, but multiple good ports already proof that switch 2 is in the middle on avg between ps4 pro and series s.

Geez, man. What exactly do you mean when you say that the S2 is 'on avg between ps4 pro and series s'?

There's at best 20% difference between PS4 Pro and Series S when it comes to raw GPU power. Do you think that 20% is such a noteworthy difference that you can confidently squeeze Switch 2 between these two consoles?
20% is almost nothing in the world of PC GPUs. For crying out loud, there's a bigger difference between the 3060 and the 3060Ti. 20% is like a jump from 40 fps to 48 fps. Or a jump from 720p to 790p (resolutions almost never scale linearly, but it's not like 20% will give you a jump from 720p to 900p).

Most importantly - please look at the actual specs:
PS4 Pro - 32 ROPs - 144 Texture Mapping Units - 217.6 GB/s
Series S - 32 ROPs - 80 Texture Mapping Units - 224 GB/s
Switch 2 - 16 ROPs - 48 Texture Mapping Units - 102.4 GB/s

Games simply cannot overcome the physical limitations of the chip.
FLOPs are mostly meaningless because even if someone were to magically overclock S2's GPU to 2.5 GHz and make it a 7.68 Ampere's TFLOPs, enormous bottlenecks caused by its bandwidth, its ROPs and its TMUs would come to the forefront.

There are plenty of metal dave 64 video's which goes indept proving the multiple points the way it is. Comparing real cases. It's the way it is.

Please, stop... Instead of listening to fanatics with obvious agendas, you should just go the hard way - actually learning about the hardware. About its limitations and so on.

Every single device on earth has some bottlenecks. And the Switch 2 is not some super well-balanced console. Nintendo should start by equipping the console with a bigger battery, increasing the power consumption by 2-3 watts in handheld mode and 5 watts in docked mode and using those watts to upclock the S2's CPU and RAM modules first.
But this option is long gone.

So its biggest strength is DLSS. Because the high-quality version of DLSS is simply much better than bad TAA (i.e. Cyberpunk 2077) and average TAA.

You do know that the ps2 vs gamecube gfx difference were much bigger? Oh but that doesnt fit your logic

And that's very nice. Wish Nintendo still followed the philosophy of releasing the cutting-edge hardware. But the year is 2026, not 2001 or 2006.

 

[Buggy Loop]

Most importantly - please look at the actual specs:
PS4 Pro - 32 ROPs - 144 Texture Mapping Units - 217.6 GB/s
Series S - 32 ROPs - 80 Texture Mapping Units - 224 GB/s
Switch 2 - 16 ROPs - 48 Texture Mapping Units - 102.4 GB/s

- actually learning about the hardware. About its limitations and so on.

Are you really throwing numbers from GCN era architecture with Ampere?

Just an example how stupid that is

Completely different approaches back then

Tahiti : 1 primitive/clock into rasterizer → 16 pixels/clock = 1x64-wide wave/4 clocks → feeding 16 CUs → 1 wave per SIMD (4 per CU) 256 clocks
Max occupancy, 10 waves per SIMD : 2560 clocks

Kepler : 1 primitive/clock into rasterizer → 8 pixels/clock = 1x32-wide wave/4 clocks → feeding 2 SMX → 1 wave per SMSP (4 per CU) 32 clocks
Max occupancy, 16 waves per SIMD : 512 clocks

Kepler comparatively had 1:2 SE:CU ratio.

GCN/Tahiti just can't spit out vertices worth a fucking damn because AMD decided to have 2 geometry engines for 2048 cores in that era. You NEED high bandwidth because its a massive computational pool with a pipeline the size of a garden hose

AMD's entire effort into RDNA was to revamp the years of consequences of trying to make GCN a thing. Tahiti was such a huge pool of cores versus primitives that it had shit occupancy. GK104 could have max occupancy in 1/5th the clocks of Tahiti. GCN issued one instruction per wave every 4 cycles while Kepler did it every cycle. Can you guess when AMD changed it to every cycle? RDNA.

To come in here and try to sell GCN as being the fucking holy grail when AMD themselves distanced from it, and telling others to learn about hardware while you just drop a bunch of specs to allude that bigger is better, is fucking hilarious

 

[FoxMcChief]

A good port. In come the folks that really don't care about it, just to shit on it.

I'll get it down the road during a deep sale. Skyrim is constantly on sale on the eshop.

 

[LordOcidax]

I always said his resolution numbers were off. his comparison are good with current gen consoles but with the ps4 he doesn't have the equipment for proper comparison on youtube because it uses a 1080p connection games will look blurrier then they really are.

The video comparison is pretty clear, there's no discussion with Fallout 4… The Switch 2 is basically running the PS4 version at double the FPS. Still, i admit that YT channel was doing some weird shit at first and in some cases he utilizes YT videos for comparison, but not in this case.

 

[40Hz]

Tahiti : 1 primitive/clock into rasterizer → 16 pixels/clock = 1x64-wide wave/4 clocks → feeding 16 CUs → 1 wave per SIMD (4 per CU) 256 clocks
Max occupancy, 10 waves per SIMD : 2560 clocks

Kepler : 1 primitive/clock into rasterizer → 8 pixels/clock = 1x32-wide wave/4 clocks → feeding 2 SMX → 1 wave per SMSP (4 per CU) 32 clocks
Max occupancy, 16 waves per SIMD : 512 clocks

Kepler comparatively had 1:2 SE:CU ratio.

GCN/Tahiti just can't spit out vertices worth a fucking damn because AMD decided to have 2 geometry engines for 2048 cores in that era. You NEED high bandwidth because its a massive computational pool with a pipeline the size of a garden hose

AMD's entire effort into RDNA was to revamp the years of consequences of trying to make GCN a thing. Tahiti was such a huge pool of cores versus primitives that it had shit occupancy. GK104 could have max occupancy in 1/5th the clocks of Tahiti. GCN issued one instruction per wave every 4 cycles while Kepler did it every cycle. Can you guess when AMD changed it to every cycle? RDNA.

Stop using technical jargon mambo-jumbo you don't understand to sound more knowledgeable than you truly are.

To come in here and try to sell GCN as being the fucking holy grail when AMD themselves distanced from it, and telling others to learn about hardware while you just drop a bunch of specs to allude that bigger is better, is fucking hilarious

I didn't know 'full RDNA2' Series S was actually GCN 1...

Still waiting for you to tell me when DLSS 4 is coming to Switch 2.
Until then, that's my answer to your childish smart-assery:

 

[hououinkyouma00]

like the difference here in resolution is night and day and you need a source? source is anyone thats not blind.

I mean we really need to stop using this dude as a source but the spot S subzero83 used here really does look like absolute shit on Switch 2 in motion. PS4 looks better.

Everybody needs to wait for Digital Foundry or that dude that does the comparisons for IGN (does that guy still do those).

 

[LordOcidax]

I mean we really need to stop using this dude as a source but the spot S subzero83 used here really does look like absolute shit on Switch 2 in motion. PS4 looks better.

Everybody needs to wait for Digital Foundry or that dude that does the comparisons for IGN (does that guy still do those).

That comparison is clear, i don't need to wait for DF to have an opinion… Like i said, in this case he utilized clear sources, not some YT videos or weird shit.

 

[Bojji]

Are you really throwing numbers from GCN era architecture with Ampere?

Just an example how stupid that is

Completely different approaches back then

Tahiti : 1 primitive/clock into rasterizer → 16 pixels/clock = 1x64-wide wave/4 clocks → feeding 16 CUs → 1 wave per SIMD (4 per CU) 256 clocks
Max occupancy, 10 waves per SIMD : 2560 clocks

Kepler : 1 primitive/clock into rasterizer → 8 pixels/clock = 1x32-wide wave/4 clocks → feeding 2 SMX → 1 wave per SMSP (4 per CU) 32 clocks
Max occupancy, 16 waves per SIMD : 512 clocks

Kepler comparatively had 1:2 SE:CU ratio.

GCN/Tahiti just can't spit out vertices worth a fucking damn because AMD decided to have 2 geometry engines for 2048 cores in that era. You NEED high bandwidth because its a massive computational pool with a pipeline the size of a garden hose

AMD's entire effort into RDNA was to revamp the years of consequences of trying to make GCN a thing. Tahiti was such a huge pool of cores versus primitives that it had shit occupancy. GK104 could have max occupancy in 1/5th the clocks of Tahiti. GCN issued one instruction per wave every 4 cycles while Kepler did it every cycle. Can you guess when AMD changed it to every cycle? RDNA.

To come in here and try to sell GCN as being the fucking holy grail when AMD themselves distanced from it, and telling others to learn about hardware while you just drop a bunch of specs to allude that bigger is better, is fucking hilarious

Kepler was fucking shit architecture that was completely garbage for PS4/X1 games. I'm not commenting on anything else you posted but Kepler was the worst Nvidia architecture of 201x. GCN parts completely kicked it in the butt in modern games.

 

[subzero83]

That comparison is clear, i don't need to wait for DF to have an opinion… Like i said, in this case he utilized clear sources, not some YT videos or weird shit.

his ps4 source makes games blurrier than they really are on ps4. for example here is a persona 3 both 1080p on ps4 and switch 2. he states its using dlss to 4k when its not. furthermore in motion the switch iq falls apart at 60fps its not 1080p so i don't what you are on about.

 

[Kurt]

Geez, man. What exactly do you mean when you say that the S2 is 'on avg between ps4 pro and series s'?

There's at best 20% difference between PS4 Pro and Series S when it comes to raw GPU power. Do you think that 20% is such a noteworthy difference that you can confidently squeeze Switch 2 between these two consoles?
20% is almost nothing in the world of PC GPUs. For crying out loud, there's a bigger difference between the 3060 and the 3060Ti. 20% is like a jump from 40 fps to 48 fps. Or a jump from 720p to 790p (resolutions almost never scale linearly, but it's not like 20% will give you a jump from 720p to 900p).

Most importantly - please look at the actual specs:
PS4 Pro - 32 ROPs - 144 Texture Mapping Units - 217.6 GB/s
Series S - 32 ROPs - 80 Texture Mapping Units - 224 GB/s
Switch 2 - 16 ROPs - 48 Texture Mapping Units - 102.4 GB/s

Games simply cannot overcome the physical limitations of the chip.
FLOPs are mostly meaningless because even if someone were to magically overclock S2's GPU to 2.5 GHz and make it a 7.68 Ampere's TFLOPs, enormous bottlenecks caused by its bandwidth, its ROPs and its TMUs would come to the forefront.


Please, stop... Instead of listening to fanatics with obvious agendas, you should just go the hard way - actually learning about the hardware. About its limitations and so on.

Every single device on earth has some bottlenecks. And the Switch 2 is not some super well-balanced console. Nintendo should start by equipping the console with a bigger battery, increasing the power consumption by 2-3 watts in handheld mode and 5 watts in docked mode and using those watts to upclock the S2's CPU and RAM modules first.
But this option is long gone.

So its biggest strength is DLSS. Because the high-quality version of DLSS is simply much better than bad TAA (i.e. Cyberpunk 2077) and average TAA.


And that's very nice. Wish Nintendo still followed the philosophy of releasing the cutting-edge hardware. But the year is 2026, not 2001 or 2006.

There's at best 20% difference between PS4 Pro and Series S when it comes to raw GPU power. Do you think that 20% is such a noteworthy difference that you can confidently squeeze Switch 2 between these two consoles?

Did a quick research:
The Xbox Series S features a modern 8-core Zen 2 CPU at 3.6 GHz, which is over 100% faster (roughly 2.25x) in raw speed than the 8-core 2.13 GHz AMD Jaguar CPU in the PS4 Pro. This architectural leap allows the Series S to deliver 60-120fps, while the PS4 Pro often struggles with 30fps.

Tell me, how do you get to the 20% noteworthy differences? Lol

Again:

Port studio Virtuos says bringing an Xbox Series S game that runs at 60FPS to the Nintendo Switch 2 should be easy since the GPU capabilities of both consoles are 'comparable overall'

"Any game shipping at 60fps on the Series S should easily port to the Switch 2"

www.techradar.com

Not the only developer mentioning that. Who will know it better? You? I don't think so..
I also don't need to discuss something when the proof is clearly in cyberpunk using the ps5 textures while series s doesn't. Aside the worse IQ from series s as well.
Not sure how you would a device like switch 2 if it was closer to ps4 base could archieve that kind of quality? Thats nutz to think.
There is a reason why each series s game should be easy to port to switch 2. Only the cpu part of games require optimzations.

Look your biggest issue is:
- Comparing uncompatible things.
- Focussing too much on specs instead of actual results
- ignoring multiple developers.
- You clearly are a fanboy with your last comment.

And yes if DLSS solves a lot of things, it's part of the hw. You can't talk about what you call raw power and ignoring the dlss factor here. It's a part of the result a game deliveres.

Again, i don't make a statement that the switch 2 is better as series s, but it clearly can result better things as series s. Speciall IQ.
But one thing is sure, the switch 2 is clearly better as ps4 pro in docked mode. Maybe the cpu is the only bottleneck in the whole story. Which is btw even in handheld mode a lot higher as ps4 base.

 

[subzero83]

There's at best 20% difference between PS4 Pro and Series S when it comes to raw GPU power. Do you think that 20% is such a noteworthy difference that you can confidently squeeze Switch 2 between these two consoles?

Did a quick research:
The Xbox Series S features a modern 8-core Zen 2 CPU at 3.6 GHz, which is over 100% faster (roughly 2.25x) in raw speed than the 8-core 2.13 GHz AMD Jaguar CPU in the PS4 Pro. This architectural leap allows the Series S to deliver 60-120fps, while the PS4 Pro often struggles with 30fps.

Tell me, how do you get to the 20% noteworthy differences? Lol

Again:

Port studio Virtuos says bringing an Xbox Series S game that runs at 60FPS to the Nintendo Switch 2 should be easy since the GPU capabilities of both consoles are 'comparable overall'

"Any game shipping at 60fps on the Series S should easily port to the Switch 2"

www.techradar.com

Not the only developer mentioning that. Who will know it better? You? I don't think so..
I also don't need to discuss something when the proof is clearly in cyberpunk using the ps5 textures while series s doesn't. Aside the worse IQ from series s as well.
Not sure how you would a device like switch 2 if it was closer to ps4 base could archieve that kind of quality? Thats nutz to think.
There is a reason why each series s game should be easy to port to switch 2. Only the cpu part of games require optimzations.

Look your biggest issue is:
- Comparing uncompatible things.
- Focussing too much on specs instead of actual results
- ignoring multiple developers.
- You clearly are a fanboy with your last comment.

And yes if DLSS solves a lot of things, it's part of the hw. You can't talk about what you call raw power and ignoring the dlss factor here. It's a part of the result a game deliveres.

Again, i don't make a statement that the switch 2 is better as series s, but it clearly can result better things as series s. Speciall IQ.
But one thing is sure, the switch 2 is clearly better as ps4 pro in docked mode. Maybe the cpu is the only bottleneck in the whole story. Which is btw even in handheld mode a lot higher as ps4 base.

we have many games that get better IQ on pro pro then series so yea it depend on the port job. so thats not exclusive to switch 2. on a whole though if you compare all ports ps4 pro runs most games at higher resolution then switch 2 these are the facts. RE village, hogwarts, and hitman are a better experience on ps4 pro. I would say so far its between ps4 and ps4 pro cause dlss is mostly the lite version in most games meaning its not anywhere near as good native from a lower resolution..

 

[FalconPunch]

It's not on par with Pro in raw power.

And it also isn't 2x PS4 GPU, biggest advantages of S2 are CPU power and RAM amount. That's why it can do PS4 games with 2x framerate (but it drops to lower resolution when it have to).

Pretty much. The improved cpu is the boon for S2. It's gpu is ps4 class albeit with better support for rt and upscaling.

Edit: Here's a Radeon 7850 running the game at 60 fps at 1080p. The only reason it doesn't run like this on the ps4 is the cpu.

 

[bbw_lover87]

Bought the game yesterday and wow good port, fucking todd imma play this mothafucka game again another 200h baby switch 2 is great

 

[Buggy Loop]

Stop using technical jargon mambo-jumbo you don't understand to sound more knowledgeable than you truly are.

AMD moved away from it

40Hz - Wow, GCN so good

I didn't know 'full RDNA2' Series S was actually GCN 1...

Did you forget to take your meds?

Now why would RDNA 2 consoles need that much bandwidth compared to equivalent desktop... hmmmmmm

hmmmmm, couldn't be that they ripped the infinity cache out, couldn't be, naw

Van Gogh, AMD’s Steam Deck APU

Zen 2’s launch was a defining moment for AMD.

chipsandcheese.com

Completely different architectures, "lOoK aT tHe biG nUmbErS. lEarN aBoUT hArdWarE"

Kepler was fucking shit architecture that was completely garbage for PS4/X1 games. I'm not commenting on anything else you posted but Kepler was the worst Nvidia architecture of 201x. GCN parts completely kicked it in the butt in modern games.

You're missing the whole point. It's about different architectures and how you can't just say big numbers = better HUR DUR DUR

Even AMD moved away from those terrible SE:CU ratios

Kepler was at the time of release exactly what it needed to be and was very fast for the games that were currently on PC. Easily surpassed GCN. Was a massive leap forward in energy efficiency coming in from Fermi. "computing" power was for bitcoin mining or scientific. Kepler aimed for 100% gaming of that era. Even midrange Kepler launched faster than high end GCN. For the era, it was almost a generation ahead.
Did it age well? No. By the time it become relevant the market was already on Pascal. These generations were on a ~yearly basis.

Dude I was ATI/AMD from 1996 to 2016

I waited and waited for all those promises of GCN, the next driver is coming in to save the day, ah consoles will change everything in their favour, etc. Nobody had time to wait on this shit. I picked Pascal in 2016 and never looked back. I don't see any wins that I picked AMD for that long for all those forecasts and waiting and waiting and then raise up the dusty web filled GPU in the air years later to claim it was the right pick when the industry moved on.

Kepler was the foundation of everything that followed and the dominance of Nvidia thereafter,

Kepler's static scheduling scheme was successful enough to be used in every Nvidia generation afterward. The control code format would change to allow more flexibility and hand even more responsibility over to the compiler, but the core strategy remained. Kepler's division of the basic SM building block into four scheduler partitions was also carried forward.

Kepler → Maxwell → Pascal and poof, AMD was irrelevant on PC just like that.

AMD had the right idea with large compute pool and owning the console market meant that it was inevitable the effects would come to PC, but ultimately they dropped the ball on really squeezing Nvidia. They had hundreds of engineers in nearly all studios (ATI), making them use Mantle for any console to PC ports back then would have hurt Nvidia big time. But they're dumb fucks clearly as they killed the department of engineers and gave the keys of mantle to a consortium.

 

[40Hz]

There's at best 20% difference between PS4 Pro and Series S when it comes to raw GPU power. Do you think that 20% is such a noteworthy difference that you can confidently squeeze Switch 2 between these two consoles?

Did a quick research:
The Xbox Series S features a modern 8-core Zen 2 CPU at 3.6 GHz, which is over 100% faster (roughly 2.25x) in raw speed than the 8-core 2.13 GHz AMD Jaguar CPU in the PS4 Pro. This architectural leap allows the Series S to deliver 60-120fps, while the PS4 Pro often struggles with 30fps.

Tell me, how do you get to the 20% noteworthy differences? Lol

'raw GPU power' - 40Hz

'AMD Jaguar CPU in the PS4 Pro' - Kurt

1.6 GHz × 2.25 = 3.6 Ghz
How convenient... Such a nice AI research...

Dear God, give me strength!

And FYI, the Zen 2 CPUs in the Xbox Series S, Xbox Series X and PS5 consoles are much stronger than just 2× PS4 Pro's CPU.
But please keep comparing MHz frequencies between Jaguars, Pentiums, Zens and ARMs

Look your biggest issue is:
- Comparing uncompatible things.
- Focussing too much on specs instead of actual results
- ignoring multiple developers.

OK, good to know.

- You clearly are a fanboy with your last comment.

Have a nice day!

 

[subzero83]

Pretty much. The improved cpu is the boon for S2. It's gpu is ps4 class albeit with better support for rt and upscaling.

Edit: Here's a Radeon 7850 running the game at 60 fps at 1080p. The only reason it doesn't run like this on the ps4 is the cpu.

I mean that look vastly better then the 60fps mode on switch 2 so not exactly a fair comparison. i'm sure if they dropped to 600-720p on ps4 it would run 60fps.

 

[FalconPunch]

I mean that look vastly better then the 60fps mode on switch 2 so not exactly a fair comparison. i'm sure if they dropped to 600-720p on ps4 it would run 60fps.

The 7850 is the gpu in the ps4.

 

[LordOcidax]

I mean that look vastly better then the 60fps mode on switch 2 so not exactly a fair comparison. i'm sure if they dropped to 600-720p on ps4 it would run 60fps.

 

[subzero83]

The 7850 is the gpu in the ps4.

yea i know and that looks much better then the switch 2 60fps mode most likely upscaled from 600p or lower. So what i'm saying if they downgraded the ps4 version enough they could have maybe got 60fps.