Support NeoGAF

[subzero83]

Only read the first page but its full of gloating about the Switch 2 version beating the PS4?. I mean Christ no wonder Nintendo can get away with selling high price low powered hardware in the tens of millions.

The funniest part is the steamdeck version is better in handheld and docked mode. Yet people here still recognize it's below ps4 in specs overall but the same game running 60fps on switch 2 makes it between pro and series s.

 

[DeafTourette]

 

[CrustyBritches]

The funniest part is the steamdeck version is better in handheld and docked mode. Yet people here still recognize it's below ps4 in specs overall but the same game running 60fps on switch 2 makes it between pro and series s.

context is important though. The Jaguar CPUs in those consoles were good for 900p/1080p 30fps, but they are so shit compared to anything Ryzen. So when people say a steam deck is like an 800p PS4, they are talking about GPU bound scenarios, like God of war.

Same thing with the switch 2. The PS4/PS4 Pro was always going to be a poor comparison because they are CPU bound, have less ram, and slower storage.

For shits and giggles I tested fallout 4 on a Ryzen 1200 4ct/4t(maybe the worst Ryzen CPU you can get) and Rx 470(ps4 pro GPU) and it can run it at 1080p Max settings at ~75fps or 1080p Low at 120fps. I disabled 2 cores so it had only 2c/2t and aside from the initial level stream in for about 10secs of stuttering it almost pulled 60fps(50-60fps). That's how weak the Jag is in comparison.

 

[Mozza]

Nintendo life article about the upcoming DLSS support.

Fallout 4 On Switch 2 Is Getting DLSS Support And Stability Improvements

New update incoming

www.nintendolife.com

 

[Mozza]

The funniest part is the steamdeck version is better in handheld and docked mode. Yet people here still recognize it's below ps4 in specs overall but the same game running 60fps on switch 2 makes it between pro and series s.

You can stop at anytime you know...

 

[Same ol G]

You can stop at anytime you know...

As i said, it's like a disease he can't help himself.

 

[Boy bawang]

DLSS is coming in a future update too:



That's cool considering is Bethesda who we are talking about.

They are really all in with the Switch 2 with those ports. I am more convinced everyday that Elder Scrolls 6 is day 1 on Switch 2. Good times.

I'll buy Fallout 4 is the implement gyro aiming qith that patch.

 

[Kataploom]

There are definitely a lot of rumors, but it's important to separate raw specs from architectural context. The PlayStation 4 Pro is a 4.2 TFLOPs GCN-based console with 218 GB/s bandwidth and a 150W+ home power envelope. That's a fixed living-room machine from 2016.
Switch 2 is a modern, highly efficient SoC built on a much newer architecture, with access to contemporary features like advanced reconstruction techniques and significantly better perf-per-watt. Even if raw compute numbers don't match PS4 Pro on paper, architectural efficiency and upscaling tech can narrow the real-world gap in specific scenarios.
So "as powerful as PS4 Pro" depends on what you mean. In pure raster TFLOPs, that's a high bar for a portable-oriented system. In perceived output at 1080p or reconstructed resolutions with modern techniques, the comparison becomes more nuanced.
The real question isn't whether it matches a 2016 mid-gen refresh in raw throughput. The question is what it can actually deliver on screen, consistently, within its power constraints. That's where modern design matters more than a single number.

Edited : Yes, that quote is from Tom Warren, but it was an off-the-cuff comment about rumors, not a hardware analysis. The phrase "as powerful as" is also doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Console performance isn't a single scalar number you can compare in isolation. Architecture, node efficiency, feature set, memory configuration, power envelope, and reconstruction techniques all matter. Reducing it to "as powerful as a PS4 Pro" oversimplifies a pretty complex discussion.

The way I see it: As the PS4 Pro was designed with high resolution in mind, it's stronger than even the XSS in that regard, but both Switch 2 and Series S are also way better in anything else, even the CPU (the one in the Switch 2 still way behind the one in XSS but yet like 2 or 3 times above Jaguar).

So the only problem I see is when the usual suspects put internal resolution as the most important or the only measure of power superiority, even the fact that Switch 2 can do DLSS puts it above the Pro in that regard since new tech is not only higher raw power but also more efficient methods and that has always been the case, if not we'd be bitching that the PS3 wasn't as powerful as the PS2 because the PS2 could stack a shitton of alpha effects and that "alleged" graphical superiority of the PS3 was because of a "gimmick" (shaders).

 

[Kataploom]

Saved by logic cause that 60fps mode is not 1080p. I'll call it right now its upscaled from 600p-720p.

Don't get me started on the shitton of PS4 Pro games using CBR to achieve sub-4K resolutions... Also TAA, FSR1/2, etc, etc. The reason why last gen consoles couldn't use advanced temporal AA is because they lacked power headroom for that and Switch 2 uses the most advanced one

 

[Kataploom]

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.

Many of us have... you know... other platforms... Actually I don't have any other console because PC is more than enough and playing anything on them would be a graphical downgrade so nope, those Nintendo only players are mostly casual players or dedicated players that don't come here to argue you about graphics

 

[Deerock71]

It has the same problem as all Bethesda titles: a mile wide but puddle deep.

 

[Caio]

The way I see it: As the PS4 Pro was designed with high resolution in mind, it's stronger than even the XSS in that regard, but both Switch 2 and Series S are also way better in anything else, even the CPU (the one in the Switch 2 still way behind the one in XSS but yet like 2 or 3 times above Jaguar).

So the only problem I see is when the usual suspects put internal resolution as the most important or the only measure of power superiority, even the fact that Switch 2 can do DLSS puts it above the Pro in that regard since new tech is not only higher raw power but also more efficient methods and that has always been the case, if not we'd be bitching that the PS3 wasn't as powerful as the PS2 because the PS2 could stack a shitton of alpha effects and that "alleged" graphical superiority of the PS3 was because of a "gimmick" (shaders).

I think we're mostly on the same page.
PS4 Pro was clearly built around a specific goal: to push higher native or checkerboarded resolutions within the GCN framework. That's why, in pure raster throughput at high internal resolutions, it can still look strong compared to newer low-power systems.
But that design target also reflects its 2016-era context: Jaguar CPU cores, no dedicated ML hardware, and a feature set defined before AI-assisted rendering became part of mainstream pipelines.
Switch 2 and Series S come from a different architectural era. Even if Switch 2 doesn't match Pro in raw TFLOPs, it would likely benefit from substantially better perf-per-watt, a more modern shader architecture, contemporary reconstruction techniques, and a significantly stronger CPU relative to Jaguar. That shifts the performance discussion beyond raw raster output alone.
Internal resolution has never been a complete proxy for overall system capability. Rendering techniques evolve. Just as programmable shaders weren't a gimmick over fixed-function pipelines, modern reconstruction methods aren't simply a shortcut over brute-force rasterization.
Raw resolution is only one variable. Stability, frame pacing, CPU headroom, feature support, and power efficiency all shape the final on-screen result, especially within a portable-oriented power envelope.
So yes, reducing it to "not as powerful as PS4 Pro" compresses a multi-dimensional comparison into a single metric.

 

[MrA]

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.

If you actually read the description that 7850 ox which are clocked 15 to 20% faster than a ps4

 

[FalconPunch]

If you actually read the description that 7850 ox which are clocked 15 to 20% faster than a ps4

If you actually look at the settings, they're much higher and better looking than switch 2 with no sort of upscaling. Turning down the settings to match switch 2 will more than cover for the over clock gap. When we say the switch 2 is ps4 class, its because it is. I don't know why Nintendo fans don't want to admit the obvious.

There's nothing wrong with being a ps4 class device.

 

[MrA]

If you actually look at the settings, they're much higher and better looking than switch 2 with no sort of upscaling. Turning down the settings to match switch 2 will more than cover for the over clock gap. When we say the switch 2 is ps4 class, its because it is. I don't know why Nintendo fans don't want to admit the obvious.

There's nothing wrong with being a ps4 class device.

you were being dishonest saying a 7850oc was the ps4s gpu,

 

[FalconPunch]

you were being dishonest saying a 7850oc was the ps4s gpu,

I didn't read the description but an oc'd 7850 is still a 7850. Just because it's running at a higher clock rate doesn't make my statement incorrect. The 7850 is still the ps4 gpu.