kevboard
Member
run it at 30fps, 900p, DLSS maybe to get to a 1440p-ish image.
should work fine.
the game runs at 1080p 60fps on Series S, so 900p 30fps should work for Switch 2
run it at 30fps, 900p, DLSS maybe to get to a 1440p-ish image.
should work fine.
the game runs at 1080p 60fps on Series S, so 900p 30fps should work for Switch 2
Wilhelm_85
Gold Member
Good point. Forgot that it was 60 fps on all platforms up until now. The game would still be plenty enjoyable at 30 fps given its slower pace.
Kenneth Haight
Gold Member
If this can run at 60fps that is seriously impressive stuffAnother miracle port
kevboard
Member
if the CPU isn't limiting the performance, they could even maybe get a 720p 60fps mode going, or at least a 40fps mode with a dynamic resolution.
DLSS can also help here, as iD Tech's TAA is generally worse than DLSS quality mode. so running it at 1080p target, with DLSS at 66% res, it could actually look cleaner than the Series S version.
but yes, it's probably generally fine at 30fps.
Last edited:
Apocryphon
Member
I'll buy it. Hopefully it has a 40fps mode though.
Baemono
Member
It isn't apparently
kevboard
Member
what do you mean "apparently"? there's zero info on this port... so it absolutely could be limiting it
Baemono
Member
The game is known for being heavy on GPU, not CPU, that's what I meant
Matsuchezz
Member
animation in this game is ugly as sin. i hope this is corrected because it's off putting.
HerjansEagleFeeder
Member
Maybe he can share with the other dev teams so we get more from MS
kevboard
Member
it's not heavy on modern desktop CPUs. the Switch 2's CPU is only a bit better than last gen's Jaguar CPUs.
raytracing is adding CPU strain, and this game uses RT.
the minimum requirements on PC for 60fps list a Ryzen 3600, a CPU that's more than 2x as fast as the one used in the Switch 2.
Last edited:
RodriGames40
Member
Far from it, the Switch 2's CPU is comfortably three times faster and two times per core. The chinese benchmarks confirm this.
Last edited:
kevboard
Member
yeah well... actual games confirm it's not even remotely close to that. Cyberpunk literally has CPU related FPS drops at 30fps, while the Series S stays at 60fps in the same scenes.
and on Switch 2 traffic and pedestrian density was drastically reduced on top of that, which is a CPU related change.
the fact that Fortnite has no 120fps mode on Switch 2 is probably also CPU related, as there's tons of room to reduce graphics settings in order to make it work in terms of GPU resources.
Last edited:
DirtInUrEye
Member
kevboard
Member
there's nothing worse than Nintendo fanboy accounts on Twitter...
he literally just used the same screenshot for both.
either because he's purposely misleading people, or because both the Xbox and the Switch 2 store use the exact same images.
I can't see a single difference between them, which is impossible for multiple reasons.
I bet all the screenshots are just taken 1:1 from the Xbox store. no actual Switch 2 screenshots are shown
edit: yes. all of these are from the Seires X version. if you look on the Xbox store page, they are 100% a pixel for pixel match
Last edited:
RodriGames40
Member
It's higher than PS4, by a mile. Medium rather than lower-than-low. Fortnite also stays consistently at 60 FPS while almost never dropping (unlike PS4, which does all the time down to 40 fps), which suggests that it not having a 120 fps mode is merely a decision made for the port.
Last edited:
Deerock71
Very Poor Hoice of Wor
I'd be willing to bet not that many sacrifices will have to be made. Don't care either way.
kevboard
Member
I am comparing to Series S not PS4, and compared to Series S it's dramatically lower density. that the CPU is faster than the PS4's is clear, but it's still, from what we have seen games wise, about half as fast as the Series S' CPU.
the "40fps" mode of Cyberpunk basically dropping to 30fps the moment you leave constrained areas is a pretty good indicator of that.
Last edited:
RodriGames40
Member
Yes, but it's also not a "bit" better than PS4. It's significantly faster, just not enough to match the Zen 2 cores but you gotta keep in mind that the Zen 2 cores were also a huge upgrade over the Jaguar ones, bigger than it was from the PS3-PS4 leap even.
diffusionx
Gold Member
It's a good game, and best Indy anything in decades, but far from the GOTY tier that Xbox shills claimed it was when it came out.
Good addition to Switch 2 library.
Good addition to Switch 2 library.
kevboard
Member
it doesn't seem a lot faster. it seems to be enough of a jump to lock previously struggling games to the desired target framerate.
like Aoex Legends is holding closer to 60fps, Cyberpunk is holding closer to 30fps, and so on.
a maybe 30% (50% if we're generous) improvement over last gen.
that still means it's nowhere close to PS5/XSX.
hence why I wouldn't expect Indy to be able to reach 60fps. maybe it can, but that depends on how much headroom it has on current gen, which is hard to tell due to the 60fps lock.
Last edited:
RodriGames40
Member
Unfortunately, it's also worth considering that the CPU in Switch 2 is playing in uneven field, somewhat. Nintendo locked two full cores to the operating system, unlike current gen and even last gen that locked 7 cores for games later in 2015. Nintendo should really fix this, since it's likely hurting multithread performance in them.
Last edited:
ecosse_011172
Banned
Was playing it tonight, only at the beginning but it's very nice.
kevboard
Member
not sure if they can with their game chat nonsense. they are hell-bent on supporting 4 incoming live streams + an outgoing live stream + live camera feed layered on top + AI background removal...
no way this isn't heavy on the CPU.
games should be able to turn screen sharing off entirely, in exchange for an additional CPU core being useable.
but I don't know if Nintendo would allow that
Last edited:
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Isn't background removal done on the GPU side of things (and game chat streaming at much reduced frame rate)?
Considering the clockspeed advantage a 1 GHz setup on Switch 2 means each core's is 60% faster than each Jaguar one in PS4… to be 30-50% faster than that we are talking about humongous IPC gains too… still agreed, 60 Hz target for this game could be challenging, but is it really CPU limited?
Deerock71
Very Poor Hoice of Wor
Buggy Loop
Gold Member
Devs on famiboard have said that a core will come back and also smaller VRAM allocation for OS.
ShadyAcshuns
Member
Sweet! Glad I waited.
RodriGames40
Member
I saw, they better hurry up if they want all those UE5 ports.
Dr. Wilkinson
Member
PSA: Definitely don't buy this on switch 2, unless you have no other alternative as a platform. it will not run well. Just FYI
Last edited:
kevboard
Member
ok... on second thought, maybe don't hurry up, in fact remove another core! cleanse the sysem from UE5!
simpatico
Member
DLSS is going to do wonders for Switch. With scaling being so important, it makes you wonder how bad the Nvidia pricing is for Sony and Microsoft. I guess FSR is "getting better". The problem is that has been a valid statement for the past 5 years, and outside of hardware locked FSR4, it hasn't really gotten any better.
Gambit2483
Member
Huh? The console just came out. There's litterally no way many of these late ports would've been on Switch 2 day n date. Hopefully moving forward in the next year every/most games will launch on Switch 2 same day, e.g. the New LEGO Batman game and Cronos The New Dawn.
Woopah
Member
For games that released before the Switch 2 came out, that makes sense.
But we also know that Borderlands 4 and Virtua Fighter Revo are coming to Switch 2 later than the other platforms. I think that's going to be the case with other games too, like COD BO7 and MGS Delta.
demigod
Member
It won't be, you're in luck.Awesome
Please don't be on a Game Key Card!!!
code in a box
Kataploom
Gold Member
I mean, I'm not saying you're wrong but if you're right it still makes Switch 2 CPU much better than PS4 CPU... I think PS5 CPU was around 8 times or so of PS4 Jaguar, I don't remember where I saw the numbers btw
ShadyAcshuns
Member
lol all the armchair devs in here spouting absolute nonsense. Let the pros handle that stuff, yo.
BlackTron
Member
Seriously? If even a potato PC FPS game like Fortnite can't support 120 then I'm not sure why they even have it at all.
Last edited:
kevboard
Member
well, it is relatively CPU heavy. nearly everything on the map is destructible, there are 100 players on the map, vehicles, some physics... it's not trivial.
graphically it can run on anything, especially if you go full low-end and use the "performance" renderer, which is a DX11 mode that uses the mobile version assets. (I still don't understand why the Switch 1 version didn't use that tbh)
but CPU side, it's not that easy.