Leak: Switch 2 to use Orin T239 Nvidia Soc , PS4 and PS4 pro performance Without DLSS

FunkMiller said:
:messenger_grinning_sweat: so transparent.

You came in here to shit post about Nintendo needing to 'grow some balls' and then YOU brought up Sony, which nobody else had. And then you complain about other people's 'weird fanboyism'? :messenger_tears_of_joy:

If you're a grown ass man, why do you feel the need to come into a thread and troll?
Click to expand...
I brought up Sony because YOU brought up sales and Nintendo's"balls", in regards to outdated toy hardware. My Sony reply was Sony actually COMPETES with hardware and STILL has bigger balls than Nintendo.
 
REDRZA MWS said:
STILL has bigger balls than Nintendo.
Click to expand...
Family Feud Lol GIF by Steve Harvey
 
Like I mentioned on the first page of this thread, the Switch HW can still provide excellent results with ports of last gen 3rd party titles, especially if the studios doing the ports don't phone it in...









Now if the rumors of Switch 2 having PS4 perf in portable and PS4 Pro perf in docked then I expect this trend of high quality ports (current gen ones included) to continue and hopefully increase in frequency!
 
REDRZA MWS said:
I brought up Sony because YOU brought up sales and Nintendo's"balls", in regards to outdated toy hardware. My Sony reply was Sony actually COMPETES with hardware and STILL has bigger balls than Nintendo.
Click to expand...

REDRZA MWS said:
This is that weird fanboyism that plagues these boards. What the duck does that even mean? Im a grown ass man. Worked my whole life and have a great pension. Id love to buy a current power level level Nintendo home console , I grew up with them. You are on the other hand get called out how "well" Nintendo is doing a do bring Sony up, and you talk about smashing toys together? Psychotherapy and meds bro. Just some advice.
Click to expand...

Baby Mirror GIF
 
Thick Thighs Save Lives said:
Like I mentioned on the first page of this thread, the Switch HW can still provide excellent results with ports of last gen 3rd party titles, especially if the studios doing the ports don't phone it in...









Now if the rumors of Switch 2 having PS4 perf in portable and PS4 Pro perf in docked then I expect this trend of high quality ports (current gen ones included) to continue and hopefully increase in frequency!
Click to expand...


The problem for Nintendo is that neither PS5 nor XboxS came out with a weak ass tablet CPU.
 
Thirty7ven said:
The problem for Nintendo is that neither PS5 nor XboxS came out with a weak ass tablet CPU.
Click to expand...
I expect that the arm cores they'll use in the next Switch to be considerably better (clock for clock) than those cheapo jaguar CPUs which were like you said originally meant for tablets and ultra low power laptops. I'm not implying that they'll be as good as the zen 2 cores on the current gen console (which mind you are based on the laptop zen 2 cpus with low amount of L3 which perform more around desktop zen+ instead of zen 2) but they should at least be somewhat competitive (I trust nvidia to offer nintendo something decent and newish here lmao) to allow the porting of certain current gen titles to run at 30fps. Although I'm aware that Nintendo will most likely downclock the fuck out of those arm cores in order to ensure good battery life and thermals.
 
Last edited:
Thirty7ven said:
The problem for Nintendo is that neither PS5 nor XboxS came out with a weak ass tablet CPU.
Click to expand...

That 'problem' has sold 125 million units and counting and had some of the best reviewed and received computer games in... ever.

I can't believe we still have people like you spouting such nonsense.
 
Honestly I've been playing on my Deck more than my rig with a 7900XTX. If DLSS allows the Switch 2 to punch up, it will be an amazing console.
 
These stories are always so dumb and overhyped.

Even if you did get a handheld with a SoC as powerful as the PS4's, the handheld won't get anywhere near the power of the PS4 because it's a handheld and therefore dealing with a significantly reduced power envelope.

Expect the system to have materially comparatively lower bandwidth, clock speeds, memory capacity etc, all contributing to materially lower overall system perf.
 
Last edited:
Thick Thighs Save Lives said:
Like I mentioned on the first page of this thread, the Switch HW can still provide excellent results with ports of last gen 3rd party titles, especially if the studios doing the ports don't phone it in...









Now if the rumors of Switch 2 having PS4 perf in portable and PS4 Pro perf in docked then I expect this trend of high quality ports (current gen ones included) to continue and hopefully increase in frequency!
Click to expand...

I wouldn't really count P5 since that is legitimately a PS3 game.
 
Thick Thighs Save Lives said:
Yeah I knew I should't have included that one but the port is just too good and technically P5R never released on PS3 just the vanilla P5. :messenger_tongue: The rest of the examples are valid though.
Click to expand...
If they made significant graphics improvements it would be a different story lol. Overall, obviously, expectations are different but seeing the prolonged support for cross-gen development does lend itself to working in Nintendo's favor.
 
Onironauta said:
Rog Ally is much more powerful than (base) PS4. The reason why they run GoW similarly is because PC games have much worse optimization.
Click to expand...
The answer is more nuanced than that. It depends on whether the game is more CPU, GPU, or memory bandwidth bound, and whether you're using FSR 2/DLSS. RDR2 is another game where if you compare apples-to-apples it's right around a PS4 in performance.

That's not really the point, though. In an apples-to-apples comparison like God of War the Steam Deck is like a PS4 at 800p, and the Ally is like a PS4 at 1080p. HOWEVER, the Deck is pulling ~26W total system power consumption, while the Ally is at around ~38W. The OG Switch pulled 11W docked and 9W handheld, while the newer models(OLED/V2) were pulling 6-7W in docked mode according to Nintendo.

There's a huge difference between 38W and 6-9W total system power consumption.
 
REDRZA MWS said:
This is that weird fanboyism that plagues these boards. What the duck does that even mean? Im a grown ass man. Worked my whole life and have a great pension. Id love to buy a current power level level Nintendo home console , I grew up with them. You are on the other hand get called out how "well" Nintendo is doing a do bring Sony up, and you talk about smashing toys together? Psychotherapy and meds bro. Just some advice.
Click to expand...
You can't really complain about weird fanboyism when you are the one comparing the ball sizes of corporations.
 
It's not going to be Series S level of power when docked unless the device is massive. Even though power consumption is not relevant, thermals still are and I don't believe they will have some super advanced chip on the latest fabrication as its Nintendo. So it will need to have a big cooling system making the device bigger than the Steam deck, and I just don't see it. It will likely ba similar to the current Switch and that form factor will severely reduce clocks when docked even if the chip used is theoretically powerful enough.
 
Robb said:
To not DLSS if they're sticking with Nvidia should be considered a criminal offense.
Click to expand...
They are 100% bringing DLSS to the table. The allure of running stuff at 480p and then upscale it all the way up to 1080p is gonna do wonders for that portable performance.

Not only that but also frame generation.

And also ray tracing.

We are gonna get a ray traced 4k@60fps Mario game that in reality is a 1080p game natively. We will love it and Nvidia is gonna be praised.
 
frahko said:
They are 100% bringing DLSS to the table. The allure of running stuff at 480p and then upscale it all the way up to 1080p is gonna do wonders for that portable performance.

Not only that but also frame generation.

And also ray tracing.

We are gonna get a ray traced 4k@60fps Mario game that in reality is a 1080p game natively. We will love it and Nvidia is gonna be praised.
Click to expand...
yes that is why im so glad they partnered with NVIDIA. If Nintendo manages to get DLSS, Ray Tracing shadows(hoping for PT) and HDR on their next system even with its base PS4 level graphics i cant wait to see what Nintendo comes up with. i already know they have that NVIDIA's DLSS and RT, which are the best in the industry, i cant wait till see how Nintendo uses it.
 
Last edited:
Thick Thighs Save Lives said:
Like I mentioned on the first page of this thread, the Switch HW can still provide excellent results with ports of last gen 3rd party titles, especially if the studios doing the ports don't phone it in...









Now if the rumors of Switch 2 having PS4 perf in portable and PS4 Pro perf in docked then I expect this trend of high quality ports (current gen ones included) to continue and hopefully increase in frequency!
Click to expand...

I would rather they have decided to push it another year and try and squeeze a little more power. The Switch is still selling well, there's room for another revision of the console and they could always slash the price in 2024 to give them legs until 2025.
 
I myself won't allow myself to get too excited. We all know it will be clocked at a third of its top clocks for efficency. It will be close to PS4 power (not pro) and we will like it.
 
Last edited:
PS4 horsepower in portable mode and PS4 Pro docked, plus some extra juice like tensor cores and DLSS sounds pretty realistic.

I expected something between PS4 Pro and Series S, which with that extra juice or some trick may be the case.
 
Last edited:
archangelmorph said:
These stories are always so dumb and overhyped.

Even if you did get a handheld with a SoC as powerful as the PS4's, the handheld won't get anywhere near the power of the PS4 because it's a handheld and therefore dealing with a significantly reduced power envelope.

Expect the system to have materially comparatively lower bandwidth, clock speeds, memory capacity etc, all contributing to materially lower overall system perf.
Click to expand...

You expect the next Steamdeck to perform worse than the PS4, because it's a handheld?

That's not a credible assumption.

Put Apple's M2 in a handheld and it'd eclipse the PS4.
 
frahko said:
They are 100% bringing DLSS to the table. The allure of running stuff at 480p and then upscale it all the way up to 1080p is gonna do wonders for that portable performance.

Not only that but also frame generation.

And also ray tracing.

We are gonna get a ray traced 4k@60fps Mario game that in reality is a 1080p game natively. We will love it and Nvidia is gonna be praised.
Click to expand...
Nintendo being very business savvy with their IP and hardware says otherwise IMHO. DLSS would tie them to Nvidia indefinitely to port their games looking identical time and time, again. FSR being open is always going to appeal more to Nintendo, just like it has with PlayStation and Xbox. Nvidia will have to put DLSS license use on par with with free licensing of FSR to get uptake from people like Nintendo.
 
PaintTinJr said:
Nintendo being very business savvy with their IP and hardware says otherwise IMHO. DLSS would tie them to Nvidia indefinitely to port their games looking identical time and time, again. FSR being open is always going to appeal more to Nintendo, just like it has with PlayStation and Xbox. Nvidia will have to put DLSS license use on par with with free licensing of FSR to get uptake from people like Nintendo.
Click to expand...
So you think Nintendo next system wont get DLSS? We already know there are some tensor cores on the SOC. we just dont know the clock speeds.
 
PaintTinJr said:
Nintendo being very business savvy with their IP and hardware says otherwise IMHO. DLSS would tie them to Nvidia indefinitely to port their games looking identical time and time, again. FSR being open is always going to appeal more to Nintendo, just like it has with PlayStation and Xbox. Nvidia will have to put DLSS license use on par with with free licensing of FSR to get uptake from people like Nintendo.
Click to expand...
The problem is that FSR has two major problems compared to DLSS. At lower resolutions FSR image quality is nowhere near DLSS. In addition, image stability and clarity in movement is once again nowhere near DLSS.

Giving that up to just use a more open technology seems silly. Especially as Nintendo has never given a damn about open technology before.
 
Zathalus said:
The problem is that FSR has two major problems compared to DLSS. At lower resolutions FSR image quality is nowhere near DLSS. In addition, image stability and clarity in movement is once again nowhere near DLSS.

Giving that up to just use a more open technology seems silly. Especially as Nintendo has never given a damn about open technology before.
Click to expand...
FSR has better PSNR AFAIK - because DLSS guesses wrong, which is big noise, despite typically resulting in a more pleasing image for most gamers -, FSR is lighter on battery power and processing, and at small screen sizes - where minification naturally provides a SS type image enhancement from low source material - is indistinguishable from DLSS in quality. Then throw in that Nintendo can use it forever without a paid license, and move to FSR10, etc (of the time) when they port games to newer systems as a free enhancement. I think the benefits are too compelling.

The FSR motion issues seem to be mainly PC related, and with Nintendo being pros at the gaming feedback loop, using FSR isn't going to be an issue for them - even if third parties go through a learning curve.
 
daclynk said:
So you think Nintendo next system wont get DLSS? We already know there are some tensor cores on the SOC. we just dont know the clock speeds.
Click to expand...
Nintendo would need Nvidia bent over giving them royalty free use forever - in all situations - to tie themselves and their games to Nvidia forever. They aren't doing a Microsoft with Og Xbox, Nintendo protect what's theirs much smarter than that IMO.
 
PaintTinJr said:
FSR has better PSNR AFAIK - because DLSS guesses wrong, which is big noise, despite typically resulting in a more pleasing image for most gamers -, FSR is lighter on battery power and processing, and at small screen sizes - where minification naturally provides a SS type image enhancement from low source material - is indistinguishable from DLSS in quality. Then throw in that Nintendo can use it forever without a paid license, and move to FSR10, etc (of the time) when they port games to newer systems as a free enhancement. I think the benefits are too compelling.

The FSR motion issues seem to be mainly PC related, and with Nintendo being pros at the gaming feedback loop, using FSR isn't going to be an issue for them - even if third parties go through a learning curve.
Click to expand...
Not sure where you get this guess wrong thing from. Every single analysis has shown the image to be near identical to native even in cases where the native image is not blurred by TAA. Feel free to post analysis that shows otherwise.

As for power consumption and processing, once again I can find nothing to this effect. Performance gains for both technology is similar. DLSS does use tensor cores for the AI algorithm, but that is trivial. I've certainly seen near zero difference in GPU power consumption on my card when switching between FSR and DLSS.

And FSR is noticable at small screen sizes, certainly on my Steam Deck you can notice a drop in quality even using FSR quality. The motion issue do not suddenly disappear because of the screen size. It's not just a PC thing either, Jedi Survivor is a mess in performance mode when camera movement is involved (on both XSX and PS5).

As for future proofing it should not really be a problem, DLSS can be disabled on any future systems should Nintendo not decide to stick with Nvidia, if Nintendo even bothers with BC. It's not integral to the rendering paradigm, if PC games can switch between 6 different upscalers then any console game can surely do as well.
 
Last edited:
PaintTinJr said:
Nintendo being very business savvy with their IP and hardware says otherwise IMHO. DLSS would tie them to Nvidia indefinitely to port their games looking identical time and time, again. FSR being open is always going to appeal more to Nintendo, just like it has with PlayStation and Xbox. Nvidia will have to put DLSS license use on par with with free licensing of FSR to get uptake from people like Nintendo.
Click to expand...

There's no way Nvidia's making that SoC and not making it DLSS capable.
 
Zathalus said:
Not sure where you get this guess wrong thing from. Every single analysis has shown the image to be near identical to native even in cases where the native image is not blurred by TAA. Feel free to post analysis that shows otherwise.

As for power consumption and processing, once again I can find nothing to this effect. Performance gains for both technology is similar. DLSS does use tensor cores for the AI algorithm, but that is trivial. I've certainly seen near zero difference in GPU power consumption on my card when switching between FSR and DLSS.

And FSR is noticable at small screen sizes, certainly on my Steam Deck you can notice a drop in quality even using FSR quality. The motion issue do not suddenly disappear because of the screen size. It's not just a PC thing either, Jedi Survivor is a mess in performance mode when camera movement is involved (on both XSX and PS5).

As for future proofing it should not really be a problem, DLSS can be disabled on any future systems should Nintendo not decide to stick with Nvidia, if Nintendo even bothers with BC. It's not integral to the rendering paradigm, if PC games can switch between 6 different upscalers then any console game can surely do as well.
Click to expand...
Lets start with the last topic first.
Nintendo aren't accepting a solution that doesn't allow them to port their games pixel perfect to the original release. Games are art, and if the upscaling is part of the art, Nintendo - and their customers - will expect the ability to do pixel perfection without paying a license fee in the future, which is the biggest stumbling block.

Using FSR on Nvidia cards should show a sizeable difference in power draw, because the DLSS units are still powered even when no used, so a lack of increases should convince you that FSR is light on power use when it has no dedicated silicon drawing power.

I've looked a quite a few of the analyses of FSR vs DLSS from DF from a few years back, and there was glaring guesses, like the one with the speakers, where DLSS had unbalanced the image compared to FSR and the native image. The same seemed true of the PC God of War comparison they did. The DLSS was aesthetically more pleasing, but still less consistent with native, which means a PSNR would be higher on the FSR solution.

Put it this way, why is everyone discussing these technologies and making conclusions in favour of Nvidia ? when DF and the like haven't even done such formal scientific analysis to provide PSNR numbers in their opinionated comparisons.

Using a broken game to say the motion issue is the same on all console use is a strawman. FSR works great as a free enhancement on console games, and developers on console can guide the algorithm to alleviate artefacts because the hardware is fixed. DLSS is useless technology for console gaming until it is on par for licensing like FSR, but Nvidia would rather use it to justify their customers upgrading in the PC space - FYI, I use a Nvidia (RTX) card myself and have done for 20years, so this isn't a AMD or Intel GPU customer slanted opinion.
 
Anything close to PS4, or Xbone, is imho good enough for any handheld and we are seemingly already close. Above Vita and Switch, with better framerates, will be nice. Once we get to PS5 like power that extra better be invested in game mechanics instead of fauxK ambitions for a f-ing handheld.
While the XSS is usually hated I think MS should do a handheld based on it, and Sony as well do something in that ballpark (and also make an untethered VR2 possible). As long as the CPU is similar enough and the graphics scalable to the lower target resolution it would be easy money with almost no effort.
Lately we see more mobile games announced for consoles. So the trend goes to as much multiplatform as possible and engines will need to work on just anything.
 
Zathalus said:
The problem is that FSR has two major problems compared to DLSS. At lower resolutions FSR image quality is nowhere near DLSS. In addition, image stability and clarity in movement is once again nowhere near DLSS.

Giving that up to just use a more open technology seems silly. Especially as Nintendo has never given a damn about open technology before.
Click to expand...
There's nothing stopping FSR2 from being accelerate with machine learning like DLSS.
 
PaintTinJr said:
Lets start with the last topic first.
Nintendo aren't accepting a solution that doesn't allow them to port their games pixel perfect to the original release. Games are art, and if the upscaling is part of the art, Nintendo - and their customers - will expect the ability to do pixel perfection without paying a license fee in the future, which is the biggest stumbling block.

Using FSR on Nvidia cards should show a sizeable difference in power draw, because the DLSS units are still powered even when no used, so a lack of increases should convince you that FSR is light on power use when it has no dedicated silicon drawing power.

I've looked a quite a few of the analyses of FSR vs DLSS from DF from a few years back, and there was glaring guesses, like the one with the speakers, where DLSS had unbalanced the image compared to FSR and the native image. The same seemed true of the PC God of War comparison they did. The DLSS was aesthetically more pleasing, but still less consistent with native, which means a PSNR would be higher on the FSR solution.

Put it this way, why is everyone discussing these technologies and making conclusions in favour of Nvidia ? when DF and the like haven't even done such formal scientific analysis to provide PSNR numbers in their opinionated comparisons.

Using a broken game to say the motion issue is the same on all console use is a strawman. FSR works great as a free enhancement on console games, and developers on console can guide the algorithm to alleviate artefacts because the hardware is fixed. DLSS is useless technology for console gaming until it is on par for licensing like FSR, but Nvidia would rather use it to justify their customers upgrading in the PC space - FYI, I use a Nvidia (RTX) card myself and have done for 20years, so this isn't a AMD or Intel GPU customer slanted opinion.
Click to expand...
Nintendo doesn't care for pixel perfect emulation at all. The shoddy work of N64 emulation on Switch is proof enough of that. When it comes to emulation Nintendo has always been of the good enough mindset. Switching upscalers is trivial compared to the visual artifacts that they have had in the past. This is of course assuming they don't stick with Nvidia or that Nvidia doesn't allow for the emulation of whatever DLSS implementation they use for the future.

FSR and DLSS both have the same power drop when used on Nvidia cards (assuming the FPS has a cap). Whatever the difference is, it appears to be tiny.

FSR vs DLSS from a few years back is useless, both technologies have been updated since then (especially DLSS). Hardware Unboxed has recent coverage and at resolutions below 4k FSR looses bad, across numerous games. Everyone is making conclusions in favour of Nvidia as DLSS is simply the better technology, it's not just DF.

And Jedi Survivor is not the only console game with issues, Forspoken has the same problems, because both games are scaling up from ~720p resolutions which FSR just can't handle, while DLSS can. Motion clarity with FSR at low resolutions is just a mess.
 
Woopah said:
You can't really complain about weird fanboyism when you are the one comparing the ball sizes of corporations.
Click to expand...
"Balls", meaning you know, actually COMPETE, or at the very least PRETEND to, in the hardware space.

You all go on and on about nintendos profit margins and success, yet they can't invest in a more powerful home console, WHILE still offering switch 2. Nah, they'd rather give you waggle only controls in a re wrapped GameCube.

Let's face it, they have their balls. For all their success they wont even attempt to compete with PlayStation/ Xbox hardware spec wise. Their games are "10's", correct? People would buy a 400 current spe LLC home console, oh wait they were already paying 300 for a glorified handheld with Atari specs and a 720p screen.
 
A reminder that Nintendo expects per unit hardware profits out of the gates, and the concept of battery life still matters to them. So this thing won't be bleeding edge. Not the Nintendo way.

I do expect something in the 2x performance range undocked and maybe 2.5-3x performance range of Switch 1 docked. Even if the SOC it is based on *can* clock higher/hotter/faster, Nintendo will opt to lock it lower, keeping the thermals and battery duration at the forefront.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cyberpunk 2077 PS4 Pro vs Switch 2 graphic comparison
2
60
2K
Mr Reasonable replied
[IGN - NX Gamer] Cyberpunk 2077 Performance Review - Switch 2 Vs Steam Deck and PS4
Analysis  2
64
1K
Closer replied
Nvidia: Nintendo Switch 2 Leveled Up With NVIDIA AI-Powered DLSS and 4K Gaming
News  3 4 5 6 7
337
20K
RodriGames40 replied
Cyberpunk 2077 Switch 2 vs PS4 Pro (PS5 Pro BC) Early Graphics Comparison
Analysis Trailer  2 3
107
2K
IbizaPocholo replied
Is DLSS on Switch 2 the secret sauce of secret sauces?
21
64
keefged4 replied
Top Bottom