I’ll believe they made something on the same level as the competitors when the console actually comes out. An unreleased demo console is not something you should be using as a benchmark for how good the visuals are since the product will most likely go through a significant amount of changes in-between the demo and release.
Even then, there’s the chance that if the console is coming out a few days later, there is no guarantees they didn’t use an old demo console that is outdated compared to what will be released or wasn’t made specifically with the goal in mind of overselling the console by pouring resources into making the demo console actually better than the release one.
Nintendo never makes high power consoles that’s not really their area. So I’d be surprised if this is true.
And what does PS5 equivalent graphics even mean? We just talking screen resolution or are we saying it can push the same poly count. I’d be prepared to accept it might get 1080p maybe 4k on a good day, but that’ll only be on low poly assets.
Apparently the ps5 comparison is because they ran the same tech demo that the ps5 did 2 years ago. But that doesn’t really mean anything. At this point Nintendo may still be working with a wide range of specs on prototypes before finalizing a decision about what the console will be.
I don’t doubt it… Nintendo is always years behind.
The PS5 came out in 2020 and this Switch2 is probably a year away. So that would make their hardware be roughly 4 years old in terms of power. Plus if this is roughly the size of the current Switch, it won’t be pushing more than HD-resolutions (current Switch is only a 720 display), so getting PS5-level graphics on a 1080 screen these days is not particularly complicated or expensive.
Current switch does 1080 docked already , so while I hope it’ll have at least 4k menus and 4k light games, I’d settled for 1080 again with some sorta more advanced AA for first party games
God of war 2016 PS 4 original setting at 720p on steam deck is about 30 fps. On ROG Ally afew frames less if you run it at 15 watts, at 45 watts Ally can probably do 720p at 50ish fps but less than an hour of battery. Ally is the top of line 2023 AMD tech apu and cost $700. Mobile technology is amazing right now, but it’s just not at a level where it can do 3 years old desktop graphics at a reasonable cost/power consumption.
I compared my wealth to Bill Gates and turns out he makes more money just existing for 1 minute than I will make in my entire life. But we are comparable.
And even if some prototype device is, that doesn’t mean the production device will be, once things like heat and power usage have to really be accounted for.
It doesn't even matter a lot if it does have really good graphics capability. Nvidia is good at that (though whether they'd price that where Nintendo wants is questionable). The question is what Nvidia can give in a CPU, because the only ARM CPU out there that's actually interesting in terms of efficient per core performance is Apple.
There's no such thing as a "gaming chip" when it comes to CPUs. Are you trying to tell me that you can't plug a GPU into the PCIe slot of an Ampere Altra? Do you honestly believe that a game compiled for ARM magically won't run on a server chip due to some kind of hardware block that detects games and says "nope, not gonna run that?"
Also, Nvidia makes the processor in the Nintendo Switch, and I linked chips from two other manufacturers in my comment.
There are performance traits you have to have to be even in the vicinity of functional for gaming, and they're the opposite of what you need for a server. Yes, I'm saying that if you put a gaming GPU into any of those chips, the performance would be fucking terrible. You need fast clocks and IPC with low latency, not lots of cores and high bandwidth. High "Performance per core" in terms of server parts does not mean that it can do anywhere close to the same work per core a consumer, gaming focused chip can do. The design parameters are completely different.
The processor in the Switch chip is the reason the Switch has such a limited AAA library. It's not mediocre. It's not serviceable. It's fucking terrible.
And it’s been true since the very first console. The Master System was more powerful than the NES, and the Genesis/Mega Drive was more powerful than the Super NES (arguably; the Sega CPU was far more powerful than Nintendo’s). Same is true for its portables.
They’ve always prioritized per-unit margins. It’s a conservative approach, but it means profit on every console sold.
So there’s a 0% chance this console is actually as powerful as a PS5. However, there’s a good chance there are hardware and software techniques being used to upscale a lower resolution image.
I absolutely believe that exclusivity can create a better product. A company can put more resources into a game if they’re more worried about making a system seller than a profit driver.
But I don’t think for a moment that it benefited the game by creating a focus for the developers by limiting the consoles.
Back in the day, console exclusivity meant you could take advantage of system-specific features such as the ridiculously powerful SIMD core in the PS3. Now, 2/3 major consoles have nearly identical hardware, and the third is an overclocked smartphone, so there's no real benefit to system lock-in.
Seriously, if they said this about the Switch, nobody would bat an eye. But it seems to be easier to simultaneously develop for PS5 and XBox Series than to develop for both consoles and PC, given how terrible a lot of PC ports are.
The appeal of Nintendo console is first party exclusives and whatever the new gimmick may be (I don’t mean that word as a bad thing, I have loved most of their gimmicks). Powerful hardware just means that it can potentially have a good third party support, so that you’re not left playing just the first party games.
I mean sure, two outlets reporting it, but I’ll believe it when I see it. With the Switch Pro/2/U/360/Series N in particular, the leaks were always so outlandish and in the end turned out false, while we can clearly assume the overall news about a Switch successor being in development to be real, any specific piece of news I’d immediately discard and put into the “made up stuff”-folder for the time being.
Terrible title. “Switch 2 supports ray tracing and will use upscaling” is the summary. Which is obvious, it won’t be anywhere near consoles, it’s like 1/7th resolution.
That’s not what the article says, the values in the patent are an example. It’s not out of realm of possibility to have something that can match at least the Series S when docked while still supporting a portable mode.
Sure, it is a garbage patent anyway, the Steam Deck does upscaling when docked too, woohoo.
This hardware isn’t a mystery, it’s a newer mobile ARM SoC using a newer Nvidia architecture supporting RT and DLSS. It will run at a low resolution. Probably max of 1080p, probably plenty of 720p on more demanding games. All upscaled.
And to be clear that’s fine, it is what a Switch 2 was always going to be.
Andrew Wilson and my personal definition of ‘very exciting’ likely differ greatly, so I’m not going to pay attention to anything until we see the products. I suspect he is very excited to make a lot of money on a bunch of new Star Wars games.
Does he? By now his brain may be addled enough for him to believe that. The guy's been Todd Howard for decades now and that's really got to wear on a person's mind.
Considering Microsoft forcing a year QA on them with the full MS QA team… yea I imagine the partnership and exclusivity did indeed yield a much less buggy and thus better product.
videogameschronicle.com
Najnowsze