I mean, we never got GTA5 on the switch, even the last last gen versions. Probably cause they couldn't milk GTAO with it, but still
I wouldn't be especially surprised if the lack of a GTAV port is an install size thing. I wonder how much it could be cut down.
Can anyone explain how the Switch's CPU with 12 GB of RAM but lower bandwidth will fare against the Series S's CPU with 10GB of RAM but higher bandwidth? What does it matter having more RAM if the bandwidth is lower, and does this mean a significant decrease in complexity or an even lower chance of raytracing being present in games?
That would be something.
I want Pilotwings taking full advantage of DLSS.
Size defines how much data you can store in memory.
Bandwidth defines how much data (and in what ways) you can process when rendering a frame.
Bigger size means that you can store more data but if you have less bandwidth then you won't be able to process as much of it when rendering a frame.
More memory means more detailed and diverse assets (textures, models) while more bandwidth means higher rendering resolutions and more complex shading.
RT could be negatively affected by lower bandwidth for sure but since we're talking about two completely different RT h/w implementations a comparison through b/w alone would be pointless.
RT could also be positively affected by bigger RAM size though as it adds its own assets into memory (BVH/boxes geometry structures mostly).
Thank you! So it's possible we see similar or better model/draw distance details as opposed to Series S but worse image quality in general (not accounting for DLSS) while RT is up in the air
I have well over 100 games on Switch and I don't think a single one is over 25GB. Most of them are under 16GB. The majority of software that's gonna be sold on this console is likely Nintendo games, and indie stuff. I imagine most of the third party games will also be reasonably sized.
need to factor in 4k textures that are usually added to majority of the larger games file sizes, whereas for the successor the Switch 2 will likely use DLSS upscaled from 720p/1080p instead.
She's talking about non Switch games. Most major games these days are 100GB+
Loving the implied "the Nintendo fans must be new here" sentiment regarding game file size by the way.
I'd even go so far to say I would like to see these multiple games listed by file size on your (presumably upgraded after the fact) SSDs.
Storage is like cables or conduit, it's the item the store can charge a bomb for and get away with it because they know customers will always be in buying them alongside the big ticket items.
I'd even go so far to say I would like to see these multiple games listed by file size on your (presumably upgraded after the fact) SSDs.
Storage is like cables or conduit, it's the item the store can charge a bomb for and get away with it because they know customers will always be in buying them alongside the big ticket items.
Like what? I have a ton of non Switch games that aren't 100GB on my PS5, Xbox, and PC.
I am trying to understand how 256GB automatically means I will have 2 games at launch
You guys are making it sound like every game that comes out is 100GB. Major games aren't common games.
This is not how DLSS works, it only reconstructs resolution, not textures. A 4K DLSS output still needs "4K textures" to look its best.
19 October 2022 → A senior design verification engineer working at Nvidia mentioned one of his responsibilities is system verification of FDE (File Decompression Engine) [for games], which involves developing and running C based tests on the host processor at the SoC level.
23 March 2022 → Github: Commit with the comment "Enable File Decompression Engine (FDE) driver as module" for a Tegra SoC.
8 June 2021 → GitHub: When comparing T239's drivers register file with T234's drivers register file, Nvidia's JPEG decoder/encoder (nvJPG) and the Deep Learning Accelerators (NVDLA) are removed from T239. But T239 seems to share the same OFA drivers as T234. And when comparing T239's header file with T234's header file, T239 features a File Decompression Engine (FDE), whereas T234 doesn't
Source with links, thanks to Dakhil
In all honesty, nobody should be expecting many multi-platform AAA games to be hitting 4K on Switch 2, even with DLSS.
Third parties will likely target 360p/540p native, upscaled to 1080p/1440p(possibly lower).
The only games that'll likely be considering 4k textures will be some Switch 2 exclusives/some indie titles.
That interview with Takahashi pitching Xenoblade to Nintendo and preparing a set of cuts because they've been through this with their previous partners and Nintendo being like
Even without the impact Monolith had on Zelda and Ncl internal culture I feel like Monolith acquisition may have been one that had some of the very best outcome.
While I don't expect it, if they produce another Xenoblade 2 level disaster in handheld mode, DLSS will not be able to do much. That base resolution was so low DLSS wouldn't have nearly enough to work with.
Wave Trace
Also, this is all sounding good to me and better than I was expecting.
Draw distance is mostly hitting CPU+GPU performance, it doesn't generally require more memory size.
As for worse IQ this remains to be seen but if the console will target 1280x720 in portable then that's something which Series S doesn't do and this alone should lower b/w requirements.
It's also completely unknown how efficient the SoC will be in dealing with the available b/w.
DLSS doesn't upscale textures, only final screen resolution. If you want your textures in your final image looking sharp then you still need those full resolution textures in the game files and loaded into memory.
You can, of course, still use lower res textures if you want (and there will definitely be games that will) but DLSS will do nothing to improve how those textures look on screen.
Only for the most cutting-edge games that force the Series S to drop to 540p as well - not every game is going to be like that. There will probably also be plenty of older games ported to Switch 2 that can absolutely target 4K and would benefit from better textures.
How low was Xenoblade 2? Because DLSS performance mode can make 540p look like respectable 1080p. On an 8-inch screen the flaws'll be even less apparent.
Probably a mix of both depending on the game. I fully expect Nintendo to sell a 20+$ update for both newer Zeldas and also a full priced physical release. Any "new to switch" first party title really. A new smash bros that's just ultimate plus all of its dlc for 70$ , etc. Third party stuff though ? Maybe just free patches. Expect the worst (paid updates or new versions) and hope for better (free or low priced updates).
Even at 360p (lowest resolution on Xenoblade) DLSS can do wonders
View: https://youtu.be/k0oDqjNT5a8?si=GuvXxsV1B-40nAkT
Portable? Could go as low as 360p, but usually in the 480p+ range. A lot of Xeno 2 issues are performance and new machine R&D related rather than raw performance. It's why Xeno 3 improves so much over 2.
Early on, Xenoblade 2 was hitting sub 360p at one point. Not sure if that is happening after some patches anymore.
Monolith already drastically improved their rendering by using a temporal upsampler in Xenoblade 3.
Will we see 360p on Switch 2? Maybe by a badly optimized port, but I would not expect it from a first party Switch 2 title.
DLSS has changed a lot since this video came out, but maybe this might provide a clue as to what extreme scenarios might look like. Maybe it would be better to watch this video on a portable device to get a sense of what the image quality might look like on an 8-inch screen.
View: https://youtu.be/_gQ202CFKzA
360p to 1080p would be DLSS ultra performance mode, but I have no idea what DLSS can make out of a base pixel count that low. UP mode was designed for the relative handful of people who might hook up a high-end GPU to one of those 100-inch 8K TVs, where it would upscale an image from 1440p to 8K.
You have to remember about XB2
1. It released only 2 years after XCX, so likely had a fairly small dev cycle
2. IIRC Monolithsoft at the time only had like 150 employees total
2. A large number of Monolithsoft was helping with BOTW, so they likely had to make extensive use of contractors
That was Monolithsoft with one hand tied behind their back. XB3 is more representative of what they're capable of, so I doubt we'll see anything as bad (technically) as XB2 again
I wonder if they could get FFVII: Rebirth running on this thing, even if at 30fps. Remake is a given, but Rebirth seems it would be more demanding,
What I'm wondering as well. Im sure it can handle the game in terms of character models, textures ect but the regions are so large with extreme levels of geometry and basically no loading I feel like handheld mode trying to handle that would explode (obviously not).
Another thing, let's say they do have games natively run at 360-540p and DLSS up to 1080p, while that would probably look ok on handheld mode, it definitely wouldn't look good docked. So how would they go about handling that? Two entirely different profiles per game with different internal rendering resolutions?
Well, this is how it works on the current switch, so yes with high probability.
The same way they did for every single Switch title ever released? Use the higher clocks in docked mode to target a higher rendering and output resolution.
Gotcha, I never used docked mode when I had one. I just assumed it was whatever the base resolution the game was in handheld mode and upscaled to 1080p.
Thanks for the answers guys.
Dang I'm so looking forward to what Monolith has cookin' for Switch 2.
