Kevin
Chain Chomp
At this rate I'll take ANY gaming related news. Shit has been dry for MONTHS. Damn near nothing interesting happening anywhere. Boring ass months for gaming and entertainment in general.
-
Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
StarTopic Future Nintendo Hardware & Technology Speculation & Discussion |ST| (Read the staff posts before commenting!)
- Thread starter Dakhil
- Start date
At this rate I'll take ANY gaming related news. Shit has been dry for MONTHS. Damn near nothing interesting happening anywhere. Boring ass months for gaming and entertainment in general.
Aether
Tingle
By the way: im not that hang up on it having more then 720, 720 is FINE. it could be bettere, i would wish for more, but its FINE.
Im just anoyed by the arguing that there woud be NO benefit, which is cathegorically wrong. (If there are situations and people, where a higehr resolution would increase the IQ, then there cant be NO benefits, because at least 1 situation exists where there is a benefit)
January: Pokemon,
March: Kirby, Triangle Strategy,
April: Switch Sports
June: Mario Strikers, FE Warriors
Luly: Xenoblade Cronicles 3, Live a Live
August seems a bit dry
September: Splatoon 3
Mind you, they moved Advance Wars because... you know. And thats only the exclusives as far as i know, there where a lot of other games.
If there is nothing for you, that IS bad, i know that feel from the jast 2 years, but its not like there are no games or anouncements, and i owuld not expect much more till fall. We could get dates for Bayo, Mario + Rabids, and something new.
Im just anoyed by the arguing that there woud be NO benefit, which is cathegorically wrong. (If there are situations and people, where a higehr resolution would increase the IQ, then there cant be NO benefits, because at least 1 situation exists where there is a benefit)
We had months with tons of releases.
January: Pokemon,
March: Kirby, Triangle Strategy,
April: Switch Sports
June: Mario Strikers, FE Warriors
Luly: Xenoblade Cronicles 3, Live a Live
August seems a bit dry
September: Splatoon 3
Mind you, they moved Advance Wars because... you know. And thats only the exclusives as far as i know, there where a lot of other games.
If there is nothing for you, that IS bad, i know that feel from the jast 2 years, but its not like there are no games or anouncements, and i owuld not expect much more till fall. We could get dates for Bayo, Mario + Rabids, and something new.
Kevin
Chain Chomp
I was talking about just gaming news in general. Not just Nintendo. Nintendo's lineup is fairly stacked. Microsoft and Sony has nearly nothing left announced for the entire year so far with the exception of Starfield. Daily news stories and just interesting things happening in gaming has come almost to a complete stop as of late. It's just been a really boring batch of months. Hoping news picks up soon though.
Personally I feel like a 1080p would be the sweet spot for visual/image quality. I can easily see the jaggies/pixels on all Switch games. Of course the lack of anti aliasing on these games doesn't help matters either. That being said it's unlikely the Switch Pro or whatever will use a 1080p display due to power/battery requirements but ultimately I think a 1080p display would be a fairly noticeable upgrade to the user.
I imagine Nintendo will stick with a 720p display for their next hardware though I imagine at some point down the road we will get a 1080p in a future handheld.
Last edited:
Aether
Tingle
Oh, there was enough to see next to Elden Ring and aquisitions and random developer comment stuff... but youre right , pure game anouncements and trailers, not so much.
Kenka
Like Like
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Thank you.
- Pronouns
- he / him
I think you take his statement too literally. Already developers can choose to render their portable Switch games at 720p or 540p or any other thing with a variety of image settings. Doesn't mean many of them give the player a choice in the matter.
I know some think games are more immersive the less UI there is, but I want to be able to see a lot of text.
D
Deleted member 887
Guest
I literally can't see the pixel differences at a comfortable viewing distance, so I would never see a benefit
But I recognize that there is a large minority of players who can. Again, if the pixel density is above you visual acuity, these upgrades are invisible. If AA would make the flicker go away, then the flicker isn't caused by the pixel grid of the hardware. If the native rendering resolution of the game is 720p, and you integer scale it to 1440p, nothing changes.
I am sorry, that was not my intention. I wasn't arguing with you, I was commenting. The "phones do it, why doesn't the Switch" argument comes up a lot for the screens, so I was just rapidly summarizing what has come up in the thread before.
Right now games are built with two performance profiles, that are tied to screen resolution. You're suggesting adding a third (1080p, handheld). Games would need to be updated to take advantage of this third profile. That is all I'm saying.
You are correct.
I don't think it would be very costly to ignore it, certainly
There are other downsides you're not mentioning.
720p doesn't integer scale to 1080p for example. Hilariously, games which max out handheld resolution now would look slightly worse on a 1080p screen. If you can see the pixels on the current screen you will definitely see the upscaling jaggies on a 1080p screen
Plenty of games currently struggle to hit 720p now in handheld, often at 30fps. Given better hardware, Saber Interactive aren't going to bring 540p Witcher 3 up to 1080p handheld, they're going to get to 720p handheld, and if there is power left over they're going to spend it getting frame rate up.
And when they do bring the game up to 720p, it can look crisp and clean on a 720p screen, or it can have upscaling artifacts on a 1080p screen.
In the current market, the 720p OLED is also more expensive. I think in the near future that will change, as the phone market drives the 720p screen into a niche product, but for now, you're paying more for that screen.
So d) your best performing legacy games now look slightly worse, and e) it drives up the cost of the device
VNs probably would benefit, yeah, as you're more comfortable bringing static images closer to your face. But again, if you're me, and you don't see the pixel gutters, no amount of resolution improvement will ever cause visual improvement.
I would much rather Switch games make changing the text size for handheld mode standard behavior, right now games default to rendering identically in both cases, and it's terrible, but that's a digression
Text on phones, like on a webpage, are rendered by the OS font rendering engine, and scale to any resolution infinitely, without applications having to be patched.
In games, text is either static images or rendered to an offscreen buffer then blitted to the screen. The automatic improvements to clarity as the resolution of the screen goes up don't apply to games. In those cases the switch won't benefit
More and more games are rendering UI elements at higher resolution than the game proper which can ameliorate this, but games need to actually do it. I don't have a problem with 720p text elements, I have a problem with tiny text at any resolution, or text rendered at 360p because the game engine is struggling. But I admit to being 40 years old. In these cases, as you said, the Switch would benefit. I'm not arguing that (as I clearly said in my previous message)
You're correct, a 1080p screen would be a legitimate upgrade for players with good eyesight, or who play text heavy games, or who just play relatively close to their face, but only if games support it. Unlike phones, these benefits would not come to legacy games.
Which is my primary point. Phones aren't consoles. You will not see these benefits unless games are patched to run at higher resolutions in handheld mode, and phone use cases drive them to provide higher resolution screens, while on Switch the use case is only for a subset of users capable of seeing the difference, for the subset of games capable of rendering at that higher resolution, and only the subset of those that have budget to support adding Drake specific features.
Look over there
Bob-omb
You'd be surprised by the price difference between eMMC and UFS 3.0.
https://www.techinsights.com/blog/google-pixel-3-xl-teardown - end of 2018, ~$7 for 64 GB eMMC from Micron. Also, while I'm looking at it, ~$22 for... I assume a single 4 GB LPDDR4X module from Micron
https://www.techinsights.com/blog/samsung-galaxy-s20-teardown-analysis - early 2019, ~$24 for 256 GB eUFS 3.0 from Samsung. Also, ~$44 for... what looks like a single 12 GB LPDDR5 module from Samsung
https://www.techinsights.com/blog/xiaomi-mi-10-teardown-analysis - also early 2019, ~$29 for 256 GB eUFS 3.0 from Western Digital. Also, ~$44 for presumably a single 12 GB LPDDR5 module from Samsung
Price won't be the deal breaker on internal storage. (but again, 3.0's largely phased out by now)
...does the Steam Deck differ in other ways besides storage for the different tiers? Or are the price differences entirely a combo of storage upgrade & Valve pocketing bigger margins?
I agree that the bolded is the deciding factor.
Whether removable storage of higher speeds (at acceptable power draw) even exist by the end of the year or even next year... ehhh, it's up to the UFS Association, really. UFS Card 3.0 standard was published in December 2020. So the questions are, can manufacturers start getting them out relatively soon, and how badly does the UFSA want these cards to become a Thing?
Terrell did observe a while ago that given UFS Card 1.0's been out of stock, Samsung may have started shifting production over. I wouldn't say it's guaranteed, but it's a scenario to keep a look out for.
That said, yea, if we end up staying with eMMC + microSD, I wouldn't be surprised either.
Aether
Tingle
A chunky response =O
Smash? with so much small stuff going on, closer. Kirby? further away. Pokemon Legends?
close, with how many small stuff was far away and could be overlooked.
I ma nearsighted, and have good eyesight there, but have 1.5 in the far.
Oh for shure, AA would remove it... but more pixels would remove the need for AA.
We both know what the point of AA is, and that with infinite (or say above visual acuity) resolution there would be no need for AA.
I probably would have less of a gripe with the resolution if nintendo would use AA more, but as it stands it neither uses AA nor is the resolution high enough that AA is not needed. The flicker i descirbe comes from the shift by single pixels. Say a "powerline infront of a white cloud", black on white, if would be a step lader without AA, and in worst cases youre right on the edge. the best i can compare the visual effect for me is Z-fighting.
Its rare, i have to admit. (And the worst example is a bad case for me, because it was sub native render resolution, so...^^")
My intend was never to say "the benefit would be the same and we need as high a resolution as phones. Especially since they have higher resolutions on smaller screens. My goal would probably be the classic "300ppi is enough" scope, since then its "retina" for about 2 feet for static images (print). I dont see the point in more, and thats the upper limit i would like to move. Im actually mostly fine with switch, my pasion here comes mainly from the size increase to the OLED. Thats around 209ppi, and that does feel kinda grainy compared to my other screens (notebook and monitor 166ppi but further away, phone i think 4-500ppi).
Its nitpicking, im aware. But for me the OLED, without HDR, was not a pure Upgrade in terms of display because of that.
actually... wont they already need to support 4 in some cases? Old Switch twice and new switch twice?
(asuming backwards compatibility for most games for a while)... in that case the old profiles could be the "low power" ones.
But we also see it with resolutions >1080, where non native is way less of a problem for the perception compared to <1080 (if youre not watching on a huge screen). even on the 7" screen 1080 would be >300ppi, more then we can resolve.
But yeah, valid point that scaling would be less clear, ... but then again, with so many games using dynamic resolution, this kinda is a mute point, and all hinges on how the majority of games uses the new found power.
The question of developers are going to go back for updates, thats another one... and yeah, that i think wont happen for many games.
Then again, those screens where probably used more for Cars and IoT devices (fridges, etc), so who even knows how long they will be available.
And i would argue, if they dont get an update, then the 1080p screen would work as rudementary AA to some of those games (again, some would like it, some not). But yeah, nor im just contrarian, that is a point (except, maybe nvidia is working with nintendo on an AI upscaler specifically for older games =P )
Also, just played a round smash, and one thing i realized: the images in the charactere select screen are obviously just down scaled without filtering, so it really looks noizy on the "low resolution"... some would call it sharp. Just one case where a higher resolution owuld help (mind you, i know that just a higher res screen would not help if the game is still rendered in 720)
Or do you mean they render them higher and downsample them?
I was rambling a lot know, sorry for that.
TLDR:
im with you, that phones are not consoles, higher resolutions are more relevant there.
Im aware that its nitpicky and the resolution of the switch is fine.
In the long run i would wish for a bump, the next iteration not geting it wont be the end.
What im against is the narative that better resolution would not benefit the switch at all,
or that the drawback in power would be so huge that it would never make sense.
There are games and scenarios where it would benefit, some of them can be solved differently
(like for developers to start designing their UI not only with docked in mind...),
some of them cant (beautiful full resolution artwork, detailed rather static scenes).
Bonus: labo would work reasonably well with 1080, 720 is to little for Labo 2 =P (now im joking, i stoped beliving in a VR headset from nintendo)
For me, how close i have it depends mostly on the screen. Links Awakening, animal crossing? further away.I literally can't see the pixel differences at a comfortable viewing distance, so I would never see a benefit
Smash? with so much small stuff going on, closer. Kirby? further away. Pokemon Legends?
close, with how many small stuff was far away and could be overlooked.
I ma nearsighted, and have good eyesight there, but have 1.5 in the far.
Yeah, if its above visual acuity, then there would be no improvement.
Oh for shure, AA would remove it... but more pixels would remove the need for AA.
We both know what the point of AA is, and that with infinite (or say above visual acuity) resolution there would be no need for AA.
I probably would have less of a gripe with the resolution if nintendo would use AA more, but as it stands it neither uses AA nor is the resolution high enough that AA is not needed. The flicker i descirbe comes from the shift by single pixels. Say a "powerline infront of a white cloud", black on white, if would be a step lader without AA, and in worst cases youre right on the edge. the best i can compare the visual effect for me is Z-fighting.
Its rare, i have to admit. (And the worst example is a bad case for me, because it was sub native render resolution, so...^^")
It was more from a battery vs resolution perspective, and a "you cant see more details". You can, phones definitely need it way more then the switch, but there is a benefit of higher resolution, and the pure display power drain seems to be minimal when they opt for ultra resolutions (5-600ppi) instead of saving power.
My intend was never to say "the benefit would be the same and we need as high a resolution as phones. Especially since they have higher resolutions on smaller screens. My goal would probably be the classic "300ppi is enough" scope, since then its "retina" for about 2 feet for static images (print). I dont see the point in more, and thats the upper limit i would like to move. Im actually mostly fine with switch, my pasion here comes mainly from the size increase to the OLED. Thats around 209ppi, and that does feel kinda grainy compared to my other screens (notebook and monitor 166ppi but further away, phone i think 4-500ppi).
Its nitpicking, im aware. But for me the OLED, without HDR, was not a pure Upgrade in terms of display because of that.
There are more profiles, but yeah, they only decide for 2, and for full support they would need to implement a third. How hard that would be cant be sad without the concrete hardware, and i also mentioned, old ones or developer that dont want to support all, could decide for only one . But that opens the next can of worms, if they decide for 720 and its the lower one they decide, then people will riot again
actually... wont they already need to support 4 in some cases? Old Switch twice and new switch twice?
(asuming backwards compatibility for most games for a while)... in that case the old profiles could be the "low power" ones.
oh good
well...true thatI don't think it would be very costly to ignore it, certainly
oh, for shure. i still think that the jump from 720 to 1080 would be so high, that the quality of the scale would be visually pleasing, since it would fell like a soft AA kinda... if you get what i mean. I would need to test it, and it would be rather subjective. Maybe im off here.
But we also see it with resolutions >1080, where non native is way less of a problem for the perception compared to <1080 (if youre not watching on a huge screen). even on the 7" screen 1080 would be >300ppi, more then we can resolve.
But yeah, valid point that scaling would be less clear, ... but then again, with so many games using dynamic resolution, this kinda is a mute point, and all hinges on how the majority of games uses the new found power.
If with the increase we know is coming they cant push to 1080, then there is a clear problem somewhere, maybe in some optimizations specifically made for the base switch. Witcher 3 is 1080 on PS4 with higher resolution effects and textures. That should be posible.
The question of developers are going to go back for updates, thats another one... and yeah, that i think wont happen for many games.
are we shure that 720 is not already on the out? i dont see many new tablets with 720p oled screens, and for phones that screen is to big.
Then again, those screens where probably used more for Cars and IoT devices (fridges, etc), so who even knows how long they will be available.
And i would argue, if they dont get an update, then the 1080p screen would work as rudementary AA to some of those games (again, some would like it, some not). But yeah, nor im just contrarian, that is a point (except, maybe nvidia is working with nintendo on an AI upscaler specifically for older games =P )
100% with you on the texture size front. I have a lot of opinions to screen resolution, but as i mentioned, its the least of my worries with this new iteration (the most is, i want HDR, and nintendo to not cheap out on BotW2 and give it sizable visual improvements to the Original that is not just the resolution)
shure (was confused for a moment, but yeah, its only on desktop that browsers use their own text rendering engines)
wait, no. Static images, yeah, but rendered text does get rendered to the needed resolution, what do you mean? That it is first rendered to a buffer does not change that.
Also, just played a round smash, and one thing i realized: the images in the charactere select screen are obviously just down scaled without filtering, so it really looks noizy on the "low resolution"... some would call it sharp. Just one case where a higher resolution owuld help (mind you, i know that just a higher res screen would not help if the game is still rendered in 720)
I kinda asumed that rendering the UI native while the gameplay is dynamic was standard by now. At least most games i see do that.
Or do you mean they render them higher and downsample them?
I was rambling a lot know, sorry for that.
TLDR:
im with you, that phones are not consoles, higher resolutions are more relevant there.
Im aware that its nitpicky and the resolution of the switch is fine.
In the long run i would wish for a bump, the next iteration not geting it wont be the end.
What im against is the narative that better resolution would not benefit the switch at all,
or that the drawback in power would be so huge that it would never make sense.
There are games and scenarios where it would benefit, some of them can be solved differently
(like for developers to start designing their UI not only with docked in mind...),
some of them cant (beautiful full resolution artwork, detailed rather static scenes).
Bonus: labo would work reasonably well with 1080, 720 is to little for Labo 2 =P (now im joking, i stoped beliving in a VR headset from nintendo)
ShaunSwitch
Moblin
It's the external storage for the switch that I am really hung up on.
On one hand, if a device is going to push a new storage format for mobile its going to be the switch. Mobile doesn't really need super fast storage for storing photos and video (largest use case of external storage on mobiles by a mile.) So there is no need from the mobile industry to push it, especially with the big players moving away from it altogether. For this reason, yeah sure I can see UFS Card 3 launching with the new switch as the option of choice.
On the other hand, could an NVME fit in a switch? It's already widely adopted in both console and pc now thanks to the PS5. I guess that depends on power draw, which in idle, is actually not bad at all for most drives and with such rapid read speeds the higher draw when loading data will be offset by its read speed.
Or they could stick to microsd and will gain a significant speed boost anyway just owing to CPU improvements. Current switch does not make the most of available microsd read speeds as evidenced by load time tests on various storage formats.
Im actually hoping for NVME, seems best bang for buck and the back plate leak possibly hinting at a storage door may make this a bit more plausible, but we will see.
Look over there
Bob-omb
I'm not exactly high on NVMe for 15w and under devices. It's designed for top speed instead of power efficiency, as opposed to UFS.
I don't necessarily agree with Race-to-sleep as a strategy for reading from storage, at least from solely looking at power consumption. I think that the energy expenditure when actively reading should be interpreted through normalizing speed per watt, and by that metric, the average NVMe drive is clearly deficient compared to eUFS. The average NVMe drive doesn't even necessarily beat the latest eMMC's normalized speed/watt. And for that matter, IIRC, NVMe's idle power draw is higher than eMMC (usually under a milliwatt, maybe two mW at max operating temp) or (I assume) UFS. I think that NVMe drives' idle power draw are either in the single digit mW or double digit mW range, depending on the particular power state (which in turn affects latency on entry/wakeup)?
Edit: or apparently even triple digit mW (and up) without the advanced power saving features enabled
I don't necessarily agree with Race-to-sleep as a strategy for reading from storage, at least from solely looking at power consumption. I think that the energy expenditure when actively reading should be interpreted through normalizing speed per watt, and by that metric, the average NVMe drive is clearly deficient compared to eUFS. The average NVMe drive doesn't even necessarily beat the latest eMMC's normalized speed/watt. And for that matter, IIRC, NVMe's idle power draw is higher than eMMC (usually under a milliwatt, maybe two mW at max operating temp) or (I assume) UFS. I think that NVMe drives' idle power draw are either in the single digit mW or double digit mW range, depending on the particular power state (which in turn affects latency on entry/wakeup)?
Edit: or apparently even triple digit mW (and up) without the advanced power saving features enabled
D
Deleted member 887
Guest
Sorry, the word "resolution" is overloaded in this discussion.
Improved rendering resolution would reduce the need for AA, yes.
Improved screen resolution without rendering resolution improvements would be a mixed bag.
If the native resolution of the game integer scales to the native resolution of the hardware, you would still have your aliasing jaggy, exactly the same, rendered in crystal clear 1080p
. If the game doesn't integer scale, then depending on how the device chooses to upscale to native, you will get an AA like effect at the expense of IQ. I see how you could prefer that for existing, aliased Nintendo games, but in the context of the device, we're assuming that something like DLSS is applying, which is going to get you an AA effect anyway. But I see where you are going
A thing that comes up in these discussions a lot is that it's easy to talk past each other about whether we're talking legacy games or not, or what sort of support would be required.
Legacy games without patches are going to see "undocked" and target 720p as their max. If you throw more power at them under the hood, the most likely result is that they consistently hit that 720p target, without any additional changes. A new mode which says "try to get 1080p out of handheld, but be prepared for a forced downshift if the user hits a button." Again, I don't think this is a HUGE change for games produced in a post-drake world, but it's not free like it is on phones, and as such, you're giving users a button that rarely does anything.
My expectation is that games which use dynamic resolution are still defaulting to maxing out at 720p in handheld mode. So you hand them a crapton more CPU and GPU power, they're not going to get about 720p without a patch. Which comes back to the IQ issue - if you suddenly throw a lot of power at legacy switch games, allowing games to consistently max out their 720p target res, then put then on a screen that doesn't perfectly scale up that 720p image, you've manage to steal defeat from the jaws of victory.
But if you're mostly talking about post-Drake games, then you can imagine nintendo making this easy on devs
I would totally expect Drake to match the PS4... while docked. We don't know how Nintendo expects to clock the GPU/CPU in handheld mode. I think - and this is pure speculation on my part - that high end games are going to stay in the 720p target zone in handheld and instead try to reach feature parity, cutting fewer and fewer features on Switch.
Absolutely. If Nintendo were sticking with LCDs then I think it would be cheaper to source a 1080p screen. In the very short term, OLED screens will continue to be pricier per pixel, and support some bespoke sizes, medium term I would expect the same for things like HDR and VRR displays.
Third party games which do use AA would suffer I think, but yes, I think Nintendo first party games might subjectively improve. Softness bothers me a lot more than jaggies, but I get that is personal preference (and likely age related)
Yeah, this is another "I should have distinguished between screen resolution and rendering resolution" - again, phones (or even desktops) can separate font rendering from the application, so no update is needed to scale infinitely to the hardware resolution. Since games treat text as a bitmapped texture as part of the final rendering pass (which is what you're seeing in Smash) improving the screen resolution will require a patch. Which you knew! Just talking past each other.
I will say this is a case where jaggies are generally preferred. If a game is rendering text at a res designed to look sharp on 720p screen it might get less legible when softened and upscaled - many font engines actually render fonts incorrectly at small sizes intentionally to avoid this very problem.
It's pretty common now, certainly. Again, I'm looking at the Switch's legacy library, not referring to new games. This is a case where I think some folk want a 1080p screen to improve problems their having now (I'm looking at you, tiny text in Triangle Strategy), and some are speculating about future improvements (that's clearly you).
More CPU/GPU power will benefit lots of games, as any overclocker can tell you, but the screen isn't the same. Which you know! I'm not trying to lecture you
I think if a True Successor is coming, a 3DSwitch or Game Switch Advance, in the 3+ years from now range, a 1080p screen should be a given. There are enough wins, enough market forces, and enough new games in that instance that if it doesn't have one, I will be surprised and kinda ticked off (especially if they manage to make the screen any larger).
While you (understandably!) prefer the AA effect caused by upscaling, I think the IQ questions on legacy titles might be enough to make a 1080p screen a net loss, even if battery life and cost is the same.
I also suspect that 3rd parties don't want it - "maxes out the Switches resolution and frame rate at 720p/60fps" is going to sound way way better in a review than "the 720p resolution falls below what the Switch's gorgeous 1080p screen can do" for exactly the same software. Devs know the 1080p bump at <7 inches, especially for high intensity titles, is a big lift for a small win, even if they get hammered by fans.
I feel where you are coming from. I'm against this second narrative that "anything less than 1080p is a failure." Especially when I talk to folks who can't see the pixels, they're just seeing aliasing artifacts in games that struggle to hit the existing 720p target.
Please, developers, please please please.
I appreciate this smart, detailed, nuanced discussion. Thank you!
ShaunSwitch
Moblin
What would be really good is if someone put out some analysis of steam deck battery life playing from micro sd vs playing from NVME. Seen lots of tests of load times but none for battery life.
I mostly like NVME due to cost. At higher capacities its cheaper than SD cards now. In terms of practical speed, if steam deck is anything to go by, there's not thay much difference between NVME and microsd due to CPU limitations.
Look over there
Bob-omb
Cost is a fair consideration.
For the Steam Deck, I'm not sure if it's CPU limitations or custom active power states that are set to really low levels? Which kinda defeats the main (practical) advantage of NVMe.
For the Steam Deck, I'm not sure if it's CPU limitations or custom active power states that are set to really low levels? Which kinda defeats the main (practical) advantage of NVMe.
Koren Lesthe
Turrican, Terranigma and ESO lover
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Thanks to everyone who answered / quoted me (can't find everyone but thanks to all of you)
Things are a bit clearer now.
Things are a bit clearer now.
Aether
Tingle
Nothing to add, got my point and elaborated greatly.Sorry, the word "resolution" is overloaded in this discussion.
Improved rendering resolution would reduce the need for AA, yes.
Improved screen resolution without rendering resolution improvements would be a mixed bag.
If the native resolution of the game integer scales to the native resolution of the hardware, you would still have your aliasing jaggy, exactly the same, rendered in crystal clear 1080p
I see how you could prefer that for existing, aliased Nintendo games, but in the context of the device, we're assuming that something like DLSS is applying, which is going to get you an AA effect anyway. But I see where you are going
i mean, there still is the chance that the console could run them in docked mode. (which would be its own can of worms, because there are games that work differently between docked and portable, portable only games, or something like pokemon Lets go that only allows single joycon controlls...)
And while i think that many of those solutions would not be a huge problem, they would not be free (in without at least some developer input), so...yeah.
True that, but even then, point 1 with scaling could help, but then we get to power consumption. It would still look better on an 1080p screen with 720 then on an 720p screen with 500px i asume.
n a pure power or overall performance level? With a much mor advanced architecture (and especially the Tensor Cores) i could see it reaching base ps4 in portable mode, but then again, im not to read up in that regard.
I mean going by online outlets oleds are dead and have been replaced by micro led since 2020... i see how the 720 OLEd screens will stay at least for the first iteration of this console. A mixup between this iteration and the next on the other hand would be a bad point to a cheaper higher resolution screen, so i asume they will decide depending on how long samsung will be able to provide.
I personally am split, with some games and artstyles softer is better, with others im "give me the crispiest images possible".
(Which makes the 2 profiles solution the best for me, softer image and more battery for some, and if i want the crispiness then i go full power =P)
Oh, not i get what you mean. Yeah, it would not automatically render it higher, there would be a need for a patch. I have to admit, feels like i was not clear here in the first place, mea culpa.
Yeah, a friend showed me a project he tried to contribute, where somebody tried to write a different font renderer cause the default one was not pleasant enough for math applications (in edge cases), font design and font rendering are such nerdy (but also kinda fascinating) areas, since they are everywhere, used by everyone, but nobody is aware how specific and granular some od the decisions are.
Yeah, while i want the platform to be backwards compatible, i see it as DS->3DS, you either play it upscaled and somewhat soft, or smaller but in original resolution. This would definitely not work with switch games (some games would become unplayable on a smaller size), but the priority was the new games, not the old ones, and i feel that for evergreens and many indies, patches would be made, and for the others... well, they would still look okay, maybe some would look worse on the new switch, but that would be something i would accept for newer games profiting. I get, that not everybody sees it this way.
Here im not quite on the same page. I think this is less a switcxh pro/new switch, and also not a Switch Advance (in -> its a "new platform"), i think it will be more like new iteration on phones, a seamless move, with some software just not supporting the old because its to weak.
Maybe im off with that, but it influences my view on all of this. If we are really talking about a switch pro, thats essentially just here to support higher rendering resolutions (which would be a dissapointment), then for shure they should stay at 720p as the screen resolution.
Yeah, thats for shure true, the benefits (for now) are probably not big enough that it will lead them to that decision.
All depends on how the long term screen suply would look, and if they plan to keep this itteration for another 6 years.
Ah yeah. SMT5 has a lot of them, but its also really soft at the same time, since its non native...
Have a friend (ironically indie phone game dev) that was suprised that switch will be 720 when it was anounced....
and online (old old place) people where like "720? thats like a cheap tablet!"... but it was the best decision they could have made back then.
While its not as b/w anymore, 720 is still a valid option depending on preferences and assumptions.
(Just dont make it even bigger with the same resolution, i dont want it to fall below 200ppi...
i never liked the XL variants of their handheld because of the blicky pixels...)
Same =)
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I do think that a pattern of 1080p UI and 720p everything else wouldn't be awful. Some games like Three Houses had me inches away from the screen at times.
But generally screen resolution over 720p is at the very bottom of my wish list.
Serif
𝕽𝖊𝖓𝖊𝖌𝖆𝖉𝖊 𝕬𝖓𝖌𝖊𝖑
Many text heavy games on 3DS were more legible on its 240p screen than some text heavy games on Switch because developers optimized their UI for the handheld screen. More games should have larger UI options for accessibility reasons anyway, regardless of resolution. I booted up Quake on Switch and I adore its gigantic chunky sans serif alternate typeface.
it's not impossible to be made. it's not a standard resolution so it might cost more though
OP
OP
Just to be clear, I never said that having VRR support in handheld mode and TV mode is the only scenario where a ≥1080p display makes sense. I simply said that's one scenario where a ≥1080p display makes sense.
A 900p display could make sense if Nintendo's willing to pay more money to have a display manufacturer (e.g. Samsung) design custom 900p displays since I don't think there's any company using a 900p display.
Kevin
Chain Chomp
I wasn't arguing with you at all. If anything I agree with you. I was just joining the discussion about 720p vs 1080p for the next Switch. That's all.
Cuzizkool
Shriekbat
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Ah. And given Nintendo‘s penchant for Day 1 profit on hardware, this is unlikely. I’m fine with 720p, but there are a few games where I hold it a bit closer and can see some pixels.
mariodk18
Install Base Forum Namer
For the whole 720 looking bad on a 1080 screen, Nintendo can just implement the display the same way they did DS games on 3DS. Hold a button during start up (or maybe make it an option in the menu) and the game displays in a pixel perfect, windowed mode. Sure, DS games looked smaller on 3DS (and especially XL), but it made games significantly less pixelated and jaggy.
RennanNT
Bob-omb
I believe many new games won't hit 1080p on top of the old games which won't be updated. And I believe this will affect a larger portion of the userbase, including people who can see the pixels.
IMO, it's a much better solution to stick with 720p so everyone is now hitting native res (and use the extra power for AA and better graphics), and eventually release a 1440p revision where 720p games will scale nicely, hopefully allowing us to run the same graphic profile as docked mode if we're fine with short sessions.
Since they didn't allow that with Mariko, the chances are not high, but it could be the screen upgrade revision rather than changing display tech and smaller bezels.
IMO, it's a much better solution to stick with 720p so everyone is now hitting native res (and use the extra power for AA and better graphics), and eventually release a 1440p revision where 720p games will scale nicely, hopefully allowing us to run the same graphic profile as docked mode if we're fine with short sessions.
Since they didn't allow that with Mariko, the chances are not high, but it could be the screen upgrade revision rather than changing display tech and smaller bezels.
Lelouch0612
Growing Install Base
- Pronouns
- He/Him
The next big IQ improvement on handheld for me is HDR, not an increase of screen resolution.
Simba1
Bob-omb
You dont need 1080p game resolution to have 1080p screen, you could have 800-900p game resolution on 1080p screen (similar like you currently have resolutions from 480p to 720p).
And who knows, maybe current docked resolutions for current games could run at handheld mode on new Switch.
I am pretty sure that even with new Switch, resolutions will again be all over the place, so there will not single standard resolution for handheld and docked mode.
Last edited:
720p games on 1080p screen look much worse than 720p games on 720p screen. Three Houses small text had nothing to do with 720p resolution.
RennanNT
Bob-omb
Yeah, but there are scaling artifacts which is what I'm referring to affect a larger portion of the userbase.
But even then, most of them aren't 1080p.
It depends on the specs, but I'm optimistically expecting the vast majority of games be PS4 graphics on 720p, while all "impossible" ports will use DLSS. Though I should have said rendering resolution, my bad.
Either way, I'm sure you know that there would be a lot more games hitting 720p than games hitting 1080p, unless everyone really adopts DLSS (and even then it would just tie, and only for new releases).
Tentacle-tropes
Kremling
I mean most companies won’t fork out the money for a non standard screen that nobody but themselves use so it’s not just Nintendo’s penchant for profit but logically makes sense. This has knock on effects too if they did choose a 900p screen other than just price.
D
Deleted member 1324
Guest
If the RT cores are enabled during handheld play then there’s no reason they wouldn’t go with a 1080p screen and run the games at native 540p then DLSS them up to 1080p.
I’m playing the original Bayonetta right now and there’s much more slow down in handheld mode (especially in scenes with lots of alpha effects like fire and smoke). Docked seems pretty much 60fps with little drops here and there at least to my eye. I want that sort of thing eliminated from the next console because it’s meant to be the same experience across both modes.
Also I’m guessing Advance Wars and Mario Rabbids for August. Bayonetta 3 in late October then an unannounced game for late November to go with Pokemon.
Aether
Tingle
depending on what the reason is, there is a chance that without a patch bayonetta will have the same slowdowns.
Or, if the problem is the bandwidth, then there is a chance that even without an update it removes the slowdowns.
But the Tensor cores...no. Simply cause 1080 would be in need for more rendering then less, and that would mean higher clock speeds -> more power draw.
Im curious what the unanounced would be.
PedroNavajas
Boo
- Pronouns
- He, him
As I said before, until we know the power consumption of the tensor cores, and these are bellow 2w for 540p to 1080p upscale, we should stop consider them as a free upgrade. I seriously doubt that they are bellow 5w.
Last edited:
PedroNavajas
Boo
- Pronouns
- He, him
That would be terrible. Sorry, but this is by far the worst option.
PedroNavajas
Boo
- Pronouns
- He, him
Seriously, when playing my Switch Oled, resolution is a distant fifth —well behind muddy textures, inconsistent framerates, upscalling artifacts, and lack of anti-aliasing— IQ aspect that needs improvement. All of those would be much easier to solve within a 720p target.
Last edited:
Foltzie
Uncle Muji
- Pronouns
- he/him
There could be no benefit in the sense that a 1080P display could/would make OG Switch titles look worse via scaling so it nets out to an overall negative, but where I'm not well versed is if there is an obvious better resolution to target in handheld mode for Drake to make most of docked mode for a 4K target. Is 720p handheld, 1080p Docked, 4k 1080p+ DLSS the best approach? I have no idea.
I may have started the 720p screen is good enough debate by comparing it favorably to Apple's retina density (though I did quantify its just shy of what Apple normally uses in terms of PPI and angular density, though weirdly not the Apple Watch). I stick by that comparison, given the distance one would expect to hold the Switch. This is a big assumption on my part*, but I have trouble imagining holding the Switch closer than hands length since you need two hands to operate the device and actually seeing distinct pixels.
*I just pulled the device closer to my face and I got blurrier vision before I made out distinct pixels, which is 100% anecdote and not helpful because I have contacts in.
Aether
Tingle
would/could: depends, what type of scaling, if they where 720 to begin with, if they get patches/updates, etc.
Then the question is, how much benefit it would give new titles, and if that increased resolution is a bigger benefit then the loss in IQ some older games.
Im more at the "its the next step for the next 5 years, so to me the primary focus is with new games, not old ones.
You cant do the great DLSS for games without patches, so it wont be a mass solution.
In regards to closer: what is "hands/arms length"? since this is massively dependent on arm length i always found it a bad measure, and depending on the Games UI i hold it way closer or farther. specially games that have a lot going on or mostly miror a TV UI are the ones i have closer (Smash, Pokemon Legends, FE TH...)
Stuff that was more "Portable" in design (Links Awakening, Animal Crossing, Tetris, Many Indie Games, etc) i hold further away.
It partially depends on what they want to do with their docked/handheld ratio. 1440p would replicate the current ratio (and also be an integer scale) but intuitively feels a bit high.
- Pronouns
- he / him
I think complaints that existing 720p content wouldn't scale perfectly to a 1080p screen are overblown (each set of 2x2 pixels scaled to 3x3), but it would be worse with a 900p screen (each set of 4x4 pixels scaled to 5x5).
But small text in a higher resolution is still more legible.
D
Deleted member 887
Guest
Yes, it is, when rendered at a higher resolution.I think complaints that existing 720p content wouldn't scale perfectly to a 1080p screen are overblown (each set of 2x2 pixels scaled to 3x3), but it would be worse with a 900p screen (each set of 4x4 pixels scaled to 5x5).
But small text in a higher resolution is still more legible.
This is cropped section of a native 720p image. Yes, it has been zoomed in, I apologize, we're talking about subtle details
This is that same image, with a linear upscale (like a screen would do) to 1080p, flattened, and then zoomed in by the same factor
Again, the Switch has a shitload of games already out, and a shitload more to come, and few of them are going to have Drake optimizations. If you want clearer tiny text, native resolution matters, and if 99% of games are locked to a target max of 720p (because of the base switch) then a 1080p screen will produce less legible results.
If you want crisp text in handheld mode, you should hope for 1) games to run at variable resolutions and 2) for Drake to pump so much power into these games that they can't help but max out their Classic Switch 720p targets and 3) for a 720p screen on the device for native image quality.
- Pronouns
- he / him
If Drake did introduce a 1080p screen, why the hell would most games going forward ignore it completely? It's already the case that docked games that run at lower resolutions tend to have 1080p UIs slapped on top of them.
Foltzie
Uncle Muji
- Pronouns
- he/him
I wonder if the rigid panels Nintendo sourced for the OLED model are 720p only or if 1440p would be an option.
D
Deleted member 887
Guest
Because if we're halfway through the Switch's lifetime, and game releases taper in the back half of a generation, then more than 50% of Switch games have been released? Because most games aren't AAA or AA games with the budget or resources for second devkits and Drake specific features in order to please the subset of Pro owners who are also handheld players? Because there will be a gap after the Drake launch where teams that do not have devkits yet will be acclimating to the new hardware, while eyeballing sales numbers to decide when to invest?
Perhaps I am wrong here, but I expect the minority of games to have any Drake specific features. The Visual Novels that @Aether pointed out aren't being developed by teams targeting Drake. Indies aren't going to be leveraging the ray tracing features. Games that "struggle" on Switch will improve simply by virtue of running on newer hardware. Nintendo first party games will implement DLSS by default, the Big Franchises will get some more bespoke engine optimizations, as well as any company that Nintendo pays to throw it on top. The rest will be multiplats that turn on features on Drake that are cut for classic switch, but that are likely not heavily optimized for Drake's hardware, again letting the raw power do the job rather than optimizing for the architecture.
If the Switch lifetime is long and Drake sales are good I would expect to see that situation improve, but I strongly believe that we should assume if this is a revision, that the hardware will almost never be taken solid advantage of. Throwing a lot of power into a revision is about putting enough raw silicon in there that you get inefficient-but-easy-and-ubiquitous wins.
I would be very excited to be wrong about that
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I very much agree with you. Switch has somewhere between 7000 and 8000 games at this point, the vast majority of which will not be patched again in general for whatever reason (lack of time/budget, dev has moved on/ceased to exist/been acquired, etc.), so personally I find it quite silly to think most will be patched to take advantage of Drake, as that will be even tougher for most of these devs.
Mainly I think the higher profile games from bigger publishers and obviously service games are likely to be patched, not much else. I'd guess probably 5% of the library at the very most.
Last edited:
