Since comparisons with the 2050 came up again, I'm curious what people's thoughts are on what cutbacks they made to the Matrix demo to run on Switch 2? We know that the 2050 couldn't run it at all, no matter what settings they put it on. And we also know that even the PS5 and XBSX could only run it at 1080p/30 fps at best. And people who saw the demo said it ran "similar" to the other two (whatever that means). What's the best case scenario we can expect?
Best case scenario is the same resolution, or perhaps better - Not a false hope because there are a host of variables to consider. We don’t know what version of UE5 each version showcased. We don’t know if other versions were showed natively, BUT we might presume they were because the AMD-powered systems preferred to showcase raw power, and that’s been on brand for PS/XBox. None of those have dedicated hardware on chip, so, they’re taxing their CPUs and GPUs harder to get the results they’re getting, and that’s why the extra grunt is needed for them. S2NS has the more modern architecture as well as dedicated hardware on chip, making it more versatile, so, it has at least three significant hardware-specific advantages over PS5/XSS/XSX (there are more…). Now, the word in those Gamescom reports was “comparable”, so, your mileage may vary, but at a surface level, that could mean anything from a little less (let’s say 720p or 900p at a similar frame rate), to near 1-for-1 parity ((Dynamic) 1080p with a similar frame rate), to better (higher resolution and more stable frame rate). That’s without accounting for the consensus view that Nvidia RT is better than AMD’s RT. In the best case scenario, one might imagine that the use of DLSS played a role to get better results, if not just “comparable” - In that regard, I don’t think we can underestimate the disruptive potential of S2NS, and that’s why I’ve been saying that “smarter engineering, NOT raw power will ultimately prevail”.
One other point on the system power - In your post, you wrote that the RTX 2050 GPU couldn’t run that Matrix Awakens demo on any setting. S2NS is running it on “targeted specs”, and that right there should tell you that the S2NS GPU will be better than the RTX 2050 in real world performance terms. We could also deduce that the final product won’t be a low-end Ampere SoC, but something more advanced than that. Still, there’s the advantage of being fixed hardware, and something that can be better optimised to that profile. The main take from all of this is that there won’t be a single game in the PS5/XS libraries which couldn’t exist in some capacity on the S2NS. There will be bad faith actors dwelling in certain forums who will state otherwise, and post “hardware would melt” memes, but that’s not the reality. For over a decade, developers have talked about scalability, while we haven’t been talking about Wii VS PS360-style differences since the Wii itself. So, collectively, it’s important that we move on from discussions about hardware capacity - the only restraints today are budget, time, and industry politics.
I feel that this kind of perspective is necessary in the general Nintendo hardware discourse, and fellow fans needn’t worry. To drive this point home, I would ask you to consider the following: Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain and Dragon Age: Inquisition are on XB1/PS4 - Both have versions on their predecessors with 6.25% (1/16) of the RAM. Please take a look below, and follow me here…
Bear in mind that Dragon Age: Inquisition “maximised the potential of the XB1/PS4 versions at 900p/1080p and 30FPS”, according to its developers, BUT being a 30FPS title on XB1/PS4 didn’t stop EA from skipping the Wii U (which was more powerful than PS360) altogether, and producing serviceable versions on lower-spec, more dated consoles than it. This is what I mean by budget, time, and industry politics being the true restraints, not hardware capacity, and I promise you, no such discourse about “melting hardware” existed for the PS/XBox predecessors back then. Coming back to the topic, this is the true stretch of scalability, and it can be even greater as phones and tablets are in the mix today, however, the S2NS and future Nintendo hardware will have much smaller differences, architectural advantages, Nvidia over AMD, and disruptive potential, and as long as there’s an S edition from XBox, it’ll be even closer, and that’ll remain true in portable mode.