That’s… not really going to do anything lol.
The Wii U was able to deliver 1 frame (16.6.7ms)of latency delay iirc at 60FPS. But the thing requires you to be not too far away from the console.
it was between them and Broadcomm if I’m not mistaken.Idek what Lylat wars is, and I don’t need 4k Mario 64. I need a new 3D Mario that looks and acts like a next gen Mario game.
The Switch, besides the portability, has the potential to be exactly what Nintendo thinks it is: an ecosystem. Besides having different variations, it can also have accessories that offer new ways to play. Like, I feel that the Switch could be Nintendo’s ultimate console. The power of a home console, with the portability of a handheld console.
The Switch reached 48 million during the end of 2019 (December; three months before the end of Nintendo’s Fiscal Year):
nintendoeverything.com
Lylat Wars is Star Fox 64 in PAL regions.Idek what Lylat wars is, and I don’t need 4k Mario 64. I need a new 3D Mario that looks and acts like a next gen Mario game.
That isn't what I meant. I meant they'll probably go with a 1080p panel, but that's a lower resolution compared to the flagship next generation Switch targeting 4K output in TV mode.
Yeah. I figured that out going over it again, sorry to bother you.
The Switch reached 48 million during the end of 2019 (December; three months before the end of Nintendo’s Fiscal Year):
Nintendo on huge 2019 Switch sales, 2 million units sold in North America during December, more
This information comes from Nintendo president Shuntaro Furukawa… Nintendo Switch sales during the holiday season were robust for both hardware and software, and surpassed the results for the same period of the previous fiscal year, which were also good. We estimate that the global sellthrough...
If it gets to at least 40 million during the end of its second year, it’ll do just fine. If it doesn’t, Nintendo can always justify by saying that there’s resistance to upgrading, like with the PS5. But I don’t think Nintendo will have this problem. And if they do, it won’t be that bad.
Well, there is a reason I singled out Mario Kart. That’s a Wii U era game that is locked solid at 60fps and max res, so every scrap of additional power can be spent on DLSS
Right. Maybe the Switch will be another NDS: the original reaches sky high numbers, but its successor won’t perform just as well. I’m sure the Switch 2 will perform better than the 3DS, but maybe the Switch was a phenomena that only established the fact that a hybrid console is a perfect form factor.
The irony is that no smartphones (except the Sony Xperia I V) use a 4K mobile OLED display. (And the 4K mobile OLED display on the Sony Xperia I V doesn't support VRR.)
That's what a lot of people predicted for the OG switch, and is probably one of the main reasons we have been talking about a pro for all these years. Since that never panned out, I'm personally not at all confident it will pan out with Drake.
4K output. Not on the console's screen. Output to a TV. So I'm not sure what the purpose of this reply is. Well put together as ever, but. Why?
Dare I say... Things have changed?
You may say whatever you want
. But I don't really follow.
Modern 1080p panels are very power efficient... And divides smoothly into 4K.
First generation Nvidia powered Nintendo console vs. the second generation. They're more familiar with the platform, more familiar with developing custom chips with Nvidia, and more familiar with designing and manufacturing, well, Nintendo Switches. Meanwhile, despite a power bump not happening, Mariko was definitely an example of them jumping up a processor. Things have changed, what's not to follow?You may say whatever you want
I don't think any of those would have stopped them from iteratively upgrading the Switch hardware. Not doing iterative upgrades every few year was a strategical decision, not because of any sort of limitations that they have overcome now with Drake.
Lumia 950 also had a 2K screen.
uh, 30 years ago
I should clarify that I was primarily talking about current flagship smartphones. But I'm aware there were smartphones with displays <6" with a ~1440p display in the past (e.g. Lumia 950, Samsung Galaxy S7, etc.).
Yeah I assumed as much. But you never really interact with the hologram anyway right ? So all the machine needs is to figure the position of both the controller and the "hologram" (even the reflection of a simple image) and then it can give to you the impression that your movements make it move?
Nothing has reached 40 million by the end of two years. It took Switch, GBA, and probably PS5 until 11th quarter, PS4/DS until their 10th quarters, and Wii its 9th. After 8 quarters the least of any of those systems was PS5 with 25m shipped, so really anything at least at that level is in a pretty elite group.
I was simply thinking aloud, assuming there's someone who believes Nintendo needs to use a 4K mobile OLED display.
Ah, gotcha! I think that would be cool but entirely impractical. Maybe a generation or two later, if ever.
To be fair, Returns also sold well (6.5 Million on Wii).
personally I wouldn't consider those "system seller" numbers, but that's just me
Nah I'd be fine with 720p. It's enough for me.
I'd say it's the bare minimum, but I wouldn't complain, particularly in handheld mode. I'm not sure how significant resolution would be compared to frame rates, but I'm guessing anywhere near 4K would be palatable.
Except they do, and it IS enough for portable mode, because it's more about the density and quality of pixel than the actual resolution. Games look great on my Wii U GamePad, and many people will watch Youtube videos in 480p or even 360p on their phones to preserve battery life - It's "good enough". I strongly suspect that they would do the same if presented with the option to do so on a future Switch. If they're playing a good game, it will still be good at 720p, 576p, 480p, and 360p. More developers should consider it, tbqh, as portable users will make those trade-offs for the ability to play anywhere, and have a chance of finishing their damned purchases... and let's be honest, most of us would be having too much fun to start counting pixels and notice.
With DLSS, what you could have is games running at quarter native resolution internally. 560p to 1080p looks better than 360p to 720p AND 720p native, while using less power than native. With DLSS, or at least some kind of upscaling, likely to feature in almost every game, 1080p makes a lot of sense.
Wonder if they would just disable portable mode of Switch games on [REDACTED], so it would run docked mode settings instead. Switch games go up to 1080p docked, so if they did something like that, and [REDACTED] games while portable used DLSS Performance mode while rendering at 540p, that would give reason for using a 1080p display.
Yea, I imagine it would be less complicated to only implement a bc solution for one mode, and that Drake has more than enough overhead to just run docked mode in portable. But I'm definitely not an engineer, so this could very well be a wrong assumption.
The Steam Deck is 1.6 teraflops at peak and a 720p screen. Highly optimistic estimates put REDACTED at 1.7. So a 1080p screen would mean games look worse than Steam Deck. Either visual features would have to be sacrificed to make resolution, or you run 720p + non-integer scale and blur, or you run below 720p and run DLSS to upscale.
Either sacrifice visuals, or use the technology that means we don't have to while still looking really nice... crisis averted!
You have no idea how games running in 720p can look good if the in-game settings are turned up enough and the aliasing is actually good.
You’re not getting DLAA on steam deck, so obviously not the situation I was describing. If a game has a native res of 720p, and pushing the perf on Steam Deck, yes, you could bump it down and DLSS up. Which is exactly what I said.
I would prefer 720p no DLAA. There is no feature identical version of what you see on Steam Deck mapped to an equal/lower power device with a higher res screen.
vs
540p->1080p DLSS
I'd take the second any day.
