No “need” of course but as others said if you save rendering resources on drawing native pixels you can then use them for better geometry, more detailed textures, more precise lighting, better shadows, better ssr, AA, AF and of course potential RT for GI, AO or reflections.
right but this is beyond just a 4K60 mode, to find a need to actually use DLSS if it even needs it. Otherwise? Drake shouldn’t have much issue actually hitting 4K for a switch game.
Even then, the geometry is still held to what the switch can do, not Drake.
There is no real precedent of them launching a cross gen Zelda game, on a much more powerful console across the board with a similar architecture.
There isn’t in that very specific scenario that will only happen once which is true, but assuming that they will definitely start doing high resolution + high framerate + high textures + higher AO + higher GI + higher etc is just setting oneself for disappointment or rather than disappointment a confusion. And even then, there’s only so much they can do before it borders a whole remaster which is something else entirely.
Do people expect a remaster of sorts or something?
like there’s only so much that can be done as a cross generation title that boosts the the overall presentation without stepping outside of that and into a remaster territory.
Honestly, I'm expecting, few, if any titles to be updated with DLSS that didn't have it at launch. Probably just a few things that release in the window leading up to the hardware and maybe a few older titles that are already well suited to it, like the Xenoblades.
Yeah same, I’m personally not seeing a lot to be patched day 1. Just don’t think Drake absolutely needs to utilize DLSS to now be able to do 4k60 of a switch game. It can have occasions of getting it through raw horsepower. Maybe if they decide to throw everything at the wall and use DLSS to hit 4K, but otherwise it would just be an extra feature in the mix.
While, in theory, One X could get to native 4k, I'm not aware of any games that didn't use checkerboard rendering, which is a form of temporal upscaling like DLSS. So, if the gap between Switch and NuSwitch is the same as One to One X you would expect to still need DLSS.
There are several games that run on both who are improved on the X console. Farcry 5 ran at 4K on the One X natively, vs the 1080p on the base console and didn’t use CBR. Doesn’t use any dynamic scaling either.
And it would be misguided to call CBR a temporal
upscaler since it doesn’t upscale anything.
I do expect the gap to be larger, however. The One X was a beast, like 3x relative to the Xbone (much larger than the PS4->PS4 Pro gap) but it still wasn't quite a generational leap. Will the NuSwitch leap be enough to push, say, MK8DX to 4k? Maybe!
It was >4 times the OneVCR btw. 6TF vs 1.3TF was a ~4.5 times the throughput.
Here’s the thing, even assuming the switch next keeps the same clockspeed as the current switch the theoretical performance uplift is still exactly 6 times what the switch in docked mode can do on paper. Accounting for any architectural changes that make the ease of rendering at a higher resolution from something at a lower fidelity, it is already a larger jump than One X is to the X who was able to deliver a 4K image of XBox One games.
Even if we account for the memory bandwidth on paper it is 4x more bandwidth for the next, but said bandwidth is not accounting any architectural improvements that made processing memory more efficient.
One thing that really held back the XBox One X was the CPU, prevented some games going to a higher framerate and have a higher res at the same time.
There are games that are native 4K, there are others who are dynamic, others who use upsampling, use CBR, etc. one X in many occasions did settings on HIGH!
It probably would look... fine? MK8 has a really scalable art style. The difference between the 720p version and the 1080p version is minimal to my eyes, just the advantages of being native res on the display. I think at 4k the original texture work starts to really age, however, so you'll likely want to update those, which means you're no longer scaling linearly with just GPU power, but there is enough CPU power there, assuming the memory bandwidth can keep up.
Considering the CPU uplift it should be… ok I think? It’s not a small increase by any means even if conservative, so of a switch game it should be “fine” as you said.
Think you’re getting ahead here. There’s no way a PS4 could run PS3 games at 4K, and PS4 level before DLSS should be the realistic expectation for this console in my view. The idea that this console will run 4K versions of Switch games without any upscaling is just fantasy.
Edit - Apologies if you’re talking about some other chip or system.
PS4 in theory can, because it has enough processing power to handle the PS3 games visual fidelity based on the RSX at a higher resolution and framerate.
And I am referring to the Drake SoC vs Switch TX1 SoC.
DLSS 4K vs native 4K also has reduced power draw, right ?
Yes. Theoretically anyway. PC shows the reduced power draw and it is noticeable, I wonder how it’ll scale down for a portable device like the Nintendo switch 2, ie “will it actually provide a noticeable difference?”
Will it be 1w as opposed to 40 on a high end desktop card? Does it reduce it by 4 or 5? Remains to be seen, but It should offer
something.
And addendum to all of this, switch being a console and switch 2 being a console has their benefits in this, as it doesn’t have to be like in the PC space where you need to over provision. Console level optimization will always have a benefit to it.
