DF: Sources Claim Switch Successor Runs Matrix UE5 Tech Demo With Comparable Graphics to PS5/XSX

[lynux3 2,088]

3 hours ago, Remij said:

I'd say 12GB is a guarantee.  I'm not even entertaining the idea of less.

Everyone one of these sources are saying 12GB consumer side. Obviously more for development side.

[lynux3 2,088]

3 hours ago, Cooke said:

I'll throw mine out of it does. 

I’m honestly expecting something along the lines of a Series S like outcome, but portable and weaker, but comparable with the NVIDIA magic.

[-GD-X★ 7,740]

11 minutes ago, lynux3 said:

I’m honestly expecting something along the lines of a Series S like outcome, but portable and weaker, but comparable with the NVIDIA magic.

DLSS 3.5 support can definitely help. 

[Cooke 2,029]

25 minutes ago, Quad Damage said:

assassins creed 2, brotherhood, and revelations

 

Compared to Xbox one?

[Quad Damage 1,730]

9 minutes ago, Cooke said:

Compared to Xbox one?

360. worse visuals and audio.

[jehurey 3,230]

You hear that?

 

That's the sound of Cows actually getting scared.

 

Its been such a long time since.........y'know...........Xbox turned into a complete joke like 10 years ago.

 

But, if the Switch 2.0 can play the Matrix demo, and Nintendo can still come close the form factor of the first Switch, then it will be among the most amazing consumer computing products of the past decade.

 

[Cooke 2,029]

12 minutes ago, Quad Damage said:

360. worse visuals and audio.

Uh no it doesn't. Looks closer to the Xbox one version. Unless you like the awful bloom lighting 

[Quad Damage 1,730]

16 minutes ago, Cooke said:

Uh no it doesn't. Looks closer to the Xbox one version. Unless you like the awful bloom lighting 

Um yes  it does.

 

Outside of Assassin's Creed 2, which doesn't translate particularly well in any version of the Ezio Collection, the Switch releases hold up for the most part. Still, the removal of depth of field, ambient occlusion, and other visual effects makes these Switch releases look rather clinical at times, sometimes comparing unfavourably to the Xbox 360 versions - surprising bearing in mind the age of the original games.

 

Revelations shores up the presentation with a post-process anti-aliasing technique, while AC2 and Brotherhood operate without anti-aliasing of any kind. This is a little odd, as the 2016 Ezio Collection used a post-process effect for all titles, and the original releases of Brotherhood and AC2 used 2x MSAA on Xbox 360

 

Unfortunately, there is one final oddity here, and that's the audio mix. Both the original game and Ezio Collection had a cinematic audio mix, with loud music and explosions, and comparatively quiet dialogue, with a mix that carried all these elements with a wide dynamic range. Some of the detail seems to have been lost here, and the dialogue is much louder in the mix in some scenes. The audio compression issues present in other Assassin's Creed games on Switch seem to have made a return here. Many scenes still sound fine, but others are noticeably degraded.

[Goukosan 2,255]

3 hours ago, Quad Damage said:

yes, most of them.

 

[Goukosan 2,255]

@Quad Damage

 

Bbbut most of them are worse than PS3/360  I swearz 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[lynux3 2,088]

34 minutes ago, Goukosan said:

@Quad Damage

 

Bbbut most of them are worse than PS3/360  I swearz 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously generational differences, SDKs and PS3 especially was one of the most difficult platforms to develop for. It’s no surprise. I think we forget how shitty PS3 ports were.

[Goukosan 2,255]

5 minutes ago, lynux3 said:

Obviously generational differences, SDKs and PS3 especially was one of the most difficult platforms to develop for. It’s no surprise. I think we forget how shitty PS3 ports were.

 

Yup.

 

We also forget that PS3/360 had ONLY 512mb of ram.... Or how bad most frame rates were that gen with Screen tearing through the ass etc. 

 

 

[lynux3 2,088]

8 minutes ago, Goukosan said:

 

Yup.

 

We also forget that PS3/360 had ONLY 512mb of ram.... Or how bad most frame rates were that gen with Screen tearing through the ass etc. 

 

 

It was pretty horrible. PS3 with the split pool of XDR and DDR3(?)… yeah, it was shit, but after developers started concentrating on it more it got better, but it wasn’t ever truly “optimized” like first party. Towards the end it really shined, but PS4 was around the corner.

 

Emulators like RSPC3 or whatever really make those games shine. Hopefully the folks at PlayStation utilize that open source shit and make something of rather than half ass attempts with their PSone and PS2 emulators they have now.

[lynux3 2,088]

2 hours ago, -GD-X said:

DLSS 3.5 support can definitely help. 

Rumors and all, but latest I’ve heard is 3.1 DLSS. Either way, it’ll be useful for something like Switch 2. Might even be something proprietary to get it where Nintendo wants it to be.

[Goukosan 2,255]

11 minutes ago, lynux3 said:

Rumors and all, but latest I’ve heard is 3.1 DLSS. Either way, it’ll be useful for something like Switch 2. Might even be something proprietary to get it where Nintendo wants it to be.

 

DF cleared this up in the Switch thread. 

 

NVIDIA has weird naming conventions... DLSS3 is actually frame generation.. And we know Switch 2 definitely won't have that because you need NVIDIA's most beefy desktop graphics cards for this. 

 

But get this DLSS 3.5 is just the version number for the temporal spatial upscaler..(You would think 3.5 means more advanced than 3.0 right?)

 

Meaning Switch 2 possibly can have DLSS3.5 (since it's just the upscaler) 

 

 

 

Edited September 8, 2023 by Goukosan

[Remij 4,679]

8 minutes ago, Goukosan said:

 

DF cleared this up in the Switch thread. 

 

NVIDIA has weird naming conventions... DLSS3 is actually frame generation.. And we know Switch 2 definitely won't have that because you need NVIDIA's most beefy desktop graphics cards for this. 

 

But get this DLSS 3.5 is just the version number for the temporal spatial upscaler..(You would think 3.5 means more advanced than 3.0 right?)

 

Meaning Switch 2 possibly can have DLSS3.5 (since it's just the upscaler) 

 

 

 

 

Yeah.  The DLSS naming has been so stupid lol..

 

DLSS1 = Spatial upscaler 

DLSS2 = Temporal upscaler (Super Resolution)

DLSS3 = Frame Gen
DLSS3.5 = Ray Reconstruction

 

But since the temporal upscaler has continually been upgraded, it's now in the 3.5x revision, which means that if someone talks about DLSS3.5 support, you don't necessarily know whether they mean the upscaler revision specifically, or the full DLSS3.5 "suite" which includes Frame Gen and Ray Reconstruction..  It's dumb that a device/gpu could support DLSS3.5, but not "DLSS3"... but we're already there with the 20 and 30 series GPUs.

 

Assuming Switch 2 is based off Ampere, then it will support everything apart from Frame Gen..  The Ray Reconstruction tech is insanely impressive.  It makes a massive difference in stability in with RT.. which could help the Switch massively since the input resolution will be fairly low in comparison to high end desktop GPUs.

 

The Switch 2 could actually end up having superior RT performance for its target resolution/framerate, than PS5 or Series X.  That's not a crazy statement to make.. DLSS3.5 is legit.

[jehurey 3,230]

33 minutes ago, lynux3 said:

Rumors and all, but latest I’ve heard is 3.1 DLSS. Either way, it’ll be useful for something like Switch 2. Might even be something proprietary to get it where Nintendo wants it to be.

which kinda pinpoints it at late 2022 /early when Nintendo and Nvidia locked in the hardware.

 

would not surprise me if Nintendo is just loading up on manufacturing throughout all of 2023 and part of 2024 so that hey have plenty of supply.

[lynux3 2,088]

1 hour ago, jehurey said:

which kinda pinpoints it at late 2022 /early when Nintendo and Nvidia locked in the hardware.

 

would not surprise me if Nintendo is just loading up on manufacturing throughout all of 2023 and part of 2024 so that hey have plenty of supply.

That seems logical to me. There’s no doubt Nintendo wants something they can sell at a reasonably large volume.

[lynux3 2,088]

2 hours ago, Goukosan said:

 

DF cleared this up in the Switch thread. 

 

NVIDIA has weird naming conventions... DLSS3 is actually frame generation.. And we know Switch 2 definitely won't have that because you need NVIDIA's most beefy desktop graphics cards for this. 

 

But get this DLSS 3.5 is just the version number for the temporal spatial upscaler..(You would think 3.5 means more advanced than 3.0 right?)

 

Meaning Switch 2 possibly can have DLSS3.5 (since it's just the upscaler) 

 

 

 

That’s why I mentioned earlier, maybe not directly to you, but I think it’s obvious that Nintendo is working for something proprietary or to their specification.

[sugarhigh 519]

5 hours ago, jehurey said:

You hear that?

 

That's the sound of Cows actually getting scared.

 

Its been such a long time since.........y'know...........Xbox turned into a complete joke like 10 years ago.

 

But, if the Switch 2.0 can play the Matrix demo, and Nintendo can still come close the form factor of the first Switch, then it will be among the most amazing consumer computing products of the past decade.

 

Please get your hopes all the way up.