Various third party games running on Switch 2. Cyberpunk looks especially impressive, and with just 7 weeks of development.
Nintendo Switch 2
- Thread starter Shifty Geezer
- Start date
Various third party games running on Switch 2. Cyberpunk looks especially impressive, and with just 7 weeks of development.
Subtlesnake
Regular
Apparently 3rd parties have only had the devkits for 7 weeks. And its absense on Nintendo titles might be related to the lack of TAA and/or the focus on 60 FPS, where upscaling will be much more costly on a low power device.
Sega_Model_4
Newcomer
We have the content that was leaked a while ago:
Portable:
CPU: 998.4 MHz
GPU: 561 MHz (~1.72 TFLOPS)
Memory frequency: 4266 MHz
Memory bandwidth: 68.256 GB/s
Docked:
CPU: 1100.8 MHz (assuming swapped)
GPU: 1007.25 MHz (~3.09 TFLOPS)
Memory frequency: 6400 MHz
Memory bandwidth: 102.4 GB/s
CPU is a ARM Cortex A78c - 8 cores
GPU has 1536 CUDA cores - Ampere architecture
12 GB RAM LPDDR5X
It looks very similar to the MX570.
Ampere Architecture
2048 CUDA cores
4.731 TFLOPS
Memory Bus - 64 bit
Bandwidth - 96.00 GB/s
Base Clock - 832 MHz
Boost Clock - 1155 MHz
NVIDIA GeForce MX570 Specs
NVIDIA GA107S, 1155 MHz, 2048 Cores, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 2048 MB GDDR6, 1500 MHz, 64 bit
Elden Ring and Cyberpunk looks similar to Switch 2 versions, in visual and performance.
It obviously suffers more due to the lack of VRAM.
DavidGraham
Veteran
Again no, Nintendo frankly states they "need" to use DLSS. Maybe the launch games didn't have time to implement it just yet.
What they like or what was the best for the hardware they had? Once they implement dlss they will start using it, just give them time.
The Switch 2 is a great example how all this talk about the process technology is nonsense. With 8nm the SoC delivers performance very close to the PS4 Pro with ~1/2 of the power consumtion.. The PS5 has only ~3x higher compute performance with a 300mm^2 5nm SoC while being less advanced than Ampere.
Last edited:
Can't see them rendering native 2160p. Higher frame rate is more important.
Subtlesnake
Regular
The concern for the process technology was with the portable, not docked mode. It seems that Nintendo have decided to move to ~10 watts for the portable mode, so they're basically providing the same power in portable mode this generation as they did in the docked mode last generation. The cost for this is the 2 hours of battery life in the most demanding applications.
Even at 10W though it still seems like Nintendo are able to extract much higher performance per-watt than comparable Ampere parts. If portable performance is similar to Steam Deck, then we're talking about double the performance per watt for the Switch 2, since the Deck consumes 20W+ for the whole system.
@GhostofWar I'm amazed we did okay this time on price - and it was especially difficult to understand during that period of the early 2010s when we were above parity. It's a real surprise.
256GB internal storage and it uses MicroSD Express as media (which helps explain the high price).
That is a huge difference. Almost 4x the resolution, plus different or better effects and geometry. Makes sense going from 300~ gigaflops to 1,5~ teraflops.
Half the power consumption of a console in a handheld isn't great! Hence the lame battery life. Now had Nintendo gone with a smaller process, they'd use less power and get more portable functionality from their portable. So not looking like nonsense to me.
GhostofWar
Regular
Wonder if Bryan knows he looks like Jim Root, with and without long hair lol.
Very cool they went to nintendo and offered dlss, going to be handy in docked mode.
Very cool they went to nintendo and offered dlss, going to be handy in docked mode.
