For someone owning both devices and actually trying to decide which version to get, both are decent in portable mode with the Switch 2 taking the lead in docked mode (as the Deck doesn’t increase its power limits in docked mode whatsoever). So I’d probably get the Switch 2 version if I didn’t have a desktop PC to go with my Deck, but I do, so my “docked” experience (playing on my PC) is vastly superior anyway, with the Deck getting the portable part done.
For a technical comparison it’s kind of inaccurate I think. Yes, it’s certainly impressive that the Switch 2 can run this game in portable mode likely consuming less than 10 watts for the entire system while producing okay graphics. And it’s clear that DLSS does a lot of heavy lifting here, but:
- The 8.9 watts figure is likely somewhat inaccurate because it’s based on approximate battery life while playing the game. Even if the game is played from 100% to 0%, there’s still inaccuracies because the specific battery likely won’t have 19.3 Wh exactly. Instead it’ll likely be a bit higher than that when brand new, and a bit lower with 100s of cycles.
- The Switch 2 clearly consumes less power than the Deck needs to achieve “playable” framerates in Cyberpunk 2077, but that doesn’t tell us that much about the efficiency of just the SoC. I’d assume the Deck requires a little bit more juice for its OLED screen and also more for the rest of the system, for example the standard NVMe drive it uses. The “approximately 9 watts consumption” comparison they’re doing makes it look like the Switch 2 is around 3 times as efficient, but that’s not how efficiency curves work. You’re comparing the Deck at a power consumption level that’s probably the peak of Switch 2s efficiency curve.
- Game settings are (currently?) impossible to match. Some can be matched, others are either some in-between on Switch or even “lower than low”, for example some models/geometry. I assume these changes have a large enough performance impact that CDPR thought they were worth to implement just for the Switch 2.
- Scene-specific pixel counting wasn’t really done, so it’s not possible to say which device renders more “real” pixels (even though DLSS certainly seems to make the most out of these pixels).
I still think the Switch 2 is very impressive in terms of performance in portable mode, certainly more than I expected when hearing about the rumored Ampere architecture and the Samsung manufacturing process.
It also shows that something comparable to DLSS (likely FSR 4) would be hugely beneficial to PC handhelds so I hope that the Deck 2 will properly support that. Sad that AMDs Z2 series don’t, but I hope Valve is cooking another custom chip with AMD soon.
Does anyone notice much difference between 25 fps and 30 fps at these screen sizes?
I don’t have one these handhelds, but in general, I’ve found that smaller screens make lower frame rates feel a lot less choppy.
Why would a smaller screen make framerate not matter? Textures and resolution, sure, but framerate always matters.
Because the distance (and the angle subtended within your field of vision) traveled by a moving object from one frame to the next is shorter.
The shorter the distance, the more it looks like smooth movement vs. sudden jumping.
Yes but frame rate is primarily about responsiveness, not aesthetics, which is why AI frame generation is a horseshit idea.
Yes but frame rate is primarily about responsiveness, not aesthetics,
In games that tie physics and inputs to frame rate, 25-30 fps is about a 30-40 millisecond response in the worst case; usually less. That’s plenty fast enough in most games I’ve played. And not all games do that anyway. So I can’t say I agree with your statement as a general rule.
What game do you play where that’s not fast enough?
In any case, it’s irrelevant to my point. The comment you responded to is explicitly about the frame rates feeling choppy. Meaning visual effect.
You also said “feel” not “look”. If you exclusively meant aesthetics you should clarify it in your own comment.
Also, responsiveness is not about if something is “fast enough” it’s about making the thought>action gap as small as possible for better immersion and player control. Higher FPS means there is a more consistent time from input to effect. If i press a button in a 30 fps game the input delay can be anything from almost none to 1/30th of a second (30ms, which if you played online games back in the day is not great), and there is no way to tell how much it will be. The more frames the less of a possible variance you experience.
Also all input is tied to framerate, if you have examples of games that have their input loop completely separate from framerate I’m all ears, especially given rendering is not on demand.
You also said “feel” not “look”.
I did, in order to express that I was thinking of overall sense conveyed by the visuals, rather than whether differences in frame rate could be noticed under scrutiny. Words often have multiple meanings depending on context.
you should clarify it in your own comment.
I could, but I won’t, since I’m not interested in indulging combative misinterpretations of what I wrote, and nobody else seems to have had trouble understanding me. Bye bye.
on steam at the moment, Cyberpunk is 20.99.
Switch 2 version is 69.99
👋thanks for trying nintendo.
If you know where to look, a certain athletic woman can give it to you for free if you’re on a Steam Deck!
Wii fit trainer?
Now that’s one fit girl.
Nintendo aren’t the ones who set the price
Well, at least for the physical edition, they have to account for the cost of the 64 GB game card they are using. Wasn’t that rumored to cost like $16 a piece?
At least e.g. steam can’t arbitrarily choose to brick your colputer
no, they don’t. but the game has been out for 5 years at this point.
articles like these seem quite pointless to anyone who doesn’t already own a switch 2. and possibly pointless even to people who own a switch 2, but have already played cyberpunk on better or similar hardware.
this article is an attempt to pat a multi billion dollar company on the back so it doesn’t feel as bad that people aren’t racing out to buy their 5-year-late, overpriced attempts to dominate the handheld market again.
They’re literally selling faster than the original Switch, what the fuck are you smoking?
Does Nintendo let you play content that you accidentally downloaded from the high seas? And do you need to worry about Nintendo killing your account for doing such a thing?
