Polygonal_Sprite
Member
Are you sitting at a PC? Remember most console gamers sit 4-6 feet from their display.I do own a RTX card and I'm telling, 4k using ultra performance have a lot of artifacts and yes Nvidia don't recommend it for 4k.
Are you sitting at a PC? Remember most console gamers sit 4-6 feet from their display.I do own a RTX card and I'm telling, 4k using ultra performance have a lot of artifacts and yes Nvidia don't recommend it for 4k.
what happened to gameplay over graphics?
It’s not standard upscaling it’s AI based image reconstruction which in some cases ends up with more detail than a normal native image. You could run Mario Kart 8 Deluxe at 540p native then use DLSS to reconstruct it up to 1080p and it would result in a crisper image than the current game running at native 1080p (which also has no anti aliasing) meaning all the available compute power left over from only running it at 540p native could be used to increase graphical fidelity or in other cases vastly improve performance in GPU limited games.Where are you all getting 4K from, just cause you read the word upscaled and once again are assuming way too much of Nintendo? Prepare. For. Disappointment.
It absolutely wouldn't be as crisp as native 1080p. More crisp is definitely not the way to describe that scenario.It’s not standard upscaling it’s AI based image reconstruction which in some cases ends up with more detail than a normal native image. You could run Mario Kart 8 Deluxe at 540p native then use DLSS to reconstruct it up to 1080p and it would result in a crisper image than native 1080p
"Ekshually", DLSS does increase detail. Ghosting is a mostly solved issue (or at least, a mostly in-progress being-solved issue) with the new versions, sharpening artifacts are rare. It can an will be (more) crisp if properly tuned. Mario Kart will benefit much more from DLSS than any form of antialiasing because it needs performance to run smoothly, even if it is one of the best optimized games on the system at the moment.It absolutely wouldn't be as crisp as native 1080p. More crisp is definitely not the way to describe that scenario.
It would have fewer jaggies, but be softer with sharpening artifacts and ghosting, even if it could still look good.
Mario kart 8 just needs 16x AF and some smaa 1x and it would look hugely better. This is the kind of game nintendo definitely wouldn't be running with 540p dlss ; their games look best with sharp pixels.
Nvidia have specifically added DLSS support to their ARM chips like Tegra recently, and even the now-old Xavier NX is a DLSS-capable chip with its 48 Tensor cores. I did some back-of-the-napkin math and it's got more or less barely enough TOPS for upscaling 1080p to 4K at 30fps.If it's mobile I don't see it being DLSS.
I want a new Nintendo home console this time around.
There can be more in surface detail with dlss, or it could look worse. And could occlude details like particles."Ekshually", DLSS does increase detail. Ghosting is a mostly solved issue (or at least, a mostly in-progress being-solved issue) with the new versions, sharpening artifacts are rare. It can an will be (more) crisp if properly tuned. Mario Kart will benefit much more from DLSS than any form of antialiasing because it needs performance to run smoothly, even if it is one of the best optimized games on the system at the moment.
Nvidia have specifically added DLSS support to their ARM chips like Tegra recently, and even the now-old Xavier NX is a DLSS-capable chip with its 48 Tensor cores. I did some back-of-the-napkin math and it's got more or less barely enough TOPS for upscaling 1080p to 4K at 30fps.
I had a read through the patent last night, interesting stuff.In certain example embodiments, the techniques herein may advantageously take advantage of NVIDIA's tensor cores (or other similar hardware).
If it's mobile I don't see it being DLSS.
I want a new Nintendo home console this time around.
I don't see DLSS used as in they will go with a alternative.What? It’s the opposite, mobile has a lot to gain in power efficiency if AI upscaling saves a ton of brute force required for resolution
You can like both but still prioritize gameplay, it's not that hard to understand.
Not sure why people think they're making a point when they say shit like this.
Real gamers can play old games or games that don't run perfectly with the best graphics just as fine as they can play the newest, most high tech stuff.
I love high end console and PC gaming but also love playing NES and PS1 games.
Any self respecting gamer would say the same.
It never even was about "gAmEplAy OvEr GrAPhIcz" Nintendo just prioritized affordability. Fools act like Nintendo is out there campaigning 480p as better than 4k or something. If they have a partner that's granting them the tech to have substantially better visuals at a low price what's in your head that makes you think "tHeY'RE goNNa rEJecT ThAt tHeY pReFer lOw reZ"what happened to gameplay over graphics?
I wonder if this is Nintendo being Nintendo or Nvidia being Nvidia, i.e Nintendo want total control or Nvidia wont let Nintendo have access to the black box and can only use what Nvidia let them.
I think it's more likely to be that Nintendo wants direct access to the tech so they can modify it at will to suit their needs. I.e. if adapting DLSS for use with the Switch, or specific Switch games, requires significant changes, Nintendo doesn't want to 'wait on' Nvidia, doesn't want to rely on a 3rd party for a fundamental tech component of their product.From a BCP perspective, they are going to want their own solution so that they're not tied to NVIDIA, because if they go with DLSS as their only option NVIDIA could choose to jack up prices for the next product and be like "hey if you want DLSS to make your games run at 4K, pay for it bitch".
Could also be that NVIDIA would want "backstage" access to the game code for Nintendo IP to make it all work and Nintendo doesn't like that (but I have no idea how DLSS works as an implementation so don't want to bite off more than I can chew with that line of speculation).
Nintendo can basically launch a 2 anytime they want, the tech they need is effectively off-the-shelf at the moment. The Xavier NX was available in late 2019, so a theoretical Tegra chip built on that would be a good fit for Nintendo's hardware strategy, and wouldn't strain Nvidia. And it's at least triple the raw hardware power of the Tegra X1 in the Switch, and it has Tensor cores on top of that for that new ARM-based DLSS branch Nvidia rolled out.Insert snarky but not snarky enough to be banned again joke about switch graphic on 4k.
Don't they need apposite hardware to do dlss? So i guess we talk about switch 2 in a couple of years right?!
Don't you you think that they are gonna wait 1-2 years to see if the oled\current model can still sell gangbuster?!Nintendo can basically launch a 2 anytime they want, the tech they need is effectively off-the-shelf at the moment. The Xavier NX was available in late 2019, so a theoretical Tegra chip built on that would be a good fit for Nintendo's hardware strategy, and wouldn't strain Nvidia. And it's at least triple the raw hardware power of the Tegra X1 in the Switch, and it has Tensor cores on top of that for that new ARM-based DLSS branch Nvidia rolled out.
So it's not hardware that we're waiting on, it's Nintendo figuring out when the "right time" to release a successor is.
That's what I meant by "waiting for the right time". If they see that OLED is tanking thanks to Valve rolling out an actually capable handheld with a decent price and "setting the bar" for hardware expectations, they might accelerate the rollout of the successor. And if OLED still sells well, we might not see a successor for another year at least.Don't you you think that they are gonna wait 1-2 years to see if the oled\current model can still sell gangbuster?!
That's what I meant by "waiting for the right time". If they see that OLED is tanking thanks to Valve rolling out an actually capable handheld with a decent price and "setting the bar" for hardware expectations, they might accelerate the rollout of the successor. And if OLED still sells well, we might not see a successor for another year at least.
Higher resolution is not the point of DLSS.I think Switch and Deck target a completely different audience, meaning they can co-exist not interfering each others sales. But at some point the market will get saturated with Switch, and Nintendo will have to come up with a successor, and the question is - is higher resolution what will push current Switch owners to get a new hardware? Let's be honest, the only people who want a Switch Pro/4K are the people who aren't interested in Switch at all and Nintendo's library, while those who do already have one for years, and don't care about games being 720p. I think Switch made Nintendo kind of stuck in the corner, the those concept is too successful, so they can either bet on something completely new that might fail hard like WiiU did, or just keep evolving Switch with specs upgrades, which I honestly don't think their audience cares about, especially when the games will be the same.
Higher resolution is not the point of DLSS.
Well okay, no, I suppose it is, but it wouldn't be here. Because resolution is just one end of the rope. Pull the other way, and you have better performance for the same resolution. Or better detail at same resolution and performance. Or better battery life at same resolution, detail, and performance. It's a weird 4-ended rope.
Are you implying that using DLSS tech could mean a big hike on price despite what it can offers?But again - do Nintendo's games really need it? Does their audience needs it, cares about it? I think all those 6yo kids who play Pokemon, Mario etc. and their parents couldn't care less, the older audience who's into Zelda and Metroid, sure, would use a bit of more complex visuals, but the majority of their market, not at all, if anything, they'd prefer the Switch to be as cheap as possible.
That's what I meant by "waiting for the right time". If they see that OLED is tanking thanks to Valve rolling out an actually capable handheld with a decent price and "setting the bar" for hardware expectations, they might accelerate the rollout of the successor. And if OLED still sells well, we might not see a successor for another year at least.
No, most certainly, no. The specs for the Jetson XNX are a bit confusing in regards to raw performance (because as-is it's more of an automotive AI unit, unlike a theoretical Tegra SoC built on it), but its CPU tops out at 1.9GHz in dual-core mode (1.4 in quad- or six-core), and the GPU can push maybe one TFLOP of performance compared to like 1.6 in the Deck. It's still about three times the power of the Switch though, before DLSS.Would a Switch using Xavier NX be superior than what's in the Steam Deck not counting the access to DLSS?