Topic: Are you still playing Switch 2 if you have the game already on PC

Here in the UK we have had some serious discounting on some of those just because I guess they have sold so badly on Switch 2 that they have a lot of stock. I forget the name but one game went sub 20 pounds from a launch price of around 40 pounds. So despite the huge sales of the console third party software has not sold well. I don't know what the current Switch 2 console sales are for hardware I've not seen much about that in the news except maybe Japan where it continues to sell well but not seen information for other areas.

I would say Cyberpunk is actually a great experience in handheld. If you're only gonna play it on the TV and own anything else, it's better to play there, but for someone like me who wants a seamless hybrid experience, Switch 2 is where it's at.

Some games also just run better on Switch 2 than Steam Deck.

I have neither a Switch 2 nor a handheld PC at the moment, but I intend to get both sometime this generation.

Switch 2 will mainly be used for exclusives only, unless we see third parties properly support the console with physical releases. Where that fails, I'll grab third-party releases on PC, provided that there is a DRM-free option available. I'll also use a handheld PC for retro gaming and emulation. I'll happily support DRM-free releases on PC and physical re-releases of retro games on Switch/2, but I won't be paying to merely rent decades-old ROMs.

Whichever platform enables me to actually own the games I'm after will ultimately get my money.

Since people take Digital Foundry as gospel I'm going to post this video here given they've basically landed exactly where I have on this question. Which is, I would argue, the only reasonable position to land when any serious comparisons of the two

If you can't be bothered watching it, TLDR:

Where Deck Beats Switch 2:

• Deeper library of software support, both legacy and third party
• Ability to adjust settings of legacy titles without developer intervention
• OLED model screen is significantly better on contrast, motion and HDR performance
• About 2.5X battery capacity (although somewhat eaten into by lower efficiency)
• I'm adding this one, unified account across any platform running Steam

Where Switch 2 beats Deck:

• Docked performance
• Significantly better temporal upscaling solutions (DLSS)
• Higher resolution screen
• Higher refresh rates and support for VRR
• Significantly better power efficiency (although it needs it given the smaller battery)
• Significantly better dock/portable transitions (Deck really doesn't want to be a home console)
• Ability for Developers to adjust games specifically for the Switch 2 as a target
• More comfortable controls (DF's opinion here, personally I think it's much of a muchness)
• More controller centric OS design, fully usable without keyboard/mouse/touch
• Nintendo's exclusives

Where they are largely the same:

• Portable performance
• Effective real world battery life (it's a wash, they trade blows here depending on the scenario)
• Relative bulk and weight, especially once you've paired them with a case or suitable grip

Personal opinion time
For me, Switch 2 largely supersedes my Steam Deck. It relegates it to be an emulation device and a device for games that I've already purchased on Steam or don't exist on Switch 2. Will I buy games like Cyberpunk on Switch 2? Maybe not. But I'm not buying it to play on Deck either, if I got it on Steam it would be so I could play it on my desktop. The ability then to also play on Deck is at that point just a bonus and, frankly, mostly a novelty for that kind of game

Switch 2 also negates entirely any desire for me to even consider a Playstation or XBox. I've never really wanted to have purchases across three digital stores, I certainly never wanted to pay for two gaming subscription services. I had tried to fill the "home console" niche with PCs under my TV over the years but that never worked. I had hoped that Deck would be something that'd close that gap and it hasn't. But Switch 2 closes the power gap enough that, going forward, I feel like it's good enough to be a decent home console

So three pillars:
Desktop: Once you're committed to sitting down with a KB/Mouse anyways, PC is king
TV: PS5 is king but Switch 2 is good enough and PC is a DQ
Portable: Display issues aside, Switch 2 is king

Or watch this as well.

Switch 2 Graphics: Developers vs Digital Foundry (Reaction/Analysis)

@sethfranum
Or, you know, maybe don't? I don't know why anyone would bother considering anything SMD has to say on this or any topic really. I don't necessarily always agree with DF's editorial skews and biases. They do have somewhat of a tendency to "because Nintendo", although less than some. They do also put a bit of a higher value performance and image quality than I personally do although that's probably understandable given the content they produce

But what they do, and what SMD has a reputation for not doing, is to measure things and correct themselves when new information becomes available. And they are, generally, ones to try and make measurable claims. I would say the video I linked to is a fairly classic example of that. And if you're take from me posting it is to whine about DF's presumably anti-Nintendo biases.... I would suggest that you either didn't watch the video or were to blinkered in your biases to actually realise it's actually fairly positive about Switch 2. Frankly, like most of their coverage on Switch 2 has been

"Also Switch 2 power efficiency is really just fixed platform optimisations"

It isn't, the SoC is just straight up more efficient. It's the same reason why NVidia GPUs tend to use less power than their AMD/Intel counterparts at similar levels of performance. Or how ARM based laptops from the likes of Apple or Qualcomm tend to be able to achieve a different class in terms of power efficiency. It has nothing to do with it being a fixed platform. Not even remotely

If this is your takeaway you haven't understood the video or my comments in response to it

"We should also mention the Steam Deck is only one of many PC handhelds"

All of which are in a different price category, none of which close the gap in terms of the OS experience or power efficiency. I could also just take a full desktop CPU and jam a 5090 into a GPU dock. It'd "resolve" some of the performance concerns but it wouldn't make it any better at being a portable device that's easily dockable

Yes the Switch 2 has weak ARM processors that may not be as power hungry as x86 processors in Steam Deck etc but the graphics hardware is no more efficient in architecture and being on a dated fabrication process means both have much higher power demands than they should. None of this was discussed in that video so definitely nothing missed in that video regarding this. It's unfair to compare a full fat PC game with a cut down optimised port designed for weaker hardware. Same was true of the original Switch too when it had ports of Doom which didn't need much wattage on Switch but then was scaled back compared to PC to run on Switch.

PC handhelds aren't that expensive, here in the UK we are seeing them go below 400 pounds with AMD Z1 extreme processors so pretty much the same as Switch 2. However even if believed they were nearer 500 pounds that is only the price of Switch 2 mario kart bundle and one extra game. Price wise there is nothing between them. Switch 2 pricing has meant they are competing directly with each other.

However once you have made the investment everything about PC gaming handhelds is cheaper, cheaper games, longer digital rights to that software, no online costs etc. However I totally accept that configuring games for full performance on PC gaming handhelds can be tricky and more time consuming like any PC really and that is a disadvantage but if you configure it with mods that could be graphic optimisation, new levels etc the gaming experience can be on another level compared to playing the vanilla version on Switch 2. So advantages and disadvantages.

We don't currently know how low Nintendo is setting the clocks on Switch 2 but we do know they set them very low on the original Switch and until the Switch 2 is hacked and examined we won't know the true figures. Geekerwan stated up to 1.3 Teraflops for portable performance but those are peak figures and would likely lead to battery runtime of well below 2 hours based on a mainly 10Nm fabrication process. Once we have real figures everything will make sense with regard battery runtime on Switch 2. It always does in the end, it did with the Switch and it will with the Switch 2.

@BonzoBanana
I'm not talking about the process node or the specific per game optimisations. I'm talking about the architecture. It is very, very well documented how much more power efficient NVidia's GPU architecture is and in the video linked they quite literally show Switch 2 delivering competitive performance and image quality to Deck with ~8W

There's not even a discussion to be had here. It's doing more per W than Deck is. There are no unknowns here it's measurable, the video measures it. It's literally a more efficient piece of hardware. End of discussion

And on price? I don't know what you're on here. Deck is $650AU for the LCD model, $899AU for the OLED. I'd consider that a similar price category to Switch 2 which is $769AU bundled with Kart and $699AU without. The Z1 extreme ROG Ally X is $1599AU. That's not a comparable price. Not even close. Throwing that into the discussion is like throwing the PS5 Pro into a discussion about the Switch Lite

It is completely unrealistic to judge its power efficiency when its a fixed platform and you do not know its performance level so the clock rates could be very low or much lower than you realise. On a PC there are utilities that provide full information on what the PC is doing when running a game and you can clearly see the full picture but we simply do not know how low the Switch 2 clocks are to judge power efficiency so we can only guess. That is my point.

Lets say in reality the Switch 2 was running at 800 Gflops in portable mode well below the 1.3 Teraflop peak figure as an average. Lets not forget the original Switch had 21.3GB/s of bandwidth in portable mode where as the Switch 2 we know is around 68GB/s I believe, just over 3x as much memory bandwidth. So the capacity to move 3x as much data around between the components. The original Switch in portable mode had a peak gflops capacity between 170-200 Gflops depending on where you look but when you look at actual clock rates its was more between 90-130 Gflops for most demanding games as an average and well below that for simple games. Just need to be realistic especially with such a low capacity battery fitted. It's only about 19Wh when the steam deck OLED is 50Wh and some other PC handhelds are more. It's madness to think the T239 chipset is driven at high clock rates with such a tiny battery and with such a dated fabrication process. All I'm saying is its likely Nintendo are doing the same with Switch 2 as they did with Switch 1, keeping clock rates low to increase battery runtime. I'm not writing anything controversial or unlikely surely? One of the huge advantages of a fixed platform and fixed platform optimisations is you can run such a chipset at lower clocks? This is one of those situations which can only be proved right or wrong in time when we get the information we are sadly lacking at the moment.

@BonzoBanana
It has a battery of a certain capacity, it has a power adaptor. You can objectively measure the number of Watts it consumes. You can then count the number of pixels and frames to judge the performance. Lastly you can make adjustments to settings on the PC side or just use your eyes to judge image quality

Switch 2 outputs similar levels of image quality at similar levels of performance to the Deck in portable mode. But it does this while consuming substantially less power. Not just a bit less, something like 3X less. It is therefore more efficient and it isn't even close. Equally when it is docked and has a power draw closer to Deck it pulls ahead and fairly convincingly beats Deck

Done, end of discussion. Switch 2 has a more efficient SoC than Deck. This is an indisputable and measurable fact and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to where NVidia's architecture has been sitting in comparison to it's competition

It's completely unrealistic to compare the power efficiency of a fixed platform against something like a steam deck because the steam deck is running vanilla pc code where as the Switch 2 would have had sections stripped out to run on the weaker platform. It uses less power because it is doing less. The PS4 ran games in a superior way to a PC configured with the same level of components. You can put your head in the sand and pretend you are right but that isn't how game console hardware works at all. We all know the original Switch has simplified code to run on its weaker hardware and literally has less to do because that has to be the case when it isn't capable of doing more than it is designed for. Is a PC twice as power efficient as a PC that uses twice the power even though it has half the performance? No of course not. The Switch 2 performance level is lower but fixed platform optimisations allows it to punch above its weight but again that means every game has to be re-developed at great cost to get those optimisations. So the library of games is much smaller and much more expensive.

I'm guessing we have all pretty much seen the analysis of the Switch 2 chipset by Geekerwan and what it is capable of and the dated fabrication process it uses. There is no debate that the Switch 2 uses a dated and more power hungry fabrication process from 2020/2021 which is over 5 years ago. To present this as some sort of modern power efficient chip is ridiculous. What we have is fixed platform optimisation vs open platform PC games where games are developed for a wide variety of hardware configurations. I've seen some amazing portable performance by Z1 Extreme PC handhelds. Yes it can do 4.5 Teraflops while portable, something like double the performance of Switch 2 even in docked mode and with far more CPU and memory resources but it can also go down to lower wattages and still deliver Switch 2 beating performance even allowing for use of unoptimised code. However the Z1 Extreme is on a much more advanced 4Nm fabrication process rather than the 10/8Nm process of Switch 2. 10/8Nm vs 4Nm and then remember there are also chipsets with 5, 6 and 7Nm fabrication processes in between.

The recent interview with Virtuos who said the Switch 2 is about the same performance level of CPU resources as the original PS4 or just beyond so maybe PS4 Pro level shows CPU resources inadequate for many future games without extreme cutting back surely. I think we will see games like 'Light No Fire' simplified for Switch 2. So does that make the Switch 2 more power efficient or just weak hardware that needs less power? I personally think Hello games will include Switch 2 in the release of that game but it will be like No Mans Sky on the original Switch, extremely cut back.

There is a comparison here between the Z1 Extreme an an octacore A78 at 2Ghz so you just need to half the result for the A78 to match Switch 2.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/5508vs6298/AMD-Ryzen-Z1-...

The point is the Switch 2 is such a weak platform that relies heavily on DLSS upscaling to perform ok. Just being a weak platform doesn't make it more power efficient. The Switch 2 only has about 8% of the CPU resources of the Z1 Extreme so this has to be factored in with any assessment of power efficiency.

@skywake And why would anyone consider DF to say? They are so Sony "Biased" already it's no wonder they can't even get a Developer or willing to bring a Developer respond on their podcast. Remember they are techies not real Developer or Reviewers with proven track record. Did you listen to what he said there's no Developer in their review to respond back they were the acting as they were the Developers and new more then the Developers? That video shows their lack of even bringing the Developers to retort their opinionated reviews and answer that made it sound like they were the Developers. That's the incredible part here. And Switch 2 tech is nothing like Steam those two system couldn't be so opposite here. Also the Devs never said it was power level/hardware level of PS5 but DF runs with "Comparable" as though it was hardware equivalent with PS5 and makes laughter about that. So tell me again how does one think DF is in anyway a reviewer with any credibility after. This is why they can't get any Devs because those Devs know already DF is Biased and will do anything to fit their "Narrative" as though they were the Devs. They have mils subs and yet they can't get a Devs to even talk their Development???

@BonzoBanana @sethfranum
Both of you need to step back, drop your biases, engage your brains and actually listen to what i've said rather than reflexively reacting with the console warrior BS

@skywake This is the comments, I expect from someone doing console warrior to BS talk to others. You clearly didn't listen to videos debunking their reviews are opinionated and not encompassing Devs to talk as though they were the Devs of the game that the real Developers created. DF created their own problems and trying to dig out of the hole they created for themselves. All for the comments they make no one has answered why can't they get Developer to join their podcast when they talk about the Developers game???? Sounds like "Biased" reviews...

@sethfranum
You're pointed to a video posted by Super Metal Dave to tear down DF here rather than replying to what I said when I agreed with DF's take. One which was positive about the Switch 2 in the comparison

Firstly this doesn't address my comments at all, which again were positive about the Switch 2 in this comparison. But secondly SMD has a reputation. During the pre-Switch era he staked his entire reputation on a hardened belief that NX was a PS4 killer AMD Radeon home console beast. Despite evidence to the contrary and leaks reported by Eurogamer (i.e. DF's parent publication). Leaks which turned out to be entirely correct. So I don't really want to bother considering anything he has to say on anything, especially if it concerns DF

If you can't actually respond to what I actually said here I don't really see what you're contributing to this conversation. It's a simple premise, I'm claiming that Switch 2 as a portable compares favourably to Deck in real world use. Not academically, actual use in games. It doesn't have the advantages of an open platform and the screen is lacking but it's more power efficient for similar results in portable mode and can extend even further when docked. I was of this view before the DF video on it, I posted the DF purely because they went out and actually made a video on it. And the video agreed with my experience as an owner and user of both platforms

Do you agree with this statement or not? That's the question. And if you don't why not? I mean, I have and paid for both so you're disagreeing with me here. Do you have both? Have you used both? Do you think my perception of this is skewed because I value docked mode too much or am putting too much of a negative weight on PC game configuration being a nuisance? Am I giving too much of a pass for the Switch 2 not yet having a library of games that can take advantage of Switch 2? There's a discussion to be had there

But, IMO, the question isn't what your particular stance on a publication or platform is. It's not the brain-dead talking points of console warriors either. And if you or @BonzoBanana want to engage in that then go ahead. But just know I couldn't care less about this drama. All I'm talking about is which lump of plastic and sand is more enjoyable to use. And I think Switch 2 puts on a damn good showing

When people take DF talking point as gospel and never tries to bring in Developers of the game they talk about or Switch2 platform with a mils following they aren't doing anything beyond opinionated narrative is what the video was showing but that was lost already. DF already had a narrative they wanted to push and now they face backlash at the narrative they are sugar coating to curry favor and not go back to correct past mistake is what everyone been saying nothing about the Steam or Switch2 it's how they put forth their narrative that is in doubt and question now. How you feel about Steam or Switch2 wasn't the point but how DF created a culture they are the Devs and know more then the Devs when simple having Devs to address what and why is befuddles the mind. As to comparing Steam to Switch2 they are so different in architecture that there is no real meaningful comparisons. It's the game that shows the differences.

@sethfranum
My comments were not about Digital Foundry. Do you have anything to say about the contents of the video and the positive things it has to say about about the Switch 2? In particular how it relates to the topic of this thread. Specifically the value Switch 2 hardware for people in the PC gaming ecosystem who might otherwise have or be interested in a PC portable

Or do you just want to complain about how Digital Foundry hates Switch 2 and Nintendo. Do you want to do the drama here despite, again, my only citing their video because of the POSITIVE things it had to say about Switch 2. Things which I was saying on here before their video (look at my first comment in this thread). Things I have been saying on these forums in some form since before the Switch 2 reveal. Things that are self evident for anyone who is using both devices

I don't believe I have any bias at all with regard companies and have been completely factual at all times. I don't do console loyalty. I own lots of different gaming hardware and have zero loyalty to Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft etc. That just isn't how my mind works. I just like talking about console hardware and its potential for gaming. I wonder can you honestly say the same with regard your views on Nintendo as you keep defending them with complete nonsense comments that makes zero sense at all? I'd like you to state you have no loyalty or need to be defensive of Nintendo at all. I'm quite happy to praise and criticise the same gaming company without any hinderance at all. I don't have shares in any of these companies and have no emotional attachment to them why would I? I love my Switch Lite and think its a brilliant console but where its rubbish I state so. However I'll admit I do have a bias towards better value gaming so will point out when I think gaming is poor value on certain systems. That is my main bias as I don't like people being ripped off and weak hardware with excessive pricing. That will mean I appear to be anti-Nintendo I guess on many occasions but I would normally clearly state why I believe that and link to evidence to show low performance levels etc. I don't consider that bias against a company just not liking consumers being ripped off. Ultimately this is a forum where there are lots of different opinions and we should be focused on discussing the hardware and games and not trying to childishly attack each other because we don't like them having a different viewpoint.