This article uses a new method of benchmarking that looks at frame display time within each second, instead of just frames per second. This gives a much more accurate depiction of how a GPU will actually feel to the gamer.
Between the price, performance and power draw, with the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti, NVIDIA nailed the mainstream formula.
Nvidia writes:
The Nintendo Switch 2 takes performance to the next level, powered by a custom NVIDIA processor featuring an NVIDIA GPU with dedicated RT Cores and Tensor Cores for stunning visuals and AI-driven enhancements.
The raytracing probably doesn't even equal a low end PC GPU, even if it did it would probably be mostly useless. They'll probably force it in some game now that will run like shit maybe 30fps at best, just because "it can do it"
A lot of gamers don’t realize that ray tracing isn’t really about making games look better. It’s mainly there to make development easier and cheaper, since it lets devs skip a bunch of old-school tricks to fake reflections and lighting. The visual upgrade is just a nice bonus, but that’s not the main reason the tech exists.
So you can be 100% sure that developers will try to implement it every chance they get.
Agree with Vits .... but also to add, if devs and designers just implement RT to a game world then it won't always work as expected. RT is not just reflections but also lighting and illumination as well. For example, If you just create a room with minimal windows, then it will look dark af, if RTGI is enabled. Devs and designers needs to sort out the game world design accordingly as well.
DF's Metro Exodus RT upgrade is an amazing reference video to go through, if anybody's interested.
Some PS5 and SX games run at 30fps with RT...just like those systems, if you don't like it, turn it off.
I only say this to say, you make it seem like a problem exclusive to the Switch 2.
sour grapes much?
"It probably doesn't do it well because it's Nintendo and they suck". That's how your comment reads. Why don't you just wait and see before making these ridiculous statements?
Please. I'd like to play my switch games on my 4k tv without it looking all doodoo.
Nvidia could have said this months ago and cut the bullshit. Anyway the rumors were true.
TBH I don't think Nvidia would have cared if they broke the NDA. A little fine they pay, and they go back to their AI shit. They don't even care about GPU's anymore. I myself would like them to leave the PC and console market.
This story was written half a decade ago when the world knew Nvidia would provide the chip for Switch 2 and DLSS was taking off.
Yeah but similar thing happened a long time ago when 3dfx announced they were working with Sega when they took the company public Sega pulled out of the contract for the Dreamcast GPU.
In response Sega terminated the contract and went to a ultimately weaker chipset.
So there's a precedent but that Nintendo would have much Of an option its AMD, NVIDIA or Intel
I'm not expecting of anything from ray tracing but dlss will be the thing that sees the unit get some impossible ports.
Correct. All I'm seeing online is it'll never run FF7 Rebirth. If it can run cyberpunk it'll run it. The DLSS will help. Obviously only 30 fps but a lot don't care
Exactly right when I buy a game on switch I know what I'm getting into I'm buying a game for its portability and I'm willing to sacrifice fidelity and performance to play on a train or comfortably from a hotel room when I travel for work.
Replies(1)
AMD launches the Ryzen 9 9950X3D for $699 & Ryzen 9 9900X3D for $599, offering the best-in-class gaming & content creation CPU performance.
X3D really turned around AMD's cpu prospects. I wont touch intel now, vs 10 years ago I wouldn't imagine going anywhere near AMD cpu's for gaming only.
Zen 1 was merely "meh" IMO, it had major RAM compatibility issues, only really worked with Samsung memory from what I recall, and performance was ok at best, the 8700k launched the same year and was top dog even when Zen 2 came out. Though Zen 2 was much better.. it just lacked a bit in gaming, good all rounder chips though for other applications.
AMD are trying to upsell the 9900x3D to 9950x3D, pricing is weird (too close) and odd chip configuration.. it should be a lot cheaper. They did the same with the 9070 -> 9070XT.
Some funny choices going on at AMD..
Zen 1 was pretty great for what it was, considering that was the first time in a long time that AMD was actually competitve with Intel, it was also the first time you could easily get something with more than 4 cores/threads. The RAM issues was frustrating AF though, especially since Zen 1 performance relied so heavily on fast RAM.
If we ignore the price, the 990x3D and 9950X3D look pretty great provided you can actually make use of those extra cores/threads, otherwise the 9800x3D is better value.
Zen1 was the beginning of the turn around and by Zen3 it was starting to become ultra competitive. X3D was really only the final nail in the coffin.
I guess the real question is how many compatibility issues will arise from their motherboard chipsets? also the selection of motherboards for AMD is more limited too. Which often limits what kind of form factor build you want. Last time around I avoided AMD due to their chipsets having horrid USB3 support with accessories. You tend not to see these kind of issues being talked about, it ends up just being games and synthetic benchmarks.
I love this testing method, it really does seem more accurate. Check out the Witcher 2 results!
Can't say I've experienced such low performance running the witcher 2 on my 6870 (OC to 975MHZ) on high settings at 1920x1080. Price wise the 560 is still around the 240 dollar range. 6870 is at or below the 200 dollar mark. XFX has a 6870 2GB for about $219. It all comes down to what your budget allows. No regrets choosing the 6870.