News Switch 2 devs are already bleating about performance issues — Donkey Kong Bananza director reveals challenges

[John Nemesh]

I see the real issue as the CPU cores being the weak link and the fact that that 120hz screen has awful latency. The GPU portion is actually really power efficient considering its performance and maybe 2-4 years ago would have been class leading, but not now. At 8.6 watts the switch 2 does about 75% the performance as a steam deck OLED which uses nearly 3 times the power.

I see the real issue as the APU, the cheap controller hardware, the cheap screen hardware, a dock that doesn't support VRR, and pretty much the rest of the console.

The issue isn't that Nintendo cut a few corners...it's that they cut ALL of the corners! This is cheap POS level hardware that is overpriced and saddled with yet more corporate overreach with it's anti-consumer (and ILLEGAL) EULA. No one with half a brain should be even considering buying one.

 

[TerryLaze]

Why is it such a schock when it happens to an nintendo console?!
Every console ever had games that would run worse than perfect.
The ps5 pro has 60FPS game that can't reach a steady 60FPS.
Why the outcry for this one?!

 

[helper800]

I'd be surprised if the CPU cores were the problem but rather the very low clock speed. They're better than the cores used in the PS4/XBO (not that this means much) but the clocks are so low that I'd be surprised if the performance matched them. The graphics performance is actually pretty bad, but upscaling can crutch that whereas nothing is going to help the CPU.

Steam Deck is 15W APU with 20W total isn't it?

I saw a youtube review of the Steamdeck OLED pulling over 20 watts of power, but I cannot find the source video anymore.

 

[booberry]

If this game uses voxels, then it's similar to Dreams PS4 which was fully running voxels instead of polygons. Made download speeds of the 3d environments super fast!

And it runs on PS4. The graphics engine of Dreams was borrowed for 2 other games, one being Concrete City or something of that name.

 

[helper800]

The only Voxel game I ever really cared to play is 7 Days to Die, and performance is not good on maxed settings. Thing may have changed since I last played though, and I have a weaker CPU now.

 

[John Nemesh]

Why is it such a schock when it happens to an nintendo console?!
Every console ever had games that would run worse than perfect.
The ps5 pro has 60FPS game that can't reach a steady 60FPS.
Why the outcry for this one?!

Possibly because plenty of games DID run on the base PS5 at 60fps, and it was the developers CHOICE whether to run at 60fps or 30fps with shiny graphics options. Possibly because it offered a significant improvement in the quality of hardware over the base PS4 and PS4 Pro. Possibly because it has a far larger game library than the Switch. Possibly because it's better built than the Switch 2. Possibly because it actually supports VRR properly and isn't hampered by a dock that doesn't support it or a screen that has such high latency as to make the feature absolutely pointless. (you can argue that the PS5 didn't have VRR at launch, but then again, that was solved with a firmware update, where Nintendo will have to release new HARDWARE to support a feature touted on the launch console). And possibly because Sony is FAR less anti-consumer than Nintendo is today.

 

[helper800]

Possibly because plenty of games DID run on the base PS5 at 60fps, and it was the developers CHOICE whether to run at 60fps or 30fps with shiny graphics options. Possibly because it offered a significant improvement in the quality of hardware over the base PS4 and PS4 Pro. Possibly because it has a far larger game library than the Switch. Possibly because it's better built than the Switch 2. Possibly because it actually supports VRR properly and isn't hampered by a dock that doesn't support it or a screen that has such high latency as to make the feature absolutely pointless. (you can argue that the PS5 didn't have VRR at launch, but then again, that was solved with a firmware update, where Nintendo will have to release new HARDWARE to support a feature touted on the launch console). And possibly because Sony is FAR less anti-consumer than Nintendo is today.

I agree, but when we say such things as, "And possibly because Sony is FAR less anti-consumer than Nintendo is today," it makes me chuckle because possibly the only company more anti consumer than Sony or Nintendo is Apple.

 

[TerryLaze]

Possibly because plenty of games DID run on the base PS5 at 60fps, and it was the developers CHOICE whether to run at 60fps or 30fps with shiny graphics options. Possibly because it offered a significant improvement in the quality of hardware over the base PS4 and PS4 Pro. Possibly because it has a far larger game library than the Switch. Possibly because it's better built than the Switch 2. Possibly because it actually supports VRR properly and isn't hampered by a dock that doesn't support it or a screen that has such high latency as to make the feature absolutely pointless. (you can argue that the PS5 didn't have VRR at launch, but then again, that was solved with a firmware update, where Nintendo will have to release new HARDWARE to support a feature touted on the launch console). And possibly because Sony is FAR less anti-consumer than Nintendo is today.

So how does any of that change the fact that 60FPS* games can't hold 60FPS* on the pro, or the standard, or any console ever.
*whatever the target

If you just want to vent about how bad nintendo is then just do that, you don't need to come up with reasons that are non reasons.

 

[helper800]

So how does any of that change the fact that 60FPS* games can't hold 60FPS* on the pro, or the standard, or any console ever.
*whatever the target

If you just want to vent about how bad nintendo is then just do that, you don't need to come up with reasons that are non reasons.

Where did the console companies define your strict definition of what 60 FPS means? Does the game have to run at exactly 60FPS with no dropped or additional frames 100% of the time to meet your definition? There is a difference between having an average fps of 60 and never going lower than 60 fps, which seems to be how you are defining the standard.

 

[TerryLaze]

Where did the console companies define your strict definition of what 60 FPS means? Does the game have to run at exactly 60FPS with no dropped or additional frames 100% of the time to meet your definition? There is a difference between having an average fps of 60 and never going lower than 60 fps, which seems to be how you are defining the standard.

So what's the case with donkey Kong? How close does that have to stay to 60FPS for people to not riot about it?!

 

[helper800]

So what's the case with donkey Kong? How close does that have to stay to 60FPS for people to not riot about it?!

I don't know what Nintendo means when they say their game runs at 60 FPS so I have nothing to compare against complaints at X FPS "below" 60 FPS.

 

[John Nemesh]

So how does any of that change the fact that 60FPS* games can't hold 60FPS* on the pro, or the standard, or any console ever.
*whatever the target

If you just want to vent about how bad nintendo is then just do that, you don't need to come up with reasons that are non reasons.

Every single thing I said was 100% true. You can point to SPECIFIC titles that may not hold 60fps, that's on the software dev, NOT the hardware. The hardware, even the non-pro, is totally capable of 60fps and even 120fps (I know, I have played games at 120fps (locked) on the base PS5.

You seem to have an axe to grind with Sony, when you SHOULD be directing your ire to individual developers.

 

[John Nemesh]

So what's the case with donkey Kong? How close does that have to stay to 60FPS for people to not riot about it?!

Depends on what Digital Foundry has to say about it, really. But it has enough performance issues for reviewers to notice it. If it's noticeable, that's an "L".