Pretty sure the minimal performance, is them having virtual Nintendo console on it that you pay $10 per game and you get to experience all of Super Mario Brothers 1-3 on the go...

Not in any meaningful way.
The cheap version of the switch costs £200(or £280 for real switch) but a half decent PC could be done for £500.

What the switch has that the PC doesn't is those special controllers and a touch screen so instead of putting gimped pc ports onto it, more should be done to use those features.

Yeah. It's kind of a "wish I never experienced it" thing sometimes, because when you have to play a demanding game at 60fps it's a real bummer. Especially first-person games, which is where I notice the drop in framerate the most. I assume I'll be playing Cyberpunk at 60fps and it's a drag.

Yep, it's the whole "there's really no looking back type of thing." Once you hit 90fps, 120fps, 144fps, 240fps, etc - yeah, 60fps just....won't do it for you.

I get it - at times, I have a game that isn't best put over 60fps b/c of physics going bananas or some other nonsense - i.e. think Fallout 4. And yeah, it's only at 60fps...and it ain't really spectacularly. Isn't as smoother as other games, at better framerates.

Throw G-Sync on top...and yeah - again, no looking back; even more. I cringe when a screen tears or I get input lag, if I'm not on my G-Sync monitor.

Once you get perfection - or well, close to it, I guess - you can't un-see...what you've already seen.

I noticed it for my first time, with GR: Wildlands. It was a game, I had all kinds of issues with. Stutters. Slow downs. Poor framerates (compared to 60fps) on my old rig (i7 950; 16 GB DDR3 RAM; GTX 970; W7 x64). Had to cap it to 40fps, just to keep it stable. Ick.

Bought the SC15 laptop b/c I wanted a new laptop and the power/price was good at that time. $1000 on sale (from $2000) - i7 7700 HQ; 16 GB RAM DDR4; 6GB GTX 1060; 15.6'' 120hz G-Sync built-in monitor; TB3; W10 x64. I was in the 90's and took a hit to 60fps. Didn't notice it, except for I saw the framerate dip on the counter in Afterburner. Almost fell out of chair, with it taking such a dip....and didn't notice anything. I realized how right my friend was.

Had to test another game. Then tried Prey 2017 - but it was running much better; at 120fps on the SC15. It took a hit to 90fps, when in one of those No-Gravity areas. Again, almost fell out of my damn chair. Didn't notice or feel anything, except saw the framerate take a dive in the counter in Afterburner.

First thing I did - began my search for a better monitor w/ G-Sync for my desktop PC. Eventually, I got one.

I once thought the jump from 60fps over 30fps was a game-changer. Sure, it was - but high framerates (i.e. 90fps, 120fps, 240fps, etc) with G-Sync is the real game-changer.

To me, until I get better equipment and/or prices go down - forget 1440p and 4K at 60fps or lower. Give me 1080p at 90fps or better with G-Sync.

control gave me a lot to think about, i'm still struggling between dlss and full rtx and 1080p straigth with one rtx setting enabled so yea, i definitely have a minimum acceptance level

tbh i don't care for any fps limit just so long the screen shows no sign of degradation in any form, scrolling if applied moves sweet as butter, there is no reloading of certain textures at different distances are the most important

it would be silly to talk any further since i happily accept year 90's graphics on my pc ( though not everything )

I chose native resolution over ray tracing in Control, but I did go back and forth quite a while. The ray tracing effects are pretty cool, but I just hate processed images, especially artificial sharpening which DLSS 2.0 is absolutely slathered with. I wish I was one of those people who think it looks as good as native.

I can't seem to find a good benchmark for Control on 1440P + best graphics + DXR on + DLSS off.
I tried it on my 970GTX ... I could get decent performance* with most settings maxed out on 1080P (no DXR of course).

* Around 40 fps, perfectly fine for me and the way I play games. I don't play fast paced FPS games and I thought The Force Unleashed (no FPS but fast action) played fine at its locked 30 fps.

Anyway, this is a bit off topic.

Well, I have a 2070 and couldn't even get a stable 60fps at 1440p with all ray tracing off and everything else maxed. I had to turn down normal reflections I think, and MSAA off. I tried just basic ray tracing on and it was probably doable at 30, I want to say, but I need shooters to be at least 60 so I didn't play with it long.

The game loves lower resolutions though, which is why everyone uses DLSS with it. Rendering at I think 960p and upscaled I could turn basic ray tracing on and get over 60 easily, iirc.

on dx 11 i can get 60 fps on 1080p but that is with a powerload of already at around 80% with a 2060 super
on dx 12 with rtx off but with those special light effects enabled i run also around 80 to 90% powerdraw
dlss high quality all rtx enabled will grant me similar results and on medium quality it is around 50 to 70% of its powerdraw
full rtx enabled and everything ultra ( which the card obviosly can't handle ) is 30 to 55 fps and some stutter with the load on 100%

high quality btw on a 1080p screen is at 540p and medium i belief at 320

mechwarrior v does seem to know more dlss scales since if you choose medium quality as opposed to high quality dlss ( in control you choose the render resolution while in mechwarrior you choose a quality grade ) there is almost no degradation what so ever, while in control the drop from 1080 to 50 is pretty obvious maybe this has more to do with the higher resolutions i'm not really sure i only know mechwarrior 5 is the only game so far that scares my whole pc into overdrive fan wise.. and for what you might ask? even without those silly rtx effects enabled

I see the image as worse in all permutations of DLSS because I am very sensitive to processed images (probably because of my film enthusiasm). However it is definitely true that the higher the render resolution, the less DLSS has to process the image, therefore the better it looks. This is true of TAA as well. I think a lot of gaming journalists and tech channels use 4k monitors, which is one reason they see the technology as better than a lot of normal people do.

So in the end only the lightest of games in terms of calculation power are suited for you on the switch?

I'm not techie enough to say what is or isn't viable, I'm just saying consumers should hold them to some kind of standard. If they support 20fps, they'll keep getting 20fps. Maybe they're fine with that though, which is part of why I was asking. So far everyone has basically agreed 30fps is their minimum, yet here we are seeing tons of 20fps drops in Switch games. I don't know what the answer is.

Yes, fanbase is the one thing, but the other is that even people who are not especially "platform oriented" were (and still are) praising Switch, especially in US. There were already, before Switch release, quite advanced 3D games ("quite advanced" for the standard of the mobile gaming), both on Vita and android devices, which were working fluently on them. I personally didn't see any kind of understanding for situation, when any title for Vita or Android had some serious performance issues (for the android devices it's a bit more complicated since we've got a lot of various smartphones/tablets/handhelds with android, with different hardware inside). Yet by some reason the reactions (which you've mentioned) are far more understanding for poorly made ports for Switch.

And yes, I totally respect your approach, especially since giving to any producer signal, that he can make ports with such poor quality and still be considered as "oh, so great" will bring nothing good. So it's definitelly a good approach from your side, that you're trying to help people realise this thing. Sad thing is, that plenty don't even want to listen.

i belief 30 fps is still the standard for any console game? i'm not sure if i would endorse higher limits in that respect, the new consoles are upping it to 60 which still is fine, over 100 fps maintained seems for the moment ridicilous expensive in both hardware and cost terms