One of the most requested pieces of Digital Foundry content has been a comparison between Nintendo Switch 2 and Valve’s Steam Deck, using Cyberpunk 2077 as the focal point for the face-off. On a surface level, it makes sense, right? Two handhelds with very different levels of specification battling it out, with the added spice of CD Projekt RED declaring that the Switch 2 port is the best handheld experience available. Our verdict? Steam Deck isn’t really built for “docked play”, where Switch 2 is far, far ahead. However, there’s a split decision when it comes to gaming on the go where both machines have strengths and weaknesses.
However, any comparison comes with a gigantic array of caveats to consider. Steam Deck runs the PC version of the game through the Proton compatibility layer. The Switch 2 port is built for Switch 2, using a direct-to-the-metal graphics API. Secondly, the Switch 2 version has an array of custom modifications meaning that while the games may look basically the same to the untrained eye, they most certainly are not. Thirdly, Switch 2 has a 1080p screen, while the Deck is at 800p – 720p if you stick to a 16:9 aspect ratio. And finally, the Nintendo machine has a custom form of DLSS which gives it a huge advantage over Steam Deck’s FSR and XeSS alternatives.
Then there’s the nature of the handheld experience itself. Steam Deck OLED may well have a lower display resolution, but let’s be brutally frank here. Its OLED display delivers brilliant HDR whereas we’d argue that Switch 2 doesn’t even have a proper HDR display.
Before we crack on with the head-to-head, well, to help our understanding of the Cyberpunk port and any potential comparisons with Steam Deck and by extension the PC version, we needed to compare the two directly to get some kind of ballpark settings lock – not easy when the game has custom adjustments made for the Nintendo console. Watch the video above and you’ll see that thanks to DF contributor Mohammed Rayan, we analysed every single PC settings preset, comparing similar resolution captures to Switch 2 equivalents.
The table below shows how – to the best of our understanding – quality mode docked and performance mode undocked compare to PC equivalent settings and for added value, we’ve got the same settings locked in for the PlayStation 5 version of the game running in performance mode. Perhaps puzzlingly you may notice that the PS5 version has some settings like ambient occlusion and volumetric fog resolution that are lower than Switch 2. There is an explanation here: the game is running at a far higher resolution on the Sony console, so additional resolution makes up the quality difference.
Either way, this gives you some idea of the high ticket price items where Switch 2 needed adaptations beyond culling resolution and leaning into DLSS to make up the difference. Primarily, shadow rendering was significantly retooled, while screen-space reflections were revamped with a custom solution. “Lower than low” level of detail also sees CDPR selectively tweaking geometry. It’s gratifying to see that CDPR didn’t need a barebones, radically cutback approach.
| Switch 2 Docked 30FPS | Switch 2 Handheld 40FPS | PS5 Performance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Native Resolution | 720p-1080p | 360p-720p | 1008p-1440p |
| Upscaler/ Output | Custom DLSS 1080p | Custom DLSS 720p | FSR 2.1 1800p |
| Crowd Density | Medium | Medium | Medium |
| Contact Shadows | On | On | On |
| Anisotropy | 4x | 4x | 8x |
| Local Shadow Mesh | Low | Low | Medium |
| Local Shadow | Medium (Custom High/Med) | Medium | High |
| Cascaded Shadow Range | Medium (Custom High/Med/Low/Lower) | Medium (Custom) | Medium |
| Cascaded Shadow Resolution | Medium | Low | Medium |
| Distant Shadow Resolution | High | High | High |
| Volumetric Fog Resolution | Medium | Medium | Low |
| Volumetric Cloud | Medium | Medium | Medium |
| Max Dynamic Decals | Ultra | Ultra | Ultra |
| Screen-Space Reflections | Low (Custom High/Med) | Low (Custom High/Med) | Medium |
| Sub-Surface Scattering | High | High | High |
| Ambient Occlusion | High | Low | Low |
| Colour Precision | Medium | Medium | Medium |
| Mirror Quality | High | Medium | High |
| Level of Detail | Low (Custom Geometry) | Low (Custom Geometry) | High |
Comparing Steam Deck to Switch 2 in a docked scenario seems odd, bearing in mind that Steam Deck really has no pretensions of being a living room gaming machine, and it’s here where Switch 2 excels. Using CD Projekt RED’s internal benchmarks, Switch 2 sticks more doggedly to 30fps in the quality mode but also delivers a far wider dynamic resolution range. In CDPR’s Kabuki streaming test, we measured a 720p to 1008p resolution window, dropping to just 720p to 765p on Steam Deck. Performance is significantly improved by removing the upscaling altogether and just running at native 720p – indicative of the prohibitive computational cost in using FSR3 or XeSS to get a 1080p output.
The gap between Deck and Switch 2 widens if we compare a similarly set-up 40fps performance mode where the DRS windows expands to 540p to 1080p. Switch 2 hits the target more often but Deck with FSR 3 has 91 percent of Deck performance, dropping to 84 percent with XeSS. In short, demanding more in frame-rate terms sees the Deck fall short – and remember, when we’re dropping frames, we are almost certainly at lower bounds 540p while Switch 2 is more dynamic. In 40fps mode in the Kabuki run, a 540p to 756p dynamic range on Deck improves to 630p to 900p on Switch 2. Combined with DLSS as a superior upscaling, it’s a big difference in favour of the Nintendo machine.
Despite trying to match settings as best we could, the early part of the Kabuki run here suggests a missing shadow cascade on Switch 2, but more obvious is that the performance from Switch 2 is much more consistent in hitting 30fps. There’s so much headroom here that not only is Switch 2 running smoothly, but you are getting better image quality, not just from DLSS but also from a wider dynamic resolution range. Switch renders at anything from 720p to 1008p in this sequence, while Steam Deck with both upscalers is losing so many frames that the DRS window is just 720p to 765p here in this area where we do actually hit 30fps. So, a much higher resolution, a 29.5fps average capped at 30fps remember, with 27.4fps from FSR3 and 26.7fps from XeSS.
In 40fps performance mode, Switch 2 finds its limits in any area with a decent level of geometry. Lowest frame-rates are actually marginally worse than the quality mode here and the opening of the sequence sees Deck take the battle to Switch 2 in what may be a CPU limited area, bearing in mind how XeSS and FSR 3 offer similar results. However, the centre part of the sequence sees the Nintendo console hug the 40fps line in a way that the Steam Deck does not. Pixel counts in these sequences range from 540p to 756p on Steam Deck where corresponding shots on Switch 2 give us 630p to 900p.
I also used another internal streaming test, taken from The Beast In Me: City Center side mission where city traversal along with combat tests CPU harder. In quality mode, Switch 2 remains faster, better hugging the 30fps line but drops consistently when more enemy cars are in play. The 40fps performance mode sees Switch 2 continue to have an advantage, but long stretches of play in more detailed areas see both Deck and Switch 2 play out with similar frame-rates. Perhaps we are looking at similar CPU-based limitations here. Switch 2 seems to run at higher resolutions in these areas though.
Switch 2 has significant across-the-board advantages, but power efficiency is remarkable. Measured from the wall, Switch 2 pulls 18-19W of power. Factoring in efficiency losses from the power supply, the machine is likely using 16-17W of power. This is lower than measured in our Switch 2 review, which is interesting, but more interesting is that Steam Deck OLED is running pretty consistently at 24-25W according to the performance meters. I measured about 29-31W from the wall, a higher figure again likely via efficiency losses from the power supply. In what is as close to a like-for-like test as we can get, Switch 2 is far more efficient and far more performant, despite the 8nm/10nm Samsung process node apparently being less optimal than the TSMC 6nm used in Steam Deck OLED. This is simply astonishing.
All of which brings us on to handheld performance testing, arguably more relevant bearing in mind that Steam Deck has few pretensions for offering any kind of home console experience. And this in turn presents a challenge. Switch 2 has no video output, so how do you test performance? I stuck to the 30fps quality handheld mode and used our tools with the Switch 2’s internal capture system. This gives us 11Mbps 1080p30 captures – so half temporal resolution. However, the capped frame-rate of the game matches the frame-rate of the capture. It’s not as precise as I’d like, but it will highlight performance drops with a decent enough level of accuracy.
Kicking off with CDPR’s streaming run in the Kabuki area of Night City, we kick off with like-for-like results, with just a small level of instability on the Switch 2 side. The climax of this run sees further instability from the target frame-rate, but interestingly Deck is more stable unless collision detection registers a hit – then the Valve Steam machine seems to momentarily lose its 30fps lock. However, the elephant in the room here is power draw. Steam Deck OLED is still maxing out at around 24.5W on average, but Switch 2 is delivering remarkably similar results – just a little less stable – and it draws around 8.9W on average based on overall battery life. And it has DLSS of course, so image quality is cleaner.
Moving on the Beast in me City Centre test – this is a much more demanding test with far more drops under 30 frames per second. Although we can match up the runs here thanks to the CDPR benchmarks, what actually happens within them is dynamic – the more interactions with other racers, the higher the likelihood of a drop beneath 30fps. Switch 2 caps at 30fps can drop as low as 23fps, while Deck is undoubtedly smoother with fewer frame-rate drops and only dipping into the late 20s. Switch 2 still has a huge efficiency advantage, plus the benefits of DLSS.
Power efficiency? By using the internal power metering offered by Steam Deck, I found that dropping TDP down to five watts vs the standard 15W gives us a much closer like for like test in terms of power draw. The effect is devastating on the Deck, dropping frame-rates down to 9.2 frames per second against Switch 2 with its 23-30fps window. With a similar power draw, Switch 2 is streets ahead. Going back to Kabuki, average frame-rate on Deck rises to 13fps but of course, Switch 2 is running this content mostly locked at 30fps with a big resolution advantage.
The thing is, it’s OK for Steam Deck OLED to use a lot more power because its battery is much larger – 50Wh vs Switch 2’s 19.75Wh – and as demonstrated earlier, we’re sapping a lot of performance from the Deck by using an upscaler we don’t need because Steam Deck doesn’t have a 1080p screen. There are still fluctuations beneath 30fps but the Deck seems to have smoother overall performance compared to Switch 2 – and I can’t understate the advantages of having actual HDR rather than the Nintendo approximation of the effect.
So, what have we learned from this exercise? A PC game running on a Linux handheld through the Proton translation layer without custom retooling for mobile gaming and without an iteration of the best upscaler on the market means that Switch 2 goes into this one with a range of unassailable advantages. In docked play, the gulf in performance and rendering resolutions is such that it’s difficult to come to any conclusion other than that Switch 2’s GPU is far more performant – even though the processor is on a supposedly sub-optimal fabrication technology. In theory, Steam Deck 2 should have a CPU advantage but it’s hard to tell that is the case when so much of our test runs are heavily GPU-limited.
In handheld play, there’s a strong case that in a real world head to head comparisons based on actual use cases, Steam Deck holds its own. Native 720p is a good fit for the panel, there’s no need to use DRS or upscaling to achieve similar performance to the Switch 2 operating in a 450p to 810p dynamic resolution window. In areas where we think we may be CPU bottlenecked, the Steam Deck also performs more smoothly in adhering to the 30fps target we opted for. And yes, Steam Deck OLED’s HDR is actual HDR, not something we can say about the Switch 2. 40fps? In the settings used above, I think it’s a write-off for Deck – and I can’t recommend the 40fps performance mode on Switch 2 either, especially in handheld mode, where VRR doesn’t seem to work properly.
Custom tooling and DLSS is enough to void any claim that we’re carrying out like for like testing, but a hard fact you can take away from this is the efficiency of the Switch 2 being in a world of its own – way, way ahead of Steam Deck – which in itself is highly efficient compared to a great many Windows handhelds. Switch 2 is delivering handheld Cyberpunk at under 9W total based on over two hours play from a 19.75Wh battery. Handheld efficiency was one of the big question marks surrounding Switch 2 before we got our consoles, this is a phenomenally good result. However, the real world impact of this is blunted somewhat – Steam Deck OLED’s battery is two-and-a-half times larger, so ultimately both Deck and Switch 2 will deliver similar battery life.
If there is to be a winner from this face-off, Switch 2 clearly reaps the benefits of a bespoke approach from the developer, the ability to use DLSS and some remarkable efficiency wins. Even if we can’t match the game’s visual settings 100 percent, the gulf in performance, resolution and overall image quality in docked mode puts Switch 2 way ahead. In pure handheld terms, Steam Deck more than holds its own, with the OLED panel delivering a game-changing HDR experience. There’s also evidence that overall CPU performance is improved, though for Switch 2 to achieve so much with so little resources in handheld mode remains highly impressive – remember, it’s just a 1.1GHz CPU paired with a 561MHz GPU…
