Virtuos Says Any Game That Runs at 60FPS on Xbox Series S Will 'Easily Port' to Switch 2 - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 06 July 2025 / 5,719 Views
Eoin O’ Grady, the Technical Director at port studio Virtuos subsidiary Black Shamrock in an interview with Wccftech has stated that any game that runs at 60 frames per second on the Xbox Series S should "easily port" to the Nintendo Switch 2.
"GPU-wise, the Switch 2 performs slightly below the Series S; this difference is more noticeable in handheld mode," said O’ Grady. "However, the Series S does not support technologies like DLSS, which the Switch 2 does. This makes the GPU capabilities of the two consoles comparable overall.
"CPU-wise, there is a clearer distinction between the two consoles. The Switch 2 is closer to the PlayStation (PS) 4 in this respect, having a CPU just a bit more powerful than the PS4’s. Since most games tend to be more GPU-bound than CPU-bound when well optimized, the impact of this difference largely depends on the specific game and its target frame rate.
"Any game shipping at 60 FPS on the Series S should easily port to the Switch 2. Likewise, a 30 FPS Series S game that’s GPU-bound should also port well. Games with complex physics, animations, or other CPU-intensive elements might incur additional challenges in reaching 30 or 60 FPS or require extra optimization during porting."
He added sales expectations for the Switch 2 were quite high even before it had a record breaking launch.
"Given the phenomenal success of the Switch, expectations for the sales performance of the Switch 2 were already quite high," said O’ Grady. "Nintendo has a huge pool of loyal fans, but alongside that, the handheld gaming market is growing right now — and I'm not talking about smartphones.
"The original Switch, along with the Steam Deck and other high-quality handheld gaming rigs, has contributed to growth in this area. Gamers increasingly want AAA games on the go, and so I think we will see the Switch 2 surpass its predecessor. This is precisely because it is a Nintendo console, renowned for innovation and its unique gameplay experiences, and because it meets the growing demand for gaming on the go — offering indie gems, Nintendo exclusives, and now AAA blockbuster titles."
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012 and taking over the hardware estimates in 2017. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel. You can follow the author on Bluesky.
More Articles
Why did they even make the series S?
Game pass subscribers. Obviously never worked though.
They don't optimise games well on the series s , which is a shame. It's just an afterthought port over.
The problem is we already have a few AAA games in 2025 that don't offer 60 fps mode on XSS. Monster Hunter Wilds, KCD 2, Clair Obscur Expedition 33, AC Shadows. FF XVI and more. Last year it was Stalker 2 etc.
I don't think that's a problem per day, just a natural limitation. Switch 2 doesn't need all 3rd party support and that shouldn't be expected. As always it's primary selling point is Nintendo software and portability.... and even games that are locked to 30fps on Series S can still be ported but just would require more resources.
If S2 could get 50% of the 3rd party titles PS5/Series gets, that'd a big improvement over S1 and give it the most robust library a Nintendo system has seen since the SNES days.
The DLSS comment is a bit disingenuous. While yes DLSS is generally better, the Xbox Series S has FSR 3.0 support. Which is still a decent alternative. It isn't like the Xbox Series S is incapable of the technology.
Beyond hilarious
2025 machine is more powerful than 2020 machine.
More at 11
Comparing a home console to a mobile powered console that has to run on 10 watts of power is incredibly ignorant and foolish. It usually takes mobile tech 10 years to hit comparable outcomes and performance as home consoles, for example PS4 level games weren't possible on handhelds until Steamdeck around a decade after PS4, you aren't going to get PS5 level games (without compromises: lower framerate, inferior assets etc) on handhelds until 2030.
Most games don't run at 60fps on the XBSS though so it kind of implies getting any game that runs on 30 on the S to run on Switch 2 will be difficult to impossible. CPU similar to base ps4 is really, really bad. It was a bad CPU when it launched 12 years ago
Based on actual sources or the usual drivel?
The source is the article I was responding to? What kind of question is that
The jaguar cores are well documented.
Switch 2 CPU is better than the old Jaguars by a fair bit.
This article literally says "having a CPU just a bit more powerful than the PS4" and that is straight from a developer. The PS4 CPU is terrible and not fit for modern gaming and neither is something "a bit" more powerful.
Well, my S2 is a Nintendo-only machine. And since Nintendo almost always optimizes their games to near-perfection, none of this will apply to me.
~Nintendo releases powerful hardware.
~Third-party developers release more games for the platform.
~Gamers seeking portable third-party gaming purchase the Switch 2.
~These gamers discover and play Nintendo's first-party titles.
~Nintendo's game sales increase
~Higher revenue enables Nintendo to develop more first-party games.
~Profit?
... Except Nintendo doesn't optimize their games to near perfection.
Links Awakening, Echo's of Wisdom, Pokemon S/V, Breath of the Wild, Tears of the Kingdom, Mario Odyssey, Super Mario Bros Wonder and more had all frame drops/frame pacing issues.
It's better than many 3rd party efforts though by a long mile.
In saying that, the hardware of the Switch 2 is extremely competent for a handheld, it's competitive with PC handhelds and that's a big feat considering how much larger and more power PC handhelds have available.
It basically brings home the point that the Switch 2 hardware is not just taking the "brute force" approach like it's competitors, it's taking the "smart" approach with new tricks making it more efficient and giving us more bang for buck, letting the hardware do more than the otherwise black-and-white specs would otherwise imply.
But I feel the Switch 2 will age rapidly age just like the original Switch, 12GB of Ram (9GB for games) on release is already limiting... And the ARM cores whilst a big step up over Jaguar and A57, is a fraction of the Zen Cores.
But Series S ports are a given with some tweaks... Even 30fps ports.
The Switch hardware actually has a few key advantages over the Xbox Series S, it's not a loser in every single metric, whilst the Series S has advantages in other areas such as CPU performance and bandwidth, so developers will likely build around the differences in the hardware.
This article says that the CPU is "similar to PS4" though so it's not a big step up over the Jaguar cores? The PS4's CPU was clocked at 1.6GHZ too so that makes it even worse when you consider the Xbone X cores were 2.3GHZ.
ARM A78AE has a significant IPC advantage... It's actually slightly above AMD Zen2 (PPC for ARM A78AE is 306 vs Zens 287 vs A57 123 vs Phenom 2 134 {Phenom 2 is faster than Jaguar}).
It can fetch 6 instructions per cycle verses Jaguars 3, superior scheduler, branch prediction and more instructions available.
All told the 8x 1.6ghz Jaguar cores in the PS4 can do a Passmark of around 1,200-1,300 points.
8x ARM A78AE can do about 1,900-2,000 when clocked at 1Ghz.
I would expect anywhere from 50-100% more performance over Jaguar if software is designed around ARM's instructions and nuances, still significantly less than the Series S though due to the clockrate deficit.
I have every platform, so I can just buy the best release, the brands and companies involved tend to be irrelevant.
But I am under zero illusion that Switch games are technical master pieces, they simply are not... But it does have some of my favorite games. I.E. Links Awakening with it's Specular Highlights, Depth of Field and Material shaders, it simply looks great... It just performs terribly.
The Zelda games looked amazing to me , with the outdated tech they were working with. Switch 2 is leagues better, so I'm excited for what first party do with it
Switch 2's strengths is in it's handheld mode... Which ironically is one of it's largest weaknesses when compared to it's previous incarnation, the Switch OLED.
The Switch OLED simply has a far better display for playing games.
I am not a fan of reconstruction techniques, but the Switch 2's DLSS tends to "fall apart" more readily on a large display where I can pick out the fizzle and other artifacts... But in handheld mode it definitely stands up, I just can't get past the terrible display.
At the moment I am using my Switch 2 mostly to play Switch 1 games via backwards compatibility on my TV and using my Switch OLED (Thanks to it's better display, portability and better battery life) as my main handheld while traveling.
I am hoping I can continue to keep investing in my Switch 2 physical library and Nintendo releases a Switch 2 OLED, then I will be super happy.
I agree about the oled screen. I won't be getting a switch 2 till they release an oled version.
It's worth buying a Switch 2 and enjoying the next few years of quality games... Then just trading it in for the OLED variant that HOPEFULLY (No Guarentees!) comes later.
Those pure blacks have spoiled my eyes though
I am extremely picky... I have never liked reconstruction techniques, they have gotten better, but I will always prefer a native and raw output.
I just can't get past the poor performing Switch 2 display, so I just can't have it as my primary handheld device.
And I never said the games were not fun, please don't put words in my mouth.
The irony of you telling me not to put words in your mouth (which I didn't even do; I never claimed you said the games weren't fun; not once), while putting words in MY mouth lol.
But seriously, I genuinely hope you can find a way to let some of that stuff go. Obviously, I don't know you. But I would imagine the things that you enjoyed about gaming as a young kid when you were first falling in love with this medium... I would imagine none of them had anything to do with frames per second or LCD response time. Life if precious and short, as cliche as it may be. Why waste it, stressing over things that in the end, won't really matter?
This is exactly why I stopped playing TotK to wait for a S2 version...
it was "optimized to perfection" and really got all 20 of those frames per second lol
Well, to be fair, I've never played that game. But even if I had, I wouldn't have cared. For whatever reason, I can't see frames per second when I'm playing a game. I don't know what is, but it all looks the same to me.
I have played Nintendo games since the NES era, and I literally can not remember playing one of them and thinking man, this runs like ****. Ever. So this is news to me. I'm not calling you a liar, or anyone else. But if someone never experiences something negative, why shouldn't they be expected to say their games are optimized to perfection? I thought it was true, because for me, it is.
I suggest instead of taking peoples words for it, you watch digital foundries analysis on resolutions and framerates.
It's common knowledge that all the Zelda games (Breath of the Wild, Tears of the Kingdom, Links Awakening, Echos of Wisdom) on Switch run poorly with poor framerates and/or frame pacing.
And many other first party games like Mario Oddysey and Wonder have framerate issues as well... Again, all empirically proven by Digital Foundry with scientifically backed evidence which honestly removes personal subjective biased opinions from the discussion entirely.
