-
For our US members, be sure to check on your voter registration status and if you are not registered it will only take a second to do so!
(LEAK) Switch 2 hardware shipments show system RAM, storage, other console information
- Thread starter poptire
- Start date
- News Nintendo
I disagree. For Switch, I think Nintendo got the best SoC they could have gotten. Apple is not in the business of licensing their technology and the tegra had the best non Apple mobile GPU in the market for a couple of years after switch release. Who else was there? AMD had no competitive mobile SoCs at the time, PowerVR had already been gutted by Apple and Qualcom... its 2024 and we still have no good drivers for Adreno in Android as OpenGL still outperforms Vulkan.
And going for "old SoCs" is not a good strategy for saving money, as they will need to include a larger battery to compensate the loss in power efficency. They should have gone for 16nm at launch, as they did later with the revised model. But the deal they had with Nvidia was in part to use the fab Nvidia had already paid for.
As for the next device, it depends. If its 8nm or 4N. If the first, it would be extremly dissapointing and I would join the crowd that says that Nintendo is releasing old tech. If its the latter, it would be the best handheld device on the market. Yes, the Nvidia architecture is "old" but its still Nvidia tech that no other Mobile vendor has.
Last edited:
100% agree. For example, I just want Pokémon to look and perform like, say, Dragon Quest XI (the PS4 version).
Then you go completely on my side. Apple can afford their SoCs because they sell 200 million+ iPhones/iPads/Macs every year, where the Switch can barely crack 150 million after 7 years. And forgetting they sell them for a higher price.
And Sony/MS don't have heavily customized SoCs, they could be designs AMD sells on netbooks right now if it had made business sense (and they may come with Strix Point, 5 years after Macbooks M1). Maybe Nintendo could spend more for better SoCs but comparable to Apple's ? Let's stay realistic.
And to subsidise the PSVita price, we had the wonderful memory sticks at obnoxious prices, is it what we want again ?
If they had wanted something better, they could have asked for current PowerVR and ARM designs and an OEM who is able to put it into a single SoC, but they didn't want to as it would have been more expensive. The "general purpose" APIs won't be used on Nintendo's dev kits, and if they had gone down the road I just suggested, Nintendo would have also had newer API feature sets.
In today's world, going for an older SoC is a good strategy as you have no yield problems and cheaper lithography. Heck, it was the sole reason why Nintendo could produce Switches during the 2 to 3 years of chip shortages while still keeping their MSRP.
Nintendo simply doesn't need and doesn't want to have the current best options.
You can't find the SoCs of the PS and Xbox in PCs. It's more like AMD is using the design they made for the consoles and making it available for potential PCs. However, they use their own tech, of course, but get paid from MS and Sony for their needs, as every party openly says.
I'm referring to this, though Ray Reconstruction is also a factor to consider.
View: https://youtu.be/GPdxsXmAJnk?t=1080&si=zyFIOv7WgXN-jfzs
if the alternative to the TX1 is a wishcasted soc that doesn't actually exist then it's not much of an alternative IMO; it's not like Sony and Microsoft are using 7900 XTXs in their machines.
I think we can dismiss it entirely. Nvidia's lead over AMD on RT isn't such that a cut down 3050 is outperforming a Series X with a higher thermal and power envelope.
That's why I mentioned the possible scenario of Matrix Awakens being made to be more efficient. But considering Nate's solid track record (with his demo reports being corroborated elsewhere) & Nvidia's massive RTX advantage over AMD, we can't dismiss it entirely.
Basically this. I see it sold out for at least 2 years even at 50.000 yen. Then they can adjust accordingly.
You are severly underestimating the impact of software. Nvidia invests massive RnD in the software stack for their hardware and their current trillion dollar AI monopoly is thanks to their investment in Cuda. Great part of Switch success with third parties is thanks to the software stack that they got from Nvidia. I'm sure that if Nintendo had gone for PowerVR or Adreno, the results would have been worse, especially early on, due to the NVN API, even of the hardware was supperior. You can see this with the same chip running on public libraries (Android), with higher clocks, and the performance on the same games (RE5) are almost a gen apart.
Now, could they have paid more to Nvidia to get a more recent architecture? Maybe, but Nvidia is not the cheapest company to work with and I'm not sure if they are willing to share their RnD with third parties. Nvidia is not the easiest to work with and have already burned MS and Sony. Just look at the PS3 vs 360. The PS3 got an old Nvidia GPU design while the 360's was more advanced than AMD own products at the time.
Last edited:
They won't but whatever, at least we will probably never get a game technically as bad as ScVi
And the IPs used for Sony/MS chips would exist without Sony/MS. Zen CPUs and RDNA GPUs are independent from Sony/MS. AMD already made APUs before Sony/MS came to them. It's just that 100W+ APUs outside of consoles don't make sense at all when it's cheaper and easier to build classic desktops.
Back to your first argument, asking for something comparable to Apple's chips (which are custom designs) in Nintendo's budget is, to my mind and with what we know of Nintendo's behaviour, wishful thinking. The TX1 was the best balance for them in 2015, hard to find better than Nvidia now when we know that :
- Qualcomm is shit regarding their software support
- Samsung chip design team is not the most stable (they disbanded the custom CPU architecture team in 2020, are apparently changing again the GPU from AMD to a custom design for 2025) and same as Qualcomm about software support
- Mediatek still has a lot to prove
- Intel and AMD have nothing yet in Nintendo's power budget
Ray reconstruction isn't really a "factor to consider". When using minimal RT effects it generally has a higher cost than traditional denoisers and you're never going to be running path tracing on a cut down 3050. I'll skip on watching the video, anyone suggesting that the Switch 2 can compete with a Series X by any metric is a clown fishing for views.
A 15w Ampere based SOC is never going to compete with a near 200w RDNA2 based SOC.
I mean you can literally run path-tracing on the Steam Deck, so we might end up being surprised.
I wonder how the lack of a built in SSD will impact the future of the Switch 2. The entire "next gen" aspect of the PS5/XS consoles were that SSD based game development would be transformative for what we believe can be possible in game design. It wasn't going to happen overnight of course, but we are nearing 4 years of built in SSD consoles and the Switch 2 isn't even fully announced yet. So it could be a problem after just the first two years of the Switch 2 being out in terms of third party support
"Run" is doing a lot of work there. Switch 2 developers aren't going to target single digit framerates at sub SD resolutions, so no, they won't be using path tracing.
A ZX Spectrum can path trace games in software as well if you're willing to measure performance in months per frame. About as relevant as the Steam Deck running path traced Cyberpunk at 360p/3fps.
Last edited:
UFS 3.1 isn't far off from Xbox Series at full speed for the former. And even if Nintendo dials it back a bit, it'll still be plenty fast.
This doesnt make any sense, might as well say: I am not a physicist so I dont care about physics, so why dont nintendo dont put PS5 pro specs into a handheld?
How it has never been the case? Multiplat Games are made for multiple devices all the time, Wilds will have to run on Xbox S too
What? The Switch 2 has UFS 3.1, that is an SSD for all intents and purposes (it's faster than the Steam Deck SSD, even). It, and even the microSD Express cards that will likely be used for expandable storage, trump any SATA SSD, are enough to run the UE5 Lumen in the Land of Nanite demo at well over 60fps, and overall will easily be enough. Third-party games will largely be made to run using SATA SSDs as a baseline - maybe microSD Express eventually.
Why are there so many..negative comments in regards to the Switch 2 getting ports and its performance?
This is potentially a 2 TF handheld - 4TF docked device. It'll pretty much be series s levels in docked mode and this is before DLSS. Not to mention modern hardware/architecture and all that jazz. The only games this device won't be able to play are games that have performance issues on the base consoles and when devs do not want to port over their games to the system. For the vast majority, it'll run fine and look great even on the new Switch.
I'm very excited.
This is potentially a 2 TF handheld - 4TF docked device. It'll pretty much be series s levels in docked mode and this is before DLSS. Not to mention modern hardware/architecture and all that jazz. The only games this device won't be able to play are games that have performance issues on the base consoles and when devs do not want to port over their games to the system. For the vast majority, it'll run fine and look great even on the new Switch.
I'm very excited.
I'm honestly not well versed in tech, but its good to hear that it *should* be close to the SSD of XS. But I'm still going to have my doubts until I see how everything is when it ships and how developers find it with their games
You're right that there is no chance the Switch 2 run ray traced effects better than the PS5/Xbox Series (wish people would stop implying this) but I think we'll need to see what developers aim/target for on the platform. I think we'll see ray traced effects used pretty often despite being at lower fidelity in exclusive titles and software aimed at the platform.
Some people just can't get over their "It is nintendo" mentality despite they changing a lot since switch
Fami folks who knew the codename are coming out to confirm it. Even one person outright said the name as far back as this past Tuesday.
Nope. Quake 2 RTX was running at 60fps on a Steam Deck with windows installed 2 years ago, at 252p upscaled to 720p with TAA:
View: https://youtu.be/Uhy0v_STh6k?si=AH5LsC7l2DQfo3dF
Switch 2 will have similar raster power, massively superior RT acceleration, years of major software improvements to path-tracing acceleration separate from the RT cores' advantages... I don't know if we'll actually see path-tracing on the Switch 2, but that's a question of developer choices and priorities - a graphically simple title built around it would absolutely be possible. It would need the handheld DLSS to be running at Performance or even Ultra Performance Mode, but that's nothing crazy.
Edit: Unless by "path-tracing" you specifically meant "path-tracing in a cutting edge AAA game" - that certainly won't happen. But I would like to see some experiments.
Ampere is a dual issue FP32 GPU, a 4TF Ampere GPU with much lower memory bandwidth and a much weaker CPU is not comparable to a 4TF RDNA2 GPU .
We only get a 4TF Ampere GPU if Nintendo really push the TDP which is far from confirmed. So no, it will not be "Series S" levels "before DLSS" by any reasonable metric.
"Half a Series S" is a reasonable high end expectation for docked mode but it could still fall much lower than that if Nintendo don't push the TDP high enough.
If you're expecting it to match a Series S then you're setting yourself up for disappointment.
Hah. Remember the madness of the Wii U speculation thread back in the day.
Except, this isn't true. Nate said that this isn't the codename that has been going around to partners. Other 'insiders' suddenly jumped on when they heard it and confirmed it, but now have egg on their face. It's a placeholder.
The Switch definitely had the best mobile SoC tech it could have for the time it was designed and for the price.
Where did Nate say that?
I only saw him saying Nintendo never used a specific name with partners, they always referred to it as something generic like "the Nintendo Switch successor" and stuff like that.
Switch 2 will dominate 3rd party competition for software in Japan, so that's why most games will have to try to port there worldwide.
Switch right now is already beating PS5 by a 2:1 ratio on most new releases in Japan, so I don't see how anyone would not consider Switch 2 a much more formidable competitor to PS5/PS5Pro/Xbox X/S.
Switch 2 could theoretically win 80-90% market share in Japan on 3rd party software ports even if the ports are graphically a bit worse than PS5/Pro and Xbox X. And they will win a big chunk of 3rd party sales in the rest of the world as well.
All Nintendo had to do was get to PS4 Pro levels with Switch 2 and that appears to be what they've done. Most consumers do not care about high end fidelity (look at Hogwarts Legacy sales on Switch around the world); they just want a place to play Mario, Pokemon, Zelda, Animal Crossing, etc. and 3rd party games that they like.
Switch right now is already beating PS5 by a 2:1 ratio on most new releases in Japan, so I don't see how anyone would not consider Switch 2 a much more formidable competitor to PS5/PS5Pro/Xbox X/S.
Switch 2 could theoretically win 80-90% market share in Japan on 3rd party software ports even if the ports are graphically a bit worse than PS5/Pro and Xbox X. And they will win a big chunk of 3rd party sales in the rest of the world as well.
All Nintendo had to do was get to PS4 Pro levels with Switch 2 and that appears to be what they've done. Most consumers do not care about high end fidelity (look at Hogwarts Legacy sales on Switch around the world); they just want a place to play Mario, Pokemon, Zelda, Animal Crossing, etc. and 3rd party games that they like.
Last edited:
He didn't say it wasn't the placeholder, just that it isn't used by Nintendo in meetings and they use generic terms.
We now have multiple sources confirming the codename.
UFS 3.1 could be limited to half the speeds and still be fine. Doesn't seem like any game even saturates the Series X/S SSd never mind PS5 (unless i'm wrong?) and scaling that down for the Switch 2's smaller assets doesn't seem like it'll be an issue
Nate said he hasn't heard it being used in communications. I.E. when talking to 3rd parties they are just calling it the Switch successor. He's already clarified that's he not saying it isn't the codename. Which it probably is because of where it's showing up.
2
Games seems to work fine out of Sata SSDs, so even if its 1/3 of max speed it should be fine. Heck, people are running games fine out of SD cards in their Steam decks, so even 1/10 should be workable. Switch slow loading times are limited by the CPU, not the storage medium. Also, pinning discs like Ps4 seems to be the biggest issue.
