That's possible, though I can't find anything specifically saying the Switch version uses it.
-
Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
StarTopic Future Nintendo Hardware & Technology Speculation & Discussion |ST| (New Staff Post, Please read)
- Thread starter Dakhil
- Start date
on console? I know it's available on PC
D
Deleted member 887
Guest
It looks like the Switch release notes I saw were identical to the PC release notes - including a DLSS reference, so unclear.
ReddDreadtheLead
#TeamLate2025WithAPotentialForEarly2026
- Pronouns
- He/Him
This is why I feel like you should have read the page before and/or after said post in the thread.
The comments you’re referring to happen often, and you wanna know what happens right after such comments? People replied to the comments with a “cannot happen unless the game is patched.” They also reply with “the games will simply function at their max coded resolution and frame rate that they are set for on the Nintendo switch, thus they will not go above us.”
People even provide examples for this, like breath of the wild would be 900p/30FPS at every single instance. People even say it would operate just like how PS4 Pro games operate on the PS5 which is meet their highest bound limit. People also say that people should not be expecting the Xbox series route because that is a different method that they executed.
This has happened so many times that this has become such a staple and almost phone operator response to the same type of post that has existed across all three, yes three, threads that went close to or over 400 pages and have 50 responses per page each.
We literally already knew this stuff, the people that regularly frequent the thread, and whenever someone asks we simply respond, in a kind manner. Like I said, your “keeping others in check” post did absolutely nothing.
This random ass source code, as you put it, was outright confirmed by the company that experienced said data breach that the information in said source code is real. I’m not sure what else you want people to do about this source code.
Serif
𝕽𝖊𝖓𝖊𝖌𝖆𝖉𝖊 𝕬𝖓𝖌𝖊𝖑
I believe they were referring to Polygon's information about the 12 GB of RAM, which I don't think is confirmed by the Nvidia leak.
I don't think any person here is treating these bits of info with the same degree of credibility anyway. As you said the Nvidia data breach is irrefutable, while Polygon is someone with possible industry connections delivering secondhand info. I've personally put it in the bucket of 'seems likely'.
ReddDreadtheLead
#TeamLate2025WithAPotentialForEarly2026
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I’m pretty sure they are not referring to the polygon comment of the amount of ram, because they have refuted the source code validity before.
ReddDreadtheLead
#TeamLate2025WithAPotentialForEarly2026
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Also reminder: they took a single core console and had a tri-core console (with an additional amount of cache)
Yes it was that 1999 CPU, but they aren’t afraid to add more cores, which alleviated a dev problem with the Wii CPU. It was still an issue, but it wasn’t as big of an issue.
N3DS was more of fixing a problem, but they also added cores.
Nintendo does not seem like the type to address an issue of a previous console by not doing anything about it. They are the type to address it in a certain manner, whether it completely alleviates it or not varies. However, they never leave any issue with the previous console alone and have taken developer feedback.
One of said feedback that they’ve received is “ weak CPU” among the many complaints such as RAM and bandwidth and all that, so if developer says “we need more CPU cores and a stronger one” or whatnot (grossly simplified), Nintendo will respond to alleviate it as best as possible.
One way that they may respond is, quite literally, looking at their competitors and copying it. Now, what I mean by this is looking at the competitors of the previous generation of Console systems.
The previous generation had an Octa-core CPU setup for those systems, it is likely that they would copy this just like how they copied the Xbox 360 with Nintendo Wii U, which again was a tri-core system that also had that large embedded memory and on top of that had more memory overall for the system than the previous generation.
why am I saying all of this? That if we want to put Nintendo in a box of where to expect them to be in essence expect them to be in a position to address the issues of the Nintendo switch in all fronts like they always do but it is a solution that looks like it copies something that already exists but applied in their own way.
And yes they have quite literally addressed every single issue of a previous generation of their own platform with a new platform, whether they fix the issue or not is up to debate, however they have always done something about it.
And if you’re curious on what they did with a Nintendo Wii, look at the disks and that addressed one of the complaint system hard, hell look at the amount of memory the whole system has compared to the GameCube. that was also an issue for it.
Note: I am saying they addressed it, as in they touched base on it, I’m not saying they completely fix the issue in every instance for every console, but they’ve improved it with the next iteration of the console or next platform.
Every single time.
Switch fixed a memory issue fwiw
and a GPU issue (though this was mostly good iirc), and has a better CPU, and better tools… and is more appealing…. Etc
Yes it was that 1999 CPU, but they aren’t afraid to add more cores, which alleviated a dev problem with the Wii CPU. It was still an issue, but it wasn’t as big of an issue.
N3DS was more of fixing a problem, but they also added cores.
Nintendo does not seem like the type to address an issue of a previous console by not doing anything about it. They are the type to address it in a certain manner, whether it completely alleviates it or not varies. However, they never leave any issue with the previous console alone and have taken developer feedback.
One of said feedback that they’ve received is “ weak CPU” among the many complaints such as RAM and bandwidth and all that, so if developer says “we need more CPU cores and a stronger one” or whatnot (grossly simplified), Nintendo will respond to alleviate it as best as possible.
One way that they may respond is, quite literally, looking at their competitors and copying it. Now, what I mean by this is looking at the competitors of the previous generation of Console systems.
The previous generation had an Octa-core CPU setup for those systems, it is likely that they would copy this just like how they copied the Xbox 360 with Nintendo Wii U, which again was a tri-core system that also had that large embedded memory and on top of that had more memory overall for the system than the previous generation.
why am I saying all of this? That if we want to put Nintendo in a box of where to expect them to be in essence expect them to be in a position to address the issues of the Nintendo switch in all fronts like they always do but it is a solution that looks like it copies something that already exists but applied in their own way.
And yes they have quite literally addressed every single issue of a previous generation of their own platform with a new platform, whether they fix the issue or not is up to debate, however they have always done something about it.
And if you’re curious on what they did with a Nintendo Wii, look at the disks and that addressed one of the complaint system hard, hell look at the amount of memory the whole system has compared to the GameCube. that was also an issue for it.
Note: I am saying they addressed it, as in they touched base on it, I’m not saying they completely fix the issue in every instance for every console, but they’ve improved it with the next iteration of the console or next platform.
Every single time.
Switch fixed a memory issue fwiw
and a GPU issue (though this was mostly good iirc), and has a better CPU, and better tools… and is more appealing…. Etc
Mr Swine
Like Like
- Pronouns
- He
I remember the Metro devs complaining on how bad and slow the Wii U CPU was back in the day.
How does the A57 cores compare the Wii U cores?
Really glad that Metro 1/2 are on Switch which is superior to the PS360 versions.
Armoured_Bear
Like Like
- Pronouns
- he
Is it announced yet?
- Pronouns
- He/Him
ShadowFox08
Paratroopa
No.
If it was announced, this thread would have been updated in the OP and you'd see more topics.
Whoops wrong person in the quote tag
Last edited:
ReddDreadtheLead
#TeamLate2025WithAPotentialForEarly2026
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Let’s put it this way, the Wii u CPU is overclocked twice from the original GameCube CPU to 1.2 GHz. The A57 can clock up to 2.1GHz however it is severely downclocked for the Nintendo switch for throttling, battery and heat issues.
Per Wikipedia on the 750GXE based CPU of the GCN->Wii U system, it lacked SIMD capability which the A57 did have, and all modern CPUs have this. The PPC cpu was dated beyond recognition by the time they used it in the Wii U.
The Wii U CPU had some perks that the 360 and PS3 didn’t have, but the Wii U was still severely crippled by its weak CPU.
And now compare CPU limited 360 games with the Switch in CPU limited scenarios.
I think it speaks for itself at that point even at such low clocks of 1.02GHz.
Actually, I know the perfect game that can better exemplify the difference between the two. Dark souls on the Xbox 360 is a pretty CPU heavy game and it is infamous for Blighttown being the worst offender in terms of performance for that title. It dropped severely in framerate there! The switch on the other hand holds a perfectly locked 30FPS in Blighttown for this game and I’ve never experienced any frame drop that was so severe or dramatic. The 360 was clocked to 3.2GHz, Switch is clocked to the 1.02GHz, performs and holds it much better than the 360.
Maybe that can give you an idea…?
Last edited:
9.25 is his guess.
- Pronouns
- She/Her
That was a really insightful read! The differences are pretty stark. I wonder if you'd have any thoughts on the following:
Do we have any idea why Nintendo opted to only use the Performance cores of the X1? If battery life was the concern, wouldn't the OS using 1 or 2 Efficiency cores have made more sense? What benefit does running the OS on a single high performance CPU core have over 4 smaller cores? Especially when it could have meant 33% more CPU time available for games (not exactly, I know, I'm generalising.)
Moreover from what we know the next Switch will not have this issue, with only one set of 8 cores (all high performance), presumably with 1 carved out for the OS, leaving 7 for games (more than the 8th gen consoles.), and more than double Wii U or Switch. Does anyone know if these cores and their lack of SMT might seriously gimp its ability to run code made for, say, Xbox Series S' 8 core, 16 thread situation?
Short addendum to this is the Xbox Series X|S don't have a core or core dedicated to their OS, with the HyperVisor and Windows NT kernal spreading tasks out among the cores, so I'm not sure what the equivalent core usage is. Given how low the power consumption is at idle I'd wager its low, but I don't have any precise figures. Anyone have any idea about that?
for the nintendo direct or new hardware?
guessing on something to happen one month later and on a sunday seems risky.
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Hardware, Direct is probably the 13th. I think we could get a hardware tease week of the 12th myself.
Possible, but what if they announce it after the direct? That would be sad and funny ngl
because they can't. the TX1 was in the ARM generation that utilized context switching. you can't use the big and the little cores at the same time. that was rectified later.
Drake won't have SMT as ARM cores don't have that except for some specialized cores. it's not gonna be too necessary though. it won't gimp Drake too much. clock speeds will matter more
Hosermess
Koopa
He posted that in a thread about the Direct though, where the OP guessed the 14th.
Angel Whispers
Follow me at @angelpagecdlmhq
I suspect that 16GB RAM is very much on the table for the successor, and would feel (quietly) confident about that. 12GB is the cellar of expectation, and I don't see it being lower than that. 8GB is too conservative, given what we know about the rest of the SoC, about developer feedback, etc., and it won't be enough, unless they want to sell a product destined to fail. Some flagship phones have had 12GB since 2019, then gaming phones have had 16GB. 18GB is a thing, even - that's been in production since March 2021, and it will have been for at least two years by the time the next platform arrives. In fact, earlier this year, the OnePlus 10T 5G was confirmed to have 16GB, and it won't be long before more flagship phones follow. Steam Deck, with its weaker SoC, has 16GB. Steam Deck isn't going to sell anywhere near what a Switch has. I would be very surprised if it reached Wii U sales. So, the reasoning follows that Nintendo can have 16GB at a better rate, as they're expected to sell more hardware. BTW, in the Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra's BoM from 2020, 12GB LPDDR5 RAM with 128GB UFS 3.0 was $61.50. One imagines such a bundle with 16GB might be similar to that now. Still, if 16GB is in the devkits, why not? 4GB was in the Switch devkits and in the launch product. At the time, 4GB was the standard in flagship phones, but it's also true that the PS4 was going to go with 4GB RAM until the last minute, until developers said more is needed. I suspect it will be 16GB because some phones are already there, SD is there, and developer feedback suggests that they'll go for it. The confidence is there, too. Also, 16GB LPDDR5 RAM has been in production for over two years, with gains over the 12GB in bandwidth, efficiency, battery life, and performance.
Last edited:
you're really overselling it. this device, in handheld mode, would be on par with a PS4 and have more memory available than it with 8GB. and the PS4 Pro had 8GB of ram as well. it'll be fine
Angel Whispers
Follow me at @angelpagecdlmhq
Because DynamiQ octa-core ARM processors weren't around until just after the Switch's launch, meaning they couldn't use the two performance and efficiency clusters together. IIRC. If they were, Nintendo would've had an octa-core processor on their platform much earlier - that fact gets lost in Nintendo hardware discourse, and a narrative about them downclocking or stripping down their hardware because they're supposedly averse to higher performance persists instead, unfortunately. I don't know that SMT/hyperthreading will be a deal maker or deal breaker for developers. If it was, then Nintendo and Nvidia will address it, but there's no indication of this.
Angel Whispers
Follow me at @angelpagecdlmhq
Except I'm not overselling a thing, at all - Developer consultations happen all the time, and I've always started from the premise that is has to be better than PS4, mentioning "generational purpose" repeatedly, and presenting a series of questions earlier in this thread. We know of Gearbox telling Sony "you're done if you don't go with 8GB in the PS4" or words to that effect. We know of Epic pushing Microsoft to go with 512MB in X360, and we know of Capcom indicating that more RAM was needed in the Switch, while Bethesda (among others) were not willing to get on board in meaningful ways, or at all with the Wii U. Those are examples across all platforms, and calls which ultimately played out very well for them in each case except the latter, then everything I said about movements in the mobile circuit is true. So, my submission that less than 12GB for 2022 and beyond would be "destined to fail" is on point. 12 MIGHT be fine, 8 would not, and 16 is on the table.
Shiba
Bob-omb
- Pronouns
- Male
Entertaining the idea that we get a tease on the same week of the direct or that it gets announced on the week of the 25th….I’m pretty sure Nintendo would have the hardware announcement be their main announcement of the week and wouldn’t hold a direct in that same week.
Also 25th reveal is weird because I would think we would have A LOT more rumbles of a new device being announced soon.
The fact that there isn’t an peep of a reveal from other places as well just makes me believe a reveal for a successor/pro or whatever is not coming soon.
D
Deleted member 887
Guest
"Destined to fail" is an incredible statement, period. Do you honestly believe that games won't be able to function with a mere 8GB of memory?
8GB is already better than the PS4/Xbox One - only 5GB were available to games due to the size of the OSes. Assuming Nintendo can keep Horizon as small as before (likely) then we're talking 7GB available to games on Drake.
12Gb is nice, but 8Gb is comfy.
Mr.Gamerson
Octorok
The idea I had of a $350 and $500 Sku that offset each other doesn't seem too illogical now. I do think they will go with the $399 and $499 setup if they have two sku's but the shock of $350 and $500 would be great for marketing the value for this next system. I suspect the $350 Switch NXT would stay at that price point for the entire generation like the current switch has.
I agree with you that I would not see the new Switch going under 12Gb.
The reason why I believe this is because of the Xbox One S and the Videocards.
- We start to see over a PC that 8gb for now is enough for a game in 1440p but with the new textures, the requirement seem to point toward 12 to 16gb.
- Game designers already mentioned that 10GB of ram is a stretch for the Xbox One S. (Sorry I forgot where I read it).
- Since the OS on the switch is very light, 12GB will be closer to a 16Gb over the PC so the game designers might be less frustration over the optimisation.
- Also if I remember (I could be wrong for this one, so please everyone correct me if i am wrong), the DLSS need some space in the RAM to do it`s miracle.
TheSpearGuy
transcended to the gods
Samsung showcases the world’s first 240Hz laptop OLED display
Apart from dual-foldable and slideable OLED panels, Samsung Display also showcased the world's first laptop OLED panel with a 240Hz ...
www.sammobile.com
This is probably enough of a new gimmick for nintendo to slap their marketing on
That, and because the arm 53s are disabled (and later removed) on the tx1 for some reason. Would probably have made sense to use them in standby mode, but they can't.
Mr Swine
Like Like
- Pronouns
- He
8GB for a new system that is going to be on the market for 5+ Years is imho not good even if devs would get 6,5GB out of 8GB.
12GB is good but I think that devs would love to have 16GB (14GB free for developers?) system
Angel Whispers
Follow me at @angelpagecdlmhq
It really isn't so incredible - See my comments where I cited developer reactions, and how those calls played out in terms of the success of those platforms. My point isn't that they can't function, but rather one of the thing I have been repeating to the annoyance of lurkers and other folk, the one of "generational purpose" - Enough right now doesn't matter, as the cross-generational period is still on, but enough after that could be a very different story, and the idea that Nintendo shouldn't take future-proof measures, or that they wouldn't do it is wild to me, especially as there is no second line to help them weather another Wii U-like storm. Perhaps it isn't so unthinkable that they'll build on their OS and other facilities, too, or maybe want something like the Quick Resume feature, to suspend and "switch" between games? When the chief says "Do Or Die", is he making an "incredible statement", too, or, is he, like I've expressed, aware that there's no room for complacency? Thankfully, he understands this. I was also the one who said it's alright to dare to expect more, and dare to expect again if it doesn't happen. I was the one who listened to the horse's mouth, and pushed back against the overly conservative consensus in many places, which masqueraded as "better woo-hah and keep your expectations in check", and the leaks show that I was vindicated. We're getting something much better than what "the consensus" told us to believe - that much is a fact, and I knew it over two years ago. It was for this reason (among others) that I told everybody "Switch Pro" wasn't going to happen. We didn't need one, and you might have been disappointed right now, but with a little patience, we're getting something better further down the line. Without more Wii U ports to fill in barren spells (and these wouldn't drive hardware sales of the successor, anyway), 3rdP releases are going to be more important than ever. So, how do you get more of them on your platform and properly build on what you've done already? You make it as easier as you can, and remove any burdens. Developers don't want to spend more time on solutions to limitations. Also, once more, I always started from the premise of "fit for PS5/XS games" and "definitive portable experience", not merely "catching up with XB1/PS4, even in portable mode" - this is the extra context for "destined to fail", and my much earlier post in this thread about the 3DS being "more N64 ports" after Super Mario 64 DS further reinforces this. After that, I pointed out flagship phones moving on from 12GB - I said it MIGHT still be fine (XSS has 10GB, after all), and 16 is on the table. I mentioned phones because too many are not fully understanding that even mobile ambitions aren't standing still - BTW, this matters, too. For all the success the Switch has had, it didn't get Fortnite or Rocket League until later. It didn't get Genshin Impact. It doesn't have PUBG. It doesn't have a COD. Nintendo were embarassingly late to the Minecraft party on their platforms before that. So, once more, I was on point, and it isn't so incredible. Optimistic? Certainly, but I've never hidden from that, tbqh.
Last edited:
Mr.Gamerson
Octorok
Yeah, the President is smart enough to know how important it is to defend what they have currently built up with the Switch brand and not allowing another post major success slump like the Wii U. Now that they have gone all in on the Hybrid concept, they have even more reason to make sure they invest in a way to ensure success.
mynintendonews.com
Nintendo president believes that every single year is a “do or die situation” for the company
Recently Nintendo president Shuntaro Furukawa spoke to Nikkei Business about the state of the company and its immensely popular Switch system. In the interview Mr. Furukawa said that he always feels a…
mynintendonews.com
Look over there
Bob-omb
The lack of SMT won't be a huge disadvantage. It's a disadvantage still, yes, but not that dramatic. I think that the rule of thumb for SMT on the big x86 cores is that on average, it adds 20-30% multi-threading performance. But it varies wildly depending on the exact workload.
Besides, the birds eye view of SMT as a concept is that you're adding a little something to extract more utilization out of existant resources, not creating new resources. So there's a little backhand compliment in there; the more SMT increases your multi-thread perf, there's a corresponding increase in questions regarding your single thread utilization.
I'm assuming that if we're comparing 8 core/8 thread to 8 core/16 thread, for workloads of thread count 1 to 7, behavior should be conceptually similar. Each thread gets its own physical core. Thread #8 on the 8c/8t system is when you start introducing the need for the task scheduler to bounce around and some time gets added for context switching? On a 8c/16t system with one core reserved for OS, thread #8 is sharing one core with another thread? And onward till you hit 14 threads, then all 7 cores for gaming are split? And uhh, no idea about the impact of how the Xbox Series approaches things. But I'm guessing that it resembles PC behavior more? So the actual core usage shouldn't be all that high beyond the periodic context switching? Come to think of it, I'm not sure if there would be an actual impact on the games until a game needs threads #15 or more? Depending on how many the OS needs, but I'm assuming 1 or 2.
Actually, you know what, something that throws a wrench into that. Since the PS5/Xbox Series consoles use Zen 2 CPUs and developers can specifically target them, there's another approach they can use for threads 5 through... 7 or 8. They could instead gather them all onto one CCX to evade the higher latency of inter-CCX communication. Hmm, four physical cores split between ~7 or 8 threads skipping inter-CCX latency versus a thread per physical core but having to deal with inter-CCX latency... I know that for RPCS3 (PS3 emulator), the former's preferred over the latter as it's sensitive to latency, but I'm not sure if that carries over to game programming generally. It's also further complicated being that these are monolithic Zen 2 CPUs instead of the chiplet based SKUs. Inter-CCX latency isn't as bad, but correspondingly, AMD chopped down the L3 cache per CCX from 16 MB to 4 MB to save some die space.
ReddDreadtheLead
#TeamLate2025WithAPotentialForEarly2026
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I’ll try my best to answer your questions!
“Do we have any idea why Nintendo opted to only use the Performance cores of the X1?”
Besides being better than the little cores, the A57 and the A53s were first gen big.LITTLE, which didn’t work right. So, if you used that, you can only use one core cluster or use the other core cluster at a time. If you had 4A57 + 4A53, and you had a game loaded for example, while the game would use the perf cores imagine hitting the home menu button. This would turn the A57s off and turn the A53s on.
This wouldn’t really be good for games, for phones sure as they are lighter applications, but not really for games when trying to load back in.
Plus…. the A53s straight up didn’t work on any TX1. Faulty issue.
This was corrected with the DynamIQ introduced in the A75 and A55 that allowed all cores to be used even if not in a homogeneous cluster.
“If battery life was the concern, wouldn't the OS using 1 or 2 Efficiency cores have made more sense?”
It would have, yes, but as mentioned not only did they not work right, they simply weren’t right for a console like this with a suspension feature. Or performance. Nintendo (well, their partner that made the GCN) opted to keep Out of order when they could have chose to remove it just like how MS and Sony did with the 360 and PS3 to reduce cost (and heat I think), going the little route would remove the Out of Order and made them In Order. Plus their performance is terrible.
“What benefit does running the OS on a single high performance CPU core have over 4 smaller cores? Especially when it could have meant 33% more CPU time available for games (not exactly, I know, I'm generalising.)”
Well, using a perf core can have the benefit at being more efficient at doing it while being faster at doing the OS tasks. It can be clocked pretty low while offer battery saving perf and be more performant at doing the same job.
The perf cores are also more flexible at the job I think and better suited for a console in this case.
I think that the only downside is the bigger due space requirement. It’s still small mind you, but bigger than the little cores.
“Does anyone know if these cores and their lack of SMT might seriously gimp its ability to run code made for, say, Xbox Series S' 8 core, 16 thread situation?”
Nah, if anything the other consoles (PS4/XB1 gen) made developers lean more on having games be more multithreaded rather than good single threaded performance. SMT can boost performance but it completely varies per game. And not all games are actually going to see massive gains in SMT. Some games can see 5% improvement or 50%. Better to round it to about 20-35% better perf in expectation in MT applications.
The PS4 and XB1 gen making devs focus more on multithreaded application already somewhat set an expectation I think that it wouldn’t be so big with SMT. But I could be wrong on this part.
If Drake has 8 cores, devs would lean on its MT capabilities not so much it’s single threaded.
As for your addendum, they do have a core dedicated to their OS. A core that would make up two threads enabled just for OS application. That can be across two cores using one thread or a single core using two threads. I’m gonna lean on the single core using two threads though….
Inside Xbox Series X: the full specs
This is it. After months of teaser trailers, blog posts and even the occasional leak, we can finally reveal firm, hard …
www.eurogamer.net
The reason the SD has 16GB isn’t really an applicable reason for why Drake should have 16GB. The 16GB is for longevity reasons for PC titles on top of also leveraging the layers for games to work on it, but Drake isn’t playing PC titles, it is getting custom titles for it. I don’t really think 12GB is a destined to fail scenario when 10-11GB would be just for games. The Ps5 has like 11-13GB available for games (it’s OS is pretty heavy). Series X has 13.5GB available for games.
Series S, at most, has I guess 8GB for games.
If Drake were a straight PC, 16GB would be the minimum recommended because of the Pc environment. So something like the Aya Neo or GPD win would actually be better with at least 16GB for longevity of the PC platform. They have to leverage an OS like windows after all. Drake doesn’t. 12GB would be the equivalent of a Steam Deck 16GB.
16GB is pretty expensive to have. The Steam Deck at 16GB for the 400 dollar unit is selling at a loss.
btw, GB not Gb
. 12Gb is 1.5GB and 8 is 1GB.I think this is where we need to remember that Drake is a console not a PC desktop/laptop running windows or a compatibility layer of sorts to emulate windows.
While yes it is a pain to work with the series S for memory, it was more to do with Ray Tracing and memory bandwidth limitations of the system. Drake will not get over the latter but can deal with the former a bit better due to being on a more RT friendly platform. It’s why you see games not use RT on the series S anymore.
not the only thing, just more to do with the bandwidth and RT.
Yes DLSS requires space of RAM for it to work right.
But to your first point, the Drake system will internally most likely function at 720-1080p range before DLSS so it doesn’t have to worry about the higher VRAM requirements from PC Cards.
And again, a console will have its own customization and optimization that isn’t available at all on PC.
I skipped it to this, but before I say anything….uh, can you add spaces and separations for your posts? They become a bit hard to read as it’s pretty long. Making spaces and paragraphs that are separate and easier to read would help a lot.
Second, to my main point, I personally don’t see the need of them going with 16GB when the consoles/platforms that will have these games based around them will have less than this available for games. The Drake console isn’t going to be the targeted platform, the targeted platforms will have 7.5-13.5GB available for games. Drake having 14-15GB while nice… is just extra memory but I’m not sure for what…?
It’s not going to push some super high end graphics, it’s gonna push lower end graphics and being designed right for that is crucial.
12GB is a sweet spot that is also long lasting. 16GB is “excessive” and 8GB is more like cutting it short.
10-12GB is really the sweet spot for a platform like the switch drake*
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Thanks for the comprehensive breakdown! I wasn't expecting that much feedback, to be honest. Glad to hear it. I actually never heard about the . LITTLE cores being so badly bugged. I was going to ask if they couldn't be used to run incredibly light games for improved battery life, but with X1 .LITTLE cores being so messed up... Well, that answers that!
I'm kind of surprised there's 0 mention of big.LITTLE for the Drake but as you pointed out about the existing Switch, a performance core at low clocks could do the same job better, at least for the Switch.
Look over there
Bob-omb
Oh, just to tack on a bit regarding the idea of using a 'big'/perf core for OS stuff instead of a 'little' core or two:
ARM's big cores have progressed so much, while their little cores have progressed so slowly, such that yes, something like the A77 or A78 can accomplish more for less power in a particular range than a single A55. Mediatek pointed this out, according to this tweet from 2020.
So something like the A55s are really only optimal for tasks that are so light, it's not worth turning a big core on at all. But for something like the Switch, I don't think that we expect that.
ARM's big cores have progressed so much, while their little cores have progressed so slowly, such that yes, something like the A77 or A78 can accomplish more for less power in a particular range than a single A55. Mediatek pointed this out, according to this tweet from 2020.
So something like the A55s are really only optimal for tasks that are so light, it's not worth turning a big core on at all. But for something like the Switch, I don't think that we expect that.
MP!
Like Like
I imagine 8 GB playing out much like 4GB played out this gen
Really not enough but some devs will try and make it work, some smart memory management can do a lot with it ... but really they'd like more
Destined to fail is too harsh a phrase...
but I'd like to see developer support grow on the next device so I'm hoping for 12 .... anything to close the gap
Really not enough but some devs will try and make it work, some smart memory management can do a lot with it ... but really they'd like more
Destined to fail is too harsh a phrase...
but I'd like to see developer support grow on the next device so I'm hoping for 12 .... anything to close the gap
OP
OP
Assuming SK Hynix's LPDDR5 catalogue is up to date, SK Hynix's 18 GB LPPDR5 module is likely a 64-bit LPPDR5 module, especially since the Snapdragon 888 supports a max memory bus width of 64-bit.
So I think Nintendo's very unlikely to use 18 GB of LPDDR5 for the RAM, unless Nintendo wants to have 36 GB of LPDDR5 for the RAM (two 64-bit 18 GB LPDDR5 modules), or Nintendo's alright with running single channel RAM instead of dual channel RAM; and I think neither scenario is likely.
Console devkits generally have more RAM than retail console units for debugging purposes. Here are a couple of examples. The OLED model devkits have 8 GB of LPDDR4X in comparison to 4 GB of LPDDR4X in the retail OLED model units. The Xbox Series X devkits have 40 GB of GDDR6 in comparison to 16 GB of GDDR6 in the retail Xbox Series X units.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 887
Guest
Hehe, this is a bad habit from work, where building network dashboards is part of the gig. You are of course correctbtw, GB not Gb
kvetcha
hoopy frood
- Pronouns
- he/him
I only accept GiB
LiC
Member
9/25 doesn't make any sense for a Direct guess due to being on a Sunday, so they probably meant the week of 9/25. And based on the rumors from the usual sources, it's an incorrect guess.
That said, the amount of time between the likely Direct (next week) and the week of 9/25 is perfect for a hardware reveal. That would be especially excellent since it would prove right what I've been saying for months, which is that a hardware reveal should follow a Direct, not precede it or coincide with it. I don't actually expect it to happen, though.
Raccoon
Fox Brigade
- Pronouns
- He/Him
from my understanding memory was one of the critical bottlenecks on switch, though mostly related to speed and bandwidth
I guess it suits the cpu but (again, from my limited understanding) hampered the gpu
PedroNavajas
Boo
- Pronouns
- He, him
Based on experience with PC, I would take 12GB dual channel over 18 single channel. Hell, perhaps even 8GB....
MP!
Like Like
well my thought is you're making a game for multiple platforms...
and though it's true you have to make a bunch of changes to get stuff up and running on switch at least having parity in ram amount would help some...
Its not exactly this ... but- You're trying to stuff 5.5 GB of assets into 3.5ish GB of RAM (when porting a ps4 game for example)
so like... it has just enough ram to allow it with tweaks... and I think it worked out... who knows maybe more than 4 would be overkill for switch... but I think every little bit helps... especially when I hear programmers talking about memory management and what should or should not be loaded into memory at any given time.
but others have pointed out... really the bandwidth is the real bottleneck.
kvetcha
hoopy frood
- Pronouns
- he/him
I think memory bandwidth was the real issue, iirc. The console easily chokes on alpha effects.
SiG
Chain Chomp
Makes me wonder if there isn't anything that can be implemented hardwarewise to deal with alpha effects and alpha bleninding. Make me wonder if tensor cores can't be used for such a common application to help ease more load off the CPU.
Cuzizkool
Shriekbat
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Anyone have an opinion on this? I heard of this guy from RGT85. Apparently Nintendo filed a patent for BOTW2 that was approved recently, but the patent also came with schematics of a Switch(@ 5:15 mark), which this guy says is indicative of a specialty OLED model similar to the Splatoon OLED model (or BOTW2 Drake edition). Any thoughts? A BOTW2 OLED edition? Or a BOTW2 Drake edition?… or both?
Last edited by a moderator:
