• 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.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!

StarTopic Future Nintendo Hardware & Technology Speculation & Discussion |ST| (Read the staff posts before commenting!)

Reader mode
I did some really shitty math that's probably wrong. if we assume the worse case scenario (256 Ampere cores), we'd get about a 40%+ performance increase (also assuming shit scales linearly, which it doesn't, and averaging two game results from 3 benching videos)

using the 1030 and the T400 as the best like for like that's currently available

RDR2 has ~30% performance increase
Cyberpunk has ~50% performance increase

and that's before DLSS (and assuming DLSS or a higher performance equivalent can run on 2 tensor cores) and the performance increase from Ampere (and possibly Lovelace). a reasonable expectation for a "Pro" but I think Nintendo will end up better than this

performance sourcing


 
Last edited:
My Tulpa said:
I appreciate your argument from a generalized point of view, but it’s just not that hardcoded in real world terms, especially the Switch in this
case.

As I mentioned above, it’s going to take Saber twice as long, with more costs and manpower, to put the “next gen” version of Witcher 3 onto the ps5 (porting up) than it took them to put Witcher 3 on the Switch (porting down).

Yes, if you have a system, and then take that system and just double the RAM, double the bandwidth, double the CPU speed, and increase gpu cores…developers can brute force some things in a game instead of having to figure out some tricks or shortcuts to optimize that a system with half of that would require.

But rarely is it just that simple with architecture differences, and to be honest, this kind of time consumption is more about working with something different, not with just something less/slower.

An argument against my Witcher 3 example would be “well, Saber has to add a bunch of stuff for the porting up! There are a bunch of new features available on the new systems that they have to figure out how to use properly and optimize! Like FSR! That’s why it will take longe to port to the ps5 than the Switch!”

Which would prove my point…you can’t argue about ease of porting based just on the simplicity of brute forcing something on beefier hardware speeds.

When devs approach the Dane/DLSS Switch, it’s not going to make things faster or cost less. They are now going to have to come up with ways to optimize the usage of DLSS within the major restrictions of mobile SoC architecture. It is in fact going to require a lot of balancing and trial and error to figure out the best way to port stuff on a 15 watt system with heat/battery concerns. It’s not just “brute force”

Development for 4K Switch will not be any less costly or more faster than development for the OLED Switch.
Click to expand...
Like I keep trying to say, this is a very outdated view of game development. Modern games are built fairly generically and only optimized for consoles on an as needed basis. That need is very inversely proportional to hardware power.
 
ILikeFeet said:
I did some really shitty math that's probably wrong. if we assume the worse case scenario (256 Ampere cores), we'd get about a 40%+ performance increase (also assuming shit scales linearly, which it doesn't, and averaging two game results from 3 benching videos)

using the 1030 and the T400 as the best like for like that's currently available

RDR2 has ~30% performance increase
Cyberpunk has ~50% performance increase

and that's before DLSS (and assuming DLSS or a higher performance equivalent can run on 2 tensor cores) and the performance increase from Ampere (and possibly Lovelace). a reasonable expectation for a "Pro" but I think Nintendo will end up better than this

performance sourcing

Click to expand...


Interesting find, so the T400 has DLSS capabilities and definitely shows that Nvidia and Nintendo need more hardware than 3SM's to realistically perform 4k DLSS output. I can definitely see a 6SM part being very much their goal for Dane (8SM as that max) but this video was definitely the smallest Nvidia hardware I've seen using DLSS in the wild...
 
NineTailSage said:
Interesting find, so the T400 has DLSS capabilities and definitely shows that Nvidia and Nintendo need more hardware than 3SM's to realistically perform 4k DLSS output. I can definitely see a 6SM part being very much their goal for Dane (8SM as that max) but this video was definitely the smallest Nvidia hardware I've seen using DLSS in the wild...
Click to expand...
lol, I just realized I posted that in the wrong thread. I meant this in response to @My Tulpa in the other thread

but it's curious that the T400 isn't doing DLSS well. it might be due to drivers as I don't think that bench was done with geforce drivers. it could also be that there's not enough tensor core performance. really hard to say without anyone else testing it. it's also important to note that the T400 is Turing based and Ampere's tensor cores are more powerful. I can see 4 gen 3 TCs doing a lower quality DLSS/AI Upscale though. but, again, we don't have anything to base this on
 
0
My Tulpa said:
I appreciate your argument from a generalized point of view, but it’s just not that hardcoded in real world terms, especially the Switch in this
case.

As I mentioned above, it’s going to take Saber twice as long, with more costs and manpower, to put the “next gen” version of Witcher 3 onto the ps5 (porting up) than it took them to put Witcher 3 on the Switch (porting down).

Yes, if you have a system, and then take that system and just double the RAM, double the bandwidth, double the CPU speed, and increase gpu cores…developers can brute force some things in a game instead of having to figure out some tricks or shortcuts to optimize that a system with half of that would require.

But rarely is it just that simple with architecture differences, and to be honest, this kind of time consumption is more about working with something different, not with just something less/slower.

An argument against my Witcher 3 example would be “well, Saber has to add a bunch of stuff for the porting up! There are a bunch of new features available on the new systems that they have to figure out how to use properly and optimize! Like FSR! That’s why it will take longe to port to the ps5 than the Switch!”

Which would prove my point…you can’t argue about ease of porting based just on the simplicity of brute forcing something on beefier hardware speeds.

When devs approach the Dane/DLSS Switch, it’s not going to make things faster or cost less. They are now going to have to come up with ways to optimize the usage of DLSS within the major restrictions of mobile SoC architecture. It is in fact going to require a lot of balancing and trial and error to figure out the best way to port stuff on a 15 watt system with heat/battery concerns. It’s not just “brute force”

Development for 4K Switch will not be any less costly or more faster than development for the OLED Switch.
Click to expand...
You got a source for your first claim with regards to Witcher 3 on next gen? Also if the Switch were more powerful, SE wouldn’t have to spend the time to manually adjust model quality.
 
Pokemaniac said:
Like I keep trying to say, this is a very outdated view of game development. Modern games are built fairly generically and only optimized for consoles on an as needed basis. That need is very inversely proportional to hardware power.
Click to expand...
I do not believe it is possible to change this person's mind, short of getting them a job in game development working on ports :)
 
ILikeFeet said:
I did some really shitty math that's probably wrong. if we assume the worse case scenario (256 Ampere cores), we'd get about a 40%+ performance increase (also assuming shit scales linearly, which it doesn't, and averaging two game results from 3 benching videos)

using the 1030 and the T400 as the best like for like that's currently available

RDR2 has ~30% performance increase
Cyberpunk has ~50% performance increase

and that's before DLSS (and assuming DLSS or a higher performance equivalent can run on 2 tensor cores) and the performance increase from Ampere (and possibly Lovelace). a reasonable expectation for a "Pro" but I think Nintendo will end up better than this

performance sourcing


Click to expand...

40% increase from what? Base Switch?
 
Last edited:
0
While all this talk regarding the SoC is great stuff, you'll forgive me that I seem preoccupied with what goes on at the margins, because raw power is great but doesn't represent the whole picture. Like the AV1 discussion we had, as an example, that kind of stuff interests me, since it has an impact on things like the software package size, which seems like a small consideration but has far-reaching impact to users and developers alike.
So, all that said, I have some more questions.

What do we think the odds are of Bluetooth 5? It's been around in consumer electronics since 2018, there seems to be a major push to roll it out in tech as fast as possible and it falls in line with a favourite design consideration for Nintendo, which is diminished draw from battery power (up to 2.5x less, allegedly).
It feels like a no-duh sort of thing, but I'm sure that its inclusion would depend entirely on component prices.
Tech folks, if component prices would likely be all that keeps it from happening like I imagine it would be, is Bluetooth 5 similar to or lower in price than Bluetooth 4.1 was at Switch's launch? And with that said, what about Wi-Fi 6 support?

Also, what are we likely looking at in terms of internal storage capacity? eMMC is unfortunately showing its age, being unable to read and write simultaneously, which slows down background downloads and is notably slower for multimedia applications like gaming. I know NVMe is likely off the table, but eUFS 3 seems like it would be the logical guess. However, again, component prices seem like they would dictate this decision more than anything, especially regarding capacity.
 
Terrell said:
While all this talk regarding the SoC is great stuff, you'll forgive me that I seem preoccupied with what goes on at the margins, because raw power is great but doesn't represent the whole picture. Like the AV1 discussion we had, as an example, that kind of stuff interests me, since it has an impact on things like the software package size, which seems like a small consideration but has far-reaching impact to users and developers alike.
So, all that said, I have some more questions.

What do we think the odds are of Bluetooth 5? It's been around in consumer electronics since 2018, there seems to be a major push to roll it out in tech as fast as possible and it falls in line with a favourite design consideration for Nintendo, which is diminished draw from battery power (up to 2.5x less, allegedly).
It feels like a no-duh sort of thing, but I'm sure that its inclusion would depend entirely on component prices.
Tech folks, if component prices would likely be all that keeps it from happening like I imagine it would be, is Bluetooth 5 similar to or lower in price than Bluetooth 4.1 was at Switch's launch? And with that said, what about Wi-Fi 6 support?

Also, what are we likely looking at in terms of internal storage capacity? eMMC is unfortunately showing its age, being unable to read and write simultaneously, which slows down background downloads and is notably slower for multimedia applications like gaming. I know NVMe is likely off the table, but eUFS 3 seems like it would be the logical guess. However, again, component prices seem like they would dictate this decision more than anything, especially regarding capacity.
Click to expand...
UFS 2.1, 2.2, 3.0 or 3.1 for internal storage seems pretty likely. Really just depends on what fits best with their price to performance targets. Any of them would be a welcome upgrade though. I’m leaning towards UFS 2.2.
 
0
Terrell said:
What do we think the odds are of Bluetooth 5? It's been around in consumer electronics since 2018, there seems to be a major push to roll it out in tech as fast as possible and it falls in line with a favourite design consideration for Nintendo, which is diminished draw from battery power (up to 2.5x less, allegedly).
It feels like a no-duh sort of thing, but I'm sure that its inclusion would depend entirely on component prices.
Tech folks, if component prices would likely be all that keeps it from happening like I imagine it would be, is Bluetooth 5 similar to or lower in price than Bluetooth 4.1 was at Switch's launch? And with that said, what about Wi-Fi 6 support?

Also, what are we likely looking at in terms of internal storage capacity? eMMC is unfortunately showing its age, being unable to read and write simultaneously, which slows down background downloads and is notably slower for multimedia applications like gaming. I know NVMe is likely off the table, but eUFS 3 seems like it would be the logical guess. However, again, component prices seem like they would dictate this decision more than anything, especially regarding capacity.
Click to expand...
I think Bluetooth 5.0 support is a possibility for the DLSS model*.

But I don't think Wi-Fi 6 support or Wi-Fi 6E support is likely since that the price for a Wi-Fi 6 chip or a Wi-Fi 6E chip is probably still quite expensive, considering that almost all the smartphones with Wi-Fi 6 support or Wi-Fi 6E support so far are flagship smartphones. Maybe Wi-Fi 6 support or Wi-Fi 6E support becomes more likely when more mid-range smartphones start having Wi-Fi 6 support or Wi-Fi 6E support.

I'm leaning towards UFS 2.1 for the internal flash storage. And assuming there's a report and a rumour about Nintendo being the first customer of Macronix's 48-layer 3D NAND memory, with speculation about Macronix's 48-layer 3D NAND memory potentially being used for 64 GB Game Cards, and Nintendo sampling Macronix's 48-layer 3D NAND memory, and assuming Macronix's 48-layer 3D NAND memory has similar performance with Samsung PM953, Samsung's 48-layer TLC 3D NAND memory, UFS 2.1 should have similar performance with the Game Cards using Macronix's 48-layer 3D NAND memory. And UFS Card 3.0's performance is comparable to UFS 2.1, assuming Nintendo adopts UFS Card 3.0 as external storage.
 
Terrell said:
While all this talk regarding the SoC is great stuff, you'll forgive me that I seem preoccupied with what goes on at the margins, because raw power is great but doesn't represent the whole picture. Like the AV1 discussion we had, as an example, that kind of stuff interests me, since it has an impact on things like the software package size, which seems like a small consideration but has far-reaching impact to users and developers alike.
So, all that said, I have some more questions.

What do we think the odds are of Bluetooth 5? It's been around in consumer electronics since 2018, there seems to be a major push to roll it out in tech as fast as possible and it falls in line with a favourite design consideration for Nintendo, which is diminished draw from battery power (up to 2.5x less, allegedly).
It feels like a no-duh sort of thing, but I'm sure that its inclusion would depend entirely on component prices.
Tech folks, if component prices would likely be all that keeps it from happening like I imagine it would be, is Bluetooth 5 similar to or lower in price than Bluetooth 4.1 was at Switch's launch? And with that said, what about Wi-Fi 6 support?

Also, what are we likely looking at in terms of internal storage capacity? eMMC is unfortunately showing its age, being unable to read and write simultaneously, which slows down background downloads and is notably slower for multimedia applications like gaming. I know NVMe is likely off the table, but eUFS 3 seems like it would be the logical guess. However, again, component prices seem like they would dictate this decision more than anything, especially regarding capacity.
Click to expand...
I would expect the next gen switch chip to be used in the next gen Nvidia shield TV so I would expect it to have built-in hardware AV1/VP9 decoding.
 
ReddDreadtheLead said:
Discovery:

SM-M127F - Geekbench 5 CPU Search - Geekbench

browser.geekbench.com

8 A55 clocked at 2.0GHz

So now we know the single and multi core perf of the A55! These were always a missing piece in this.

Not knowing how they actually perform was trouble in these convos. Regarding CPU perf that is.
Click to expand...
A little less than a month ago, I was looking into how the Cortex-A55 compares to the CPU on Durango (Xbox One) in terms of single-core scores since someone mentioned a custom configuration of 7 Cortex-A78 cores and 1 Cortex-A55 core. So I managed to find Geekbench 5 scores for the AMD A9-9820 APU, which is very similar, if not the same, as Durango, and the Samsung Galaxy A21s, which comes equipped with the Exynos 850, a SoC with 8 Cortex-A55 cores running at 2 GHz, and is fabricated using Samsung's 8LPP process node.
As for the single-core scores, the AMD A9-9820 APU (at the max frequency of 2.345 GHz) scored 293, and the Exynos 850 scored 170. And as for the multi-core scores, the AMD A9-9820 APU scored 1917, and the Exynos 850 scored 971.
So the Cortex-A55 doesn't seem to quite match up with Durango, in spite of the Cortex-A55 having a process node advantage (Durango is fabricated using TSMC's 28 nm process node).
 
Terrell said:
While all this talk regarding the SoC is great stuff, you'll forgive me that I seem preoccupied with what goes on at the margins, because raw power is great but doesn't represent the whole picture. Like the AV1 discussion we had, as an example, that kind of stuff interests me, since it has an impact on things like the software package size, which seems like a small consideration but has far-reaching impact to users and developers alike.
So, all that said, I have some more questions.

What do we think the odds are of Bluetooth 5? It's been around in consumer electronics since 2018, there seems to be a major push to roll it out in tech as fast as possible and it falls in line with a favourite design consideration for Nintendo, which is diminished draw from battery power (up to 2.5x less, allegedly).
It feels like a no-duh sort of thing, but I'm sure that its inclusion would depend entirely on component prices.
Tech folks, if component prices would likely be all that keeps it from happening like I imagine it would be, is Bluetooth 5 similar to or lower in price than Bluetooth 4.1 was at Switch's launch? And with that said, what about Wi-Fi 6 support?

Also, what are we likely looking at in terms of internal storage capacity? eMMC is unfortunately showing its age, being unable to read and write simultaneously, which slows down background downloads and is notably slower for multimedia applications like gaming. I know NVMe is likely off the table, but eUFS 3 seems like it would be the logical guess. However, again, component prices seem like they would dictate this decision more than anything, especially regarding capacity.
Click to expand...
In terms of storage, the issue is more memory cards than internal storage. There are various eUFS options for internal memory, but pretty much every sort of faster memory card would require Nintendo to throw their weight around because they've either not really been widely adopted (UHS-II and UHS-III SD cards, UFS cards), are still too expensive (CFexpress cards), or are pretty early on and might not be ready yet (SD Express).
 
Dakhil said:
A little less than a month ago, I was looking into how the Cortex-A55 compares to the CPU on Durango (Xbox One) in terms of single-core scores since someone mentioned a custom configuration of 7 Cortex-A78 cores and 1 Cortex-A55 core. So I managed to find Geekbench 5 scores for the AMD A9-9820 APU, which is very similar, if not the same, as Durango, and the Samsung Galaxy A21s, which comes equipped with the Exynos 850, a SoC with 8 Cortex-A55 cores running at 2 GHz, and is fabricated using Samsung's 8LPP process node.
As for the single-core scores, the AMD A9-9820 APU (at the max frequency of 2.345 GHz) scored 293, and the Exynos 850 scored 170. And as for the multi-core scores, the AMD A9-9820 APU scored 1917, and the Exynos 850 scored 971.
So the Cortex-A55 doesn't seem to quite match up with Durango, in spite of the Cortex-A55 having a process node advantage (Durango is fabricated using TSMC's 28 nm process node).
Click to expand...
Ah my bad! I hadn’t realized you brought it up previously. Interesting how they are less performant vs the AMD A9-9820. I’m curious if the A510 will match with the AMD A9-9820 and perform similarly.
 
0
Pokemaniac said:
In terms of storage, the issue is more memory cards than internal storage. There are various eUFS options for internal memory, but pretty much every sort of faster memory card would require Nintendo to throw their weight around because they've either not really been widely adopted (UHS-II and UHS-III SD cards, UFS cards), are still too expensive (CFexpress cards), or are pretty early on and might not be ready yet (SD Express).
Click to expand...
The new MacBook Pro models feature a SD card slot that supports UHS-II cards.


I personally hope this spurs more SD card manufacturers to manufacture more UHS-II cards, especially with the new MacBook Pro models actually looking enticing for professionals.
 
Dakhil said:
The new MacBook Pro models feature a SD card slot that supports UHS-II cards.


I personally hope this spurs more SD card manufacturers to manufacture more UHS-II cards, especially with the new MacBook Pro models actually looking enticing for professionals.
Click to expand...

It's a step in the right direction, at least, but it's so late that I have to wonder if it will move the needle, especially with the weirdness around how SD Express is only actually backwards compatible with UHS-I.
 
0
I said it before, but I seriously hope that if the only expanded storage is sd cards they won’t let you play native games off of them, instead using it to store games you aren’t playing or for BC titles if you don’t want them on the main memory. Even UHS-II is way too slow if they go for UFS 2.1 or higher for internal memory. If I’m not mistaken the same reader can be use for micro SD and UFS Card, right? So maybe the best scenario would be UFS 2.1 internal memory, UFS Card 3.0 for expanded memory and micro SD as an alternative similar to using an external HDD for Xbox Series (and I think PS5?)
 
ArchedThunder said:
I said it before, but I seriously hope that if the only expanded storage is sd cards they won’t let you play native games off of them, instead using it to store games you aren’t playing or for BC titles if you don’t want them on the main memory. Even UHS-II is way too slow if they go for UFS 2.1 or higher for internal memory. If I’m not mistaken the same reader can be use for micro SD and UFS Card, right? So maybe the best scenario would be UFS 2.1 internal memory, UFS Card 3.0 for expanded memory and micro SD as an alternative similar to using an external HDD for Xbox Series (and I think PS5?)
Click to expand...
I just don't see mandatory installs as viable unless Nintendo really goes crazy with the internal storage capacity, and even then it would get pretty bad.
 
Pokemaniac said:
I just don't see mandatory installs as viable unless Nintendo really goes crazy with the internal storage capacity, and even then it would get pretty bad.
Click to expand...
How fast could they reasonably make the Switch 4K game cards? The load times I get playing games on Xbox Series X are a game changer for me and I really don’t want the Switch 4K to suffer from the same slow load times of the base Switch, and that’s not even getting into the kind of game design opened up by fast storage or the potential 3rd party support they could miss out on by not having fast speeds.
 
Last edited:
ArchedThunder said:
How fast could they reasonably make the Switch 4K game cards? The load times I get playing games on Xbox Series X are a game changer for me and I really don’t want the Switch 4K to suffer from the same slow load times of the base Switch, and that’s not even getting into the kind of game design opened up by fast storage or the potential 3rd party support they could miss out on by not having fast speeds.
Click to expand...
You're always gonna be much slower than Series since you're thermally limited. File sizes will come down given the potential power of the system and that's gonna help a lot, but being slower is inevitable. The best thing you can hope for is Nintendo allowing internal storage to go much faster than game cards.
 
ILikeFeet said:
You're always gonna be much slower than Series since you're thermally limited. File sizes will come down given the potential power of the system and that's gonna help a lot, but being slower is inevitable. The best thing you can hope for is Nintendo allowing internal storage to go much faster than game cards.
Click to expand...
I know it will always be slower, but I don’t want snail’s speed like the Switch can be at times.
 
Wild (semi Educated guess): Even if everything is already set in stone, and even games are done, Nintendo wont release its next hardware till the semiconductors crisis gets over with and they can reliable manufacture the console.
 
garf02 said:
Wild (semi Educated guess): Even if everything is already set in stone, and even games are done, Nintendo wont release its next hardware till the semiconductors crisis gets over with and they can reliable manufacture the console.
Click to expand...
At most they’ll delay it a few months to build up stock. This is why when I saw that they were supposedly targeting late 2022 that I immediately assumed it’d be March 2023. Supply chain issues aren’t going to be fixed any time soon, holding the Switch 4K back until an unknown time in the future would be a very bad idea.
 
ArchedThunder said:
How fast could they reasonably make the Switch 4K game cards? The load times I get playing games on Xbox Series X are a game changer for me and I really don’t want the Switch 4K to suffer from the same slow load times of the base Switch, and that’s not even getting into the kind of game design opened up by fast storage or the potential 3rd party support they could miss out on by not having fast speeds.
Click to expand...
Switch loading times are often cpu limited. It’s hard to even take fully advantage of the speed that is there.

Even if the next switch has the fastest possible speeds, it needs some kind of IO solution to offroad the cpu. Like both new ms and Sony console has.
 
0
ArchedThunder said:
holding the Switch 4K back until an unknown time in the future would be a very bad idea.
Click to expand...
why? Nintendo will miss the thunder for 8K 120 FPS 700$ base consoles??

rushing a new Console without the stock could be the worst case scenario, Nintendo hardware always nose dives whenever the new gen is out cause they dont do Gen Transition, they fully on jump ship, so there is really no incentive for people to stick buying the old console, Add to that then that they wont be able to buy the new one cause there is no stock, that will leave Nintendo unable to sell neither Switch nor Switch 2 on the volumes they expect .
 
I predict the following about the Switch 2:
It can do most anything
It can do the hully-gully
It can imitate Vin Scully
It'll give out shiny dimes
It'll travel back in time
 
garf02 said:
why? Nintendo will miss the thunder for 8K 120 FPS 700$ base consoles??

rushing a new Console without the stock could be the worst case scenario, Nintendo hardware always nose dives whenever the new gen is out cause they dont do Gen Transition, they fully on jump ship, so there is really no incentive for people to stick buying the old console, Add to that then that they wont be able to buy the new one cause there is no stock, that will leave Nintendo unable to sell neither Switch nor Switch 2 on the volumes they expect .
Click to expand...

I love the myth that things aren’t selling or selling well because there is no stock.

Here’s the truth - There’s usually no stock because sales are absolutely huge. So big that they can barely keep up with them. That’s what success looks like.
 
Pokemaniac said:
I just don't see mandatory installs as viable unless Nintendo really goes crazy with the internal storage capacity, and even then it would get pretty bad.
Click to expand...
At this point, the loading performance from SD cards and eMMC that's based on that spec puts it out of the range of what's even feasible to use if Nintendo is hoping to keep things like game launch and loading times as snappy as they are now while potentially moving into higher-resolution game design. SD UHS-I, as I understand it, won't cut the mustard this way. I'm not even 100% sure that UHS-II would.
Dakhil said:
I think Bluetooth 5.0 support is a possibility for the DLSS model*.

But I don't think Wi-Fi 6 support or Wi-Fi 6E support is likely since that the price for a Wi-Fi 6 chip or a Wi-Fi 6E chip is probably still quite expensive, considering that almost all the smartphones with Wi-Fi 6 support or Wi-Fi 6E support so far are flagship smartphones. Maybe Wi-Fi 6 support or Wi-Fi 6E support becomes more likely when more mid-range smartphones start having Wi-Fi 6 support or Wi-Fi 6E support.

I'm leaning towards UFS 2.1 for the internal flash storage. And assuming there's a report and a rumour about Nintendo being the first customer of Macronix's 48-layer 3D NAND memory, with speculation about Macronix's 48-layer 3D NAND memory potentially being used for 64 GB Game Cards, and Nintendo sampling Macronix's 48-layer 3D NAND memory, and assuming Macronix's 48-layer 3D NAND memory has similar performance with Samsung PM953, Samsung's 48-layer TLC 3D NAND memory, UFS 2.1 should have similar performance with the Game Cards using Macronix's 48-layer 3D NAND memory. And UFS Card 3.0's performance is comparable to UFS 2.1, assuming Nintendo adopts UFS Card 3.0 as external storage.
Click to expand...
Good news about BT5. But quick question... is iPhone SE considered a "flagship" smartphone? Cuz it has Wi-Fi 6.
But I can see your point, especially when phones and routers are really the ONLY devices that commonly use Wi-Fi 6, PS5 having it is a novel oddity, at this point, so sticking with Wi-Fi 5 seems more likely unless something drastically changes.
 
garf02 said:
Wild (semi Educated guess): Even if everything is already set in stone, and even games are done, Nintendo wont release its next hardware till the semiconductors crisis gets over with and they can reliable manufacture the console.
Click to expand...
Once their time in the fab line comes around, then they'll start selling. They'll try to build up as much stock as possible, but they won't sit on chips just to say they have xx million units day one. Even logistics increased in price and demand
 
0
garf02 said:
Wild (semi Educated guess): Even if everything is already set in stone, and even games are done, Nintendo wont release its next hardware till the semiconductors crisis gets over with and they can reliable manufacture the console.
Click to expand...

Which is kind of funny if you think about it, because Nintendo has been accused of manufacturing scarcity on purpose many times in the past.
 
Terrell said:
Good news about BT5. But quick question... is iPhone SE considered a "flagship" smartphone? Cuz it has Wi-Fi 6.
Click to expand...
I'd call the iPhone SE (2020) a premium mid-range smartphone, considering the iPhone SE (2020) is using the same SoC as the iPhone 11, the Apple A13 Bionic, which is considered a flagship SoC when the iPhone SE (2020) was released.

Most mid-range smartphones don't use flagship SoCs, but rather mid-range SoCs. I did mention that almost all smartphones with Wi-Fi 6 or Wi-Fi 6E support are flagship smartphones, which means there are some mid-range smartphones with Wi-Fi 6 or Wi-Fi 6E support. But the amount of mid-range smartphones with Wi-Fi 6 or Wi-Fi 6E support is probably not enough to drive down costs for a Wi-Fi 6 or Wi-Fi 6E chip, which is why I mentioned that Wi-Fi 6 or Wi-Fi 6E support is more likely when more mid-range smartphones have Wi-Fi 6 or Wi-Fi 6E support.

Dardan Sandiego said:
Asked in the general thread, thought I'd ask here as well: Is there any indication that there might be a new Lite or Lite-equivalent model coming?
Click to expand...
So far, no reliable rumours have mentioned a new Nintendo Switch Lite model.

But saying that, I wouldn't be surprised if a new Nintendo Switch Lite model is currently in development at Nintendo, since video game companies always start development of new hardware after releasing new hardware. And Nintendo's no exception.

~

Anyway, Samsung seems to have plans to talk more about Samsung's 3 nm** process nodes in China at almost the same time frame as GTC 2021 (November 2021):


** → simply a marketing nomenclature used by all foundry companies
 
YolkFolk said:
I love the myth that things aren’t selling or selling well because there is no stock.
Click to expand...
what myth??, you literally cant sell what you dont have. how are you gonna sell Switch 2 if you cant manufacture Switch 2 enough??

Jafin said:
Which is kind of funny if you think about it, because Nintendo has been accused of manufacturing scarcity on purpose many times in the past.
Click to expand...
Lol, I totally forgot this
 
I personally have doubts about the rumours I'm going to talk about, but I thought it might make for an interesting discussion.

But Jon from Spawn Wave Media decided to talk about the rumour from Nick of Xbox Era about Nintendo considering releasing a digital only Nintendo Switch model or making the Nintendo Switch's successor digital only after being informed by many people.
 
maybe if it was a docked only model. of Mariko or Dane, either one I guess. but I don't think they'll waste Dane chips on such a device. but the next hybrid won't be digital only. it would break the forward compatibility idea
 
garf02 said:
what myth??, you literally cant sell what you dont have. how are you gonna sell Switch 2 if you cant manufacture Switch 2 enough??
Click to expand...
Personally I wouldn't call it a myth but yes the idea that stock shortages are so bad that nobody can buy a PS5 is extremely overblown. The PS5 is still managing to sell more launch aligned than the PS4, that wouldn't be possible if the shortage situation was as bad as people tend to claim.

If Sony can manufacture this many PS5 (despite that amount still being below demand) then there's no reason to think Nintendo can't manufacture enough Dane Switches to sell massive amounts, even if it still is below demand too.
 
Dakhil said:
ut Jon from Spawn Wave Media decided to talk about the rumour from Nick of Xbox Era about Nintendo considering releasing a digital only Nintendo Switch model or making the Nintendo Switch's successor digital only after being informed by many people.
Click to expand...
Why do people always jump to/ assume Nintendo next step is do what the competition is doing?? When they clearly have never do so in recent times
 
garf02 said:
Why do people always jump to/ assume Nintendo next step is do what the competition is doing?? When they clearly have never do so in recent times
Click to expand...
🤷🏾‍♂️History tells us a lot about Nintendo and yet here we are.
 
0
I don't really think we're at a point where consoles would be digital only going forward, at least not without the option of a physical version also. If it's a revision, i.e. not making the console any more powerful or adding significant features and they want to cut the cost a bit then sure, I could see a digital only Switch being added to the line similar to how there is the digital only PS5 and Xbox Series S. If it's a successor though, then no I don't think we're at that point yet. I say that as a person who has bought 90% of their Switch games digitally. I still like having the option of buying physical games, and I do like to get collector/special editions when it's a game I'm really excited and passionate about.
 
0
ILikeFeet said:
maybe if it was a docked only model. of Mariko or Dane, either one I guess. but I don't think they'll waste Dane chips on such a device. but the next hybrid won't be digital only. it would break the forward compatibility idea
Click to expand...
There's Calico, although I believe the dataminers mentioned that Calico's unlikely to be released as a retail product.
 
Dakhil said:
There's Calico, although I believe the dataminers mentioned that Calico's unlikely to be released as a retail product.
Click to expand...
The data miners don't know anything more than we do about Nintendos plans. I mean, they clearly have considered it, or else it woudnt have been in the firmware.
 
0
Hermii said:
Not that I know of.
Click to expand...

Dakhil said:
So far, no reliable rumours have mentioned a new Nintendo Switch Lite model.

But saying that, I wouldn't be surprised if a new Nintendo Switch Lite model is currently in development at Nintendo, since video game companies always start development of new hardware after releasing new hardware. And Nintendo's no exception.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the replies! I guess I can safely buy a Lite now.
 
0
Terrell said:
While all this talk regarding the SoC is great stuff, you'll forgive me that I seem preoccupied with what goes on at the margins, because raw power is great but doesn't represent the whole picture. Like the AV1 discussion we had, as an example, that kind of stuff interests me, since it has an impact on things like the software package size, which seems like a small consideration but has far-reaching impact to users and developers alike.
So, all that said, I have some more questions
Click to expand...

This is one of the reasons the backwards compat discussion interests me.

Terrell said:
.

What do we think the odds are of Bluetooth 5? It's been around in consumer electronics since 2018, there seems to be a major push to roll it out in tech as fast as possible and it falls in line with a favourite design consideration for Nintendo, which is diminished draw from battery power (up to 2.5x less, allegedly).
Click to expand...

IIUC Bluetooth 5 is only backwards compatible with Bluetooth 4.x. While Switch has BT 4.1 hardware, I believe Joy-Cons and Pro Controller are BT 3 devices. So to get the range benefits, controllers would need to be updated. Those updated controllers would need to still support at least 4.1 to be compatible with classic hardware. Dane would still need 4.1 (which is itself compatible with 3) hardware to support Classic Switch controllers.

Looking at Broadcom Wifi/BT chipsets (like the one in the Switch) that support BT5, spec sheets make no mention of BT3/BT4 support, and may only support backwards compat inasmuch as BT 5 does. If so, that looks like a barrier for BT5 adoption.

My personal question is whether or not they'll abandon USB-C to get a faster bus to the dock - network speeds over the OLED's ethernet are already limited by what bandwidth is left after power/HDMI are going over the same connection - MVG found that the network bandwidth was the same for wired ethernet vs the wireless, making transferring your digital library a bitch (though obviously latency was improved). If Dane is pushing 4k numbers of pixels...
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Please read this staff post before posting.

Furthermore, according to this follow-up post, all off-topic chat will be moderated.
Last edited:


Back
Top Bottom