Pedro Pascal in everything these days...
If the internal storage is faster than SD cards I’m curious if Nintendo could gracefully manage loading off an SD card into faster internal storage when booting a game instead of fridge style storage.
No, I think that example was highlighted mostly because it was an off the shelf chip, and the only dev feedback Nintendo could possibly have addressed was adding some more memory. This time, devs have probably been giving feedback while t239 was still in development, so there is plenty more things Nintendo: Nvidia could have addressed than "add some more ram".
I agree they’ll probably add colors themes but I should have been more specific to the themes we saw on 3DS is what I was talking about.
limiting in what sense? there's a point before things start falling off in performance gains. this is still a lower powered box than the Series S, and at 12GB with up to 2GB for OS features, you're 3.5-ish GB off the Series X. that's also 2x the usable ram of a PS4 where the handheld mode could practically match
www.vg247.com
399.99 + tax and a tiny profit margin would be my expectations.Nintendo will again want to have more affordable price point for next generation, and $500 console is not that.
Nintendo was always selling their hardware with profit from day one (including current Switch), only expectations are Wii U and 3DS (after price cut).
The Switch will sell at a profit from day one and Nintendo confirms plans to increase production
Nintendo is doing all it can to avoid another Wii U situation.
A 16GB Tegra Orion module exists...
imo 449-499$
I mean in the comparison between 8GB and 12GB, the required RAM configuration would be two chips, 64 bits each, since we know it's a 2 channel, 128bit bus. Two 4GB modules, or two 6GB modules. 6GB modules are more readily available.
Mark my words they will NOT launch more than one storage SKU at the same time. It doesn't make economic sense and it doesn't make marketing sense. They don't need a "starting at 399" product. They have a "starting at 199" product and will continue to do so until the Drake Lite launches.
I heard that two 6GB modules LPPDR5 are relatively cheap, and also its perfect balance
I absolutely agree. 12GB seems the most likely, and the fact it puts it above the Series S in raw capacity should help a lot- especially to make up for its relative speed deficiency.
Which is why I brought up the 3DS comparison. Pretty clear cut.
It is said that this year inflation will start to drop drastically and we will start to exit the crisis, but still I think about the price of $ 449-499, due to the specifics that the Switch 2 has
It seems likely, but the OS could be larger than 1GB, like 1.5-2GB. It depends on whether they want to add many features to it, and what those features are.
No one knows. More features take more ram. Just switch features but better also takes more ram
I agree with the latter, now for my thoughts on the bolded:
if will be 10GB RAM for devs, still be good and more than in Series S
PS6 and Next Xbox will be relased in 2028( thanks to ABK Acqusition we know that), and they will use GDDR7, 32GB RAM then its minimumI agree with the latter, now for my thoughts on the bolded:
Functionally, it's when priorities are re-balanced, right?
GDDR's strength is that it offers cheap bandwidth.
GDDR's weaknesses are worse latency and significantly lower density/capacity. Also an energy per bit efficiency that's in between DDR and LPDDR, but I dunno, is that more 'neutral' than 'weakness'? Anyway...
LPDDR would flip those things around; latency that's historically in between DDR and GDDR (but things get murkier in the memory-controller-runs-at-fraction-of-ram-speed era...), win in energy efficiency, and higher density/capacity while losing in raw bandwidth.
For a system like PS5/Series, at the end of the day, bandwidth needs just have that much higher priority over latency/energy/density.
Future-wise... fast forward to PS6.
First, I'll pull up this chart from here:
It is likely the case that by the time we're talking about a PS6, the options are DDR6/LPDDR6/GDDR7.
Densities and speeds are expected to double. So, GDDR7 would probably look like 2 or 4 GB per 32-bit chip, with transfer rates ranging from 28,000 to 36,000 MT/s. LPDDR6 should probably go up to 12,800 MT/s. Density-wise, if we're seeing a floor of 4 GB per 64-bit with LPDDR5, maybe we're looking at a minimum of 8 GB per 64-bit with LPDDR6.
Energy efficiency-wise, the expectation is that due to the change in signaling type, GDDR7 should reduce usage by 25%, iso-process. So, relative to GDDR6, 2x bandwidth for 1.5x the power draw, iso-process.
As for system priorities...
I think that with the PS6, bandwidth needs will climb again to the point that it's still by far the top priority. So I expect GDDR7; maybe still 256-bit bus width and Sony opting for 4 GB chips, thus living with 32 GB in total.
Fast forward again to the following generation is when I think priorities can start re-balancing.
1. I'm not sure that the Playstation-style form factor can adequately handle the energy/heat aspects that would come along with a theoretical doubling of GDDR7?
2. I'm willing to bet that further improvements in being more efficient with how much data really needs to be shuffled back and forth (more refined reconstruction techniques, plus whatever other neat ideas*) will lead to the scenario where a theoretical LPDDR7 or LPDDR7X's bandwidth is workable...
...which in turn sees a rise in importance in raw quantity of ram.
*heyyy, just remembered that according to the IEEE roadmap, we're supposed to be seeing stacked SRAM by the end of this decade. Probably not gonna make it in time for a PS6, but by the mid-late 2030's? Fat stacks of cache might be doable. That's one way to help sidestep bandwidth needs.
''A 36 Gbps DRAM interface across a 384-bit bus should provide up to 1.7 TB/s of bandwidth whereas a 256-bit bus interface with the same speed will deliver up to 1.15 TB/s bandwidth.''I agree with the latter, now for my thoughts on the bolded:
Functionally, it's when priorities are re-balanced, right?
GDDR's strength is that it offers cheap bandwidth.
GDDR's weaknesses are worse latency and significantly lower density/capacity. Also an energy per bit efficiency that's in between DDR and LPDDR, but I dunno, is that more 'neutral' than 'weakness'? Anyway...
LPDDR would flip those things around; latency that's historically in between DDR and GDDR (but things get murkier in the memory-controller-runs-at-fraction-of-ram-speed era...), win in energy efficiency, and higher density/capacity while losing in raw bandwidth.
For a system like PS5/Series, at the end of the day, bandwidth needs just have that much higher priority over latency/energy/density.
Future-wise... fast forward to PS6.
First, I'll pull up this chart from here:
It is likely the case that by the time we're talking about a PS6, the options are DDR6/LPDDR6/GDDR7.
Densities and speeds are expected to double. So, GDDR7 would probably look like 2 or 4 GB per 32-bit chip, with transfer rates ranging from 28,000 to 36,000 MT/s. LPDDR6 should probably go up to 12,800 MT/s. Density-wise, if we're seeing a floor of 4 GB per 64-bit with LPDDR5, maybe we're looking at a minimum of 8 GB per 64-bit with LPDDR6.
Energy efficiency-wise, the expectation is that due to the change in signaling type, GDDR7 should reduce usage by 25%, iso-process. So, relative to GDDR6, 2x bandwidth for 1.5x the power draw, iso-process.
As for system priorities...
I think that with the PS6, bandwidth needs will climb again to the point that it's still by far the top priority. So I expect GDDR7; maybe still 256-bit bus width and Sony opting for 4 GB chips, thus living with 32 GB in total.
Fast forward again to the following generation is when I think priorities can start re-balancing.
1. I'm not sure that the Playstation-style form factor can adequately handle the energy/heat aspects that would come along with a theoretical doubling of GDDR7?
2. I'm willing to bet that further improvements in being more efficient with how much data really needs to be shuffled back and forth (more refined reconstruction techniques, plus whatever other neat ideas*) will lead to the scenario where a theoretical LPDDR7 or LPDDR7X's bandwidth is workable...
...which in turn sees a rise in importance in raw quantity of ram.
*heyyy, just remembered that according to the IEEE roadmap, we're supposed to be seeing stacked SRAM by the end of this decade. Probably not gonna make it in time for a PS6, but by the mid-late 2030's? Fat stacks of cache might be doable. That's one way to help sidestep bandwidth needs.
wccftech.com
I've never seen it laid out this way and I very much appreciate it. Fingers crossed for a $400 unit!
I expect a littttle more than that, like 128GB of storage (though eMMC seems reasonable. It's still moderately fast.). 1080p OLED.
Part of that bad marketing for the Wii U was having more than one SKU.
Yeah, 128GB of storage sounds perfect, 64GB its the same as in Oled so nah, imo battery will be bigger beacuse power of T239 Drake
Well 2GB is still more than doubling the Switch. That will be enough for some increase in quality. 60fps and probably recording length are the biggest improvements people would take
Compression, bitrate and resolution are my primary concerns. The rest are secondary to me.
Hehehe.
Having different price points can help if the model in question is attractive. If it isn’t then you run the risk of excess stock that can’t be unloaded & diverting production. The WiiU points are valid however that doesn’t really matter in this particular situation. The basic WiiU model was discontinued because it did not sell. For PS5 people are trying to get their hands on whatever stock is available.
I'm just hoping we get 12 and not 10 or even 8.
