• 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| (Read the staff posts before commenting!)

Reader mode
davec00ke said:
Nvidia had nothing to do with the motherboard in the Switch they just supplied the SOC
Click to expand...
I'm well aware Nvidia only provided the Tegra X1 for the Nintendo Switch.

The only reason I mentioned "...or paying Nvidia to design and manufacture, a much smaller and more compact motherboard..." is because that's what Nvidia has done with the Jetson Xavier NX, where the die size of the Jetson Xavier NX is 350 mm².

3642-front.jpg


I think the DLSS model*'s motherboard's going to be very similar to the OLED model's motherboard design wise. But if Nintendo for some reason decides to use a much smaller and more compact motherboard for the DLSS model*, I expect Nintendo to spend more money on designing and manufacturer such a motherboard rather than paying Nvidia to design and manufacture such a motherboard for Nintendo.
 
Dakhil said:
I feel like that's contingent on if Nintendo's willing to spend more money designing and manufacturing, or paying Nvidia to design and manufacture, a much smaller and more compact motherboard that can fit a ~200 mm² SoC.
Click to expand...

Dakhil said:
I'm well aware Nvidia only provided the Tegra X1 for the Nintendo Switch.

The only reason I mentioned "...or paying Nvidia to design and manufacture, a much smaller and more compact motherboard..." is because that's what Nvidia has done with the Jetson Xavier NX, where the die size of the Jetson Xavier NX is 350 mm².

3642-front.jpg


I think the DLSS model*'s motherboard's going to be very similar to the OLED model's motherboard design wise. But if Nintendo for some reason decides to use a much smaller and more compact motherboard for the DLSS model*, I expect Nintendo to spend more money on designing and manufacturer such a motherboard rather than paying Nvidia to design and manufacture such a motherboard for Nintendo.
Click to expand...

Xavier NX is also using 8 much larger Carmel CPU cores with 6 SM Volta GPU cores, (while also being based on the full Xavier chip with 2 SM deactivated) at 9 Billion transistors for a 350mm² die size. Just going by what Nvidia has achieved even on Samsung's 8N process with Ampere they could in theory be able to make a 6- core A78 CPU with a 8- SM GPU part (equating to roughly 8 billion transistors at 167mm² or less).

There's also quite a bit of things used on Xavier that Nintendo just wouldn't need present...
nvidia_xavier_die_shot_%28annotated%29.png
 
Dakhil said:
I'm well aware Nvidia only provided the Tegra X1 for the Nintendo Switch.

The only reason I mentioned "...or paying Nvidia to design and manufacture, a much smaller and more compact motherboard..." is because that's what Nvidia has done with the Jetson Xavier NX, where the die size of the Jetson Xavier NX is 350 mm².

3642-front.jpg


I think the DLSS model*'s motherboard's going to be very similar to the OLED model's motherboard design wise. But if Nintendo for some reason decides to use a much smaller and more compact motherboard for the DLSS model*, I expect Nintendo to spend more money on designing and manufacturer such a motherboard rather than paying Nvidia to design and manufacture such a motherboard for Nintendo.
Click to expand...
Never did I imagine a SoC bigger than the TX1 fitting onto what looks like a tall SODIMM but here we are
 
0
NineTailSage said:
Xavier NX is also using 8 much larger Carmel CPU cores with 6 SM Volta GPU cores, (while also being based on the full Xavier chip with 2 SM deactivated) at 9 Billion transistors for a 350mm² die size. Just going by what Nvidia has achieved even on Samsung's 8N process with Ampere they could in theory be able to make a 6- core A78 CPU with a 8- SM GPU part (equating to roughly 8 billion transistors at 167mm² or less).

There's also quite a bit of things used on Xavier that Nintendo just wouldn't need present...
nvidia_xavier_die_shot_%28annotated%29.png
Click to expand...
The only reason I've mentioned a ~200 mm² SoC is because the Xbox Series S's APU is mentioned.

And the only reason I've mentioned the Jetson Xavier NX is to give an example of a much smaller and more compact motherboard that can fit a very large SoC die (a 350 mm² SoC in the case of the Jetson Xavier NX).

Assuming that the DLSS model*'s design is very similar to the OLED model's design, and Nintendo plans for the DLSS model*'s motherboard to be very similar to the OLED model's motherboard, I don't know how Nintendo can fit a ~165 mm² SoC in the DLSS model*'s motherboard, considering the OLED model's motherboard is already compact, as shown by pictures taken by IFixIt.
SwitchOLED_91e.jpg

SwitchOLED_85e.jpg

The only way I can see Nintendo fitting a ~165 mm² SoC in the DLSS model*'s motherboard is if Nintendo designs and manufactures a brand new motherboard for the DLSS model* that's much smaller and more compact that can fit a ~165 mm² SoC.
 
Last edited:
I don't really get the advocacy for weird names like "Switch S." The last thing Nintendo needs is a Wii U situation where it's unclear how the new system stands in relation to the existing Switch. "Switch 4K" is slightly better but does fail to communicate value if you don't have a 4K TV.

"Super Nintendo Switch," at least, is a much better name since it follows an already established pattern of upgraded Nintendo hardware.
 
Branduil said:
I don't really get the advocacy for weird names like "Switch S." The last thing Nintendo needs is a Wii U situation where it's unclear how the new system stands in relation to the existing Switch. "Switch 4K" is slightly better but does fail to communicate value if you don't have a 4K TV.

"Super Nintendo Switch," at least, is a much better name since it follows an already established pattern of upgraded Nintendo hardware.
Click to expand...
S could be short for super though
 
Branduil said:
I don't really get the advocacy for weird names like "Switch S." The last thing Nintendo needs is a Wii U situation where it's unclear how the new system stands in relation to the existing Switch. "Switch 4K" is slightly better but does fail to communicate value if you don't have a 4K TV.

"Super Nintendo Switch," at least, is a much better name since it follows an already established pattern of upgraded Nintendo hardware.
Click to expand...
super is a name for sequels. the super nintendo didn't play NES games, and the NES didn't play super nintendo games. if that's what you think the new switch will be relative to the old one then super switch is a fine name
 
Dakhil said:
The only reason I've mentioned a ~200 mm² SoC is because the Xbox Series S's APU is mentioned.

And the only reason I've mentioned the Jetson Xavier NX is to give an example of a much smaller and more compact motherboard that can fit a very large SoC die (a 350 mm² SoC in the case of the Jetson Xavier NX).

Assuming that the DLSS model*'s design is very similar to the OLED model's design, and Nintendo plans for the DLSS model*'s motherboard to be very similar to the OLED model's motherboard, I don't know how Nintendo can fit a ~165 mm² SoC in the DLSS model*'s motherboard, considering the OLED model's motherboard is already compact, as shown by pictures taken by IFixIt.
SwitchOLED_91e.jpg

SwitchOLED_85e.jpg

The only way I can see Nintendo fitting a ~165 mm² SoC in the DLSS model*'s motherboard is if Nintendo designs and manufactures a brand new motherboard for the DLSS model* that's much smaller and more compact that can fit a ~165 mm² SoC.
Click to expand...

I completely understand and this is just all for speculation sake anyway, I think many things probably will end up changing with this next device.
Although 165mm² isn't much larger than 118mm²(but I get it the Switch is packed to gills already).
Which makes me wonder if the chip is efficient enough will they scale back on the battery size?
They could also get by with making the actual Switch a little bigger and still be portable enough in size.
 
Raccoon said:
super is a name for sequels. the super nintendo didn't play NES games, and the NES didn't play super nintendo games. if that's what you think the new switch will be relative to the old one then super switch is a fine name
Click to expand...
The backwards compatibility part wouldn't be an issue since that's solved with a bullet point
 
0
Branduil said:
Appending S to a hardware name has the connotation of Slim or Small. See Xbox Series S.
Click to expand...
That’s for the Xbox though, this is a Switch. No one looked at the iPhone 6S and thought “that’s the smaller 6” or the “Slimmer 6”. They thought “oh it’s the better version of the 6”. NV gpus have a shorthand of S attached at the end which is short for Super, the better SKU compared to the base equivalent. We already have the lite who is a smaller switch.

We live in a very different social climate than we did in the time of the Wii U who had a laundry list of reasons for why it omega bombed.

With the switch they would literally only need to say the ‘S’ stands for ‘super’ in advertising or in any interview. This is very different from the Wii which had “we would like to play” and then the Wii U was on the more complicated with “we would like to play with you” that was not obvious at first glance or second glance, and that was done in an interview on a talkshow by Reggie.
 
And, just to be clear, the Wii U name wasn't the whole problem, it was that it was advertised with its key peripheral front and centre in addition to the name with a Wii brand that was losing its brand appeal to give the appearance that it was all it was. One of those 3 key issues in isolation would not repeat that poor result per se.
 
Random thought. The more I think if it... The more I think steam deck is going to be lackluster/luke warm at best. This thing won't be released to the majority of the masses until mid 2022. The specs aren't going to change.

AMD themselves likely already have the tech to make a handheld console out by the end of the year they blows the stream deck in efficiency and price if they wanted to.

And considering that switch 2 SOC isn't taped out yet, I'm still holding hope we aren't getting an 8nm chip for holiday 2022-Q1 2023 and could get 5-7nm instead. Though even 7nm feels outdated for 2022. Perhaps Nitnendo is willing to push the date to early 2023 to bank on the chip shortage getting significantly better by then and think they will have enough 6nm or 4nm chips from Samsung (or TSMC).
 
ReddDreadtheLead said:
That’s for the Xbox though, this is a Switch. No one looked at the iPhone 6S and thought “that’s the smaller 6” or the “Slimmer 6”. They thought “oh it’s the better version of the 6”. NV gpus have a shorthand of S attached at the end which is short for Super, the better SKU compared to the base equivalent. We already have the lite who is a smaller switch.

We live in a very different social climate than we did in the time of the Wii U who had a laundry list of reasons for why it omega bombed.

With the switch they would literally only need to say the ‘S’ stands for ‘super’ in advertising or in any interview. This is very different from the Wii which had “we would like to play” and then the Wii U was on the more complicated with “we would like to play with you” that was not obvious at first glance or second glance, and that was done in an interview on a talkshow by Reggie.
Click to expand...
If "S" stands for Super, then why not just call it Super? I see no value in the S by itself, and it has the potential to introduce confusion, especially with multiple other Switches with appellations like Lite and OLED. Nintendo doesn't benefit from ambiguous console names. If you name it "Super Nintendo Switch" it's clear this is a step up from previous Switch systems, "Switch S" requires explanation and has an unclear relationship with other Switch systems.

If you like S better aesthetically that's whatever but I don't see any actual benefit to the name as a selling point.
 
Raccoon said:
super is a name for sequels. the super nintendo didn't play NES games, and the NES didn't play super nintendo games. if that's what you think the new switch will be relative to the old one then super switch is a fine name
Click to expand...
Nintendo Switch Color just doesn't have the same ring to it.
 
ShadowFox08 said:
And considering that switch 2 SOC isn't taped out yet, I'm still holding hope we aren't getting an 8nm chip for holiday 2022-Q1 2023 and could get 5-7nm instead. Though even 7nm feels outdated for 2022. Perhaps Nitnendo is willing to push the date to early 2023 to bank on the chip shortage getting significantly better by then and think they will have enough 6nm or 4nm chips from Samsung (or TSMC).
Click to expand...
Outside of 18% higher logic density and EUV lithography being used instead of DUV lithography, TSMC's N6 process node has the same performance and power efficiency as TSMC's N7 process node. And TSMC's N6 process node was actually announced before TSMC's N7P process node.

I highly doubt the situation with the global chip shortage is going to get significantly better in early 2023, especially with TSMC's fab in Arizona not going live until 2024. (It's one example of why I highly doubt the situation with the global chip shortage is going to get significantly better in early 2023.) But anyway, I don't think a 4 nm** process node from Samsung or TSMC in early 2023 is viable, considering rumours about Apple using a 4 nm** process node from TSMC to fabricate the Apple A16 Bionic and the Snapdragon 898+(?) being fabricated using a 4 nm** process node from TSMC.
There's a rumour that Google's a new customer of AMD's mobile RDNA 2 GPU. And considering that the Exynos 2200(?) is rumoured to be fabricated using a 4 nm** process node, and Samsung also designed the Tensor SoC alongside Google, there's a possibility the successor to the Tensor SoC is also being fabricated using the same 4 nm** process node used for the Exynos 2200(?), especially if the rumour of Google being a new customer of AMD's mobile RDNA 2 GPU is true. And there's a possibility Qualcomm and Samsung are going to also use a 4 nm** process node for premium mid-range SoCs, similar to how Samsung's 5LPE process node is used to fabricate the Exynos 1080 and the Snapdragon 780G (before a Xiaomi executive commented that the Snapdragon 780G was cancelled due to the lack of sufficient capacity, which seems to correlate with Business Korea's report that some of Samsung's 5 nm** process nodes have yields below 50%).

~

Anyway, Qualcomm announced the Snapdragon Tech Summit is from 30 November 2021 until 2 December 2021. So hopefully Qualcomm plans on announcing the rumoured successor to the 8cx Gen 2 during the Snapdragon Tech Summit.
 
Last edited:
Terrell said:
And, just to be clear, the Wii U name wasn't the whole problem, it was that it was advertised with its key peripheral front and centre in addition to the name with a Wii brand that was losing its brand appeal to give the appearance that it was all it was. One of those 3 key issues in isolation would not repeat that poor result per se.
Click to expand...
Not mention how Nintendo conditioned the public.

There were 1 console name Wii (and just "Wii"), and there were dozens of accessories named Wii <something>.

It would actually be strange if the first thing to come to mind hearing "Wii U" wasn't that it's either a new game or accessory for the Wii, unless you have more context.
 
0
Alovon11 said:
Counterpoint, iPhone 3GS, 4S, 5S, 6S, 7S, 8S, XS all being direct upgrades over their non-S models.
Click to expand...
Counter-counterpoint: I'm a phone normie and I've sincerely thought all this time that the iPhone S's were smaller, lite versions of the non-S models.

Which goes to show how assumptions of the general consumer cannot be trusted, and the naming and marketing of this thing will be important.
 
NineTailSage said:
I completely understand and this is just all for speculation sake anyway, I think many things probably will end up changing with this next device.
Although 165mm² isn't much larger than 118mm²(but I get it the Switch is packed to gills already).
Which makes me wonder if the chip is efficient enough will they scale back on the battery size?
They could also get by with making the actual Switch a little bigger and still be portable enough in size.
Click to expand...
I don't think a ~38.83% increase in die size (from 118 mm² to ~165 mm²) is a trivial increase in size. Just to show that a ~38.83% increase in die size is not trivial, the Apple A15 Bionic has a ~22.72% die size increase (107.7 mm²) compared to the Apple A14 Bionic (87.76 mm²).

Assuming Nintendo uses Samsung's process nodes (Samsung's 8 nm** process node or more advanced) to fabricate Dane, the power efficiency gains are probably not large enough to warrant reducing the battery capacity without also reducing battery life.

The OLED model is already slightly more wider than the Nintendo Switch. So the question is will Nintendo be willing to make the DLSS model* bigger at the risk of making the DLSS model* more uncomfortable in handheld mode with the Joy-Cons attached? (I think playing the Nintendo Switch in handheld mode with the Joy-Cons attached is not very comfortable.)

Alovon11 said:
Counterpoint, iPhone 3GS, 4S, 5S, 6S, 7S, 8S, XS all being direct upgrades over their non-S models.
Click to expand...
One potential difference between Apple and Nintendo is that Nintendo's probably not going to mention performance improvements at all when marketing the DLSS model* whilst Apple puts performance improvements front and centre as one of the main marketing points when marketing the iPhone x*S models. So I don't think the general consumer is going to automatically assume that "S" stands for "Super" if Nintendo decides to name the DLSS model* the "Nintendo Switch S", outside of enthusiasts, especially if Nintendo doesn't mention the performance improvements at all when marketing the DLSS model*.

x*→ any numeral (e.g. 11, 12, 13, etc.)
 
Last edited:
chocolate_supra said:
Counter-counterpoint: I'm a phone normie and I've sincerely thought all this time that the iPhone S's were smaller, lite versions of the non-S models.

Which goes to show how assumptions of the general consumer cannot be trusted, and the naming and marketing of this thing will be important.
Click to expand...

Running off that, consumer assumption can't be trusted at all then because Samsung calls their phones "Galaxy S*x"

Does that mean you think the Galaxy S21 Ultra is a small/compact phone because it has S in it?

If we were going for straightforwardness we might as well go back to saying "new" will be the name for it as

"Super Nintendo Switch" would connotate it being a cutoff/next-gen like the SNES, and require Nintendo heavily clarifying that it has Backwards Compat (like a lot)

If "S" suddenly means that everyone thinks that it means it's weaker then can't use that.
 
Alovon11 said:
Running off that, consumer assumption can't be trusted at all then because Samsung calls their phones "Galaxy S*x"

Does that mean you think the Galaxy S21 Ultra is a small/compact phone because it has S in it?

If we were going for straightforwardness we might as well go back to saying "new" will be the name for it as

"Super Nintendo Switch" would connotate it being a cutoff/next-gen like the SNES, and require Nintendo heavily clarifying that it has Backwards Compat (like a lot)

If "S" suddenly means that everyone thinks that it means it's weaker then can't use that.
Click to expand...
Honestly? It means I literally have no idea what "Galaxy S21 Ultra" means, which was kinda my point. Nintendo will want people who aren't deep in the gaming community to hear/see the name and understand what it is. And it's tricky! I can totally understand the different points that have been presented here, about "Super" sounding like a clean break, "S" or "4K" not really explaining the full picture, etc. It's a tough thing to communicate concisely, especially to average people browsing the gaming cabinets at Target.
 
chocolate_supra said:
Honestly? It means I literally have no idea what "Galaxy S21 Ultra" means, which was kinda my point. Nintendo will want people who aren't deep in the gaming community to hear/see the name and understand what it is. And it's tricky! I can totally understand the different points that have been presented here, about "Super" sounding like a clean break, "S" or "4K" not really explaining the full picture, etc. It's a tough thing to communicate concisely, especially to average people browsing the gaming cabinets at Target.
Click to expand...
The main thing for me is the name has to be a name that can easily be iterated on if they go with a iterative release model ala iPhones.

So "Super Nintendo Switch" is disqualified on that alone.

Thus why "S" or a simple "2" or other connotations like "Ultra".etc would be good to connotate the position of the system.

The suffix-route can be iterated on better than a Prefix.
 
Alovon11 said:
The main thing for me is the name has to be a name that can easily be iterated on if they go with a iterative release model ala iPhones.

So "Super Nintendo Switch" is disqualified on that alone.

Thus why "S" or a simple "2" or other connotations like "Ultra".etc would be good to connotate the position of the system.

The suffix-route can be iterated on better than a Prefix.
Click to expand...
never underestimate Nintendo and trying to be quirky, but then again , I think I am leaning too much on their DS/Wii era hubris when I think Reggie thought anything he touched turned to gold.

Since Switch succeeded on a more traditional level, Maybe, just maybe, they'll go with a boring name like Switch 2
 
0
Branduil said:
If "S" stands for Super, then why not just call it Super? I see no value in the S by itself, and it has the potential to introduce confusion, especially with multiple other Switches with appellations like Lite and OLED. Nintendo doesn't benefit from ambiguous console names. If you name it "Super Nintendo Switch" it's clear this is a step up from previous Switch systems, "Switch S" requires explanation and has an unclear relationship with other Switch systems.

If you like S better aesthetically that's whatever but I don't see any actual benefit to the name as a selling point.
Click to expand...
Because S can be iterated on easier.

Switch -> Switch S -> Switch 2 -> Switch 2S.etc

Versus Swich -> Super Switch -> Switch -> Super Switch 2

S is just easier to iterate on if they go with an iterative release model for the future (Which is looking more and more likely), without getting bloated/confusing.
 
Dakhil said:
One potential difference between Apple and Nintendo is that Nintendo's probably not going to mention performance improvements at all when marketing the DLSS model* whilst Apple puts performance improvements front and centre as one of the main marketing points when marketing the iPhone x*S models. So I don't think the general consumer is going to automatically assume that "S" stands for "Super" if Nintendo decides to name the DLSS model* the "Nintendo Switch S", outside of enthusiasts, especially if Nintendo doesn't mention the performance improvements at all when marketing the DLSS model*.

x*→ any numeral (e.g. 11, 12, 13, etc.)
Click to expand...
There’s no way Nintendo won’t advertise that the system is more powerful.
 
ArchedThunder said:
There’s no way Nintendo won’t advertise that the system is more powerful.
Click to expand...
Outside of faster loading times, Nintendo didn't really advertise the performance improvements of the New Nintendo 3DS over the Nintendo 3DS. (I'd argue that the Super Stable 3D feature isn't necessarily contingent on more powerful hardware.)
And Nintendo didn't advertise the significant battery life improvement of the Nintendo Switch (2019) on social media outlets outside of Nintendo's official website.

I wouldn't necessarily consider outputting up to 4K 60 Hz a performance improvement, considering the Tegra X1 is technically capable of outputting up to 4K 60 Hz, but Nintendo set the max resolution on TV mode to 1080p 60 Hz for the Nintendo Switch (due to the Mobility DisplayPort 1.2a to HDMI 1.4b converter chip on the Nintendo Switch's dock supporting only the output of up to 4K 30 Hz) and the OLED model (despite the DisplayPort 1.4 to HDMI 2.0b converter chip on the OLED model's dock being theoretically capable of outputting up to 4K 60 Hz).

And I should note when I'm talking about performance improvements, I'm talking about in the most traditional sense when marketing is concerned (e.g. "the CPU on the DLSS model* is x% faster and more power than the CPU on the Nintendo Switch", "the CPU runs at a frequency at x GHz", "the GPU on the DLSS model* is x% faster and more powerful than the GPU on the Nintendo Switch", "the GPU has x cores running at a frequency of x GHz", etc.).
 
Alovon11 said:
Because S can be iterated on easier.

Switch -> Switch S -> Switch 2 -> Switch 2S.etc

Versus Swich -> Super Switch -> Switch -> Super Switch 2

S is just easier to iterate on if they go with an iterative release model for the future (Which is looking more and more likely), without getting bloated/confusing.
Click to expand...
At that point, might as well just use numbers and skip the S.

Also, from Super they could go Mega and/or Ultra if they wanted. More than enough to last until "Switching" is taken for granted rather than being a selling point, and then they move to a new brand which convey some new selling point. It's not like they need the brand either, they moved away from GB/DS/Wii brands and got an even bigger success from that.
 
I think they will follow what they have done in the past for Switch where you first have 'Switch' as the name, followed by some kind of descriptive name i.e. Switch 'OLED', Switch 'Lite', etc. So there will be nothing before 'Switch'.

So with the Dane model, it would be something like Switch Super, Switch Plus, Switch Advance, Switch Ultra, Switch 2, and so on. It will be another name but definitely not a simple initial like 'S'.
 
Last edited:
Im still hedging my bet on switch 4K. Simple, describes the functionality and to the point.

And I think even most tech illiterates are able to reduce that 4K necesitates more power.
 
Hermii said:
Im still hedging my bet on switch 4K. Simple, describes the functionality and to the point.

And I think even most tech illiterates are able to reduce that 4K necesitates more power.
Click to expand...
A big problem with this is that if they make a Lite of it the name will be a straight up lie because it won’t do 4K in handheld.
 
ArchedThunder said:
A big problem with this is that if they make a Lite of it the name will be a straight up lie because it won’t do 4K in handheld.
Click to expand...
Yep. unless they re-enable docking for the Lite model, which then technically it could keep the name.

But that would require a dock of its own or a redesigned dock for the "4k series" that can support both.
 
0
So far we got
Switch 2
Switch Pro
Switch S
Switch Dane
Switch 4k
Super Switch
Switch Ultra

going to throw a new one
New Nintendo Switch
 
Dakhil said:
Outside of faster loading times, Nintendo didn't really advertise the performance improvements of the New Nintendo 3DS over the Nintendo 3DS. (I'd argue that the Super Stable 3D feature isn't necessarily contingent on more powerful hardware.)
And Nintendo didn't advertise the significant battery life improvement of the Nintendo Switch (2019) on social media outlets outside of Nintendo's official website.

I wouldn't necessarily consider outputting up to 4K 60 Hz a performance improvement, considering the Tegra X1 is technically capable of outputting up to 4K 60 Hz, but Nintendo set the max resolution on TV mode to 1080p 60 Hz for the Nintendo Switch (due to the Mobility DisplayPort 1.2a to HDMI 1.4b converter chip on the Nintendo Switch's dock supporting only the output of up to 4K 30 Hz) and the OLED model (despite the DisplayPort 1.4 to HDMI 2.0b converter chip on the OLED model's dock being theoretically capable of outputting up to 4K 60 Hz).

And I should note when I'm talking about performance improvements, I'm talking about in the most traditional sense when marketing is concerned (e.g. "the CPU on the DLSS model* is x% faster and more power than the CPU on the Nintendo Switch", "the CPU runs at a frequency at x GHz", "the GPU on the DLSS model* is x% faster and more powerful than the GPU on the Nintendo Switch", "the GPU has x cores running at a frequency of x GHz", etc.).
Click to expand...
they'll just go "higher resolutions and a smoother gaming experience" and whatnot
 
Dakhil said:
I agree. My point is that Nintendo's not going to market about the performance improvements in the most traditional sense.
Click to expand...
there was that survey they put out, so they are aware of how the more hardcore perceives upgrades. maybe the best thing Nintendo can do is to give Digital Foundry an early access look like Microsoft did. the more hardcore would tune into them, while the casuals would just hear "up to 4K" and "Smoother Gaming Experience™"
 
ILikeFeet said:
maybe the best thing Nintendo can do is to give Digital Foundry an early access look like Microsoft did. the more hardcore would tune into them, while the casuals would just hear "up to 4K" and "Smoother Gaming Experience™"
Click to expand...
Not going to lie, I would love to see that.
Or Nintendo could allow Jensen Huang to take out the DLSS model*'s SoC from the oven in his kitchen and then do a deep dive look into the DLSS model*'s SoC.
I know the second scenario's unlikely to happen, but I can dream, right?
 
Switch 4K makes the most sense just like the OLED model. No guessing required. Honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if switch 4K is just another revision just powered for 4K with possibly DLSS. After that we get a brand new console and concept which I’m thinking will be some sort of VR.
 
Tron1 said:
Switch 4K makes the most sense just like the OLED model. No guessing required. Honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if switch 4K is just another revision just powered for 4K with possibly DLSS. After that we get a brand new console and concept which I’m thinking will be some sort of VR.
Click to expand...
New Virtual Boy
 
0
Hermii said:
The switch lite is a lie already, cause it can’t switch.
Click to expand...
“Switch” is an arbitrary brand name that Nintendo came up with, 4k is an actual thing and advertising a device as 4k when it’s not even physically capable of displaying that resolution could result in legal issues.
 
Branduil said:
If "S" stands for Super, then why not just call it Super? I see no value in the S by itself, and it has the potential to introduce confusion, especially with multiple other Switches with appellations like Lite and OLED. Nintendo doesn't benefit from ambiguous console names. If you name it "Super Nintendo Switch" it's clear this is a step up from previous Switch systems, "Switch S" requires explanation and has an unclear relationship with other Switch systems.

If you like S better aesthetically that's whatever but I don't see any actual benefit to the name as a selling point.
Click to expand...
The same reason they have S or X or any attached letter for a product when it is being sold to a consumer, it’s meant to be a differentiator from another product. Super Switch and Switch S both require a level of explanation for A) what this new product is, B) why this new product exists, C) what does it offer, D) why it’s worth a purchase. E) why is it “super” if it still is the switch, etc.

Simply having the name “super” doesn’t automatically answer all the questions, it brings more into question and brings about why they are called the Super series for the switch.

if S were such a complex naming scheme it wouldn’t be used in marketing.


Marketing is completely psychological, if you can’t show what the product is separate from the naming convention and how it’s actually a different product, then Nintendo didn’t do their proper homework on how to convey the message. PS4 Pro wasn’t obvious that it was for consumers because of the “pro” suffix, Sony had to go out and convey that “hey, this is for you too, not only professionals”

Plus the other stuff it offered

I’m not saying that they should use “Nintendo Switch S” with S just being short for “Super” and “Nintendo Switch” being the brand name, I just disagree that “S” is something that’s needs a lot more explaining when in marketing everything needs a lot of explaining, even something that should be obvious like “Super” because not everyone will actually understand what “Super” means in this context.

Apple goes well out of their way to convey what’s different between iPhone A and iPhone B, even if B comes after A.


If anything, I do not think they would go with “Super Nintendo Switch” but go with “Nintendo Switch Super”, as Nintendo Switch is the name of the brand, but Super is the subtitle that differentiates the Super model from the OLED model and the Lite model and the V2 model
 
Last edited:
Hermii said:
Switch 4K lite.

Cause 4K lite is 720p.

I do still think the current oled panel is a likely candidate for Dane, but that’s another discussion.
Click to expand...
Switch Ultra Performance (portable only)
Switch Quality (docked only)
Switch Dynamic (hybrid)
 
0
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