• 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
Dakhil said:
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.)


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...

I think percentages can make anything sound like its more than what it is (not that it makes it non existent) but transistor density of the node is also in question. We know what Nvidia are currently achieving with Ampere but Samsung has clearly gotten higher density products out of their 8nm process in the past.

The Switch is uncomfortable to play in handheld because there's no ergonomics in the hand placement design. Even the Joy-Cons on their own are awkward to hold when separated from the console, so that's one area they can definitely improve on down the road...
 
I hesitate to jump into the naming conversation for the 100th time, but while I was behind the idea of it being "Switch 4K", I'm starting to think they'll avoid it, if only because 1. It's 'technical', and 2. It might set consumer expectation that their games will run in 4K, even if it only means the system is capable of it.

They could still do it, but I personally expect the naming will just imply it being a superior product, but not outright say why. The box will have a 4K UHD logo, and they'll mention "plays select titles at higher resolutions and/or framerates".


...And just one last note, as I'm a tad tired of the guessing; Everybody saying "Super implies successor" forgets that they haven't used Super for anything since 1990. The "Super" moniker is thrown around on countless games, Mario titles and spin-offs, and not since the early 90's has it ever meant successor or sequel. If Nintendo decides it, they could release a Nintendo Super Switch, and market it right along side the existing devices without any ambiguity around it's market placement beyond what they'd get with literally any other name.
 
ReddDreadtheLead said:
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
Click to expand...
I mean I personally wouldn't follow the naming schemes of someone like Microsoft because I think all of their console names are garbage trash invented by overpaid marketers overthinking things.

Apple can get away with things Nintendo can't because even normal people pay attention to their marketing, and the ones who don't will just go to the store and get the newest one anyway. Nintendo has a higher bar because they sell disposable consumer entertainment and they need to make it transparently clear why their new system is valuable. "S" is simply way too ambiguous IMO.
 
Branduil said:
I mean I personally wouldn't follow the naming schemes of someone like Microsoft because I think all of their console names are garbage trash invented by overpaid marketers overthinking things.

Apple can get away with things Nintendo can't because even normal people pay attention to their marketing, and the ones who don't will just go to the store and get the newest one anyway. Nintendo has a higher bar because they sell disposable consumer entertainment and they need to make it transparently clear why their new system is valuable. "S" is simply way too ambiguous IMO.
Click to expand...
Microsoft isn’t really the only one that uses X or an S in their marketing though, some would use only X or only an S. Nintendo wouldn’t be marketing an XBox where they have to have two different brands, they would only be marketing a single product. But Microsoft naming convention for the Series consoles is terrible. What one company does for one product does not necessarily translate for a different company in the meaning for their product.

And I don’t really think Apple “can get away with things Nintendo can’t” when in the marketing, despite the 13 coming after the 12 and should be the better product logically speaking that builds upon the previous device, they have to go out of their way and convey that it’s a faster phone with a higher refresh display, longer battery life and better camera. Even though the 13 should have made it obvious that it’s a successor to the 12.

Numbers are the easiest way people see if it’s a new thing, but that does not mean that simply naming it “Nintendo Switch 2” (in Nintendo’s case) that the work is done.

There’s also the issue of being too literal with the marketing of what it is. Take the GameCube, it’s so literal and vanilla it didn’t save it. But that also had a laundry list of issues going for it.

That said, I know I may be contradicting myself here, but they should just call it “Nintendo Switch 2”
 
Instead of marketing jargon that requires deciphering, they could do something a little sillier, like Nintendo Switch Turbo/Nitro. That makes things abundantly clear.
So would using some of their own past parlance, like Nintendo Switch DX/Deluxe, as they've been using "Deluxe/DX" to denote "more/better" with their products for a while now.
Actually, that's what I think I'll call it from here on until I know better, Switch DX.
 
NineTailSage said:
I think percentages can make anything sound like its more than what it is (not that it makes it non existent) but transistor density of the node is also in question. We know what Nvidia are currently achieving with Ampere but Samsung has clearly gotten higher density products out of their 8nm process in the past.

The Switch is uncomfortable to play in handheld because there's no ergonomics in the hand placement design. Even the Joy-Cons on their own are awkward to hold when separated from the console, so that's one area they can definitely improve on down the road...
Click to expand...
Well, Samsung's 8 nm** uHD cell has a max transistor density of 61.18 MTr/mm². And assuming the DLSS model*'s motherboard is very similar to the OLED model's motherboard, the DLSS model*'s SoC has 7 billion transistors (the same number of transistors that Nvidia initially claimed that Xavier has), and the DLSS model*'s SoC is ~120 mm² in die size, then the DLSS model*'s SoC theoretically has a transistor density of ~58.33 MTr/mm², which would theoretically be close to the max transistor density of Samsung's 8 nm** uHD cell. (Of course, no one knows how many transistors the DLSS model*'s SoC will actually have, which is why I used a tentative number, e.g. 7 billion transistors.)

But generally speaking, the larger the chips, the lower the yields are. Of course, yields for a ~165 mm² chip will be higher than yields for the GA107, which has a die size in the range of 190 - 200 mm². But the yields for a ~165 mm² chip will also not be as high as yields for a ~120 mm² chip.

Anyway, I think it can be agreed upon that Nintendo needs to improve the ergonomics of handheld mode, especially the ergonomics of the Joy-Cons.

** → a marketing nomenclature used by all foundry companies
 
0
Terrell said:
Instead of marketing jargon that requires deciphering, they could do something a little sillier, like Nintendo Switch Turbo/Nitro. That makes things abundantly clear.
So would using some of their own past parlance, like Nintendo Switch DX/Deluxe, as they've been using "Deluxe/DX" to denote "more/better" with their products for a while now.
Actually, that's what I think I'll call it from here on until I know better, Switch DX.
Click to expand...
Nintendo Switch Ultra

revenge of the Ultra 64
 
They just need to call it the Switch 2. It's worked for Sony for 20 years. Clear, simple, easy.

Abandoning the "Switch" branding and starting over with a new name would be completely unnecessary given how much postitive equity "Switch" currently has among the gaming community and consumers in general.
 
Sol said:
They just need to call it the Switch 2. It's worked for Sony for 20 years. Clear, simple, easy.

Abandoning the "Switch" branding and starting over with a new name would be completely unnecessary given how much postitive equity "Switch" currently has among the gaming community and consumers in general.
Click to expand...
The fact that Sony has been using the 2, 3, 4, etc for 20 years is exactly why I expect Nintendo won't use it. It's sort of their thing, and I doubt Nintendo would want to come across as a copycat. I think @Terrell's suggestion of something like "Switch DX" is more likely than "Switch 2."
 
Dakhil said:
So "Super Nintendo Switch", and then "Ultra Nintendo Switch"?
Click to expand...
Super Nintendo Switch
Super Nintendo Switch Turbo
Hyper Nintendo Switch
Ultra Nintendo Switch

It'd be almost as wonky as the Fast and Furious titles. 🤣
 
I sincerely think that 'Nintendo new Switch' is both crap and entirely self explanatory that they'll totally use it.

I kinda hope they do.
 
Sol said:
They just need to call it the Switch 2. It's worked for Sony for 20 years. Clear, simple, easy.
Click to expand...
What works for Sony doesn't necessarily mean it works the same for Nintendo. All of Nintendo's successor consoles have been named something different, but the only time they ever gave a system a "2" moniker was the Super GameBoy 2.
 
0
ReddDreadtheLead said:
Microsoft isn’t really the only one that uses X or an S in their marketing though, some would use only X or only an S. Nintendo wouldn’t be marketing an XBox where they have to have two different brands, they would only be marketing a single product. But Microsoft naming convention for the Series consoles is terrible. What one company does for one product does not necessarily translate for a different company in the meaning for their product.

And I don’t really think Apple “can get away with things Nintendo can’t” when in the marketing, despite the 13 coming after the 12 and should be the better product logically speaking that builds upon the previous device, they have to go out of their way and convey that it’s a faster phone with a higher refresh display, longer battery life and better camera. Even though the 13 should have made it obvious that it’s a successor to the 12.

Numbers are the easiest way people see if it’s a new thing, but that does not mean that simply naming it “Nintendo Switch 2” (in Nintendo’s case) that the work is done.

There’s also the issue of being too literal with the marketing of what it is. Take the GameCube, it’s so literal and vanilla it didn’t save it. But that also had a laundry list of issues going for it.

That said, I know I may be contradicting myself here, but they should just call it “Nintendo Switch 2”
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree that the simplest and best name would be Nintendo Switch 2. I doubt Nintendo will do it considering they've never had a numbered console (unless you count 3DS), but there's a reason it works for Sony.
 
I also agree that "Switch 4k" name is also too loaded and Nintendo are the ones to flaunting technical specs. They also won't be able to consistently deliver 4k resolution. Maybe for current switch games, but for Xbox series s ports, let alone ps4 tier games? Definitely not. 2k is the most we'll likely see for PS4 level quality (basically ps4 pro level or slightly more )


Remember also that DLSS needs a lot of GPU power/tensor cores to go from 1080p to 4k and have it refreshed in a reasonable amount of milliseconds. We're talking about DLSS support for a GPU as powerful as a PS4 base, not a RTX 2060 or more.2060 is more than 3z as powerful as a PS4 in GPU power.

So maybe 1080p to 2k at most for PS4 level quality games.
 
Branduil said:
Yeah I agree that the simplest and best name would be Nintendo Switch 2. I doubt Nintendo will do it considering they've never had a numbered console (unless you count 3DS), but there's a reason it works for Sony.
Click to expand...
Nintendo 64 existed :p

ShadowFox08 said:
I also agree that "Switch 4k" name is also too loaded and Nintendo are the ones to flaunting technical specs. They also won't be able to consistently deliver 4k resolution. Maybe for current switch games, but for Xbox series s ports, let alone ps4 tier games? Definitely not. 2k is the most we'll likely see for PS4 level quality (basically ps4 pro level or slightly more )


Remember also that DLSS needs a lot of GPU power/tensor cores to go from 1080p to 4k and have it refreshed in a reasonable amount of milliseconds. We're talking about DLSS support for a GPU as powerful as a PS4 base, not a RTX 2060 or more.2060 is more than 3z as powerful as a PS4 in GPU power.

So maybe 1080p to 2k at most for PS4 level quality games.
Click to expand...
Switch already plays games at 2k lol

PS4 is a system that can display games at 2k.

2k is 1080p

2.5k is 1440p

4k is 2160p

As for Dane’s ability to play upper tier PS4 games at 1080p, it shouldn’t have much of an issue being able to handle that in docked mode. The GPU and memory are much more efficient at doing the game job.

Whether it gets to 4k60 is debatable for all titles, and honestly I doubt, but 4k30 is certainly possible using the 2060 as a metric in how many operations per second it needs to perform the task
 
My Tulpa said:
There is no way an 8nm Dane/DLSS/4K Switch launches in 2022 the same price as the TX1+ OLED Switch.

It has to at least be $100 more than the older model.

Even if we assume the OLED Switch gets a price cut to $300 when the 4K Switch launches, that’s still a minimum $400 machine price.

I’m expecting $450-$499 at this point.

It’s ok if it has a premium price tag, Nintendo still plans on selling the older models as the cheaper entry price points for another 4-5 years. The $400+ 4K Switch revision will be for people who want 4k Switch gaming NOW
Click to expand...
Sounds like a old 2DS situation is possible, where only that one was sold alongside the newer 3DS consoles up until N2DS of course.
 
0
I hate getting sucked into the naming conversation as I think it's kind of irrelevant

BUT
My vote is Nintendo Switch Ultra

Ultra denotes more power
Ultra has ties to N64's history
Ultra can stand for Ultra HD

It would work for switch ultra Lite as well... But I actually don't think they are going to make a new switch lite anyway.

Super Nintendo Switch is a dumb name... and my favorite system is the Super Nintendo.
Nintendo Switch Super is a better name but I'm not sure they'd use that over Ultra or the more specific "4K"
There's still a chance that this thing won't even be a "Switch" a slim chance but it could happen
 
MP! said:
I hate getting sucked into the naming conversation as I think it's kind of irrelevant

BUT
My vote is Nintendo Switch Ultra

Ultra denotes more power
Ultra has ties to N64's history
Ultra can stand for Ultra HD

It would work for switch ultra Lite as well... But I actually don't think they are going to make a new switch lite anyway.

Super Nintendo Switch is a dumb name... and my favorite system is the Super Nintendo.
Nintendo Switch Super is a better name but I'm not sure they'd use that over Ultra or the more specific "4K"
There's still a chance that this thing won't even be a "Switch" a slim chance but it could happen
Click to expand...
I think we're all overestimating how many people actually knew about/remember "Ultra 64"
 
Quoted by: MP!
1
The name debate is pointless because we all know deep down that they'll name it New Nintendo Switch and we'll all hate it.
 
Dakhil said:
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).
Click to expand...
Increasing the transistor budget (and thus the die size) is the mandatory when you're dealing with older nodes. Especially considering the fact that TX1 was already the biggest 20 nm SoC of its time and 8 nm will be 2.5-3 generation older than 20 nm was in 2016 (the originally planned release date).
ShadowFox08 said:
I also agree that "Switch 4k" name is also too loaded and Nintendo are the ones to flaunting technical specs. They also won't be able to consistently deliver 4k resolution. Maybe for current switch games, but for Xbox series s ports, let alone ps4 tier games? Definitely not. 2k is the most we'll likely see for PS4 level quality (basically ps4 pro level or slightly more )


Remember also that DLSS needs a lot of GPU power/tensor cores to go from 1080p to 4k and have it refreshed in a reasonable amount of milliseconds. We're talking about DLSS support for a GPU as powerful as a PS4 base, not a RTX 2060 or more.2060 is more than 3z as powerful as a PS4 in GPU power.

So maybe 1080p to 2k at most for PS4 level quality games.
Click to expand...
This. Switch 2 will mostly be a 1080p (with DLSS) machine, especially in 2024-2026. I would even expect a 5 nm 2023-2024 model to do the same.
 
0
ReddDreadtheLead said:
Nintendo 64 existed :p


Switch already plays games at 2k lol

PS4 is a system that can display games at 2k.

2k is 1080p

2.5k is 1440p

4k is 2160p

As for Dane’s ability to play upper tier PS4 games at 1080p, it shouldn’t have much of an issue being able to handle that in docked mode. The GPU and memory are much more efficient at doing the game job.

Whether it gets to 4k60 is debatable for all titles, and honestly I doubt, but 4k30 is certainly possible using the 2060 as a metric in how many operations per second it needs to perform the task
Click to expand...
I mean 1440p as in QHD. 2560 pixels horizontally x 1440 vertically.

Not 2000 x 1080.
 
ShadowFox08 said:
I mean 1440p as in QHD. 2560 pixels horizontally x 1440 vertically.

Not 2000 x 1080.
Click to expand...
2K is actually 2048x1080, not 2000x1080, and Nintendo makes consoles for consumer-grade TV, so I doubt they make a console that can output QHD which is linked to PC monitors, as I doubt all consumer-grade TV accept QHD, and that's what Nintendo will chase.
 
If we've returned to The Great New Nintendo Hardware Name Debate 2021 Edition, I'm going to throw in the thought that Switch 4K seems unlikely as a moniker.

The suggestion echoes Switch (OLED model), but the OLED name works because it's, in the end, the same system with the same capabilities, just a different build -- the most marketable aspect of which, the part which customers in general are most likely to notice or think about, is the built-in OLED screen.

Whereas, unless we assume new hardware will end up being the same to the end user as a current Switch, with the only notable change being 4K capability, Switch 4K doesn't cover the selling points. It sounds like a Switch, just with the ability to output in 4K. And, unlike the OLED model, which has its defining feature built in, the 4K depends also on individual games and other devices (television sets).

It revolves entirely around a feature that isn't integral to the device, thus risking the loss of sales to people who either play in handheld or without a 4K television set, and also likely will not be available to every game, if even to many.
 
We're likely so close to Orin news (less than 24 hours, in fact), it's kinda exciting to maybe get a legitimate better picture of what the future of Nintendo hardware will look like when details drop.
 
Marketing can do a lot of legwork with a lot of these names providing they plan accordingly.

People understand iterations of existing hardware lines in the phone world and understand they're usually better and more powerful than what came before. The Wii U debacle wasn't just a case of the name alone - the marketing was abysmal as well. Everything was iterative from Wii - even the early software titles. Oh now we can baseball and Wii sports and use Miis on a gamepad with a screen.. new super Mario Bros is saturating our ads despite having had multiple recent releases etc.

As long as the new system launches with must have software that can't be played on the old one or plays in a demonstrably superior way on the new one, and the marketing can make a solid point of emphasising that - people will want to upgrade or buy one.

If their own games for the new system have the usual production value and attention grabbing art of recent years it should be fairly easy with one or two titles to show how long in the tooth the current system is imo.
 
0
Terrell said:
We're likely so close to Orin news (less than 24 hours, in fact), it's kinda exciting to maybe get a legitimate better picture of what the future of Nintendo hardware will look like when details drop.
Click to expand...
Really though?
 
Tron1 said:
Really though?
Click to expand...
Well, yeah.
Jetson Orin would be the showcase of the true architecture of Dane (at least the closest) and its performance can be extrapolated down to Dane's.

And because Jetson Orin is proper hardware that normal people could use outside of cars, that can give us the data to extrapolate from.
 
Alovon11 said:
Well, yeah.
Jetson Orin would be the showcase of the true architecture of Dane (at least the closest) and its performance can be extrapolated down to Dane's.

And because Jetson Orin is proper hardware that normal people could use outside of cars, that can give us the data to extrapolate from.
Click to expand...
Most importantly, there are some key points that are still totally unknown about Orin, like frequency of the Cortex-A78s they're using with it, the core config, what type of RAM it will be configured with by default (understanding that might change depending on how custom Nintendo goes)... and we know next to NOTHING about what the Ampere GPU in this SoC configuration will actually be capable of or what fab process will be used, which would be the most telling bit of all. By knowing the TDP of each chip in the Orin lineup, we can make reasonable and more precise estimations of what performance is actually achievable when seeing a 15W TDP Orin chip compared to the 15W TDP Tegra X1 used by Switch at launch.

In other words, seeing specs of actual Orin hardware for the first time gives us an opportunity to determine the absolute minimum performance floor.
 
Last edited:
chocolate_supra said:
The fact that Sony has been using the 2, 3, 4, etc for 20 years is exactly why I expect Nintendo won't use it. It's sort of their thing, and I doubt Nintendo would want to come across as a copycat. I think @Terrell's suggestion of something like "Switch DX" is more likely than "Switch 2."
Click to expand...
I would love to see Nintendo use roman numerals so rather than Switch 2 it would be Switch II. They could even keep the Switch logo the same and just put the roman numeral behind it.
 
Assuming Jetson Orin is announced during GTC 2021 (November 2021), there are probably some spec information that can only be discovered through die shots, such as the configuration of the GPU components in Jetson Orin as one example, and etc.
 
0
Seven said:
I would love to see Nintendo use roman numerals so rather than Switch 2 it would be Switch II. They could even keep the Switch logo the same and just put the roman numeral behind it.
Click to expand...
Nintendo Switch
Nintendo SwIItch
Nintendo SwIIItch
Nintendo SwIVtch
 
0
I wonder if they'll market it as having some AI capabilities utilizing the tensor cores. They could call it a Smart Switch.
 
0
I'm pretty sure that the next model will be named Switch 2 because of Furukawa. He joined Nintendo in 1994 as an accountant. So he must love numbers.

d251a6f6efd858847bd514e7472f91adecce6fda.gifv
 
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