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

[Hermii]

No reason why they can’t go with 16GB and have 4GB for OS + high quality video capture out does that eat into bandwidth too much?

They are not going to beat out PS5/ Series X on OS allocation.

 

[Hermii]

That just seems a little expensive for not a ton of benefit, but maybe.

The Series S only has 8 GBs of VRAM (at bandwidth expected to be 2.5x larger than the Switch 2) so I'm not sure how they should position their VRAM size relatively.

I believe its 7,5 gv total ram (for games). Or maybe slightly more after they increased it by "severeal hundred megabyte"

 

[Dekuman]

A sweaty Furukawa has been walking nervous in circles in front of the big reveal button for a few weeks.

if he trips and falls, the reveal button goes off.
Your job is to make him trip.

Sounds like a good premise for a single screen arcade type game.

 

[ILikeFeet]

on the topic of UFS 2.1, going by Samsung's catalog, there are no 512GB chips, which was rumored for dev kits. there are 256GB and 1TB chips though

 

[CalmMind]

People seem to be treating this as a standard console launch. With months of marketing etc. I really think they’re going the smartphone route. Announcement and launch shortly after. Aggressive marketing throughout the year and leading up to holiday period for a second launch essentially. Worked wonderfully for the OG Switch. Don’t see why they would do it any different. Other than announcing it closer to launch.

A Late February/early March reveal to an April release. It seems hasty but it can be done.

 

[NineTailSage]

As Thraktor mentioned, I don't think docks are covered under the EU legislation regarding USB-C since docks are not portable electronic devices, nor are docks rechargeable.

---

Thraktor mentioned that UFS 3.1's much more power efficient than UFS 2.1.

My only question in this is essentially the dock power adapter can be used independently from the dock to charge the device, unlike any other Nintendo home console before it. So would the hybrid multifunction factors need to be met since people are likely to pack up and take their Switch's somewhere and possibly use the dock power adapter to charge all electronic devices...

Also the Switch being able to dock is what makes it a hybrid device, but technically since it has an internal battery power supply (that it runs off of all the time) can they get away from it being called a mobile device?

 

[redmutineer75]

My only question in this is essentially the dock power adapter can be used independently from the dock to charge the device, unlike any other Nintendo home console before it. So would the hybrid multifunction factors need to be met since people are likely to pack up and take their Switch's somewhere and possibly use the dock power adapter to charge all electronic devices...

Also the Switch being able to dock is what makes it a hybrid device, but technically since it has an internal battery power supply (that it runs off of all the time) can they get away from it being called a mobile device?

Personally, I just use the dock charger as my regular USB-C charger for my phone and stuff.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

A Late February/early March reveal to an April release. It seems hasty but it can be done.

It could, it’s just never been done and has no upside, lol.

 

[CalmMind]

Nintendo themselves if my memory serves have spent a bit of coin in R&D for AI-based upscaling techniques over the years, I think going as far back as the early 2010s. It is possible then when Nvidia came on board, Nintendo felt they could work together to devise a custom DLSS version made just for the Switch 2. I'd be curious if like having a low-level API like NVN, something similar could be implemented for DLSS, at the minimum, NVN2 includes that specific version of DLSS.

I honestly do believe the DLSS we will get for Switch 2 won't be the off-the-shelf version, but instead designed around the limitations, and low-power output of the hardware.



It's possible though I'd argue it made more sense back then because the Switch was previously announced, and known to the public. Nintendo haven't even acknowledged the damn thing is in existence. We know more about Metroid Prime 4 than we do about the Switch 2, at least officially.



While I still believe 1080p is the target for a screen, there is something that tells me they may end up just recycling the 720p OLED screen into the Switch 2. Yes, there is that report about a 7.91" 1080p LCD panel, but are we definitive at this point that was not referring to the PS Portal's screen? All the reviews say it's 8", but is it really? Or is it rounded up to 8"?



I'm listening to their latest episode right now (maybe 20 min left when I paused it), and I think you've already said it. It may simply be a case of "We don't want to hurt holiday sales." We're saying to ourselves that it must be more than that, but speaking from a business sense, I think that is really want it comes to. Maybe it doesn't have to be more than that, though I am not a business owner of a major publicly-traded corporation, so I don't know shit when it comes to running a business. I only know to keep my own financials in order in my personal life.

But we have two new Mario titles, one of which is brand new, new OLED bundle, and I think one or two more things in store for this holiday season. And didn't the projected sales for the remainder of this FY has Nintendo still on track to sell 15 million units? Maybe Nintendo really are just playing it safe, and on cruise control this holiday season. Again, I think we can say that Nintendo are as of right now focused on the holiday season rather than acknowledging the existence of Switch 2, for better or worse.

Furakawa is as cautious as Iwata was idealistic.

 

[Foltzie]

It could, it’s just never been done and has no upside, lol.

I mean. . . Sega did it with the Saturn, but yeah that was a bad idea.

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

No reason why they can’t go with 16GB and have 4GB for OS + high quality video capture out does that eat into bandwidth too much?

….you don’t need 4GB for all that.

They can easily do it with 2GB.

Unless you want to record for idk, 5-10minutes??

Who even needs that.

 

[ILikeFeet]

I mean. . . Sega did it with the Saturn, but yeah that was a bad idea.

they only did this with North America. in Japan, it had a traditional reveal/release timing. not that it did much

 

[Langstonboy]

….you don’t need 4GB for all that.

They can easily do it with 2GB.

Unless you want to record for idk, 5-10minutes??

Who even needs that.

Yeah I don’t think we need the os to take up more than 1.5gb (and possibly allow devs to make the os only use 512mb like the original switch by disabling certain features)

 

[Triistan]

Even Nate and MVG seemed perplexed that Nintendo hasn't just announced their next console already. Just a short statement by Furukawa about the next hardware coming out some time in 2024 would have been enough.
Everybody who even has so much as dipped their toes in gaming at one point knows that having a console approach its eighth year on the market without a successor being announced is something highly unusual, if not straight up odd. There must be a reason for the hesitation, beyond the usual "Nintendo doesn't want to hurt its holiday sales" talk. Now, what that hesitation is about, we might never know for sure.

IMHO it's not just about 'holiday sales,' but rather Nintendo's overall revenue. In the past, they've consistently had a second hardware on the market. Now, it's the first time they're transitioning their most (only?) significant revenue source. They're likely aiming for the shortest announcement-to-release cycle possible.

 

[Neoxon]

Even Nate and MVG seemed perplexed that Nintendo hasn't just announced their next console already. Just a short statement by Furukawa about the next hardware coming out some time in 2024 would have been enough.
Everybody who even has so much as dipped their toes in gaming at one point knows that having a console approach its eighth year on the market without a successor being announced is something highly unusual, if not straight up odd. There must be a reason for the hesitation, beyond the usual "Nintendo doesn't want to hurt its holiday sales" talk. Now, what that hesitation is about, we might never know for sure.

This is Furukawa's first system fully launched under his watch, so he likely wants full control of the narrative. That plus, as you said, he probably doesn't want to endanger Switch 1 holiday sales by having an official acknowledgement of the Switch 2 make headlines (because trust me, it'd be everywhere) before the Switch 1 hits their 15 million target for the fiscal year.

People seem to be treating this as a standard console launch. With months of marketing etc. I really think they’re going the smartphone route. Announcement and launch shortly after. Aggressive marketing throughout the year and leading up to holiday period for a second launch essentially. Worked wonderfully for the OG Switch. Don’t see why they would do it any different. Other than announcing it closer to launch.

A Late February/early March reveal to an April release. It seems hasty but it can be done.

Smartphones don't have an entire launch window of software to promote, so applying that same style of aggressive marketing to the Switch 2 wouldn't really go over well.

 

[YugamiSekai]

….you don’t need 4GB for all that.

They can easily do it with 2GB.

Unless you want to record for idk, 5-10minutes??

Who even needs that.

I think long recording/streaming would be a nice extra feature for the system.

 

[Giancarlo]

….you don’t need 4GB for all that.

They can easily do it with 2GB.

Unless you want to record for idk, 5-10minutes??

Who even needs that.

4GB on the Switch Switch sucessor menu, will allow features we resquest since the Switch launch, to be implemented on Nintendo next hardware such as folders/themes, a better eShop, and maybe a option to stream a game for the console itself.

 

[redmutineer75]

I think long recording/streaming would be a nice extra feature for the system.

Problem is 90% of users wouldn't have any use for it. Anyone seriously invested in video production or streaming would already have a capture card.

 

[antonz]

I think Nintendo is trying to walk a line right now that they aren't used to. I mean they keep pointing out the unprecedented nature of the Switch and its long-term success. I think they would like to see continued success even if it is a gradual slow down. They likely fear the Switch 2 announcement is going to pull the rug out from under the Switch. They are doing a rather extreme effort on avoiding talk of the future even as most details are already known.

Hints of the 3DS and a 3D screen was enough for Nintendo to put out an emergency acknowledgment of the system.

 

[TLZ]

I mean. . . Sega did it with the Saturn, but yeah that was a bad idea.

But that was 28 years ago. No instant global social media news that spread faster than wildfire. We live in very different times that see new iPhones and iPads revealed and released within a week with record breaking sales.

 

[Dekuman]

….you don’t need 4GB for all that.

They can easily do it with 2GB.

Unless you want to record for idk, 5-10minutes??

Who even needs that.

They just need enough memory and enough spare CPU cycles to cache the recording and start saving to storage (microSD or internal) as the recording continues so it could allow recording to go until you run out of storage space.

I'm not sure if 2GB will be enough but i assume it will be. If the OS can record last minutes of play into memory and then starting dumping it into storage, it would allow them to offer users to save the last X minutes of play, or to record a full session of play.

 

[redmutineer75]

But that was 28 years ago. No instant global social media news that spread faster than wildfire. We live in very different times that see new iPhones and iPads revealed and released within a week with record breaking sales.

That's because people expect a new iPhone every single year. The launch of a game console is much rarer, and thus you need a longer marketing cycle to make people aware of it and build hype. They don't have the luxury of that inherent expectation.

 

[mjayer]

Man, we are in dire need of some kind of leak methinks. Any news from the factory uncles?

 

[kasparov77]

4GB on the Switch Switch sucessor menu, will allow features we resquest since the Switch launch, to be implemented on Nintendo next hardware such as folders/themes, a better eShop, and maybe a option to stream a game for the console itself.

We had folders and themes on a 128MB device... The 3DS.
And eshop's responsiveness is merely a matter of optimization (or lack thereof).

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

From it's 1 million+ sellers, the PS3+360 sold ~150 million first party games. The PS4+Xbone sold ~135 million first party games. Those users are buying the same number of games.

But the 360 sold 200 million 3rd party units compared to the PS3 getting 85 million, despite being basically equal install bases. These games represent zero risk profit for the platform holder,who has no development investment.

...

Looking at the million plus sellers alone, Nintendo sold more first party units, than the last generation sold in total, third and first party combined.

Sony says PS3 pushed about a billion software, but your PS3 number accounts for less than a quarter of that (maybe far less, I'm a bit uncertain how to read that first paragraph). Is it really the case that the vast majority of PS3's software sales came from games under a million? Or what am I missing?

Nintendo themselves if my memory serves have spent a bit of coin in R&D for AI-based upscaling techniques over the years, I think going as far back as the early 2010s. It is possible then when Nvidia came on board, Nintendo felt they could work together to devise a custom DLSS version made just for the Switch 2. I'd be curious if like having a low-level API like NVN, something similar could be implemented for DLSS, at the minimum, NVN2 includes that specific version of DLSS.

I honestly do believe the DLSS we will get for Switch 2 won't be the off-the-shelf version, but instead designed around the limitations, and low-power output of the hardware.

Why wouldn't these just become part of the off-the-shelf version for simplicity? Unless Nintendo somehow is beating NVIDIA at their own game?

While I still believe 1080p is the target for a screen, there is something that tells me they may end up just recycling the 720p OLED screen into the Switch 2. Yes, there is that report about a 7.91" 1080p LCD panel, but are we definitive at this point that was not referring to the PS Portal's screen? All the reviews say it's 8", but is it really? Or is it rounded up to 8"?

Geez, as much as LCD haters have worried about a downgrade, "Here, buy our amazing new system... with the same screen from four years ago!" would fall really flat to me.

I'm pretty sure the 7.91" claims came from people specifically talking Nintendo hardware.

 

[Goodtwin]

The shortest announcement to release in console history is the Xbox One at 6 months.

With how reluctant Nintendo has been to even speak on a successor to Switch, it is likely that the turnaround from announcement to release will be short. Six months seems about right, give or take a month.

I guess it's possible, but I'm not sure how beneficial it would be.

16 GBs of slowish VRAM with potentially very fast internal storage feels like kind of a weird setup.

The memory bandwidth will always be a limitation with a mobile processor. There is no scenario where they can match the memory bandwidth of the home consoles and still be a low powered device. Having lower capacity ram will not lessen the bandwidth bottleneck, regardless if its 8GB, 12GB or 16GB. Unlike a memory capacity limitation, where there is an absolute limit, memory bandwidth limitations act as a delay rather than a hard limit. For example, if you have 8GB of ram but your application requires 12GB, this will require in crashes and or significant stalls and the application streams in the content from internal storage. If you have memory bandwidth limitations, for example the application can use up to 100GB/s but your memory bandwidth is only70GB/s, the application will still run, but it will start to effect framerate. Think of it as added milliseconds to the frame slice. If the hardware is rendering frames in 10ms with 100GB/s of bandwidth, it may render them at 12-13ms with 70GB/s, For a 60fps game, as long as there is adequate overhead, the frames will still be done in time even though the rendering is being slowed down due to the bandwidth limitation.

High res textures are often brought up when discussing memory bandwidth, but they are not the bandwidth hogs people thing they are. Most graphics cards, even something like the RTX2050 with its limited bandwidth can use high res textures so long as they have the required VRAM capacity.

they only did this with North America. in Japan, it had a traditional reveal/release timing. not that it did much

Ironically for Sega, the Saturn was their most successful console on Japan. The Sega Genesis was a big hit outside of Japan, but never did all that well in its homeland.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

GB/s feels like the wrong way to measure VRAM bandwidth at this point.

MB/ms feels more appropriate for thinking about RAM bandwidth. It’s the same number, but it helps clarify thinking imo.

 

[Jersh]

I thought this was reported some time ago especially pertaining to EU laws of why Switch 2 will most likely see a revamp on power delivery and could support higher output when docked.

My only question in this is essentially the dock power adapter can be used independently from the dock to charge the device, unlike any other Nintendo home console before it. So would the hybrid multifunction factors need to be met since people are likely to pack up and take their Switch's somewhere and possibly use the dock power adapter to charge all electronic devices...

Also the Switch being able to dock is what makes it a hybrid device, but technically since it has an internal battery power supply (that it runs off of all the time) can they get away from it being called a mobile device?

I feel like you're looking at this a little backwards.

Nintendo supporting PD doesn't mean they have to support higher power draw. It just means things have to work with PD-compliant chargers. They can still limit system draw to what it currently is while being PD-compliant. Additionally, their power targets will determine the power supply they use, not the other way around. They wouldn't look at a need for a new charger as an excuse to bump up the power spec; the power spec will determine how powerful of a charger they use, whether they need to build a new one or not.

Regardless - the law mandates support for USB PD, not use of it, if that makes sense. Apple won't have to alter the MacBook Pro to meet the requirements for laptops in 2026, because they can charge over either USB-C (with USB PD) or MagSafe. The important thing is that the support is there.

With that in mind, let's look at the Switch successor (referred to as just the Switch for the rest of this post, for simplicity) on its own. The Switch is 100% a mobile device with a battery that charges within the 100W range required to mandate support of USB PD to be sold in the EU. Therefore, it's a given that it'll support USB PD, and that you'll be able to use whatever USB PD charger you want... to quick charge it, and nothing more.

The dock successor (also referred to as just the dock for the rest of this post) does not meet these requirements, at least to our knowledge. Nintendo treats it as its own device, which is technically correct. Therefore, it should not have to support USB PD. Even though one of its primary functions is to power a device that will support USB PD, if Nintendo feels it benefits them not to use USB PD, they don't have to use it to transfer power. That may seem silly to us, but as long as it saves them money to do so, it wouldn't be silly to them. And because the Switch itself still supports USB PD, nothing is being violated. You can still use a common charger if you want to directly with the Switch.

As for the charger itself, the thing that makes this whole law click is that the manufacturer doesn't have to include a charger, cutting back on e-waste (in fact - chargerless SKUs will be mandatory as an option going forward, since people shouldn't need a charger for every device they own if they all use the same chargers). Nintendo, therefore, doesn't have to include a USB PD compliant charger with the Switch. However, they should be able to include a power supply for their exclusively-externally powered dock, and since it doesn't meet the classifications of a portable device, they should be able to include whatever power supply they want - including their current, non-compliant one. It just so happens that the Switch is able to charge off of it - but that's a convenient coincidence (in the eyes of the law, anyway) for Nintendo, not a violation of the common charger law.

This all hinges on our interpretation of the dock as a non-portable device holds up, of course. I don't really see why it wouldn't, as much as it seems like a loophole.

 

[Goodtwin]

GB/s feels like the wrong way to measure VRAM bandwidth at this point.

MB/ms feels more appropriate for thinking about RAM bandwidth. It’s the same number, but it helps clarify thinking imo.

How so? 1GB/s is the same as 1000MB/s, its the same measurement. $100K is the same dollar amount at $100,000. Not sure what your trying to say.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

How so? 1GB/s is the same as 1000MB/s, its the same measurement. $100K is the same dollar amount at $100,000. Not sure what your trying to say.

Seconds are too long of an interval when talking about gaming so MB/ms feels like a more natural unit to use when you're dealing with milliseconds only.

It's the same number, of course, as 1 second=1000 milliseconds and 1 GB=1000 MBs, but it demonstrates the needs more easily.

100 GB/s sounds like a ton, 100 MB/ms shows where issues could occur.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Like, all of TotK is 18 GB/s, how could the RAM being so slow that it transmits 25 GB/s be holding the framerate back??? That’s more than the entire game in one second!

But 25 MB/ms better shows the issue.

 

[darthdiablo]

I think we can expect very little new information this year unless there is an update on shipping information. The next generation of consoles will probably depend on the software lineup for 2024 at the Nintendo Direct around February next year.

The next round of Vietnamese data should come early December which won’t be for another couple of weeks.

And it’d only be for data up to end of October.

 

[carbvan]

So about button color theory. I just bought Mario RPG, about 10 minutes in and...

Spoiler: I put the images in here so this post isn't 20 years long

The button prompts aren't consistent? Whenever they're mentioned via text they're just white. The settings menus and tutorials all have them as white too. If Nintendo were really trying to future-proof for the Switch 2, wouldn't they also want to make the text color match? What would be the point of colored buttons if the text was white, you'd still need to look at the symbols themselves anyways. Just thought it was interesting how only the overworld UI had colored buttons but nothing else does.

Edit: Another photo -

Spoiler: Just another spoiler tag to reduce space

This time the colors aren't even used on the overworld. I don't think color theory means much anymore.

 

[gnetc]

Americans make 50% or more of the playerbase or something? As a European, I don’t give a damn about Super Bowl. If anything, the reveal would happen before, and Super Bowl would just receive some additional ad after

So about button color theory. I just bought Mario RPG, about 10 minutes in and...

Spoiler: I put the images in here so this post isn't 20 years long

The button prompts aren't consistent? Whenever they're mentioned via text they're just white. The settings menus and tutorials all have them as white too. If Nintendo were really trying to future-proof for the Switch 2, wouldn't they also want to make the text color match? What would be the point of colored buttons if the text was white, you'd still need to look at the symbols themselves anyways. Just thought it was interesting how only the overworld UI had colored buttons but nothing else does.

Honestly I feel like it was obvious this whole time that those buttons were only colored that way because they were just trying to pay homage to the old famicom controller.

Other games I’m not to sure about though, the colored buttons on those don’t really make any sense.

 

[Aether]

High res textures are often brought up when discussing memory bandwidth, but they are not the bandwidth hogs people thing they are. Most graphics cards, even something like the RTX2050 with its limited bandwidth can use high res textures so long as they have the required VRAM capacity.

...well, those have the vram right on it for their own use.

soCs use the ram as shared ram. Video ram is usually faster then general ram, so the comparison is not completely fitting.

It's less the textures and more the sending back and forth of in-between rendered frames.
As an example: BotW renders about 9 images for 1 frame. Depending on which ones and what processing happens it may has to send a lot of data between the GPU and the ram.

I'm honestly really not worried about ram speed. But that's just me.

 

[NineTailSage]

I feel like you're looking at this a little backwards.

Nintendo supporting PD doesn't mean they have to support higher power draw. It just means things have to work with PD-compliant chargers. They can still limit system draw to what it currently is while being PD-compliant. Additionally, their power targets will determine the power supply they use, not the other way around. They wouldn't look at a need for a new charger as an excuse to bump up the power spec; the power spec will determine how powerful of a charger they use, whether they need to build a new one or not.

Regardless - the law mandates support for USB PD, not use of it, if that makes sense. Apple won't have to alter the MacBook Pro to meet the requirements for laptops in 2026, because they can charge over either USB-C (with USB PD) or MagSafe. The important thing is that the support is there.

With that in mind, let's look at the Switch successor (referred to as just the Switch for the rest of this post, for simplicity) on its own. The Switch is 100% a mobile device with a battery that charges within the 100W range required to mandate support of USB PD to be sold in the EU. Therefore, it's a given that it'll support USB PD, and that you'll be able to use whatever USB PD charger you want... to quick charge it, and nothing more.

The dock successor (also referred to as just the dock for the rest of this post) does not meet these requirements, at least to our knowledge. Nintendo treats it as its own device, which is technically correct. Therefore, it should not have to support USB PD. Even though one of its primary functions is to power a device that will support USB PD, if Nintendo feels it benefits them not to use USB PD, they don't have to use it to transfer power. That may seem silly to us, but as long as it saves them money to do so, it wouldn't be silly to them. And because the Switch itself still supports USB PD, nothing is being violated. You can still use a common charger if you want to directly with the Switch.

As for the charger itself, the thing that makes this whole law click is that the manufacturer doesn't have to include a charger, cutting back on e-waste (in fact - chargerless SKUs will be mandatory as an option going forward, since people shouldn't need a charger for every device they own if they all use the same chargers). Nintendo, therefore, doesn't have to include a USB PD compliant charger with the Switch. However, they should be able to include a power supply for their exclusively-externally powered dock, and since it doesn't meet the classifications of a portable device, they should be able to include whatever power supply they want - including their current, non-compliant one. It just so happens that the Switch is able to charge off of it - but that's a convenient coincidence (in the eyes of the law, anyway) for Nintendo, not a violation of the common charger law.

This all hinges on our interpretation of the dock as a non-portable device holds up, of course. I don't really see why it wouldn't, as much as it seems like a loophole.

I definitely didn't do a good job at explaining my point then and probably including some of the previous discussions would have helped things. Some of the concerns people had with us discussing a theoretical Switch 2 reaching 25 watts+ in docked mode were their beliefs that Switch 2 will need to be compatible with previous Switch power supply cables (so Nintendo would probably stray away from anything over a certain wattage).

Again I don't reference the EU article in the belief that Nintendo will make some 40-50w hybrid console, but supporting USB PD should mean that any device in that 100w range should be able to not only charge but be fully functional while charging.

 

[ShadowFox08]

Why are we talking about eUFS 3.x (or even eUFS 4.0) when eUFS 2.x is cheaper and may be fit for purpose? I get "higher speed = better", but what's enough speed?

Ultimately, I see it as an opportunity to keep software sales for Switch titles at similar levels by encouraging Switch 2 owners to purchase them until the new game is released. Like, MK8DX didn’t get bought by Wii U owners for visual enhancements, after all, it got bought because it was a better product to play and did something "new" (the return of purpose-built arena battle mode). So long as the next MK and Smash do something that excites the player base, they'll be on board, so visual updates to keep Switch games sales-relevant from day one of new hardware until the next iteration of software sounds like a smart play to me. That IS where the money's made, after all, and I'm sure they'd want, for example, SMBW to have the longest possible tail without being cut off at the knees, and such a proposal of a visual update basically lets it keep any sales momentum it'll have when the time comes. Rather like DLC that way, keeps momentum.

4 most expensive parts are SoC, RAM, screen and battery, typically in that order (though RAM and screen can change positions, depending on configurations of either). Storage is #5 and is entirely dependent on capacity/speed of it.

Same thing for the "1080p OR DIE" folks. A 720p screen is not only cheaper, but gives opportunities for s smaller battery by reducing TDP when in handheld, which in turn might allot more space in the chassis, for instance.
The size, pixel density and type of screen can have big ramifications to the overall industrial design and cascades cost savings to the rest of the device. Whatever screen they believe offers the most favourable trade-offs for the overall product is the one they'll choose.

A UFS 2.x and 720p screen both feel incredibly outdated in 2024. We're talking about 8-10 year old tech.

I could be wrong but doesn't UFS 3.1 also offer a better power draw as well vs UFS 2.1 at the same speeds? it's newer tech. UFS 3.1 should be the bare minimum imo (if not 3.0). The 3.1 is on the Tegra Orion modules by default and even on the latest Pixel phones. So it would be odd if we get less than 3.1. 4.0 is likely too late and expensive anyway. UFS 2.0 I think might be on its way out and obsolete at this point.

For digital gamers, fast UFS storage is going to be a boom. We will get more bang for the buck with higher storage of course. Will Nintendo limit storage speeds like the did with the Switch? Perhaps. I know there game card speeds complicate things for sure.

Now I don't really know what should be the acceptable speed of the flash storage. We likely don't need to match Series S/X, let alone PS5. 1GB/s might be enough. But yeah it should match current mobile phone at least.

for the Screen... I have mixed feelings. I know we all have talked about this. While 720p quality is acceptable as the minimum, it's not great/better than 1080p. I don't expect many native 1080p 3rd party games on handheld particularly current gen ports, but we have DLSS, and we are going to get a lot of last gen PS4 and switch ports. I also think we could more 1080p games in general by Nintendo at least vs last year, DLSS or not. It all depends on Nintendo or course.
But also more so a 720p screen feels really dated in 2024. I want the Switch 2 to be as future proof as possible. Could it be better in the long run to have a 720p screen and have games that are capable of internally running at 1080p to be super sampled, because a good amount of current gen games ported to Switch 2 might not be capable of 1080p DLSS? Perhaps. We will see.

 

[Terrell]

We had folders and themes on a 128MB device... The 3DS.
And eshop's responsiveness is merely a matter of optimization (or lack thereof).

Specifically, the eShop problem is that it is loading the entirety of the shop as a web app, rather than it being a native app making API calls to the eShop to fill in data for each listing that presents more uniformly and loads more quickly. This will likely require re-building the entire eShop backend, which they should definitely do! And should absolutely be achievable with a modest bump in OS RAM usage.

my thought is: hows ufs 2.x standing in 5 years in regards to production, but thats probably for nintendo to decide in contract negotiations.


Eh...not quite. It was mk8...but portable. I don't even see many people talking about arenas, and the DLC ignored it as a whole.
It not being on Wii U (a ton of people bought MK8 because they did not have a Wii U) was the bigger selling point.

Now whats the benefit? it being prettier? eh. new features? for a game that you already have to pay full price? meh.
Portable? the switch is that already.

The ports they did from wii u will not work the same way here. And while you're right,
with enough changes they could get enough engagement from people for their ports, its also a scenario i really really dread...

just the thought of having Smash not be a new one, but ultimate++ where they add some single player mode and 5 characters
for a game that i already have and pays for 120+€.....

eUFS 2.1 is basically taking eMMC’s place as the low-end NAND option.

I was responding to the idea that customers will turn up their nose at a new Mario Kart or Smash because the Switch versions prettied up for new hardware will make whole new entries a bad value proposition. Which I disagree with, as you seem to, but have seemed to misunderstand my intention.

I’m just saying “hey, these Switch games will operate at a more ideal performance on your new hardware via a patch” as a means of re-igniting visibility of the late Switch library to new buyers while also doing a solid to their most active users who are early product adopters, such that even if the launch lineup does not appeal to them, they’d still have reason to pick up hardware at launch for the benefit to their pre-existing software library, while not shying away from buying a new series entry.

Nintendo were rumoured to be considering up to 512GB of storage, and UFS 2.x is only manufactured in capacities up to 256GB. So, if the rumour is accurate (maybe it isn't), they would have to be using at least UFS 3.

They could shock us all and leapfrog to 1TB of eUFS2.1. Especially if it costs less than 512GB of eUFS3.x

Also, according to this, Samsung once offered 512GB eUFS 2.1, whether they would still offer it is up for debate, but it’s not as if it never existed.

As Thraktor mentioned, I don't think docks are covered under the EU legislation regarding USB-C since docks are not portable electronic devices, nor are docks rechargeable.

---

Thraktor mentioned that UFS 3.1's much more power efficient than UFS 2.1.

The power savings are mostly limited to when it can engage in Deep Sleep mode, which takes eUFS 2.1’s near-zero power usage in idle to almost absolutely zero. It’s not nothing, but it’s an improvement on something that was insanely power-efficient already.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

UFS 2.2 can hit 800 MB/s at max speed which is probably fine-ish (1 GB/s is probably ideal), but UFS 3.1 can hit those same speeds with less electricity consumption and can get all the way to (and well beyond) 1 GB/s.

 

[Pokemaniac]

So about button color theory. I just bought Mario RPG, about 10 minutes in and...

Spoiler: I put the images in here so this post isn't 20 years long

The button prompts aren't consistent? Whenever they're mentioned via text they're just white. The settings menus and tutorials all have them as white too. If Nintendo were really trying to future-proof for the Switch 2, wouldn't they also want to make the text color match? What would be the point of colored buttons if the text was white, you'd still need to look at the symbols themselves anyways. Just thought it was interesting how only the overworld UI had colored buttons but nothing else does.

Edit: Another photo -

Spoiler: Just another spoiler tag to reduce space

This time the colors aren't even used on the overworld. I don't think color theory means much anymore.

The "strong" version of the color button theory never made sense. It's more the sort of thing where the uptick in usage of the SFC button colors could mean that various devs are aware that the new hardware will have those, and are choosing using those colors in their UI to match.

Also Super Mario RPG in particular has always had a different reason why it's chosen the button colors that it has:

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Trying to find UFS 3.1 power consumption when the speed is throttled to 1 GB/s (instead of its max of 2.9 GB/s) and I can't find anything so I can't really add anything to this conversation.

I could see UFS 3.1 not really being more energy efficient than UFS 2.2 at max speeds, but being a good bit more efficient when only running at 35% speed.

 

[heyonme]

I think it's pretty unlikely they'll go with separate storage and RAM modules. I bet they'll dual source a UFS 3.1 128GB + LPDDR5 12GB uMCP from Samsung and Micron.

 

[Deleted member 887]

Fair enough. I don't think the two modes would have to be radically different, though - the docked mode is now targeting quadruple the resolution instead of double, so I was thinking the extra power could help with that.

There is a complex design question here, and we have an interesting example of a platform holder blowing it.

Nintendo obviously wants a system that looks good on modern 4K TVs. But their launch Switch game ran at 900p. 4K is 6 times as many pixels. That’s a whole generational upgrade spent just on uprezzing.

Nintendo will support full 4K output. But while designing the console, I think the software devs are going to look at how much power the hardware folks have to offer and settle on 1440p as the default “next gen” target. It still looks good on modern screens, and it leaves plenty of room to make all those pixels look good, too.

1440p means instead of a 4x gap, we can do a 2x gap with handheld. Which is much easier to manage than 4x. Because you don’t want to just throw power at the problem, ideally you want to match the two. The best possible handheld mode + best possible docked mode doesn’t equal the best system.

Which brings us to the platform holder who screwed all this up, Microsoft.

The Series X is the most powerful console on the market. The S, which loses Microsoft twice as much money per unit, really probably is the most powerful device that MS could offer at an entry-level price point. They smartly target 4K and 1440p, respectively.

So why do they suck so bad?

Well, lots of reasons, but at least part if it is because the two consoles don't support each other. The S is supposed to hit half the resolution of the X, but only has a third of the power. The S has too little RAM, and terrible memory bandwidth, leaving the two machines to require different sets of optimizations. The S's RT performance is so poor that what should be the generation's defining innovation is often turned off. Meanwhile, the X's extra power is mostly wasted, with exclusives needing to scale down to the S, and mulitplats getting "good enough" at the PS5's level of performance.

Nintendo wants to dodge all these mistakes. That means, ideally, matching performance to the target resolutions, so that, as much as possible it’s one port not two. That also means avoiding things like one mode having drastically different bandwidth capabilities.

Which brings me to T239 itself. It’s worth remembering that T239 is fully custom, not off the shelf. So if there are limitations, they’re either baked into the tech, or something Nintendo actively chose. I would be wary of any thinking that only works if T239 is pushed past the design’s natural limits.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Could it be better in the long run to have a 720p screen and have games that are capable of internally running at 1080p to be super sampled, because a good amount of current gen games ported to Switch 2 might not be capable of 1080p DLSS? Perhaps. We will see.

Same as if it would be better to use a 1080p TV with a PS5 because not all games will hit 4K.

 

[Dakhil]

I think it's pretty unlikely they'll go with separate storage and RAM modules. I bet they'll dual source a UFS 3.1 128GB + LPDDR5 12GB uMCP from Samsung and Micron.

I disagree.

I don't think Nintendo's new hardware's as area constrained as smartphones.

And I think heat's definitely a concern, especially if Nintendo's new hardware requires the RAM and the internal flash storage to run at very high frequencies for sustained periods of time, whereas smartphones probably have the RAM and the internal flash storage run at very high frequencies at very short bursts of time, similar to with the performance CPU cores on smartphone SoCs.
Gamers Nexus has shown that the LPDDR4 modules operate at very similar temperatures as the Tegra X1 on the Nintendo Switch, which is in the range of 59°C-60°C.
And on a bit of an off topic note, outside of using newer process nodes, there's no inherit power efficiency advantage of using LPDDR5X vs LPDDR5.

 

[ILikeFeet]

The S's RT performance is so poor that what should be the generation's defining innovation is often turned off.

this reminded me of something

The Talos Principle 2 is an interesting case in which lumen is turned off for the Series S (and performance mode on the big consoles). I don't think this is representative of the future as this game is targeting some weird numbers (like 60fps for both quality and performance on PS5/SX for some reason), but it does some a worse case scenario in regards to scaling (if, for some reason, devs target an uncapped frame rate and too high resolutions)

 

[SiG]

So about button color theory. I just bought Mario RPG, about 10 minutes in and...

Spoiler: I put the images in here so this post isn't 20 years long

The button prompts aren't consistent? Whenever they're mentioned via text they're just white. The settings menus and tutorials all have them as white too. If Nintendo were really trying to future-proof for the Switch 2, wouldn't they also want to make the text color match? What would be the point of colored buttons if the text was white, you'd still need to look at the symbols themselves anyways. Just thought it was interesting how only the overworld UI had colored buttons but nothing else does.

Edit: Another photo -

Spoiler: Just another spoiler tag to reduce space

This time the colors aren't even used on the overworld. I don't think color theory means much anymore.

I'd assume there's some code in the game that would automatically switch to colored button text prompts should it find a flag in the OS to do so?

 

[Concernt]

I'd assume there's some code in the game that would automatically switch to colored button text prompts should it find a flag in the OS to do so?

I'm not sure about that. If SMRPGRE has any connection to the coloured button theory, what's going on here is that standard prompts and reminders conveyed via text are done using letters. While anything that requires quick thinking or reaction, like prompts in the overworld or during battle, use the colours. This makes sense... If the buttons are those colours, so the brain immediately associates a colour to a button. But they aren't on the current Switch.

Furthermore, while games obviously have ways to adjust graphical elements for different regions, they opted NOT to use lavender and fuchsia buttons for NA, so I'm still not convinced it's solely a reference.

 

[LinkURL]

There is a complex design question here, and we have an interesting example of a platform holder blowing it.

Nintendo obviously wants a system that looks good on modern 4K TVs. But their launch Switch game ran at 900p. 4K is 6 times as many pixels. That’s a whole generational upgrade spent just on uprezzing.

Nintendo will support full 4K output. But while designing the console, I think the software devs are going to look at how much power the hardware folks have to offer and settle on 1440p as the default “next gen” target. It still looks good on modern screens, and it leaves plenty of room to make all those pixels look good, too.

1440p means instead of a 4x gap, we can do a 2x gap with handheld. Which is much easier to manage than 4x. Because you don’t want to just throw power at the problem, ideally you want to match the two. The best possible handheld mode + best possible docked mode doesn’t equal the best system.

Which brings us to the platform holder who screwed all this up, Microsoft.

The Series X is the most powerful console on the market. The S, which loses Microsoft twice as much money per unit, really probably is the most powerful device that MS could offer at an entry-level price point. They smartly target 4K and 1440p, respectively.

So why do they suck so bad?

Well, lots of reasons, but at least part if it is because the two consoles don't support each other. The S is supposed to hit half the resolution of the X, but only has a third of the power. The S has too little RAM, and terrible memory bandwidth, leaving the two machines to require different sets of optimizations. The S's RT performance is so poor that what should be the generation's defining innovation is often turned off. Meanwhile, the X's extra power is mostly wasted, with exclusives needing to scale down to the S, and mulitplats getting "good enough" at the PS5's level of performance.

Nintendo wants to dodge all these mistakes. That means, ideally, matching performance to the target resolutions, so that, as much as possible it’s one port not two. That also means avoiding things like one mode having drastically different bandwidth capabilities.

Which brings me to T239 itself. It’s worth remembering that T239 is fully custom, not off the shelf. So if there are limitations, they’re either baked into the tech, or something Nintendo actively chose. I would be wary of any thinking that only works if T239 is pushed past the design’s natural limits.

Just one detail that I find interesting. But the hardware leap is not just in the GPU, but in the CPU too. But when we think about a game running at 4K, this will have almost no impact on the CPU. In other words, as the CPU is stronger, the time spent by the CPU on each frame is shorter, opening up more time available for the GPU to do its work, so, because of these extra ms you wouldn't necessarily need 6x more power to run the BotW in 4K.

 

[TLZ]

That's because people expect a new iPhone every single year. The launch of a game console is much rarer, and thus you need a longer marketing cycle to make people aware of it and build hype. They don't have the luxury of that inherent expectation.

I think we're hungrier than iphoners. It's been so long people will gobble it up quick.

And again it's not the 80s/90s anymore. Long marketing cycles are dead imo. It's a relic of the past. 2 very different eras. Social media changed a lot of things. How we consume media is so different and instant now.

I'm ready to bet anything that if they announce it today for a next week release, everybody will be scrambling like crazy and the Switch 2 would go out of stock in seconds.

All they need to do is show us something enticing, irresistible.