StarTopic Future Nintendo Hardware & Technology Speculation & Discussion |ST| (New Staff Post, Please read)

[AceBandage]

I blame @AceBandage entirely.

 

[Serif]

Hopefully there's some sort of whitelist or blacklist capability for unlocked clocks or whatever. I would think that publishers would have to apply to have their game added to the whitelist for boost though with the idea of an additional QA cycle to ensure that the game doesn't break.

Yes please.

The thirst has built up for too long.

 

[Individualised]

Watched that for a bit (I probably watched this in the past and forgot about it). Fun watch.

Some parts of the video, after new stuff I learned from this community, I'm like

This printed circuit board is labeled HAC-CPU-01, which is retail version of course. Pre-release (prior to mass production), it was ODIN-CPU-X5.

Pre-release ODIN -> post-release HAC

* Hidden text: cannot be quoted. *


Looking forward to finding out!

 

[Thraktor]

I don't think 512 GB of internal flash storage is happening at <$500. (Perhaps at ≥$500, but I don't think at <$500.)

You can buy a phone for less than $200 with 512GB of storage right now. Admittedly the rest of the phone doesn't seem that great, but storage costs have dropped quite a lot. I'm still expecting 256GB, but I wouldn't rule out 512GB at $400 or under.

Big RAM increase is actually believable, Nintendo has done so in the past. New 3DS doubled the ram and it wasn't even a generational successor. DS to 3DS RAM jump was 4 to 128 megabytes, 4 to 16 for Switch is reasonable.

The issue is that the manufacturing and economics of RAM are very different than they used to be. Between generations back in the day, DRAM manufacturing processes got a lot smaller every few years, resulting in a lot more capacity per chip for similar cost. Recently, though, DRAM scaling has basically stopped, so you don't get the free lunch of more RAM for the same money any more. Hence why Sony and MS could only increase RAM by 2x over the previous generation with the PS5 and Series X, and by just 25% with the Series S. Of course launching in the middle of a chip shortage didn't help, as RAM prices were pretty much at their peak in late 2020.

Nintendo does have the benefit of prices having dropped a lot over the past year or so, just from changes to supply and demand, so they should be able to afford a bigger RAM increase than MS or Sony could, but we're not in the same days of big guaranteed increases to RAM each generation like we used to be.

 

[Zedark]

Understood, although now I'm curious what Sony have been doing with PS4/PS5 that prevents them from using the full GPU when running original PS4 games in boost mode.

Just spitballing here, but perhaps it takes a bit more effort to do it in a CU-agnostic way, and Sony didn't see the point of investing extra development work when there was another bottleneck that would have made it so that the bonus of doing full CU boost mode was limited. I'm pointing in this scenario to the RAM bandwidth, which jumped only 24%, and may have laid a new limiting factor on the boost mode at this percentage improvement if they had unlocked the full GPU utilisation for boost mode.

Not sure if this would be a limit, but it might be a possible reason (and we are speculating unless there is some official statement out there somewhere, of course).

 

[Pokemaniac]

I mean, most games still have a day-1 patch that you can't access without Internet anyways. It's not like having the cartridge means you get the best experience with no internet.

No experience is very different from a slightly suboptimal experience. Also, many Nintendo games don't have day 1 patches, either.

Understood, although now I'm curious what Sony have been doing with PS4/PS5 that prevents them from using the full GPU when running original PS4 games in boost mode.

Wasn't there some sort of turning off half the GPU thing in the PS4 Pro? It may be an artifact of that.

I'm just talking about games which have no knowledge of Switch 2, which will be the vast majority of games even if Nintendo do allow Switch games post Switch 2 to see a flag telling them it's running on Switch 2. Which I wouldn't be surprised to see happen, by the way. It seems like a lot of late PS4 games running in "boost mode" on PS5 are doing this, where they're increasing framerate or resolution caps when they see they're running on PS5, even if it's otherwise just running the PS4 Pro version of the game. I suppose whether it counts as BC or not any more at that point is a bit questionable, but that's just driving too deep into semantics.

Even for games completely unaware, the "system" CPU needs for BC titles are likely to extend beyond what just a single core can provide. It seems fairly probable that the system core allocation will probably extend into some of the "extra" cores when in BC mode in order to facilitate it.

Assuming that extra SMs on the GPU isn't really a compatibility concern, there probably isn't a reason to turn anything fully off.

 

[Foltzie]

Question regarding what I bolded. Since there are several performance profiles in handheld mode in terms of clockspeeds, and also situations where when a game is loading, the CPU clocks are maxed out for speedier loading times; how does that factor into the BC mode? Does the translation layer factor in the difference clock speeds with the GPU, plus when the CPU is boosted during loading times?

Because the layer could certainly not just assume to keep the clocks at one specific frequency, correct? It would have to account for the dynamic-ness of both the GPU and CPU? And I'm talking beyond the difference between handheld vs. docked. Some games use a different GPU clockspeed in handheld vs. another game also in handheld.

If that were the case, wouldn't it then be easiest to apply the "docked" profile into the BC layer to simplify the process?

Sorry if I'm not making sense.

Way outside my knowledge zone, but I don't think trying to force a constant docked mode makes the BC problems appreciably easier to solve.

Most games seem to run fine with increased CPU, GPU, and Memory clocks, but some games may crash. Dialing in the right comparable CPU/GPU/Memory clocks will be "tricky" which is now my go to buzzword.

You could imagine a scenario where as a part of whatever testing/solution Nintendo implements for testing the GPU translation solution, Nintendo also tests increased clocks. . . But you quickly imagine the feasibility of such an approach? Are you really going to replay every game and look for new crashes and dial in an adjusted profile for each game?

I'm now interested to see what others share whenever more information about BC leaks or is data mined out of Switch 2 if it takes that long. There doesn't seem to be a graceful simple solution. Brute force could certainly work, look at Steam Deck compatibility with Valve's tweaks to Proton, but that seems un-Nintendo like.

I'm also curious to hear about whatever types of automated testing Nvidia or Nintendo have created to help the BC solution. Testing tools are common, unit, integration, actor, ect tests, but most of those run as a part of the build process and can control variables. I'm curious how they build, manage, and run test cases for a BC solution with existing game builds.

 

[indospot]

Why do the leaked specs seem too good to be true?

The Switch exceeded the decade-old 360/PS3 in 2017, it had 8-16 times the RAM, and a more modern architecture that let it 'punch above' its weight.

T239 is a similar and better position. Exceeding the now decade old PS4/XBO, with a modern graphics architecture that boasts features like DLSS, a better CPU than last-gen, potential 1.5-2x the RAM, and more customization than the TX1.

I don't consider anything in the leak particularly outlandish. I would be open to these specs being different if there were a convincing reason to believe so. They're all we have to go on for informed speculation.

Because I look at something like the Logitech G Cloud, which has a worse processor, a quarter of the reported RAM, one eighth of the 512GB of storage, a smaller screen, and no detachable controllers, and it still costs $300.

The Razer Edge (non-5G) has a more comparable processor, 6GB of RAM, 128GB of storage and it's still $400. Expecting Nintendo to excel in value for the specs seems unrealistic.

 

[carbvan]

Because I look at something like the Logitech G Cloud, which has a worse processor, a quarter of the reported RAM, one eighth of the 512GB of storage, a smaller screen, and no detachable controllers, and it still costs $300.

The Razer Edge (non-5G) has a more comparable processor, 6GB of RAM, 128GB of storage and it's still $400. Expecting Nintendo to excel in value for the specs seems unrealistic.

Logitech and Razer aren't selling these devices to then sell their products on though. They're not using all of that $300 or $400 to get the best specs, they're still trying to make a big profit off the device itself. I know the Switch sold for profit, but it wasn't a very big profit. If Nintendo only makes $20-$30 with each sale of the console like people estimate with the Switch, they're still putting at least $370 into the device, which is way more than Razer and Logitech probably put into them. Hell, maybe this is the generation Nintendo breaks even or sells for a loss again, Sony and MS both do it, and Nintendo has the game sales to off put that loss.

 

[darthdiablo]

Because I look at something like the Logitech G Cloud, which has a worse processor, a quarter of the reported RAM, one eighth of the 512GB of storage, a smaller screen, and no detachable controllers, and it still costs $300.

The Razer Edge (non-5G) has a more comparable processor, 6GB of RAM, 128GB of storage and it's still $400. Expecting Nintendo to excel in value for the specs seems unrealistic.

Couple of thoughts that might make you reconsider (although I am not truly informed on Logitech G Cloud or Razor Edge):

What are their expected sales numbers like? (for Nintendo, it would be easily north of Wii U numbers lol). Reason: bigger numbers = can negotiate for cheaper pricing for parts to be assembled

And do manufacturers of those devices also publish software for those devices? (I assume no but as I said, I'm not familiar with those products). Reason I'm asking is because Nintendo can set razor thin margins on hardware, but make $$$ off software sales that easily expect millions of sales at least.

 

[bmfrosty]

You can buy a phone for less than $200 with 512GB of storage right now. Admittedly the rest of the phone doesn't seem that great, but storage costs have dropped quite a lot. I'm still expecting 256GB, but I wouldn't rule out 512GB at $400 or under.



The issue is that the manufacturing and economics of RAM are very different than they used to be. Between generations back in the day, DRAM manufacturing processes got a lot smaller every few years, resulting in a lot more capacity per chip for similar cost. Recently, though, DRAM scaling has basically stopped, so you don't get the free lunch of more RAM for the same money any more. Hence why Sony and MS could only increase RAM by 2x over the previous generation with the PS5 and Series X, and by just 25% with the Series S. Of course launching in the middle of a chip shortage didn't help, as RAM prices were pretty much at their peak in late 2020.

Nintendo does have the benefit of prices having dropped a lot over the past year or so, just from changes to supply and demand, so they should be able to afford a bigger RAM increase than MS or Sony could, but we're not in the same days of big guaranteed increases to RAM each generation like we used to be.

I'm replying here because I don't want to reply to myself to add more information. Looking at mouser.com to look at UFS storage prices for high volumes of UFS storage is the same between 512GB and 1T.

I am well and truly surprised. That link covers 256GB - 2TB. I suspect in the case of non-stocked parts, mouser is acting as intermediary for small manufacturers who won't have a relationship directly with someone like Micron or Kioxia.

 

[Concernt]

Expecting Nintendo to excel in value for the specs seems unrealistic.

They did in 2017.

 

[omniryu]

They did in 2017.

dropped mic

 

[ILikeFeet]

Because I look at something like the Logitech G Cloud, which has a worse processor, a quarter of the reported RAM, one eighth of the 512GB of storage, a smaller screen, and no detachable controllers, and it still costs $300.

The Razer Edge (non-5G) has a more comparable processor, 6GB of RAM, 128GB of storage and it's still $400. Expecting Nintendo to excel in value for the specs seems unrealistic.

then you misunderstand how these products are supposed to make their money. Logitech and Razer only sell hardware so that's where the profits come from. consoles are subsidized by software sales

 

[Erathix]

And Bam! Nintendo Prime got some juicy content.

Oh God, please no

 

[Dimensio]

Because I look at something like the Logitech G Cloud, which has a worse processor, a quarter of the reported RAM, one eighth of the 512GB of storage, a smaller screen, and no detachable controllers, and it still costs $300.

The Razer Edge (non-5G) has a more comparable processor, 6GB of RAM, 128GB of storage and it's still $400. Expecting Nintendo to excel in value for the specs seems unrealistic.

The LCD steam deck has 16 GB ram and specs on par if not slightly better than the Switch 2 in some areas and the model with a 512 GB NVMe SSD is currently at 470$.
Not to mention that Nintendo sells an average of 20 millions units every year unlike valve which only sold like 4 millions in 2 years and combined with the fact their profits mainly come from software they can price it much lower than that.
That Logitech thing is probably never going to reach 1 million units in it's life time lol.

 

[NateDrake]

He doubled down on an announcement in March and 16 GB, although the 16 GB seemed more like speculation.

Pretty sure he recently corroborated the BC report, but only digital without known enhancements.

Never said anything about "only digital".

 

[carbvan]

Oh God, please no

quick, say it was bait

 

[Serif]

Because I look at something like the Logitech G Cloud, which has a worse processor, a quarter of the reported RAM, one eighth of the 512GB of storage, a smaller screen, and no detachable controllers, and it still costs $300.

The Razer Edge (non-5G) has a more comparable processor, 6GB of RAM, 128GB of storage and it's still $400. Expecting Nintendo to excel in value for the specs seems unrealistic.

The Razer Edge also has a 2400x1080 144 Hz AMOLED screen, which adds cost. No one is expecting this kind of screen on the Switch 2. And as others have stated - these companies do not make money from selling software. Compare the $400 Steam Deck at launch which had 16 GB of RAM and 64 GB of storage, Valve took a hit on the price because they make money off their storefront, and Nintendo enjoys larger economies of scale so they can get a better price per unit than Valve.

When the Nintendo Switch launched it was $100 more than the Shield TV which has the same chip, and it had 16 GB more storage, 1 GB more RAM, a dock and two wireless controllers. The Google Pixel C which uses the same chip, has comparable RAM, storage, and CPU but a larger screen launched at $500. According to a teardown, it costs ~$257 for Nintendo to build each Switch 1 unit. That's not a huge profit margin. And the Switch 1 was using at the time, a ~2 year old top of the line mobile SoC.

 

[omniryu]

Oh God, please no

, yeah he usually lurks here for content. Then I think his podcast buddies do the same as well. Well, one thing I can say is when the Nintendoomer spread their negativity, he does give them the education information on this site.

So if someone ever says that the Switch won't have ray tracing and it will have DLSS 1 with 6 gigs, he will tell the truth.

 

[VagrantValmar]

When you say they move in slow motion do you just mean reduced framerate? I don’t remember anything weird in Salmon Run but maybe I didn’t get to high enough hazard levels

When you get to ridiculously high hazard levels, the game struggles and gets to,

 

[omniryu]

When the Nintendo Switch launched it was $100 more than the Shield TV which has the same chip, and it had 16 GB more storage, 1 GB more RAM, a dock and two wireless controllers. The Google Pixel C which uses the same chip, has comparable RAM, storage, and CPU but a larger screen launched at $500. According to a teardown, it costs ~$257 for Nintendo to build each Switch 1 unit. That's not a huge profit margin. And the Switch 1 was using at the time, a ~2 year old top of the line mobile

B-but Nintendo is cheap and would never!/s

 

[Dakhil]

You can buy a phone for less than $200 with 512GB of storage right now. Admittedly the rest of the phone doesn't seem that great, but storage costs have dropped quite a lot. I'm still expecting 256GB, but I wouldn't rule out 512GB at $400 or under.

I was going by the premise of UFS 3.1 being used for the internal flash storage.

The Cubot P80 using UFS 2.1 is probably one way Cubot could sell the smartphone at €190.

So far, I can't find any smartphone that has 512 GB of UFS 3.1 that's selling for <$400, although the prices on Mouser (via bmfrosty) suggests that could be possible, although I imagine the profit margins could be much tighter than desired.

 

[indospot]

They did in 2017.

Did they? I mean $300 was reasonable for the specs on offer, but if I look at the OnePlus 5,for example, that started at $479 and when you exclude the three cameras and cellular radio, you're left with a device that would probably be around $400 with a much faster chipset, 50% more RAM, and double the storage that's around 5 times faster, plus a Full HD display. Of course, there are other factors at play, I'm just not that eager to believe Nintendo will blow our minds with specs.

Couple of thoughts that might make you reconsider (although I am not truly informed on Logitech G Cloud or Razor Edge):

What are their expected sales numbers like? (for Nintendo, it would be easily north of Wii U numbers lol). Reason: bigger numbers = can negotiate for cheaper pricing for parts to be assembled

And do manufacturers of those devices also publish software for those devices? (I assume no but as I said, I'm not familiar with those products). Reason I'm asking is because Nintendo can set razor thin margins on hardware, but make $$$ off software sales that easily expect millions of sales at least.

Very valid points that I have no real counter to. I'm just not fully convinced that's enough to suddenly make Nintendo a value king.

 

[karmitt]

When you get to ridiculously high hazard levels, the game struggles and gets to,

What the poster was getting at was that there was some hard coded strangeness in the high EVP levels. I’m aware of the slowdown. That’s just the game throwing more out than the Switch can handle.

 

[VagrantValmar]

It's like a good ole fart joke. No matter how old you are, it's funny.

The same is also true when you and your spouse can fart with each other, and not have to hide it. That's true love, and never becomes unfunny.

Sorry for continuing the off topic but I wish I could do this lol
But since I got a surgery my farts have been absolutely foul so they're not "funny" anymore, they're just hell

 

[VagrantValmar]

I’m thinking 12GB RAM(definitely hoping for 16) and 256 GB of storage.

Same here. Those are the bare minimums imo

 

[VagrantValmar]

Yes please.

The thirst has built up for too long.

I played royal at 60 on my hacked switch but I ended up playing it on the oled at 30 instead because the blacks were just too good.
Sadly, no oled on Switch 2 means I will have to face a similar dilemma again

 

[Truno]

Never said anything about "only digital".

My mistake, sorry. I made the assumption based on this post:

Didn't want to specifically say that you mentioned physical BC because of this. I've edited my original post for clarity.

 

[Hermii]

.

 

[yusufied]

I am personally starting to lean more skeptical and wary of the system. 8gb ram, 8n, low system storage, weak to little RT, etc. I think people are expecting too much of the Switch 2.

My concerns right now have almost nothing to do with hardware. At this point I'm worried about a price increase to NSO with the incoming generation. It think it's normal to expect maybe one or two the things you mentioned to come to pass. I'm prepping for 12 GB of RAM and only about 256 GB of base storage which is lower than most people are expecting but definitely a good leap.

 

[ILikeFeet]

Did they? I mean $300 was reasonable for the specs on offer, but if I look at the OnePlus 5,for example, that started at $479 and when you exclude the three cameras and cellular radio, you're left with a device that would probably be around $400 with a much faster chipset, 50% more RAM, and double the storage that's around 5 times faster, plus a Full HD display. Of course, there are other factors at play, I'm just not that eager to believe Nintendo will blow our minds with specs.

you just make it more apparent that you don't understand the specs you bring up. lol

 

[indospot]

you just make it more apparent that you don't understand the specs you bring up. lol

You know you can explain things beyond just making snarky comments like this, right?

 

[ILikeFeet]

You know you can explain things beyond just making snarky comments like this, right?

the adreno 540 had 384 cores and clocked in around 700MHz. but most importantly, it was on Samsung's 10nm node, and wasn't actively cooled. it would pale in comparison to any actively cooled device, like the Switch, after some time of gaming

 

[Serif]

Did they? I mean $300 was reasonable for the specs on offer, but if I look at the OnePlus 5,for example, that started at $479 and when you exclude the three cameras and cellular radio, you're left with a device that would probably be around $400 with a much faster chipset, 50% more RAM, and double the storage that's around 5 times faster, plus a Full HD display.

The Tegra X1's GPU performance is close to the Adreno 540 in the OnePlus 5. The OnePlus 3/T has an Adreno 530 which is also close to the X1 and also have quad-core CPUs, the 3 launched in mid 2016 for $400 and the 3T launched for $479.

What this tells me is that Nintendo released a hybrid mobile console matching / exceeding the GPU performance of smart-phones $100+ more. Which makes sense - it is a gaming device, so they picked a good mobile chip suitable for gaming. And still, the $300 Switch includes the dock and two controllers.

This is just one GFXbench test with OpenGL but it's an adequate ballpark, the Pixel C (which cost $500) is closer to the Switch here since it's a mobile device with a quad core CPU and 4 GB of RAM, but it's also still not a gaming console.

Of course, there are other factors at play, I'm just not that eager to believe Nintendo will blow our minds with specs.

Again, the specs for T239 are based on information straight from Nvidia. That is why people are particularly attached to them - they aren't secondhand rumors but literal code. It is harder to believe that they would change significantly considering the length of development. There is no other chip that exists in the leak or in open-source commits that could be the Switch 2.

 

[Foltzie]

My mistake, sorry. I made the assumption based on this post:

Didn't want to specifically say that you mentioned physical BC because of this. I've edited my original post for clarity.

I know you've edited your post, but it may be worth explaining, that digital only BC doesn't make sense. It's horrible from a consumer standpoint for reasons that don't need explanation.

Assuming this idea is routed in any fact, those would be that perhaps the BC solution requires per game downloads*. Which would be "digital only" just like any other patch.

* Not saying this is fact, just saying this scenario would answer the "digital only" rumor that keeps floating around in a way that makes sense.

 

[indospot]

the adreno 540 had 384 cores and clocked in around 700MHz. but most importantly, it was on Samsung's 10nm node, and wasn't actively cooled. it would pale in comparison to any actively cooled device, like the Switch, after some time of gaming

Yeah, I saw the GPU was worse but the CPU was significantly faster, plus the Snapdragon 835 was significantly newer and on a more advanced process as you mentioned. Sure, Samsung's foundry may be kinda garbage compared to TSMC, but did that necessarily make the Snapdragon 835 a cheaper part? I doubt the Tegra X1 was more expensive at that point. At best maybe the active cooling fan could even out the difference, I'm not sure what these parts all cost, of course.

The Tegra X1's GPU performance is close to the Adreno 540 in the OnePlus 5. The OnePlus 3/T has an Adreno 530 which is also close to the X1 and it also has a quad-core CPU, the 3 launched in mid 2016 for $400 and the 3T launched for $479.

What this tells me is that Nintendo released a hybrid mobile console matching / exceeding the GPU performance of smart-phones $100+ more. Which makes sense - it is a gaming device, so they picked a good mobile chip suitable for gaming. And still, the $300 Switch includes the dock and two controllers.

This is just one GFXbench test with OpenGL but it's a rough enough ballpark, the Pixel C (which cost $500) is closer to the Switch here since it's a mobile device with a quad core CPU and 4 GB of RAM, but it's also still not a gaming console.

Again, the specs for T239 are based on information straight from Nvidia. That is why people are particularly attached to them - they aren't secondhand rumors but literal source code. It is harder to believe that they would change significantly considering the length of development.

Right, as mentioned above, I do see that the Tegra X1 has faster GPU performance, but Qualcomm was obviously investing in other areas of the chipset, which still added to the cost. My point is just that I don't think Nintendo was giving us some amazing bargain specs-wise.

Regardless, I'm excited to see the leap in specs, even if I turn out to be right with my skepticism. Please don't misunderstand my points as an attempt to gloom and doom all over the place.

 

[Sol]

Tom Warren speculated today that Microsoft on Thursday may reveal the development of an Xbox handheld device.

It makes me think of what the market for gaming handhelds could look like by 2026. Switch 2 could be competing with the Steam Deck 2, Xbox handheld, a bunch of handheld PCs, and maybe a device from Sony. In 2017 when the Switch launched it pretty much had zero competition in the dedicated handheld gaming space.

At the very least, it should force Nintendo to stay on their game, and may even prompt the development of a "Pro" version of the Switch 2 that we never got with the current Switch.

 

[ILikeFeet]

Yeah, I saw the GPU was worse but the CPU was significantly faster, plus the Snapdragon 835 was significantly newer and on a more advanced process as you mentioned. Sure, Samsung's foundry may be kinda garbage compared to TSMC, but did that necessarily make the Snapdragon 835 a cheaper part? I doubt the Tegra X1 was more expensive at that point. At best maybe the active cooling fan could even out the difference, I'm not sure what these parts all cost, of course.

throttling affects both cpu and gpu performance. you have to show that the SD845 can sustain performance over a gameplay session before you can definitively say it's "better"

case in point, the Shield TV is about 100 points lower than the Oneplus 5, at the same clock. but again, throttling on the OP5 would harm its score in the long term

NVIDIA SHIELD Android TV - Geekbench

Benchmark results for a NVIDIA SHIELD Android TV with an ARM ARMv8 processor.

browser.geekbench.com

OnePlus 5 - Geekbench

Benchmark results for an OnePlus 5 with a Qualcomm Qualcomm processor.

browser.geekbench.com

 

[Hermii]

Tom Warren speculated today that Microsoft on Thursday may reveal the development of an Xbox handheld device.

It makes me think of what the market for gaming handhelds could look like by 2026. Switch 2 could be competing with the Steam Deck 2, Xbox handheld, a bunch of handheld PCs, and maybe a device from Sony. In 2017 when the Switch launched it pretty much had zero competition in the dedicated handheld gaming space.

At the very least, it should force Nintendo to stay on their game, and may even prompt the development of a "Pro" version of the Switch 2 that we never got with the current Switch.

Non of those are mass market devices, except maybe a potential PlayStation or Xbox handheld.

I think this will help Nintendo more than it's a threat to them, because more devs will scale their games down to handheld level specs.

 

[bmfrosty]

Tom Warren speculated today that Microsoft on Thursday may reveal the development of an Xbox handheld device.

It makes me think of what the market for gaming handhelds could look like by 2026. Switch 2 could be competing with the Steam Deck 2, Xbox handheld, a bunch of handheld PCs, and maybe a device from Sony. In 2017 when the Switch launched it pretty much had zero competition.

At the very least, it should force Nintendo to stay on their game, and may even prompt the development of a "Pro" version of the Switch 2 that we never got with the current Switch.

I think that a handheld xbox depends on whether Microsoft wants gamepass with local compute on a handheld. I honestly wonder if they've been negotiating with Nintendo on doing streaming gamepass (or local gamepass!) on Switch 2. If they are, then I could see them doing some sort of revenue sharing deal where there's a Microsoft Gamepass for Switch where Nintendo get 30%.

 

[omniryu]

When the Nintendo Switch launched it was $100 more than the Shield TV which has the same chip, and it had 16 GB more storage, 1 GB more RAM, a dock and two wireless controllers. The Google Pixel C which uses the same chip, has comparable RAM, storage, and CPU but a larger screen launched at $500. According to a teardown, it costs ~$257 for Nintendo to build each Switch 1 unit. That's not a huge profit margin. And the Switch 1 was using at the time, a ~2 year old top of the line mobile

B-but Nintendo is cheap and would never!/s

 

[RedSpring]

Did they? I mean $300 was reasonable for the specs on offer, but if I look at the OnePlus 5,for example, that started at $479 and when you exclude the three cameras and cellular radio, you're left with a device that would probably be around $400 with a much faster chipset, 50% more RAM, and double the storage that's around 5 times faster, plus a Full HD display. Of course, there are other factors at play, I'm just not that eager to believe Nintendo will blow our minds with specs.

LPDDR4X would be great for the bandwidth improvement. Faster storage doesn't add much since it would be limited to SD card speed anyway. If the value performance competitor is a $400 device that is missing a controller and a usb c dock with a chip that might be 50% better, I’m thinking it’s a pretty good deal even without knowing how the chip would behave at the energy requirement that the Switch would use.

 

[indospot]

throttling affects both cpu and gpu performance. you have to show that the SD845 can sustain performance over a gameplay session before you can definitively say it's "better"

My point wasn't to say that it's better, it was to say that it was probably more expensive for OnePlus to buy that than it was for Nintendo to buy the Tegra X1, which sort of shrinks the difference in value from the company's perspective. I'm just arguing that the Switch wasn't some crazy great value specs-wise, and I don't think I would expect that from Nintendo this time around, despite what the reports seem to indicate.
There aren't many (if any) mobile devices with 16GB of RAM that cost under $500 without making big sacrifices elsewhere. But we're also expecting fairly large storage and a pretty powerful processor with a big 1080p screen. And I also don't think Nintendo would go head-to-head with Sony in terms of price, so $400 seems like the absolute maximum they could charge for this. It feels unlikely considering everything that's being brought up as an expectation.

 

[Sol]

Non of those are mass market devices, except maybe a potential PlayStation or Xbox handheld.

I think this will help Nintendo more than it's a threat to them, because more devs will scale their games down to handheld level specs.

A next-gen AMD APU in 2026 may not be that big of a step down from the Series X and PS5. I think whatever that chip is that's being worked on at AMD is what Valve is waiting on for the Steam Deck 2, and I would guess is probably being considered for an Xbox and even Playstation handheld as well.

 

[Concernt]

Did they? I mean $300 was reasonable for the specs on offer, but if I look at the OnePlus 5,for example, that started at $479 and when you exclude the three cameras and cellular radio, you're left with a device that would probably be around $400 with a much faster chipset, 50% more RAM, and double the storage that's around 5 times faster, plus a Full HD display. Of course, there are other factors at play, I'm just not that eager to believe Nintendo will blow our minds with specs.

Yes.

The OnePlus 5 of 2017 was not more performant than Tegra X1 in graphical output, even if an individual CPU core may have been faster in the OnePlus device. 4GB of RAM was becoming standard in 2017, for the highest end phones, with one of the cheapest 4GB phones at the time being LG G6, which was 500-600$ in March (but which held an older processor than its contemporaries).

You're ignoring wireless controllers, where Nintendo Switch comes with 2, which alone had a manufacturing price close to 90$ for the pair, as well as getting a dock, a fan, and a screen that while lower resolution, was very colour accurate. Remember also Nintendo Switch doesn't exclude cameras, it comes with one attached to Joy-Con R.

It's revisionist and I would say dishonest to suggest Nintendo Switch was "bad value" at launch considering the component cost and performance, and indeed RAM, relative to its contemporaries in the mobile space.

You seem to misunderstand Nintendo's incentives, it's not to produce an expensive device to profit off, but a platform they sell software for. They are incentivised to provide performance and value to maximise the amount of people buying it and the number of games available on it. Meanwhile, connecting price to specs so directly is not representative of the real world, T239 on 4N, as a portion of the cost of water, comes in between 20 and 40 USD if I understand correctly, while LPDDR5 prices have tumbled as of late and UFS 3.1 is available in plenty of affordable phones with reasonable capacities.

 

[Ezereal]

Tom Warren speculated today that Microsoft on Thursday may reveal the development of an Xbox handheld device.

It makes me think of what the market for gaming handhelds could look like by 2026. Switch 2 could be competing with the Steam Deck 2, Xbox handheld, a bunch of handheld PCs, and maybe a device from Sony. In 2017 when the Switch launched it pretty much had zero competition in the dedicated handheld gaming space.

At the very least, it should force Nintendo to stay on their game, and may even prompt the development of a "Pro" version of the Switch 2 that we never got with the current Switch.

Nintendo doesn't risk anything, they have the IP and the experience on developing specifically for handheld in mind and that's why they won against the PSP back then and why the 3DS resisted to the rise of mobile gaming better than the PS Vita did

 

[bmfrosty]

A next-gen AMD APU in 2026 may not be that big of a step down from the Series X and PS5. I think whatever that chip is that's being worked on at AMD is what Valve is waiting on for the Steam Deck 2, and I would guess is probably being considered for an Xbox and even Playstation handheld as well.

I think for a portable xbox, MS needs to meet Series S. It would be nice if they'd beat Series S, but that would be Series X, and I don't think they want a 3rd profile.

 

[Serif]

Someone did actually run GFX bench scores on a Switch.

Fun to look at.

My point is just that I don't think Nintendo was giving us some amazing bargain specs-wise.

I'm getting the opposite impression from all this, honestly... the Switch outperforms more expensive contemporary phones (the $400/$479 -OnePlus 3/T) and bundles the dock and joy-con for $300, it also outperforms the $500 Pixel C which uses the same chip.

 

[ILikeFeet]

My point wasn't to say that it's better, it was to say that it was probably more expensive for OnePlus to buy that than it was for Nintendo to buy the Tegra X1, which sort of shrinks the difference in value from the company's perspective. I'm just arguing that the Switch wasn't some crazy great value specs-wise, and I don't think I would expect that from Nintendo this time around, despite what the reports seem to indicate.
There aren't many (if any) mobile devices with 16GB of RAM that cost under $500 without making big sacrifices elsewhere. But we're also expecting fairly large storage and a pretty powerful processor with a big 1080p screen. And I also don't think Nintendo would go head-to-head with Sony in terms of price, so $400 seems like the absolute maximum they could charge for this. It feels unlikely considering everything that's being brought up as an expectation.

it seems your definition of value is based on paper specs and not the end result. I don't think anyone could say the OnePlus 5 is a better value than Switch in terms of gaming when the OP5 couldn't run Breath of the Wild (in a hypothetical situation where it could run the game) because throttling would grossly kneecap the game