• 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.
  • Furukawa Speaks! We discuss the announcement of the Nintendo Switch Successor and our June Direct Predictions on the new episode of the Famiboards Discussion Club! Check it out here!

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

Reader mode
pelusilla6 said:
The thing is that in 2-3 years (from today, not Drake release) you are getting PS6 and Xbox Next which will probably double the RAM.
Click to expand...
1 - that's still a good 1-2 years of ps5/xbox series ports (not counting the ps4-era games that weren't ported)
2 - PS6 and the new Xbox will probably use most of that additional RAM as VRAM for running games in 4k, which switch 2 could get by with a port running in 1080p
3 - by the time ps6 and the next xbox are out, switch 2 will probably have over 30 mi. units on the market which is simply hard to ignore compared to less than half on Sony's and Microsoft's next gen and if they're doing cross-gen with ps5 and xbox series s/x, then switch 2 will likely be a candidate as well.
 
sir_bumble_bee said:
It’s a supported feature in all modern GPUs, is it not?
Click to expand...
VRR is more of a software thing as well as monitor support

Aufhebung RPG said:
Since I've only been a member of fami for a short time, I'm wondering how many times kopite has made mistakes with Drake's specific information?
Click to expand...
almost all of the time? they got the T239 name right. everything else was speculation from them. it's likely because T239 is a customer product and isn't in the same channels as Nvidia's usual products
 
ILikeFeet said:
VRR is more of a software thing as well as monitor support


almost all of the time? they got the T239 name right. everything else was speculation from them. it's likely because T239 is a customer product and isn't in the same channels as Nvidia's usual products
Click to expand...
Ah, I mean, does "wrong" mean "still in the speculation stage" or have multiple speculations been proven wrong?
 
EnergyDrink said:
Why would Nintendo suddenly sets priority on voice chat and social features. They recently removed the ability in Switch OS to make twitter posts for Switch screenshots/vids. Switch will eventually be the best selling console ever, and it reached this goal without proper voice chat and social features.
Click to expand...
I could only see them add it if they think they can get some of the CoD fans to buy into Switch 2, a type of gamer that usually is not that into Nintendo consoles.
 
Aufhebung RPG said:
Ah, I mean, does "wrong" mean "still in the speculation stage" or have multiple speculations been proven wrong?
Click to expand...
still in the speculation stage, I guess. the big part of their speculation was the 8nm stuff, like the rest of us. their speculation on being a derivative of Orin has been proven wrong, but that has been treated as a semantical argument (which I don't agree with, but that's neither here nor there)

TheSentry said:
How confident are we that they’ll use all 8 cores in the T239?
I know on the Switch 1/TX-1 they didn’t use all the cores to save on power right?
Click to expand...
very. the 8-cores came from the github leak

TX1 didn't use all the cores because they physically cant. the paradigm was different and the two core clusters couldn't be used at the same time, so the A53s were literally useless for gaming. not the case for modern ARM cpus. even if it's not a single cluster but two, all cores can be used at the same time
 
ILikeFeet said:
still in the speculation stage, I guess. the big part of their speculation was the 8nm stuff, like the rest of us. their speculation on being a derivative of Orin has been proven wrong, but that has been treated as a semantical argument (which I don't agree with, but that's neither here nor there)


very. the 8-cores came from the github leak

TX1 didn't use all the cores because they physically cant. the paradigm was different and the two core clusters couldn't be used at the same time, so the A53s were literally useless for gaming. not the case for modern ARM cpus. even if it's not a single cluster but two, all cores can be used at the same time
Click to expand...
I see, but that's precisely why it's very strange, why would large Nvidia leakers be so confident in t239 using 8nm, when in contrast Necro thinks 4N is more likely?
 
Aufhebung RPG said:
Ah, I mean, does "wrong" mean "still in the speculation stage" or have multiple speculations been proven wrong?
Click to expand...
not sure I agree with ILikeFeet, I think some have been proven wrong too? For example, "Dane", which ended up "Drake", and "AD10F", which ended up being "GA10F"

Aufhebung RPG said:
I see, but that's precisely why it's very strange, why would large Nvidia leakers be so confident in t239 using 8nm, when in contrast Necro thinks 4N is more likely?
Click to expand...
Because like a number of other leakers, they only say SEC8N because T239 is a derivate of Orin, so that's how their reptile brains works. "All other Orin are SEC8N, therefore T239 is SEC8N"
 
pelusilla6 said:
The thing is that in 2-3 years (from today, not Drake release) you are getting PS6 and Xbox Next which will probably double the RAM.
Click to expand...
Are games even getting to the point that 16GB of VRAM is considered a bottleneck? Not sure how much doubling it would help.
HonzaP said:
I don't think it'll be much more expensive than current carts. Flash storage is usually bottlenecked by write speeds, which requires more processing power than reading - that's not an issue in carts, that are mostly read-only
Click to expand...
I see, so they'd be able to just up the read speeds from current effectively for free?
 
0
Aufhebung RPG said:
I see, but that's precisely why it's very strange, why would large Nvidia leakers be so confident in t239 using 8nm, when in contrast Necro thinks 4N is more likely?
Click to expand...
Necro must have sources with target specs for the console, and the performance may not make sense for an 8nm SoC.
 
pelusilla6 said:
The thing is that in 2-3 years (from today, not Drake release) you are getting PS6 and Xbox Next which will probably double the RAM.
Click to expand...
If this generation is any indication, devs will be making games on PS5 and Xbox Series hardware for several years after the PS6 and Xbox XXX: Return of Xander Cage are released.
 
pelusilla6 said:
The thing is that in 2-3 years (from today, not Drake release) you are getting PS6 and Xbox Next which will probably double the RAM.
Click to expand...
Another factor is that although a new gen will probably arrive in the next 4 years, the current gen will not lose support for at least another 7, I think 12GB of RAM offers what Muji needs, it wouldn't make sense to have more RAM available than a PS5 having a much more limited GPU.
 
kingman said:
If I may add some possible hopium to 4 nm debate...

So I'm on record being more on the pessimistic side in terms of expectations from nintendo, and the reason for that is, I admit, mainly due to the “because Nintendo” argument. But the other day I came to a sudden realization: what if the “because Nintendo” argument itself is flawed?


I can't speak for anyone else here, but for me the “because Nintendo” arguments started in the wii days. Up until the Wii, Nintendo was running highly competitive even possibly state-of-the-art hardware. But all that changed when the Fire Nation attacked the Wii was created. For those of us that were around the days leading up to the eventual release of the Wii specs, we had no idea the length Nintendo would go to underpower their system. To find out that the wii would have specs that even Nintendo's greatest haters could never have imagined was an absolute gut punch.

And from that moment on I think a lot of us told ourselves to never put anything past Nintendo.

But what if that was the wrong way of thinking?

Yes the wii was nothing more than an overclocked GameCube with more RAM. However I think it's important that we understand the context where this decision was made. Remember, this was in the aftermath of the GameCube, which up until that point was Nintendo's worst selling console. Nintendo probably wasn't going to go bankrupt anytime soon but their finances were in trouble. They didn't have the Financial Resources that behemoths like Sony and Microsoft did, so they were much more vulnerable. So they try to do what they felt was probably the safe decision at the time, and not invest tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in a new incredibly powerful console that might have had razor-thin margins to begin with. I'm not happy with their decision to go down this route but I can understand it.

But then the Wii successor, the Wii U comes out, and thanks to the dual money printing machines that the wii and DS turned out to be, to the relief of many of us, turns out to be an actual generational upgrade. Now some of you might say “Yeah it may have been a generational upgrade but it was still a whole generation behind the PS4 and the Xbox One.” While yes that's true, some of you might not have been aware or perhaps even forgotten that this was during a time when people were thinking that the next Nintendo console would literally be just a wii HD. Which is exactly what it sounds like: a system that would play Wii level games except in HD. And probably not even 1080p HD either. Was it an unfair belief? Perhaps. but again given what Nintendo did with the Wii, it was not an unreasonable fear.

So then after the Wii U bombs, we have the switch. Now here's where we're thrown a bit of a curveball. The graphical jump from the Wii U to the switch was thankfully significantly bigger than the one from the GameCube to the Wii. This thing wasn't simply two wii u’s duct tape together . It was more like three or possibly four wii u’s duct tape together! With some actual modern features!

“Okay but it was still significantly weaker than the PS4 and Xbox One!”

Yes that's true as well. However this would be a more reasonable complaint if the switch was a console. But it wasn't. It was a hybrid. The fact that it had to work as a handheld as well, changes the calculus a bit. Now that the switch was going to be a handheld as well, It was unfortunately going to be limited in just how powerful it was going to be. But for a handheld at the price Nintendo was going for, well it seems they had gotten the best deal that they possibly could have at the time. In 2017 Nintendo wasn't going to have a handheld as powerful as the competition but it was going to have the best or at least one of the best pieces of tech in the handheld space.

And now we come to the switch 2. We're still missing some pretty key details but from everything we know so far:

  • ampere / Lovelace architecture
  • 1536 cuda cores
  • 48 tensor cores and 12 RT cores
  • 8 core ARM A78C processor
  • 12 GB of lpddr 5x RAM at 120 GB/sec
  • 256 GB of ufs 3.1 storage

All these things together do not come off as seemingly cheap. So what if Nintendo doesn't have a history of being a bunch of cheapskates, but rather, there was only one instance in their entire history where they decided to be penny pinchers, and that was the exception rather than the rule? And the rest of the time, they did in fact try to get the most powerful Hardware they could reasonably afford?


So what I'm actually trying to say is: what if the “because Nintendo” was inside us all along?
Click to expand...
All of this is like duh. Idk why so many people see power as the most important thing. The Wii and the DS was one of the most innovative hardware not just in gaming but tech as a whole. Nintendo was one of the first ones to utilize touch screen and accelerometer/gyro. This was before the first iPhone! Nowadays a smartphone would have these features naturally. The Wii and DS was absolutely genius, influential with both hardware and software to the gaming industry and tech industry as a whole. Yes, those hardware lacked "power" but it doesn't make it less impressive. I think people are heavily underestimating the impact of both the Wii and DS. Nintendo chose the safest decision at the time? They're cheapskates? I don't think so at all. It was definitely a very risky move at the time, and I bet the R&D cost wasn't cheap either.

Nintendo's goal was to expand the gaming industry, as Iwata would say the blue ocean strategy. The decision Nintendo took with the Wii and DS is one of the biggest reason why the gaming industry is this big today. I think it's difficult for a lot of tech enthusiasts in the gaming community to comprehend that. Mobile gaming is significantly bigger than other platforms in both revenue and player count. Yes, there are more casual players than hardcore.

Is the spec of the hardware, graphics, and all of those details important? Ofc it is, but there are more crucial elements than just "power".
 
Machrider said:
If I may add some possible hopium to 4 nm debate...

...

The graphical jump from the Wii U to the switch was thankfully significantly bigger than the one from the GameCube to the Wii. This thing wasn't simply two wii u’s duct tape together . It was more like three or possibly four wii u’s duct tape together! With some actual modern features!

...
Click to expand...

ACKSHULLY. While the Switch is more powerful, with more modern features... it actually is basically closer to 2x Wii U. 176 GFlops vs 393 GFlops (157 GFlops handheld). Wii U was running BOTW basically the same as Switch's handheld mode.



I don't disagree with your point though. I don't think Nintendo has ever skimped on power other than the Wii. And as other people have pointed out, Wii U suffered from the desire for Wii BC.
  • SNES was powerful for it's time.
  • N64 was powerful for it's time. (Carts sucked tho)
  • Gamecube was powerful for it's time. (Mini disks sucked tho)
  • Not the wii.
  • Wii U was... almost powerful for it's time... ish. (Friggin BC)
  • Switch was powerful for it's time. (considering it's handheld hybrid)
  • Switch 2 will be powerful for it's time. (probably to a greater degree than Switch due to it being built from ground up to be a handheld hybrid–and perhaps a more focus on higher docked clocks)
 
Hermii said:
DF Rich thinks it could be clocked 750mhz portable at 8nm. They have no clue.
Click to expand...
He may be close on clocks but probably not the node as i agree it makes no sense. Just because he understands GPUs and relative performances at different clocks doesn't mean they are also experts in chip design.

8N seemed like a safe bet because that's what Ampere is on and the Maxwell based X1 (although X1 benefited from some Pascal designs) was on the same node as Maxwell as well.

On the flip side caution against over optimism and just wait for more details to be released. The truth will become obvious sooner now than later.
 
Last edited:
Koti said:
All of this is like duh. Idk why so many people see power as the most important thing. The Wii and the DS was one of the most innovative hardware not just in gaming but tech as a whole. Nintendo was one of the first ones to utilize touch screen and accelerometer/gyro. This was before the first iPhone! Nowadays a smartphone would have these features naturally. The Wii and DS was absolutely genius, influential with both hardware and software to the gaming industry and tech industry as a whole. Yes, those hardware lacked "power" but it doesn't make it less impressive. I think people are heavily underestimating the impact of both the Wii and DS. Nintendo chose the safest decision at the time? They're cheapskates? I don't think so at all. It was definitely a very risky move at the time, and I bet the R&D cost wasn't cheap either.

Nintendo's goal was to expand the gaming industry, as Iwata would say the blue ocean strategy. The decision Nintendo took with the Wii and DS is one of the biggest reason why the gaming industry is this big today. I think it's difficult for a lot of tech enthusiasts in the gaming community to comprehend that. Mobile gaming is significantly bigger than other platforms in both revenue and player count. Yes, there are more casual players than hardcore.

Is the spec of the hardware, graphics, and all of those details important? Ofc it is, but there are more crucial elements than just "power".
Click to expand...
But power is important? Power draw determines battery life, and Nintendo would have a target battery life in mind.

THEN based on that target battery life, it would also determine how well T239 perform. Pushing the clock speed upwards (more powerful), or downwards (less powerful).

It matters quite a bit.
 
darthdiablo said:
But power is important? Power draw determines battery life, and Nintendo would have a target battery life in mind.

THEN based on that target battery life, it would also determine how well T239 perform. Pushing the clock speed upwards (more powerful), or downwards (less powerful).

It matters quite a bit.
Click to expand...
bro did not read...
 
pelusilla6 said:
About RAM

12 gigs of RAM is good, 120gb/s bandwidth is even better, but remember that there is never too much RAM.

Maybe for Nintendo exclusives it's enough, but in a few years AAA developers will have a harder time porting to Drake (Series S flashbacks). Keep in mind that they are starting to ask for +16Gb of RAM in the minimum requirements of a PC game (32 recommended). And you have to remember that those games can also rely on the exclusive GDDR memory of the graphics card, its true that we dont need that much because of 720p-1080p resolution + DLSS but still.
Click to expand...

Nah, there absolutely is, at least realistically. More RAM means higher costs and possibly worse speed if they attempt to offset the higher costs with cheaper, slower RAM. And games don't actually benefit from more RAM than they're designed for. Pretty much any third-party game coming to Switch 2 will also be coming to PS5, with its 12.5GB and higher fidelity and resolutions, which means that ~10.5GB on Switch 2 will always be enough. PC just isn't relevant here.
 
darthdiablo said:
No?

Maxwell GPUs were 28nm, while the original Tegra X1 SoC before X1+ came out (which yes, includes Maxwell-based GPU) was 20nm.
Click to expand...
You're right, they were on 28nm. I stand corrected.
TSMC 20nm was a bit of a dud and Nvidia skipped to 16nm for the Pascal cards, which in part is why Nintendo got a good deal on the X1.
 
darthdiablo said:
I did and I still don't agree. If power was unlimited, the consoles can do anything. Power is what limits the specs. It's a big factor.
Click to expand...
Read the bottom.

Furthermore this is more of a response to the quote and that topic than about the Switch 2. I personally think the situation is different rn, so continuing the Switch with more power would be the safest, smartest decision for Nintendo at the moment.
 
Dekuman said:
You're right, they were on 28nm. I stand corrected.
Click to expand...
You made me double check everything, I thought I was going crazy ha.

It's one of the main arguments I have been using against "leakers" assuming automatically T239 will be SEC8N, because other Amperes are. The other Amperes are GPUs-only, whereas T239 is a SoC.

I think since it's a SoC (particularly a custom one), bets are kind of off the table there. Might very well be SEC8N, but not necessarily an automatic safe bet.
 
Koti said:
Read the bottom.

Furthermore this is more of a response to the quote and that topic than about the Switch 2. I personally think the situation is different rn, so continuing the Switch with more power would be the safest, smartest decision for Nintendo at the moment.
Click to expand...
Okay, guess I am misunderstanding the underlying message then and I might have been too fixated on the mention that power not mattering that much.

Sure, Nintendo is opting for lower power budget compared to Microsoft/Sony, but we're still arguing about SEC8N vs TSMC 4N - if not for that topic, we'd probably have 35% to 40% fewer pages here, lol.
 
My Tulpa said:
There will be LESS 3rd party support on the new Switch hardware than the current Switch has gotten the last 7 years…for a variety of reasons. Doesn’t matter the specs.

The current Switch could have gotten a port of every Xbox One release the last 7 years. but it didn’t.

The new hardware won’t add anything more compelling.
Click to expand...
Even ignoring the smaller tech differences, "successor to Switch" is significantly more compelling than "successor to Wii U". Same sort of reason PS2 got bigger support than PS1 did, and why even Wii U had more notable early third party games than Wii did.
And the state of the the industry and limited dev resources and minimizing output…I don’t see any more support when it has to be exclusive to a relatively low userbase device.
Click to expand...
??? How many third party companies not getting moneyhatted are doing exclusive software anywhere? Unless you just mean ports to a low userbase device, which is every device's first years, even the massively successful ones.
Switch being reasonably close to Xbox One had zero garauntee about getting most Xbox one ports (it didn’t). New hardware being close to Series S won’t change this at all.
Click to expand...
I dunno, man. If you consider what Switch was to Xbox One being "reasonably close", then what Switch 2 will be compared to Series S could only be described in technical terms as "really goddamn close".
seyfeselassie said:
Obviously a compact OS should be high priority, but I do miss stuff like Streetpass. If that could be incorporated somehow without utilizing too much RAM I'd be thrilled.
Click to expand...
StreetPass probably shouldn't waste much RAM. Just wasting battery, pocket space, and the time of those of us not living in densely populated areas.
pelusilla6 said:
The thing is that in 2-3 years (from today, not Drake release) you are getting PS6 and Xbox Next which will probably double the RAM.
Click to expand...
Which would make things similar to Switch coexisting and even getting multiplatform games with PS5 over the last few years, except this go around it's like Switch had 6GB RAM instead of 4.
 
Nintendo can't get every port just by having 16 GB RAM, it will still have problem with things like bandwidth, CPU, GPU etc compared to PS5 and Xbox series X/S which means some games will not come out on Switch 2.
 
PeachyLaCox said:
Last time they kept the clocks on docked and handheld the same, wonder if this time they'll up-clock for docked mode? I guess it depends on the cooling solution?
Click to expand...
It’s a functionality thing. CPU load depends on things like “number of enemies on screen” not “resolution.”

The only significant CPU related thing that changes in a game between the two modes is asset decompression, but Muji has custom hardware for that anyway.

No need to change the CPU clock, in fact probably a bad idea
 
rinku said:
Like, surely the cost of producing the carts will be considerably higher than the Switch's if it's fast enough to run straight off the cart?
Click to expand...
Probably cheaper. Switch carts are (mostly) modified 3DS carts. Those cards are built using a tech that builds DRM easily into the hardware, but is very expensive per byte.

We know the Switch 2 cart tech is based on cheaper technology.
 
pelusilla6 said:
you are getting PS6 and Xbox Next which will probably double the RAM.
Click to expand...
Or will they? I highly doubut consoles release 2 or 3 years after Muji will use 32G RAM. Rumors suggest the upcoming PS5 Pro still equips with 16G RAM which only increase its memory speed and gives devs additional addressable RAM. Considering RAM be one of the most expensive parts in the console, doubling the RAM would lead to another price increase which sounds unacceptable for Sony/MS.
 
Last edited:
Isn't My Tulpa the guy who insisted up until late last year (if not this year, not sure cuz he's been on ignore) that Nintendo was developing a Switch Pro rather than a successor, despite all indications to the contrary? Just let the man be wrong and die on yet another hill.
Aufhebung RPG said:
Nintendo doesn't really have "withered technology" from the switch, and with the HD development that started with the Wiiu, Nintendo doesn't go for backward hardware technology like they did with the Wii.
Click to expand...
"Withered technology" in that Yokoi statement is too literal from the translation provided anyways. It just means highly mature and cost-efficient tech. Lots of tech in this new Switch is market-tested and cost-efficient. LPDDR5(X) is neither new nor exotic, and contract prices are currently a lot lower than even the RAM in Switch would have been in 2016 because of a multi-year oversupply. DLSS has been able to mature into its current (and far more useful) version, which itself was already using neural networks (an established tech in and of itself) and applying "lateral thinking" to use them in a new way with built-in ASICs for tensor math calculations. So the time to make it a big part of their platform and designing a custom SoC to take advantage of that was now. The hardware and associated software have matured very well.
rinku said:
Are people now expecting physical media to go with the other consoles approach of installing straight to internal storage rather than having the run straight from the cart?
Like, surely the cost of producing the carts will be considerably higher than the Switch's if it's fast enough to run straight off the cart?
Click to expand...
The real limitation to the Game Cards was the hardware's I/O interface, bus and pin-out, which can be modified for Game Cards on new hardware without having to break Switch Game Card compatibility. All of that is resolvable, in other words. You might not get full-fat ROM speeds, but you'll get something that could easily match the on-board UFS storage.
And cost is going to come down to the process node used for the new Game Cards more than anything else, to get more density of data onto similar chip sizes, which is also doable.
 
Some people have too much bias towards Nintendo, so they ignore the fact that when Switch launched it really was one of the most powerful mobile hardware available, considering its size and price point. It has modern Architecture put together to run demanding games and APIs that made it possible for even smaller teams to bring their games to the platform comparably easily.

The Switch wasn't Nintendo going cheap or putting to much emphasis on a random gimmick, it was them creating the best handheld experience possible for the time.
 
lexony said:
Some people have too much bias towards Nintendo, so they ignore the fact that when Switch launched it really was one of the most powerful mobile hardware available, considering its size and price point. It had modern Architecture put together to run demanding games and APIs that made it possible for even smaller teams to bring their games to the platform comparably easily.

The Switch wasn't Nintendo going cheap or putting to much emphasis on a random gimmick, it was them creating the best handheld experience possible for the time.
Click to expand...
Your argument is compelling and makes sense, but my argument stands of ,,because Nintendo’’ I win bye bye.

thanos-compelling.gif
 
oldpuck said:
Probably cheaper. Switch carts are (mostly) modified 3DS carts. Those cards are built using a tech that builds DRM easily into the hardware, but is very expensive per byte.

We know the Switch 2 cart tech is based on cheaper technology.
Click to expand...

Terrell said:
Isn't My Tulpa the guy who insisted up until late last year (if not this year, not sure cuz he's been on ignore) that Nintendo was developing a Switch Pro rather than a successor, despite all indications to the contrary? Just let the man be wrong and die on yet another hill.

"Withered technology" in that Yokoi statement is too literal from the translation provided anyways. It just means highly mature and cost-efficient tech. Lots of tech in this new Switch is market-tested and cost-efficient. LPDDR5(X) is neither new nor exotic, and contract prices are currently a lot lower than even the RAM in Switch would have been in 2016 because of a multi-year oversupply. DLSS has been able to mature into its current (and far more useful) version, which itself was already using neural networks (an established tech in and of itself) and applying "lateral thinking" to use them in a new way with built-in ASICs for tensor math calculations. So the time to make it a big part of their platform and designing a custom SoC to take advantage of that was now. The hardware and associated software have matured very well.

The real limitation to the Game Cards was the hardware's I/O interface, bus and pin-out, which can be modified for Game Cards on new hardware without having to break Switch Game Card compatibility. All of that is resolvable, in other words. You might not get full-fat ROM speeds, but you'll get something that could easily match the on-board UFS storage.
And cost is going to come down to the process node used for the new Game Cards more than anything else, to get more density of data onto similar chip sizes, which is also doable.
Click to expand...
Learning quite a bit, much appreciated!
 
Genyo Takeda (Director, Technology Fellow):

If I can sum up my impression in one short phrase, I would use “high performance but low power consumption” to describe Nintendo Switch. The PC has been a major gaming device, especially outside of Japan, and my top priority in the development of the Nintendo Switch hardware was to bring NVIDIAʼs GeForce, which has played a key role in realizing high-performance graphics for PC gaming, to our hardware with low power consumption.
Click to expand...

The term “crossover” is sometimes used to describe the unprecedented value that is realized when merging two different attractive things (such as, in this case, high performance and low power consumption, and playing both indoors and outdoors). I feel that Nintendo Switch is a new and unique crossover in its achievement of high performance, comparable to that of PC, both in front of your TV set and in your hands.
Click to expand...

I have to refrain from disclosing any technological details, but we believe there are always technologies that are most appropriate to the time, and we have been very flexible when making technological selections. When NVIDIA was established in Silicon Valley in the mid-1990s, we were developing Nintendo 64 with Silicon Graphics, and we have respected each other as good rivals. This time, in order to develop Nintendo Switch with high performance in spite of its low power consumption, I feel it was key that the two companies could work together as partners while also fully displaying our individual craftsmanship.
Click to expand...

Source.

This is their philosophy with Nintendo Switch and now Muji.
 
Discostew said:
The CPU code ran natively because they recompiled from Wii's PowerPC to Switch's ARM. It's why that game wasn't as stressful on the hardware compared to Sunshine, which was fully emulated.
Click to expand...
Small correction (insert nerd emoji here): Sunshine wasn't fully emulated, but most important functions in the game's code were instead recompiled for the TX1 ahead of time, with the game dynamically looking up the recompiled code at runtime. It's a middle of the road solution they went for because they seemingly couldn't pull off a direct port, but the Switch wasn't powerful enough for full 1080p GCN emulation. It's also why Sunshine has a ginormous amount of input delay (up to 8 frames @60Hz)
 
boomersooner2000 said:
Do you think with the magnets that was labeled in the shipping data for Switch 2 and the joy-cons will prevent Nintendo from using hall effect sticks? With having to replace 4 joy-cons on the regular switch, I figured analog stick durability will be a priority for the next console
Click to expand...
It's very unlikely, I think. With that said, that doesn't discard the possibility of improved analogue sticks. They could use optical analogue sticks (like N64) which could be tiny if they really want. However, I think "sturdier" variable resistor based sticks are more likely.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Please read this new, consolidated staff post before posting.

Furthermore, according to this follow-up post, all off-topic chat will be moderated.
Last edited by a moderator:


Back
Top Bottom