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

[darthdiablo]

.

 

[Machrider]

If the Switch 2 will have around 10.5 GB for games and 1.5 GB for the OS, it will be a more than adequate amount of RAM. In my opinion, we must always keep in mind that Switch 2 games will aim for a lower level of graphic detail than PS5 and XSX. Even if the game resolution will be quite high, the complexity and graphic detail will certainly always be lower on average than consoles such as PS5 and XSX. Probably 10.5 GB represents an optimal quantity as much as 12.5 GB and 13.5 GB are for PS5 and XSX respectively.

Anything past the XBox Series S (which has 8GB for games) was always gravy to be honest.

A chunk of RAM even higher than the Series S is more than fine.

 

[BloodMoon]

Got confused since you have the same avatar as the person you responded to.

Been here long enough that I should probably go for something other than one of the defaults!

 

[Maxrunner]

What type of A78 cores does this thing use? A78C?

 

[Somnia]

Been here long enough that I should probably go for something other than one of the defaults!

Much better pfp, fits your name too!

 

[kvetcha]

What type of A78 cores does this thing use? A78C?

To the best of our knowledge, yes.

 

[TLZ]

yeah it's on the list of banned content

Joking or serious?

Nintendo Prime copped a ban on Fami for saying some incredibly racist shit. I don't think we need to be nice to him

Shouldn't we be better though? If they treat people bad, we shouldn't do the same. We should have better standards.

 

[kvetcha]

Joking or serious?

(joking)

 

[Dekuman]

Anything past the XBox Series S (which has 8GB for games) was always gravy to be honest.

A chunk of RAM even higher than the Series S is more than fine.

Controversial opinion: 8GB for games on Switch 2 would be bad as it gives 3rd parties an excuse not to port given the known difficulties some have getting games running on Series S.

Granted I don't think it's a deal breaker for most ports, it's just one less annoyance. So I think it's good it's probably not going to be 8. I wish they'd splurge and allow even more than 10GB for games. Maybe stick the OS on its own module (slower RAM) and give all 12GB of LPDDR5X to games.

 

[redmutineer75]

Controversial opinion: 8GB for games on Switch 2 would be bad as it gives 3rd parties an excuse not to port given the known difficulties some have getting games running on Series S.

Granted I don't think it's a deal breaker for most ports, it's just one less annoyance. So I think it's good it's probably not going to be 8. I wish they'd splurge and allow even more than 10GB for games. Maybe stick the OS on its own module (slower RAM) and give all 12GB of LPDDR5X to games.

The latter scenario isn't possible without changing the chip. With the 128-bit RAM controller on T239, you can't physically fit more than the two 64-bit modules in the data.

 

[HankyPanky]

Shouldn’t she be banned for being nasty to people I don’t know why people on Famibords are being nasty to a lot of people like Dr Trey and know Nintendo Prime

just put them on ignore if you don't like the tone of their posts, trust me it makes the thread much more pleasant.

 

[Angel Whispers]

Shouldn’t she be banned for being nasty to people I don’t know why people on Famibords are being nasty to a lot of people like Dr Trey and know Nintendo Prime

Excuse Me? “She” is a “He”. “They” is also fine, if you’re unsure. I said nothing about DocTre, Everything I said about Prime is true, and I wasn’t nasty to a soul because the cap had his name on it. Racism and racist sympathising is “nasty”, especially when the identities of you and yours are threatened by it, or, if, like me, you’ve had to deal with the IRL trauma of being attacked for simply being, and I promise you, it’s no fun. I will NEVER apologise for my stance, and if you want me banned for being against THAT, then you’re telling me a lot right now, tbqh. No. We’re done here.

 

[Wockio]

Excuse Me? “She” is a “He”.

You can't really blame him for that when your avatar is a feminine looking Mii and you don't use the pronoun feature

 

[Machrider]

Controversial opinion: 8GB for games on Switch 2 would be bad as it gives 3rd parties an excuse not to port given the known difficulties some have getting games running on Series S.

Granted I don't think it's a deal breaker for most ports, it's just one less annoyance. So I think it's good it's probably not going to be 8. I wish they'd splurge and allow even more than 10GB for games. Maybe stick the OS on its own module (slower RAM) and give all 12GB of LPDDR5X to games.

10GB is plenty, it's a full 2GB more than an actual current next gen console (Series S), and frankly for that matter it's 2.5x more than the 2050 GPU DF was comparing the Switch 2.

LPDDR5X of 12GB is a very good RAM amount Nintendo settled on. That should be enough for pretty much any current gen game that a developer would want to port, GTAVI even still clearly lists XBox Series S as a platform it will be releasing on.

 

[bernbern345]

What does everyone think the odds of patches to unlock resolution for at least first party switch games is?

 

[Machrider]

What does everyone think the odds of patches to unlock resolution for at least first party switch games is?

If you're willing to pay for the patches? Possibly high, though I wouldn't be stunned if Nintendo insists on full blown new releases for 4K/60 fps type upgrades (ie: "special editions").

 

[fwd-bwd]

Taiwan’s MoneyDJ.com just published an “exclusive” with comments from supposedly suppliers of Switch 2 components. I’m posting my quick translation below:

Nintendo Switch since launching in 2017 has entered its 8th year , and info about the successor console is gradually emerging. A number of suppliers who do not wish to be named disclosed that they will start shipping orders for new consoles in the second half of the year. According to an involved major manufacturer in the supply chain, the planned first wave of new console stock will be a double-digit increase over the first batch stock of Switch, which is not an excessive elevation. This is mainly due to the current overall economic environment, as inflation may still have an impact on the demand for consumer goods.

It is unclear what the “double-digit increase” means. Is it percentage-wise? Even so, from 10% to 99% is a pretty big range. Regardless, we probably will hear more supply chain leaks from now on.

 

[unit 9s]

What does everyone think the odds of patches to unlock resolution for at least first party switch games is?

On paper, it seems like a pretty easy way to fill up quieter months and make more sales on games that late adopters of the Switch 1 might've missed without being too much work. I think the big question is if it will be a free or cheap upgrade or a new $60/$70 release.

 

[bmfrosty]

Controversial opinion: 8GB for games on Switch 2 would be bad as it gives 3rd parties an excuse not to port given the known difficulties some have getting games running on Series S.

Granted I don't think it's a deal breaker for most ports, it's just one less annoyance. So I think it's good it's probably not going to be 8. I wish they'd splurge and allow even more than 10GB for games. Maybe stick the OS on its own module (slower RAM) and give all 12GB of LPDDR5X to games.

As much as I dislike the idea of an asymmetric RAM setup like that, I wouldn't say no. You'd probably have to design for it early on though.

 

[Dekuman]

On paper, it seems like a pretty easy way to fill up quieter months and make more sales on games that late adopters of the Switch 1 might've missed without being too much work. I think the big question is if it will be a free or cheap upgrade or a new $60/$70 release.

It could. Though i think it would be a pretty nice incentive to get people ot upgrade to Switch 2 and cement the value of their 'library'.
It has been suggested many times, but having it be part of NSO would be interesting.

If they do decide to charge, they could even do a voucher system where they say NSO basic members get 3 free games of thier choice, EXPANSION pack users get more.

 

[HyruleanKnight]

I agree but will add that If a popular IP makes it to Switch with reasonable cuts to visuals but with the gameplay intact it may technically by the "worst looking and performing" version but users still appreciate that the game made it , plays well and looks decent

I was going through my Switch screenshots and honestly Witcher 3 screens look great. You have to sit down and look closely to notice the cuts.

Most of the third party AAA ports on the Switch actually look pretty good on the built-in 5-7 inch screen, it's only when you output to a TV that the concessions start to become too obvious. Even then, most look fine, save for a few (including one that shall not be named) but I feel like they could've looked far better within the same constraints if they had just a couple more GB of memory to work with.

From a PC gamer's perspective, GPUs don't actually age as fast as most people think they do. My sister has a RX 480 8GB in her PC and despite it's age, it can still run literally any game (save for Alan Wake 2) you could throw at it. I don't think I could say the same for the similarly priced GTX 1060 3GB that came out around the same time. Yes, the resolution has gone down over the years, and framerates tend to be around 30 these days, but the 8GB framebuffer allows it to make use of high or even ultra textures. The result is a very console-like experience that still looks good.

This is the reason why the Switch 2's 12GB memory is such a big deal; over time resolution will go down, framerates will go down, but the games will still look great. I wish the Switch had that same luxury; the 1060 3GB aged like milk despite having ballpark performance. For my current build I went for AMD again for the same exact reason - the choice was between a RTX 3070Ti and a RX 6800, and even if I'm missing out on DLSS and better RT, the latter will outlast the former in the order of years. I wouldn't have to buy another GPU in the forseeable future just to stay relevant.

Speaking of which, if the Switch 2 being on par with the PS4 Pro is indeed true, we're talking desktop RX 470-480 levels of performance but with support for the latest features. That bodes extremely well for the Switch 2.

 

[darthdiablo]

It is unclear what the “double-digit increase” means. Is it percentage-wise? Even so, from 10% to 99% is a pretty big range. Regardless, we probably will hear more supply chain leaks from now on.

Yeah, and also those sentences seem to be at odds with each other:

the planned first wave of new console stock will be a double-digit increase over the first batch stock of Switch, which is not an excessive elevation.

and

This is mainly due to the current overall economic environment, as inflation may still have an impact on the demand for consumer goods.

I would assume the inflation creates a bit of downward pressure on # of units (since inflation has been easing off lately, it makes more sense to wait later to buy rather than buy in bulk upfront now). and also I thought it was gonna mention something like Nintendo wanting to have more units available for launch, thus the bigger order, but instead it cited inflation as the reason which seems weird.

 

[Adulfzen]

What does everyone think the odds of patches to unlock resolution for at least first party switch games is?

I think much like the way current Nintendo operates with their post launch support there won't necessarily be a standard way as to how games are patched or not, some studios like Monolith Soft may offer free patches for their Switch titles with higher resolutions/framerates while other titles are completely ignored because the devs themselves have moved on such as Grezzo with Link's Awakening (and also I'd assume going back to older games would mean getting a new contract and budget even for a "small" update for third party partners).

I would hope if a studio is currently working on a new game, that part of the budget/contract could include specifically update support for previous title as a way to also prep for Switch 2 hardware.

 

[navierStokes]

Taiwan’s MoneyDJ.com just published an “exclusive” with comments from supposedly suppliers of Switch 2 components. I’m posting my quick translation below:

It is unclear what the “double-digit increase” means. Is it percentage-wise? Even so, from 10% to 99% is a pretty big range. Regardless, we probably will hear more supply chain leaks from now on.

All I’m reading is, the expectations are that they expect more to sell than the switch for the first batch (e.g, big demand and supply).

Odd question, do you think Nintendo will do a staggered launch WW?
Such as, US first, then JP and aT last EU?

 

[RennanNT]

The latter scenario isn't possible without changing the chip. With the 128-bit RAM controller on T239, you can't physically fit more than the two 64-bit modules in the data.

Sorry for the nitpick, but you actually can with a trick called clamshell.

In a very simplified explanation, 2 modules could share the 64-bit controller and deliver 32-bit of data each. The bandwidth doesn't change, but the total capacity is doubled.

AFAIK this only makes sense if you want more capacity than RAM manufacturers can deliver. Putting a 3rd 6GB module for the OS is completely overkill compared to replacing one or both modules with a 8GB one.

For example, GDDR6 biggest module in 2020 (not sure Today) was a 32-bit 2GB module. The Series S bus is 128-bit, so they probably had to use clamshell to get more than 8GB.

 

[fwd-bwd]

Yeah, and also those sentences seem to be at odds with each other:

They are not at odds. What they are saying is that it is only a double-digit increase because of the macro environment considerations. I can see where the confusion came from. The article needs better editing.

 

[Dekuman]

Taiwan’s MoneyDJ.com just published an “exclusive” with comments from supposedly suppliers of Switch 2 components. I’m posting my quick translation below:



It is unclear what the “double-digit increase” means. Is it percentage-wise? Even so, from 10% to 99% is a pretty big range. Regardless, we probably will hear more supply chain leaks from now on.

The next line seems to give it away
"According to an involved major manufacturer in the supply chain, the planned first wave of new console stock will be a double-digit increase over the first batch stock of Switch, which is not an excessive elevation. This is mainly due to the current overall economic environment, as inflation may still have an impact on the demand for consumer goods."

So double digit probably means % wise, and it's somewhere above 9% and below 99%. My guess is ~20-33% increase in shipments, as anything over 50% i feel would be considered a larger increase. Anything under 20% is not noteworthy.

Nintendo produced 15 million Switches in FY 2018 (not including the launch units for FY 17) that was after initially forecasting 10 million units for FY 18 before increasing it to 14 million and finishing at 15m; and they shipped 2.75 units for the launch on top of those 15 million.

A 20-33% uplift would put launch at around 3.3 to 3.6 million for March 2025 then they may target another 14 million for FY 2026 and adjust shipments as demand develops wth potential for it to go up from there, maybe to aorund 17 million?

I think with a successful launch, 20 million Switches by March 2026 is very possible with this cadence. So 3.3~3.6 million Switches for the March launch month which is also end of FY 25, then another 17~ million (if demand is there) for FY 26.

They can then ramp up to 20+ million for FY 27, then another 20+ million for FY 28; After FY 28, we could be looking at 60+ million Switch 2s

It would be very Nintendo, especially not trying to overship after what happened to them with Wii U.

 

[Look over there]

Question for those with more knowledge about cache than me: if the L3 cache was the full 8MB, could that result in an unacceptably large die size, increased power consumption, or some other issue?

So Oldpuck's answered the main consideration. I'll tack on more to try to give a sense of scale.

Source: https://www.semianalysis.com/p/meteor-lake-die-shot-and-architecture
This won't be apples to apples, as this example will be using the Intel 7 and Intel 4 nodes, but the concept(s) should hold. (and if anybody's curious, N5 has industry leading SRAM density at this time)
(Golden Cove/Gracemont are on Intel 7 and Redwood Cove/Crestmont are on Intel 4)

The observation I want to get across is that, while a block of SRAM/cache at all compared to thin air eats up a notable chunk of space, a larger block compared to a smaller already existant block isn't that much larger, relative to what you'd expect due to the former.
For example, Golden Cove's 1.25 MB of L2 cache is 1.646 mm^2. A Gracemont cluster is 8.296, then subtract 4*1.59 (the actual core area), to get 1.936 mm^2 for the 'non-core stuff' in the cluster. 1.936/1.646 ~= 1.176, despite being 1.6 times the memory amount.
Then over to Meteor Lake, we see Redwood Cove's 2 MB take 1.578 mm^2. Crestmont cluster is 5.907, subtract the 4*1.046, you get 1.723 mm^2 for the 'non-core stuff'. 1.723 / 1.578 ~= 1.092, despite being 1.5 times the memory amount.

At the end of the day, it is still up to Nintendo to decide how much is too big/costly. But for funsies, I've no doubt that some of us here can get out the die/wafer calculators and see how much difference another mm^2 or two can make.
Btw, can someone update me on current die size estimates? I'm personally feeling that another mm^2 or two shouldn't be significant, but I am admittedly optimistic/aggressive on this.

-

Ah, since you asked, I have reason to go a bit further down the rabbit hole.

So, cost is the primary consideration as to why cache amounts only go up so much, but not the only consideration.
The other concern is that increasing the size also increases the latency. I'm not sure about the exact reason why, but my guess is it's something related to sheer space/area. Anyway, this is not something that'll likely be an issue for the next Switch; this is really more for general 'I learned more stuff today!' for some of the readers out there.

Source: https://chipsandcheese.com/2022/08/23/a-preview-of-raptor-lakes-improved-l2-caches/
Despite the URL, I'll be primarily using that for Alder Lake (12th gen Intel), as Alder Lake is Golden Cove/Gracemont.

L1 latency looks to be somewhere in the 5-6 clock cycles range. In real world, assuming single core hitting 5 ghz or above, that's ~1 nanosecond or a little more.
32 KB of L1 Instruction + rest of frontend = 1.64 mm^2. I'd expect extremely little of that to be the actual SRAM itself? Therefore the ~5-6 clock cycles.
48 KB of L1 Data + Load and Store = 1.031 mm^2. Yep, still thinking that the actual SRAM here isn't particularly big, hence the latency.

L2 latency is ~15 clock cycles (reminder: this includes looking in L1 first and missing). So ~3 nanoseconds, given a 5 ghz frequency.
To restate, 1.646 mm^2 for the 1.25 MB of L2 cache.

L3 latency is... 64 to 67 clock cycles? Converting to real time is a bit different; it's dependent on the ring bus's clock, not any particular core's. The 12700k in particular has 25 MB of L3 cache in total. Also, for Intel designs, L3 is split up into slices, usually with each stop on the ring bus (excluding the igpu) getting a slice. So normally it should be as easy as if you know the amount per P-core/E-core cluster and the number of P-cores/E-core clusters, boom, you know the total. But Alder Lake was odd about this.
ANYWAY, POINT IS: L3 latency for the x86 PCs should be in the 10-15 nanoseconds range; typically closer to the 10 than the 15, I think. That includes looking in L1, missing, then looking in L2, missing again.

Personally, based off of AMD willing to go to a 32 MB block of L3 cache with (chiplet-based) Zen 3 back on N7, I'm fairly confident that one can go up to that 32 MB size and still be a net gain, performance-wise (...but admittedly I'm less confident about the cost effectiveness). (hell, part of ARM's DSU-120 update in 2023 is raising the limit on L3 cache to 32 MB)
Also, I insist that I've held that opinion since before that update

-

And lastly, you mentioned power consumption. It's actually the opposite!
The transfer of data from point A to point B costs energy. Caches are typically much closer to the CPU than system memory, there moving a set amount X of data between CPU and cache should be significantly more efficient than CPU and system memory.

And conveniently, there is a table to look at for example!
Source: https://chipsandcheese.com/2022/07/07/alder-lakes-caching-and-power-efficiency/

 

[HyruleanKnight]

Switch 2's RT will almost always be better than Series S. Series S has two very small RT advantages over Switch 2's design, but all the major important stuff is stacked in Nintendo's favor.

When Series S turns off RT effects that PS5 can have on, it's because there is some part of the RT that isn't scaling down with resolution. That's almost always going to be RAM usage, and depending on how Nintendo allocates RAM, the situation will either be "better than Series S" or "a lot better than Series S."

It's difficult to describe how much better Nvidia's RT solution is over AMDs, but the short version is that even the most pessimistic estimates would put Switch 2's raw RT performance beyond Series S, anywhere from 30%-50% faster.

Series S has a more powerful CPU than anyone realistically expects for Switch 2, and that does matter for RT. The CPU is used to build a description of the scene that RT can use, called a BVH. Some games are recomputing this BVH every frame, and including the entire game world in the process. That obviously eats a crapton of CPU. But no game that does that also has RT enabled on the Series S, because of the other issues. Plenty of games build smaller BVHs, or don't rebuild them every frame. I think the CPU advantage here is basically not an issue.

The Series S will likely be more powerful at non-RT graphics. Most games with RT are hybrid meaning they draw the scene normally, and add RT effects on top. Being faster at this operation might ordinarily leave Series S more spare power to do RT. But this kind of head-to-head matchup basically never happens in real life. Switch 2 can enable RT but lower other settings to make up for it, if the effect is overall positive on the image, and will also have technologies like DLSS to help make smarter use of resources.

I expect subtle RT to be the standard on modern Switch 2 games, but modern Switch games also tend to stick to 30fps, so it's sort of an easy prediction. What I'm curious about is how far the RT hardware can be pushed while hitting 60. That will be the realm of Nintendo mostly to themselves, I think, with super optimized lighting engines, and an array of performance tricks that are married to the art style.

Unsure how relevant, but I've noticed a pattern between RDNA2 and Ampere's RT performance. In RT-heavy games like Control and Alan Wake 2, Ampere seems to always be roughly 50% faster than RDNA2 per unit of Raster performance. We're talking specifically RT only, because PT seems to tax RDNA2 even heavier. My RX 6800, for example, performs within 5% of the RTX 3070Ti but the latter is almost always 50% faster in RT. Ofcourse there are some lightly RT'd games where the difference is much smaller, such as F122 or Forza Horizon 5, but that is no excuse for RDNA2's short comings.

Another thing that I've noticed is Nvidia using less dedicated memory than AMD, though this one's relevance may be questionable. Even in the heaviest scenarios if a game uses 11-12GB of framebuffer on AMD, on Nvidia it is typically 1-1.5GB less. I always chalked this one up to difference in drivers and how AMD handles memory allocation vs Nvidia, but there is some truth to the fact that Nvidia does memory compression better than AMD. Again, may not be relevant in a console, so take it with a grain of salt.

 

[bmfrosty]

Most of the third party AAA ports on the Switch actually look pretty good on the built-in 5-7 inch screen, it's only when you output to a TV that the concessions start to become too obvious. Even then, most look fine, save for a few (including one that shall not be named) but I feel like they could've looked far better within the same constraints if they had just a couple more GB of memory to work with.

From a PC gamer's perspective, GPUs don't actually age as fast as most people think they do. My sister has a RX 480 8GB in her PC and despite it's age, it can still run literally any game (save for Alan Wake 2) you could throw at it. I don't think I could say the same for the similarly priced GTX 1060 3GB that came out around the same time, for the same price. Yes, the resolution has gone down over the years, and framerates tend to be around 30 these days, but the 8GB framebuffer allows it to make use of high or even ultra textures. The result is a very console-like experience that still looks good.

This is the reason why the Switch 2's 12GB memory is such a big deal; over time resolution will go down, framerates will go down, but the games will still look great. I wish the Switch had that same luxury; the 1060 3GB aged like milk despite having ballpark performance. For my current build I went for AMD again for the same exact reason - the choice was between a RTX 3070Ti and a RX 6800, and even if I'm missing out on DLSS and better RT, the latter will outlast the former in the order of years. I wouldn't have to buy another GPU in the forseeable future just to stay relevant.

Speaking of which, if the Switch 2 being on par with the PS4 Pro is indeed true, we're talking desktop RX 470-480 levels of performance but with support for the latest features. That bodes extremely well for the Switch 2.

Cheers to my Vega 56.

 

[ziggyrivers]

Yeah, and also those sentences seem to be at odds with each other:



and



I would assume the inflation creates a bit of downward pressure on # of units (since inflation has been easing off lately, it makes more sense to wait later to buy rather than buy in bulk upfront now). and also I thought it was gonna mention something like Nintendo wanting to have more units available for launch, thus the bigger order, but instead it cited inflation as the reason which seems weird.

The way I interpreted it:
• If Switch 2 starts selling before this Fiscal Year closes, Nintendo wants to ship 10+ million units (double digits).

 

[barruma]

Just complementing...

When the game enters in a loading screen:
1. It load everything it will need from the storage into RAM
2. CPU decompress all the compressed data
3. CPU initialize everything the game will need.

Faster storage speed up step 1, faster CPU speed up steps 2 and 3. And these will speed up even BC games.

But the new consoles go beyond that. They all have a dedicated component (which BC games don't have access to) to do step 2 faster than the CPU can and as free up the CPU to focus on step 3 and do it faster too.

Games loading asset during gameplay used to be a problem because the CPU was busy and could cause framerate issues. The solution was to load everything the game would need until the next loading screen or stress-free hallways/tunnels/elevators (and other things used to mask loading).

With the dedicated hardware freeing up the CPu, you only need to load what is going to be used immediately, start gameplay and continuously load the things you will only need later.

TL;DR: In general, physical BC should load faster, BC from internal storage should be even faster and native versions should be even more faster. But you need to rework how the game loads data if you want "instant loading".

You can look up comparisons with PS4 versions running on PS5 to get a general idea.

Is it not possible that for BC NS2 will have a mode where some of the CPUs are disabled or downclocked for better compatibility?

 

[Steve]

The way I interpreted it:
• If Switch 2 starts selling before this Fiscal Year closes, Nintendo wants to ship 10+ million units (double digits).

Seems reasonable, since their was a rumour of Nintendo wanting to ship and make 10M before the internal delay.

 

[Langstonboy]

If GTA5 or GTA6 do end up coming to Switch 2, I will be incredibly interested in a DigitalFoundry style break down & comparison between Switch 2 and Xbox Series S ports. Honestly I'll probably gobble up any XSS/SNS comparisons.

I say DF-style because DigitalFoundry will probably run PS5 Pro / Xbox Series X / Switch 2 for the majority of their comparisons. Anything to make the gap between Sony/Xbox & Nintendo look as wide as they can.

I could care less about gta v, now 6 omg I would be so hyped.

 

[Steve]

I say DF-style because DigitalFoundry will probably run PS5 Pro / Xbox Series X / Switch 2 for the majority of their comparisons. Anything to make the gap between Sony/Xbox & Nintendo look as wide as they can.

Unlikely, since they’re always comparing with a lot of consoles if the option is there.

But maybe they will, but I don’t see that happening, since the series s and couple of games are still cross gen titles.

But I’m quite excited seeing series s and Switch 2 comparison and maybe also PS4 ports comparison, but I think when the Switch 2 launches they’ll compare it to other handheld in the market, like ASUS rally and the steam deck the most.

 

[RennanNT]

Is it not possible that for BC NS2 will have a mode where some of the CPUs are disabled or downclocked for better compatibility?

Yes, they will most likely limit BC to 4 cores and use the same clocks. PS5, for example, also run PS4 versions on PS4 clocks (and pro version on pro clocks).

Thing is, the A78 do 2.5~3x as much work as the A57 on the Switch at the same clocks. So, that's still a big jump.

 

[HyruleanKnight]

Cheers to my Vega 56.

I lived on a 3400G during the Vega desktop card era, bless than tiny Vega 11 iGPU.

That APU is still going strong in my sister's PC, but now with a RX 480.

 

[LiC]

Is it not possible that for BC NS2 will have a mode where some of the CPUs are disabled or downclocked for better compatibility?

Disabled maybe, downclocked I doubt it. There's no compatibility benefit to changing the CPU clock speed.

The argument for disabling cores (or rather, not exposing some cores to the game) would be that games may either not be able to take advantage of the cores at all, or if they did, that the benefits would be marginal and inconsistent. But the benefit of a higher CPU clock is straightforward and will apply to all games regardless of how they're programmed.

So the only reason not to clock as high as possible would be battery life in handheld mode, or because it's just overkill. Nintendo will have to decide what's the right target for ensuring performance while balancing those factors.

 

[gabeplays]

10GB is plenty, it's a full 2GB more than an actual current next gen console (Series S), and frankly for that matter it's 2.5x more than the 2050 GPU DF was comparing the Switch 2.

LPDDR5X of 12GB is a very good RAM amount Nintendo settled on. That should be enough for pretty much any current gen game that a developer would want to port, GTAVI even still clearly lists XBox Series S as a platform it will be releasing on.

Man, the new GTA is gonna be such a cash cow for Nintendo

 

[barruma]

Yes, they will most likely limit BC to 4 cores and use the same clocks. PS5, for example, also run PS4 versions on PS4 clocks (and pro version on pro clocks).

Thing is, the A78 do 2.5~3x as much work as the A57 on the Switch at the same clocks. So, that's still a big jump.

Got it, thanks

 

[P4bl0]

Taiwan’s MoneyDJ.com just published an “exclusive” with comments from supposedly suppliers of Switch 2 components. I’m posting my quick translation below:



It is unclear what the “double-digit increase” means. Is it percentage-wise? Even so, from 10% to 99% is a pretty big range. Regardless, we probably will hear more supply chain leaks from now on.

I've still got PTSD from last year MoneyDJ article promising a Switch 2 launch in Early 2024 but thank you!
Here is an english translation, it actually refers to percentage yes.

Since its launch in 2017, the Nintendo Switch has entered its eighth year. News about its successor is gradually emerging. Multiple unnamed suppliers have indicated that they will begin shipping orders for the new console in the second half of the year. According to major related supply chain manufacturers, the initial stock quantity for the new Nintendo console is planned to be increased by a double-digit percentage compared to the initial stock of the Switch. However, the increase is not very dramatic, mainly considering the current overall economic environment, as inflation continues to affect the demand for consumer goods.

Taiwanese manufacturers have long maintained a cooperative relationship with Nintendo, being involved in chips, memory, components, casings, assembly, and more. At a recent financial report meeting, Nintendo revealed that the next-generation console will be released within the 2024 fiscal year (by the end of March 2025). Several suppliers have indicated that orders for the new console will begin shipping in the second half of the year.

The initial stock quantity for the new console will be higher than that of the Switch. Suppliers pointed out that, considering the accumulated user base of the Switch, Nintendo still has strong product power in the home console market. Nintendo’s consoles also have numerous Japanese suppliers, giving them a certain degree of control over the supply chain. However, the current inflationary environment is not very favorable, which may also impact the stock planning for Nintendo’s new console.

When the article mentions that orders for the new console will begin shipping in the second half of the year, it indicates that suppliers will start sending out components and parts necessary for manufacturing the new console to Nintendo’s assembly plants. This stage involves the initial production and stockpiling of the consoles in preparation for the official launch.

This does not necessarily mean that the consoles will be available for consumers in the second half of 2024. Instead, it signifies that the production process is ramping up, and the consoles are being manufactured and prepared for an eventual market release, which could still be planned for any time before the end of March 2025.


TLDR:

Suppliers will send Switch 2 parts for mass production assembly possibly as soon as June 2024:

If mass production occurs this summer then we're in for a Fall 2024 launch.
If mass production occurs this fall then we're in for a Spring 2025 launch.

We'll know soon enough.

 

[Beansy]

Guys, my uncle Doug Beanser told me that the assembly line for the next Nintendo console is powered by good vibes, so we need to all be kind and spread good vibes so that there isn't a shortage of consoles. We can't let the scalpers win, gamers!

 

[Beansy]

Mr. Beanser also told me that the next console is called the Nintendo Ninja, and it monitors your network activity so that it can detect if you're using Nintendo IP without permission and set your house on fire.

 

[darthdiablo]

Mr. Beanser also told me that the next console is called the Nintendo Ninja, and it monitors your network activity so that it can detect if you're using Nintendo IP without permission and set your house on fire.

Nintendo Ninja in action

 

[Beansy]

Nintendo Ninja in action

POV, you're Miyamoto and Furukawa just pushed the big red button.

 

[fwd-bwd]

I've still got PTSD from last year MoneyDJ article promising a Switch 2 launch in Early 2024 but thank you!
Here is an english translation, it actually refers to percentage yes.

Thanks. This is quality translation. The original text did not specify it being percentage though. What you shared seems to be the translator’s interpretation (which may be correct).

 

[gnetc]

Taiwan’s MoneyDJ.com just published an “exclusive” with comments from supposedly suppliers of Switch 2 components. I’m posting my quick translation below:



It is unclear what the “double-digit increase” means. Is it percentage-wise? Even so, from 10% to 99% is a pretty big range. Regardless, we probably will hear more supply chain leaks from now on.

So if they start shipping orders in the 2nd half of the year when do we expect an announcement?

I’m thinking July or August is still pretty likely, July
was when the OLED was announced so I feel like they can try to repeat that. I just don’t see them letting these orders ship and not announcing anything until September/October.

 

[RennanNT]

There's no compatibility benefit to changing the CPU clock speed.

So, Sony only downclocks the GPU on the Pro/PS5 or is there a difference for NGS?

 

[LiC]

So if they start shipping orders in the 2nd half of the year when do we expect an announcement?

I’m thinking July or August is still pretty likely, July
was when the OLED was announced so I feel like they can try to repeat that. I just don’t see them letting these orders ship and not announcing anything until September/October.

Orders for Switch 1 parts would have started shipping in the second half of 2016 too.

 

[eye0h]

Ummm

So we're acquiring now. In house port studio for 3rd party is the goal.