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

[Concernt]

I was thinking about this earlier. The current OS for the Switch, while still barebones, does provide some useful features that we just expect. So for example, you can pause your game by hitting the Home button, putting the game into a save state until the execution is called to either continue playing the game, or stop it entirely to load another app. That alone for me was huge, especially compared to the Wii U, which used even more ram for the OS. So clearly, Nintendo learned a few things from the Wii U, and probably 3DS when designing the OS, and overall footprint for the Switch.

Given how custom t239 is in relation to the X1, which is off the shelf for the most part, Nintendo might be planning on adding additional features, though not to the extent we think, but the OS footprint might be similar in the end, along with improvements such as a better eShop app, plus the use of AV1 encoding/decoding. Though, if you think of this in terms of allocation percentages, the Switch OS uses 22.1% of the Switch's entire 4GB ram. (907MB / 4096MB = 22.1%)

With 12GB of Ram on tap, that would be 12,288MB, and if we use the same 22.1% allocation the Switch 1 uses, that comes out to a rather massive 2,715MB for the OS and all its function, which if I’m honest, don’t see Nintendo utilizing THAT much. If say somehow the Switch 2 the exact same amount of ram for its OS as Switch 1 (907MB), that's only 7.4% of the total Ram available for the system.

So it’s safe to say the Switch 2 will use somewhere between 907 - 2715MB for its OS. Don’t think it'll go any lower, or higher than that range.

I agree with all but one thing:

A "better" eShop "app".

With accounts merged and the OS either broadly the same or practically identical, I don't see them having a seperate eShop at all. The current one runs "in browser" with HTML for a bunch of reasons. It's flexible and relatively portable. A slight redesign to the eShop around launch (across both generations) with much better performance on the new system thanks to the new CPU seems more likely to me, if they bother changing anything at all.

The idea of the new system having an all new storefront they have to update alongside the last generation one doesn't gel with the smooth transition, the shared accounts, or the fact that the design language of the eShop and Home Screen are effectively the same. Same for the NSO portal.

There might be more options visible on the next generation system, but these are essentially webpages. It makes sense (at least from my perspective) to keep them the same across generations if you can.

 

[Dekuman]

There won't be one.

Sony got AMD to do another custom SoC for the PS4 Pro with an upgraded GPU. I assume this wouldn't be worth anyone's while for maybe a small fraction of total lifetime sales of Switch 2. I assume nvidia would have little interest in revisiting an older architecture 4 to 5 years on.

If Nintendo didn't think Switch needed one, the likely answer is "there won't be one for NG either".

But if they decide to do it, they can go bulkier like handheld PCs or use more expensive components (higher density for batteries and more efficiency for other parts). Or both.

From Nate , DF et al they seemingly were working on some sort of upclocked Switch that was dropped hence all the Pro rumours. But yeah maybe the lesson they learned is a Pro upgrade is unnecessary and it was better to focus on QoL improvements in a revision

 

[HyruleanKnight]

If Nintendo didn't think Switch needed one, the likely answer is "there won't be one for NG either".

But if they decide to do it, they can go bulkier like handheld PCs or use more expensive components (higher density for batteries and more efficiency for other parts). Or both.

Pls no more bulk. Switch 2 is already big enough and I'm glad they didn't at least make it thicker. Realistically I don't see the point of a Pro model throughout the Switch 2's lifetime; the regular model will still be very relevant by the time the PS6 comes out, and then still have another 2-3 years left on the clock. That's long enough to bring us the Switch 3, or whatever they come up with after the Switch 2. I only see refresh models happening, like a slightly more efficient version or OLED or denser battery models. I have no clue how they would make a Lite model though, if at all.

Switch didn't have a Pro model either, though one could make an argument for it by it's 5th year since launch, but it still did okay. And by okay I mean potentially becoming the highest selling console in the history of consoles.

 

[Shoulder]

I agree with all but one thing:

A "better" eShop "app".

With accounts merged and the OS either broadly the same or practically identical, I don't see them having a seperate eShop at all. The current one runs "in browser" with HTML for a bunch of reasons. It's flexible and relatively portable. A slight redesign to the eShop around launch (across both generations) with much better performance on the new system thanks to the new CPU seems more likely to me, if they bother changing anything at all.

The idea of the new system having an all new storefront they have to update alongside the last generation one doesn't gel with the smooth transition, the shared accounts, or the fact that the design language of the eShop and Home Screen are effectively the same. Same for the NSO portal.

There might be more options visible on the next generation system, but these are essentially webpages. It makes sense (at least from my perspective) to keep them the same across generations if you can.

I don’t see how using a dedicated and bespoke app for the eShop for Switch 2 would somehow conflict with the web-based current eShop on the Switch. The account system is already on cloud servers with all your save data, purchases, etc. And I’m not talking about a brand new storefront exactly. Just something with less overhead because it’s quite clear the current eShop is laggy, and probably has some additional resources that could be better optimize.

Think of it as the difference between typing in Bestbuy.com on your favorite browser vs. launching the app on your phone, or tablet. I’d much rather use the app on my phone than use the browser, though this comparison isn't completely apples to apples to the Switch, but you get the idea.

An app more than likely will be more efficient, quicker, and just an overall better experience compared to the html-based app the eShop currently is. But, I am not a programmer, so if you, or someone else who has coding experience can go more into the weeds on the pros and cons of each approach, I’d like to hear them.

 

[navierStokes]

The LPDDR5X memory speed is also reduced on the Snapdragon X-elite; https://www.anandtech.com/show/21364/qualcomm-intros-snapdragon-x-plus-details-entire-sdx-chip-stack

The LPDDR5X memory frequency has also taken an odd hit, with this chip topping out at LPDDR5X-8448, rather than the LPDDR5X-8533 data rate we saw last year. This is all of 85MHz or 1GB/second of memory bandwidth, but it’s an unexpected shift since 8448 isn’t a normal LPDDR5X speed grade.

Moreover, the speed is supported by the JEDEC LPDDR5X standard, so I'm curious what the reasoning behind the lower memory speed is. Most meteor lake products also top out to 8400 from what I've seen.

Im honestly kind of doubting T239 will get a die shrink, assuming its starting out on 4nm.

1: the effeciency boost woudnt be anywhere near what they got with Mariko.

2: Due to Sram shrink stagnation, it woudnt be much cheaper either. Right?

In the end it's always a trade-off w.r.t. costs.

1). I think there's still an efficiency boost even if it's developed on TSMC 4N initially. 30% with the same battery would still be a net benifit.

2). If the total costs make sense per chip, despite certain areas not shrinking as much, there could be a reason to proceed with a die shrink, especially for a small chip like in the Switch 2 whose, die-size relative to big consoles it quite smaller, but with the speculated poor yield of TSMC N3(B), I'm curious how TSMC N3E is with a market product and its respective yield. Moreover it's supposed to be cheaper compared to the base node(*Anandtech cite here), so how much would the eventual costs be like, is the larger question.
Apple switched instantly for the M4 and it's shared that most OEMs are focusing this iteration.
Also, TSMC 2nm enters a new fabrication process (GAAFET) v.s. the matured FinFET on N3E.

I know jack shit of electrical engineering, but my layman understanding is that various design considerations would make it more difficult to port it to that process node.
So that pretty much would leave a single step in terms of Node Processes afaik and in the end its about cost for such a die shrink.

 

[HyruleanKnight]

I don’t see how using a dedicated and bespoke app for the eShop for Switch 2 would somehow conflict with the web-based current eShop on the Switch. The account system is already on cloud servers with all your save data, purchases, etc. And I’m not talking about a brand new storefront exactly. Just something with less overhead because it’s quite clear the current eShop is laggy, and probably has some additional resources that could be better optimize.

Think of it as the difference between typing in Bestbuy.com on your favorite browser vs. launching the app on your phone, or tablet. I’d much rather use the app on my phone than use the browser, though this comparison isn't completely apples to apples to the Switch, but you get the idea.

An app more than likely will be more efficient, quicker, and just an overall better experience compared to the html-based app the eShop currently is. But, I am not a programmer, so if you, or someone else who has coding experience can go more into the weeds on the pros and cons of each approach, I’d like to hear them.

The Switch eshop is quite similar to how Steam works, in that it's just a webpage, which means Nintendo could simply revamp the existing eshop (especially taking complaints about too much shovelware into account) and make it a better experience for both the Switch and Switch 2 without pushing a major software update. In this case I don't see why there has to be two separate store fronts if one serves both without conflict. You could even make an argument for advertising purposes - imagine a new game showing up as not available on the Switch, it gives you a reason to buy the Switch 2. After re-reading the post, I realized I misunderstood. Ignore this paragraph.

As for the lag, I'm afraid it isn't entirely the eshop's fault. Switch's CPU is simply not very fast no matter how you dice it, so rendering a complete webpage every time you enter is a lot more taxing than simply downloading some assets and viewing them on an on-device application like the Google Play Store. As you keep scrolling you can actually feel the lag getting progressively worse because the CPU has to do more work and load more stuff onto RAM. I highly doubt Switch 2 will fare similarly, the CPU is significantly faster and will likely have more memory to work with. But imo a webpage is the superior method for the sole reason that it gives you more flexibility over an app. Now whether Nintendo will exercise that flexibility is a different matter entirely.

What Nintendo really needs to do is rework their eshop UI and make it more intuitive. Steam, and I keep going back for a good reason, has perfected the formula years ago. They simply need to take a page out of Valve's book.

 

[Aether]

The Switch eshop is quite similar to how Steam works, in that it's just a webpage, which means Nintendo could simply revamp the existing eshop (especially taking complaints about too much shovelware into account) and make it a better experience for both the Switch and Switch 2 without pushing a major software update. In this case I don't see why there has to be two separate store fronts if one serves both without conflict. You could even make an argument for advertising purposes - imagine a new game showing up as not available on the Switch, it gives you a reason to buy the Switch 2.

As for the lag, I'm afraid it isn't entirely the eshop's fault. Switch's CPU is simply not very fast no matter how you dice it, so rendering a complete webpage every time you enter is a lot more taxing than simply downloading some assets and viewing them on an on-device application like the Google Play Store. As you keep scrolling you can actually feel the lag getting progressively worse because the CPU has to do more work and load more stuff onto RAM. I highly doubt Switch 2 will fare similarly, the CPU is significantly faster and will likely have more memory to work with. But imo a webpage is the superior method for the sole reason that it gives you more flexibility over an app. Now whether Nintendo will exercise that flexibility is a different matter entirely.

What Nintendo really needs to do is rework their eshop UI and make it more intuitive. Steam, and I keep going back for a good reason, has perfected the formula years ago. They simply need to take a page out of Valve's book.

There are many way more performant web aps.

The question I have, why is it rendering so inefficiently. And it often is already more sluggish then normal web pages from the beginning. Something that can run total should not struggle to load a simple feed. Most phone aps on a 7-8 year old phone can do that just fine. I think the problem is that they seethe current version as "just fine" instead of optimizing. And I know, optimizing web aps can become a chore. Nobody forced them to do it this way. Make a native app, Send of API calls. Why not.

 

[HyruleanKnight]

There are many way more performant web aps.

The question I have, why is it rendering so inefficiently. And it often is already more sluggish then normal web pages from the beginning. Something that can run total should not struggle to load a simple feed. Most phone aps on a 7-8 year old phone can do that just fine. I think the problem is that they seethe current version as "just fine" instead of optimizing. And I know, optimizing web aps can become a chore. Nobody forced them to do it this way. Make a native app, Send of API calls. Why not.

Agreed, besides the horrible UI their programming is not very efficient. The slow CPU and memory doesn't help either. I hope they actually do something about this instead of simply throwing more CPU performance at it.

 

[Dekuman]

The Switch eshop is quite similar to how Steam works, in that it's just a webpage, which means Nintendo could simply revamp the existing eshop (especially taking complaints about too much shovelware into account) and make it a better experience for both the Switch and Switch 2 without pushing a major software update. In this case I don't see why there has to be two separate store fronts if one serves both without conflict. You could even make an argument for advertising purposes - imagine a new game showing up as not available on the Switch, it gives you a reason to buy the Switch 2. After re-reading the post, I realized I misunderstood. Ignore this paragraph.

As for the lag, I'm afraid it isn't entirely the eshop's fault. Switch's CPU is simply not very fast no matter how you dice it, so rendering a complete webpage every time you enter is a lot more taxing than simply downloading some assets and viewing them on an on-device application like the Google Play Store. As you keep scrolling you can actually feel the lag getting progressively worse because the CPU has to do more work and load more stuff onto RAM. I highly doubt Switch 2 will fare similarly, the CPU is significantly faster and will likely have more memory to work with. But imo a webpage is the superior method for the sole reason that it gives you more flexibility over an app. Now whether Nintendo will exercise that flexibility is a different matter entirely.

What Nintendo really needs to do is rework their eshop UI and make it more intuitive. Steam, and I keep going back for a good reason, has perfected the formula years ago. They simply need to take a page out of Valve's book.

Why is the Switch specifically so slow with handling the eshop? Granted many older phones load webpages just fine.

Is it the fact only a single core is working to load the web page into very limited RAM and having to unload older parts of the eshop as people scroll through? Isn't this a solved issue since dinky old phoned can still browse massive webpages mostly fine.

This is the disconnect I have.

 

[Shoulder]

There are many way more performant web aps.

The question I have, why is it rendering so inefficiently. And it often is already more sluggish then normal web pages from the beginning. Something that can run total should not struggle to load a simple feed. Most phone aps on a 7-8 year old phone can do that just fine. I think the problem is that they seethe current version as "just fine" instead of optimizing. And I know, optimizing web aps can become a chore. Nobody forced them to do it this way. Make a native app, Send of API calls. Why not.

I guess this is what I was getting at above. I get it if for Nintendo's own reasons, a web app might offer more flexibility, but that doesn’t mean it's the always the most efficient use of your resources, and with a dedicated handheld device, everything from the horsepower, ram, storage, etc are at a premium. I think Steam gets away with this because for something like the Steam Deck, it's still ultimately an x86 Computer that doubles as a gaming device, whereas the Switch is an Arm-based gaming platform, so the function for the latter is more about optimization, and allocating only the necessary resources.

That's just how I see it anyway, but others may feel differently.

 

[navierStokes]

Doesn't ARM have some low-level web-specific optimisations?
I know there's one for javascript, but it's the addition of various improvements that make a big difference.

 

[HyruleanKnight]

I guess this is what I was getting at above. I get it if for Nintendo's own reasons, a web app might offer more flexibility, but that doesn’t mean it's the always the most efficient use of your resources, and with a dedicated handheld device, everything from the horsepower, ram, storage, etc are at a premium. I think Steam gets away with this because for something like the Steam Deck, it's still ultimately an x86 Computer that doubles as a gaming device, whereas the Switch is an Arm-based gaming platform, so the function for the latter is more about optimization, and allocating only the necessary resources.

That's just how I see it anyway, but others may feel differently.

Steam also has the advantage of being a singular store front that they have developed over a span of 20 years. The amount of knowledge, expertise and talent they've poured into it dwarves the Switch eshop by a astronomical margin. Steam has also been Valve's primary bread-and-butter for the longest time, so it was in their best interest to keep improving on it.

Making an online storefront isn't easy - presenting exhibit A: Epic Games Store

 

[rinku]

Would be nice if the eshop worked like the PS store in it being basically seamless from the game carousel. I guess that might have a RAM cost though.

 

[RennanNT]

From Nate , DF et al they seemingly were working on some sort of upclocked Switch that was dropped hence all the Pro rumours. But yeah maybe the lesson they learned is a Pro upgrade is unnecessary and it was better to focus on QoL improvements in a revision

I do think there was a more powerful model in the works, but it's not like they couldn't at least put more RAM and use higher clocks on OLED.

So, they ultimately decided that it wasn't needed.

NG will almost certainly have decent resolution for the most demanding games and good enough texture/asset quality, which is what really looked bad in some Switch games. The demand for a pro model will be just a fraction of the Switch pro that they didn't find worth to release.

 

[oldpuck]

If a die shrink is less impactful how might a potential Switch 2 Pro be designed?

A potential Switch 2 Pro's design will depend on what it's trying to do. PS4 Pro/Xbox One X were 4k focused machines. PS5 Pro is supposedly an RT focused machine. Just "more power" isn't a good reason for a Pro console - "more power" for what? It can't be "new game experiences" because a Pro console only exists to enhance existing games.

A Pro console doesn't necessarily need "more power." Both Steam Deck and Switch got an "enhanced" revision with no significant performance upgrade. But even the mythical Switch 4k was built on the promises of a new kind of software, DLSS and AI, not a huge jump in performance.

Let's say Nintendo discovers that the bottleneck in most Switch 2 games is the CPU, and high frame rate gaming starts to become common. A slightly optimized node offers only 10% extra power efficiency, but Nintendo discovers that the big Switch 2 bottleneck is CPU, so they spend that tiny efficiency boost on CPU clocks. Nintendo adds a VRR OLED 90hz screen. They enable VRR and high frame rates for docked mode, in software.

Games with unstable frame rates are smoothed out by the CPU bump, and cleaned up by VRR. Most games use DLSS Performance Mode for their visuals, but with Ultra High Frame Rates now possible in both docked and handheld, a bunch of games add a "high frame rate mode" built on Ultra Performance, boosted by the extra CPU clock.

That's one path without a significant increase in power. But we can also imagine something like DLSS 5 adding a new frame generation technique that works for 30fps games. Nintendo doesn't add performance, but they do add new AI hardware to accelerate the new frame gen tech. It kills battery life when it's on, but it does have to be enabled per game, so it's on the buyer, and Pro players are mostly on the TV anyway.

Not saying either of these scenarios happen. Just saying that the path to a mid-gen revision doesn't need to go through a node shrink, not when the software side of the equation is evolving, and Nintendo has proven again and again that quality of life improvements sell well on a handheld.

 

[ILikeFeet]

Bad wording on my part, my bad. I meant the newly announced ones that can apparently get upto 800MB/s sequential speeds.

speeds like this makes its usage more believable. devs asked for 1GB/s for PS5 and Series, and game testing shown that sata speeds (500MB/s) is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Machrider]

A potential Switch 2 Pro's design will depend on what it's trying to do. PS4 Pro/Xbox One X were 4k focused machines. PS5 Pro is supposedly an RT focused machine. Just "more power" isn't a good reason for a Pro console - "more power" for what? It can't be "new game experiences" because a Pro console only exists to enhance existing games.

A Pro console doesn't necessarily need "more power." Both Steam Deck and Switch got an "enhanced" revision with no significant performance upgrade. But even the mythical Switch 4k was built on the promises of a new kind of software, DLSS and AI, not a huge jump in performance.

Let's say Nintendo discovers that the bottleneck in most Switch 2 games is the CPU, and high frame rate gaming starts to become common. A slightly optimized node offers only 10% extra power efficiency, but Nintendo discovers that the big Switch 2 bottleneck is CPU, so they spend that tiny efficiency boost on CPU clocks. Nintendo adds a VRR OLED 90hz screen. They enable VRR and high frame rates for docked mode, in software.

Games with unstable frame rates are smoothed out by the CPU bump, and cleaned up by VRR. Most games use DLSS Performance Mode for their visuals, but with Ultra High Frame Rates now possible in both docked and handheld, a bunch of games add a "high frame rate mode" built on Ultra Performance, boosted by the extra CPU clock.

That's one path without a significant increase in power. But we can also imagine something like DLSS 5 adding a new frame generation technique that works for 30fps games. Nintendo doesn't add performance, but they do add new AI hardware to accelerate the new frame gen tech. It kills battery life when it's on, but it does have to be enabled per game, so it's on the buyer, and Pro players are mostly on the TV anyway.

Not saying either of these scenarios happen. Just saying that the path to a mid-gen revision doesn't need to go through a node shrink, not when the software side of the equation is evolving, and Nintendo has proven again and again that quality of life improvements sell well on a handheld.

I think they will do the node shrink + Pro model this next gen simply because I don't think just slapping an OLED screen on Switch 2 is going to come close to giving them the kind of sales surge COVID lockdowns did for Switch 1. They're going to be in tough to match Switch 1 sales and are going to have to offer more compelling Switch 2 hardware revisions IMO to even keep within pace.

 

[Hermii]

Not saying either of these scenarios happen. Just saying that the path to a mid-gen revision doesn't need to go through a node shrink, not when the software side of the equation is evolving, and Nintendo has proven again and again that quality of life improvements sell well on a handheld.

I know "because Nintendo" is generally a terrible argument, but in this case Nintendo couldn't even find it in their heart to give us better cpu/ gpu/ memory boost for Mariko. Homebrew has proved this would absolutely have fixed performance issues in a large number of Switch games. So I'm not holding my breath for either of your scenarios.

 

[Dakhil]

Nintendo adds a VRR OLED 90hz screen. They enable VRR and high frame rates for docked mode, in software.

I don't believe there exists any 90 Hz display that supports VRR, so Nintendo probably has to ask display manufacturers to design a 90 Hz display with VRR support. (And I could be wrong, but I don't think 90 Hz is as ideal for VRR as 120 Hz or 60 Hz (I don't believe there are any 60 Hz displays with VRR support as well), especially since 90 Hz doesn't seem as cleanly divisible as 120 Hz or 60 Hz, going by the ProMotion refresh rates.)

And I don't think Nintendo wants VRR to be exclusive to TV mode. I think if VRR support is desired by Nintendo, Nintendo wants to support VRR in handheld mode and TV mode.

 

[Lancelot]

I know "because Nintendo" is generally a terrible argument, but in this case Nintendo couldn't even find it in their heart to give us better cpu/ gpu/ memory boost for Mariko. Homebrew has proved this would absolutely have fixed performance issues in a large number of Switch games. So I'm not holding my breath for either of your scenarios.

That would've erased the battery life gains the model ended up having, Nintendo simply values it more over just improving performance. It's what it is.

 

[Dekuman]

I know "because Nintendo" is generally a terrible argument, but in this case Nintendo couldn't even find it in their heart to give us better cpu/ gpu/ memory boost for Mariko. Homebrew has proved this would absolutely have fixed performance issues in a large number of Switch games. So I'm not holding my breath for either of your scenarios.

I think it came down to wanting to avoid a 3rd or even 4th performance profile as a more powerful Pro model would likely need it's own profile for docked and printable.

If the planned ahead with Switch 2 maybe they can narrow it down to 3 performance profile but it's hard to imagine a pro model not needing a bespoke portable/docked


The more I think about it the more likely we'll get another Swtich 2 OLED with longer battery life at some point

 

[gnetc]

All I want is the eshop to have some new music, I’ve been craving some new songs.

March 2025 soundtrack

 

[Leo]

All I want is the eshop to have some new music, I’ve been craving some new songs.

March 2025 soundtrack

Any music at all would be great lol

 

[Hermii]

That would've erased the battery life gains the model ended up having, Nintendo simply values it more over just improving performance. It's what it is.

Reduced, not erased.

 

[Machrider]

I know "because Nintendo" is generally a terrible argument, but in this case Nintendo couldn't even find it in their heart to give us better cpu/ gpu/ memory boost for Mariko. Homebrew has proved this would absolutely have fixed performance issues in a large number of Switch games. So I'm not holding my breath for either of your scenarios.

I think the Switch OLED was supposed to be the Switch Pro and allow for higher resolution games and/or improved frame rates ... the 4K output on the dock and enabling 2 extra DP lanes for 4K/60 output on the Switch OLED chipset itself certainly point to that. We are seeing now hackers/modders being able to overclock the Mariko/OLED Switch and get 4K performance out of games on Youtube. So what happened?

My belief is COVID happened and Switch sales surged past Nintendo's wildest dreams and threw all their generation sales curve predictions for a loop. Then I think they decided that having a 4K/enhanced Switch wasn't needed and would only hurt the Switch 2 so what did they do? They killed "Switch Pro" and just pivoted that hardware model around the OLED display instead.

The Switch 2 is going be really in tough to match Switch 1 sales, not having a COVID surge is a monster disadvantage (and no one should be hoping for another pandemic).

 

[HyruleanKnight]

I think it came down to wanting to avoid a 3rd or even 4th performance profile as a more powerful Pro model would likely need it's own profile for docked and printable.

My favorite type of Nintendo Switch

/s

 

[darthdiablo]

I think they will do the node shrink + Pro model this next gen simply because I don't think just slapping an OLED screen on Switch 2 is going to come close to giving them the kind of sales surge COVID lockdowns did for Switch 1. They're going to be in tough to match Switch 1 sales and are going to have to offer more compelling Switch 2 hardware revisions IMO to even keep within pace.

Node shrink is unlikely if the launch day Switch 2 T239s are fabbed on TSMC 4N.

And frankly, the casual population don't give a hoot about node process. They had no idea there was a slight node shrink going from launch day Switches to Switch v2, they're not going to realize whether there was a node shrink or not. They only hear things like "new OLED screen!" and "improved battery life!"

 

[HyruleanKnight]

speeds like this makes its usage more believable. devs asked for 1GB/s for PS5 and Series, and game testing shown that sata speeds (500MB/s) is perfectly acceptable.

I get what you mean, but the only game on this list that actually takes advantage of a faster SSD (a la Direct Storage) is HZFW. I was thinking about Switch-specific games that take advantage of 1GB/s+ read speeds to eliminate loading times. This calls back to the BoTW 4k demo which was said to be so fast that there was no loading time between areas, iirc. Therefore any such game will be unfeasible on a regular SD card, SD Express 7.0 will probably be a necessity.

 

[ILikeFeet]

I get what you mean, but the only game on this list that actually takes advantage of a faster SSD (a la Direct Storage) is HZFW. I was thinking about Switch-specific games that take advantage of 1GB/s+ read speeds to eliminate loading times. This calls back to the BoTW 4k demo which was said to be so fast that there was no loading time between areas, iirc. Therefore any such game will be unfeasible on a regular SD card, SD Express 7.0 will probably be a necessity.

honestly, Direct Storage hasn't panned out like people hoped. not even DS games shown that they needed an nvme. console games also haven't shown such a need either. and it makes sense because at any given time, you're not really constantly streaming in new assets that fast. world partitioning and asset mipping cuts down on the amount of data needing to be streamed. and that's if they're not already in ram.

the BotW demo, IMO, is difficult to prove what's really needed. it's still a Wii U game at heart and designed to run on the system's emmc + 3-core cpu. making it so fast that you don't need a loading screen isn't a big hurdle. hell, you could probably do that with emmc and a sufficiently fast CPU or dedicated decompressor (like Drake's FDE) since the limiting factor is the decompression speed.

 

[MP!]

Joking or serious?


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

guess I should have put an lol

But it's telling that it could be interpreted as a serious statement hahaha

I also agree completely with your second statement there

 

[Machrider]

Node shrink is unlikely if the launch day Switch 2 T239s are fabbed on TSMC 4N.

And frankly, the casual population don't give a hoot about node process. They had no idea there was a slight node shrink going from launch day Switches to Switch v2, they're not going to realize whether there was a node shrink or not. They only hear things like "new OLED screen!" and "improved battery life!"

General public doesn't really need to know the technical details, I would actually venture a guess that most people don't even know what the fuck OLED really is relative to regular LCD, it just sounds fancy and new and that's good enough.

The Mariko/OLED Switch likely was capable of considerably better performance than the OG Switch or maybe more specifically able to properly fully realize the actual horsepower the chip has which was held back by the 20nm process.

I think Nintendo was indeed planning a Switch Pro which would allow for even some games to go up as high as 1440p-4K ... but they killed it. The Switch OLED still having 4K output on the dock and having 4 DP lanes enabled right on its chip (for 4K/60 output) point pretty heavily to that. Again now that Youtuber posted that video where he was able to get the Switch OLED to run 4K games (even of Switch games).

I think the original roadmap Nintendo had was

2017 - Switch OG
2019 - Switch Mariko/Lite (die shrink)
2021 - Switch Pro
2023- early 2024 - Transition to Switch 2.

COVID just threw this whole plan into chaos, Nintendo saw record breaking sales through 2020 and 2021 due to COVID even though they basically released no huge software for almost 2 full years after Animal Crossing. I think it was at that point they just said "do we really even need a Switch Pro? 4K might be better left as something special for Switch 2".

 

[Aether]

Steam also has the advantage of being a singular store front that they have developed over a span of 20 years. The amount of knowledge, expertise and talent they've poured into it dwarves the Switch eshop by a astronomical margin. Steam has also been Valve's primary bread-and-butter for the longest time, so it was in their best interest to keep improving on it.

Making an online storefront isn't easy - presenting exhibit A: Epic Games Store

Making a storefront is easy. Making a storefront that scales to millions of customers is the hard part.

And I would give them more leniency if the eshop would not be so barebones.
But as it stands, for a company that had digital storefronts since almost 2 decades it is missing to many options. (First and foremost better search/filters).

 

[Hermii]

I think the Switch OLED was supposed to be the Switch Pro and allow for higher resolution games and/or improved frame rates ... the 4K output on the dock and enabling 2 extra DP lanes for 4K/60 output on the Switch OLED chipset itself certainly point to that. We are seeing now hackers/modders being able to overclock the Mariko/OLED Switch and get 4K performance out of games on Youtube. So what happened?

in my humble opinion the oled was never supposed to be a performance boost. At most hdr was a planned feature, which would probably have necessitated slightly higher clocks in hdr mode. If they were ever going to provide higher clocks for Mariko, they would have in 2019 imo.

 

[Thraktor]

I know "because Nintendo" is generally a terrible argument, but in this case Nintendo couldn't even find it in their heart to give us better cpu/ gpu/ memory boost for Mariko. Homebrew has proved this would absolutely have fixed performance issues in a large number of Switch games. So I'm not holding my breath for either of your scenarios.

This is hardly exclusive to Nintendo. Almost every (moderately successful) games console has had die shrinks over the course of its life, and in almost every case the designers could have chosen to increase clocks at the time, but didn't. The only exception I can think of was the Xbox One S, where the addition of HDR support apparently necessitated a small GPU clock increase.

 

[Concernt]

I don’t see how using a dedicated and bespoke app for the eShop for Switch 2 would somehow conflict with the web-based current eShop on the Switch. The account system is already on cloud servers with all your save data, purchases, etc. And I’m not talking about a brand new storefront exactly. Just something with less overhead because it’s quite clear the current eShop is laggy, and probably has some additional resources that could be better optimize.

Think of it as the difference between typing in Bestbuy.com on your favorite browser vs. launching the app on your phone, or tablet. I’d much rather use the app on my phone than use the browser, though this comparison isn't completely apples to apples to the Switch, but you get the idea.

An app more than likely will be more efficient, quicker, and just an overall better experience compared to the html-based app the eShop currently is. But, I am not a programmer, so if you, or someone else who has coding experience can go more into the weeds on the pros and cons of each approach, I’d like to hear them.

eShop has been HTML based for longer than the Switch I believe, and many "mobile apps" aren't anything more than wrappers on webpages. This isn't a bad thing; I pointed out the advantages, flexibility and portability. Flexibility is important when it's constantly being updated. Imagine needing a system update every time they needed to fix a security problem with the eShop, that would be awful.

Because of this I think the mobile app comparison is a little... Bunk. They don't perform better than webpages on modern browsers. That advantage evaporated as phones got more powerful, browsers faster and apps more demanding. The eShop isn't laggy by design principles, the same assets would have to load if it were a dedicated app. With the same security risks. It's a combination of those security risks and the slow, single CPU core it runs on that causes the "lag".

An app wouldn't really "likely" be any of those things. A badly made one could be WORSE. It could be less secure and harder to update. With a HTML webpage, if you muck it up you can push a fix out in hours rather than days. That's important for a storefront.

I'd also like you to consider, if an app would have helped performance, and how apps were a workaround for phones that struggled with webpages back in the day. Nintendo Switch is that struggling mobile device right now. The successor will not be. If they were to make a dedicated app, it would have made sense on Switch, and less on the successor. But because of the reasons outlined above, among others, they stuck with a webpage.

The next system doesn't have the limitations that make a dedicated app more desirable, so why would they do it?

There's tonnes of optimisations they could implement, a bigger cache, a redesign, modified security requirements. I would like to see these implemented, but then you have to ask, when Switch would have benefited so much more than its successor, why do them now? That's the crux for me here. A flexible, HTML based eShop makes more sense, not less, on the successor system, so why U-turn and end up doing more work? Why not keep the storefront the same, and save the hassle, while giving the successor a clear advantage by nature of being faster?

 

[AshenMortality]

Darn. I had the thread on ignore mode by accident and I was saying to myself nothing happened, be cool. I just read about this DF article and said oh shit seems negative. Better check the guys…bang I am back.

 

[Dekuman]

on the discussion around node shrink, how will a potential Switch 2 Lite work in this case?
Would they wait under LPDDR6 and use a smaller screen but with essentially the same SoC?

If they do that, i think they will continue with the current Lite confirgatrion of making it non-dockable and cut out the dock and just run the chip in portable mode. Perhaps from surplus defective chips for the main model ?

 

[Hermii]

This is hardly exclusive to Nintendo. Almost every (moderately successful) games console has had die shrinks over the course of its life, and in almost every case the designers could have chosen to increase clocks at the time, but didn't. The only exception I can think of was the Xbox One S, where the addition of HDR support apparently necessitated a small GPU clock increase.

you are right, but take OldPucks scenario.

"Let's say Nintendo discovers that the bottleneck in most Switch 2 games is the CPU, and high frame rate gaming starts to become common. A slightly optimized node offers only 10% extra power efficiency, but Nintendo discovers that the big Switch 2 bottleneck is CPU, so they spend that tiny efficiency boost on CPU clocks. Nintendo adds a VRR OLED 90hz screen. They enable VRR and high frame rates for docked mode, in software"

You can literally apply this to the switch, but also include mem bandwidth. Nintendo die shrinks the chip, and give it higher performing memory. They could address both of these obvious bottleneck in one swoop, yet doesn't. So I don't think it's a realistic scenario at all.

 

[omniryu]

If we do reach 4 tflops. These graphics will look beautiful. I am playing hellblade 2 on my Series S while the image reconstruction is a bit icky. This game looks like a good CG movie on Netflix.

 

[Dakhil]

However, I believe there will be people willing to provide free T239 die shot photos and some technical details.

Yes, but that involves a long wait.

The RTX 4090 was released on 12 October 2022. But a proper die shot of AD102 wasn't publicly available until 28 April 2024, which is a little more than 1.5 years later.

The Snapdragon 8cx Gen 3 was launched in 1H 2022. But a proper die shot of the Snapdragon 8cx Gen 3 wasn't publicly available until 20 May 2024, which is in the range of 2 to 2.5 years, depending on when in 1H 2022.

 

[kasparov77]

Nintendo; Buy your own capture card!

I imagine that anyone who wants to stream and/or capture over an hour of footage from the console would already have a capture card.

Why though? At that point I would just stream and then record that stream outside Switch itself. Or buy a good capture card/device, record the output there.

Why bog down Switch 2 with features that the majority will never use, and increase the cost of the unit as well?

They might be able to get some form of streaming working if they really wanted to, but extended recording would put a lot of strain on memory and/or storage. External solutions (i.e. capture cards) are likely more practical.

I could maybe see them bumping the length up to like a minute or so.

Two words: convenience and cost.

It's inconvenient as hell to set up a streaming/recording setup for switch (I know because I own a live gamer mini and stream my games to my friends through my laptop).

Not only that, it's way more expensive: you need a decent capture card + a decent enough pc that can stream in the first place.

There have been more convenient solutions coming to the market recently like the genki shadowcast where it (supposedly) has low enough delay that you can play from the preview window on your pc/laptop without issues. But that still doesn't remove the cost factor of a pc + capture device and is still not as convenient as just using the console.

I mean, if PS4 with merely 8GB of RAM and an OS that was way heavier iirc than switch's could record up to like 30 minutes of gameplay and stream, why couldn't switch 2 with better video encoders, 12GB of RAM and a better CPU and GPU?

It just makes no sense. I'd be really bummed if nintendo skimped on proper media sharing capabilities yet another gen.

 

[Aether]

I was team "switch should have supported 4k from the start" ... And people where asking me if I'm trolling. I wanted support for 120Hz from switch 2, and people are "no chance it can deliver even 60 at 4k.

So i find the 4k on switch video really refreshing.
There would have been enough emulator or retro game ports or indie games that would have worked with 1440p or 4k on OG switch if given the option, and those won't have a problem to reach 4k120 on switch 2. I'm talking doom1, N64 games, stuff like celest...

 

[Steve]

Looks like there’s a huge possibility of KH4 arriving on the Switch 2

Take it has a grain of salt, since she’s not 100% sure, but it would make a lot sense with the new multiplatform strategy.

 

[Concernt]

Darn. I had the thread on ignore mode by accident and I was saying to myself nothing happened, be cool. I just read about this DF article and said oh shit seems negative. Better check the guys…bang I am back.

They seem to be questionable lately for some reason. Not malicious reasons, but definitely not the full picture. The picture drawn here seems a bit more optimistic. I will say my usual line, pessimistic is not the same as realistic.

If we do reach 4 tflops. These graphics will look beautiful. I am playing hellblade 2 on my Series S while the image reconstruction is a bit icky. This game looks like a good CG movie on Netflix.

Given it should have better reconstruction, I think even with 3-3.5TF of compute, comparable or similar real world performance in TV mode next to Series S seems well within reach.

 

[carbvan]

Darn. I had the thread on ignore mode by accident and I was saying to myself nothing happened, be cool. I just read about this DF article and said oh shit seems negative. Better check the guys…bang I am back.

DF article? Mind linking it?

 

[ezidro3]

Looks like there’s a huge possibility of KH4 arriving on the Switch 2

Take it has a grain of salt, since she’s not 100% sure, but it would make a lot sense with the new multiplatform strategy.

Native ports for KH on Switch 2 would be so annoying lmfao

Like there really wasn't any reason everything but 3 couldn't be on Switch 1

 

[FernandoRocker]

Yes, but that involves a long wait.

The RTX 4090 was released on 12 October 2022. But a proper die shot of AD102 wasn't publicly available until 28 April 2024, which is a little more than 1.5 years later.

The Snapdragon 8cx Gen 3 was launched in 1H 2022. But a proper die shot of the Snapdragon 8cx Gen 3 wasn't publicly available until 20 May 2024, which is in the range of 2 to 2.5 years, depending on when in 1H 2022.

Maybe I'm remembering this incorrectly, but some members in the old forums chipped in to get a X-Rays of the components of certain system? I think it was for the Wii U or maybe 3DS?

 

[Dekuman]

I mean, if PS4 with merely 8GB of RAM and an OS that was way heavier iirc than switch's could record up to like 30 minutes of gameplay and stream, why couldn't switch 2 with better video encoders, 12GB of RAM and a better CPU and GPU?

I think this is because the video footage was dumped into a container file on the HDD as the recording is happening. I do the same thing with Shadowplay on my PC.

I'm not sure how advisable it is with Switch 2's potential storage solution to do this as it could seriously cut down on the expected life of the storage.
They can maybe force people who want to record longer videos to save it to microSD, which is cheaper to replace and also replaceable instead of being soldered onto the board with the memory allocation out of the box maybe beding for videos in the 1-5 minute range and any video recording over that requiring an SD card for Switch to dump chunks of video onto it.

Honestly, being able to record the last minutes of gameplay is nice, if something unexpected happens or if there's a particularly moving cutscene, 5 minutes is a good cutoff point. I just find the 30 seconds way too restrictive and I am sure Nintendo understands this.

 

[oldpuck]

There are many way more performant web aps.

In the Switch?

The question I have, why is it rendering so inefficiently.

What evidence do you have that it’s inefficient? Slow doesn’t mean inefficient.

And it often is already more sluggish than normal web pages from the beginning.

There aren’t exactly a lot of webpages on the Switch for you to compare it to, so I don’t know why you seem to think it’s slower than “normal” webapps.

Something that can run total should not struggle to load a simple feed. Most phone aps on a 7-8 year old phone can do that just fine. I think the problem is that they seethe current version as "just fine" instead of optimizing. And I know, optimizing web aps can become a chore. Nobody forced them to do it this way. Make a native app, Send of API calls. Why not.

You believe that Nintendo keeps the web app inefficient out of laziness, but that if they developed a native app this will go away?

7-8 year old phones, like the Samsung Galaxy A3, are running the same CPU as the Switch, except they have 8 cores instead of 4, and run 60% faster. So it’s not comparable hardware.

They do make API calls? How do you think the webpage communicates with the backend? They use a web app instead of a native app, because updates to the app would require firmware updates. The backend is being aggressively modernized for Switch 2. It can only be modernized at speed because API updates don’t have to wait on firmware updates.

 

[Dekuman]

7-8 year old phones, like the Samsung Galaxy A3, are running the same CPU as the Switch, except they have 8 cores instead of 4, and run 60% faster. So it’s not comparable hardware.

Someone can probably correct me but i've always assuumed Nintendo Switch doesn't even have access to all 4 of its cores when the game is suspended and its on eshop. I assume the game cores are always idle to keep game logic from breaking (if a game is suspended) and only the OS core is doing all the work.