• 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)

This is the problem Sony will run into.
The PS5 Pro will only complicate even more how the PS6 will not look that impressive over the current systems (without going extreme to make a grande leap over PS5/PS5 Pro).

They can barely afford to make cutting-edge games for PS5, so what would the budget of these games look like on a 40Tflop system?
Not to mention after the success of the Switch it sounds like every manufacturer is interested in a portable variation in their portfolio and how would this stay close in spec to a stationary console...
The chatter i'm hearing from gamers is 'who asked for this' and I'm struggling to see a reason for this outside of Sony superfans and people who like to thumb their noses at plebs playing on weaker hardware jumping to the most powerful console available.

I don't think there's more than a few million people between those groups. And considering it will be priced even higher i can imagine the post holiday analysis being it a bit of a failure. I'm still curious if they actually launch this thing this year.
 
I think the leak says around 33tf if I'm not mistaken.

Not exactly. That's only because RDNA3 has a feature that causes the teraflops to be doubled without anything close to an actual doubling of performance. It has 60 CUs with a max clock of 2.35GHz vs the PS5's 36 CUs with a max clock of 2.23GHz, with both systems likely only seeing minor drops on occasion.
 
0
The chatter i'm hearing from gamers is 'who asked for this' and I'm struggling to see a reason for this outside of Sony superfans and people who like to thumb their noses at plebs playing on weaker hardware jumping to the most powerful console available.

I don't think there's more than a few million people between those groups. And considering it will be priced even higher i can imagine the post holiday analysis being it a bit of a failure. I'm still curious if they actually launch this thing this year.
I'm more curios about the pricing. since the new Xbox is 600$ and the only improvement was the 2 terabyte storage.

Like... 600$-700$ seems to be the only plausible option, since most people wouldn't really be interested, since making a console expensive has bitten Sony and Nintendo in the ass (PS3 and 3DS).

From what i've read, most developers are either excited or thinking why it's needed.

The only game, that would genuinely make people buy the pro version, would be GTA6, but that's likely arriving sometime 2026.
 
0
As I suspected, thanks for the answer, I asked this question because I remembered that four years ago people made fun of the Switch with the new next gen consoles, there were people who said that the Xbox Series S would even crush the Switch.
I mean... Spec wise, yes, but sales wise... Extremely badly, heck, the Oled model, that's slightly more expensive then the series s is outselling it.

I wouldn't be surprised, when the Switch 2 is in the market, some people will say ,,it's holding back gaming''. similar to the Series s
 
The chatter i'm hearing from gamers is 'who asked for this' and I'm struggling to see a reason for this outside of Sony superfans and people who like to thumb their noses at plebs playing on weaker hardware jumping to the most powerful console available.

I don't think there's more than a few million people between those groups. And considering it will be priced even higher i can imagine the post holiday analysis being it a bit of a failure. I'm still curious if they actually launch this thing this year.

I couldn't agree more!
They are struggling 4 years into the PS5's life to get their base away from PS4...
What do they think PS5 to PS6 adoption will look like if it offers nothing more than a spec bump?
 
This is the problem Sony will run into.
The PS5 Pro will only complicate even more how the PS6 will not look that impressive over the current systems (without going extreme to make a grande leap over PS5/PS5 Pro).

They can barely afford to make cutting-edge games for PS5, so what would the budget of these games look like on a 40Tflop system?
Not to mention after the success of the Switch it sounds like every manufacturer is interested in a portable variation in their portfolio and how would this stay close in spec to a stationary console...

Satoru Iwata's prediction in full display: as consoles get more complex, games continue to skyrocket in development time and cost. Fewer games come out; games are more expensive and mandate a massive return for their investment and when they don't, people lose their jobs. Meanwhile, the Switch's more limited hardware and convenient form-factor make it a haven for AA games, indie games, and it's all-around cheaper and faster to put games on it. Especially since Nintendo merged their home-console and handheld divisions. What does it mean? vastly more games to play with what feels like a new first-party game every month.

In the end, people just want to have fun. They wants games to play without waiting 5 years or spending an arm and a leg. Is it any wonder they're doing so well?
 
As I suspected, thanks for the answer, I asked this question because I remembered that four years ago people made fun of the Switch with the new next gen consoles, there were people who said that the Xbox Series S would even crush the Switch.
It really is a vanishingly small percentage of people who have an opinion at all. Most people have a totally sane relationship with their consoles - they're expensive products by faceless corporations that do a job (play games) either well enough or not well enough.

Those people will buy the console, those people will make it a success, and because it is a success it will Has Games. Simple.
 
The PlayStation 5 Pro is rumoured to be released in holiday 2024.

But even in the scenario the PlayStation 5 Pro is planned to release during Q4 2025, TSMC's N2 process node is only planned to start high volume manufacturing (HVM) in 2H 2025.

And considering that TSMC said that TSMC's N3 process node is planned to start HVM in 2H 2022, but TSMC made an official announcement about starting HVM for TSMC's N3 process node on 29 December 2022, two days before the beginning of 2023, there's a possibility that HVM for TSMC's N2 process node won't practically start until early 2026.

So TSMC's N2 process node won't be ready by the time the PlayStation 5 Pro's APU is taped out. And I don't think TSMC's N2 process node is a realistic possibility to begin with.
Sorry, my words got jumbled up. I did hear about the rumors of PS4 pro releasing this year in the last quarter, but I did meant that I hoped it got delayed a year, and then PS5 Pro releases at 2028 (minimum of 3 years between pro release and PS5), and potentially using 2nm when it gets released.


Just a slight correction, but the Series S's GPU has 20 CUs, which equates to 1280 shader cores, whereas the T239's GPU has 12 SMs, which equates to 1536 CUDA cores. Series S's GPU clock is higher at 1.565Ghz than what the T239 would be at when docked. While the Series S has the advantage of raw GPU performance, the use of any RT or FSR cuts into that advantage where Switch 2 isn't affected nearly as much because of dedicated hardware.
i keep hearing the x series s would have a slight advantage due to higher clock speeds... And higher clocks are apparently consistent than lower clocks but less cores when it comes to two different GPUs that equate to the same amount of TFLOPs (but lol two different architectures)

But isn't that better raster performance through the use of Infinity Cache, which is only used by their discrete GPUs? None of the APUs have it, which includes those in the consoles and portable PCs.
i think it was old puck (and maybe thraktor) that said that RDA 1/2 GPU edges out over ampere, specifically SD vs Switch 2 at the same TFLOPs.
 
This is the problem Sony will run into.
The PS5 Pro will only complicate even more how the PS6 will not look that impressive over the current systems (without going extreme to make a grande leap over PS5/PS5 Pro).

They can barely afford to make cutting-edge games for PS5, so what would the budget of these games look like on a 40Tflop system?
Not to mention after the success of the Switch it sounds like every manufacturer is interested in a portable variation in their portfolio and how would this stay close in spec to a stationary console...
does a PS5 Pro, is really necessary? Sony struggling with games even on PS5, a more powerful console( mid gen refresh in that case), is just let put a band-aid in this isseus and hope it fix our problem.
 
Satoru Iwata's prediction in full display: as consoles get more complex, games continue to skyrocket in development time and cost. Fewer games come out; games are more expensive and mandate a massive return for their investment and when they don't, people lose their jobs. Meanwhile, the Switch's more limited hardware and convenient form-factor make it a haven for AA games, indie games, and it's all-around cheaper and faster to put games on it. Especially since Nintendo merged their home-console and handheld divisions. What does it mean? vastly more games to play with what feels like a new first-party game every month.

In the end, people just want to have fun. They wants games to play without waiting 5 years or spending an arm and a leg. Is it any wonder they're doing so well?
Agree, the only thing Nintendo mustn't do , is abandoning their smaller scale projects and AA games and we're good to go.

Like i want a system that has the latest Mario and Zelda, but also small projects like 2D Kirby, ring fit adventure and 51 clubhouse games and Pikmin 4.

Like Nintendo will sadly face similar issues as Sony, when it comes to development time, but if Nintendo continues their lending of IP, their AA projects, then i would be happy.
 
Agree, the only thing Nintendo mustn't do , is abandoning their smaller scale projects and AA games and we're good to go.

Like i want a system that has the latest Mario and Zelda, but also small projects like 2D Kirby, ring fit adventure and 51 clubhouse games and Pikmin 4.

Like Nintendo will sadly face similar issues as Sony, when it comes to development time, but if Nintendo continues their lending of IP, their AA projects, then i would be happy.

I have every confidence they will. For every big Zelda or 3D Mario, the actual lifetime of the console is chock full of games of all sorts and developers. The Switch 2 itself is looking to be a perfect "middle of the road" console with competitive enough specs to make it a true 9th gen machine, but not overtly trying to be bleeding edge. Which means it's affordable enough to sell it and still make a profit, parents can buy it for their kids so they can play Mario Kart, and everybody's happy.
 
Satoru Iwata's prediction in full display: as consoles get more complex, games continue to skyrocket in development time and cost. Fewer games come out; games are more expensive and mandate a massive return for their investment and when they don't, people lose their jobs. Meanwhile, the Switch's more limited hardware and convenient form-factor make it a haven for AA games, indie games, and it's all-around cheaper and faster to put games on it. Especially since Nintendo merged their home-console and handheld divisions. What does it mean? vastly more games to play with what feels like a new first-party game every month.

In the end, people just want to have fun. They wants games to play without waiting 5 years or spending an arm and a leg. Is it any wonder they're doing so well?
I think Nintendo has gone down the perfect path, not even with full intent, but because they have to for their formfactor.

Instead of chasing as many transistors as possible, they are, courtesy of Nvidia, on track to barrel into the future not with huge jumps in performance but lots of dedicated hardware. Silicon energy efficiency gains aren't anything like they used to be, we're hitting the physical limits of that. Systems, but especially portable systems, will have to depend more and more on these dedicated elements to achieve better performance.

They can't chase the biggest, baddest GPU on the planet, they make handhelds, but every generation they can make sure they have every accelerator, every little feature, every trick a developer could want. These can bring DOWN development complexity, like raytracing in place of baked lighting.
 
I think the leak says around 33tf if I'm not mistaken.
i do remember the initial reports staying that, but realistically it wouldn't reach that most of the time. More of a marketing thing. Like advertising fp16 numbers. So it might just be closer to 1.5x in actual GPU performance over PS5 base, not counting A.i stuff
This is the problem Sony will run into.
The PS5 Pro will only complicate even more how the PS6 will not look that impressive over the current systems (without going extreme to make a grande leap over PS5/PS5 Pro).

They can barely afford to make cutting-edge games for PS5, so what would the budget of these games look like on a 40Tflop system?
Not to mention after the success of the Switch it sounds like every manufacturer is interested in a portable variation in their portfolio and how would this stay close in spec to a stationary console...
Maybe it's gonna look closer to 30 TFLOPs at launch, if it gets released in 2027 or 2028. And 2nm would be cutting it far too close for desktop GPU (as Dakhil said with the tape out).

does a PS5 Pro, is really necessary? Sony struggling with games even on PS5, a more powerful console( mid gen refresh in that case), is just let put a band-aid in this isseus and hope it fix our problem.
Something something trying to market and sell 8k tvs early. j/k.
i don't think it is personally. i think they're trying to get more 60fps games or higher resolution, as well as better ray tracing... 8k is definitely not worth it. As far as 60fps goes, I don't think any cpu intensive games will make a difference.
 
I genuinely dislike the idea of the mid-gen refreshes, and I really wish Sony/MS didn't start this dumb trend. I legitimately don't understand the purpose of them, because it seems like it only makes development more complicated for everyone involved, and also diminishes the otherwise massive generation bumps we would normally get.
 
i do remember the initial reports staying that, but realistically it wouldn't reach that most of the time. More of a marketing thing. Like advertising fp16 numbers. So it might just be closer to 1.5x in actual GPU performance over PS5 base, not counting A.i stuff

Maybe it's gonna look closer to 30 TFLOPs at launch, if it gets released in 2027 or 2028. And 2nm would be cutting it far too close for desktop GPU (as Dakhil said with the tape out).


Something something trying to market and sell 8k tvs early. j/k.
i don't think it is personally. i think they're trying to get more 60fps games or higher resolution, as well as better ray tracing... 8k is definitely not worth it. As far as 60fps goes, I don't think any cpu intensive games will make a difference.
The use of things like packed FP16 are already what's available on the PS5, so it just seems to me that folks pushing for that 33 TFlops number are just inflating it by not acknowledging that the numbers between the PS5 and its Pro are from difference actions. There are even folks clamoring about 66 TFlops, but that is only in a case where both dual issue and packed FP16 are used, and I think someone mentioned here that only one or two instructions are even possible with that, not the entire instruction set.

All in all, the PS5 does 9-10 TFlops of FP32, and the Pro is set to do around 16-17 TFlops of FP32, based on supposed specs.
 
I genuinely dislike the idea of the mid-gen refreshes, and I really wish Sony/MS didn't start this dumb trend. I legitimately don't understand the purpose of them, because it seems like it only makes development more complicated for everyone involved, and also diminishes the otherwise massive generation bumps we would normally get.
It's a good way to keep momentum, hype and hardware sales up.

Like the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X did make people double dip, just for slightly better performances, for example the PS4 Pro speculated hardware sale is about 14.3M.

Despite most people finding it unnecessary, most of the time it's the promise of ,, Our new hardware can make certain games run better''. For example the Xbox One X was heavily marketed for a certain CDPR game.
 
0
I think Nintendo has gone down the perfect path, not even with full intent, but because they have to for their formfactor.

Instead of chasing as many transistors as possible, they are, courtesy of Nvidia, on track to barrel into the future not with huge jumps in performance but lots of dedicated hardware. Silicon energy efficiency gains aren't anything like they used to be, we're hitting the physical limits of that. Systems, but especially portable systems, will have to depend more and more on these dedicated elements to achieve better performance.

They can't chase the biggest, baddest GPU on the planet, they make handhelds, but every generation they can make sure they have every accelerator, every little feature, every trick a developer could want. These can bring DOWN development complexity, like raytracing in place of baked lighting.

It's insane how AI and the upscaling technologies within the past 5 years or so are a match made in heaven for Nintendo's "lateral thinking with seasoned technology". They can use cheaper hardware and let the magic algorithms do the heavy-lifting and they're only going to get better overtime. The Switch 2 is going to be the first console in history that actively looks better overtime as Nvidia continues to improve their DLSS through firmware updates.


I genuinely dislike the idea of the mid-gen refreshes, and I really wish Sony/MS didn't start this dumb trend. I legitimately don't understand the purpose of them, because it seems like it only makes development more complicated for everyone involved, and also diminishes the otherwise massive generation bumps we would normally get.

It's honestly not bad. For Nintendo, it's just good business. They can launch an affordable SKU with an LCD that will occupy most people's households and, down the line, release an OLED model with some mild changes like more internal storage.

The reality is that the era of massive generational bumps has been over for awhile. If anything, the Switch 2 is likely to be the last console to actually feel like it's making a generational leap forward because we've been stuck with "PS3.5" graphics for a very long time. The mid-gen refresh gave us the PS4 Pro and games on that thing are just so pretty. Heck, the PS4 is still getting games to this day as well it should!

Everything about the Switch 2 that I've heard puts it a generation ahead...a super Steam-Deck in handheld and a PS4 Pro/Series S in Docked; and that's a dang, dang, good place to be.
 
Last edited:
It's insane how AI and the upscaling technologies within the past 5 years or so are a match made in heaven for Nintendo's "lateral thinking with seasoned technology". They can use cheaper hardware and let the magic algorithms do the heavy-lifting and they're only going to get better overtime. The Switch 2 is going to be the first console in history that actively looks better overtime as Nvidia continues to improve their DLSS through firmware updates.
That's actually crazy to think about, heck, maybe through DLSS updates, certain games might get improved fps over time.
 
That's actually crazy to think about, heck, maybe through DLSS updates, certain games might get improved fps over time.

Yep yep. The Switch 2 is going to have a very long lifespan before the Ampere/Lovelace guts finally reach their limits because so much of what we see on the screen will be heavy-lifted by DLSS and Nvidia is always working to improve it. Nintendo devs will get each new iteration and it's theoretically possible for them to put out patches post-launch that further improve the visuals and frame-rate for games. Hopefully we'll all be playing with this thing come Spring 2025
 
The Switch 2 is going to be the first console in history that actively looks better overtime as Nvidia continues to improve their DLSS through firmware updates.
That's pretty much true of every console, as developers learn their way around a system, games get more optimised.

However, DLSS improvements could be bigger than that, with the minimum internal resolution for a workable image going further down, freeing up more resources for the rest of rendering.

We're already looking at a system where games can opt to let inference make 8/9ths of the pixels. Hard to imagine it better better than that, but I don't discount it. 540p internal -> 4K output? (I actually think we'll see this relatively early on, if we see a game using Ultra Performance Mode type settings with dynamic resolution scaling.)
 
So would many of these 30fps games, be able to run on the Switch in 60fps, since the CPU from the looks of it looks pretty damn good, with modern features.
As long as game logic isn't tied to 30fps or whatever, it seems feasible from the CPU side of things. Doubling the frame rate would also double the GPU costs which might be harder to pull off for a PS4 game, but that's the sort of thing DLSS could help with as well. Not enough GPU resources to run the 1080p30 PS4 game at 1080p60? Well, maybe you can run it at ~900p60 instead and scale it to... whatever is possible.
The Switch 2 is going to be the first console in history that actively looks better overtime as Nvidia continues to improve their DLSS through firmware updates.
Do we have any reason to believe it won't work just like on PC and each game will use whatever safe/known version of DLSS they've chosen to stick with? In which case the game might look better if it gets an update later, which is true of any game since online updates became possible.
 
As long as game logic isn't tied to 30fps or whatever, it seems feasible from the CPU side of things. Doubling the frame rate would also double the GPU costs which might be harder to pull off for a PS4 game, but that's the sort of thing DLSS could help with as well. Not enough GPU resources to run the 1080p30 PS4 game at 1080p60? Well, maybe you can run it at ~900p60 instead and scale it to... whatever is possible.
Just like the CPU architecture of the Switch 2's Cortex A78C being more capable than PS4's Jaguar, we can safely say the GPU architecture of Switch 2's Ampere is more capable than PS4's GCN 2.0. It isn't just about plotting pixels, but processing everything leading up to plotting the pixels, and Ampere would certainly have the means to generate equal results in fewer operations than GCN 2.0. Plotting the pixels, imo, has more to do with RAM bandwidth, and even touching on that subject, it's the difference between immediate mode, rendering straight onto the full buffers in PS4's main RAM vs Switch 2's method of tile rendering in cache before flushing to main RAM. There is a possibility that what took PS4 to rendering games in 1080p30 may allow Switch 2 to rendering games in 1080p60.
 
Out of curiosity which is more

Why did they chose a weak cpu? Everyone I mean?

Sony and MS? They didn't had many options for a 64-bit SoCs at the time. Nintendo? Because low power consumption and perfect backward compatibility with the Wii were main design priorities.

Part of it too was this desire to try out General Purpose GPUs, or GPGPU. The idea that I recall is the GPU was able to process more general purpose instructions that a CPU would normally do, almost to the point of not requiring a CPU at all, except maybe to run the OS itself.

There have been tech demos in the past of games running purely on a GPU, both in rendering, plus some pretty nifty physics engines as well.

One of the comparisons I remember was the PS3 and Xbox 360 had these monster CPUs, but meager GPUs, especially the PS3. But once the PS4, and Xbone came out, that whole mindset changed, and suddenly the GPU took more of the silicon real estate over the CPU. The Wii U followed a similar route, which is clearly evidenced from the Multi-Chip Module they used, or MCM.

mcm.jpg


Notice how large the GPU is relative to the CPU.


The MCM was actually a pretty advanced piece of kit when it was shown, because up until this point, the CPU, and GPU in the other consoles were mostly on separate areas of the motherboard. This of course created more latency in communication with the two chips, though by the time the Xbox 360 Slim, plus the PS4, and Xbone, APUs were all the rage, and an MCM wasn’t really needed.

Though in a weird twist, MCMs are starting to make a comeback in the form of Chiplet designs that the likes of AMD have been using for their Ryzen CPUs, and more recently, their Radeon RX 7000 series of GPUs. Rather than conventional monolithic dies that must be made using the same node process, if one part of it is bad, you could end up not using the chip itself, or just bin it until it works, and disable stuff.

With Chiplets, you can manufacture individual components on multiple different node processes, which can help save on costs, plus if one component is bad, you just replace it with another rather than the whole chip.

Lots of cool stuff being done over the last 20 years in computing.
 
Like Nintendo will sadly face similar issues as Sony, when it comes to development time, but if Nintendo continues their lending of IP, their AA projects, then i would be happy.
From that perspective, the next most likely project to be loaned out is a DK game, though it should be noted that the main developers of Metroid Dread are still EPD people, while Ring Fit, which you mentioned, is a fully EPD-led production, pikmin4 is a co-development between EPD and an external studio, and including ARMS is a co-development with Namco, and it's evident that theIn the future we'll see mid-sized projects made in collaboration with more external studios.
 
0
I genuinely dislike the idea of the mid-gen refreshes, and I really wish Sony/MS didn't start this dumb trend. I legitimately don't understand the purpose of them, because it seems like it only makes development more complicated for everyone involved, and also diminishes the otherwise massive generation bumps we would normally get.
I'm not trying to change your mind in liking them, but there are a number of legit reasons to have them. There are also some pure money reasons.

Last generation, video games suddenly looked worse if you upgraded your TV. Upgrades in technology were making LCDs much cheaper, which made big TVs cheap, and high res LCDs possible. Low end customers were getting bigger TVs. High end customers were replacing their 1080p plasma TVs with inferior LCDs but that had 4K support. Sony, which also happens to make TVs, was selling gamers on a high end screen that made their games look worse.

Mid-gen consoles fixed that problem. And they allowed the cross-gen period to last longer, because there was a class of 8th gen hardware that could decently run 9th gen games. Which you might not like personally, but increases the number of people who can buy the games, which means more games can be profitable - fewer layoffs, more games.

It didn't complicate development, because Sony and Microsoft's platform is chock full of PC multiplats, including most of the games they publish themeselves. The things that make it possible to scale to a Pro console are baked into a PC development cycle.

If the consoles aren't useful to the developers, and aren't useful to gamers, then their existence won't affect the industry too much, and if they do affect the industry, it's because the industry saw them as useful. I think the PS6 is a dumb idea, personally, but there is a technological argument.

Last gen devices were not well positioned relative to the market, when they came out. Xbox Series and PS5 were much better positioned, they should have stayed relevant longer. But both of them are so tied to the PC multiplat experience, where Nvidia dominates, and Nvidia changed the game. RT performance on the consoles is weak, and they don't have the dedicated upscaling support that Nvidia does, but those technologies are already standard on PC.

By the time the next generation comes around, you'll not just have a performance leap, you'll have a performance leap plus new upscaling hardware, plus a couple of generational leaps in RT. You could argue that Sony needs a Pro to keep getting decent PC ports, and to insure there is any sort of cross-gen period at all.
 
I'm not trying to change your mind in liking them, but there are a number of legit reasons to have them. There are also some pure money reasons.

Last generation, video games suddenly looked worse if you upgraded your TV. Upgrades in technology were making LCDs much cheaper, which made big TVs cheap, and high res LCDs possible. Low end customers were getting bigger TVs. High end customers were replacing their 1080p plasma TVs with inferior LCDs but that had 4K support. Sony, which also happens to make TVs, was selling gamers on a high end screen that made their games look worse.

Mid-gen consoles fixed that problem. And they allowed the cross-gen period to last longer, because there was a class of 8th gen hardware that could decently run 9th gen games. Which you might not like personally, but increases the number of people who can buy the games, which means more games can be profitable - fewer layoffs, more games.

It didn't complicate development, because Sony and Microsoft's platform is chock full of PC multiplats, including most of the games they publish themeselves. The things that make it possible to scale to a Pro console are baked into a PC development cycle.

If the consoles aren't useful to the developers, and aren't useful to gamers, then their existence won't affect the industry too much, and if they do affect the industry, it's because the industry saw them as useful. I think the PS6 is a dumb idea, personally, but there is a technological argument.

Last gen devices were not well positioned relative to the market, when they came out. Xbox Series and PS5 were much better positioned, they should have stayed relevant longer. But both of them are so tied to the PC multiplat experience, where Nvidia dominates, and Nvidia changed the game. RT performance on the consoles is weak, and they don't have the dedicated upscaling support that Nvidia does, but those technologies are already standard on PC.

By the time the next generation comes around, you'll not just have a performance leap, you'll have a performance leap plus new upscaling hardware, plus a couple of generational leaps in RT. You could argue that Sony needs a Pro to keep getting decent PC ports, and to insure there is any sort of cross-gen period at all.

Honestly, the reason I'm so glad the PS5 Pro is a thing isn't just because of how it will make a bunch of my games look/run better immediately, it's because it will give developers an early start with the newer tech. Better RT to a degree, but PSSR getting to arrive and be implemented in games 3-4 years early rather than being introduced for the first time in PS6 games will be really beneficial.
 
The reality is that the era of massive generational bumps has been over for awhile. If anything, the Switch 2 is likely to be the last console to actually feel like it's making a generational leap forward because we've been stuck with "PS3.5" graphics for a very long time. The mid-gen refresh gave us the PS4 Pro and games on that thing are just so pretty. Heck, the PS4 is still getting games to this day as well it should!

Everything about the Switch 2 that I've heard puts it a generation ahead...a super Steam-Deck in handheld and a PS4 Pro/Series S in Docked; and that's a dang, dang, good place to be.
Nintendo really loves to effectively stay on the same generation of game console graphics for 2 whole generations since the Wii. In hindsight this is a good thing though. They can make sure developing games take a more reasonable 3-4 years to make instead of basically the whole generation, as their internal dev teams get used to making games of similar graphical fidelity for their next project.

I still think PS4 level visuals are breathtaking and barely age, so being stuck with essentially PS4.5 visuals even for the console after the Switch 2 won't bother me. Though i believe the next-next gen will aim for at least PS5 power so basically half a generational leap but with a completely new concept. (Sounds familiar?)

I can't see Nintendo keep making more powerful Switches for a long time and Switch 2 will be as far as they'll go. They have a tendency of changing things up after 2 generations of the same concept, as usually the successor doesn't stick as well as the predecessor that did introduce the concept.
 
Nintendo really loves to effectively stay on the same generation of game console graphics for 2 whole generations since the Wii. In hindsight this is a good thing though. They can make sure developing games take a more reasonable 3-4 years to make instead of basically the whole generation, as their internal dev teams get used to making games of similar graphical fidelity for their next project.

I still think PS4 level visuals are breathtaking and barely age, so being stuck with essentially PS4.5 visuals even for the console after the Switch 2 won't bother me. Though i believe the next-next gen will aim for at least PS5 power so basically half a generational leap but with a completely new concept. (Sounds familiar?)

I can't see Nintendo keep making more powerful Switches for a long time and Switch 2 will be as far as they'll go. They have a tendency of changing things up after 2 generations of the same concept, as usually the successor doesn't stick as well as the predecessor that did introduce the concept.
The analog of switch2 is xss, not ps4 or ps4pro, maybe so from a power perspective only, but ps4pro absolutely, positively does not accomplish switch2's primary goal of RT and better textures, And thanks to dlss so switch2 can run Doom The Dark ages at basically the same level of graphics as xss.The ps4pro can't.
 
I wouldn't be surprised, when the Switch 2 is in the market, some people will say ,,it's holding back gaming''. similar to the Series s

Oh, you can bet a certain audience will do that.

It will likely turn out being the usual vocal minority though, as I expect publishers will keep targeting MS/Sony platforms first. Should Nintendo have a more aggressive stance on (timed) exclusives it might get more annoying, but I'm just too old for this kind of attitude/arguing, so I think I'll probably happily ignore them. ^__^

Satoru Iwata's prediction in full display [...]

Yup.

The Switch (and the Wii/DS before it) clearly proved there is a HUGE chunk of the market that simply couldn't care less about the comparatively best/latest tech. Technology obviously does help, stuff like DLSS will probably lessen diminishing returns a bit, sure, but overall there's no doubt Nintendo has a way healtier, more sustainable business model.
 
Last edited:
The analog of switch2 is xss, not ps4 or ps4pro, maybe so from a power perspective only, but ps4pro absolutely, positively does not accomplish switch2's primary goal of RT and better textures, And thanks to dlss so switch2 can run Doom The Dark ages at basically the same level of graphics as xss.The ps4pro can't.
Tbh i don't see the PS4 Pro as a half gen leap, it is just a PS4 that can render and output higher resolutions at the same graphical fidelity to my eyes.
Game logic and visual complexity is still tied to the limited power of the base console. The PS5 Pro will be similar in that regard as all games have to run on the lower powered base PS5.

Let's imagine the Series S doesn't exist. In that case the Switch 2 definitely fits the half gen leap over PS4 and PS4 Pro much better in my book with having a good bit more power and access to modern features that the last gen didn't have. But in terms of raw CPU and GPU power it is not quite getting to next gen. Feature-wise yes, but not power-wise. Switch 1 is similar here being just mildly ahead of Xbox 360, but with access to PS4/XBO features.

I know everyone is seeing this different but i just wanted to make my point clear. :)
 
Let's imagine the Series S doesn't exist. In that case the Switch 2 definitely fits the half gen leap over PS4 and PS4 Pro much better in my book with having a good bit more power and access to modern features that the last gen didn't have. But in terms of raw CPU and GPU power it is not quite getting to next gen. Feature-wise yes, but not power-wise. Switch 1 is similar here being just mildly ahead of Xbox 360, but with access to PS4/XBO features.
The switch1 didn't have dlss, the switch2's disadvantage in power was largely made up for by dlss, not that dlss is a free feature, but dlss actually did help Nintendo erase most of the performance gaps with the worst performing console of the 9th gen, the xss, mainly games that weren't really that cpu demanding, where the gpu specs affect the switch2's geometric numbers, but the rest of it was either better or there was no gap.

The 8 gen, in which the switch1 resides, still belongs to the era where hardware power and horsepower comparisons dominate, but since the introduction of dlss2 and fsr2, the rules of the game have changed.
 
The chatter i'm hearing from gamers is 'who asked for this' and I'm struggling to see a reason for this outside of Sony superfans and people who like to thumb their noses at plebs playing on weaker hardware jumping to the most powerful console available.

I don't think there's more than a few million people between those groups. And considering it will be priced even higher i can imagine the post holiday analysis being it a bit of a failure. I'm still curious if they actually launch this thing this year.
Another factor is given the economy of Japan and the EU today it means that mostly gamers in the US will be buying the PS5 pro. Meaning there is a real possibility that PS5 pro will reach fewer people than the PS4 pro did.
 
0
While the Gamers ™️ can determine that the new model is useless (aka the PS5 Pro), it’s not the first time that the gamers and the causlas could be at a mismatch and then the casuals would be popular with it while the core gamers would find it to be… useless?

So I’d wait a bit about that, at the moment it’s a device that I’m just like “hmmm”
 
Interesting enough, it’s seems that Series S is capable of running starfield at 60-120fps, the only downside would be that the resolution would be 900p.

Makes me intrigued how the Switch 2 would run most games, since developers will be able to run these games at lower resolution, without anyone batting an eye.

 
Interesting enough, it’s seems that Series S is capable of running starfield at 60-120fps, the only downside would be that the resolution would be 900p.

Makes me intrigued how the Switch 2 would run most games, since developers will be able to run these games at lower resolution, without anyone batting an eye.



Not surprising, native/high res rendering is one hell of a task. There's a reason so many devs went and tried to make some upscaling solution with varying success until nVidia came and said "Let 'AI' do it!".
 
Interesting enough, it’s seems that Series S is capable of running starfield at 60-120fps, the only downside would be that the resolution would be 900p.

Makes me intrigued how the Switch 2 would run most games, since developers will be able to run these games at lower resolution, without anyone batting an eye.


If we take starfield as an example, the game is a product of a partnership with AMD, so we can't tell how well it will run on dlss, but if a similar game offers a dlss option, I would presume that it could output 1080p in dlss performance mode on specs similar to the switch2.(aka 540p rendering resolution)
 
0
I hate how inferior Switch motion controls are compared to the Wii's IR aiming. How easy would it be for the new dock to be compatible with the Wii sensor bar or similar to allow IR aiming either in the form of new joy-cons or Wii remotes?
Wow. First time hearing this sentiment. I always felt that the Switch's aiming was a pretty significant upgrade to the Wii's. Very interesting! I guess I need to do a direct comparison before I disagree, eh? 🤔
 
Wow. First time hearing this sentiment. I always felt that the Switch's aiming was a pretty significant upgrade to the Wii's. Very interesting! I guess I need to do a direct comparison before I disagree, eh? 🤔

My issues are mainly with motion controls as the primary input method for aiming in the Wii remote/separate joy-con configuration (like Skyward Sword) rather than using motion controls to make minor adjustments to stick-based aiming (like Splatoon/OOT3D).

The Wii Zelda games illustrate my issues pretty well. Twilight Princess used IR aiming for the bow and, despite the occasional hiccup due to light sources interfering with the Wii remote IR sensor, it worked pretty much as you'd expect. Skyward Sword on the other hand used motion controls for aiming; which was less responsive and required constant recalibration because of how much it drifted. I'm sure I've got RSI from how many times I've mashed that recalibration button.

The IR aiming on the Wii/Wii U versions of Pikmin/2/3 make them the definitive way to play. The Switch versions using motion controls are a noticible downgrade.
 
0
I genuinely dislike the idea of the mid-gen refreshes, and I really wish Sony/MS didn't start this dumb trend. I legitimately don't understand the purpose of them, because it seems like it only makes development more complicated for everyone involved, and also diminishes the otherwise massive generation bumps we would normally get.

It made sense in the previous gen, with adaptation of 4k displays, HDR and 60FPS becoming the new "gaming standard", mid-gen refresh allowed the consoles to adapt to these new trends.
Now however, the standard didn't change, it's just the games bloated to the point that even 9th gen hardware isn't able to keep up. I don't think that mid-gen refresh will solve that.
 
0
Ok, but what if the reason isn't either of those things but for example the main developer having a certain vision that they want to enforce. Or a business deal that is in place with Sony or Microsoft? There have been weirder reasons for a game to skip Switch (cue: "Our game is for grown up people only, Switch has too much happiness")

Thing is we will never be able to say for certain whether X game will reach Switch 2 because we're not at the position to see what could stop a game from appearing, we can only speculate and what seems logic to us may not be as logical in the eyes of the people dealing with this.
Sorry for the delayed response. Well, one doesn’t need to be in a certain position when the developers have said enough, or you can see for yourself how the events played out. The premise was about whether the hardware we’ve been speculating on would be capable enough to run a game that had a new trailer recently, and the answer to that is a resounding Yes, Of Course It Can!! That’s a conclusion based on what we know, and what Capcom have told us about it. So, at this point, we’re definitely on topic because we’re still discussing the capacity of speculated hardware.

But looking for reasons why it couldn’t is a lost cause because you always come back to what is known and realise it can, while looking for reasons why it wouldn’t is straying off topic because the reasons in that case are not related to hardware capacity. Once more, based on what we know, trying to tie the reasons why it wouldn’t to the hardware capacity is bad faith posting at this point - So, it’s accurate to say the broad umbrella called “industry politics” is the reason, or the publishers didn’t want it there, and leave it at that. One can make disturbed peace with the latter, but these assertions about lacking hardware need to stop. We have seen games on platforms where the gap in specs are far greater than what’s being discussed here - For example, look at Dragon Age: Inquisition, or Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain. Both are on XB1/PS4, and they also have versions on their predecessors, with 6.25% (1/16) of the RAM, and about 1/10 of the GPU capacity on much older architecture available… But NOBODY, NOWHERE, EVER had discourses about “long in the tooth hardware”, “dated this, lacking that”, “PS360 versions look like a pixel game this, or those consoles would explode that…”. I’m not trying to be hostile, so, please don’t misconstrue my passion as such. I just feel that this constant lowballing in Nintendo hardware threads is tiresome and pathetic.

As for the rest, what “vision” is there to enforce? Inferior ray tracing facilities across the board? Tighter censorship before release on the PS brand, as well as a version that can’t deliver the success it could have at home? An XSS version on an inferior GPU than the one in the S2NS and less RAM to work with - THAT vision? An XSX version that wouldn’t sell as well as it could on the S2NS? On PC profiles lower than the S2NS? Also, the “too mature for Switch” thing, when other Capcom IPs such as Resident Evil, Devil May Cry and multiple Monster Hunter titles exist on the Switch? That would come under the broad umbrella of “industry politics”, and I know that saying this gets you called “conspiratorial”, but they’re rife, and the Activision acquisition laid this bare in the courts for people not to acknowledge it, or sit up and take notice. But really, “Developer’s Vision” at this point is a reach that would have Stretch Armstrong begging for mercy, and that’s before repeating that budgets are the #1 restraint, and the developer’s vision can’t exceed that without consequences for their businesses… and while we’re on “business”, there seems to be A LOT of trust that these publishers and development houses are operating as such, and fanboyist mindsets don’t exist at all among some staff (they do - See EA, and the Yakuza developers) because they’re 100% professional (LMAO…). “Business” would determine that they’ll act on the facts and not vibes or feelings… and they will be better prepared to bring their games this time, unlike the entirety of the Switch’s lifecycle, because they’ll surely have seen the sales, Switch’s success, and the official demographic data that was shared with investors and partners.

We have had lots of questions about what the prospective hardware can do, and as much as possible, that’s where I’m trying to stick to. As long as everyone remembers that an XSS versions exist and starts there, then there needn’t be a discussion about the capabilities of the S2NS hardware with regard to what third parties can bring to it. They can bring literally everything, and if they don’t, then the reasons won’t be because the S2NS hardware is lacking. The biggest third party title with the biggest budget (GTA6) will be on XSS, as will Red Dead Redemption 3 - Where is this energy for “Developer’s Vision” discourse there? When it comes to PCs, and targets lower performance profiles, too, that part will be ignored, just as I’ve pointed out with Monster Hunter: Wilds. It’s very selective, or posting in bad faith, or both. Before people start posting such questions, perhaps they should ask themselves if there’s an XSS version first (If it’s on XBox at all, then 100% of the time, there is…), then read the threadmarks and understand them. Until then, I’ll keep saying that the PS5 and XSX are irrelevant because XSS exists, that the hardware we’re discussing here is better than the XSS, and that there isn’t a single game in those libraries which couldn’t exist on the prospective S2NS. Finally, bad ports will exist, but once more, let’s not blame the hardware because they’re just that. Bad ports. They’re never indicative of the hardware capacity, and there are so many other variables at play before making that the first port of call. Didn’t even have to mention another of the biggest IPs with the biggest budgets, COD, will be appearing on this prospective hardware for at least a decade, and that doesn’t happen unless it’s fit for a generational purpose. 💕✨
 
I'm not sure why you would conclude that xss has lower gpu specs than switch2. xss is clocked at a higher frequency and RDNA2's shader cores are not in a 1:1 comparison to Ampere's cuda cores, so xss has better raster performance,More geometric numbers.
1536 is 20% more than 1280. 12GB RAM is 20% more than 10GB RAM. Dedicated neural unit hardware and RT cores on chip is better than no dedicated hardware at all. It’s certainly more versatile than the AMD-powered devices, so, regardless of clock speed, I would consider it better on multiple accounts. In the past, I also pointed out that 1536 is 2/3 of the PS5’s 2304, and we’ve seen how that 2/3 ratio played out among developers because it’s the same one that existed for XB1 (768) VS PS4 (1152). The other thing here, is that the XB1 and PS4 GPUs were clocked at 853MHz and 800MHz respectively. The Switch clocked at 768MHz, which gives you an idea of how hard Nintendo went on docked performance, while the portable mode shows you what developers can achieve in real world terms. 768/853 = 90% and 768/800 = 96% - Now, if Nintendo goes just has hard under a significantly better process, then, in the best case scenario, we are actually looking at a prospective 6.6-7TF docked system, and I would say that tracks with the “comparable to PS5” reports that came out of Gamescom. But I don’t think they’ll clock that highly. A 1.31GHz clock is roughly 84% of the XSS GPU speed, and that gets you the 4TF performance, and it isn’t going as hard as the Switch did. A 1.31GHz clock is roughly 81% of the Steam Deck’s 1.6GHz, too, so, portable precedents exist, and that’s before pointing out the efficiency advantages of ARM over x86. Also, In the Wii U era, I remember the “Not Enough Shaders” thing from developers - Having 20% more than the targeted XSS gives one room for manoeuvre, and puts the S2NS in a greater position. Pointing it out means they don’t get to shift goalposts and BS people again. Lastly, it isn’t Ampere, as it has Lovelace elements, too. It’s a custom Nvidia SoC with specific feature sets.
 
1536 is 20% more than 1280
Again, there is no 1:1 comparison between RDNA2's shader cores and Ampere's cuda cores, and in reference to oldpuck's analysis of the steam deck, even if Van Gogh's shader cores are half of drake's (correct me if I'm misremembering this), it has a 30% raster performance advantage.

Also you're spiking the floating point data in switch2 docking mode, the fact is that 1.31ghz is a dubious number, docking and portable modes won't be that far apart, 1.2ghz is a safe assumption.

I'm not sure why you think it has more elements of the Lovelace architecture, which we've discussed countless times, drake is the gpu that has the Ampere architecture at its absolute core.
 
Last edited:
0
Wow. First time hearing this sentiment. I always felt that the Switch's aiming was a pretty significant upgrade to the Wii's. Very interesting! I guess I need to do a direct comparison before I disagree, eh? 🤔
They're comparing motion controls to ir pointing. IR pointing was always put above motion controls and still is for reticle control
 
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