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

[Thraktor]

Specifically, the configurations are (a) 8 GB or less, (b) between 8 and 16 GB, (c) between 16 and 32 GB, and (d) 32 GB or greater. So it's definitely just future-proofing.

If we want to read too much into something, I do find it a little bit interesting that the only situation where the alias region doesn't have a fixed size is between 8GB and 16GB. Per the Switchbrew page:

In particular, the following modifications are made to the 39-bit address space infos based on the total memory size:

• size <= 8 GB: No changes (Heap Region = 8 GB, Alias region = 64 GB)
• 8 GB < size <= 16 GB: Heap Region = size, Alias Region = 8 * size
• 16 GB < size <= 32 GB: Heap region = size, Alias region = 128 GB
• 32 GB <= size: Heap region = 32 GB, Alias region = 128 GB

It's not exactly a massive stretch to say that the next Switch will have somewhere between 8GB and 16GB of RAM, and I wonder if this change was precipitated by the need to manage that, with the configurations for larger memory added as future proofing. It doesn't really tell us anything either way, but still kind of interesting.

 

[Goodtwin]

Memory allocation behaviour above 4GB? That's some solid evidence if I ever saw any. The presence or absence of a codename is irrelevant when THIS MUCH work for the new device is being pushed to the public stream.

It certainly is curious, because after nearly 7 years on the market, why make adjustments to memory support that far exceed the device? So with these changes that are being implemented, are we to expect the next Switch to use the same OS? If it were a completely separate OS for Switch 2, there wouldn't be any reason to implement these changes into the OG Switch OS, correct? I feel like Nintendo's concern of transitioning from one generation to the next has caused them to emphasize the importance of making it a seamless transition for Switch gamers to migrate to the new hardware.

 

[Ojoloco]

If we want to read too much into something, I do find it a little bit interesting that the only situation where the alias region doesn't have a fixed size is between 8GB and 16GB. Per the Switchbrew page:

It's not exactly a massive stretch to say that the next Switch will have somewhere between 8GB and 16GB of RAM, and I wonder if this change was precipitated by the need to manage that, with the configurations for larger memory added as future proofing. It doesn't really tell us anything either way, but still kind of interesting.

I would say that the idea would be that the OS not only supports Switch 2, but also future iterations.
This is an indication that the Switch platforms are a long-term plan.

 

[Deleted member 887]

actively in used or en-capsuled for some compatibility mode/sandbox?

In use, in the kernel.

 

[theguy]

 

[Aether]

In use, in the kernel.

hach, interesting.
I assume that some core concepts just did not change. Seems Tanenbaums works are still not obsolete.

 

[LiC]

It certainly is curious, because after nearly 7 years on the market, why make adjustments to memory support that far exceed the device? So with these changes that are being implemented, are we to expect the next Switch to use the same OS? If it were a completely separate OS for Switch 2, there wouldn't be any reason to implement these changes into the OG Switch OS, correct? I feel like Nintendo's concern of transitioning from one generation to the next has caused them to emphasize the importance of making it a seamless transition for Switch gamers to migrate to the new hardware.

Nintendo has done a lot of work on HOS and made it very secure, performant, and extensible. They're definitely going to keep using it well into the far future. As for why certain changes are making it into current firmware builds:

• There's no reason not to do it
• Some benefits carry over even if new user-facing features don't, like the recent change to improve background downloads
• Keeping current and planned future hardware running on the same code makes development easier
• Changes can be verified thoroughly by running on millions of current Switches instead of only a few internal tests

That said, just because the OS is the same, the firmware builds and their presentation layer could make it appear totally different on new hardware. I don't expect that to happen, but it should be noted that same OS doesn't mean same UI/UX.

 

[Aether]

That said, just because the OS is the same, the firmware builds and their presentation layer could make it appear totally different on new hardware. I don't expect that to happen, but it should be noted that same OS doesn't mean same UI/UX.

that is the reason so many scream for a new os, they don't understand the distinction.
Hoenstly, even with wanting to keep the UX sleak and light there could be some improvements made without exploding the memory usage.

first thing first, having the 720p resolution bumped to at least 1080, adding some customization to the quick access menu, etc. (i would probably use the screen filters and the controls rebinding more if i could have fast switch options there)

 

[Thraktor]

I would say that the idea would be that the OS not only supports Switch 2, but also future iterations.
This is an indication that the Switch platforms are a long-term plan.

Well I think that would definitely be reading too much into it! I think the extension to higher capacities is just good programming practice. Basically, someone in Nintendo wrote a function which takes in an argument (the amount of RAM) and performs a task based on that argument (updating the KAddressSpaceInfo tables). When you're writing any function, it's good programming practice to make sure that it's well behaved for any possible set of values that are supplied. That is, you shouldn't make assumptions about what possible values are going to appear or not; and if you're taking in a numerical value, then the function should act appropriately for any number that could possibly be supplied*, not just the numbers you expect.

The person who wrote this code likely knows nothing about any hardware past the next Switch, they're just trying to write good code (or whoever acted as code reviewer tried to get them to write good code). My guess is that the next Switch has somewhere between 8GB and 16GB of RAM, and having both the correct heap size, and the correctly sized alias region is obviously important for games to run on it. Supporting heap sizes up to 32GB gives them leeway to have devkits with more memory (off the top of my head 32GB is the maximum that would be achievable on T239's 128-bit bus), whereas I'm guessing aliasing isn't that useful for the extra debug memory, so there's no reason to increase the alias region beyond 128GB. In any case, I don't think this really tells us anything new about Nintendo's future hardware.

*Note that "act appropriately" could mean throwing an error. If you're allocating memory based on an unsigned integer representing the RAM capacity, and the number supplied is zero, then it's sensible to throw an error stating the problem.

 

[Dakhil]

It certainly is curious, because after nearly 7 years on the market, why make adjustments to memory support that far exceed the device? So with these changes that are being implemented, are we to expect the next Switch to use the same OS? If it were a completely separate OS for Switch 2, there wouldn't be any reason to implement these changes into the OG Switch OS, correct? I feel like Nintendo's concern of transitioning from one generation to the next has caused them to emphasize the importance of making it a seamless transition for Switch gamers to migrate to the new hardware.

I expect the OS for Nintendo's new hardware to be a fork of the Horizon OS on the Nintendo Switch, which I think is similar to how Microsoft approached the Xbox Series X|S's OS.

 

[Goodtwin]

The person who wrote this code likely knows nothing about any hardware past the next Switch, they're just trying to write good code (or whoever acted as code reviewer tried to get them to write good code). My guess is that the next Switch has somewhere between 8GB and 16GB of RAM, and having both the correct heap size, and the correctly sized alias region is obviously important for games to run on it. Supporting heap sizes up to 32GB gives them leeway to have devkits with more memory (off the top of my head 32GB is the maximum that would be achievable on T239's 128-bit bus)

Sure, but the exciting thing is that there is no reason to update the OS with this feature unless the its going to apply to a future model. Which tells us they are starting to prepare the OS to be compatible with a new model that has a lot more memory than current Switch. At this point its nice to see anything that suggest Nintendo is preparing their systems for the next Switch. How far in advance would they start to implement these features? Nobody knows for sure, but to me it seems reasonable that the next Switch will be arriving by the time OS revision 17.0 drops. Could be wishful thinking, but I cant help but really hope we will be gaming on Switch 2 within the next 13 months, so anything that helps keep that hope alive is welcome.

 

[Brofield]

I've seen people bring up a point that this is now the third x.0.0 firmware release (back to back with 15.0.0, and the first being 12.0.0) without any front end features being debuted.

If themes are out of the equation and never coming beyond the existing light and dark, what else could we reasonably expect to see added in terms of features to the OS? The eShop being speedier is a matter of servers and the web applet that doesn't require an update, so that's not tied to any specific firmware. Maybe better implementation and access for Grouped games on the home screen? An alternate layout of the game tiles?

 

[Hermii]

Sure, but the exciting thing is that there is no reason to update the OS with this feature unless the its going to apply to a future model. Which tells us they are starting to prepare the OS to be compatible with a new model that has a lot more memory than current Switch. At this point its nice to see anything that suggest Nintendo is preparing their systems for the next Switch. How far in advance would they start to implement these features? Nobody knows for sure, but to me it seems reasonable that the next Switch will be arriving by the time OS revision 17.0 drops. Could be wishful thinking, but I cant help but really hope we will be gaming on Switch 2 within the next 13 months, so anything that helps keep that hope alive is welcome.

I believe the Mariko revisionis were in the firmware about 1,5 years before launch.

 

[ShaunSwitch]

(d) 32 GB or greater.

The Nintendo [REDACTED] is a server, confirmed.

 

[Machrider]

Here's a question I have ... remember when the Switch/NX was first revealed and everyone was all on the "there must be hardware in the dock! Maybe you can buy future docks that will have enhanced hardware!" train?

Are USB 4.0/Thunderbolt style high speed connections more affordable these days? Because if Nintendo could include that on the Switch successor, I mean shouldn't you be able to do things like have a dock that has new hardware in it? Or maybe even daisy chain two Switch 2 units together? Stuff like that?

Since Nintendo wants to up the amount of Switch systems per household (because they make a fat profit margin on hardware these days unlike the 80s/90s/2000s/etc.), one pretty good way to do it would be to do something like that.

 

[chocolate_supra]

If themes are out of the equation and never coming beyond the existing light and dark, what else could we reasonably expect to see added in terms of features to the OS? The eShop being speedier is a matter of servers and the web applet that doesn't require an update, so that's not tied to any specific firmware. Maybe better implementation and access for Grouped games on the home screen? An alternate layout of the game tiles?

A better home screen icon for NSO.

 

[RennanNT]

this does seem to confirm why so few mobile ports show up on Switch and probably why COD mobile didn't make it on. Nintendo wants content and feature parity with the other consoles, not mobile. Seems to confirm what we've suspected for a while in terms of how ports work on Switch.

No. Antitrust regulators are arguing that even just having the best version of COD forever would make others unable to compete on the same level with XBox directly, specially future entrants on the cloud market.

And thus, it is MS who wants to put into a contract that other platforms will receive full parity for 10 years so that regulators don't block the acquisition, rather than Nintendo pushing for it. This exact same contract was offered to Sony and Valve, but the former is trying to kill the acquisition and won't accept anything, while the later said they trust MS words and don't need a contract.

 

[Dakhil]

Are USB 4.0/Thunderbolt style high speed connections more affordable these days? Because if Nintendo could including that on the Switch successor, I mean shouldn't you be able to do things like have a dock that has new hardware in it? Or maybe even daisy chain two Switch 2 units together? Stuff like that?

Depends on if Nintendo and Nvidia decided to upgrade Drake to support USB4 by the time Nintendo and Nvidia probably taped out Drake at around early 2022. (Orin supports up to USB 3.2 Gen 2.)

 

[Brofield]

A better home screen icon for NSO.

Nintendo PLS

I yearn for uniformity in icons

 

[lexony]

Switch 2 only comes out if the Activision Microsoft Deal goes through. Obviously there is no point for Nintendo to release more powerful hardware if they can‘t have Call of Duty Games.

 

[LiC]

I believe the Mariko revisionis were in the firmware about 1,5 years before launch.

It's an apples to oranges comparison (revisions sharing 99.9% of the firmware code leaked via profile names vs. new/upgraded hardware with its own firmware), but if you were trying to use a yardstick, 12.0.0 is when signs of the upgraded hardware began appearing, not 16.0.0.

 

[Pokemaniac]

I've seen people bring up a point that this is now the third x.0.0 firmware release (back to back with 15.0.0, and the first being 12.0.0) without any front end features being debuted.

If themes are out of the equation and never coming beyond the existing light and dark, what else could we reasonably expect to see added in terms of features to the OS? The eShop being speedier is a matter of servers and the web applet that doesn't require an update, so that's not tied to any specific firmware. Maybe better implementation and access for Grouped games on the home screen? An alternate layout of the game tiles?

There are other major updates with no user-facing features. This is just the first time we've had two in a row.

 

[jaycie]

Switch 2 only comes out if the Activision Microsoft Deal goes through. Obviously there is no point for Nintendo to release more powerful hardware if they can‘t have Call of Duty Games.

new system is called Switch of Nintendo: Modern Gaming

 

[Brofield]

There are other major updates with no user-facing features. This is just the first time we've had two in a row.

But the point I want to make is if there is anything we should be looking for or gleaning from these updates going forward? Has the current Switch been tapped out on its capabilities for the user interface? And if that's the case, what exclusive features could possibly be expected of the successor if Nintendo intends to port the OS forward that the current Switch is incapable of performing?

 

[Dekuman]

No. Antitrust regulators are arguing that even just having the best version of COD forever would make others unable to compete on the same level with XBox directly, specially future entrants on the cloud market.

And thus, it is MS who wants to put into a contract that other platforms will receive full parity for 10 years so that regulators don't block the acquisition, rather than Nintendo pushing for it. This exact same contract was offered to Sony and Valve, but the former is trying to kill the acquisition and won't accept anything, while the later said they trust MS words and don't need a contract.

This does make sense. Where did you read about Nintendo requiring a written contract ?

 

[RennanNT]

This does make sense. Where did you read about Nintendo requiring a written contract ?

Microsoft made it public in December that it offered the 10 years contract to those 3 last December and that Nintendo had accepted. Rather than Nintendo requesting it, they just accepted the contract while Valve went further and said it wasn't needed.

Today they announced it was signed and also another contract, now with Nvidia for GeForce Now.

If you want to keep track of news in regards of the acquisition, there's a thread in reset era about it. On top of people posting tweets and news related to the case, the OP is a lawyer and takes their time explaining roadmaps, legal terms and summarizing the 40+ documents being released publicly.

 

[Mr Swine]

If the SoC is done and Nintendo is waiting 12-18 months to release the Switch 2. Don’t they have enough time to add more Ram or are they just happy with what they are going to have?

 

[Dekuman]

Microsoft made it public in December that it offered the 10 years contract to those 3 last December and that Nintendo had accepted. Rather than Nintendo requesting it, they just accepted the contract while Valve went further and said it wasn't needed.

Today they announced it was signed and also another contract, now with Nvidia for GeForce Now.

If you want to keep track of news in regards of the acquisition, there's a thread in reset era about it. On top of people posting tweets and news related to the case, the OP is a lawyer and takes their time explaining roadmaps, legal terms and summarizing the 40+ documents being released publicly.

I am aware of the offer and acceptance by Nintendo and Valve last year to bring/keep CoD on those platforms. My question was asking about whether there was reporting that only Nintendo requested for it to be written down

It looks like that's just an assumption on your part. But I think your overall point makes sensr and whether Nintendo requested it or not doesn't detract from your point. just a follow up on my part on where you heard that

 

[Deleted member 887]

If the SoC is done and Nintendo is waiting 12-18 months to release the Switch 2. Don’t they have enough time to add more Ram or are they just happy with what they are going to have?

Who knows if they're happy, we don't know how much they're planning on using right now. But RAM amounts can change later in the process, yes

 

[Dekuman]

Who knows if they're happy, we don't know how much they're planning on using right now. But RAM amounts can change later in the process, yes

8GB are still pretty popular config on phones, S23 stock is 8GB. Do we know I'd those are 2 X 4GB or 1 8GB module? I feel like whatever Nintendno can get in volume and at the cheapest price is what they will move towards

 

[Discostew]

8GB are still pretty popular config on phones, S23 stock is 8GB. Do we know I'd those are 2 X 4GB or 1 8GB module? I feel like whatever Nintendno can get in volume and at the cheapest price is what they will move towards

If there's one thing Nintendo is known for is not skimping out on RAM capacity. Sure, they planned 3GB for Switch initially (which honestly, is probably plenty for even some of the bigger titles on it), but went with 4GB when requested. These are products meant to last half a decade at bare minimum, so as games get bigger throughout a generation, the need for that extra RAM becomes required. I honestly think Nintendo will go with more than 8GB for Drake. 12GB max imo.

 

[RennanNT]

I am aware of the offer and acceptance by Nintendo and Valve last year to bring/keep CoD on those platforms. My question was asking about whether there was reporting that only Nintendo requested for it to be written down

No. There was reports of Gabe refusing it:


The way the deal was announced for each of them was a bit different:


And now we have confirmation that they signed:


I don't know if Nintendo specifically requested to be written down, but they didn't refuse like Valve and they ultimately signed it.

 

[Goodtwin]

Who knows if they're happy, we don't know how much they're planning on using right now. But RAM amounts can change later in the process, yes

The question is if its worth it to go beyond 8GB with Xbox Series S sitting at 8GB. Series S has basically set the baseline so would developers really get much out of having an extra 4GB of memory? Maybe because Switch 2 wont be using an SSD having the ability to store more assets in RAM would be a big deal?

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Nintendo is a little harmed by the fact that mobile RAM is awful for gaming and there's no real reason to do R&D on making it better.

The Nintendo Switch and Steam Deck are the only devices that could significantly benefit from large bandwidth, low power-draw RAM so large bandwidth, low power-draw RAM doesn't exist.

 

[ILikeFeet]

8GB are still pretty popular config on phones, S23 stock is 8GB. Do we know I'd those are 2 X 4GB or 1 8GB module? I feel like whatever Nintendno can get in volume and at the cheapest price is what they will move towards

Why limit to 8? Flagships have 12GB or 16GB of ram. Some have 20GB

The question is if its worth it to go beyond 8GB with Xbox Series S sitting at 8GB. Series S has basically set the baseline so would developers really get much out of having an extra 4GB of memory? Maybe because Switch 2 wont be using an SSD having the ability to store more assets in RAM would be a big deal?

Yes. Devs are cutting some features because the Series S is lacking ram. Sure Drake I'll be weaker than the series S, but if the ram is cheap enough, no reason to not use it. 12GB is a common enough option for it to be on the table

 

[Look over there]

The person who wrote this code likely knows nothing about any hardware past the next Switch, they're just trying to write good code (or whoever acted as code reviewer tried to get them to write good code). My guess is that the next Switch has somewhere between 8GB and 16GB of RAM, and having both the correct heap size, and the correctly sized alias region is obviously important for games to run on it. Supporting heap sizes up to 32GB gives them leeway to have devkits with more memory (off the top of my head 32GB is the maximum that would be achievable on T239's 128-bit bus), whereas I'm guessing aliasing isn't that useful for the extra debug memory, so there's no reason to increase the alias region beyond 128GB. In any case, I don't think this really tells us anything new about Nintendo's future hardware.

As of today, for regular LPDDR5, I do see 64-bit 18 GB modules on Samsung's website, so make that 36 GB.
And if we stretch our definition of 'LPDDR5' to include 5X, there is Grace with a stated max of 512 GB on 512-bit bus, thus implying that 128 GB on 128-bit bus should be theoretically possible.

8GB are still pretty popular config on phones, S23 stock is 8GB. Do we know I'd those are 2 X 4GB or 1 8GB module? I feel like whatever Nintendno can get in volume and at the cheapest price is what they will move towards

I think that 64-bit 4 GB modules have been seen in the wild? As that's why our current floor is 8 GB total.
There are both 32-bit and 64-bit 8 GB modules. There are no 128-bit modules at all (so forget the idea of a single module setup).

I'm still not yet sold on the possibility of 8 GB:
1. I am 99% confident that the [REDACTED] will outlive regular LPDDR5, just like base Switch did regular LPDDR4. Whether it's now or a revision down the road, there will be a move to LPDDR5X.
2. While not at the same level, I'm still highly confident that in the scenario where [REDACTED]v1 uses regular LPDDR5 and then [REDACTED]v2 switches to 5X, both v1 and v2 will have the same amount of ram. Ergo, the floor I'm keeping an eye on is 5X's. As of today, that floor is still 12 GB for a 128-bit bus.

 

[ShadowFox08]

The question is if its worth it to go beyond 8GB with Xbox Series S sitting at 8GB. Series S has basically set the baseline so would developers really get much out of having an extra 4GB of memory? Maybe because Switch 2 wont be using an SSD having the ability to store more assets in RAM would be a big deal?

Absolutely. It gives more breathing room for a meatier OS, and more for games as well. And There could be some more demanding AAA third party games that use more RAM as well.
Btw, Series S has 10GB total, but split 2GB and 8GB. I'm not sure if the 2GB is reserved for the OS. I think so?

Usually Nintendo goes beyond last gen competitors for their newer consoles. So if they went with 8GB, I would be shocked.

Although bandwidth/speed is a bit more important than total RAM/capacity. If I had to choose between 8GB with 133 GB/s (LPDDR5x) bandwidth and 12 GB at 102 GB/s bandwidth, I'd probably choose the former. But the best case scenario is 12GB with 133GB/a (lpddr5x RAM ). Of course Nintendo would have to make lpddr5x planned early to compatible with the SOC with Drake.

Something like 1-2GB RAM for OS would give us more RAM than PS4 base on a 8GB capacity. But the more the merrier.
P.S. I'm not sure if more RAM capacity or speed enables more framerate or both.

Does RAM speed and capacity matter for gaming?

And if so, how much?

www.pcgamer.com

Not expecting lpddr5x though, but it's possible if switch 2 comes out next year. It's gonna be more expensive than lpddr5, and it would have to be planned early (as I said before). Nintendo could end up using 5x for a revision to save battery life, which would be a bummer.

 

[Deleted member 887]

The question is if its worth it to go beyond 8GB with Xbox Series S sitting at 8GB. Series S has basically set the baseline so would developers really get much out of having an extra 4GB of memory? Maybe because Switch 2 wont be using an SSD having the ability to store more assets in RAM would be a big deal?

More RAM is almost always better. There are plenty of cases where you can trade CPU performance for RAM utilization - cached resources, precomputed values, or pre-loading of assets to alleviate compression bottlenecks. The limit at which RAM becomes less useful is very high

 

[LinkURL]

The code base is just the same bespoke edition for Switch for Fifa 2018, so not really mobile. The issue with EA and Switch is frostbite. It took them years to port that engine over for PvZ and it's unclear what they've been doing with it since.

I'm hopeful that the new EA Sports FC will also come to Switch with content parity using Frostbyte.

 

[ILikeFeet]

I'm hopeful that the new EA Sports FC will also come to Switch with content parity using Frostbyte.

I have zero expectation Frostbite FC will come to switch. we'll have to wait for Drake for that

 

[Look over there]

Nintendo is a little harmed by the fact that mobile RAM is awful for gaming and there's no real reason to do R&D on making it better.

The Nintendo Switch and Steam Deck are the only devices that could significantly benefit from large bandwidth, low power-draw RAM so large bandwidth, low power-draw RAM doesn't exist.

Interestingly enough, and it's quite a coincidence, but when taking in the whole picture of working within the power budget constraints of a Switch style device (with current cooling and battery tech), I think that 128-bit of the latest LPDDR at the time fits rather well. If you go for substantially more bandwidth than what that provides, I'm doubtful on whether a ~15 watt device can actually capitalize on it.

Just as a theoretical example, let's consider a 192-bit full speed LPDDR5X setup, or ~204.7 GB/s bandwidth, as the next significant step up from 128-bit LPDDR5X (~136.5 GB/s). Can we fully utilize that 204.7 GB/s within ~15 watts? Or would we need to bump up a category to the 20-25 watt range (Steam Deck) or even a bit further to the ~28 watt laptop category? Or even the LPDDR5X is at 7500 MT/s, that's 180 GB/s bandwidth. My gut response is that given today's options, that's still at best a 20-25 watt category device.
Actually, for a close theoretical example, start with the full Orin, cut out non-gaming related stuff, shrink to 4N. I'm not sold that the result lands at 15 watts.

Funny enough, I'm not sure how much the Steam Deck itself would benefit from bandwidth beyond... let's say 128-bit LPDDR5X. The CPU's just eating up too much of that form factor's power budget.

 

[NineTailSage]

No. There was reports of Gabe refusing it:


The way the deal was announced for each of them was a bit different:


And now we have confirmation that they signed:


I don't know if Nintendo specifically requested to be written down, but they didn't refuse like Valve and they ultimately signed it.

The interesting thing about this new agreement is it seems that Microsoft are willing to bring all of their Xbox games to the Switch platform (and also GeForce Now) which is completely different from the earlier 10yr commitment mentioned for just CoD and Activision games.
Unless Brad Smith was misquoted, but numerous reporting was of them talking a multi-platform future as their plan going forth...

 

[MuddySeal]

Hey there! Been reading this thread like the newspaper for like a week now, so thank y’all.

Anyway, here’s my personal prediction:

Same Horizon OS with more PS Vita- and 3DS-like social features but in a Nintendo way (no instant messaging or anything like that)
No reinventing the wheel so same form factor as OLED save for them making it look fresher and improving ergonomics
Same CPU strategy AKA off the shelf Cortex-A designs. Hoping for heterogeneous clusters so you can just run the OS on the high efficiency cluster.
GPU = 2 TFLOPS at 6 watts or bust.
LPDDR5 module/s living on-package maybe?
4K60 but that’s most definitely not happening without DLSS.

1080p60 video capture pls

 

[ILikeFeet]

The interesting thing about this new agreement is it seems that Microsoft are willing to bring all of their Xbox games to the Switch platform (and also GeForce Now) which is completely different from the earlier 10yr commitment mentioned for just CoD and Activision games.
Unless Brad Smith was misquoted, but numerous reporting was of them talking a multi-platform future as their plan going forth...

he was misquoted. Xbox games are for Geforce Now, not Nintendo platforms

Hey there! Been reading this thread like the newspaper for like a week now, so thank y’all.

Anyway, here’s my personal prediction:

Same Horizon OS with more PS Vita- and 3DS-like social features but in a Nintendo way (no instant messaging or anything like that)
No reinventing the wheel so same form factor as OLED save for them making it look fresher and improving ergonomics
Same CPU strategy AKA off the shelf Cortex-A designs. Hoping for heterogeneous clusters so you can just run the OS on the high efficiency cluster.
GPU = 2 TFLOPS at 6 watts or bust.
LPDDR5 module/s living on-package maybe?
4K60 but that’s most definitely not happening without DLSS.

1080p60 video capture pls

1. who knows, probably not
2. sure
3. already confirmed
4. until we know the node, we can't make any guesses on power consuption
5. on-package is more expensive, probably a no go
6. pretty much expected, but 1440p might be the norm
7. lets just hope for 60fps and go from there

 

[Gerald]

Why limit to 8? Flagships have 12GB or 16GB of ram. Some have 20GB


Yes. Devs are cutting some features because the Series S is lacking ram. Sure Drake I'll be weaker than the series S, but if the ram is cheap enough, no reason to not use it. 12GB is a common enough option for it to be on the table

Depends on clock, if it will be have good clocks, and 12-16GB Ram, Series S will be have only CPU better

 

[NineTailSage]

he was misquoted. Xbox games are for Geforce Now, not Nintendo platforms

1. who knows, probably not
2. sure
3. already confirmed
4. until we know the node, we can't make any guesses on power consuption
5. on-package is more expensive, probably a no go
6. pretty much expected, but 1440p might be the norm
7. lets just hope for 60fps and go from there

It's hard to refute from Brad Smith's twitter post though what is said.
He says both Xbox games and Activision titles like Call of Duty...



Edit: Although I see what you mean if the second part is just general statement overall that is including the Nvidia deal.

 

[Pokemaniac]

But the point I want to make is if there is anything we should be looking for or gleaning from these updates going forward? Has the current Switch been tapped out on its capabilities for the user interface? And if that's the case, what exclusive features could possibly be expected of the successor if Nintendo intends to port the OS forward that the current Switch is incapable of performing?

The Switch is not "tapped out" in terms of OS features, but it also probably isn't the development focus of their firmware team anymore. Drake is clearly taking priority right now, and probably will continue to do so after it releases. Since they appear to be developing the changes within the main Switch OS repo this time (as opposed to a fork like they did last time with 3DS) we can probably expect Switch will continue to benefit from any new features that get added and aren't specific to the new hardware for some reason, up until the point the system goes fully EoL. I think at least a minor visual refresh a la 3DS 9.0 is probably in order.

In terms of what to look for in terms of predicting Drake, the more obvious things would be features or modules that are either present, but unused, or not present, but their existence is implied. 15 and 16 (so far) have been accumulating a lot of little things like that. The one other thing that might (emphasis on might), show up is something to distinguish Drake games from Switch ones, but there are ways to implement that that would be very implicit on the Switch side. From what we've seen so far, most explicit Drake stuff appears to be ifdefed off.

 

[Discostew]

Even though I don't particular care for CoD, this deal/merger imo is possibly going to improve the relationship between Nintendo and MS, and MS may feel more inclined to bring over more games.

 

[ILikeFeet]

Depends on clock, if it will be have good clocks, and 12-16GB Ram, Series S will be have only CPU better

I don't see that at all. you need to make a bulky stationary device to keep the SoC cool. not to mention the power consumption

 

[Brofield]

The Switch is not "tapped out" in terms of OS features, but it also probably isn't the development focus of their firmware team anymore. Drake is clearly taking priority right now, and probably will continue to do so after it releases. Since they appear to be developing the changes within the main Switch OS repo this time (as opposed to a fork like they did last time with 3DS) we can probably expect Switch will continue to benefit from any new features that get added and aren't specific to the new hardware for some reason, up until the point the system goes fully EoL. I think at least a minor visual refresh a la 3DS 9.0 is probably in order.

In terms of what to look for in terms of predicting Drake, the more obvious things would be features or modules that are either present, but unused, or not present, but their existence is implied. 15 and 16 (so far) have been accumulating a lot of little things like that. The one other thing that might (emphasis on might), show up is something to distinguish Drake games from Switch ones, but there are ways to implement that that would be very implicit on the Switch side. From what we've seen so far, most explicit Drake stuff appears to be ifdefed off.

That makes sense, yeah. I don't doubt there might be some exclusive features that only Drake could pull off whether access to certain accessories or additional horsepower under the hood, I guess I'm just trying to brainstorm what kind of firmware improvements could still be made as features to announce to Switch owners now before Drake releases to justify a full number jump. Within the confines of no themes, I'm honestly drawing a blank, and with that I guess nothing substantial could be added until Drake releases and we see what it's capable of.