• 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.

StarTopic Future Nintendo Hardware & Technology Speculation & Discussion |ST| (Read the staff posts before commenting!)

Reader mode
Steve said:
Pessimism is understandable, when Nintendo is transition off of one of the biggest gaming console in recent memory.

Personally I feel like 6nm might happen, but 4 TSMC would be an absolute dream.

The best we can do is wait and see if we’ll hear more rumours or confirmation from Nintendo.
Click to expand...
6nm is impossible, Nvidia has never made a 6nm chip. It's either Samsung 8N, which was used for Ampere, or TSMC 4N, which is used for Lovelace.
Hermii said:
Well, at least I hoped they would launch on 16nm. 20 nm is a really bad node, which led to low clocks.

We got 16nm 2 years later, but none of the performance benefit since they wanted to keep parity.
Click to expand...
Yeah it is hard to overstate how bad 20nm was, how quickly it was replaced by 16nm and 14nm, and what an enormous impact that had on Switch. I think Switch is literally the highest selling 20nm product of all time, but Intel/AMD never produced any 20nm products. Switch would have been able to eke out much more performance if it launched with 14nm or if they were willing to unlock the potential in 2019 from the die shrink and transition to LPDDR4X RAM.
 
FancyFluker said:
Is it possible that this graphical leap will affect the output of games, especially from smaller studios?
Click to expand...
One possible "grace" in the specs of Switch next is that a developer could choose not to "rise to meet the challenge", and instead work on the same graphics fidelity level as Nintendo Switch, but with less need for optimisation, better performance, and a higher resolution.

For example, Penny's Big Breakaway on Xbox Series S Vs Nintendo Switch, the same overall fidelity but pushing a higher resolution with a higher, more stable framerate.
 
Concernt said:
One possible "grace" in the specs of Switch next is that a developer could choose not to "rise to meet the challenge", and instead work on the same graphics fidelity level as Nintendo Switch, but with less need for optimisation, better performance, and a higher resolution.

For example, Penny's Big Breakaway on Xbox Series S Vs Nintendo Switch, the same overall fidelity but pushing a higher resolution with a higher, more stable framerate.
Click to expand...
I don't even think games like Penny's Big Breakaway used Switch as a target platform, it was ported down to it, but likely developed with Switch specs in mind as it's a major platform for these kinds of games. A game specifically developed for Switch would be something like the new PoP which ran amazingly.

I don't think simpler looking games will go away. Because it will be cheaper to make and Indies operate in that space. It's really too bad so many recent releases don't run as well on Switch and i think it has more to do with the hardware's age and limited resources to optimize specifically for the console than anything.

It should also be a warning to Nintendo (not that they need it) that just because games sell well on their platform doesn't mean even the indies will target their platform first, a lot of these games are essentially multiplat PC games ported down to Switch and Switch has simply fallen too far behind.
 
Sol said:
DF is convinced that it's Samsung 8 nm.

If Nate brings John onto the next podcast I hope they discuss this.
Click to expand...

Is there any reason people suspect it will be Samsung 8NM besides "Because Nintendo"?

That's the thing I still don't understand. It's been talked many times over how inefficient 8NM, how it will have negative impacts on performance, battery life, and so-on, but some people are still really confident that's what Nintendo will go for because...reasons?

Please humor me. Is there any reason some people are convinced it'll be 8NM besides "Because Nintendo"?
 
Goodtwin said:
Are we sure the internal storage will run at max speed? Is it possible to run at a lower speed to decrease power draw?
Click to expand...
It seems like it would be, but weirdly no. One way of thinking about it is "how much electricity does it take to load a 250 MB texture." Storage is very power efficient when idle - lowering the speed, increases how long the storage has to run. Except in extreme cases, this is a no-win scenario. You can spend a lot of power-per-millisecond to load that texture, but only have storage active for a few milliseconds, or you can run at a lower speed with less power-per-millisecond... but for twice as long.

The primary corporate force behind UFS is... Samsung, who designed UFS 3.1 to be super efficient on their then-current Exynos chips which ran on... their 8nm process. There are extreme cases where you can drive storage so hard that the speed is really power inefficient, but as long as you're on 8nm or better, you're not gonna hit that with UFS 3.1.
Switcharoo said:
Not sure if UFS 3.1 Storage would be that great for Nintendo since it is pretty outdated and already 4-5x slower than most PC SSDs. Pretty sure you can get 500gb NVMe with 2x this read/write speed for less than 50 bucks. Nintendo seems to have "cheeped out" on storage they could very likely get for less than 20 buck in bulk.
Click to expand...
Who cares what the fastest storage solution on the market is? Do you want fast storage, or do you want a badass handheld that costs less than 500 dollars.

Sure, there are ultrafast SSDs on the market - I have a whole array of them in my database cluster at work - that doesn't mean they're useful in a video game console. With only a tiny number of high end PCs with ultra fast SSDs, no video game depends on those speeds.

Ratchet and Clank and Spider-man 2 are the poster children for "SSD games" but people have tested them with the lowest end SATA SSD on the market, and they still have instant loading. SATA SSDs are pushing 500MB/s, eUFS 3.1 is 1450MB/s.

I'd rather Nintendo spend that 20 bucks on RAM, please and thank you
 
Aufhebung RPG said:
It's strange that no one ever seems to discuss the "horsepower" comparison criteria, it's true that we are most likely inferior to the ps4pro when it comes to floating point performance, but we all seem to recognize that the new graphics features (dlss) as well as ray tracing bring us 9th gen advanced rendering and lighting technology, .The only "horsepower" comparison criteria left seems to be polygon count, since the switch2 has fewer shaders compared to 9th gen consoles like the xss, but I really don't think the switch2 will have less polygons than the ps4pro.
Click to expand...
👇👇👇
chocolate_supra said:
Just like cars, honestly. People always quote horsepower because it's an easy number to point to but there are so many other things that influence a car's performance (the car's overall weight, where in the rev range the engine makes its power, transmission gear ratios, wheel size/weight, etc) that cars with less horsepower can be just as fast (or faster!) than cars with more.

Every time people have brought up the TFLOPs comparison I've thought about how in the early 90s Toyota released the 320hp Supra against the 405hp Corvette ZR1 and despite the almost 100hp difference they both ran a 13-second quarter mile.

Even if Drake runs the same or slightly less overall power numbers, that's nowhere near the full story.
Click to expand...
 
gabeplays said:
Is there any reason people suspect it will be Samsung 8NM besides "Because Nintendo"?

That's the thing I still don't understand. It's been talked many times over how inefficient 8NM, how it will have negative impacts on performance, battery life, and so-on, but some people are still really confident that's what Nintendo will go for because...reasons?

Please humor me. Is there any reason some people are convinced it'll be 8NM besides "Because Nintendo"?
Click to expand...
Orin is an Ampere/ARM SoC like Drake is and that's on 8nm. so people believe it's 8nm

there are major differences though, as Orin is a "power consumption and space be damned" design as it's meant to be connected to things with big batteries or the wall or a car alternator. hence Drake isn't an Orin derivative as people like to think
 
NateDrake said:
It's more than capable enough.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
Dekuman said:
I don't even think games like Penny's Big Breakaway used Switch as a target platform, it was ported down to it, but likely developed with Switch specs in mind as it's a major platform for these kinds of games. A game specifically developed for Switch would be something like the new PoP which ran amazingly.

I don't think simpler looking games will go away. Because it will be cheaper to make and Indies operate in that space. It's really too bad so many recent releases don't run as well on Switch and i think it has more to do with the hardware's age than anything.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure there's entirely the case, PBB uses relatively simple geometry and textures (for an Xbox Series S game) and achieves a 720p60 performance on Nintendo Switch after some patches. Its marketing was also tied to Nintendo. I just think it launched in a rough state.

Unlike other games, PBB wasn't so much ported down with major changes in geometry, it was "just" resolution and framerate.

I think PoP is an excellent example though, yeah. The extra headroom on Switch next could help, rather than hinder, smaller teams.
 
Last edited:
gabeplays said:
Is there any reason people suspect it will be Samsung 8NM besides "Because Nintendo"?

That's the thing I still don't understand. It's been talked many times over how inefficient 8NM, how it will have negative impacts on performance, battery life, and so-on, but some people are still really confident that's what Nintendo will go for because...reasons?

Please humor me. Is there any reason some people are convinced it'll be 8NM besides "Because Nintendo"?
Click to expand...
Becuase it will be cheaper
 
Sol said:
DF is convinced that it's Samsung 8 nm.

If Nate brings John onto the next podcast I hope they discuss this.
Click to expand...
The only reason they are “conviced” is kopite7kimi theory that if all Orin are Samsung 8nm then T239 Drake must be also, btw they literally discuss “report” about version of Samsung 7nm node what is not exist so they are not conviced and they don’t know anything about node
 
It's getting harder and harder to buy any bullshit because Nintendo / Nintendo will cheap out on hardware reasons with the more info we unveil about the system. Some folks kept saying 8 GB LPDDR5 and 128 GB of memory for these reasons and that wasnt what was found. Before the NVN2 leak people assumed a smaller GPU with fewer cores for some kind of iterative Switch Pro and that wasn't what was found. Yes everyone and their mother knows Nintendo is unlikely to ship a super expensive system or take a significant loss on hardware, that just means other components of the system that are more flexible to change in the future like screen type and storage capacity could be less premium now while they keep other specs like RAM stable. Cost of components is not the only determinant of what ends up in the machine, there needs to be some degree of future proofing and Nintendo would've communicated with their own developers and third parties about what specs would be ideal.

What's funny is that there have been because Nintendo comments about the 12 GB of RAM, so just to clarify my issue is not with the specific spec predictions but the simplistic justifications given.
 
Last edited:
davec00ke said:
Becuase it will be cheaper
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. It's been pointed out before in this thread that 4N has a lower overall price because so many more chips fit in the same space. On top of that, as the industry moves on to smaller nodes the foundry is gonna want to move on from and phase out 8N.

Don't forget the Switch's 20nm SoC was abandoned and phased out in the middle of its lifespan after it was quietly moved to a 16nm process. And it's also been said here that there isn't a smaller node that Nvidia could realistically shrink T239 down to when 8N starts getting long in the tooth. Might be smarter in the long run to do 4N now so being committed to an old node doesn't cause problems with the foundry later.
 
davec00ke said:
Becuase it will be cheaper
Click to expand...
If you're assuming it's cheaper solely because it's an older node process, then that's where you'd be surprised.

Using a node process that is dying when Nintendo is relying on Switch 2 to last for at least 6-7 years will be expensive.

Furthermore, there has been publication by an outlet that specializes in semiconductor analysis saying at a point TSMC 4N is 2.2x more expensive compared to SEC8N, but 2.8x more denser. Which means you get more bang for buck going with TSMC 4N.

Also, TSMC 4N have better yields compared to SEC8N. SEC8N is known to have somewhat bad yields. When you have poor yield numbers, that means binned chips.

What is Nintendo and nvidia supposed to do with high volume of "binned" T239s - the ones that doesn't make the cut? nvidia can't sell those, I don't think Nintendo would allow them (it's a SoC customized for Switch 2).

If Nintendo really want to go "Because Nintendo" route, they'd chose TSMC 4N because it's cheaper (and it just happens to be better too).
 
Concernt said:
It doesn't seem clear that 8nm actually is cheaper per completed SOC, considering the volume advantage of 4N, with more SOCs per wafer.
Click to expand...
If Samsung don't want the Multi Billion Dollar 8nm Fab having no customers then they will be forced to reduce their prices to get bussiness.
 
gabeplays said:
Is there any reason people suspect it will be Samsung 8NM besides "Because Nintendo"?

That's the thing I still don't understand. It's been talked many times over how inefficient 8NM, how it will have negative impacts on performance, battery life, and so-on, but some people are still really confident that's what Nintendo will go for because...reasons?

Please humor me. Is there any reason some people are convinced it'll be 8NM besides "Because Nintendo"?
Click to expand...
Because it's cheap. I don't mean "cheaping out" I mean "cheap enough to let nintendo afford a bigger, better chip."

In general, smaller process nodes are supposed to get cheaper. That's stopped being true across the industry, but in this specific case, Samsung was in a position in the market that they were willing to make much less profit per chip, in order to keep costs down, and keep Nvidia's business.

Samsung offered Nvidia such a good deal on 8nm that they switched from a "better" node (TSMC 7nm) to 8nm, because they could afford to stick more GPU cores into their chips than AMD could, and it offered a huge performance advantage. 8nm is the node that Nvidia has used for every technology that Drake is based on (RTX 30, Orin).

The argument against 8nm isn't that it's a bad node. If we didn't have the Nvidia leak, I think most of the people who are currently expecting 4nm would probably be expecting 8nm, because 8nm is a good decision in the abstract. The only reason to disbelieve in 8nm is because the hack showed that Drake is a really big chip, and it's so big that the data makes it hard to believe Nintendo can get decent battery life out of the thing.

But that's a double edged sword. The chip is so big that it's also hard to see how Nintendo made such a chip affordable. But best way to think about it is, how did Nintendo make the power draw on this big chip sane. The easy answer, is they paid the money to shrink it down on a smaller process node.

But if Nvidia and Nintendo found more advanced power saving technology that allowed decent battery life at 8nm, that's not "because Nintendo" and it's not something to ignore either. I'm not an electrical engineer, and Nvidia rarely makes chips this small. It's really possible that there were power optimizations that only show up on a very small chip that allowed Nintendo to get 4nm battery life at 8nm prices. And if so we should applaud that win, not use it as evidence of Nintendo cheaping out.

I've gone back and forth on the 8nm vs 4nm question myself. Ultimately, I don't see how Nvidia could get the power draw down on 8nm. But I also recognize that this is an area where I don't know enough to know the limits of what's possible.
 
oldpuck said:
But if Nvidia and Nintendo found more advanced power saving technology that allowed decent battery life at 8nm, that's not "because Nintendo" and it's not something to ignore either. I'm not an electrical engineer, and Nvidia rarely makes chips this small. It's really possible that there were power optimizations that only show up on a very small chip that allowed Nintendo to get 4nm battery life at 8nm prices. And if so we should applaud that win, not use it as evidence of Nintendo cheaping out.
Click to expand...

Truthfully many of the 'it will be 8nm' remarks I have read are also assuming the worst about battery life and performance as a consequence, with the framing that Nintendo are willing to give those up for a less expensive node. They are not really taking into account any power saving tech but the notion of 'this is worse in every way but Nintendo doesn't care'. I don't give them as much benefit of the doubt as I do your thought process.
 
On comparisons and power numbers: Responding to @darthdiablo from a couple pages back.

I'm uncomfortable (as I'm sure you are) with these comparisons even if they're technically accurate, because they miss the nuance. I especially cringe at the phrase "before DLSS" because it implies that DLSS is a free add-on, that just adds performance on top.

On the other hand, the folk who ask for these comparisons are almost always people who either aren't interested in the nuance, or without the background to understand them. And there is nothing wrong with that! People should be able to talk about the product they're considering buying, without having to have 3000 posts in Famiboards academy.

It's this battle to try to describe things to folks in a way that's succinct, but also gives them the right impression. Especially knowing that once your back is turned, someone else will start yelling about "cache hit rates" or some other nonsense, and they'll be lead astray.

For me, I just try to talk about power. I say something like "A smart developer can do anything with this set of tools that the Series S does. A really smart developer could probably do better. Nintendo has some really smart developers" I'm not sure that's a good answer, but it's the best that I can do.
 
Personally I'm just glad Nintendo went with 12GB of RAM. I believe it will definitely outperform Xbox Series S docked if developers utilise DLSS Upscaling and Ray Reconstruction.

Also portable mode is hype. DLSS Ultra Performance still looks pretty great on a smallish screen and that's the worst we could get.

My hope is that Capcom release all the Resident Evil remakes on the new system.
 
Just want to say some of y'all should be hired by the FBI or at least as journalists for the digging y'all did regarding Switch 2. Shoot, if I suspect my partner of cheating I'm gonna call you up!
 
Built in mic for voice commands could be a potential accessibility feature. I'm not sure if anything like that exists on any of the current consoles, just trying to think up use cases that aren't playing flutes in Zelda.
 
ILikeFeet said:
Orin is an Ampere/ARM SoC like Drake is and that's on 8nm. so people believe it's 8nm

there are major differences though, as Orin is a "power consumption and space be damned" design as it's meant to be connected to things with big batteries or the wall or a car alternator. hence Drake isn't an Orin derivative as people like to think
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get we won't know until we know, but I feel like there's been a pretty strong understanding of what the Switch 2 has been going to be ever since the Nvidia leak. The 8-core CPU, T239, that'll it go for either 12gig or 16gig of ram and either 256gig or 512g of internal storage (the formers were basically confirmed today), the 8-inch 1080p screen, it'll utilize DLSS and so forth...

It seems like every time there's a new leak of sorts regarding the specs, it validates information that was already previous unearthed. Nothing was really revealed today that people didn't already know. We didn't know which route Nintendo would go (i.e. 12gigs of RAM or 16gigs of RAM), but we knew the choices. It's not like they did something totally out of left field that nobody saw coming.

These choices seem to blow the most pessimistic takes away. I don't mean to have "hopium", but it feels like pessimism mixed with doomerism (i.e. "Nintendo always goes for the cheapest options without question") is the driving force behind why some folks are gung-ho on why Nintendo will go for 8nm. Yes, there are plausible reasons why they could go for 8nm, but it feels more like people are just eager to get on the doom train and assume Nintendo will cheap out for the sake of cheaping out. Some people apparently were really surprised that it looks like the console will have 12gigs of RAM and expected a measly 8gigs...

We know it's Ampere but with features backported from Lovelace (which are done on TSMC 4N which is a 5nm chip) which should include power-saving. We know the power-curves and can estimate the power consumption if it were 8nm or not. It doesn't look like it makes as much sense for it to be 8nm if they want a decent battery life given the other information that we know. We know it's not physically going to be this beast of a system, especially given the dimensions revealed today...

Call me crazy, but given all the available information that's been leaked on the Switch 2 for quite a long time now that is continually being validated...doesn't it feel like there's more reasons for the node to not be 8NM?

Maybe it is hopium, but it feels like well-informed hopium haha. The console hasn't let me down yet with what continues to be revealed about it and I'm suspecting that's not going to change. I'd rather choose well informed hopium than pessimism just cause'.
 
Last edited:
Serif said:
Built in mic for voice commands could be a potential accessibility feature. I'm not sure if anything like that exists on any of the current consoles, just trying to think up use cases that aren't playing flutes in Zelda.
Click to expand...
I was also thinking DS NSO too cause some games used it like a little gimmick.
 
oldpuck said:
On comparisons and power numbers: Responding to @darthdiablo from a couple pages back.

I'm uncomfortable (as I'm sure you are) with these comparisons even if they're technically accurate, because they miss the nuance. I especially cringe at the phrase "before DLSS" because it implies that DLSS is a free add-on, that just adds performance on top.

On the other hand, the folk who ask for these comparisons are almost always people who either aren't interested in the nuance, or without the background to understand them. And there is nothing wrong with that! People should be able to talk about the product they're considering buying, without having to have 3000 posts in Famiboards academy.

It's this battle to try to describe things to folks in a way that's succinct, but also gives them the right impression. Especially knowing that once your back is turned, someone else will start yelling about "cache hit rates" or some other nonsense, and they'll be lead astray.

For me, I just try to talk about power. I say something like "A smart developer can do anything with this set of tools that the Series S does. A really smart developer could probably do better. Nintendo has some really smart developers" I'm not sure that's a good answer, but it's the best that I can do.
Click to expand...
Yes I do get what you're saying.

I can see people respond more to those first few bulletpoints - where the person had injected his "opinion" on where Switch 2 will end up in relative to other consoles.

The cold hard facts (12GB ram, 256 GB UFS 3.1 storage) seem to have been lost in the shuffle, even though it was right there in those bulletpoints being paraded around.

Based on some of the responses I saw, I feel like they're consuming the information wrong. They think the recent shipment data discoveries is exactly what is supporting the subjective "conclusion" shared (where Switch 2 is in relative to PS4/PS5/Xbox), because this person (who i won't name) injected his take on top of bulletpoints talking about the shipment data.

I don't think 12GB and/or 256 GB storage really would tell us anything "new" about how Switch 2 will perform in relative to PS4/PS5/X/S/etc, other than just RAM size and speed (and how much of RAM is consumed by OS).

It's just unfortunate. It originally started out that way, with shipment data (and nothing else) being shared on ResetEra. Then it's a constant barrage of "what does this mean, is Switch 2 underpowered compared to XBox S? Or outperforming?". I guess someone eventually obligated and injected his opinion of where Switch 2 will be into the discourse, someone made a summary with bulletpoint including that injection, and start parading those bulletpoint around. It's sickening to watch unfold in real time. All this happened while Famiboard was down for a good portion of today.
 
Hocot8 said:
I was also thinking DS NSO too cause some games used it like a little gimmick.
Click to expand...
With DS NSO, I wonder how that'd be handled in docked mode. I wonder if there could be a DS-compatible Joy-Con or Pro Controller that has a touch pad for manipulating the bottom screen. It just probably wouldn't have stylus-level precision.
 
Since we know the storage solution and amount and type of RAM, can we calculate the wattage and get a more accurate idea of what the GPU/CPU can be clocked at?
 
darthdiablo said:
It's just unfortunate. It originally started out that way, with shipment data (and nothing else) being shared on ResetEra. Then it's a constant barrage of "what does this mean, is Switch 2 underpowered compared to XBox S? Or outperforming?". I guess someone eventually obligated and injected his opinion of where Switch 2 will be into the discourse, someone made a summary with bulletpoint including that injection, and start parading those bulletpoint around. It's sickening to watch unfold in real time. All this happened while Famiboard was down for a good portion of today.
Click to expand...

It's been a weird day, reading a flood of reactions to information that was found two years ago. Feels bizarre that a gaming enthusiast forum seemed to have no idea what the ballpark specs of the Switch 2 were until someone presented LiCs essay as a spec dump and that had to be put in context with the older info. When I reshared the on paper specs there the only new info was the RAM and storage. Famiboards is ahead of the curve but in all honesty, I assumed even outside of here more people knew about the general existence of T239 and its rough performance profile considering Digital Foundry's already discussed it and there's been two years of dialogue on it. Lol

That's not to say the recent information isn't significant, it is. Just that, all of the specs of the system didn't just suddenly leak. This is the culmination of years of sleuth work by the members of this forum.
 
darthdiablo said:
It's just unfortunate. It originally started out that way, with shipment data (and nothing else) being shared on ResetEra. Then it's a constant barrage of "what does this mean, is Switch 2 underpowered compared to XBox S? Or outperforming?". I guess someone eventually obligated and injected his opinion of where Switch 2 will be into the discourse, someone made a summary with bulletpoint including that injection, and start parading those bulletpoint around. It's sickening to watch unfold in real time. All this happened while Famiboard was down for a good portion of today.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Some people seemingly really want this system to fail and underperform. I'm sure it doesn't come from a place of malice, of course, but it's sad that people are determined to assume the worst rather than hope for the best. Especially when there have been so many reliable leaks at this point to confirm it's going to be a heck of a console.
 
Serif said:
Truthfully many of the 'it will be 8nm' remarks I have read are also assuming the worst about battery life and performance as a consequence, with the framing that Nintendo are willing to give those up for a less expensive node. They are not really taking into account any power saving tech but the notion of 'this is worse in every way but Nintendo doesn't care'. I don't give them as much benefit of the doubt as I do your thought process.
Click to expand...
I don't think most people (excluding all of my friends here on Fami, of course) are engaging in any intellectual honest way, no matter what "side" they're on. The 8nm Jets with "because Nintendo, lulz" nonsense up against the 4nm Sharks with their "My high school bully plays Call of Duty but this will finally show them" console warring.

There is an argument to be made that sometimes Nintendo delivers overpriced, under specced products because they think they can leverage their fans to pony up anyway. But the one thing we know is that Nintendo absolutely could have gone with a smaller chip. Drake is unusually big, so whatever they're doing, it's not that.

Gaming is at an all time high, but studios are closing, people are losing their jobs. Their families are at risk, and the Art - and I believe games are Art - that they could have made is being flushed down the toilet. That might seem like a tangential rant in a discussion of process node, but the reason these things are happening is because of a corporate console war that has treated it as a scorched Earth zero sum game.

When you buy a console that doesn't make money, Sony and Microsoft are betting all those studios - all those employees, the very existence of their games - on "winning" the console war, getting you to buy a console that they couldn't afford to make, and then soaking you later when they have a monopoly on the market. They were willing to dangle treats in front of gamers, because they were betting they could fuck them over later, and the risk was to their employees, not to themselves. It's not morally superior to overpricing a luxury item, it's worse.

We should be wanting Nintendo to prioritize a sustainable product, both in the environmental sense, but also in the sense of "making the market sustainable long term" because it's what's ethical and it's what's best for gaming. 8nm would be an incredible choice if Nintendo could make it work, it would be something akin to "lateral thinking with withered technology" if Nintendo/Nvidia could find a way to squeeze an extra generation of handheld dominance out of an 8nm die.

And the reason to believe they didn't isn't because they prioritize bleeding edge performance, but because they don't, because 4nm is a path to offering what we all assume Nintendo wants to deliver, a compact device with great battery life, the very thing that all their PC handheld competitors have not been able to truly do.

I get invested in my analysis sometimes, and get... over involved in defending my ideas. I admit that, and I try to be sympathetic to others who do the same. But if you've got some emotional investment in winning the console war, you're not just fiddling while Rome burns, you're pissing in the eye of the folks with the buckets. Grow up.

Fake edit: just to be clear, this rant (which sorta poured out of me, sorry about that) isn't directed at you or (for the most part) anyone else on Fami. I came to gaming as a grown man, and I shouldn't be surprised that some people, when engaging in a hobby they've had since childhood, still think in the terms they did when they were younger. But it's a perspective I've never been able to wrap my head around, or be especially sympathetic to.
 
darthdiablo said:
Yes I do get what you're saying.

I can see people respond more to those first few bulletpoints - where the person had injected his "opinion" on where Switch 2 will end up in relative to other consoles.

The cold hard facts (12GB ram, 256 GB UFS 3.1 storage) seem to have been lost in the shuffle, even though it was right there in those bulletpoints being paraded around.

Based on some of the responses I saw, I feel like they're consuming the information wrong. They think the recent shipment data discoveries is exactly what is supporting the subjective "conclusion" shared (where Switch 2 is in relative to PS4/PS5/Xbox), because this person (who i won't name) injected his take on top of bulletpoints talking about the shipment data.

I don't think 12GB and/or 256 GB storage really would tell us anything "new" about how Switch 2 will perform in relative to PS4/PS5/X/S/etc, other than just RAM size and speed (and how much of RAM is consumed by OS).

It's just unfortunate. It originally started out that way, with shipment data (and nothing else) being shared on ResetEra. Then it's a constant barrage of "what does this mean, is Switch 2 underpowered compared to XBox S? Or outperforming?". I guess someone eventually obligated and injected his opinion of where Switch 2 will be into the discourse, someone made a summary with bulletpoint including that injection, and start parading those bulletpoint around. It's sickening to watch unfold in real time. All this happened while Famiboard was down for a good portion of today.
Click to expand...

Isn't this guy reputable?

 
kingman said:
Isn't this guy reputable?

Click to expand...


That's besides the point.

Shipment data is found and shared word-for-word (stolen, because it was in HIDE tags, the person got permabanned from here). In middle of this feeding frenzy, which should have solely been about shipment data, people kept asking what this means for Switch 2 capability in relative to other consoles (which let's be honest, 12 GB and 256 GB storage really doesn't say anything about). Someone finally obligates and answers with his take on where he think Switch 2 will be. That answer was taken, bulletpointed, and added into summary with the shipment data. And it was passed around on the interwebs today, in some cases being presented as the shipment data recently discovered is now proof of where Switch 2 is in relative to other consoles. When the shipment data does not offer any such thing to reach that conclusion.

What should have been discourse about found shipment data (12 GB RAM, 256 GB storage) ends up being about where Switch 2 is in relative to other consoles.

I hope I made sense?
 
gabeplays said:
Bingo. Some people seemingly really want this system to fail and underperform. I'm sure it doesn't come from a place of malice, of course, but it's sad that people are determined to assume the worst rather than hope for the best. Especially when there have been so many reliable leaks at this point to confirm it's going to be a heck of a console.
Click to expand...
Those people tend to have an agenda and rely on confirmation bias to justify it all.
 
oldpuck said:
And the reason to believe they didn't isn't because they prioritize bleeding edge performance, but because they don't, because 4nm is a path to offering what we all assume Nintendo wants to deliver, a compact device with great battery life, the very thing that all their PC handheld competitors have not been able to truly do.
Click to expand...
this is overall a good and valuable post but man at what point are we going to move on from calling something with almost the outline as a steam deck compact
 
Serif said:
Built in mic for voice commands could be a potential accessibility feature. I'm not sure if anything like that exists on any of the current consoles, just trying to think up use cases that aren't playing flutes in Zelda.
Click to expand...
Nintendogs sequel
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Please read this staff post before posting.

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


Back
Top Bottom