• 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.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!

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

I saw his livestream but I decided just to watch a different world instead. A 5nm switch?

I tried to resist but it was like watching a slow car wreck...
Yes he's saying that Nvidia had a version of T239 on both 8nm and 5nm (instead of saying 4N which it is based on)
For someone who’s not smart with technology is this fantastic or mid. Since it’ll still be using 8nm

Might it be a modified 8nm?
Samsung's 8nm is already modified to capacity, there's nothing left for them to gain and as many have stated here it is a dead end node.

It's a little weird to me that one day MLID states he really isn't excited by discussing Nintendo hardware news (because the specs have been around since 2022) and then today is saying that in speaking with his Nvidia sources once more, it has him excited because they have conveyed to him Nintendo actually cares about the performance of this device and its battery life...

It just sounds contradictory because if he really believes both of those things and the protected specs he thinks this device will have.
4nm is the best solution to achieve all of that and his napkin math of why his sources insists it's 8nm doesn't align with his projected specs and performance.
 
I have a question to ask. I posted on gamefaqs, but here it is:

Let's read this:



As used in this subsection —






I never used Yuzu but does this make sense:

Yuzu although doesn't comes with any keys. It still uses those keys to execute the encryption with those keys? It sounds like you can frame it as encryption as an action and not a part they need like the keys as the focal point.

Would that be something Nintendo can claim and what would there chances Would be?
While Yuzu doesn't come with keys, Yuzu use the keys to decrypt the rom. With that logic, Yuzu circumvents the encryption of the rom. Roms found in the internet are encrypted. It doesn't matter where the keys comes from because keys only doesn't do anything.
 
While Yuzu doesn't come with keys, Yuzu use the keys to decrypt the rom. With that logic, Yuzu circumvents the encryption of the rom. Roms found in the internet are encrypted. It doesn't matter where the keys comes from because keys only doesn't do anything.
Man, the DCMA law makes emulation hard.
 
I tried to resist but it was like watching a slow car wreck...
Yes he's saying that Nvidia had a version of T239 on both 8nm and 5nm (instead of saying 4N which it is based on)

Samsung's 8nm is already modified to capacity, there's nothing left for them to gain and as many have stated here it is a dead end node.

It's a little weird to me that one day MLID states he really isn't excited by discussing Nintendo hardware news (because the specs have been around since 2022) and then today is saying that in speaking with his Nvidia sources once more, it has him excited because they have conveyed to him Nintendo actually cares about the performance of this device and its battery life...

It just sounds contradictory because if he really believes both of those things and the protected specs he thinks this device will have.
4nm is the best solution to achieve all of that and his napkin math of why his sources insists it's 8nm doesn't align with his projected specs and performance.
Thanks for answering, hopefully we’ll hear more from other reputable sources about if it’s either a 4NM or 8NM because it’s absolutely draining hearing so much about 8NM.

Also wouldn’t the 4NM be cheaper to buy instead of the 8NM?
 
I would just like to remind everyone that we have at least two examples in the past of Nintendo going with really weird hardware manufacturing that hardly made any sense, even to this day.

The Wii was underpowered in a way that even the worst Nintendo hater at the time could never have conceived. A system that wasn't even more powerful than the strongest console of the PREVIOUS generation!

Then we have the Wii U, which seems to have been some kind of Frankenstein's monster the way it was designed.

Obviously I hope Switch 2 isn't made on 8 nm for a variety of reasons, but just saying....there's precedent.
Those are quite explicable, even if controversial. Wii was them saying "If the only ones we can count on is ourselves, screw it, we'll save ourselves trouble and just keep using our GameCube tools." Wii U was them saying "Come hell or high water, perfect Wii backwards compatibility must be there!" If there is actually a reason to go with 8nm, it would be something like "My hands got too cold playing Switch!"
And this is true for games consoles too. The PS4 and Xbox Series came out 7 years after the PS3 and Xbox One. The idea of making the Switch 1's potential 8-year lifecycle seem like some kind of mind-boggling, insane surprise seems far-fetched, to say the least.
gREav7I.png

Red segment at end extrapolating to March 1, 2025.
Do we know if the switch 2 dock will maybe able to output native 4K because we know that botw was demoed at gamescom with 4K and 60fps, but do we know if it was native?
It will be able to output 4K for sure. How any particular game gets there is up to it. A simple enough game could've done it with Wii U level hardware.
 
Thanks for answering, hopefully we’ll hear more from other reputable sources about if it’s either a 4NM or 8NM because it’s absolutely draining hearing so much about 8NM.

Also wouldn’t the 4NM be cheaper to buy instead of the 8NM?
there won't be any good sources who aren't too close to actual chip fabrication on this. we'll only know by someone doing xray shots of the chip after it releases



so there are rumors out there of Ass Creed Red moving to a full RTGI and mesh shaders pipeline, much like Avatar and Star Wars. and since we heard that Ubisoft's flagships were coming to Drake, that would be a the best use case of telling us what kind of life this device will have as far as supporting third parties' tech goes. not that I think it'll have too much trouble supporting this tech since Avatar runs on hardware that has no business running this
 
So MLID is back again and he is doubling down on his Switch 2 will be 8nm information in his live-stream...
He also reiterated that his sources told him that there was a 5nm version but Nintendo still went with the 8nm Samsung production.

He even goes on to claim (much similar to our specs here) that Nvidia are able to achieve better than Steamdeck performance in handheld (by 20-30% no less @ 500-800MHz GPU clock) and he's expecting 3-4TFlops docked 900Mhz-1.3Ghz GPU clock(on 8nm).

He talks about the CPU only being comparable to XboxOne X(Lol) and that this new Switch will be able to achieve these handheld performances for the low price of 5-8w... Please tell me what kind of Blackmagic has Nvidia and Samsung figured out since the Ampere cards?

Switch 2 stuff is closer to the beginning of his stream.


4N confirmed then, he's wrong and they went with the 5nm version and not 8N...

In all seriousness, look it could be on 8N even though every single piece of information we have strongly suggests otherwise. I was arguing with him in his Discord server yesterday about 8N being completely unviable for all of the previously mentioned reasons, his counter essentially just boils down to cost (he told me that the die would be 2x as expensive on 4N vs. 8N). So let's run it:

I'm going to give the absolute most favorable conditions to 8N in this calculation and the least favorable to 4N.

8N:
  • Assuming $5k per SEC8N 300mm² wafer and a KGD agreement between Samsung and Nvidia (to make it simpler, I'll use 100% yield for each die in place of a set price per die as I would assume the cost would basically come out equivalent and it's impossible to know what the actual price per die would be)
  • 180mm² die size for T239 on 8N (actual would likely be closer to 200mm²)
We get a price of $14.577 per die

4N:
  • We'll assume $15k per 300mm² wafer. This is definitely on the high side, and there is literally no way 4N is 3x the cost of 8N but let's just roll with it for now
  • Previously estimated T239 die size of 91mm² (which is already a conservative approximation)
  • Yield of 0.85, so 10% worse yield than my previous and likely more accurate yield estimate
We get a per die cost of $24.96

So in the best case scenario for 8N and worst for 4N, T239 is $10.41 cheaper on 4N versus the latter.

Ignoring the costs of a larger heatsink, additional power delivery, higher capacity battery, and larger overall device that would come with 8N, is a bit over 10 bucks worth it for Nintendo to sacrifice roughly half the potential battery life of their console? I just really don't think so
 
So MLID is back again and he is doubling down on his Switch 2 will be 8nm information in his live-stream...
He also reiterated that his sources told him that there was a 5nm version but Nintendo still went with the 8nm Samsung production.

He even goes on to claim (much similar to our specs here) that Nvidia are able to achieve better than Steamdeck performance in handheld (by 20-30% no less @ 500-800MHz GPU clock) and he's expecting 3-4TFlops docked 900Mhz-1.3Ghz GPU clock(on 8nm).

He talks about the CPU only being comparable to XboxOne X(Lol) and that this new Switch will be able to achieve these handheld performances for the low price of 5-8w... Please tell me what kind of Blackmagic has Nvidia and Samsung figured out since the Ampere cards?

Switch 2 stuff is closer to the beginning of his stream.

He Also said that there is exist AMD APU on 6nm for Switch 2
 
4N confirmed then, he's wrong and they went with the 5nm version and not 8N...

In all seriousness, look it could be on 8N even though every single piece of information we have strongly suggests otherwise. I was arguing with him in his Discord server yesterday about 8N being completely unviable for all of the previously mentioned reasons, his counter essentially just boils down to cost (he told me that the die would be 2x as expensive on 4N vs. 8N). So let's run it:

I'm going to give the absolute most favorable conditions to 8N in this calculation and the least favorable to 4N.

8N:
  • Assuming $5k per SEC8N 300mm² wafer and a KGD agreement between Samsung and Nvidia (to make it simpler, I'll use 100% yield for each die in place of a set price per die as I would assume the cost would basically come out equivalent and it's impossible to know what the actual price per die would be)
  • 180mm² die size for T239 on 8N (actual would likely be closer to 200mm²)
We get a price of $14.577 per die

4N:
  • We'll assume $15k per 300mm² wafer. This is definitely on the high side, and there is literally no way 4N is 3x the cost of 8N but let's just roll with it for now
  • Previously estimated T239 die size of 91mm² (which is already a conservative approximation)
  • Yield of 0.85, so 10% worse yield than my previous and likely more accurate yield estimate
We get a per die cost of $24.96

So in the best case scenario for 8N and worst for 4N, T239 is $10.41 cheaper on 4N versus the latter.

Ignoring the costs of a larger heatsink, additional power delivery, higher capacity battery, and larger overall device that would come with 8N, is a bit over 10 bucks worth it for Nintendo to sacrifice roughly half the potential battery life of their console? I just really don't think so
Samsung 8nm really dont make sense
 
I maintain my stance that if this thing is 8nm then it's either huge, terrible battery life, the leaked specs are wrong, or it's downclocked to hell, and the Gamescom rumours were indeed wrong.

MLIDs only justification is cost, which is just brainless business to me considering they can't ever upgrade the efficiency of it without taping out a whole new SoC which they could've done in the first place and save all that time and effort.
 
an 8nm switch? That'd be the worst! How am I gonna play anything if my fingers are bigger than the system? Nintendo pulling a Nintendo once again. 🙁
 
Thanks for answering, hopefully we’ll hear more from other reputable sources about if it’s either a 4NM or 8NM because it’s absolutely draining hearing so much about 8NM.

Also wouldn’t the 4NM be cheaper to buy instead of the 8NM?

Going by the cost per transistor metrics that MLID is using TSMC 4N wouldn't be anymore expensive than Samsung’s 8nm, but with better yields...

there won't be any good sources who aren't too close to actual chip fabrication on this. we'll only know by someone doing xray shots of the chip after it releases



so there are rumors out there of Ass Creed Red moving to a full RTGI and mesh shaders pipeline, much like Avatar and Star Wars. and since we heard that Ubisoft's flagships were coming to Drake, that would be a the best use case of telling us what kind of life this device will have as far as supporting third parties' tech goes. not that I think it'll have too much trouble supporting this tech since Avatar runs on hardware that has no business running this
This is why I don't understand why people like MLID is so adamant to confirm 8nm.
Even kopite7kimi is only coming to that conclusion because of T239's association with Orin and Ampere. It’s absolutely clear at this point that all things are quiet on the SoC specs front because none of these leakers have any sources close to the T239 project.
 
there won't be any good sources who aren't too close to actual chip fabrication on this. we'll only know by someone doing xray shots of the chip after it releases



so there are rumors out there of Ass Creed Red moving to a full RTGI and mesh shaders pipeline, much like Avatar and Star Wars. and since we heard that Ubisoft's flagships were coming to Drake, that would be a the best use case of telling us what kind of life this device will have as far as supporting third parties' tech goes. not that I think it'll have too much trouble supporting this tech since Avatar runs on hardware that has no business running this
Indeed, Also reports that Switch 2 will have same AAA 3P support like PS5 and XSX|XSS
 
Nate said this on the reveal timing:

I'm okay not believing anyone at this point. When it happens it will happen.
So MLID is back again and he is doubling down on his Switch 2 will be 8nm information in his live-stream...
He also reiterated that his sources told him that there was a 5nm version but Nintendo still went with the 8nm Samsung production.

He even goes on to claim (much similar to our specs here) that Nvidia are able to achieve better than Steamdeck performance in handheld (by 20-30% no less @ 500-800MHz GPU clock) and he's expecting 3-4TFlops docked 900Mhz-1.3Ghz GPU clock(on 8nm).

He talks about the CPU only being comparable to XboxOne X(Lol) and that this new Switch will be able to achieve these handheld performances for the low price of 5-8w... Please tell me what kind of Blackmagic has Nvidia and Samsung figured out since the Ampere cards?

Switch 2 stuff is closer to the beginning of his stream.

Xbox one X?🥲
 
0
4N confirmed then, he's wrong and they went with the 5nm version and not 8N...

In all seriousness, look it could be on 8N even though every single piece of information we have strongly suggests otherwise. I was arguing with him in his Discord server yesterday about 8N being completely unviable for all of the previously mentioned reasons, his counter essentially just boils down to cost (he told me that the die would be 2x as expensive on 4N vs. 8N). So let's run it:

I'm going to give the absolute most favorable conditions to 8N in this calculation and the least favorable to 4N.

8N:
  • Assuming $5k per SEC8N 300mm² wafer and a KGD agreement between Samsung and Nvidia (to make it simpler, I'll use 100% yield for each die in place of a set price per die as I would assume the cost would basically come out equivalent and it's impossible to know what the actual price per die would be)
  • 180mm² die size for T239 on 8N (actual would likely be closer to 200mm²)
We get a price of $14.577 per die

4N:
  • We'll assume $15k per 300mm² wafer. This is definitely on the high side, and there is literally no way 4N is 3x the cost of 8N but let's just roll with it for now
  • Previously estimated T239 die size of 91mm² (which is already a conservative approximation)
  • Yield of 0.85, so 10% worse yield than my previous and likely more accurate yield estimate
We get a per die cost of $24.96

So in the best case scenario for 8N and worst for 4N, T239 is $10.41 cheaper on 4N versus the latter.

Ignoring the costs of a larger heatsink, additional power delivery, higher capacity battery, and larger overall device that would come with 8N, is a bit over 10 bucks worth it for Nintendo to sacrifice roughly half the potential battery life of their console? I just really don't think so

So this is what I don't understand every-time we've had this discussion and (people far smarter than me have broken this down).

We have Nvidia's GPU products on both manufacturing processes, so we have a great understanding of what they could achieve transistor density wise on both. GA107 on Samsung 8nm is getting around 43Mtr/mm² and AD107 on TSMC 4N is around 129Mtr/mm².

So that cost per wafer and better yields on TSMC's 4N pretty much negates any cost savings 8nm would garner, unless Samsung chose to bet the farm in order to land Nintendo Switch 2 business. But if they did this why not offer to port the design to one of Samsung's own 4nm process in order to land even more fabrication business. Switch 2 on 4nm for Samsung would do so much more for them long term than cutting all sorts of profits to keep 8nm busy...
 
Last edited:
so there are rumors out there of Ass Creed Red moving to a full RTGI and mesh shaders pipeline, much like Avatar and Star Wars. and since we heard that Ubisoft's flagships were coming to Drake, that would be a the best use case of telling us what kind of life this device will have as far as supporting third parties' tech goes. not that I think it'll have too much trouble supporting this tech since Avatar runs on hardware that has no business running this
Ubisoft being one of the top supporters on Drake by having a streamline tech pipeline sounds like a fun timeline. I've seen some divisive opinion on those ACR rumors, I think they sound great.
 
I live within a (literal) stone's throw from a major exchange and get fibre to the home, and I can tell ya, Google Stadia FELT like native. It genuinely was good enough for rhythm games, it was AMAZING.

A lot of this was software and Google's data centres, Stadia being well designed, because over the same connection, Xbox Cloud Gaming has a screen tearing issue at the best of times.

For Nintendo, I think the cloud approach will be more novel, more distributed. Less the whole game running on one side and more like a bit of both. We've seen this in online games forever, but some good Nintendo examples are Splatoon 3, which has stores, menus, (some small) textures, etc. all rely on the network, ergo the cloud, and FZ99 which basically does the whole thing server side with users merely interfacing.

It's unclear if F-Zero 99 could even run entirely natively with 99 humans, it depends on the cloud to keep track of 99 individual players in a way a Nintendo Switch host (which also has to run a client for its user) on a huge LAN network probably just couldn't.

hqdefault.jpg


Nope.
Still not getting on the cloud.
 
Ubisoft being one of the top supporters on Drake by having a streamline tech pipeline sounds like a fun timeline. I've seen some divisive opinion on those ACR rumors, I think they sound great.
It really depends on how you felt about Valhalla. That said, ubisoft's tech pipeline is one of the most interesting in the game right now, so I'm really excited to see how it really scales. Avatar struggles on pc handhelds. But it's missing a lot of the custom work Ubisoft did for consoles. I expect similar things for Red
 
Wouldn't one advantage of starting on 8nm be that it would allow them to release things like a Switch 2 Lite and a v2 console with a better battery life in a few years, just like how things went with Switch 1? With the screen rumored to be as large as it is, I'm wondering how big this system will be and how small a Switch 2 Lite could be in the future.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't one advantage of starting on 8nm be that it would allow them to release things like a Switch 2 Lite and a new console with a better battery life in a few years, just like how things went with Switch 1? With the screen rumored to be as large as it is, I'm wondering how big this system will be and how small a Switch 2 Lite could be in the future.
That... is not a good advantage?
 
Wouldn't one advantage of starting on 8nm be that it would allow them to release things like a Switch 2 Lite and a v2 console with a better battery life in a few years, just like how things went with Switch 1? With the screen rumored to be as large as it is, I'm wondering how big this system will be and how small a Switch 2 Lite could be in the future.
Would that be an advantage? Wouldn't it be simpler if they were just able to start with the equivalent of the "v2" and be able to release a Lite whenever they chose, without the extra requirement of having to redesign the SOC to get there?
 
That... is not a good advantage?
Would that be an advantage? Wouldn't it be simpler if they were just able to start with the equivalent of the "v2" and be able to release a Lite whenever they chose, without the extra requirement of having to redesign the SOC to get there?
I'm not very familiar with how much work goes into revising the chip for a new node, so if it's a prohibitive amount, then yeah, we can rule it out as a possible advantage. I'm only speaking of the advantage from Nintendo's perspective in terms of "we'd have the opportunity to sell a significantly cheaper, smaller model and also a better one in the future to reach new players and get people to double-dip". Genuine question: If they were to start at 4nm, would that move still be doable by Holiday 2027? In the "launch with v2" scenario, I imagine a node shrink would still be necessary to release their "slim" model unless Nintendo intentionally made the console bigger than necessary at launch and left space for a cheaper, smaller, "kid-friendly" redesign in a few years.

If I'm totally off-base in thinking this could be somewhat appealing to Nintendo and one reason to stick with a larger node at launch, I can accept that. I'm certainly no expert and not particularly knowledgeable. Just was trying to think through why they might and be optimistic about a future hardware revision.
 
Last edited:
If their motive is to sell software. Does new hardware sell more software than just more software at this point?
Yes. After a certain point, market saturation gets so high that existing hardware doesn't drive software sales anymore, and software sales slow as a result of having less newbies to buy evergreens and the like. Granted, it's less of a problem for Nintendo since so much of their brand is their first party games VS say, Sony who have them moreso as something akin to "halo" products - without the price tag - to aid in the marketing of the system and strengthen the brand and its prestige.

Back on topic, new hardware - whether it's a new generation or a revision - can renew interest in a brand or product. It's why console revisions are so frequent now. They can help get a different market to buy into the platform via a lower price or different features a la Switch Lite, or serve to get existing users to upgrade and give them The Best Thing™ a la the Xbox Series X or Switch OLED. The relationship between hardware and software, especially in Nintendo's case, is like a feedback loop if that makes sense.
 
Those are quite explicable, even if controversial. Wii was them saying "If the only ones we can count on is ourselves, screw it, we'll save ourselves trouble and just keep using our GameCube tools." Wii U was them saying "Come hell or high water, perfect Wii backwards compatibility must be there!" If there is actually a reason to go with 8nm, it would be something like "My hands got too cold playing Switch!"

gREav7I.png

Red segment at end extrapolating to March 1, 2025.

It will be able to output 4K for sure. How any particular game gets there is up to it. A simple enough game could've done it with Wii U level hardware.
I so want labels on all those valleys.
 
Genuine question: If they were to start at 4nm, would that move still be doable by Holiday 2027? In the "launch with v2" scenario, I imagine a node shrink would still be necessary to release their "slim" model unless Nintendo intentionally made the console bigger than necessary at launch and left space for a cheaper, smaller, "kid-friendly" redesign in a few years.
Given the estimates elsewhere in this thread, if T239 were to start at 4nm, it would probably be about the size of the Mariko used in the v2/Lite/OLED, which means it should already be possible to hit similar form factors. Which means starting with "obviously big HD screen model, with bigger improved Joy-Cons" would just be a choice to help differentiate it from what came before, rather than a necessity.
I so want labels on all those valleys.
It'd be a bit of a pain to add them in, but all the 0s: FC, GB, SFC, VB, N64, GBC, GBA, GCN, DS, Wii, DSi, 3DS, Wii U, New 3DS, Switch. Any time new games could use new specs, but ignoring stuff like the Pokémon Pikachu.
 
is mild seriously that gullible? somehow, sec8n is suuuuper cheap and affordable for nintendovidia here. they were able to take a historically mediocre node and somehow engooden it to unbelievable performance/watt levels, magically create this sec8n++++ thats basically a new node, without spending the millions upon millions that such a thing would cost. its going to beat the pants off steamdeck, but also the cpu is lolxboxone level?

he forgot to tell the story of how they walked into samsung and said ":cool: dont worry bro we got this, you think you know nodes, witness our divine golden chips" and samsung PAID them to do it. and then tsmc clapped and bowed down
 
Given the estimates elsewhere in this thread, if T239 were to start at 4nm, it would probably be about the size of the Mariko used in the v2/Lite/OLED, which means it should already be possible to hit similar form factors. Which means starting with "obviously big HD screen model, with bigger improved Joy-Cons" would just be a choice to help differentiate it from what came before, rather than a necessity.

It'd be a bit of a pain to add them in, but all the 0s: FC, GB, SFC, VB, N64, GBC, GBA, GCN, DS, Wii, DSi, 3DS, Wii U, New 3DS, Switch. Any time new games could use new specs, but ignoring stuff like the Pokémon Pikachu.
Thanks for the insight and analysis!
 
"comparable" is an eye of the beholder thing though.

It’s interesting that DF coverage points to Doom 2016 and Witcher 3 on Switch as an example of how one might explain the comments from Gamescom. But in no world would I have thought those experiences visually comparable to PS4, nor would I expect that type of language from a developer viewing a showcase of them.

I don’t want to get too optimistic, but I do expect a negligible gap in visuals for plenty of games - at least by my standards.
 
Feels like we should have stopped posting MLID here a long time ago. I mean it doesn't lead to healthy discussion to keep talking about them, and just gives them clicks anyway.
 
It will never be 8. That's why you won't be disappointed if you expect that it will be that low.


It's definitely going to be 8 GB of RAM. Look at Nvidia's smaller GPUs, all much stronger than this will be (2050 Mobile; 1650 Mobile Max-Q; 3050 Mobile), they have 4 GB, rarely 6 GB. The only saving grace is that NV GPUs can deal with lower GRAM much better than AMDs.

And production chips (especially on the lower cost end), never use the full amount of execution units they have by design. For yields and higher production numbers, they always leave one or two units unused in production design form. Full units are only used for high end models which really just means selling the few percent that come out perfect for a premium and to expand the market upwards. This isn't that. This is supposed to be a mass market product with millions of units produced every month. Look at the Orin chip, only the top model uses the full chip, 99% of units sold only use a part of the chip. Chips that don't come out perfect are sold as lower tier products instead of throwing them away. The GPU is the biggest single part and will be more susceptible to damage.

Leaks said that T239 has 12 SMs by Design? Production chips will use 8 or at best 10.

The chip was done in 2022? It's not going to use a high end process from 2024. It's going to use whatever its sister-chips of the same architecture are being made on, which started sales in the last year or two.

Nintendo is selling these things for 100 - 150, maybe up to 200 for the NS2. Everything above that is transport, taxes, retail costs and retail margin. If it's sold for 399, in many parts of Europe the taxes alone are 80, leaving just 320 to the retailer, take out a margin, then take out the cost of running the store, then take out storage and shipping across several locations across the world, what is left is the price Nintendo sells it for. Then take out Nintendos margin, their costs of developing the thing and all the design work from cooperating companies, and then you have production costs. This has to be cheap because it is sold cheap.

We have seen this movie 8 years ago, and 5 years before that, and 5 years before that... We were always left disappointed by crippled hardware. Be it non-standard storage mediums or obsolete chips - it always made it harder, not easier, for third party developments to be brought to the Nintendo platform. Now that I write this, that may not be an oversight.

There's a handy Nvidia Orin chart out there that shows the different configurations with TDP at the bottom. We roughly know (look at the OG Switch) the TDP limits the hardware form factor imposes on the chip alone which might raise a bit in the new gen but that's just hoping and probably won't happen (3-5 W handheld, 10 - 15 Watt docked). Don't dream, be honest with yourself, take a look, and be prepared to be disappointed. Because that is the only option. Better now than sitting around for another year hoping for a miracle that you can already know today won't come.

This thing is almost guaranteed to end up looking something like this:

8nm process
8GB RAM
8 SM GPU with 1024 cores clocked somewhere around 625 - 765 MHz docked, around 382 - 465 Mhz handheld
6 - 8 A78C cores running at 1.5 GHz
128 GB storage

Before you lash out because you don't like the numbers you are facing, remember this isn't my opinion, these are the limits which the TDP and production process are imposing - as per Nvidia themselves.

Everything outside of that (RAM + Storage) is just economics, in two ways:
Firstly the sales price. Don't show me your Android phone with 8 Cores, 8 GB and 256 GB for 199, I know that and I have one as well, but that's a different thing, the SoC/GPU is much smaller and thus cheaper and not on an advanced node like what everyone wants from the Switch, and the development of the device and Software are basically free compared to Switch OS, Joycons, each with their own battery, HD rumble, IR sensor, dock, etc.- you are not just buying the three hardware parts (CPU, RAM, Storage) and overpaying for them, the Switch is a whole device and ecosystem and Nintendo aims to turn a profit, and as much of it as possible. Chinese Android makers are basically giving them away at cost to gain market share and a foothold to introduce more premium devices afterwards. Nintendo has no prospects of coming out with Premium $1099 Switches and no venture funds covering the costs until then, who are betting on them taking out the competition and raking it in later when they have a monopoly, also referred to as "disruptive technology".
Nintendo also mainly uses traditional retail, driving down their own sales price to leave headroom for the retailer, cheap Androids are mostly sold online by webshops and the manufacturer sales price isn't as different as the end buyers price might suggest, i.e. the Switch is probably sold by Nintendo for not much more than those Androids, even if the final listed sales price is 50% higher. It has hardware like cheap Android devices because it is a cheap device, that's the aim. There is no market for a $599 Switch, let alone a $899 one. There also isn't a market for a high monthly subscription rate to offset a Switch sold at a loss.

Secondly, if 5 years ago you might have hoped for a higher powered Switch, the success in the last 4 years has guaranteed that you won't get one. Because it has proven two crucial things to Nintendo:

A) That there is a huge market that's open to Nintendo. Bigger than they themselves or anyone else thought they might still have, when everyone was convinced the handheld market was gone to phones and the TV market was the domain of PC-gaming replacement and yearly shooter and sports franchises.

B) That the weak hardware of the Switch didn't prevent them from selling almost 150 Million devices, gaining that market and making it to the top of the best selling gaming devices ever, guaranteed Top 3 of all time, neck to neck, and outdoing all of their previous efforts, most of them combined. (Obviously except for DS - not yet)

Out of these two lessons they have to draw two conclusions to follow up on the success of the Switch 1:

a) They have to keep access to that monster of a market open, so they can't have a "$599 Dollars!" machine.
Once designed it's impossible to scale back and a more expensive to manufacture device guarantees losses of both sales and on every sale.
To keep access to the market, the console has to be able to access the almost impulse buy territory of adults who aren't gamers, parents who buy it as a family activity, and also the second console territory of all three of these: families with more than one child, gamers with another gaming device, dedicated cheaper handheld device for the car (kids), commute, as a quick present or just as a low entry threshold to dip their toe in and see what it's all about without having to commit too much. Given these objectives, which are covered by pricing, it will need a second, simpler, smaller, lower priced device to complement the upper mid-range main Switch 2 (350-399).
Given that whatever hardware it launches with will set the baseline that a cheaper device can't go under to ensure all the games work, the base hardware, whatever they put into the Switch 2 at launch, has to be able to fit into the "lite" price bracket of a second cheaper device as well (199-249). Which just isn't possible with 16 or even 12 GB of RAM, nor necessary see Nvidia's own GPUs. Don't forget, they aren't just designing a main device, they are also designing a cheap device at the same time. The cuts come from other features, not the hardware platform.

In short they have to keep access to the whole newly confirmed market open, which means a low entry cost, at a profit, which means the lowest necessary components.

b) They don't need strong hardware to sell a lot of units! Read that again! They don't need to participate in a graphical arms race, they don't need to have all kinds of third party blockbuster games. This has just been proven, if they did need any of that they wouldn't have sold more than 20-50 million. The market has just confirmed to Nintendo that they don't need strong hardware. So they won't make it because it has been proven that they don't need to.

I am repeating this so often because no one here seems to really have understood that point.

They won't bother with what they don't need to do, and especially something which would compromise the number 1 objective outlined in the above point: To make money by selling the most possible amount of hardware at the highest possible profit. Why would they do anything that would cut into that profit and raise the price, and thus decrease the market and income, unless it's absolutely necessary, when they don't need to?!? They wouldn't, they are not insane.
And they are not going to risk losing out on literal tens of Billions to satisfy the small number of Nintendo enthusiasts who dream of a Nintendo console that can be everything and replace all their other devices for gaming and streaming by being able to play all third party titles well, as well as Nintendo games.
No, they will do only what is absolutely necessary - and hope to repeat their success.

We are still discussing the hardware and GPU and flops of this thing when they have been confirmed to Nintendo to be irrelevant. They will have sold 150 Million devices at an average of around 300,- with an abysmal 190-390 Gflops, which was too little even before it released.
Back then everyone hoped for at least 512 Cores at 1Ghz, we got only 256 Cores at 307-765Mhz, a Quad ARM at just 1 GHz like it's 2010, 4GB and 32GB MMC, a gut punch, almost a decade ago!
And it's still going strong! Still! It will still outsell the Wii U from today until it's pulled. The N64 and GC in it's final 2-3 years. You have to understand what these numbers mean, especially to Nintendo.

It means they don't need more. Of aything. They don't need to, anything is good enough. That's why you won't get anything from them, no compromise, no token of appreciation, in the form of more RAM or better node for higher fps or more resolution in 3rd party ports, which is basically what y'all are hoping for. But they don't need to. And they won't. Only whatever is the bare minimum necessary for the benchmark they have set for their own games, and that is all. They don't need to care about 3rd party ports, that's the 3rd party developer's problem if he wants to make money off of Nintendo's customers.

They don't need to try to compete with others any more, they are and can be their own market. They will make a dedicated Nintendo machine because that is what the people/market want.

A toy to play Nintendo video games on. It doesn't need or aim to provide High-End Computing Power Ray-Tracing Graphics Narrative Driven Engaging Hardcore Gaming Experiences.

They're not looking to be HBO or AMC, they are the Disney and Pixar of video games.

The hundred millions of gamers will not replace their PC/PS with a Nintendo device no matter how powerful they make it, because those will always have an edge over Nintendo in having every and all third party games and their own exclusives. So there is no sense in trying to replace those devices, you won't win them over. But some of them might buy a Switch in addition. Some people don't want to spend 600+ on serious dedicated gaming hardware and just want something affordable and easy, to unwind from time to time or to have fun as a family. Parents want something colorful, fun, safe, uncomplicated, trustworthy and affordable for their children.
That's Nintendo.

Ain't no one installing steam stores and shady emulators on weird Switch knockoffs while looking for illegal game copies, when he can get the original for half the price with zero hassle.

And no one's counting frames per second. I'd like 60, but the market doesn't seem to mind even 25 from time to time.

If third parties want to release their games on it to try and get a piece of that pie, they can, it's going to be capable enough for roughly a notch below Xbox One graphics in handheld and PS4 Slim when docked, seeing what they could put out on PS3/X360 and the last generation, there's really no excuse, all it takes is some effort, but Nintendo is not going to make a device for third party developers' games. They will make a dedicated Nintendo device just like the current Switch, because that has proven to be a home run.

They just need to have lots of good games of their own, and whatever affordable machine they deem necessary to make them look good. And that is all they are going to do.




That's why, again, this thing is almost guaranteed to end up looking something like this, at best:

8 nm process
8 GB RAM
8 SM GPU with 1024 cores clocked somewhere around 625 - 765 MHz docked, around 382 - 465 Mhz handheld
6 - 8 A78C cores running at most at 1.5 GHz
128 GB storage
 
Samsung 8nm really dont make sense
It's sort of funny, because he is going with the specs we expect with 5nm on 8nm. TSMC 4N and Samsung 4LPX either node is required to hit 4TFLOPs fp32 ampere in the hybrid form factor, if he wants to go with our specs but call it 8nm like it's a disappointment, it's just dooming without understanding the disappointment.
 
It’s interesting that DF coverage points to Doom 2016 and Witcher 3 on Switch as an example of how one might explain the comments from Gamescom. But in no world would I have thought those experiences visually comparable to PS4, nor would I expect that type of language from a developer viewing a showcase of them.

I don’t want to get too optimistic, but I do expect a negligible gap in visuals for plenty of games - at least by my standards.

Yeah, DF making the comparison to Doom 2016 and Witcher 3 poured a bit of cold water on expectations.

Speaking of the Gamescom demos, we know that BotW was shown to be 60 fps at 4k with DLSS. The DLSS part was a bit disappointing when I first heard it, mostly cause I hoped Switch 2 would be powerful enough to do 60fps/4k for a Wii U game natively without much trouble. But then I thought that maybe the use of DLSS was deliberate in this case, not cause Switch 2 may not be capable of native 60fps/4k, but probably cause they just wanted to demonstrate Switch 2's DLSS capabilities.

Is BotW 60 fps/4k native possible from what we know of Switch 2's abilities so far?
 
It's definitely going to be 8 GB of RAM. Look at Nvidia's smaller GPUs, all much stronger than this will be (2050 Mobile; 1650 Mobile Max-Q; 3050 Mobile), they have 4 GB, rarely 6 GB. The only saving grace is that NV GPUs can deal with lower GRAM much better than AMDs.

And production chips (especially on the lower cost end), never use the full amount of execution units they have by design. For yields and higher production numbers, they always leave one or two units unused in production design form. Full units are only used for high end models which really just means selling the few percent that come out perfect for a premium and to expand the market upwards. This isn't that. This is supposed to be a mass market product with millions of units produced every month. Look at the Orin chip, only the top model uses the full chip, 99% of units sold only use a part of the chip. Chips that don't come out perfect are sold as lower tier products instead of throwing them away. The GPU is the biggest single part and will be more susceptible to damage.

Leaks said that T239 has 12 SMs by Design? Production chips will use 8 or at best 10.

The chip was done in 2022? It's not going to use a high end process from 2024. It's going to use whatever its sister-chips of the same architecture are being made on, which started sales in the last year or two.

Nintendo is selling these things for 100 - 150, maybe up to 200 for the NS2. Everything above that is transport, taxes, retail costs and retail margin. If it's sold for 399, in many parts of Europe the taxes alone are 80, leaving just 320 to the retailer, take out a margin, then take out the cost of running the store, then take out storage and shipping across several locations across the world, what is left is the price Nintendo sells it for. Then take out Nintendos margin, their costs of developing the thing and all the design work from cooperating companies, and then you have production costs. This has to be cheap because it is sold cheap.

We have seen this movie 8 years ago, and 5 years before that, and 5 years before that... We were always left disappointed by crippled hardware. Be it non-standard storage mediums or obsolete chips - it always made it harder, not easier, for third party developments to be brought to the Nintendo platform. Now that I write this, that may not be an oversight.

There's a handy Nvidia Orin chart out there that shows the different configurations with TDP at the bottom. We roughly know (look at the OG Switch) the TDP limits the hardware form factor imposes on the chip alone which might raise a bit in the new gen but that's just hoping and probably won't happen (3-5 W handheld, 10 - 15 Watt docked). Don't dream, be honest with yourself, take a look, and be prepared to be disappointed. Because that is the only option. Better now than sitting around for another year hoping for a miracle that you can already know today won't come.

This thing is almost guaranteed to end up looking something like this:

8nm process
8GB RAM
8 SM GPU with 1024 cores clocked somewhere around 625 - 765 MHz docked, around 382 - 465 Mhz handheld
6 - 8 A78C cores running at 1.5 GHz
128 GB storage

Before you lash out because you don't like the numbers you are facing, remember this isn't my opinion, these are the limits which the TDP and production process are imposing - as per Nvidia themselves.

Everything outside of that (RAM + Storage) is just economics, in two ways:
Firstly the sales price. Don't show me your Android phone with 8 Cores, 8 GB and 256 GB for 199, I know that and I have one as well, but that's a different thing, the SoC/GPU is much smaller and thus cheaper and not on an advanced node like what everyone wants from the Switch, and the development of the device and Software are basically free compared to Switch OS, Joycons, each with their own battery, HD rumble, IR sensor, dock, etc.- you are not just buying the three hardware parts (CPU, RAM, Storage) and overpaying for them, the Switch is a whole device and ecosystem and Nintendo aims to turn a profit, and as much of it as possible. Chinese Android makers are basically giving them away at cost to gain market share and a foothold to introduce more premium devices afterwards. Nintendo has no prospects of coming out with Premium $1099 Switches and no venture funds covering the costs until then, who are betting on them taking out the competition and raking it in later when they have a monopoly, also referred to as "disruptive technology".
Nintendo also mainly uses traditional retail, driving down their own sales price to leave headroom for the retailer, cheap Androids are mostly sold online by webshops and the manufacturer sales price isn't as different as the end buyers price might suggest, i.e. the Switch is probably sold by Nintendo for not much more than those Androids, even if the final listed sales price is 50% higher. It has hardware like cheap Android devices because it is a cheap device, that's the aim. There is no market for a $599 Switch, let alone a $899 one. There also isn't a market for a high monthly subscription rate to offset a Switch sold at a loss.

Secondly, if 5 years ago you might have hoped for a higher powered Switch, the success in the last 4 years has guaranteed that you won't get one. Because it has proven two crucial things to Nintendo:

A) That there is a huge market that's open to Nintendo. Bigger than they themselves or anyone else thought they might still have, when everyone was convinced the handheld market was gone to phones and the TV market was the domain of PC-gaming replacement and yearly shooter and sports franchises.

B) That the weak hardware of the Switch didn't prevent them from selling almost 150 Million devices, gaining that market and making it to the top of the best selling gaming devices ever, guaranteed Top 3 of all time, neck to neck, and outdoing all of their previous efforts, most of them combined. (Obviously except for DS - not yet)

Out of these two lessons they have to draw two conclusions to follow up on the success of the Switch 1:

a) They have to keep access to that monster of a market open, so they can't have a "$599 Dollars!" machine.
Once designed it's impossible to scale back and a more expensive to manufacture device guarantees losses of both sales and on every sale.
To keep access to the market, the console has to be able to access the almost impulse buy territory of adults who aren't gamers, parents who buy it as a family activity, and also the second console territory of all three of these: families with more than one child, gamers with another gaming device, dedicated cheaper handheld device for the car (kids), commute, as a quick present or just as a low entry threshold to dip their toe in and see what it's all about without having to commit too much. Given these objectives, which are covered by pricing, it will need a second, simpler, smaller, lower priced device to complement the upper mid-range main Switch 2 (350-399).
Given that whatever hardware it launches with will set the baseline that a cheaper device can't go under to ensure all the games work, the base hardware, whatever they put into the Switch 2 at launch, has to be able to fit into the "lite" price bracket of a second cheaper device as well (199-249). Which just isn't possible with 16 or even 12 GB of RAM, nor necessary see Nvidia's own GPUs. Don't forget, they aren't just designing a main device, they are also designing a cheap device at the same time. The cuts come from other features, not the hardware platform.

In short they have to keep access to the whole newly confirmed market open, which means a low entry cost, at a profit, which means the lowest necessary components.

b) They don't need strong hardware to sell a lot of units! Read that again! They don't need to participate in a graphical arms race, they don't need to have all kinds of third party blockbuster games. This has just been proven, if they did need any of that they wouldn't have sold more than 20-50 million. The market has just confirmed to Nintendo that they don't need strong hardware. So they won't make it because it has been proven that they don't need to.

I am repeating this so often because no one here seems to really have understood that point.

They won't bother with what they don't need to do, and especially something which would compromise the number 1 objective outlined in the above point: To make money by selling the most possible amount of hardware at the highest possible profit. Why would they do anything that would cut into that profit and raise the price, and thus decrease the market and income, unless it's absolutely necessary, when they don't need to?!? They wouldn't, they are not insane.
And they are not going to risk losing out on literal tens of Billions to satisfy the small number of Nintendo enthusiasts who dream of a Nintendo console that can be everything and replace all their other devices for gaming and streaming by being able to play all third party titles well, as well as Nintendo games.
No, they will do only what is absolutely necessary - and hope to repeat their success.

We are still discussing the hardware and GPU and flops of this thing when they have been confirmed to Nintendo to be irrelevant. They will have sold 150 Million devices at an average of around 300,- with an abysmal 190-390 Gflops, which was too little even before it released.
Back then everyone hoped for at least 512 Cores at 1Ghz, we got only 256 Cores at 307-765Mhz, a Quad ARM at just 1 GHz like it's 2010, 4GB and 32GB MMC, a gut punch, almost a decade ago!
And it's still going strong! Still! It will still outsell the Wii U from today until it's pulled. The N64 and GC in it's final 2-3 years. You have to understand what these numbers mean, especially to Nintendo.

It means they don't need more. Of aything. They don't need to, anything is good enough. That's why you won't get anything from them, no compromise, no token of appreciation, in the form of more RAM or better node for higher fps or more resolution in 3rd party ports, which is basically what y'all are hoping for. But they don't need to. And they won't. Only whatever is the bare minimum necessary for the benchmark they have set for their own games, and that is all. They don't need to care about 3rd party ports, that's the 3rd party developer's problem if he wants to make money off of Nintendo's customers.

They don't need to try to compete with others any more, they are and can be their own market. They will make a dedicated Nintendo machine because that is what the people/market want.

A toy to play Nintendo video games on. It doesn't need or aim to provide High-End Computing Power Ray-Tracing Graphics Narrative Driven Engaging Hardcore Gaming Experiences.

They're not looking to be HBO or AMC, they are the Disney and Pixar of video games.

The hundred millions of gamers will not replace their PC/PS with a Nintendo device no matter how powerful they make it, because those will always have an edge over Nintendo in having every and all third party games and their own exclusives. So there is no sense in trying to replace those devices, you won't win them over. But some of them might buy a Switch in addition. Some people don't want to spend 600+ on serious dedicated gaming hardware and just want something affordable and easy, to unwind from time to time or to have fun as a family. Parents want something colorful, fun, safe, uncomplicated, trustworthy and affordable for their children.
That's Nintendo.

Ain't no one installing steam stores and shady emulators on weird Switch knockoffs while looking for illegal game copies, when he can get the original for half the price with zero hassle.

And no one's counting frames per second. I'd like 60, but the market doesn't seem to mind even 25 from time to time.

If third parties want to release their games on it to try and get a piece of that pie, they can, it's going to be capable enough for roughly a notch below Xbox One graphics in handheld and PS4 Slim when docked, seeing what they could put out on PS3/X360 and the last generation, there's really no excuse, all it takes is some effort, but Nintendo is not going to make a device for third party developers' games. They will make a dedicated Nintendo device just like the current Switch, because that has proven to be a home run.

They just need to have lots of good games of their own, and whatever affordable machine they deem necessary to make them look good. And that is all they are going to do.




That's why, again, this thing is almost guaranteed to end up looking something like this, at best:

8 nm process
8 GB RAM
8 SM GPU with 1024 cores clocked somewhere around 625 - 765 MHz docked, around 382 - 465 Mhz handheld
6 - 8 A78C cores running at most at 1.5 GHz
128 GB storage
You do realize that your speculation is years outdated. 2 years ago on March 1st 2022, we got T239's specs INSIDE of NVN2 a custom API built for Nintendo by Nvidia, in it we got tests for DLSS, we have cuda core count with those specs confirmed, we have the CPU core count, the memory bus, we even have the GPU clocks... You can speculate all you want about your imaginary version of the console, or you can join the discussion on what the leak said.

1536 Cuda cores (confirmed inside the API to all be active) running at 660MHz portable in a DLSS test, consuming 4.2w on just the GPU, this is 2TFLOPs. A second GPU clock of 1.125GHz or 3.456TFLOPs also found in the DLSS test, this is likely the standard clock when docked, and 1.38GHz for 4.24TFLOPs, a boosted clock. This test was done in summer 2021 before silicon existed, so this last high clock isn't a stress test as originally thought, but a target clock for use, likely as I said, the boosted max clock.

48 Tensor cores, also capable of 2TFLOPs portable (fp16) at the same time as the fp32 cuda cores, and up to 4.24TFLOPs docked fp16 performance, though various other bottlenecks will limit the system's performance, so it's better to think of Switch 2 as half of the PS5's performance, with DLSS offering better than FF7 Rebirth's imagine quality (as this game uses nearest neighbor upscaling), I don't use this game as a means to bash it, but as a means to hype Switch 2's imagine quality.

12 RT cores, this should allow it to out do PS5 ray tracing.

12GB to 16GB ram, with a low chance of 8GB ram, though insiders have heard that it has at least 12GBs for games. LPDDR5 102GB/s or LPDDR5X 137GB/s.

8 A78C ARM cores that perform better per clock than Ryzen 2 CPU cores in PS5/Xseries consoles. clocked somewhere between 2GHz and 2.6GHz. These cores are over 3 times faster than XB1/Switch's CPU per clock, and there is 8 of them, 7 for games... This means at 2GHz, it offers 14 times the performance of Switch's CPU for games, or somewhere around 70% of the PS5's CPU for games.

"Before you lash out because you don't like the numbers you are facing, remember this isn't my opinion, these are the limits which the TDP and production process are imposing - as per Nvidia themselves."

You've overlooked that your opinion is all you are actually going over here. The API tests expose all 1536 cuda cores, and all tests were done on 1536 cuda cores, it's the full GPU, the chip would simply be smaller if it were to use less cores, that is how low clocked chips are, they don't need dead transistors, because lower frequencies improve chip yields. 8nm is pure speculation, and even the person bringing it up was told 3-4TFLOPs, so using it as some means to bring the chip to half that performance is just more nonsense. 8GB RAM doesn't align with the rumors, and we have reports that the Matrix awakens demo ran better than on other current gen consoles. That means the system isn't limited to 8GB ram and half the GPU performance than being reported. The linux kernel exposes the CPU as a single 8 core cluster, so it's 8 A78C cores, none of this is really up for debate anymore, it's been known for 2 years. That is why people like me have moved our discussions away from this thread, because we don't need to speculate any longer. All of these things are basically known, heck performance is more or less known at this point, Switch 2 is about half the performance of the PS5 when docked and something near a PS4 Pro when portable thanks to DLSS improving image quality and the small screen hiding imperfections in the IQ.
 
Last edited:
That's why, again, this thing is almost guaranteed to end up looking something like this, at best:


8 SM GPU with 1024 cores clocked somewhere around 625 - 765 MHz docked, around 382 - 465 Mhz handheld

I'm a bit of a pessimist myself on Switch 2, but fwiw, the CUDA core count here is definitely wrong. The leak confirmed 1536 cores.

edit: beaten
 
Last edited:
If third parties want to release their games on it to try and get a piece of that pie, they can, it's going to be capable enough for roughly a notch below Xbox One graphics in handheld and PS4 Slim when docked, seeing what they could put out on PS3/X360 and the last generation, there's really no excuse, all it takes is some effort, but Nintendo is not going to make a device for third party developers' games. They will make a dedicated Nintendo device just like the current Switch, because that has proven to be a home run.
first off, very good post. very much appreciate the thorough reasoning

second, if it turns out to be true that the system was delayed specifically because the software isn't there yet then I think many nintendo fans, myself for sure, will wish it was even weaker
 
12 RT cores, this should allow it to out do PS5 ray tracing.

Really? This was something I always wondered. For a long time it felt like 12 RT cores just seemed too few to allow for any decent RT performance. Mainly cause even the low end Nvidia cards had significantly higher RT cores than Switch 2.
 
Really? This was something I always wondered. For a long time it felt like 12 RT cores just seemed too few to allow for any decent RT performance. Mainly cause even the low end Nvidia cards had significantly higher RT cores than Switch 2.
Rendering is done at a much lower resolution than say the PS5. You can render at 540p or 720p and get a 1080p or even a 4K imagine, the ray tracing is also done at that lower resolution, and pumped up to a higher output. I'd suggest that while RT performance will be lower, in general the RTX 3050 6GB is a decent match for Switch 2 optimized games, and a RTX 2050 (same Ampere chip) gives you a more general performance. Both are limited in RAM vs the Switch 2, which helps offset performance a bit in Switch 2's favor, not to mention mixed precision is something developers working with the Switch already take advantage of, and it's a free lunch on Switch 2, since the fp16 ops come from idle Tensor cores during the rendering phase of the frame window.
 
It's definitely going to be 8 GB of RAM. Look at Nvidia's smaller GPUs, all much stronger than this will be (2050 Mobile; 1650 Mobile Max-Q; 3050 Mobile), they have 4 GB, rarely 6 GB. The only saving grace is that NV GPUs can deal with lower GRAM much better than AMDs.
I didn't even have to read the rest of what you posted is absurd. 8GB of RAM for Switch 2 on the basis of these mobile GPUs having 4GB? What about the rest of the PC setup? Do they not have any system RAM? I can pretty much guarantee that whatever devices use these mobile GPUs have at least 8GB of separate system RAM, making for a total of 12GB minimum.
 
You do realize that your speculation is years outdated. 2 years ago on March 1st 2022, we got T239's specs INSIDE of NVN2 a custom API built for Nintendo by Nvidia, in it we got tests for DLSS, we have cuda core count with those specs confirmed, we have the CPU core count, the memory bus, we even have the GPU clocks... You can speculate all you want about your imaginary version of the console, or you can join the discussion on what the leak said.

1536 Cuda cores (confirmed inside the API to all be active) running at 660MHz portable in a DLSS test, consuming 4.2w on just the GPU, this is 2TFLOPs. A second GPU clock of 1.125GHz or 3.456TFLOPs also found in the DLSS test, this is likely the standard clock when docked, and 1.38GHz for 4.24TFLOPs, a boosted clock. This test was done in summer 2021 before silicon existed, so this last high clock isn't a stress test as originally thought, but a target clock for use, likely as I said, the boosted max clock.

48 Tensor cores, also capable of 2TFLOPs portable (fp16) at the same time as the fp32 cuda cores, and up to 4.24TFLOPs docked fp16 performance, though various other bottlenecks will limit the system's performance, so it's better to think of Switch 2 as half of the PS5's performance, with DLSS offering better than FF7 Rebirth's imagine quality (as this game uses nearest neighbor upscaling), I don't use this game as a means to bash it, but as a means to hype Switch 2's imagine quality.

12 RT cores, this should allow it to out do PS5 ray tracing.

12GB to 16GB ram, with a low chance of 8GB ram, though insiders have heard that it has at least 12GBs for games. LPDDR5 102GB/s or LPDDR5X 137GB/s.

8 A78C ARM cores that perform better per clock than Ryzen 2 CPU cores in PS5/Xseries consoles. clocked somewhere between 2GHz and 2.6GHz. These cores are over 3 times faster than XB1/Switch's CPU per clock, and there is 8 of them, 7 for games... This means at 2GHz, it offers 14 times the performance of Switch's CPU for games, or somewhere around 70% of the PS5's CPU for games.

"Before you lash out because you don't like the numbers you are facing, remember this isn't my opinion, these are the limits which the TDP and production process are imposing - as per Nvidia themselves."

You've overlooked that your opinion is all you are actually going over here. The API tests expose all 1536 cuda cores, and all tests were done on 1536 cuda cores, it's the full GPU, the chip would simply be smaller if it were to use less cores, that is how low clocked chips are, they don't need dead transistors, because lower frequencies improve chip yields. 8nm is pure speculation, and even the person bringing it up was told 3-4TFLOPs, so using it as some means to bring the chip to half that performance is just more nonsense. 8GB RAM doesn't align with the rumors, and we have reports that the Matrix awakens demo ran better than on other current gen consoles. That means the system isn't limited to 8GB ram and half the GPU performance than being reported. The linux kernel exposes the CPU as a single 8 core cluster, so it's 8 A78C cores, none of this is really up for debate anymore, it's been known for 2 years. That is why people like me have moved our discussions away from this thread, because we don't need to speculate any longer. All of these things are basically known, heck performance is more or less known at this point, Switch 2 is about half the performance of the PS5 when docked and something near a PS4 Pro when portable thanks to DLSS improving image quality and the small screen hiding imperfections in the IQ.
As your aware we have no context for those DLSS tests, and they certainly weren't done on T239 silicon. They don't confirm anything.
 
Please refrain from using a patronizing tone when constructing your arguments, in order to facilitate good faith discussion. - meatbag, MissingNo, Tangerine Cookie, mariodk18
You do realize that your speculation is years outdated. 2 years ago on March 1st 2022, we got T239's specs INSIDE of NVN2 a custom API built for Nintendo by Nvidia, in it we got tests for DLSS, we have cuda core count with those specs confirmed, we have the CPU core count, the memory bus, we even have the GPU clocks... You can speculate all you want about your imaginary version of the console, or you can join the discussion on what the leak said.

1536 Cuda cores (confirmed inside the API to all be active) running at 660MHz portable in a DLSS test, consuming 4.2w on just the GPU, this is 2TFLOPs. A second GPU clock of 1.125GHz or 3.456TFLOPs also found in the DLSS test, this is likely the standard clock when docked, and 1.38GHz for 4.24TFLOPs, a boosted clock. This test was done in summer 2021 before silicon existed, so this last high clock isn't a stress test as originally thought, but a target clock for use, likely as I said, the boosted max clock.

48 Tensor cores, also capable of 2TFLOPs portable (fp16) at the same time as the fp32 cuda cores, and up to 4.24TFLOPs docked fp16 performance, though various other bottlenecks will limit the system's performance, so it's better to think of Switch 2 as half of the PS5's performance, with DLSS offering better than FF7 Rebirth's imagine quality (as this game uses nearest neighbor upscaling), I don't use this game as a means to bash it, but as a means to hype Switch 2's imagine quality.

12 RT cores, this should allow it to out do PS5 ray tracing.

12GB to 16GB ram, with a low chance of 8GB ram, though insiders have heard that it has at least 12GBs for games. LPDDR5 102GB/s or LPDDR5X 137GB/s.

8 A78C ARM cores that perform better per clock than Ryzen 2 CPU cores in PS5/Xseries consoles. clocked somewhere between 2GHz and 2.6GHz. These cores are over 3 times faster than XB1/Switch's CPU per clock, and there is 8 of them, 7 for games... This means at 2GHz, it offers 14 times the performance of Switch's CPU for games, or somewhere around 70% of the PS5's CPU for games.

"Before you lash out because you don't like the numbers you are facing, remember this isn't my opinion, these are the limits which the TDP and production process are imposing - as per Nvidia themselves."

You've overlooked that your opinion is all you are actually going over here. The API tests expose all 1536 cuda cores, and all tests were done on 1536 cuda cores, it's the full GPU, the chip would simply be smaller if it were to use less cores, that is how low clocked chips are, they don't need dead transistors, because lower frequencies improve chip yields. 8nm is pure speculation, and even the person bringing it up was told 3-4TFLOPs, so using it as some means to bring the chip to half that performance is just more nonsense. 8GB RAM doesn't align with the rumors, and we have reports that the Matrix awakens demo ran better than on other current gen consoles. That means the system isn't limited to 8GB ram and half the GPU performance than being reported. The linux kernel exposes the CPU as a single 8 core cluster, so it's 8 A78C cores, none of this is really up for debate anymore, it's been known for 2 years. That is why people like me have moved our discussions away from this thread, because we don't need to speculate any longer. All of these things are basically known, heck performance is more or less known at this point, Switch 2 is about half the performance of the PS5 when docked and something near a PS4 Pro when portable thanks to DLSS improving image quality and the small screen hiding imperfections in the IQ.

Stay strong next March brother.

Also.. at what, 1nm? Do you realize the physic, Watts and Celsius involved in what you just wrote? I was dreaming like you once, but I dared to face reality. It's enough to look up the ISO power consumption per core of A78 (and that is at I think 5 nm), let alone a RTX 2050 at 30 Watts TDP, to realize the numbers you have can not be possible. 4.2 Watts at 1536 cores...

Like my post says, before lashing out, read. There's a chart from Nvidia for Orin TDP and Specs.

I'm a bit of a pessimist myself on Switch 2, but fwiw, the CUDA core count here is definitely wrong. The leak confirmed 1536 cores.

edit: beaten
The explanation is in the post.

first off, very good post. very much appreciate the thorough reasoning

second, if it turns out to be true that the system was delayed specifically because the software isn't there yet then I think many nintendo fans, myself for sure, will wish it was even weaker
Thanks, at least someone read more than 5 seconds before replying to something that took hours to write.
 
Feels like we should have stopped posting MLID here a long time ago. I mean it doesn't lead to healthy discussion to keep talking about them, and just gives them clicks anyway.
The last time we dismissed him cause "mlid lol", he was right. He reported the recalled devkits months before anyone else did.

And looking at what his sources was saying, they did not confirm 8nm.

Source 1 said: 8 nm is cheapest per transistor, makes sense Nintendo would use it"

Source 2 said: The leaked specs are pretty much final, we won against AMD.

The first one has no actual knowledge, the second one says nothing about node.
 
It's definitely going to be 8 GB of RAM. Look at Nvidia's smaller GPUs, all much stronger than this will be (2050 Mobile; 1650 Mobile Max-Q; 3050 Mobile), they have 4 GB, rarely 6 GB. The only saving grace is that NV GPUs can deal with lower GRAM much better than AMDs.

And production chips (especially on the lower cost end), never use the full amount of execution units they have by design. For yields and higher production numbers, they always leave one or two units unused in production design form. Full units are only used for high end models which really just means selling the few percent that come out perfect for a premium and to expand the market upwards. This isn't that. This is supposed to be a mass market product with millions of units produced every month. Look at the Orin chip, only the top model uses the full chip, 99% of units sold only use a part of the chip. Chips that don't come out perfect are sold as lower tier products instead of throwing them away. The GPU is the biggest single part and will be more susceptible to damage.

Leaks said that T239 has 12 SMs by Design? Production chips will use 8 or at best 10.

The chip was done in 2022? It's not going to use a high end process from 2024. It's going to use whatever its sister-chips of the same architecture are being made on, which started sales in the last year or two.

Nintendo is selling these things for 100 - 150, maybe up to 200 for the NS2. Everything above that is transport, taxes, retail costs and retail margin. If it's sold for 399, in many parts of Europe the taxes alone are 80, leaving just 320 to the retailer, take out a margin, then take out the cost of running the store, then take out storage and shipping across several locations across the world, what is left is the price Nintendo sells it for. Then take out Nintendos margin, their costs of developing the thing and all the design work from cooperating companies, and then you have production costs. This has to be cheap because it is sold cheap.

We have seen this movie 8 years ago, and 5 years before that, and 5 years before that... We were always left disappointed by crippled hardware. Be it non-standard storage mediums or obsolete chips - it always made it harder, not easier, for third party developments to be brought to the Nintendo platform. Now that I write this, that may not be an oversight.

There's a handy Nvidia Orin chart out there that shows the different configurations with TDP at the bottom. We roughly know (look at the OG Switch) the TDP limits the hardware form factor imposes on the chip alone which might raise a bit in the new gen but that's just hoping and probably won't happen (3-5 W handheld, 10 - 15 Watt docked). Don't dream, be honest with yourself, take a look, and be prepared to be disappointed. Because that is the only option. Better now than sitting around for another year hoping for a miracle that you can already know today won't come.

This thing is almost guaranteed to end up looking something like this:

8nm process
8GB RAM
8 SM GPU with 1024 cores clocked somewhere around 625 - 765 MHz docked, around 382 - 465 Mhz handheld
6 - 8 A78C cores running at 1.5 GHz
128 GB storage

Before you lash out because you don't like the numbers you are facing, remember this isn't my opinion, these are the limits which the TDP and production process are imposing - as per Nvidia themselves.

Everything outside of that (RAM + Storage) is just economics, in two ways:
Firstly the sales price. Don't show me your Android phone with 8 Cores, 8 GB and 256 GB for 199, I know that and I have one as well, but that's a different thing, the SoC/GPU is much smaller and thus cheaper and not on an advanced node like what everyone wants from the Switch, and the development of the device and Software are basically free compared to Switch OS, Joycons, each with their own battery, HD rumble, IR sensor, dock, etc.- you are not just buying the three hardware parts (CPU, RAM, Storage) and overpaying for them, the Switch is a whole device and ecosystem and Nintendo aims to turn a profit, and as much of it as possible. Chinese Android makers are basically giving them away at cost to gain market share and a foothold to introduce more premium devices afterwards. Nintendo has no prospects of coming out with Premium $1099 Switches and no venture funds covering the costs until then, who are betting on them taking out the competition and raking it in later when they have a monopoly, also referred to as "disruptive technology".
Nintendo also mainly uses traditional retail, driving down their own sales price to leave headroom for the retailer, cheap Androids are mostly sold online by webshops and the manufacturer sales price isn't as different as the end buyers price might suggest, i.e. the Switch is probably sold by Nintendo for not much more than those Androids, even if the final listed sales price is 50% higher. It has hardware like cheap Android devices because it is a cheap device, that's the aim. There is no market for a $599 Switch, let alone a $899 one. There also isn't a market for a high monthly subscription rate to offset a Switch sold at a loss.

Secondly, if 5 years ago you might have hoped for a higher powered Switch, the success in the last 4 years has guaranteed that you won't get one. Because it has proven two crucial things to Nintendo:

A) That there is a huge market that's open to Nintendo. Bigger than they themselves or anyone else thought they might still have, when everyone was convinced the handheld market was gone to phones and the TV market was the domain of PC-gaming replacement and yearly shooter and sports franchises.

B) That the weak hardware of the Switch didn't prevent them from selling almost 150 Million devices, gaining that market and making it to the top of the best selling gaming devices ever, guaranteed Top 3 of all time, neck to neck, and outdoing all of their previous efforts, most of them combined. (Obviously except for DS - not yet)

Out of these two lessons they have to draw two conclusions to follow up on the success of the Switch 1:

a) They have to keep access to that monster of a market open, so they can't have a "$599 Dollars!" machine.
Once designed it's impossible to scale back and a more expensive to manufacture device guarantees losses of both sales and on every sale.
To keep access to the market, the console has to be able to access the almost impulse buy territory of adults who aren't gamers, parents who buy it as a family activity, and also the second console territory of all three of these: families with more than one child, gamers with another gaming device, dedicated cheaper handheld device for the car (kids), commute, as a quick present or just as a low entry threshold to dip their toe in and see what it's all about without having to commit too much. Given these objectives, which are covered by pricing, it will need a second, simpler, smaller, lower priced device to complement the upper mid-range main Switch 2 (350-399).
Given that whatever hardware it launches with will set the baseline that a cheaper device can't go under to ensure all the games work, the base hardware, whatever they put into the Switch 2 at launch, has to be able to fit into the "lite" price bracket of a second cheaper device as well (199-249). Which just isn't possible with 16 or even 12 GB of RAM, nor necessary see Nvidia's own GPUs. Don't forget, they aren't just designing a main device, they are also designing a cheap device at the same time. The cuts come from other features, not the hardware platform.

In short they have to keep access to the whole newly confirmed market open, which means a low entry cost, at a profit, which means the lowest necessary components.

b) They don't need strong hardware to sell a lot of units! Read that again! They don't need to participate in a graphical arms race, they don't need to have all kinds of third party blockbuster games. This has just been proven, if they did need any of that they wouldn't have sold more than 20-50 million. The market has just confirmed to Nintendo that they don't need strong hardware. So they won't make it because it has been proven that they don't need to.

I am repeating this so often because no one here seems to really have understood that point.

They won't bother with what they don't need to do, and especially something which would compromise the number 1 objective outlined in the above point: To make money by selling the most possible amount of hardware at the highest possible profit. Why would they do anything that would cut into that profit and raise the price, and thus decrease the market and income, unless it's absolutely necessary, when they don't need to?!? They wouldn't, they are not insane.
And they are not going to risk losing out on literal tens of Billions to satisfy the small number of Nintendo enthusiasts who dream of a Nintendo console that can be everything and replace all their other devices for gaming and streaming by being able to play all third party titles well, as well as Nintendo games.
No, they will do only what is absolutely necessary - and hope to repeat their success.

We are still discussing the hardware and GPU and flops of this thing when they have been confirmed to Nintendo to be irrelevant. They will have sold 150 Million devices at an average of around 300,- with an abysmal 190-390 Gflops, which was too little even before it released.
Back then everyone hoped for at least 512 Cores at 1Ghz, we got only 256 Cores at 307-765Mhz, a Quad ARM at just 1 GHz like it's 2010, 4GB and 32GB MMC, a gut punch, almost a decade ago!
And it's still going strong! Still! It will still outsell the Wii U from today until it's pulled. The N64 and GC in it's final 2-3 years. You have to understand what these numbers mean, especially to Nintendo.

It means they don't need more. Of aything. They don't need to, anything is good enough. That's why you won't get anything from them, no compromise, no token of appreciation, in the form of more RAM or better node for higher fps or more resolution in 3rd party ports, which is basically what y'all are hoping for. But they don't need to. And they won't. Only whatever is the bare minimum necessary for the benchmark they have set for their own games, and that is all. They don't need to care about 3rd party ports, that's the 3rd party developer's problem if he wants to make money off of Nintendo's customers.

They don't need to try to compete with others any more, they are and can be their own market. They will make a dedicated Nintendo machine because that is what the people/market want.

A toy to play Nintendo video games on. It doesn't need or aim to provide High-End Computing Power Ray-Tracing Graphics Narrative Driven Engaging Hardcore Gaming Experiences.

They're not looking to be HBO or AMC, they are the Disney and Pixar of video games.

The hundred millions of gamers will not replace their PC/PS with a Nintendo device no matter how powerful they make it, because those will always have an edge over Nintendo in having every and all third party games and their own exclusives. So there is no sense in trying to replace those devices, you won't win them over. But some of them might buy a Switch in addition. Some people don't want to spend 600+ on serious dedicated gaming hardware and just want something affordable and easy, to unwind from time to time or to have fun as a family. Parents want something colorful, fun, safe, uncomplicated, trustworthy and affordable for their children.
That's Nintendo.

Ain't no one installing steam stores and shady emulators on weird Switch knockoffs while looking for illegal game copies, when he can get the original for half the price with zero hassle.

And no one's counting frames per second. I'd like 60, but the market doesn't seem to mind even 25 from time to time.

If third parties want to release their games on it to try and get a piece of that pie, they can, it's going to be capable enough for roughly a notch below Xbox One graphics in handheld and PS4 Slim when docked, seeing what they could put out on PS3/X360 and the last generation, there's really no excuse, all it takes is some effort, but Nintendo is not going to make a device for third party developers' games. They will make a dedicated Nintendo device just like the current Switch, because that has proven to be a home run.

They just need to have lots of good games of their own, and whatever affordable machine they deem necessary to make them look good. And that is all they are going to do.




That's why, again, this thing is almost guaranteed to end up looking something like this, at best:

8 nm process
8 GB RAM
8 SM GPU with 1024 cores clocked somewhere around 625 - 765 MHz docked, around 382 - 465 Mhz handheld
6 - 8 A78C cores running at most at 1.5 GHz
128 GB storage

This is a wall of nonsense, to even state that Nvidia only uses full dies for their larger expensive gpu's is just wrong and backwards.
GA-107 and AD-107 have full chip versions, it's the larger GPU's that cut SM's to better yields.
Also why are you comparing GPU V-ram to what will be Switch 2's total system RAM?

Some stuff you should at least learn the basics on before rattling off unproductive thoughts...
It's really disrespectful to the members here that have put in countless hours, to research and catalog all of the information in this thread over the years.
 
Please refrain from resorting to hostile and dismissive drive-by posts when disagreeing with another user's line of reasoning. These do nothing but further raising the level of tension. – MissingNo, Tangerine Cookie, meatbag, xghost777
It's definitely going to be 8 GB of RAM. Look at Nvidia's smaller GPUs, all much stronger than this will be (2050 Mobile; 1650 Mobile Max-Q; 3050 Mobile), they have 4 GB, rarely 6 GB. The only saving grace is that NV GPUs can deal with lower GRAM much better than AMDs.

And production chips (especially on the lower cost end), never use the full amount of execution units they have by design. For yields and higher production numbers, they always leave one or two units unused in production design form. Full units are only used for high end models which really just means selling the few percent that come out perfect for a premium and to expand the market upwards. This isn't that. This is supposed to be a mass market product with millions of units produced every month. Look at the Orin chip, only the top model uses the full chip, 99% of units sold only use a part of the chip. Chips that don't come out perfect are sold as lower tier products instead of throwing them away. The GPU is the biggest single part and will be more susceptible to damage.

Leaks said that T239 has 12 SMs by Design? Production chips will use 8 or at best 10.

The chip was done in 2022? It's not going to use a high end process from 2024. It's going to use whatever its sister-chips of the same architecture are being made on, which started sales in the last year or two.

Nintendo is selling these things for 100 - 150, maybe up to 200 for the NS2. Everything above that is transport, taxes, retail costs and retail margin. If it's sold for 399, in many parts of Europe the taxes alone are 80, leaving just 320 to the retailer, take out a margin, then take out the cost of running the store, then take out storage and shipping across several locations across the world, what is left is the price Nintendo sells it for. Then take out Nintendos margin, their costs of developing the thing and all the design work from cooperating companies, and then you have production costs. This has to be cheap because it is sold cheap.

We have seen this movie 8 years ago, and 5 years before that, and 5 years before that... We were always left disappointed by crippled hardware. Be it non-standard storage mediums or obsolete chips - it always made it harder, not easier, for third party developments to be brought to the Nintendo platform. Now that I write this, that may not be an oversight.

There's a handy Nvidia Orin chart out there that shows the different configurations with TDP at the bottom. We roughly know (look at the OG Switch) the TDP limits the hardware form factor imposes on the chip alone which might raise a bit in the new gen but that's just hoping and probably won't happen (3-5 W handheld, 10 - 15 Watt docked). Don't dream, be honest with yourself, take a look, and be prepared to be disappointed. Because that is the only option. Better now than sitting around for another year hoping for a miracle that you can already know today won't come.

This thing is almost guaranteed to end up looking something like this:

8nm process
8GB RAM
8 SM GPU with 1024 cores clocked somewhere around 625 - 765 MHz docked, around 382 - 465 Mhz handheld
6 - 8 A78C cores running at 1.5 GHz
128 GB storage

Before you lash out because you don't like the numbers you are facing, remember this isn't my opinion, these are the limits which the TDP and production process are imposing - as per Nvidia themselves.

Everything outside of that (RAM + Storage) is just economics, in two ways:
Firstly the sales price. Don't show me your Android phone with 8 Cores, 8 GB and 256 GB for 199, I know that and I have one as well, but that's a different thing, the SoC/GPU is much smaller and thus cheaper and not on an advanced node like what everyone wants from the Switch, and the development of the device and Software are basically free compared to Switch OS, Joycons, each with their own battery, HD rumble, IR sensor, dock, etc.- you are not just buying the three hardware parts (CPU, RAM, Storage) and overpaying for them, the Switch is a whole device and ecosystem and Nintendo aims to turn a profit, and as much of it as possible. Chinese Android makers are basically giving them away at cost to gain market share and a foothold to introduce more premium devices afterwards. Nintendo has no prospects of coming out with Premium $1099 Switches and no venture funds covering the costs until then, who are betting on them taking out the competition and raking it in later when they have a monopoly, also referred to as "disruptive technology".
Nintendo also mainly uses traditional retail, driving down their own sales price to leave headroom for the retailer, cheap Androids are mostly sold online by webshops and the manufacturer sales price isn't as different as the end buyers price might suggest, i.e. the Switch is probably sold by Nintendo for not much more than those Androids, even if the final listed sales price is 50% higher. It has hardware like cheap Android devices because it is a cheap device, that's the aim. There is no market for a $599 Switch, let alone a $899 one. There also isn't a market for a high monthly subscription rate to offset a Switch sold at a loss.

Secondly, if 5 years ago you might have hoped for a higher powered Switch, the success in the last 4 years has guaranteed that you won't get one. Because it has proven two crucial things to Nintendo:

A) That there is a huge market that's open to Nintendo. Bigger than they themselves or anyone else thought they might still have, when everyone was convinced the handheld market was gone to phones and the TV market was the domain of PC-gaming replacement and yearly shooter and sports franchises.

B) That the weak hardware of the Switch didn't prevent them from selling almost 150 Million devices, gaining that market and making it to the top of the best selling gaming devices ever, guaranteed Top 3 of all time, neck to neck, and outdoing all of their previous efforts, most of them combined. (Obviously except for DS - not yet)

Out of these two lessons they have to draw two conclusions to follow up on the success of the Switch 1:

a) They have to keep access to that monster of a market open, so they can't have a "$599 Dollars!" machine.
Once designed it's impossible to scale back and a more expensive to manufacture device guarantees losses of both sales and on every sale.
To keep access to the market, the console has to be able to access the almost impulse buy territory of adults who aren't gamers, parents who buy it as a family activity, and also the second console territory of all three of these: families with more than one child, gamers with another gaming device, dedicated cheaper handheld device for the car (kids), commute, as a quick present or just as a low entry threshold to dip their toe in and see what it's all about without having to commit too much. Given these objectives, which are covered by pricing, it will need a second, simpler, smaller, lower priced device to complement the upper mid-range main Switch 2 (350-399).
Given that whatever hardware it launches with will set the baseline that a cheaper device can't go under to ensure all the games work, the base hardware, whatever they put into the Switch 2 at launch, has to be able to fit into the "lite" price bracket of a second cheaper device as well (199-249). Which just isn't possible with 16 or even 12 GB of RAM, nor necessary see Nvidia's own GPUs. Don't forget, they aren't just designing a main device, they are also designing a cheap device at the same time. The cuts come from other features, not the hardware platform.

In short they have to keep access to the whole newly confirmed market open, which means a low entry cost, at a profit, which means the lowest necessary components.

b) They don't need strong hardware to sell a lot of units! Read that again! They don't need to participate in a graphical arms race, they don't need to have all kinds of third party blockbuster games. This has just been proven, if they did need any of that they wouldn't have sold more than 20-50 million. The market has just confirmed to Nintendo that they don't need strong hardware. So they won't make it because it has been proven that they don't need to.

I am repeating this so often because no one here seems to really have understood that point.

They won't bother with what they don't need to do, and especially something which would compromise the number 1 objective outlined in the above point: To make money by selling the most possible amount of hardware at the highest possible profit. Why would they do anything that would cut into that profit and raise the price, and thus decrease the market and income, unless it's absolutely necessary, when they don't need to?!? They wouldn't, they are not insane.
And they are not going to risk losing out on literal tens of Billions to satisfy the small number of Nintendo enthusiasts who dream of a Nintendo console that can be everything and replace all their other devices for gaming and streaming by being able to play all third party titles well, as well as Nintendo games.
No, they will do only what is absolutely necessary - and hope to repeat their success.

We are still discussing the hardware and GPU and flops of this thing when they have been confirmed to Nintendo to be irrelevant. They will have sold 150 Million devices at an average of around 300,- with an abysmal 190-390 Gflops, which was too little even before it released.
Back then everyone hoped for at least 512 Cores at 1Ghz, we got only 256 Cores at 307-765Mhz, a Quad ARM at just 1 GHz like it's 2010, 4GB and 32GB MMC, a gut punch, almost a decade ago!
And it's still going strong! Still! It will still outsell the Wii U from today until it's pulled. The N64 and GC in it's final 2-3 years. You have to understand what these numbers mean, especially to Nintendo.

It means they don't need more. Of aything. They don't need to, anything is good enough. That's why you won't get anything from them, no compromise, no token of appreciation, in the form of more RAM or better node for higher fps or more resolution in 3rd party ports, which is basically what y'all are hoping for. But they don't need to. And they won't. Only whatever is the bare minimum necessary for the benchmark they have set for their own games, and that is all. They don't need to care about 3rd party ports, that's the 3rd party developer's problem if he wants to make money off of Nintendo's customers.

They don't need to try to compete with others any more, they are and can be their own market. They will make a dedicated Nintendo machine because that is what the people/market want.

A toy to play Nintendo video games on. It doesn't need or aim to provide High-End Computing Power Ray-Tracing Graphics Narrative Driven Engaging Hardcore Gaming Experiences.

They're not looking to be HBO or AMC, they are the Disney and Pixar of video games.

The hundred millions of gamers will not replace their PC/PS with a Nintendo device no matter how powerful they make it, because those will always have an edge over Nintendo in having every and all third party games and their own exclusives. So there is no sense in trying to replace those devices, you won't win them over. But some of them might buy a Switch in addition. Some people don't want to spend 600+ on serious dedicated gaming hardware and just want something affordable and easy, to unwind from time to time or to have fun as a family. Parents want something colorful, fun, safe, uncomplicated, trustworthy and affordable for their children.
That's Nintendo.

Ain't no one installing steam stores and shady emulators on weird Switch knockoffs while looking for illegal game copies, when he can get the original for half the price with zero hassle.

And no one's counting frames per second. I'd like 60, but the market doesn't seem to mind even 25 from time to time.

If third parties want to release their games on it to try and get a piece of that pie, they can, it's going to be capable enough for roughly a notch below Xbox One graphics in handheld and PS4 Slim when docked, seeing what they could put out on PS3/X360 and the last generation, there's really no excuse, all it takes is some effort, but Nintendo is not going to make a device for third party developers' games. They will make a dedicated Nintendo device just like the current Switch, because that has proven to be a home run.

They just need to have lots of good games of their own, and whatever affordable machine they deem necessary to make them look good. And that is all they are going to do.




That's why, again, this thing is almost guaranteed to end up looking something like this, at best:

8 nm process
8 GB RAM
8 SM GPU with 1024 cores clocked somewhere around 625 - 765 MHz docked, around 382 - 465 Mhz handheld
6 - 8 A78C cores running at most at 1.5 GHz
128 GB storage
Wow, that‘s some impressive (and baseless) pessimism.

Edit: Thanks for the feedback, I suppose.
 
Last edited:
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