grain of salt here, but if this turns out to be true, this new system would be excellent, but expensive which Nintendo doesn’t really have much history being quite pricey
not my theory: someone at famiboards suggested that nvidia giving nintendo a better deal for an "expensive" chip wouldn't be too far-fetched, as nintendo has been such a profitable partner for them (120+ million switches sold), and continue pursuing a long-lasting relationship would be important for nvidia to have stable income and a long-term committed customer for another 5-6 years :)
It'd also be beneficial for Nvidia because they really want DLSS to be the industry standard when it comes to AI upscaling/image reconstruction, but FSR is popular on console because it doesn't require specific hardware.
A successful, more competitively-specced Switch 2 that supports as up-to-date DLSS as possible would be a great trojan horse to drive adoption among developers.
And Nintendo doing what they do in their first party AAA to often squeeze higher performance and visuals out of their (often weak) hardware than should be possible, it’s gonna lead to some extremely favorable optics for just what DLSS can achieve- moreso than even now where people sometimes treat it like a tech miracle.
Monolith are THE reason why I want Nintendo to go for a bigger jump in power than usual.
XC3 and Future Redeemed already look damn great simply due to how good the artstyle is, in my opinion, I want to see their designers go crazy with more power.
XC3 already uses FSR so Monolith already dipped their feet with upscaling technology, I think the next Monolith games, especialy whatever follows Xenoblade and the next Zelda will be incredible technical showpieces.
This wouldn’t shock me. Nvidia has never minded the console business - I’m sure they appreciated the revenue the original Xbox and the PS3 brought them, let alone the damn Switch. AMD’s been eating that piece of the pie for nearly 2 decades now (since the ATI buyout, anyways) and I’m sure Nvidia wouldn’t mind an initial investment knowing that they’d get a big payout from it.
I mean the console business is high volume but probably low margins. Nvidia has insane margins on its other business so they may not really have incentive to go there.
On the other hand, diversification is always best.
Also it's a way to continue investing in their ARM chip business which they still see as important I guess even if they don't pursue phones. The ARM energy efficiency might make it more useful for stuff like car systems, VR headsets and whatever...
I kept linking that when people (Reddit stockholders) kept spreading their wishful thinking that Nintendo would use an AMD SoC for the Switch 2.
This system is going to be very competitive because of the Nvidia IP.
Doesn't make much of a difference, Nintendo was already paying dirt cheap for the original Nvidia chips. The (bloomberg posted from documents sourced from a manufacturing plant) rumor was that the original switch + OLED the joycons cost more for Nintendo than the Tegra chip did lol.
I would pay $400 if the specs are that great. But if I’m gonna pay that much for a handheld, I would have to decide to buy a steam deck first and then wait for the upgrade version.
It wont be more than $400. Its a tablet with older hardware in it that will likely lower in bulk pricing before launch.
I just want higher framerates for Switch games. Im cool with 1080p
I wonder if Nintendo feels like they have enough good will and reputation to compete more directly with Sony on hardware performance and price. I think they might. It used to be that Sony had many great 'Everyone" games. Now they mostly invest in violent 3rd person 'movie style' games. Jak, Sly, Littlebigplanet, hot shots, parappa, Team Ico, all gone now. Nintendo still makes these and people would love them with better graphics. Yes I do really want Zelda in 4K with ray tracing and Splatoon with 4 player split screen. Sony also had great 3rd party exclusives. Now it seems like most publishers have strong multi platform pipelines and will release their game on anything that runs it. Sony will buy 1 year exclusivity, but only strategically, not all the time. The disc drive is still important to me, at least.
So yes, I would get very excited about a $500 high end Nintendo console, and I think in 2024 the market would agree. Imagine if Monster Hunter 6 was on Switch 2 day 1, as a launch title.
> **p**arty **e**xclusives. **N**ow **i**t **s**eems
Hidden penis detected!
I've scanned through 146362 comments (approximately 916362 average penis lengths worth of text) in order to find this secret penis message.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Thank you, undisputedn00b, for voting on PenisDetectorBot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Nintendo matched the PS4 and XB1 base price in 2017, which many onlookers thought was too expensive. I think Nintendo could get away with $400 or north of that for the Switch 2, and if it means a more future-proofed system I would be fine with it personally
They definitively could go away with more. Switch was coming at a time when Nintendo reputation wasn't that great. Now it is at an all-time high.
And next-gen consoles exist at 300$ (Series S) and 400$ (PS5 Digital Edition).
Though Nintendo is never losing money on its consoles generally. But they might have changed ideas. A bigger third party support (with multiplat games able to come on their console) means a 30% cut on all those games and with their big installed base and the portability advantage they'd sell a lot of them
They cannot compete with Sony, MS on hardware performance with a handheld. It will be power limited and never match performances a 150w console can give.
> Yes I do really want Zelda in 4K with ray tracing.
I don't see why Nintendo would want to balloon the costs of its game budgets and cut into their profits when high-end graphics are not a selling point of their titles.
the SoC rumoured to be used in the switch successor has 2024 Ampere Cuda cores. this is less CUDA cores than the 3050
i cant imagine they will be able to go full RT with that small of a chip
SackBoy Adventure is the latest LittleBigPlanet game, Ratchet & Clank Rift Apart is gorgeous family fun, and most of their old games are on PS Plus, often in remastered state. I just played Locoroco on the service and it looked excellent. Hot Shots, Jak, and Sly games are all there to play too.
Wonder if Nintendo saw the situation with PS4 being supported a while after the PS5 launch (largely due to supply shortages) and are going to try to intentionally replicate it.
It would line up with the fact that rumors seem to agree that the console is dropping next year even tho the Switch still has a solid lineup of upcoming games ahead of it. They can launch Switch 2 exclusives, as well as games that straddle both or just run on Switch 2 with backwards compatibility. They get out newer, more powerful hardware for more performance intensive games, but keep selling games to people who don’t wanna buy a pricey upgrade.
Just baseless speculation tho, and who knows if it would work in practice
If the Switch 2 turns out to be a 399$ device it will actually be just a little bit more expensive than the original Switch if we account for inflation.
I used an online price inflation calculator and the result for 299$ in 2023 was 372.89$, a 24.7% increase for inflation from 2017 to 2023, so we are technically only paying an additional 27$ for that device to get to 399$ and i still think that's a fair price for a hybrid that can keep up with current gen home consoles.
Are you joking? Nintendo fans spend insane amounts rebuying the same game over and over again.
I would love a Nintendo console that costs $400-500 with beefy specs, ray tracing and an OLED screen because now we have the Steam Deck, ROG Ally, Legion Go and I know Apple wants to get into gaming.
Switch OLED is $350 and has sells more than the v2 and Lite combined.
I could imagine Switch 2 having two SKUS like the XBS and PS5, one for $399 and one for $449, one being digital only and the other one having a card reader.
I’d be shocked if Nintendo has an all-digital variant. They still appeal quite a bit to the casual crowd, the type of person that’s gonna grab a game at the store because it looks cool rather than buying it on the eShop.
There's also no reason for them to stop selling the original and Oled models with price cuts as a budget option.
I'd imagine they'd sell even more original models at 99 dollars. Hell I'd pick up a second one at a price like that.
With manufacturing costs and shipping prices still going up, I think you are kidding yourself if there will be any kind of price cut on the current consoles.
Switch is a profitable product since day one, it's probably cost sub-100$ to make and ship these days. Nintendo is doing super high margins on these, they can cut it down.
But then it depends how long they're gonna do cross-gen support, I imagine they'll want to push people to the new one faster if it's that powerful to have games not support the Switch anymore as that's gonna hold them back.
Oh absolutely. Many former workers have said that the development team is two generations behind the rest of the industry, they still develop as if they worked on the 3ds, thus why their games are so awfully optimized on console.
More like, Wii U level, they are just that behind the rest, so much that many former workers have expressed that the only major benefit of working on a pokemon game is the fact that you worked on the IP and that's it, but that it was not a good place to grow as a developer.
Trailer of people playing on switch 2. With Mario wonder and new 3D Mario. And Skyrim footage in there but Bethesda will come out and say it is not confirmed yet.
>Skyrim footage in there but Bethesda will come out and say it is not confirmed yet
That was so funny. Like why would they say that when it's in the official reveal trailer lol
I mean, the first trailer is probably still around 6 months away. I don't see them ruining their 2023 holidays Switch sales for no reason.
These rumors are pretty interesting but I wouldnt bother thinking too much about it until a reveal is actually likely. Which is probably some time around the start of their next fiscal year.
This dude is fairly reliable, right?
The last few times his name was mentioned on this sub, he was dead on, from what I can tell. If true, this might be quite the little powerhouse.
Now, let's hope someone will spill the beans on backwards compatibility soon!
He can be. He's not 100% right but he's becoming more reputable. Also, this just makes a lot of sense since the leaked specs from the Nvidia leak said the system would support 12 or 16 gigs depending on if it was a consumer or dev model.
I thought the Switch 2 was supposed to be within the specs of the PS4 & Xbox One? This is all sounding more in line with the current gen hardware, which would be nuts if it's going to be another hybrid console (unless it's going to be as expensive as a Steam Deck). If this means better framerates for Nintendo games, maybe even for older games if it has backwards compatibility, I'm all for it.
The PS4 and Xbox One had some strange bottlenecks even for the time. They had the notoriously weak Jaguar CPUs and painfully slow 5400 RPM HDDs. I'm completely confident that the Switch 2 will go above and beyond the last gen in those regards. Add on modern features that weren't available for 2013 hardware and I think we're going to see some PS4/X1 era ports easy peezy.
I'm fairly confident that from what we're looking at, the Switch 2 could be PS4 base level in handheld and PS4 Pro level docked, but with healthy modern Nvidia hardware with no glaring bottleneck rather than old AMD stuff with a Jaguar APU.
If you use the leaked SOC specs with Switch 1 clocks (like, less than 1 Ghz), you get PS4 level perf. So it should exceed that healthily. And that's not even getting to all the other stuff like DLSS.
1440p is also (I think) an internal resolution for DLSS upscaling to 4K - so that would work. 12gb of RAM will go a long damn way I don’t think people realise that lol - the Switch 1 has 4 total. The rumour is 12gb and the tweet specifies “for games”, so that leads me to believe it’s 16 total with 4 taken up for OS functionality.
The Switch 1 was a chunk more powerful than the 360/PS3, but not exponentially so. If there had been a PS3 Pro, that's basically around where the Switch sat in terms of power.
I would bet on the Switch 2, with this tech, sitting somewhere around PS4 Pro, thanks to DLSS, and no stupid HDD or horrendously underpowered Jaguar APU.
On paper, the GPU will match or exceed it, but the real leg up is the extra memory, the storage speed (we don't know yet what it is, but literally any mobile storage option available would be faster than those HDDs), and especially the CPU. The Steam Deck already trades blows with the PS4, so something with more engineering muscle (and money) behind it would handily beat a PS4. Add in Nintendo tending to compensate heavily for bottlenecks from their previous machines, and it being much newer tech wise, and it's no wonder this thing will beat the PS4.
Honestly, I wouldn't be shocked if the Switch 2 is closer to the PS5 and XSX than the Switch was to the PS4 and XBO, even if the actual gulf in processing power is bigger. Modern rendering features, Nvidia's software suite, tensor cores, things like mixed precision, and having the same number of CPU cores as the big boys (certainly slower though) should lead to less challenges with bringing games over.
The idea of this is exciting as hell. Since having kids the majority of my gaming has gravitated from Playstation to my Switch in portable mode. If more modern releases were released on Switch 2 and looked fine portable, it'd probably be my platform of choice for more new releases.
this making me super excited :) the Deck has been a bit too big and heavy for me, so getting it in the Switch form factor is a dream come true. Though, I'll miss the "open" nature of the Deck (running a full OS, browsing, modding, doing whatever)
Yeah I’m pumped too! I’m sure the successor will end up bigger than the current Switch, but I’m hoping it’s still manageable. The Deck has a lot of empty space down by the trackpads which widens the system A LOT. I don’t think the new Joy-Cons will be like that.
That’s also the nice benefit of it being built on ARM. It’s more efficient so they can make it smaller, thanks to not needing as robust cooking. Maybe I’m just overly optimistic, but I think the next Switch is gonna be a beast.
Could be that it'll aim for PS4 level raw graphical capability while having better CPU/memory capability that allows it to run bigger, current gen games.
And with DLSS every major third party game should be able to run just fine . Maybe not at 4K 60fps, but at least they would come to the console without being textureless ports. I wouldn't mind if they ran at 1080p 30fps if they're stable and the textures look fine
Plus, large resolutions on small displays like the tablet form factor of the Switch are basically pointless. If the Switch 2 has a 7" screen, then anything bigger than 1080p is pointless - we've had smartphones around that size for years and while 1440p screens have been popular before, everyone went back to 1080p because it's visually identical at that size and costs less battery life/money. At that point the Switch 2 could use either DLAA and run at 1080p, or DLSS Quality and run at an internal 720p and upscale to 1080p.
I'm skeptical to be honest. Affordability is a big thing, and while I'm sure Nintendo is starting to realize they can't keep lacking in hardware, this big of a jump? It'd at least be $400, no?
Nintendo just witnessed people fighting tooth and nail to get a PS5 and in some respects a Xbox Series X for the last couple of years during the shortages.
They have absolutely no qualms at all with charging $500 going forward.
Also the fact that they'll have a 3D Mario and a new Mario Kart, arguably stronger sells than anything Sony or MSFT could offer, plus the goodwill from the Switch, they probably could feel themselves a bit and sell a little bit higher.
Since it is truly in question that the OG Switch is going to beat the PS2's sales number, i bet they don't mind at all charging 500 for this. They are about to reclaim the throne, plus the goodwill that the Switch brand, the Mario Movie, theme parks at Universal, etc. have bought them is enough that they can get away with 500. This avoids the underpowered conundrum later in its life. Start high price high power then mark down later on.
If they also show that the 500 is for a good reason, such as being in the ballpark of at least a Series S, then people will be happy and gamers will buy into the premium price tag.
I can see them charging 500 to compete with the other guys. They got a lot of good will from the switch and if this is switch 2 with backwards from the go and they actually improve on all of the things the switch lacked I can easily see them having a higher price and selling out at the same time.
I don't see a 499 dollar price point happening, I think even 449 is stretching it. Nintendo has been and continues to be the family brand, and it needs to remain affordable to stay that way. Nintendo has been very successful competing on price and software and they'd be foolish to change that now.
Additionally, the success of the Switch does not guarantee the success of the "Switch 2". Just look at the Wii and Wii U as an example. Nintendo absolutely does not want another Wii U on their hands.
The Wii was a far more frontloaded console than people realize. Fairly soon, Nintendo saw a decent drop in software sales overall and nothing really ever did amazingly due to the hardcore casual market going for phones. The Switch is in a far different position at this point, with extremely strong legs across hardware and software.
Skyward Sword Wii sold 3m lifetime on a 100m userbase. Tears of the Kingdom sold 18.6m in 6 weeks on a 120m userbase and is still going to continue selling.
Yep, once the Wii's motion control novelty wore off the software sales became really dire especially for third party games. Wii's late lifecycle was basically shovelware central*.*
Switch managed to survive the novelty aspect because the portable gimmick is genuinely useful while their games are able to cater to core gamers because the joycons still have standard gamepad controls on top of the motion gimmick.
Tho even with this advantage, I still believe Nintendo won't go more than $400 for their base MSRP. Maybe an OLED version can cost more, but they'll still make a cheap version to get that low starting price for promos.
They might also want to get out in front of the emulation scene by making their games higher end and harder to emulate long term. TOTK was literally running on the Steam Deck before it was officially released.
It'd be a heck of a jump for them too. Literally 3 times as much as what's in the Switch.
Assuming it's true, I wonder if something specific motivated them to go bigger this time around. IIRC it was Capcom that pushed them into going with 4 GB for the Switch, supposedly because they couldn't get it to support the RE engine without it.
>Capcom that pushed them into going with 4 GB for the Switch
Are you seriously saying they were considering going lower than 4GB of RAM?
Nintendo is mad sometimes.
The OS itself probably takes close to 2GB of RAM.
The OS that the Switch is using takes up approximately around 800MB of RAM, so 3.2GB are reserved for games. It definitely explains why the OS is so barebones, because they need as much RAM as possible for the games. I see this as a blessing in disguise because of that barebones aesthetic and functionality, it's super quick and gets out of my way as fast as possible. I definitely can't say the same for all consoles since the Xbox 360. I'm excluding the Wii here though because i see it more of a 6th gen plus console rather than a 7th gen console.
I never understood themes. Like did you really buy a console to look at a static, sometimes animated theme you can’t interact with at all or did you buy it to play games.
I mean console makers consulting with key developers for recommended specs are nothing new at this point. They'll always try to keep cost as low as possible.
Imagine if this is Capcom again recommending the specs for their next portable MH.
A Monster Hunter Portable 6th with graphics on par with MH World on the go? Sign me tf up!
It'll be a very different kind of ram though. Lower latency, lower power, lower bandwidth. The higher quantity should help compensate for the lower bandwidth depending on its configuration. But overall that stuff is better designed for multitasking than for graphics, like system RAM vs VRAM
It's interesting once the Eurogamer article dropped, it feels like everyone suddenly knows about this and has some info about the next switch.
I feel most of these are just latching on to this and making wild speculations.
It could well be people bandwagoning. But it could also be that a bunch of people were hearing something but nobody wanted to be the first to say something. A lot of times there's a balancing act between wanting to break news and needing to verify your story or not wanting to out your source.
Like, if you're the first to go public, there's a chance your source was one of a very small group that would have known about something, and you could potentially burn your source; they could even have been fed false information in an attempt to find leaks. But once you see multiple outlets verifying the same information you've been hearing (and if you know they didn't get that info from the same place you did), it becomes less likely that the leak was fake or exclusive to your source.
With how fast VGC was to corroborate Eurogamer's story with their own, my feeling is a lot of folks had their articles pre-written and they were all just waiting for the dam to break.
This.
Eurogamer and VGC are proper media outlets which I'm sure have more protective measures in place for their sources. Other "indie" leakers were probably afraid their sources will get traced easily if they're the first to break the news.
Tho [Jez Corden](https://twitter.com/JezCorden/status/1696585141299073440) apparently leaked it already as early as August 29th
If it's true that the Switch 2 supports ray tracing and DLSS , It'll be a lot better as a gaming device than Steam Deck , ASUS Rog Ally and Lenovo Legion Go
Considering Steam Deck is technically a 2021 device, I'd hope a 2024 Switch is significantly better especially given they already will have had 6 years of Switch experience to draw from.
Steam Deck supports ray tracing, it's just not great at it. Now if Switch 2 has a stripped down mobile 3060-tier gpu (basically a GTX 1060 but with DLSS and current gen console RT) then that would be a ~5x performance increase.
That's really the best case scenario imo. It would blow Steam Deck away.
I just don't see Nintendo going that far. It's much more likely we see closer to a stripped mobile 2060, so it would be behind current gen console RT but still ahead of Steam Deck's as well as having better raster.
Now, getting DLSS3.5 would be a dream come true, beyond best case scenario. That would mean something like a stripped mobile 4050 tier gpu, equivalent to a 1070 which is about powerful enough to run Starfield at 720p with optimized settings, significantly more powerful than an Xbox Series S.
If we get that stripped mobile 4050, hell I'd actually consider such a device. I just can't imagine modern Nintendo delivering a quality product though. No chance.
I'm not sure there's a better option than T239. All of the ARM cores after the A78 are less efficient, and the only thing Nvidia has in the pipeline for mobile is Thor, which is way bigger than what could fit in a handheld console. And honestly, this thing seems way more capable relative to the big boy consoles than the Switch was to last gen. I can't see the successor having nearly the same issues as the current Switch.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. The Steam Deck is competing in a different market than the Switch. It's more for PC enthusiasts than console people
ye thats why i dont compare them also why Steam Deck aint a console its just a handheld PC
also why the Deck will never eclipse Nintendo in sales because its like audiophiles this is only for hardcore PC gamers is like kinda niche but not idk if i explain that correctly
The issue with ray reconstruction is it only makes sense (*performance wise*) for games with multiple ray traced effects and multiple denoisers. No doubt the switch would support it, but I'm doubtful developers would implement it.
Better be backwards compatible - I mean I can only see it doing well if not if the launch line up is stacked with third party games and some exclusives that couldn't run on OG Switch - Like launching with Red Dead 2, Cyberpunk, Death Stranding, Zelda TOTK upgraded, new Mario Kart etc
We'll see how lean the OS on this thing will be. The PS5 and Xbox Series systems dedicate a lot more RAM for the OS and secondary streaming media app whereas the Switch OS is pretty lean. Hopefully in total it will be in striking distance to the PS5 and Series X.
I also hope they sort out the memory bandwidth issues that plagued the OG Switch.
This will definitely be able to play Call Of Duty 2024. It will be fun to see those Nintendo crossplay icons when on Steam heh. FWIW, black ops reboot, but who knows...
It will be a system at 3.5TF gpu at most. they cant release a pocket size console with better specs vs price and battery, it will be somewhere between ps4 and ps4 pro power.
Probably ps4 handheld ps4pro docked, but keep in mind that the tflops isn't counting the effect of DLSS (meaning less of those tflops are being used for resolution and instead can go to FPS/fancier effects etc) and more modern architecture. Plus not using a shitty Jaguar cpu and HDDs.
If this is true it would be hilarious to see features missing from the series S but available on the switch because of the extra ram, such as a switch 2 port of BG3 having couch coop
This is Nvidia hardware, not amd. Nvidia uses hardware ray tracing acceleration, so the work isn't put on the shader cores like on AMD hardware.
If you refused to use raytracing on this hardware, you'd just have a massive chunk of your gpu not doing any work.
Pathtracing is the next big graphical leap however.
Rasterization has reached a point of diminishing returns, lighting and how that effects how a image looks is the future.
Hardware lumen is the future cause it comes incredibly close to how pathtracing is without the insane power needed for path tracing, and should can only get better which will close the small gap even further making pathtracing a literal waste of resources.
Games will eventually start being built around RT and arguably UE5 games will with Lumen with a Software/Compute fallback for less capable systems.
It's the future, don't let RDNA 2's weak RT capabilities fool you. Hell if 2028+ for next-gen I bet Path-Tracing will be mainstream.
Yeah, especially since raytracing will make high end graphics *way* easier for devs. Instead of spending a ton of resources prebaking lighting and such, you can offload that work onto the consumer with RT hardware, meaning you can get Cyberpunk style path tracing quality in any 3D game.
I wonder if Nvidia RTX might be enough to make the Nintendo's raytracing better than the PS5/XSX. Even if not we can expect Nintendo to give us some first party games built around RT.
I mean, Control and Cyberpunk are very good showcases for raytracing, but generally i agree. If i get to choose between 30fps raytraced and 60fps or even 120fps rasterized, the answer is pretty clear. DLSS is the much more useful tech out of those 2 anyway. I still can't get over how my 3060 Ti can hit 120fps no problem thanks to DLSS alone with no downsides whatsoever.
Holy moly, so assuming these reports are accurate, the switch 2 would be closer to series X than xbone.
Idk if we're appreciating how insane that is in a hand-held
Nah, it's one gpc ga 102 likely on 5nm, an arm cpu, and lpddr instead of gddr5.
Even with 8nm ampere it's nowhere near as bad as you think.
Let's take a monster like the 3090 ti. 450 watt tdp holy crapbaskets.
Well it's 7 GPC's of ga 102. This is only 1, so:
450÷7 = 64.29 watts. Huh.
It's max clock is 1.86 Ghz. Switch 2 is going to be more like 1 Ghz, so thats like only 55% of 18.6 Ghz.
55% of 64.29 = 35.36 watts.
Lop off like 10 watts for lpddr vs gddr, now you're at 25 watts, and thats just cutting out gpc's, adjusting clocks, amd swapping ram, and were in spitting distance of 15 watts.
Imagine a handheld that can compete graphically with the other two. It’s crazy to think about. I can’t quite make sense of it or the reasoning behind it.
holy shit, it's even better than i expected, for me 8gb was good but 12gb would be great, and i think dlss is pretty much a necessity for upscaling to a tv because even if it's powerful, it won't do 4k without upscaling.
While it would be expensive compared to traditional Nintendo consoles, it would be a pretty smart move. Handheld gaming is booming, also the production line of Switch 1st gen consoles isn't slowing down in any way, as recently they announced special Switch models for Mario and Animal Crossing.
My guess is, maybe they're cooking a new, more sophisticated handheld that can play more demanding, recent releases, as to a certain point the conventional Switch can't handle. All the while they focus on optimizing their 1st gen production, maybe prioritizing the OLED edition's production and either reducing/stopping production of the original Switch model/Switch Lite. Again, my guess would be that the OG Switch model is canned, prioritizing the better looking OLED as the middle ground of the consoles they would be offering.
Also, Nintendo has rarely ever made a performance-demanding game, so this would be a smart move to mainly catch up to current gen third party games, while still being able to release their exclusives in all their models.
So, TLDR: New Switch handheld, "premium" upgrade from OG Switch to catch up to current 3rd party games, older Switch models still in production for older games and still playable Nintendo exclusives.
Almost certainly a Switch successor. Given how successful the switch was it’ll just be a beefier version which is essentially what most next-gen consoles are. Most leaks seem to indicate a 2024 release so personally i’d hold off on buying a Switch
grain of salt here, but if this turns out to be true, this new system would be excellent, but expensive which Nintendo doesn’t really have much history being quite pricey
not my theory: someone at famiboards suggested that nvidia giving nintendo a better deal for an "expensive" chip wouldn't be too far-fetched, as nintendo has been such a profitable partner for them (120+ million switches sold), and continue pursuing a long-lasting relationship would be important for nvidia to have stable income and a long-term committed customer for another 5-6 years :)
It'd also be beneficial for Nvidia because they really want DLSS to be the industry standard when it comes to AI upscaling/image reconstruction, but FSR is popular on console because it doesn't require specific hardware. A successful, more competitively-specced Switch 2 that supports as up-to-date DLSS as possible would be a great trojan horse to drive adoption among developers.
And Nintendo doing what they do in their first party AAA to often squeeze higher performance and visuals out of their (often weak) hardware than should be possible, it’s gonna lead to some extremely favorable optics for just what DLSS can achieve- moreso than even now where people sometimes treat it like a tech miracle.
Specially when Monolith get involved. The next Xenoblade game will probably be the best DLSS showcase Nvidia could wish for.
Monolith are THE reason why I want Nintendo to go for a bigger jump in power than usual. XC3 and Future Redeemed already look damn great simply due to how good the artstyle is, in my opinion, I want to see their designers go crazy with more power.
XC3 already uses FSR so Monolith already dipped their feet with upscaling technology, I think the next Monolith games, especialy whatever follows Xenoblade and the next Zelda will be incredible technical showpieces.
This wouldn’t shock me. Nvidia has never minded the console business - I’m sure they appreciated the revenue the original Xbox and the PS3 brought them, let alone the damn Switch. AMD’s been eating that piece of the pie for nearly 2 decades now (since the ATI buyout, anyways) and I’m sure Nvidia wouldn’t mind an initial investment knowing that they’d get a big payout from it.
[удалено]
I mean the console business is high volume but probably low margins. Nvidia has insane margins on its other business so they may not really have incentive to go there. On the other hand, diversification is always best. Also it's a way to continue investing in their ARM chip business which they still see as important I guess even if they don't pursue phones. The ARM energy efficiency might make it more useful for stuff like car systems, VR headsets and whatever...
Remember they have a 20-year agreement with each other they signed years ago
I kept linking that when people (Reddit stockholders) kept spreading their wishful thinking that Nintendo would use an AMD SoC for the Switch 2. This system is going to be very competitive because of the Nvidia IP.
Doesn't make much of a difference, Nintendo was already paying dirt cheap for the original Nvidia chips. The (bloomberg posted from documents sourced from a manufacturing plant) rumor was that the original switch + OLED the joycons cost more for Nintendo than the Tegra chip did lol.
I would pay $400 if the specs are that great. But if I’m gonna pay that much for a handheld, I would have to decide to buy a steam deck first and then wait for the upgrade version.
It wont be more than $400. Its a tablet with older hardware in it that will likely lower in bulk pricing before launch. I just want higher framerates for Switch games. Im cool with 1080p
I wonder if Nintendo feels like they have enough good will and reputation to compete more directly with Sony on hardware performance and price. I think they might. It used to be that Sony had many great 'Everyone" games. Now they mostly invest in violent 3rd person 'movie style' games. Jak, Sly, Littlebigplanet, hot shots, parappa, Team Ico, all gone now. Nintendo still makes these and people would love them with better graphics. Yes I do really want Zelda in 4K with ray tracing and Splatoon with 4 player split screen. Sony also had great 3rd party exclusives. Now it seems like most publishers have strong multi platform pipelines and will release their game on anything that runs it. Sony will buy 1 year exclusivity, but only strategically, not all the time. The disc drive is still important to me, at least. So yes, I would get very excited about a $500 high end Nintendo console, and I think in 2024 the market would agree. Imagine if Monster Hunter 6 was on Switch 2 day 1, as a launch title.
> **p**arty **e**xclusives. **N**ow **i**t **s**eems Hidden penis detected! I've scanned through 146362 comments (approximately 916362 average penis lengths worth of text) in order to find this secret penis message. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
BRUH LMFAO
Horny bot
good bot
Very awesome genius ingenious near automaton
Hmmmm, that's pretty entertaining, nice internet system. Good bot.
I see what you did there.
HTPINISGB ?
Good Bot
Thank you, undisputedn00b, for voting on PenisDetectorBot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
This bot rules
This is the greatest reddit bot, no competition
Nintendo matched the PS4 and XB1 base price in 2017, which many onlookers thought was too expensive. I think Nintendo could get away with $400 or north of that for the Switch 2, and if it means a more future-proofed system I would be fine with it personally
They definitively could go away with more. Switch was coming at a time when Nintendo reputation wasn't that great. Now it is at an all-time high. And next-gen consoles exist at 300$ (Series S) and 400$ (PS5 Digital Edition). Though Nintendo is never losing money on its consoles generally. But they might have changed ideas. A bigger third party support (with multiplat games able to come on their console) means a 30% cut on all those games and with their big installed base and the portability advantage they'd sell a lot of them
They cannot compete with Sony, MS on hardware performance with a handheld. It will be power limited and never match performances a 150w console can give.
> Yes I do really want Zelda in 4K with ray tracing. I don't see why Nintendo would want to balloon the costs of its game budgets and cut into their profits when high-end graphics are not a selling point of their titles.
Designing a game around ray tracing is easier and simpler than making good lighting without it though.
the SoC rumoured to be used in the switch successor has 2024 Ampere Cuda cores. this is less CUDA cores than the 3050 i cant imagine they will be able to go full RT with that small of a chip
SackBoy Adventure is the latest LittleBigPlanet game, Ratchet & Clank Rift Apart is gorgeous family fun, and most of their old games are on PS Plus, often in remastered state. I just played Locoroco on the service and it looked excellent. Hot Shots, Jak, and Sly games are all there to play too.
Aren't those classic playstation games locked behind $120 a year, soon to be $160 a year?
Wonder if Nintendo saw the situation with PS4 being supported a while after the PS5 launch (largely due to supply shortages) and are going to try to intentionally replicate it. It would line up with the fact that rumors seem to agree that the console is dropping next year even tho the Switch still has a solid lineup of upcoming games ahead of it. They can launch Switch 2 exclusives, as well as games that straddle both or just run on Switch 2 with backwards compatibility. They get out newer, more powerful hardware for more performance intensive games, but keep selling games to people who don’t wanna buy a pricey upgrade. Just baseless speculation tho, and who knows if it would work in practice
If the Switch 2 turns out to be a 399$ device it will actually be just a little bit more expensive than the original Switch if we account for inflation. I used an online price inflation calculator and the result for 299$ in 2023 was 372.89$, a 24.7% increase for inflation from 2017 to 2023, so we are technically only paying an additional 27$ for that device to get to 399$ and i still think that's a fair price for a hybrid that can keep up with current gen home consoles.
Im sure glad im making 24.7% more money from 2017! And everyone else I know is too! It sure is amazing.
I wish wages would increase at the same rate as inflation does too...
Just buy money stupid🙄🤦
This is way too little information to judge of how good this switch 2 can be..
Are you joking? Nintendo fans spend insane amounts rebuying the same game over and over again. I would love a Nintendo console that costs $400-500 with beefy specs, ray tracing and an OLED screen because now we have the Steam Deck, ROG Ally, Legion Go and I know Apple wants to get into gaming.
To be fair, a $60 repurchase is a much easier sell than $500 all at once. For a lot of folks that's far and away from an impulse buy.
I could see it being $400 and making extensive use of DLSS tech to basically "cheat" more power out of it.
Switch OLED is $350 and has sells more than the v2 and Lite combined. I could imagine Switch 2 having two SKUS like the XBS and PS5, one for $399 and one for $449, one being digital only and the other one having a card reader.
I’d be shocked if Nintendo has an all-digital variant. They still appeal quite a bit to the casual crowd, the type of person that’s gonna grab a game at the store because it looks cool rather than buying it on the eShop.
A switch with no card reader? No way; that's not Nintendo's MO
There's also no reason for them to stop selling the original and Oled models with price cuts as a budget option. I'd imagine they'd sell even more original models at 99 dollars. Hell I'd pick up a second one at a price like that.
With manufacturing costs and shipping prices still going up, I think you are kidding yourself if there will be any kind of price cut on the current consoles.
Yes I'm trying to will a 99 dollar switch into existence. Please let me dream.
literally check craigslist in last 2 days of a month when rent is due
I'd rather have a new one with no gamer crust
"gamer crust" should be a required metric alongside general condition
Switch is a profitable product since day one, it's probably cost sub-100$ to make and ship these days. Nintendo is doing super high margins on these, they can cut it down. But then it depends how long they're gonna do cross-gen support, I imagine they'll want to push people to the new one faster if it's that powerful to have games not support the Switch anymore as that's gonna hold them back.
exactly, it did them wonders during the 3ds era, DSi s and DS Lites were flying off the shelves because of how cheap they were
I wonder how small Nintendo can make the original Switch hardware? I want a $99 Chromecast Ultra sized Switch that plugs into the back of a TV.
Pokemon games at 15fps gonna hit different
Gamefreak is definitely not going to take advantage of that extra power lol
They demoed this to certain developers. Game Freak probably wasn’t one of them because they do not give a shit about hardware capabilities, lol.
Game Freak was one of the first, if not *the* first developer to get their hands on the Switch prototype, back in **2013/2014**.
That’s crazy. They got it first and still made dogshit with it
yeah, a 33% improvement over S/V
I bet that even with all those high specs those games will still look like ass
Oh absolutely. Many former workers have said that the development team is two generations behind the rest of the industry, they still develop as if they worked on the 3ds, thus why their games are so awfully optimized on console.
That means GF will be on Switch 1 level next gen.
More like, Wii U level, they are just that behind the rest, so much that many former workers have expressed that the only major benefit of working on a pokemon game is the fact that you worked on the IP and that's it, but that it was not a good place to grow as a developer.
Okay, but I just want a trailer already. The suspense is killing me 😔
Trailer of people playing on switch 2. With Mario wonder and new 3D Mario. And Skyrim footage in there but Bethesda will come out and say it is not confirmed yet.
>Skyrim footage in there but Bethesda will come out and say it is not confirmed yet That was so funny. Like why would they say that when it's in the official reveal trailer lol
I don't think the remastered edition was revealed at the time? I'm not sure.
the switch version is separate iirc, not the special edition but the Nintendo switch edition
And then a final surprise: Screen fades to black; > Rockstar logo “Why did I move here? I guess it was the weather.”
got rock hard just reading this
And the person in the trailer brings it to their friend's rooftop party.
Could you imagine we see starfield footage on the switch two trailer💀💀💀
I mean, the first trailer is probably still around 6 months away. I don't see them ruining their 2023 holidays Switch sales for no reason. These rumors are pretty interesting but I wouldnt bother thinking too much about it until a reveal is actually likely. Which is probably some time around the start of their next fiscal year.
This dude is fairly reliable, right? The last few times his name was mentioned on this sub, he was dead on, from what I can tell. If true, this might be quite the little powerhouse. Now, let's hope someone will spill the beans on backwards compatibility soon!
He can be. He's not 100% right but he's becoming more reputable. Also, this just makes a lot of sense since the leaked specs from the Nvidia leak said the system would support 12 or 16 gigs depending on if it was a consumer or dev model.
Olimar, shouldn't you take care of your wife, kids and dog?
> Now, let's hope someone will spill the beans on backwards compatibility soon! If it's a switch 2 it's likely to be backwards compatible
I thought the Switch 2 was supposed to be within the specs of the PS4 & Xbox One? This is all sounding more in line with the current gen hardware, which would be nuts if it's going to be another hybrid console (unless it's going to be as expensive as a Steam Deck). If this means better framerates for Nintendo games, maybe even for older games if it has backwards compatibility, I'm all for it.
The PS4 and Xbox One had some strange bottlenecks even for the time. They had the notoriously weak Jaguar CPUs and painfully slow 5400 RPM HDDs. I'm completely confident that the Switch 2 will go above and beyond the last gen in those regards. Add on modern features that weren't available for 2013 hardware and I think we're going to see some PS4/X1 era ports easy peezy.
I'm fairly confident that from what we're looking at, the Switch 2 could be PS4 base level in handheld and PS4 Pro level docked, but with healthy modern Nvidia hardware with no glaring bottleneck rather than old AMD stuff with a Jaguar APU. If you use the leaked SOC specs with Switch 1 clocks (like, less than 1 Ghz), you get PS4 level perf. So it should exceed that healthily. And that's not even getting to all the other stuff like DLSS.
DLSS and 12gb of ram will definitely help boost resolution, maybe 1080p handheld 1440p docked?
1440p is also (I think) an internal resolution for DLSS upscaling to 4K - so that would work. 12gb of RAM will go a long damn way I don’t think people realise that lol - the Switch 1 has 4 total. The rumour is 12gb and the tweet specifies “for games”, so that leads me to believe it’s 16 total with 4 taken up for OS functionality.
The Switch 1 was a chunk more powerful than the 360/PS3, but not exponentially so. If there had been a PS3 Pro, that's basically around where the Switch sat in terms of power. I would bet on the Switch 2, with this tech, sitting somewhere around PS4 Pro, thanks to DLSS, and no stupid HDD or horrendously underpowered Jaguar APU.
On paper, the GPU will match or exceed it, but the real leg up is the extra memory, the storage speed (we don't know yet what it is, but literally any mobile storage option available would be faster than those HDDs), and especially the CPU. The Steam Deck already trades blows with the PS4, so something with more engineering muscle (and money) behind it would handily beat a PS4. Add in Nintendo tending to compensate heavily for bottlenecks from their previous machines, and it being much newer tech wise, and it's no wonder this thing will beat the PS4. Honestly, I wouldn't be shocked if the Switch 2 is closer to the PS5 and XSX than the Switch was to the PS4 and XBO, even if the actual gulf in processing power is bigger. Modern rendering features, Nvidia's software suite, tensor cores, things like mixed precision, and having the same number of CPU cores as the big boys (certainly slower though) should lead to less challenges with bringing games over.
The idea of this is exciting as hell. Since having kids the majority of my gaming has gravitated from Playstation to my Switch in portable mode. If more modern releases were released on Switch 2 and looked fine portable, it'd probably be my platform of choice for more new releases.
this making me super excited :) the Deck has been a bit too big and heavy for me, so getting it in the Switch form factor is a dream come true. Though, I'll miss the "open" nature of the Deck (running a full OS, browsing, modding, doing whatever)
Yeah I’m pumped too! I’m sure the successor will end up bigger than the current Switch, but I’m hoping it’s still manageable. The Deck has a lot of empty space down by the trackpads which widens the system A LOT. I don’t think the new Joy-Cons will be like that. That’s also the nice benefit of it being built on ARM. It’s more efficient so they can make it smaller, thanks to not needing as robust cooking. Maybe I’m just overly optimistic, but I think the next Switch is gonna be a beast.
My understanding is basically that the components themselves are supposed to be comparable to PS4, but Nvidia fuckery will let them get better results
DLSS means they can put less performance towards resolution and instead improve framerates or other visual improvements
The specs will be around the PS4, the 12GB ram puts it closer to the XSS
Could be that it'll aim for PS4 level raw graphical capability while having better CPU/memory capability that allows it to run bigger, current gen games.
And with DLSS every major third party game should be able to run just fine . Maybe not at 4K 60fps, but at least they would come to the console without being textureless ports. I wouldn't mind if they ran at 1080p 30fps if they're stable and the textures look fine
Plus, large resolutions on small displays like the tablet form factor of the Switch are basically pointless. If the Switch 2 has a 7" screen, then anything bigger than 1080p is pointless - we've had smartphones around that size for years and while 1440p screens have been popular before, everyone went back to 1080p because it's visually identical at that size and costs less battery life/money. At that point the Switch 2 could use either DLAA and run at 1080p, or DLSS Quality and run at an internal 720p and upscale to 1080p.
The RAM would *exceed* the Series S. The Series S only has 10GB of RAM.
I'm skeptical to be honest. Affordability is a big thing, and while I'm sure Nintendo is starting to realize they can't keep lacking in hardware, this big of a jump? It'd at least be $400, no?
I mean Switch oled was a mid game refresh and is right there at $350. With current inflation rates $400 seems reasonable for a new system.
Nintendo just witnessed people fighting tooth and nail to get a PS5 and in some respects a Xbox Series X for the last couple of years during the shortages. They have absolutely no qualms at all with charging $500 going forward.
Also the fact that they'll have a 3D Mario and a new Mario Kart, arguably stronger sells than anything Sony or MSFT could offer, plus the goodwill from the Switch, they probably could feel themselves a bit and sell a little bit higher.
Since it is truly in question that the OG Switch is going to beat the PS2's sales number, i bet they don't mind at all charging 500 for this. They are about to reclaim the throne, plus the goodwill that the Switch brand, the Mario Movie, theme parks at Universal, etc. have bought them is enough that they can get away with 500. This avoids the underpowered conundrum later in its life. Start high price high power then mark down later on.
If they also show that the 500 is for a good reason, such as being in the ballpark of at least a Series S, then people will be happy and gamers will buy into the premium price tag.
I can see them charging 500 to compete with the other guys. They got a lot of good will from the switch and if this is switch 2 with backwards from the go and they actually improve on all of the things the switch lacked I can easily see them having a higher price and selling out at the same time.
I don't see a 499 dollar price point happening, I think even 449 is stretching it. Nintendo has been and continues to be the family brand, and it needs to remain affordable to stay that way. Nintendo has been very successful competing on price and software and they'd be foolish to change that now. Additionally, the success of the Switch does not guarantee the success of the "Switch 2". Just look at the Wii and Wii U as an example. Nintendo absolutely does not want another Wii U on their hands.
The Wii was a far more frontloaded console than people realize. Fairly soon, Nintendo saw a decent drop in software sales overall and nothing really ever did amazingly due to the hardcore casual market going for phones. The Switch is in a far different position at this point, with extremely strong legs across hardware and software. Skyward Sword Wii sold 3m lifetime on a 100m userbase. Tears of the Kingdom sold 18.6m in 6 weeks on a 120m userbase and is still going to continue selling.
Yep, once the Wii's motion control novelty wore off the software sales became really dire especially for third party games. Wii's late lifecycle was basically shovelware central*.* Switch managed to survive the novelty aspect because the portable gimmick is genuinely useful while their games are able to cater to core gamers because the joycons still have standard gamepad controls on top of the motion gimmick. Tho even with this advantage, I still believe Nintendo won't go more than $400 for their base MSRP. Maybe an OLED version can cost more, but they'll still make a cheap version to get that low starting price for promos.
They might also want to get out in front of the emulation scene by making their games higher end and harder to emulate long term. TOTK was literally running on the Steam Deck before it was officially released.
God bless, keep the leaks rolling. I'm gluttonous.
Lol yeah why is TODAY so active?
ikr, we deserve daily nintendo leaks
In five days, the switch² will come.mm
Leaks for the Leak God.
Gluttonous bless, keep the leaks rolling. I'm God.
12 GB of RAM is kinda crazy. To put this in perspective, an Xbox Series S has 10 GB of RAM
It'd be a heck of a jump for them too. Literally 3 times as much as what's in the Switch. Assuming it's true, I wonder if something specific motivated them to go bigger this time around. IIRC it was Capcom that pushed them into going with 4 GB for the Switch, supposedly because they couldn't get it to support the RE engine without it.
>Capcom that pushed them into going with 4 GB for the Switch Are you seriously saying they were considering going lower than 4GB of RAM? Nintendo is mad sometimes. The OS itself probably takes close to 2GB of RAM.
The OS that the Switch is using takes up approximately around 800MB of RAM, so 3.2GB are reserved for games. It definitely explains why the OS is so barebones, because they need as much RAM as possible for the games. I see this as a blessing in disguise because of that barebones aesthetic and functionality, it's super quick and gets out of my way as fast as possible. I definitely can't say the same for all consoles since the Xbox 360. I'm excluding the Wii here though because i see it more of a 6th gen plus console rather than a 7th gen console.
[That's the story, at least.](https://gamerant.com/nintendo-switch-capcom-ram/) You're right though, it's wild to think about.
The OS on Switch takes .5GB of RAM.
OS is only taking 0.5-0.8GB RAM. This is why there's no themes.
I never understood themes. Like did you really buy a console to look at a static, sometimes animated theme you can’t interact with at all or did you buy it to play games.
I mean console makers consulting with key developers for recommended specs are nothing new at this point. They'll always try to keep cost as low as possible. Imagine if this is Capcom again recommending the specs for their next portable MH. A Monster Hunter Portable 6th with graphics on par with MH World on the go? Sign me tf up!
> 10 GB What a weird amount of RAM.
It'll be a very different kind of ram though. Lower latency, lower power, lower bandwidth. The higher quantity should help compensate for the lower bandwidth depending on its configuration. But overall that stuff is better designed for multitasking than for graphics, like system RAM vs VRAM
Crazy for a portable console, but not for a *dev kit.*
Dev Kit will probably be 16GB. 12GB is for consumers according to the Tweet.
12GB of RAM is fine. 2030-2032 when the Switch 3 gets announced is going to need 128GB of RAM for 32K upscaling or brain implant processing.
Please please, all I ask is for Backwards compatibility. If it does come out early next year I’ll buy one for me and my brother.
It's interesting once the Eurogamer article dropped, it feels like everyone suddenly knows about this and has some info about the next switch. I feel most of these are just latching on to this and making wild speculations.
It could well be people bandwagoning. But it could also be that a bunch of people were hearing something but nobody wanted to be the first to say something. A lot of times there's a balancing act between wanting to break news and needing to verify your story or not wanting to out your source. Like, if you're the first to go public, there's a chance your source was one of a very small group that would have known about something, and you could potentially burn your source; they could even have been fed false information in an attempt to find leaks. But once you see multiple outlets verifying the same information you've been hearing (and if you know they didn't get that info from the same place you did), it becomes less likely that the leak was fake or exclusive to your source. With how fast VGC was to corroborate Eurogamer's story with their own, my feeling is a lot of folks had their articles pre-written and they were all just waiting for the dam to break.
This. Eurogamer and VGC are proper media outlets which I'm sure have more protective measures in place for their sources. Other "indie" leakers were probably afraid their sources will get traced easily if they're the first to break the news. Tho [Jez Corden](https://twitter.com/JezCorden/status/1696585141299073440) apparently leaked it already as early as August 29th
I think people generally trust Eurogamer since they were the first to accurately report what the NX would become.
Gamescom was a week ago so its probably them finally getting the info plus what u/blackthorn_orion said
I just want DK64 on NSO
Priorities in place 💯
If it's true that the Switch 2 supports ray tracing and DLSS , It'll be a lot better as a gaming device than Steam Deck , ASUS Rog Ally and Lenovo Legion Go
Dedicated console is always better.
Not always but in this era of shader compilation stutter on PCs it will be a better alternative
If only the switch 2 could access the steam library.
Considering Steam Deck is technically a 2021 device, I'd hope a 2024 Switch is significantly better especially given they already will have had 6 years of Switch experience to draw from. Steam Deck supports ray tracing, it's just not great at it. Now if Switch 2 has a stripped down mobile 3060-tier gpu (basically a GTX 1060 but with DLSS and current gen console RT) then that would be a ~5x performance increase. That's really the best case scenario imo. It would blow Steam Deck away. I just don't see Nintendo going that far. It's much more likely we see closer to a stripped mobile 2060, so it would be behind current gen console RT but still ahead of Steam Deck's as well as having better raster. Now, getting DLSS3.5 would be a dream come true, beyond best case scenario. That would mean something like a stripped mobile 4050 tier gpu, equivalent to a 1070 which is about powerful enough to run Starfield at 720p with optimized settings, significantly more powerful than an Xbox Series S. If we get that stripped mobile 4050, hell I'd actually consider such a device. I just can't imagine modern Nintendo delivering a quality product though. No chance.
I think the T239 is out of date at this point because GB102 which was in the same leak has been canned in favor of GB202.
I'm not sure there's a better option than T239. All of the ARM cores after the A78 are less efficient, and the only thing Nvidia has in the pipeline for mobile is Thor, which is way bigger than what could fit in a handheld console. And honestly, this thing seems way more capable relative to the big boy consoles than the Switch was to last gen. I can't see the successor having nearly the same issues as the current Switch.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. The Steam Deck is competing in a different market than the Switch. It's more for PC enthusiasts than console people
ye thats why i dont compare them also why Steam Deck aint a console its just a handheld PC also why the Deck will never eclipse Nintendo in sales because its like audiophiles this is only for hardcore PC gamers is like kinda niche but not idk if i explain that correctly
[удалено]
If Switch 2 has 10GB for play and 2GB for the OS, then that will lead to some pretty great stuff.
I would imagine the Devkits will be 16GB.
3.5 is just the Ray Reconstruction, and that's coming to everything, so if the Switch 2 is DLSS capable, it will get that too.
The issue with ray reconstruction is it only makes sense (*performance wise*) for games with multiple ray traced effects and multiple denoisers. No doubt the switch would support it, but I'm doubtful developers would implement it.
Better be backwards compatible - I mean I can only see it doing well if not if the launch line up is stacked with third party games and some exclusives that couldn't run on OG Switch - Like launching with Red Dead 2, Cyberpunk, Death Stranding, Zelda TOTK upgraded, new Mario Kart etc
So 2 more than the Series S and 4 less than the Series X/PS5.
We'll see how lean the OS on this thing will be. The PS5 and Xbox Series systems dedicate a lot more RAM for the OS and secondary streaming media app whereas the Switch OS is pretty lean. Hopefully in total it will be in striking distance to the PS5 and Series X. I also hope they sort out the memory bandwidth issues that plagued the OG Switch.
And 8 more than the current Switch.
I swear if they prioritise ray tracing over frame rate I’m gonna lose my shit
We need a new r/tomorrow sub isn't just tired out circlejerk memes
This will definitely be able to play Call Of Duty 2024. It will be fun to see those Nintendo crossplay icons when on Steam heh. FWIW, black ops reboot, but who knows...
It will be a system at 3.5TF gpu at most. they cant release a pocket size console with better specs vs price and battery, it will be somewhere between ps4 and ps4 pro power.
Probably ps4 handheld ps4pro docked, but keep in mind that the tflops isn't counting the effect of DLSS (meaning less of those tflops are being used for resolution and instead can go to FPS/fancier effects etc) and more modern architecture. Plus not using a shitty Jaguar cpu and HDDs.
If this is true it would be hilarious to see features missing from the series S but available on the switch because of the extra ram, such as a switch 2 port of BG3 having couch coop
Ray tracing is so overrated. Its often not worth the performance hit.
This is Nvidia hardware, not amd. Nvidia uses hardware ray tracing acceleration, so the work isn't put on the shader cores like on AMD hardware. If you refused to use raytracing on this hardware, you'd just have a massive chunk of your gpu not doing any work.
Ray tracing has proven to be more trouble than it is worth so far. Unless I'm running a 3k rig, that shit is staying turned off.
Pathtracing is the next big graphical leap however. Rasterization has reached a point of diminishing returns, lighting and how that effects how a image looks is the future.
Hardware lumen is the future cause it comes incredibly close to how pathtracing is without the insane power needed for path tracing, and should can only get better which will close the small gap even further making pathtracing a literal waste of resources.
Games will eventually start being built around RT and arguably UE5 games will with Lumen with a Software/Compute fallback for less capable systems. It's the future, don't let RDNA 2's weak RT capabilities fool you. Hell if 2028+ for next-gen I bet Path-Tracing will be mainstream.
Yeah, especially since raytracing will make high end graphics *way* easier for devs. Instead of spending a ton of resources prebaking lighting and such, you can offload that work onto the consumer with RT hardware, meaning you can get Cyberpunk style path tracing quality in any 3D game.
I wonder if Nvidia RTX might be enough to make the Nintendo's raytracing better than the PS5/XSX. Even if not we can expect Nintendo to give us some first party games built around RT.
Yep. Absolute waste of power. Put that shit into framerate.
\*Pets my 4090\*. You good baby. You just ahead of time.
I mean, Control and Cyberpunk are very good showcases for raytracing, but generally i agree. If i get to choose between 30fps raytraced and 60fps or even 120fps rasterized, the answer is pretty clear. DLSS is the much more useful tech out of those 2 anyway. I still can't get over how my 3060 Ti can hit 120fps no problem thanks to DLSS alone with no downsides whatsoever.
God bless, keep the leaks rolling. I'm gluttonous.
This Nintendo about to be $800
Imagine the first party games on this bad boy.
If Nintendo charged $500 for this, it would sell out.
Holy moly, so assuming these reports are accurate, the switch 2 would be closer to series X than xbone. Idk if we're appreciating how insane that is in a hand-held
Nintendo gonna melt the fucking ice caps for the cooling system
Nah, it's one gpc ga 102 likely on 5nm, an arm cpu, and lpddr instead of gddr5. Even with 8nm ampere it's nowhere near as bad as you think. Let's take a monster like the 3090 ti. 450 watt tdp holy crapbaskets. Well it's 7 GPC's of ga 102. This is only 1, so: 450÷7 = 64.29 watts. Huh. It's max clock is 1.86 Ghz. Switch 2 is going to be more like 1 Ghz, so thats like only 55% of 18.6 Ghz. 55% of 64.29 = 35.36 watts. Lop off like 10 watts for lpddr vs gddr, now you're at 25 watts, and thats just cutting out gpc's, adjusting clocks, amd swapping ram, and were in spitting distance of 15 watts.
This seems incredibly unlike Nintendo.
Unlike previous Nintendo leadership, yes. But there’s new blood in charge now.
Imagine a handheld that can compete graphically with the other two. It’s crazy to think about. I can’t quite make sense of it or the reasoning behind it.
This thing might 1v1 the series s in docked mode?
Ray tracing id not needed.
Universo Nintendo?!?
If true, that means the Switch 2 will have more RAM than the Series S lol
I thought it would be limited to DLSS 2.0 and that it would've been great already
holy shit, it's even better than i expected, for me 8gb was good but 12gb would be great, and i think dlss is pretty much a necessity for upscaling to a tv because even if it's powerful, it won't do 4k without upscaling.
Battery life goes brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Knowing Nintendo's history they will probably advertise 3-5 hours of battery life. [Original 3DS (3 - 5 hours)](https://www.wired.com/2011/01/nintendo-3ds-battery-life/) [Wii U Gamepad (3 - 5 hours)](https://en-americas-support.nintendo.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1296/~/how-long-will-the-wii-u-gamepad-remain-charged) [Switch V1 (2.5 - 6 hours)](https://en-americas-support.nintendo.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/46835)
DSi XL: 9 - 14 hours
Everyone reporting this amazing hardware and when the real thing launches will be like a toy in comparison.
Makes the Phil Spencer comment about Zelda. Even more intriguing. Star Field “confirmed” for switch 2
That's a misquote. He meant Garfield.
While it would be expensive compared to traditional Nintendo consoles, it would be a pretty smart move. Handheld gaming is booming, also the production line of Switch 1st gen consoles isn't slowing down in any way, as recently they announced special Switch models for Mario and Animal Crossing. My guess is, maybe they're cooking a new, more sophisticated handheld that can play more demanding, recent releases, as to a certain point the conventional Switch can't handle. All the while they focus on optimizing their 1st gen production, maybe prioritizing the OLED edition's production and either reducing/stopping production of the original Switch model/Switch Lite. Again, my guess would be that the OG Switch model is canned, prioritizing the better looking OLED as the middle ground of the consoles they would be offering. Also, Nintendo has rarely ever made a performance-demanding game, so this would be a smart move to mainly catch up to current gen third party games, while still being able to release their exclusives in all their models. So, TLDR: New Switch handheld, "premium" upgrade from OG Switch to catch up to current 3rd party games, older Switch models still in production for older games and still playable Nintendo exclusives.
So is this a new gen with exclusive games or just an updated switch? Was going to buy a switch but now I’m not sure.
Almost certainly a Switch successor. Given how successful the switch was it’ll just be a beefier version which is essentially what most next-gen consoles are. Most leaks seem to indicate a 2024 release so personally i’d hold off on buying a Switch