There are plenty of other threads for this but just putting my 2c on the comments people are making RE storage. Worth noting that the Wii U launched with 32GB of flash in 2012. Around this time? Thumb drives and SD cards would set you back around $1-2AU/GB. These days you can get similar devices, that are also faster, for ~15c/GB. You can even get relatively entry level M.2 SSDs for somewhere around 6c/GB. Flash is ABSURDLY cheap these days
Basically, even ignoring entirely inflation, solid state storage at the retail level is somewhere around 15x cheaper than it was when the Wii U launched. With its 32GB of storage in one of its SKUs. If they were to spend the exact same amount they did on the Wii U for storage? They should be selling it with 512GB of storage. You can get that much flash for $35AU.... at retail.... it's not an extravagant amount by any stretch....
If you take inflation into account? That rises to around 20x or 640GB now being the equivalent of 32GB in 2012. Doesn't quite change the equation that much but just highlights a bit that 512GB here is, if anything, a tad conservative
Do I think they'll go with 512GB? No. I don't think so. They'll cheap out. 256GB is probably about right
You only need to know about my many obsessions, which consist of Lego, Fortnite, Nintendo, PlayStation and Xbox games, drawing on my Tablet, Dragon Ball Z, My Hero Academia, Thomas The Tank Engine, Star Wars, and Ninjago.
Everything about that is too high - clock speeds, RAM, storage and screen resolution. Nintendo will want this to be affordable but also profitable.
I expect 8 GB of RAM and I think it would be wise to go with another 720p screen.
Battery life considerations mean lower clocks for the CPU and GPU should be expected, as with the Switch vs the Tegra X1's full clock speeds. When docked I expect the CPU speed to remain the same but the GPU clock to increase like the current model.
Power wise, I think in handheld it will land somewhere between Xbox One and PS4 but docked between PS4 and PS4 Pro.
Even pessimistic specs and clock speed estimations mean this will be really impressive in a Switch like form factor.
I would expect between 6gb to 8gb of ram at average. mostly close to the vanilla PS4. But in terms of Nintendo going "light" on the specs, I'd say 6gb. You can "probably' get the most out of it. But 8gb should be the standard RAM size.
Point-blank: I dunno.
I sell my famous Chesapeake Tupperware.
I ACCEPT NO DEBIT CARDS!
DO YOU HEAR ME!?!
Something on par with the vanilla PS4 sounds like something they could probably get away with, especially since graphics are really hitting the realm of diminishing returns. Storage space however seems too generous, you know they're going to cheap out in that front
I expect it to be as powerful as a PS4 Pro or at least really close, otherwise it wouldn't be enough of a jump for me. I kinda see them doing that thing of being in the middle between suprassing past consoles and being behind the current one like the Switch being stronger than the PS3 but weaker than the PS4. Besides, if they don't do that I don't think that they will be able to handle current AAA games that are getting more demanding with each day.
I don't think that matching or even slightly besting the PS4 Pro's specs is unrealistic at this point given that the Switch is somewhere between a PS3 and base PS4 with respect to its capability, and it would have been on the market for at least seven years before its successor is likely to hit shelves, which is practically an eternity where tech is concerned.
It is also likely that Nintendo's R&D department have been hard at work at hitting the balance between performance, battery life, form factor, cost, among other factors.
In any case, it's exciting to consider what a leap the Switch 2 will be given how long the current hardware has been on the market.
"Gee, that's really persuasive. Do you have any actual points to make other than to essentially say 'me Tarzan, physical bad, digital good'?"
Lets drop even more perspective for the people saying that some of the specs in OP's post are unrealistic. Just as a plain, straight up and down example lets build out a decent PC from early 2017 and compare its spec to something similarly priced if you were to build it now
CPU: i5 7700 ($445AU) -> Ryzen 5 7600X ($390AU without HS)
Ignoring the massive IPC gains for a second we've gone from 4 cores, 8 threads, 4.2Ghz Turbo, 8MB L3 Cache to 6 cores, 12 threads, 5.3Ghz boost clock and 32MB of L3 cache. In raw benchmarks single threaded performance is about 2X and multi-threaded performance is more than 3X
SSD: 256GB/170k Random Writes ($169AU) -> 2TB/730l random writes ($159AU)
Yeah..... I think I've said enough about this one already. Significant gains here, fastest moving space in tech ATM
RAM: 16GB 3000MHz DDR4 kit ($195AU) -> 32GB 5600Mhz DDR5 kit ($193AU)
A bit of an awkward spot for both because we're paying the "new RAM" tax a bit on both sides here. Even so, significant boost in speed and double the RAM for less
The one everyone expects to be depressing:
GPU: GTX 1080 8GB ($859AU) -> RTX 4060Ti 8GB ($799AU)
......... lets start by saying get stuffed NVidia and change this to....
GPU: GTX 1080 8GB ($859AU) -> RX 6800 16GB ($850AU)
GPUs are a bit tricky to compare, especially when you go between architectures and generations. But to use the misleading TFLOPS number, we've gone from 8TFLOPS -> 26TFLOPS, basically 4X. Also note that between this and the RAM jump above we've gone from 24GB of total system memory to 48GB
Monitor: 27"/1440p/GSync/IPS/144Hz ($980AU) -> 32"/4K/144Hz/GSync ($999AU)
We're just shy of being able to make the jump to OLED at this price point so what we end up with is just a resolution and slight size jump. Note that we could also go the other way and now get a high refresh rate, 27" LCD with GSync for like $400AU. Or alternatively if we had gone a bit crazier for 2017 we could basically just swap LCD for OLED
basically, for PCs since 2017:
GPU -> 2-4X
CPU -> 2-3X
RAM -> 2X
SSD -> 8X more and 4X faster
Display -> 1440p -> 4K
So when OP says
GPU/CPU: 8X
RAM: 2.5X
Flash: 8X
Display: 720p LCD -> 1080p OLED
......... I don't think they're THAT far off. The raw compute they're probably a tad optimistic but it should be noted that 1. The Switch is underclocked and thermally constrained which OP probably didn't consider and 2. New processing techniques, like DLSS, mean it could do more with less
My main hope is that it is close to the current switch maybe with some improvements like analogue triggers.
i feel like the concept of the switch is pretty much perfect due to giving the player the choice in how they want to play rather than having to play the games in a very specific way like some previous nintendo systems.
in terms of screens im hoping they stick to one rather than trying to render games across 2 screens though make the screen really good quality like the OLED switch and basically make a much more capable switch using modern tech.
in terms of the consoles features it would be nice to have an improved eshop and the like along with improved social features and maybe something like the "activities" feature on ps5 where you can jump back into a game quicker.
The switch is pretty much the only thing of its kind on the market since other similar devices tend to fall into either being closer to portable PCs or emulation devices and its not looking likely that the vita will be getting any kind of successor.
Going to outline what I expect the specs will be given that's what this thread actually is:
CPU:
All we "know" from the leaks so far is that it's 8 cores but in a smaller die than the other Ampere based Tegra SoCs. My guess is it'll probably run underclocked, probably around 1.5Ghz. But due to the architectural changes we'll probably see something like 2-3X the power here. This will be under what the PS4 could do
GPU:
In terms of the amount of compute they could potentially fit into that kind of TDP? Architecture improvements between Maxwell and Ampere would suggest something like 5X the power. Somewhere between PS4 and PS4 Pro. I know this seems like a relatively bold estimate given that just above I said in the PC space we've seen 2-4X for the same price but I think we're talking a slightly different equation here. Mostly, Nvidia has less bargaining power with Nintendo than they do with Asus/Gigabyte/etc and so they can't pull the same tricks they do at retail. Their actual hardware has improved more than the value proposition suggests
RAM:
8GB LPDDR5 with ~100GB/s memory bandwidth. So similar to what the PS4 had in terms of capacity but a fair bit slower. They could push for 16GB but I'm not convinced they have much of a reason to given we won't really be seeing much in the way of native 4K content. Also yes, the Steam Deck has more... but the Steam Deck is running software developed for Windows through a translation layer ontop of a custom version of Linux. Dedicated hardware won't need that kind of headroom
Storage Capacity:
The raw pricing change since the Switch launched would suggest it should probably have 256GB. I'm going to be bold and suggest it should have 512GB purely because they could easily do it and storage is the one spec that consumers immediately understand. But this is Nintendo so I am bracing myself for 64GB. Not that this matters much when you can buy a 512GB microSD card now for like $65AU
Storage Speed:
If capacity matters at all it will be because of this. I think they can push the speed of their internal flash significantly further than what it is now. From a marketing point of view I think this is a fairly easy win. If say Metroid Prime 4 is a cross-platform/cross-compatible day 1 release and it loads in like 20s on Switch and 5s on the new hardware? A video showing that is exactly the sort of thing that will drag a lot of early adopters across the line. This is one area where they could completely dominate the PS4/Steam Deck spec
Dock:
I don't expect the dock to change that much from what the OLED has. Keep the Gigabit LAN port for sure and obviously HDMI 2.0 at least (which would open up VRR and HDR when docked). But outside of that, dock to remain the same. I don't think there's any reason for adding higher bandwidth USB ports or anything
I/O:
I think on the main tablet unit itself broadly things stay the same. There's probably some space to jump to WiFi6 but outside of that I think we largely stay the same. Cartridge slot, MicroSD, Headphone Jack, Speakers, USBC, WiFi, Bluetooth. I personally would like to see a camera appear but I'm not holding my breath. With the controllers? I mean, NFC but outside of that I'm not going to bet on what Nintendo does
Screen:
To be blunt, the Switch OLED screen is pretty much what we want. A 7" 720p OLED is fine. Of course I wouldn't mind seeing them push HDR a bit given it's OLED but I'm not particularly fussed either way. VRR would be the bigger game changer but.... not holding my breath....
Battery:
I think battery life will basically land at about the same spot for higher intensity titles. I think what will change though is what the definition of "high intensity" is. A title like BotW/TotK will probably run longer than it used to. A 2D indie platformer? Will probably run about the same. A game enhanced or developed specifically for this new hardware? We'll probably see ~3hrs, like we get with the a title like BotW/TotK now
Probably worth adding one additional thing to this list:
Tensor Cores:
We're probably looking at something around about half of what a 3050 has in terms of Tensor Cores. I wouldn't really be expecting Ray-Tracing to be much of a thing here but DLSS will certainly exist
The way DLSS works is it's pretty much a fixed amount of time for a target resolution regardless of the input resolution or complexity of the scene. If you you take some guesstimates based on how much DLSS costs on similar GPUs and do some back of the envelope calculations with "half a 3050" the math is basically:
4K 60fps with DLSS -> GPU needs to render at 80fps
4K 30fps with DLSS -> GPU needs to render at 36fps
1440p 60fps with DLSS -> GPU needs to render at 66fps
1440p 30fps with DLSS -> GPU needs to render at 32fps
Do I think we'll see 4K/60fps with DLSS? Probably not. I don't see developers optimising to the point where they can render at 80fps at 1080p only to "bin" 20 frames. Firstly because I don't think 4K is that necessary but also because if they can do that they'd be better off going native 1440p/60 I would think or even just raw 1080p with 120Hz + VRR if it's a fighting game or something
I think 1440p/60 is a pretty attractive option, 66fps isn't TOO bad, as is 4K/30 given the relative cost of going from 1440p to 4K DLSS at 30fps isn't THAT significant. Also there'd be basically no reason to bother with 1080p DLSS and also this is purely going to be a docked thing
Also again, add a camera to this thing and use the Tensor core for image recognition/processing. I think there's potentially a killer app in there somewhere for a high budget AR game that has dedicated hardware to back it up. They have a monopoly in the "non-disposable" portable gaming space, AR is a potential gold mine I think
@skywake
Im not really in the know how when it comes to specs and chipsets but if these kinds of things are what newer mobile hardware is capable it does feel like a theoretical "next gen switch" could be a major step up.
With more games on newer hardware offering the option of "performance" and "graphics" mode it does make me hope that the trend would continue with switch 2 games.
others have mentioned about diminishing returns when it comes to visuals and it does feel like more developers are targeting 60fps on console.
again im not too in the know regarding things like console specs but i imagine narrowing the power gap could make it a lot easier for third party devs when it comes to targeting multiple systems.
@Pupuplatter As mentioned by @Sisilly_G I don't see how it is an unreasonable expectation. I actually see that "30 minute battery" as absurd. The Steam deck is proving that it's more than possible and it's not even the only one. The Asus ROG Ally is even stronger.
After so much time of waiting for a successor I really doubt that they will make such a small upgrade. That's way more unreasonable to me for many reasons. As much as Nintendo makes money with their own games, the Switch is proof that it's better to also offer AAA games on the console and if they don't progress enough they'll fall behind to offer that.
While we're just starting to get handhelds in the performance class of the PS4 Pro (e.g. Asus ROG Ally) they can only do it while consuming an excessive amount of power. Run one flat out and it'll get through a 40Wh battery in barely over an hour. Considering that the Switch battery is only a mere 16Wh, saying it'd last for 30 minutes is being generous.
I'd think that either Nintendo have to make a much larger, heavier and probably more expensive handheld than the Switch to get that level of performance, or settle for something a lot less than that if they want to keep more or less the same form factor.
Assuming the latter, I don't think getting more than around a 4x improvement in performance is likely, but that really ought to be enough. Games currently running at 720p would go to 1440p and 1080p to 4K, all else being equal. Throw in better up-scaling technologies and we could see practically all first party games running at 4K when docked, while 720p remains the sweet spot for handheld use.
Forums
Topic: Next-gen Nintendo Console Specs
Posts 1 to 19 of 19
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic