Thanks for that, it's pretty interesting to see the increase in scale and complexity over time. The PS5 having 13,000 times the complexity is pretty crazy, but at the same time it makes it kind of impressive that consoles from that era could do what they could with 0.007% of the resources of a modern device.
I'd agree that expectations aren't overly optimistic from a technical point of view, and a Switch form-factor device with GPU performance around XBO/PS4 levels plus DLSS and an almost 10x CPU performance increase over the original Switch is technically plausible this year. However, my reason for being more cautious is more about Nintendo's design philosophy than anything else. If Nintendo has zero intention of exclusive games and no goals beyond running identical games at higher resolutions, then the simplest solution would be to stick with A57 cores and a double-sized Maxwell GPU and run at about 50% higher clocks than the original for around 1440p docked/1080p portable target resolutions. Even if more technically advanced options are available, that gets you 3x the performance and absolutely minimises the impact on game developers, as the architecture remains the same. This is also the same approach Nintendo took with the DSi and n3DS (although in those cases there were fewer options for architectural upgrades).
Basically my outlook at the moment is about a 50%, 30%, 20% mix between the following three options:
50% Probability - Support "4K" while sticking with the same architecture
As above, in this case they want to get around 1440p output while docked (similar to PS4 Pro "4K"), and want to stick with the same architecture to keep development simple. I'd expect something along the lines of:
4x A57 CPU @ ~1.5GHz
3/4 SM Maxwell GPU @ ~1.15GHz docked, ~575MHz handheld
6GB (maybe 8GB) LPDDR5 on 64-bit bus (or maybe LPDDR4X on 128-bit)
30% Probability - Support 4K with DLSS and new architecture
In this case Nintendo would still be looking to play the same games at higher resolutions, but would be using DLSS, and therefore a new GPU architecture, to do it. I wrote a while ago about
a minimum viable solution for 4K DLSS using Ampere's tensor cores with sparsity support, and I still think the device would look very similar:
4x A76/A77/A78 CPU @ ~1.6GHz (plus some A55 cores for the OS/sleep mode/etc.)
6 SM Ampere GPU @ ~1.3GHz docked, ~500-600MHz handheld
8GB LPDDR5 on 128-bit bus
The benefit of moving to a new architecture (and being able to rely on DLSS for most of the resolution increase) would mean more graphical enhancements than just resolution, and I'd expect a small number of exclusive games in this case as well.
20% Probability - Basically a Switch 2
In this case it's not just a 4K model of the existing Switch, but a full-on replacement which is supported alongside the original model for a year or two, but will then get mainly exclusive games from that point on (and perhaps quite a few before that as well). BC with the original is obviously important, but otherwise it's a clean break architecturally.
6x A78 CPU @ ~1.8GHz (plus some A55 cores)
6/8 SM Ampere GPU @ ~1.1-1.3GHz docked, ~500-600MHz handheld
8GB LPDDR5 on 128-bit bus (maybe even 12GB at a stretch)
(This is also the option where I think something like CFExpress Type A and high-speed internal UFS storage would be important, for the others I'd expect them to stick to standard microSD cards)
Yeah, that's along the lines of my thinking. Partner with Sandisk or Samsung or whoever to have a line of reasonably-priced, Switch branded CFExpress Type A cards out at launch. It would give that partner company near 100% market share until competitors could get cards to market, and Nintendo's big enough to guarantee a large market for them, so it could be a good deal for both sides.
Also, I don't think there would be any cost benefits to SD Express. Both CFExpress Type A and first-gen SD Express use an identical interface (a single lane of PCIe 3.0), whereas SD Express cards and sockets both have to support several older SD interface standards as well, so if anything SD Express would be more expensive for both the device and the cards (although probably only by a few cents).
