Nintendo is updating the original Switch with a new CPU and storage

MXT

Banned
May 13, 2019
646
Why have we never got console names ahead of time then through filings?
Other device manufacturers submit manuals and submit them under short term confidentiality. What happened this time is Nintendo submitted a revision to an existing product (the original Switch) and submitted it with documentation stating that a new manual is not required for this revision, confirming that this revision uses the existing name.

The Xbox One X naming, to give an example, was announced prior to running through the FCC. Most consoles are announced publicly prior to running through regulatory approval. Those that are announced after FCC filings do not leak due to the short term confidentiality request.
 

Maple

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,199
Well, this is going to be interesting. We're getting a refresh of the OG Switch which will apparently come in new colors along with massively increased battery life (assuming the battery size stays the same).

I wonder how Nintendo could even market that if the box is just going to be "Nintendo Switch" without any type of modifier in the name denoting the systems with the improved SoC.
 

MXT

Banned
May 13, 2019
646
Well, this is going to be interesting. We're getting a refresh of the OG Switch which will apparently come in new colors along with massively increased battery life (assuming the battery size stays the same).

I wonder how Nintendo could even market that if the box is just going to be "Nintendo Switch" without any type of modifier in the name denoting the systems with the improved SoC.
Per the FCC filing, the battery size stays the same.
 

Gurgelhals

Member
Oct 27, 2017
750
Ah so a higher bus width would indeed need different RAM chips. That's what I was asking, thanks.

Now that I think about it that seems pretty obvious.
For that matter, a wider bus would also require four instead of two ram chips (4x32bit) as I don't think there are any LPDDR4 chips with a 64bit interface, so this is pretty much out of the question for the Switch. The LPDDR4 chips that are currently mass produced (looking at Samsung here, which is what Nintendo is using afaik) have a higher maximum frequency than 1600Mhz (1866Mhz and 2133Mhz respectively), so there could be some leeway there (that is, if the memory interface of new SoC supports those frequencies as well).
 
Oct 25, 2017
391
This is starting to sound more like an AGS-001 to AGS-101 situation where there might be some very minor improvements that the consumer can be made aware of (AGS-101 box mentioned the brighter backlit screen), but they're mostly the same device.
 
Oct 26, 2017
3,656
For that matter, a wider bus would also require four instead of two ram chips (4x32bit) as I don't think there are any LPDDR4 chips with a 64bit interface, so this is pretty much out of the question for the Switch. The LPDDR4 chips that are currently mass produced (looking at Samsung here, which is what Nintendo is using afaik) have a higher maximum frequency than 1600Mhz (1866Mhz and 2133Mhz respectively), so there could be some leeway there (that is, if the memory interface of new SoC supports those frequencies as well).
The Jetson TX2 Module used 2x64bit https://developer.nvidia.com/embedded/jetson-tx2

Samsung currently produce 64bit LPDDR4x, which maybe Nintendo can adopt. (Would have to be 8GB total if there list of available configs applies)
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
3,944
Spain
For that matter, a wider bus would also require four instead of two ram chips (4x32bit) as I don't think there are any LPDDR4 chips with a 64bit interface, so this is pretty much out of the question for the Switch. The LPDDR4 chips that are currently mass produced (looking at Samsung here, which is what Nintendo is using afaik) have a higher maximum frequency than 1600Mhz (1866Mhz and 2133Mhz respectively), so there could be some leeway there (that is, if the memory interface of new SoC supports those frequencies as well).
There are. Look at iPads
 

BlueManifest

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,304
This would be like if Apple released 2 iPhone 10’s,
they both had the same name
they both looked the same
and they both were the same price

But one was better than the other

It makes no sense
 

MXT

Banned
May 13, 2019
646
But the SoC will change (probably to have the same as the Mini's), meaning that with the same battery size, you'll get more battery life.
Yes, a lot more. My back-of-the-napkin math suggests additional run time closer to 50% than it is to 30%, but either number equals a very noticeable difference.
 

ILikeFeet

Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,741
This would be like if Apple released 2 iPhone 10’s,
they both had the same name
they both looked the same
and they both were the same price

But one was better than the other

It makes no sense
you forgot the part where one is 3 years old and not being made anymore

but sure, let's continue false equivalences
 

Maple

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,199
But the SoC will change (probably to have the same as the Mini's), meaning that with the same battery size, you'll get more battery life.
And it's going to be a significant inrease in battery life. The Lite has a smaller battery yet gets measurably better battery life than the OG Switch. If you combine the Switch's battery size with the new SoC, they battery life improvements are going to be substantial.
 

Dekuman

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,063
This is starting to sound more like an AGS-001 to AGS-101 situation where there might be some very minor improvements that the consumer can be made aware of (AGS-101 box mentioned the brighter backlit screen), but they're mostly the same device.
That's because this isn't the pro. WSJ reported 3 models are.being manufactured. they aren't still using 20 nm chips for the OG Switch.
 

skittzo0413

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,302
and the experience won't be that much different. maybe you'll have to look at the back of the box for the version number or some shit

this is such a non-issue
We don't know that. It might have a substantially increased battery life. It might have much better performance in portable mode. Or a mix of both.
 

Tathanen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,189
Wii versus Wii U, GBA SP versus GBA SP (improved), New 3DS versus 3DS that is on the shelf that is new but is not the model called New
The only one of these that is even REMOTELY similar in this instance is the SP+, and it is marketed as "improved" quite notably on its packaging.
 

skittzo0413

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,302
Retail could offer those old units at cheaper prices. Always happen. I expect this happen in the following weeks, before the Lite arrives.
How could they do that if they're not differentiating the product at all?

The situation as we know it right now has Nintendo updating the new Switch with new internals without being able to name it or market it any differently. If that's the case then it will cause a lot of confusion since it will have upgraded features (either battery life or performance).
 

bmfrosty

Member
Oct 27, 2017
561
SF Bay Area
Thanks for finding that! I've been looking for it.

What gets me with this table, is that I can describe a scenario where the Lite and the 2019 revision get a hidden boost somewhere down the line. It really depends on what can be done with each version of the SoC:

Original SoC could have 0x10001 and 0x20000 opened up in portable mode.
2019 SoC could also have those modes opened up in portable mode and in addition could have 7.0.0+ modes opened up for Docked mode full time.

None of this has to be opened up right away. It could happen with a big release. I'm going to use Witcher III as the example. Let's say that they're having problems bringing it to market because the portable modes are just too slow for the game - even with textures and models turned way down. Nintendo could allow games on a case by case basis to use the docked mode while undocked.

I am also reluctant to believe that the Lite can't do HDMI out. We'll see if the PI3USB30532 is present after a teardown.

This could play out in a similar way to the 333mhz unlock for the PSP all those years ago.
 

Tron1

Member
Dec 23, 2017
4,725
I don't think this revised Switch is meant to be a mass upgrade console like the XBOX or PS4 Pro. Nintendo is probably going to market it as the normal Switch and just save money on the production.
I guess that fine but this whole thing is confusing and I will just wait for more information. Too much speculation I don’t think anyone really knows what they will do. Let’s just say neither of the options would get me to spend money on another switch.
The plan is probably just to revise the internals of the Switch. They are swapping the 2017 Switch with this.
We shall see what happens. It just doesn’t make sense to me will they not even market it as a upgrade switch? Like just don’t tell anyone phase them out and call it a day. I don’t think it’s worth marketing a 1-2 hour battery life increase.
 

bmfrosty

Member
Oct 27, 2017
561
SF Bay Area
Hey MXT - I think you believe what you're saying. I don't know if what you're saying is correct. Can you link something official to back up your statement? I think that would help.
 

Instro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,986
Well hopefully we get an actual Pro model down the line, or an early jump to the Switch 2. Next year or 2021. Sticking with the OG switch after that point would be rather rough given the performance issues it already has. I'll trade in for this revision if it offers any performance boosts, but I'm hoping at the very least they just unlock the higher end portable mode for all games, rather than just the handful that use it now.
 

skittzo0413

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,302
Thanks for finding that! I've been looking for it.

What gets me with this table, is that I can describe a scenario where the Lite and the 2019 revision get a hidden boost somewhere down the line. It really depends on what can be done with each version of the SoC:

Original SoC could have 0x10001 and 0x20000 opened up in portable mode.
2019 SoC could also have those modes opened up in portable mode and in addition could have 7.0.0+ modes opened up for Docked mode full time.

None of this has to be opened up right away. It could happen with a big release. I'm going to use Witcher III as the example. Let's say that they're having problems bringing it to market because the portable modes are just too slow for the game - even with textures and models turned way down. Nintendo could allow games on a case by case basis to use the docked mode while undocked.

I am also reluctant to believe that the Lite can't do HDMI out. We'll see if the PI3USB30532 is present after a teardown.

This could play out in a similar way to the 333mhz unlock for the PSP all those years ago.
Yeah, I can see all of this happening too. I expect additional profiles to be added too, once Mariko revision is out for a little while.

The original SoC can already do docked mode clocks perfectly fine, with reduced battery life. All Nintendo has to do is quietly change the battery life range on their website from 2.5-6 to something like 2-8 hours, that could cover all of the bases.

Do you think it's too much to expect all handheld mode games on the Mariko SoC to default to the 460MHz configs? I feel like that should be achievable and still give a boost in battery life given what we know about the Switch Lite's battery life.
 

MXT

Banned
May 13, 2019
646
The one you've repeated multiple times about them not being able to change the name of the product if it has the same FCC ID.

If you get something official to back it up, you'll get other posters to back you up.
That argument isn't even really relevant at this point - that they didn't submit an updated manual (they stated this product does not require one) ends the argument about the name.

I don't wish to do law school homework about the FCC to win a discussion online.
 

Eslayer

Member
Oct 27, 2017
111
They want to stop producing the original soc, so they put the one from the lite into the original switch. Then next year they launch the revisio.
I get that, but this could result in the Switch having instant gains like longer battery life. The filing gave me the feeling that they would make a very dramatic change to something of the Switch (like its battery life) and stay quiet about it because they're asking for permissive changes to the current one rather than a whole new filing for something that could offer a different experience compared to the currently manufactured model. Would they even be able to name it something differently?

Don't really know how to put it

Like did other revisions/enhanced systems go through a “Class II Permission Change” say, a PS4 to PS4 Slim rather than have to get recertified?
 

MXT

Banned
May 13, 2019
646
I get that, but this could result in the Switch having instant gains like longer battery life. The filing gave me the feeling that they would make a very dramatic change to something of the Switch (like its battery life) and stay quiet about it because they're asking for permissive changes to the current one rather than a whole new filing for something that could offer a different experience compared to the currently manufactured model. Would they even be able to name it something differently?

Don't really know how to put it

Like did other revisions/enhanced systems go through a “Class II Permission Change” say, a PS4 to PS4 Slim rather than have to get recertified?
The PS4 slim went through as a new device, not as a revision request.
 

Falus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
902
I want a 2nd Switch for sure. Want my actual one for home brew. Don’t want a lite because it’s a crippled machine for me. Will take that revision *if* we have either a perf boost / battery. Or will wait for pro
 

bmfrosty

Member
Oct 27, 2017
561
SF Bay Area
Do you think it's too much to expect all handheld mode games on the Mariko SoC to default to the 460MHz configs? I feel like that should be achievable and still give a boost in battery life given what we know about the Switch Lite's battery life.
I think that as it stands now games choose their own clocks. I think they do so by making an API call to the OS/Hypervisor/Whatever requesting a clock change, and the system either changes the clock or not, and probably provides a success/fail return code.

It's possible that they could update the OS to just lock a minimum profile while games are running.

If the game requests a profile below the minimum profile it could respond with success and just change the clock to the minimum profile.

It's a bit hacky, but it would probably work just fine.

There's probably also an API call to get the current profile. If that's the case, they'd have to have something hacky to give the games appropriate responses.
 

bmfrosty

Member
Oct 27, 2017
561
SF Bay Area
That argument isn't even really relevant at this point - that they didn't submit an updated manual (they stated this product does not require one) ends the argument about the name.

I don't wish to do law school homework about the FCC to win a discussion online.
I'd as the lawyer I married, but she doesn't do that sort of law.
 

MXT

Banned
May 13, 2019
646
I'd as the lawyer I married, but she doesn't do that sort of law.
I totally understand that. It's just a really big ask to take the giant pile of FCC stuff and convert it into something understandable by the general public. The 'launching under a new device name' thing isn't really strictly speaking applicable anymore, because the lack of the new manual is more black letter. Nintendo indicated in their filing that a new manual is not required for this device revision. That means this device revision shares the original manual, which refers to the system as the Nintendo Switch.
 

skittzo0413

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,302
I think that as it stands now games choose their own clocks. I think they do so by making an API call to the OS/Hypervisor/Whatever requesting a clock change, and the system either changes the clock or not, and probably provides a success/fail return code.

It's possible that they could update the OS to just lock a minimum profile while games are running.

If the game requests a profile below the minimum profile it could respond with success and just change the clock to the minimum profile.

It's a bit hacky, but it would probably work just fine.

There's probably also an API call to get the current profile. If that's the case, they'd have to have something hacky to give the games appropriate responses.
Right, I understand it might be a bit weird to actually implement the change on a firmware level but like you said I'm sure it would work. Hackers do it fine.

I'm more curious if you think the thermals will support that well enough. The dream of course is to get 768MHz in portable mode but I think defaulting to the highest current portable mode profile is a fairly simple and achievable first step.