Why would a Switch Pro need to save space?
I guess if the chip is larger it would
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Report: New nintendo switch revision coming mid 2020
- Thread starter modiz
- Start date
- Status
I guess if the chip is larger it would
I have a question: are the differences in power between Nintendo Switch and Xbox One smaller than the differences between Playstation Portable and Playstation 2 or not?
The differences between the Switch and PS4 work out to roughly the same difference as the PS2 and original Xbox.
Last edited:
Ocarina of Time, Wind Waker and A Link Between Worlds were released two years into the console's lifespan, Phantom Hourglass 3 years, Link's Awakening 4 years, Twilight Princess and Breath of the Wild were both crossgen. I don't know where this correlation comes from. If you take out the ports and remasters, you're left with A Link to the Past, Majora's Mask with the expansion pack and Skyward Sword with Motion Plus as Zelda games as showcases. And even then at a push.
That's a very weird way to misinterpret reality. Those were cases of new consoles and I definitely don't see it applied in this case. Also both were cases of unsuccessful hardware. Twilight Princess would be wasted in GameCube and BotW would be wasted in Wii U.
Right now they can sell BotW 2 on Switch and then use it to promote Pro just fine since it's the same purchase, no need for players to double dip.
"Hey remember this game we sold you a few months ago, here's how it's gonna look if you buy a Super Switch"
It may not just be looks as in resolution or framerate. For many second zeldas new hardware was required. The Expansion Pack, Wii motion plus. Would they make BotW2 exclusive to Switch Pro? My argument is; they might. It would sell a lot of units. There were some major exclusives on DS Lite and New 3DS. If they could convince gamers that the hardware is necessary for the games ambition, as they did with MM and SS, gamers will probably accept it. If I'm a Nintendo business man, I'm seriously considering this. Racking up Switch install base benefits the whole platform. Of course, spending $300 on a new unit is another ball game from a $20 add on.
I think it's suicide to make it exclusive to pro. Mariko and lite just came out. The timing is too far off to be making a revision that would completely replace mariko v2 switch, if that is what Nintendo intends to do.
And if it's just a pro model like ps4 pro/xbone x that has no intention of replacing any of the two existing models, then that's even a dumber thing to do and it would sell even less. I'm pretty sure Nintendo learned there lesson not to make first party exclusives. I
-
If I was in any position of power at Nintendo I would think this was fucking crazy. Like you said, new hardware is another ball game. This would backlash majorly.
Besides I'm sure there are a ton of optimizations they can and will do just by not having to account for the Wii U. It's gone be a significant graphical upgrade either way.
the thing is you can have both now... there's no reason to lock it to a specific piece of hardware because now in our modern world old hardware can get the same game and the new hardware can receive all the benefits of better frame rates, nicer textures, higher resolutions... overall enhancements and the old hardware gets the game... it's a win win.
Did the development of BOTW limit anything on the Switch so that it would also work on the Wii U? If so, perhaps the current Switch is enough as it is for an impressive BOTW2. Even if a Pro were released, they'd have to develop most of the game for the 50 million players mentioned.
I'm not saying it's a good decision, or the one they will make. Just hypothetical. BotW sold what, 12 million units so far? 3DS, a less popular platform than Switch, sold about 10 million of the upgraded "New" units. Xenoblade Chronicles was exclusive to New 3DS, and Monster Hunter 4 was a major New 3DS seller as you got MH without frankenstick. BotW2 has got to be one of Nintendos most anticipated games, but it's also a core gamers franchise. Nintendo very frequently uses Zelda to sell hardware, unlike Mario Kart or Pokemon which actually sell more units than Zelda. Mainstream games like those last 2 they would never make exclusive to Pro, but zelda? I think there is a small chance they do it.
I was really annoyed that they sat on BotW for Switch. Why not give us the game in 2016 as promised, then again on Switch later? The Switch version would be portable, a tremendous feature. Nintendo held it back though to sell their new platform, and I would argue it worked brilliantly. 10 million is the bare minimum expectation for Switch Pro, I would think. If they are even slightly more ambitious, I think they shoot for 25 million Switch Pro units. Resolution and frame rate are nice, but how many Zelda fans care enough to drop $300 for framerate? How many Zelda fans would drop $300 (or less with trade in) if it was the only way to play BotW2? If Nintendo thinks they have about 10-15 million loyal core gamers, many of which are looking to upgrade anyways, how many sales do they actually lose by making it Pro exclusive vs hardware sales lost by not?
Hypothetical #2: They sit on BotW2 for Switch Pro, but release it on all models. Pro version has 1080p portable and locked 60fps, OG has comperable performance to the first game. Are those last 2 features enough to get people to upgrade, along with the typical thinner lighter bigger screen? New 3DS had a critical 2nd analog along with a few key core gamers exclusives. If Nintendo execs believe the Pro hardware isn't compelling enough, history says they look at Zelda as a key to pushing the hardware. I think Splatoon 3 with split screen couch coop is also possible, and lastly Gamecube VC.
Hopefully they have some other strategy for Pro and we get Zelda this year on OG Switch.
I mean, based on the fact that the Wii U version doesn't look THAT different from the Switch version, I'd say that's the case - that BOTW2 will look better/perform better even on the current Switch.
If it was originally intended for release in late 2020, then I'd rule out Hercules cores. That would have meant beating Qualcomm to market with them by several months, which I wouldn't see happening. If intended for a 2021 release, then I suppose Hercules would be plausible. That said, I don't think the core choice makes that much difference. From A75 onwards, the main focus on the big ARM cores has been peak performance, leveraging process nodes to keep power draw manageable. At about 500mW per core, all on the same process, I'm not sure if there would be a huge difference in performance as you move up from A73 all the way to A78. Of course, this is assuming that Nintendo would again use identical CPU clocks in portable and docked mode. If they were willing to clock higher in docked mode, then there could be substantial improvement from the newer cores.
Speaking of which, I think 2Ghz is a bit too much to expect from A78 (Hercules) even on 7nm. I'd expect something in the 1.5-1.6GHz region being plausible in handheld mode, which would still be a huge improvement over the original Switch.
For the GPU, at a late 2020 target I'd say a 384 ALU at ~500MHz portable and ~1GHz docked would be my baseline expectation, for about a 2x raw performance improvement in both modes. A 512 ALU chip isn't impossible, particularly as we move into 2021, although I'd probably top out at about a 576 MHz portable/ 1.15GHz docked for approx 3x raw performance improvement in each mode (ie 600Gflops/1.2Tflops). That's based on the assumption that Nintendo would want to maintain a similar 2:1 ratio between docked and handheld clocks like the original Switch, and hence is limited by what's achievable when running off a battery, but if they didn't stick to that they could certainly go quite a bit higher on docked clocks, probably over 1.5GHz if the cooling/power/etc is there (so about 1.6Tflops).
The RAM is pretty interesting, because it looks like LPDDR5 for the time being is only being manufactured in 64-bit modules at 8-12GB capacity. Which would mean if Nintendo wanted to use a 128-bit bus, they'd have a minimum capacity of 16GB if they wanted to buy off the shelf chips. They probably order in large enough quantities they could convince a manufacturer to make 4GB LPDDR5 modules if they really needed them, but I'd expect a pretty big price premium over off the shelf LPDDR4X chips for that. Honestly 8GB of LPDDR4X on 128-bit bus would give over 60GB/s, which is still a big jump over the original model.
If they do increase screen resolution my money would be firmly on 1080p. I don't think maintaining a fixed pixel ratio matters that much for anything other than pixel-art games, which are a small minority of Switch titles, and as many games don't even render at 720p in portable mode anyway, so scaling from say 600p to 1440p isn't going to make a big difference than scaling from 600p to 1080p. A VRR screen would be very nice (in particular it'd make a huge improvement to Link's Awakening), and could be matched by HDMI VRR support, but for whatever reason I just don't expect it from Nintendo.
I definitely don't expect UFS cards to replace microSD, but it still may be worth Nintendo using them even if they don't. The benefits of using standardised memory cards instead of proprietary ones, both for Nintendo and customers, I'd say can be boiled down to the following categories:
1. Reduced R&D cost for Nintendo not having to develop their own memory card standard.
- Check. UFS cards are a JEDEC standard, so there would be some license fees, but pretty minimal compared to developing something from scratch.
2. Reduced component cost for Nintendo, from being able to use off-the-shelf hardware to interface with the cards.
- Not quite as easy as microSD, but UFS cards have a basically identical interface to embedded UFS chips, so the only specialist hardware is the physical slot. I would expect Nintendo to be able to get the components reasonably cheaply.
3. Easy availability for customers.
- Not yet, Samsung manufacture them, but only seem to sell them on their own website. The thing is, if Nintendo were to release a new Switch device which used them, then every store selling it would be basically guaranteed to start stocking the cards too. Moreover, as it's a JEDEC standard (and it's basically just an embedded UFS chip in a piece of plastic) it would be very easy for other companies like SanDisk, Lexar, etc., to come in with their own UFS cards to compete with Samsung's, increasing availability and bringing prices down.
4. Lower cost for consumers.
- If we're considering cost against performance, then UFS cards are already pretty affordable. Certainly more expensive than standard UFS-I microSD cards, but if you compare them to higher-performing cards like UFS-II microSD, which are much slower but more expensive, to UFS-II SD cards, which range from cheaper and much slower to more expensive and a bit slower, to QXD cards, which offer similar speeds at much higher prices, UFS cards are actually pretty reasonably priced. That's also with a single manufacturer making them at small scale and selling only via their own website. With multiple manufacturers and retailers competing, I wouldn't be worried about prices.
I think it does depend on the kind of device Nintendo would be putting them into. If it was a niche "Switch Pro" which would only be expected to sell less than 10 million units to enthusiasts, then there wouldn't be the incentives for card makers and retailers to widen availability and keep down costs. If it was a replacement for the current Switch, though, say a Switch 2 or Switch 1.5, then a potential 50+ million units should be enough to sustain a decent size market for the cards.
Note that there's nothing above about interoperability with other devices. Although that's in theory a benefit of standard like SD, it doesn't really come into play for Nintendo, as people are simply going to buy a single card and leave it in there, they won't be swapping cards in and out of other devices (Switch doesn't have any functionality to support that, anyway). So it doesn't really matter if no other devices actually use UFS cards, so long as the cards themselves are easily available and cheap enough, and I think a new Switch device would be big enough to ensure that they are.
I don't expect any change for future Switch hardware on this front. The issue with stacking RAM on top of an SoC for a device like the Switch is that it becomes more difficult to deal with thermal management, the heat from one chip has to pass through the other before a heatsink/fan can pull it off. In general for an actively-cooled device like Switch you want your heat sources spread out instead of concentrated, as it makes for better thermal conductivity, and cooler chips with lower-speed fans. For example both Switch and Switch Lite could have used a single RAM chip with a 64-bit interface, but instead chose two 32-bit chips. My guess is that this was to spread out the heat generated by them to a wider area to make cooling easier.
ever since you mentioned UFS cards back in the NX days I've been hoping they use them. One of the most worrying things to me about next gen is the desparity between console's load times. I would hope that perhaps by switch 2 they can speed up the internal storage at least... if not some solution like UFS.
either way I'm a believer
I'm specifically referring to the speed at which assets can be loaded into memory... which is severely bottlenecked by SD card speeds
But yeah sign me up for a new CPU as well
Well kids, it was a good ride while it lasted. Let's go home.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Nintendo say the same thing last year and then announced the Nintendo Switch Lite on July?
The difference here is that they're saying it to investors, not just the general public.
The question is when Nintendo said "end of the year", is Nintendo referring to the end of FY 2019 or the end of 2020?
I believe the end of FY 2019 is around March 2020. And if Nintendo's referring to the end of FY 2019 by "end of the year", there's still a possibility Nintendo's going to make an announcement regarding the new alleged Nintendo Switch model around mid-summer 2020.
Last edited:
I don't think they can do that in financials. That may be lying to investors or fraud or something idk. If it was a media statement maybe but no, this means nothing until 2021, if at all.
Yeah... iirc they said the same thing right before new 3ds, and the revised switch model+lite came out.
Were those statements in financials or media statements?
Making demonstrably false forward-looking statements to your investors is a lot different than putting out a blanket denial in response to a question from a reporter, though.
And WRT Switch Lite, I believe all they ever said was that they had no plans to announce new hardware at E3.
Where he mentions adopting the DS/3DS but he can't talk more yet.
It is fraud. And they would lose any court case with such a clear statement.
Nintendo answered an question with nothing to announce. This is Nintendo saying to investors no plans.
Makes sense and that's what I thought. No new switch in 2020 then boys, pack it up
watch Switch 2021 is just an XL model after all this waiting lol
Yeah this is a clear cut no. All the other denials followed by releases were in statements to press and not investors. Pack it up.
Welp, I'd been holding off on getting Smash until the revision hit (I have a Lite which I don't think is an ideal way to play that game), but I guess that ship just sailed.
Was gonna maybe hold out on that Animal Crossing Switch but not anymore! Another year of waiting for a new Switch.
If this ends up being true, then a q1 2021 could be possible, and it could increase the likelihood of 7nm ampere and LPDDR5. Xbone x did release 4 years after base xbone too.
One year us too long to wait. Ufff.
I wouldn't be surprised if Botw2 gets pushed to q1 2021 too. But they need a good holiday 2020 release though.
Why would you say such a horrible thing? :(
You're probably right tho lol
Yep if the Chinese leak/nikkei leak is true, it must have slipped to next year as it mentioned a possible delay outside of 2020.
Samsung canceled their 7nm process, which probably complicated a lot of products this year. It also increases the chance of the model Nikkei was talking about to be canceled/reworked as a successor.
Samsung canceled their 7nm process, which probably complicated a lot of products this year. It also increases the chance of the model Nikkei was talking about to be canceled/reworked as a successor.
- Status