DavidGraham
Veteran
Switch 2 Speculation
- Thread starter Goodtwin
- Start date
cheapchips
Veteran
I don't know if that's confusing two bits of news? There were a few articles last week suggesting that Mediatek would adopt Nvidia GPUs in its 2024 flagship chipsets.
I suppose it might make sense for Nintendo to adopt that chip over a custom/Orin variant?
I suppose it might make sense for Nintendo to adopt that chip over a custom/Orin variant?
neckthrough
Regular
Flagship chips are made for $1K+ cellphones, they aren't good candidates for $300 consoles whose BOM includes joycons, dock etc.
cheapchips
Veteran
It wasn't my idea! I was just responding to that tweet.
Although...flagship phones have a lot more going into the BOM than just their SOCs.
Not really that much which wouldn't apply to switch 2 too (assuming it'll hold on the handheld/dock format)
You can drop the antennaes and cameras, that's about it.
arandomguy
Veteran
Just some comments regarding the smartphone comparisons.
Mediatek's current flagship Dimensity 9000 SoC is going into phones priced well below $1000. I believe this year it will likely be in phones that are under $500.
Qualcomm enjoys higher pricing via leveraging their modem IP.
SoC (and other internal component) pricing for phones often has additional licensing costs tacked on. This means things like what aspects of the SoC are actually used (eg. even things like the DSP for camera processing) and the overall price of the device (yes the licensing cost sometimes is based on the overall device price) affects the cost.
Phone pricing itself isn't really a good indicator relative to costs. Phone pricing especially if you look at US centric targeted models are often priced based on heavily on the carrier bundle/subsidy model. If hypothetically you there was ban on that practice you'd see phone pricing quite different.
Phone pricing also factors in the churn basically, you'll often see the major brands have massive discounts to encourage trade ins via promotions and that essentially needs to be factored into the phones price. Essentially phone MSRPs in the US are to some extent the "sucker price."
Comparing prices against mobile devices sold in Asia (especially China as ARM mobile gaming is actually very popular their and some other regions) and especially gaming tablets might be better fit in terms of what the potential business economics of the type of SoC that could go into the Switch 2 as opposed to comparing against phones sold primarily at the US market.
Mediatek's current flagship Dimensity 9000 SoC is going into phones priced well below $1000. I believe this year it will likely be in phones that are under $500.
Qualcomm enjoys higher pricing via leveraging their modem IP.
SoC (and other internal component) pricing for phones often has additional licensing costs tacked on. This means things like what aspects of the SoC are actually used (eg. even things like the DSP for camera processing) and the overall price of the device (yes the licensing cost sometimes is based on the overall device price) affects the cost.
Phone pricing itself isn't really a good indicator relative to costs. Phone pricing especially if you look at US centric targeted models are often priced based on heavily on the carrier bundle/subsidy model. If hypothetically you there was ban on that practice you'd see phone pricing quite different.
Phone pricing also factors in the churn basically, you'll often see the major brands have massive discounts to encourage trade ins via promotions and that essentially needs to be factored into the phones price. Essentially phone MSRPs in the US are to some extent the "sucker price."
Comparing prices against mobile devices sold in Asia (especially China as ARM mobile gaming is actually very popular their and some other regions) and especially gaming tablets might be better fit in terms of what the potential business economics of the type of SoC that could go into the Switch 2 as opposed to comparing against phones sold primarily at the US market.
cheapchips
Veteran
Another pertinent example might be the Quest 2. It's XR2 chip is essentially a 865 Snapdragon. At the time that was the flagship SOC.
(The Quest was subsidized, but not to the difference of a flagship phone. It had all the VR gubbins in it's BOM too)
(The Quest was subsidized, but not to the difference of a flagship phone. It had all the VR gubbins in it's BOM too)
Yea, these SOC's dont really cost what people think when looking at flagship phone pricing. Those companies need to make a reasonably large margin on the actual hardware costs, while console manufacturers(and products like Quest) do not.
I still think absolute 'flagship' chips are not on the cards for a Nintendo product, but they can probably go higher end than people think. I'm also not expecting the next Switch to come out at anything below $350, so that'll help them do a bit more as well.
Lower resolution screen, DSP, modem, SIM management
But it's Nintendo, no way we get anything more than 3 years old midrange for SOC and memory
If Nintendo was ready to release a console in 2024, wouldn't that have ended up being in the discovery for the Microsoft vs FTC case? Part of the FTCs argument is that the Nintendo Switch does not count because it is not within the same generation therefore, Microsoft is lying about putting COD on a Nintendo console, but if Nintendo were releasing a new console in 2024, wouldn't Microsoft want to use that against the FTC (under seal of course) given that the console could very well end up being a truly 9th gen console(still and handheld). I think it won't come until 2025.
Last edited:
arandomguy
Veteran
Throwing aside the Switch 2/2024 debate itself for now but is that how it works? I don't believe Nintendo itself is contesting the merger and effectively already tacitly worked with Microsoft in signing that deal. As such I'm not sure Microsoft would want to negatively press that at the expense of Nintendo even if they could, even worse if they "accidently leak" Nintendo's plans. If it's under seal and not leaked then it wouldn't be publicly known either? Also would a 2024 vs 2025 distinction even matter in this scenario?
They are not contesting the merger, but the FTC views Microsoft offering the ten-year deal to Nintendo as disingenuous before the courts. The FTC is making a case that the Nintendo hardware can't play COD as is, which might be true of the Switch, but if Nintendo had a new console in 2024 when Microsoft would have control over Activision if the deal closes, ABK could put it's first console COD in a long time on that console. Why wouldn't that be enough to end the "Nintendo doesn't count" argument and further weaken the FTCs case against the deal?
The year matters because the farther off Nintendo's next console is, the stronger the "Nintendo's console can't play COD" argument becomes.
arandomguy
Veteran
Yes I understand that but what I am asking is -
1) Is there a legal mechanism there to compel Nintendo to provide that information as Nintendo is not the one contesting the merger or cooperating with the FTC. I'm guessing it's not as simple as every company that the FTC itself brings up is somehow inherently compelled to be drawn in.
2) Whether or not Microsoft (given their relationship with Nintendo in this specific scenario) would forcefully exercise such an option.
3) If the above were true would that information not be sealed? If it is sealed which party is going to leak such information publicly? If it's sealed and not leaked than there is no information publicly available regardless.
4) I guess lastly if the onus is on the FTC to prove it's statement or Microsoft to prove it's defense. As in does the FTC need to prove that COD cannot come to Nintendo Hardware, as opposed to the other way around.
If a new Xbox is 2028, then 2033(for a ten year deal) means five years of the new Switch being behind a generation again.
cheapchips
Veteran
Gen 8ish is about what we expect isnt it
? Plus some tensor secret sauce.
? Plus some tensor secret sauce.
He said it but it doesn't make sense to me that it would have CUs that pre-date the RTX 2000 series. At least that is what I think of when someone says Gen 8.Gen 8ish is about what we expect isnt it
? Plus some tensor secret sauce.
Performance != Features
I know what this will be different but still. Here is plan for next Nintendo console I would like they make. 3 consoles at launch.
1. Home console. 4k resolution. Price $500.
2. Hybrid console. 1440p in dockrd mode, 1080p in handheld mode. Price $350.
3. Handheld console. 1080p. Price $250.
This will make next NIntendo console for everyone. Because there is a lot of people who play Switch only in docked mode and many of them would like to have console with better graphics. Many people like hybrid console, because they can play everywhere. And many people like to play only in handheld mode, so they buy Switch Lite.
1. Home console. 4k resolution. Price $500.
2. Hybrid console. 1440p in dockrd mode, 1080p in handheld mode. Price $350.
3. Handheld console. 1080p. Price $250.
This will make next NIntendo console for everyone. Because there is a lot of people who play Switch only in docked mode and many of them would like to have console with better graphics. Many people like hybrid console, because they can play everywhere. And many people like to play only in handheld mode, so they buy Switch Lite.
Panino Manino
Newcomer
Switch hardware is so old now that anything whatever may be will be a huge improvement.
The only thing to think about is the node process that Nintendo will use.
Will they use a more recent process or will they use a cheaper one to maximize profits?
The only thing to think about is the node process that Nintendo will use.
Will they use a more recent process or will they use a cheaper one to maximize profits?
