Arm A78CWhat CPU model exactly we should expect? (which Cortex generation?)
Arm A78CWhat CPU model exactly we should expect? (which Cortex generation?)
If it is the rumored custom T239, then it should be 8-core A78.What CPU model exactly we should expect? (which Cortex generation?)
TDP ≠ power draw.SD's memory bandwidth is only half of ps4 at its best. I wouldn't say it has ps4's performance level. This is including the fact it's default TDP is 15w, which is already slightly higher than the total power consumption of the OG NS under docked mode.
Yes. And still, games on the SD can look and play just as good as a PS4 game. Spiderman on the SD is looking better vs the PS4 version (running at a lower def of course). So it's not far fetched to see the SD as a PS4 equivalent (better on some aspect, worse on some)SD's memory bandwidth is only half of ps4 at its best. I wouldn't say it has ps4's performance level. This is including the fact it's default TDP is 15w, which is already slightly higher than the total power consumption of the OG NS under docked mode.
Agree. It's just one other hint.This really doesn't speak anything from my POV. Before the release of NS, it is also rumored the docked performance can be on par with xbox one. Of course tegra x1 is mostly dx12 compatible, but we know the performance in the end.
I agree. Still, good luck to console makers to sell a new machine with no perceived improvements. It's not because they can't do real generations updates anymore that they will successfully sell us "marginal updates". We're not supposed to be that stupid, not for something that's just entertainment.I can't say it is wrong. Afterall, NS is released in the middle of PS4's life cycle, and its handheld gpu performance is on par with previous gen (ps3) but better hardware features and CPU. It is intuitive to assume the new machine will follow the same trend. But we also cannot ignore the fact that the rapid growing trend of computation power is no longer there. You can clearly tell this with the current gen console. PS4 has 10x Teraflops (gpu), approx. 6.875x bandwidth compared to PS3. But PS5 only has approx. 5.5 Teraflops and approx. 2.5x bandwidth compared to PS4. Of course we shouldn't compare the teraflops directly -- the new design improves on all aspects -- but that's enough to say it is very hard to replicate the past trend.
It's even worse on mobile SoCs because memory is really limiting here. Switch already suffers on bandwidth issue (I think 80% of framerate drops in BOTW and TOTK are related to overdraw). Mobile games don't care because they are mostly forward path and rarely use post processing effects requiring gbuffers. But then the games that do use gbuffers like Genshin Impact pretty much knocked out all the low-mid tier phones back when it's released.
I think it's safe to assume that DLSS2 can help the new console reach 1080p with graphics on par with (or even better than) PS4 games. But without DLSS2? I woudn't be too optimistic. I mean, It's Nintendo, and we better expect low.
Isn't T239s (presumably close) relative, Orin, on Samsung 8nm? I wouldn't be surprised if T239 uses a Samsung process though the 8nm line hopefully is acknowledged as too old and too little an improvement over Mariko.Anyway, according to the rumors, T239 will likely use TSMC 4nm, which offer a nice bump vs 16nm (X1+) and even 7nm (Aerith) so all in all SD perfs into a Switch form factor is not a fantasy dream.
It's... complicated. The flow of rumors started with Samsung 8nm indeed. Samsung 5nm is still possible. But the general consensus is now more leaning towards TSMC 4nm for various reasons.Isn't T239s (presumably close) relative, Orin, on Samsung 8nm? I wouldn't be surprised if T239 uses a Samsung process though the 8nm line hopefully is acknowledged as too old and too little an improvement over Mariko.
Pretty sure that's only while charging. Heaviest normal gaming loads is 12-15w.TDP ≠ power draw.
The Nintendo Switch can draw up to 18 Watts.
I agree. Still, good luck to console makers to sell a new machine with no perceived improvements. It's not because they can't do real generations updates anymore that they will successfully sell us "marginal updates". We're not supposed to be that stupid, not for something that's just entertainment.
I get it with respect to PS5 and XB Series S/X. To me, they lack value-added "upgrades" or differentiators from their predecessors aside from the SSD/fast storage. For the money, you simply aren't getting an appreciably different experience. If you had a PS4/Xbox One, the best value you get by upgrading at this point (beside the loading time) is access to newer games only produced for the current gen.
I do not believe the Switch and its successor are in a comparable position, even if the successor is merely a 5nm/4nm upgraded SoC without additional console functionality. The Switch is a cheaper device while enabling gaming anywhere -- not just the living room TV. When considering a purchase of the Switch, the (1) mobility of the device and (2) access to Nintendo first-party titles are the greatest justifications for the cost of entry.
Is a Switch 2 without an additional "gimmick" or "hook" worth another $300 to $400 if you already own a Switch? I think so. Unlike PS5 and XBox Series S/X, an upgraded SoC in a Switch 2 can reflect demonstrable image quality and performance improvements, roughly comparable to the improvements seen from PS3/XB360 to PS4/XBone. Imagine the "impossible Switch ports" analyzed by Digital Foundry (Witcher 3 comes to mind) on a Switch 2 with 2 to 3x CPU/GPU power and more RAM. Some of the more glaring cutbacks would not be needed, and the ports would not be so obviously compromised to fit onto the Switch. If you toss in DLSS or, at least, more modern upscaling, I expect most users would see immediate differences, as opposed to some of the cross-gen titles of the past 2 years.
Nintendo also needs to ensure the mobile experience remains as solid and convenient as Switch 1, if not improved (primarily battery life and screen quality). If, instead of pouring all the gains from a newer process node and more advanced CPU/GPU architectures into performance, Nintendo allocates some to additional power efficiency, I think the case for upgrading to a Switch 2 would be rather self-evident to potential buyers.
My name is Father_Murphy, and that's what I want in a Switch 2.....
I kind of agree. Well, maybe not on the XBSeries since they don't seem to sell that good...So far, that's almost what PS5 and XBSeries have been. I'm surprised they managed to sell as much as they did with so few diferentiators.
Well the gaming experience is more than just the graphics. As you said, playing a game like SF6 on the PS5 is so much better than on the PS4 for the loading times alone. And that must not be understated. It really is a game changer. The graphics are not though, and it's clear that between the 4K resolution eating up a lot of power, and the law of diminishing returns regarding all the visual fidelity stuff, it will be very hard to sell new consoles based on power alone (except to a niche of people I described above )I get it with respect to PS5 and XB Series S/X. To me, they lack value-added "upgrades" or differentiators from their predecessors aside from the SSD/fast storage. For the money, you simply aren't getting an appreciably different experience. If you had a PS4/Xbox One, the best value you get by upgrading at this point (beside the loading time) is access to newer games only produced for the current gen.
I do not believe the Switch and its successor are in a comparable position, even if the successor is merely a 5nm/4nm upgraded SoC without additional console functionality. The Switch is a cheaper device while enabling gaming anywhere -- not just the living room TV. When considering a purchase of the Switch, the (1) mobility of the device and (2) access to Nintendo first-party titles are the greatest justifications for the cost of entry.
Is a Switch 2 without an additional "gimmick" or "hook" worth another $300 to $400 if you already own a Switch? I think so. Unlike PS5 and XBox Series S/X, an upgraded SoC in a Switch 2 can reflect demonstrable image quality and performance improvements, roughly comparable to the improvements seen from PS3/XB360 to PS4/XBone. Imagine the "impossible Switch ports" analyzed by Digital Foundry (Witcher 3 comes to mind) on a Switch 2 with 2 to 3x CPU/GPU power and more RAM. Some of the more glaring cutbacks would not be needed, and the ports would not be so obviously compromised to fit onto the Switch. If you toss in DLSS or, at least, more modern upscaling, I expect most users would see immediate differences, as opposed to some of the cross-gen titles of the past 2 years.
Nintendo also needs to ensure the mobile experience remains as solid and convenient as Switch 1, if not improved (primarily battery life and screen quality). If, instead of pouring all the gains from a newer process node and more advanced CPU/GPU architectures into performance, Nintendo allocates some to additional power efficiency, I think the case for upgrading to a Switch 2 would be rather self-evident to potential buyers.
My name is Father_Murphy, and that's what I want in a Switch 2.....
I really doubt it. The cost is just too much.So what are we thinking for cartridges?
SD Express?
This could grant 1GB/s+ of read bandwidth that will help it stay within a similar relative distance to the XSX/PS5 for I/O capabilities, while also retaining backwards compatibility.
Or would 'new format' mean a truly different format, with Nintendo perhaps using a secondary SD card slot for backwards compatibility purposes?