"Same performance" in this context is power consumption. A narrow chip needs higher clocks. This will always increase the power consumption. Nintendo works in a very narrow range with the Switch. Even something like 500mW or 1W can make a huge difference for them.
Switch 2 Speculation
- Thread starter Goodtwin
- Start date
Subtlesnake
Regular
For a given power budget, you can have a wider chip at lower clocks, or a narrower chip at higher clocks. The wider chip will generally give you better efficiency due to being able to drop the voltage at lower clock speeds. However if both the wider and narrower chip are using the same voltage (minimum voltage), surely we would expect the efficiency to be the same, absent other factors?
It will also be the (supposedly sole) console from a company that made a ton of money during the last 8 years. This console is in the oven since a very long time now and is expected to last for at least 8 years. So yeah, the expectations are sky high.
First Switch being a half backed product has been deemed acceptable because Nintendo was in a dire situation at the time.
This time around, we should expect the best possible product for a 400-450 dollar console. And, well, Samsung 8nm does not sound "best possible product" in 2025 when you have devices like the Ayn Odin 2 Pro with a 4nm SoC, same RAM and storage, a 8000mah battery, hall effect stick and so on you can buy today for $369. And those are niche products which cannot be "subsidised" by future game sales.
Nintendo took its time, addresses a mass market, has a lot of money and expects to sell a lot of games (so it could afford to lose a bit of money on the console).
If this thing uses an 8nm SoC it will be a huge disappointment.
Im not a chip designer. Neither is Thraktor and neither are you. We dont know Nintendos target or their budget but making assumptions based on emotion
Subtlesnake
Regular
Thraktor is making assumptions based on publicly available information, such as Nvidia's power estimator tool for Ampere GPUs. Of course all assumptions can be wrong, and without an official announcement all we have is informed speculation. But my assumption was that Beyond3D was a place for such speculation?
But this would mean that more transistors are more inefficient than just higher clock rates. And this is not really true. The wider chip should be a little bit more efficient because the performance increase is better than the increase in overall power consumption. But to get the same performance with a narrow chip the clock rates have to be increased which will need a higher voltage step, too.
To get the best efficiency you make the chip as wide as possible, so it is possible to get the clock rates down to the lowest possible voltage step.
Yes, just people talking theories. There's no prize for guessing right, so it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong. Make your arguments and see what happens.
But nobody is going to buy Ayn Odin Pro if they are disappointed with the Switch. The vast majority buy Switch to play Nintendo games. The competition is irrelevant. The only measurement should be against Switch 1 and thats still a generational leap even on 8nm
The people who demand cutting edge are a small but vocal minority on forums. The majority will be happy with whatever improvements Nintendo brings to Switch 2
I would temper my expectations. Now that PC OEMs are making handhelds the same principle will now apply. If you want the best performance for third party games, its still gonna be PC if you have the money
Comparison with the Ayn console was only here to prove that a ~$400 Switch with a 4nm SoC was a real possibility, and not unreasonable expectations from some.
Keeping low expectations is one thing, expecting T239 to be fabbed on the worse possible node is another thing in this context (againt, this is basically their unique product for the coming years, they took time to design it, they have all the money they need).
I've always kept my expectations super low for the actual device, but at the same time, I've always hoped Nintendo would go all-in and offer the best possible product. They're not Apple or Samsung who need to offer the smallest possible incremental upgrades YoY.
So yeah, I'll be perfectly fine with a 1.0Ghz CPU if that's what a good and reasonably priced process can offer in 2025. But having to play on the same 1.0Ghz CPU for 8 years because of a corporate decision would be so weird to me, and would indeed piss me off.
[off topic]
I think you're wrong with the idea that the only measurement should be against Switch 1.
With solid third party support, and outstanding indie devs support, the Switch 1 introduced a lot of Nintendo gamers to non Nintendo games.
Switch 1 offered a lot of very beautiful Nintendo games to the point some may be wondering where will Nintendo go next (how do you improve on MK8? on Smash Ultimate? on a 2D Mario?)
Not just "beautiful and good enough", but also, Nintendo offered a lot games, and I think, in some cases, too much games. I mean, when you have 3 mario party games, the similarities are obvious and maybe you won't be so eager to buy yet another one. And I feel the same is true for other IPs. Hardcore fans of a licence might want more of the same forever, but that's not true for all gamers. Who wants a new Pikmin right now? (we had 4 on the Switch). A new 2D DK? A new 2D Mario? Switch library is outstanding is so many regards I feel most Nintendo fans could be playing those games for many years to come.
If those gamers are less attracted by new Nintendo games for a few years more, it means third party and indie games will become a bigger part of their life, and it turns out there are now many other options to experience those games.
Sure third party support was vastly improved on Switch compared to the past. But thats not the main reason people buy Nintendo consoles. I looked at the best selling games on Switch and the first 3rd party game is number 24 on that list
And the battleground is different in 2025, you have Deck, PC handhelds and upcoming Xbox handheld. There will be a lot of choices to buy 3rd party and indie games but only 1 plattform that offers Zelda and Mario
And the battleground is different in 2025, you have Deck, PC handhelds and upcoming Xbox handheld. There will be a lot of choices to buy 3rd party and indie games but only 1 plattform that offers Zelda and Mario
Charlietus
Regular
I'm sure that if you offered the same games that PC, ps and Xbox receive they would sell just as well. People buy a lot of first party games because many of the best selling third parties just aren't available.
Yeah hard disagree on that one. Maybe if we are talking GTA and COD
Charlietus
Regular
We'll see in just a year or so, after many third parties have come out on the switch. My prediction is that almost all third parties will make games for it, day and date with other versions, and they will sell very well.
Best selling as in "since March 2017"? Of course!
My point (not a point really, more of a worry as to how Nintendo will do in the few coming years) is that once they've played those first party games, I can see many gamers think:
- MK8, Smash Ultimate, AC, etc are so perfect I'll play them till the end of time
- I've had enough of 2D mario, Pikmin, DK, Mario Party, Fire Emblem (etc...) those games are great, but they're all starting to feel too similar now
- I'll now play more of "other" games on a different platform as they are either cheaper or better (or both) there.
Should Nintendo offer a very solid product, capable of running very good ports of those games, I can see the market staying more or less the same (so a big win for Nintendo, they sell many consoles and tons of games). Should they cheapout a bit too much and the console is hindered by very low handheld performances, I can see gamers moving away from it as their "main" gaming device (so a bit less Switch 2 vs Switch 1 consoles, and a lot less Switch 2 vs Switch 1 games)
We'll see how it turns out for them. For now, let's wait the reveal!
"Sell very well" and "sell just as well as the best first party" are two different arguments. With the exception of GTA and COD, mainline Mario and Zelda will easily outsell any third party game.
Every generation Nintendo manage to low-ball. It's always funny hearing the faithful talk of secret sauce, physics processing units etc., and laying out their arguments and evidence only for the blandest possibility to become reality. *
Anyone who's been here often enough knows very well that Nintendo might pick a lower spec hardware than they could easily have offered, and the only explanation we'll get for that will be a Nintendoism such as, "if we made it more powerful, we'd have to spend more money on games to make use of that power."
* Same has happened with other consoles too, notably as the companies have become more conservative. Dreams inspired by the age of custom hardware have to give way the waking tedium of boring business.
Maybe they designing a product with their homeland in mind? Dragon Quest sold nearly 1 million physical copies in Japan. The world doesnt need another metoo product.
My argument is that if you want the best experience playing third party games on a handheld then Nintendo Switch 2 won't be it.
The vast majority who buy a Switch do so because they want to play Nintendo games. Not because they are looking for the most powerful handheld. So buying third party on their Switch 2 is simply convenience, they don't care that the Rog Ally 2 will have better fps/graphics because the Rog Ally 2 doesn't play Zelda or Mario. In this case 8nm doesnt matter because people will buy the console anyway
So true, sadly.
Yet we now get consoles with a lifespan of 7+ years. It would be so nice if, from the start, they give all they have, take a bit more risk, earn a bit less for the first one year or two so the thing has a bit more potential and age a bit more gracefuly. But, yeah, the boring business must win.
I got you. I simply think we're living an age where it's not binary anymore. People buying a Switch 2 for Zelda and 3D Mario but buying an Ally 2 for indie and third party games is a reality where Nintendo brings in less money (vs same people buying those games on the Switch 2 because they the value is good enough there).
Another way to phrase it:
Switch + PS4 (or any other more powerful console) was a thing where people would still buy a lot of games on the Switch (even some AAA), because of the portability.
Switch 2 + Ally 2 + PS5 Pro will be a thing where people will only buy Nintendo games on the Switch 2. That's already bad enough, but of course not everyone can afford 3 devices. And if you have to decide between Switch 2 and Ally 2 to go along your PS5, it's granted some will go with the Ally 2.
Charlietus
Regular
But I didn't argue that third parties would sell as well as Mario or Zelda. I was saying that, if switch users were given the chance, they would buy third party games just like on other platforms. Something else that would happen is that new first party entries would struggle to reach the numbers of the predecessors, given the wider choice of high quality games.
