By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
TomaTito on 22 March 2017
Edit Thread
mine said:
bonzobanana said:

You could be right but it seems like the Switch transfer speed has reached its maximum with those cards that were tested. If I was Nintendo I would make sure internal storage is faster than third party because there is a lot of additional profit in providing new sku's with extra storage built-in. If a 128GB Switch can be sold for $379 that's better than someone buying $250 Switch and a 128GB micro SD card for Nintendo's profits. They are probably looking at how Apple charge for memory on their devices. They still allow SD cards though but they nobble them slightly. We may even find that a Switch with a built in 128GB of storage is much faster loading anyway than the current 32GB model so the loading speed advantage may go well beyond 10%.

I think the tested faster MicroSDXC card wasn't up to the specs. DF also didn't benchmark the cards with a PC. 

For Nintendo the costs of having multiple SKUs (colours x capacity) in the channels are to height. If there will be Switches with more internal storage I expect them to replace the old SKUs. 

Nintendo wouldn't be wise to restrict the external storage artifically: any internal storage configuration will not satisfy all needs. And some might need 512GB cards. I have a 128GB USB Stick attached to my Wii U which is nearly full now. I expect to need that for my Switch too – but not now. 

It would be nice if Nintendo would integrate a storage test like the Internet test. The only way for me to test the USB sticks were those "VR" movies – some sticks weren't fast enough and playpack stuttered...

I already posted this in two other threads, but there is also benchmarks from SanDisk themselves

  • Game card (top left)
  • SanDisk Extreme microSD (top right)
  • SanDisk Extreme Pro microSD (bottom left)
  • Internal storage (bottom right)


@Twitter | Switch | Steam

You say tomato, I say tomato 

"¡Viva la Ñ!"