Pemalite said:
Mr Puggsly said:
I am no expert, but I'd be surprised if NVMe wasn't designed for that task. In theory it seems NVMe could alleviate RAM usage by quickly streaming in data as well. Either way, I am suggesting a relatively small amount of NVMe for handling tasks, like quick resume, OS tasks, some internal storage, etc. A small amount wouldn't add significant costs per se. Even the Series S has 512GB in total at $299. |
NVMe drives are usually based on TLC or QLC NAND these days which has a finite amount of write cycles.
Placing a page file on it does shorten it's lifetime... Modern drives get around this issue by using wear-levelling algorithms which means the larger the drive, the better it's life expectancy.
One way to get around this is with a RAM cache... Or... SLC NAND which has much higher endurance.
Either way, the solid state drive in the Switch is more than capable of streaming assets as is.
In-fact, SSD's are hardly a requirement for streaming anything, games have been doing it for decades, even the N64 would stream texture data directly from the cart.
Wman1996 said:
Not to mention the Switch's much faster CPU. The Wii U had a slower processor than even the Xbox 360 and PS3. |
More to a CPU's speed than clockspeed though.
Jaguar is technically "slower" than Cell in terms of Ghz, but they are definitely faster especially in integers.
What sets the WiiU CPU apart from the XBox 360 and Playstation 3's CPU's is that it's an Out-Of-Order design, not an in-order design, it would be like comparing Intel Core against Intel Atom in terms of CPU design philosophy. |
Out of curiosity, what games on Switch would you say are likely beyond the capabilities of Wii U's CPU?
Currently Online 
