Rumor/Leak for specific RAM and storage capacity of the Switch sucessor (Centro Leak)

[Soundwave]

haxxiy said:

Soundwave said:

I don't know if it's luck so much as it looks to me like they have specifically designed a machine that simply can handle modern ports or at least that was of greater consideration in the design process this time around. 

Consider even against the PS5, 448GB/sec bandwidth versus the Switch 2 having 120GB/sec is only about a 3.65x gap. The Switch 1 versus PS4 (I'll leave the XBox One out because it used a large embedded RAM buffer which kinda makes it hard to compare directly) was 25.6GB/sec versus 176GB/sec ... that was like a 7x gap in memory bandwidth (huge difference), on top of that you also then factor in the Switch 2 is probably going to be rendering at far, far lower resolutions than the PS5 does because of DLSS.

Like a PS5 game that's rendering 1440p natively lets say ... sure it has about 3.65x the bandwidth, but it would also have to render more than 3.65x the pixels per frame as a Switch 2 version of the same game that's running at say 540p undocked (DLSS up to 720p) and 720p docked (DLSS up to 1440p). That has to be part of the equation too, yes, the PS5 has more bandwidth obviously but it also has to render a metric shit ton of more pixels per frame. 

They definitely didn't have to choose 120GB/sec RAM (or a GPU that probably requires that much bandwidth) just to have Mario and Pikachu and friends in PS4 quality even at 1440p (which you could just DLSS up from 720p or 900p) ... it just seems to me like a lot of hardware choices here that are way overkill if that was all Nintendo wanted/needed. 

The LPDDR4 would have had significantly lower latency and the Maxwell GPU had features such as delta color compression that the PS4 lacked, however, so I doubt it was a major bottleneck.

Besides, even when all other factors are equal, bandwidth doesn't need to scale linearly. The 4090 does just fine with twice the bandwidth of a PS5 despite being 4 times faster, for instance.

I expect DLSS on the Switch 2 to be as common as PSSR and FSR will be in the upcoming years (unless it's mandated), so that evens out.

I think DLSS will be baked into the Switch 2 at the dev kit level, as in it's the standard default. 

Native rendering is a massive waste of resources, even for a game like Animal Crossing, why render at 1440p native on a device like the Switch 2, there's not much to gain. 

And you're right Nvidia GPUs can use bandwidth in different ways, but if anything that's a plus for a Switch 2 not a minus.

It just makes a Switch 2 version of games an easier sell to publishers. You can make a Monster Hunter 6 on PS5 at 1440p and make that system sweat hard enough but still not cut yourself out of the Switch 2 market for example. I think that's going to become something a lot of devs are going to have to think about. 

Going ridiculous balls out on graphics just inflates your budget, why not instead make the consoles/PCs sweat on raw native rendering performance, be sensible with your graphics aims to keep your budget reasonable (under $175 million), and you likely also then give yourself a nice chance of a good Switch 2 version that can really lean on DLSS to bring the resolution down very low (540p/720p) and have a version for what is probably going to be the best selling console (in Japan that's a lock). 

That's a good position for Nintendo to force 3rd parties in, especially Japanese developers who don't want to be making games that could bankrupt them if they fail anyway.