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

[Pemalite]

Doctor_MG said:

Pemalite said:

As above... It is certainly memory hungry for the "work" and features the OS has. Which isn't a lot... And it still ends up being slow on top of it.

Completely disagree here. Switch OS is snappy, and I actually can't understand how anyone would think otherwise. It's certainly faster than the Wii U, and even faster than the PS4 for certain tasks, such as going to the home screen mid game or switching profiles. 

The Nintendo eShop is the slow thing, not the OS in general.

The SwitchOS is not snappy.

Games take awhile to load.
Opening menu's and the eShop has delays.

The Xbox Series/Playstation 5 OS's are "snappy". - But they have the Ram and CPU time to do that...

Soundwave said:

Yep. As much I thought ideas like Miiverse were neat ... if you're going to put RAM into a video game console, the RAM should be for games first and foremost. 

You do realize you can unload things from RAM? Windows has been doing it for 30+ years.

Soundwave said:

The Switch OS does everything it needs to do and does it fast enough, honestly I wouldn't mind if Nintendo just reused the exact same OS but just made it faster due to being on UFS 3.1 (way faster than EMMC) and kept the foot print at only around 1GB of RAM usage total but they'll probably allow it to have 2GB this time around. 

That's a lie. The Switch OS does not do everything it needs to do.

It needs to use a smart-phone/tablet just to manage voice chat... Otherwise you need to deal with this bullshit:

Soundwave said:

The gap between a Series S and a Switch 2 is going to be considerably lower than the gap between a Switch 1 and XBox One though I think. 

It will be about the same. The Switch 2 will not and can not use the fastest Tegra chip available.

The Series S would likely be 2-3x faster than the Switch 2.0. That bandwidth man. I don't think you understand how much it benefits the Series S at 1080P.

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. 

Xbox One released in November 2013.
Switch 1.0 released in March, 2017.

That's a gap of 3.3 years... And as such the Switch got to enjoy years without worrying about upgraded next-gen consoles hardware features hampering ports.


The Switch 2.0 is rumored to release in March 2025 or 4.3~ years after the current generation consoles launched... And Microsoft may replace their Xbox hardware as early as 2026 or about a year and a half after the Switch 2.0 and potentially be the largest "generational leap ever" if you believe their baseless hyperbole.

That is going to complicate ports to lesser hardware.

Soundwave said:

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

DLSS is likely going to be used as a "crutch" to get acceptable performance and image quality in many badly made games.
We are already seeing it with games using DLSS/FSR/XESS/Unreal Engine 5 TSR on other platforms like the Xbox Series S/X and Playstation 5.

It's NOT going to enable the Switch 2.0 to "keep pace" with more powerful platforms as they are ALSO using upscalers.

The issue that people seem to be ignoring about DLSS is that it's also nVidia propriety technology, thus if Nintendo ever chooses to go with a different chip manufacturer for the Switch 3.0... All DLSS enabled games won't be backwards compatible.

DLSS is also up to the developer, not all developers are going to use it anyway.

haxxiy said:

Soundwave said:

ROG Ally's teraflop numbers are juiced too for marketing purposes, it doesn't actually push 8 teraflops in a realistic sense otherwise it would be double the performance of a Series S which we know isn't true and they have been called out for that misleading marketing. S2 and ROG Ally are likely going to be similar in performance, which is fantastic for Nintendo players, ROG Ally is one heck of a device, it can run pretty much any modern game thrown at it even with no real hardware level optimization, something the Switch 2 will have benefit of.

It's not as much of a market ploy (as in, an unreachable boost clock) as much as it is how RDNA3, Ampere, and Ada work. All these architectures have doubled FP32 instructions per INT32 inside their GPU cores but that affords little benefit in real-life workloads and hence isn't relevant for gaming.

That's the reason a lot of people are going to be bamboozled when they see a 36 TF PS5 Pro or a 4 TF docked Switch 2 thinking they are thrice as fast as a Series X or equal to a Series S... when they aren't.

The RDNA3 *can* get a healthy increase in FP32 and INT32 instructions, approaching almost it's peak theoretical performance thanks to the dual issue units, however... And this is the big caveat... That's not going to happen in gaming.
The GPU has other issuing bottlenecks that come into play which tend to make the FP32 throughput ultimately redundant, that and it tends to be more compiler heavy anyway.

The Dual-Issue units that essentially "inflate" it's Teraflop performance numbers was designed to capitalize on pure compute. Think: Crypto.

Chrkeller said:

I do think people are misunderstanding vram.  The size is how much can be stored and bandwidth is how fast data can be loaded and unloaded from the vram.  The ps4 was 176 gb/s and the ps5 is 448 gb/s.  That was a massive jump.  Don't get me wrong the switch to S2 is an absurd jump.  But I think people are focused way, way, way too much on size of the ram and are ignoring bandwidth.  

One of the reasons the Ally and Deck are limited in resolution and fps is because both of those require high memory bandwidths.  

120GB/s of bandwidth and 10GB of available memory is going to hold it back with 1080P gaming, especially once you start throwing Ray Tracing at it.

It will make a potent 720P+ device though.

But the question begs... Are we okay with another 720P console?

curl-6 said:

Chrkeller said:

It is a bigger jump, I'm not arguing that.  I was just pointing out rating the jump by amount only doesn't paint the full picture.  

I was including that in my assessment. Maybe I just wasn't explicit enough in that.

At any rate, 12GB of LPDDR5X at (apparently) 120 GB/s is gonna be a big jump from the Switch's 4GB of LPDDR4 at 25 GB/s, and games like the next Zelda and Xenoblade should benefit greatly.

Nintendo have *always* made some pretty stunning games that show off it's hardware. Not all. - Mario Kart 8 didn't feature any real rendering upgrades other than a resolution bump, which is the systems best seller.

Breath of the Wild was stellar on the WiiU. - Tears of the Kingdom didn't shift the bar much over that.
Zelda: Links Awakening with it's material shaders and DoF impressed me on the Switch.

But it's the ports. - It was great the Switch got games like Doom and The Witcher, but compared to it's other contemporary versions of those same titles, they looked muddy by comparison and were definitely not the best way to play those games.

The Switch 2.0 will bridge the visual gulf between the current Switch and the Xbox Series/Playstation 5, but it may only last for a short duration if Microsoft is set to release a next gen console soon.