How will be Switch 2 performance wise?

[Pemalite]

Tico said:

Pemalite said:

But remember, it is only 256GB, which is tiny.

Why is it tiny?

The Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, consoles that are almost 20 years old had storage options that were larger.

Xbox One and Playstation 4 which are over a decade old at this point double it at worst with the option to quad-druple that or more.

256GB NAND is relatively cheap, I don't even have a USB/MicroSD Card smaller than 256GB these days... It will likely be fine for the Switch 2.0, but "spacious and advanced" it is certainly not.

Soundwave said:

You do realize like this has to be sold at $400-$450 at a profit, right? Please do list all of the products with 16GB LPDDR5X RAM that are sold for less than $700 right now. The Google Pixel Pro 8 (not Apple last time I checked) does have 12GB LPDDR5X + 256GB UFS 3.1 (same exact config as Switch 2) and that is $1050 USD. 

And you do realize that the Google Pixel pro 8 and Apple are not the be-all, end-all of handheld manufacturers right?

The Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra has 16GB of Ram and targets a mid-range price. (Hint: Less than the Google Pixel.)

The Xiaomi 13 Ultra has 16GB LPDDR5X Ram.

Going from 12GB to 16GB of Ram is such an insignificant increase in price... I mean fuck... Going from 16GB of Ram on PC to 32GB is a stuff-all jump in price.

Soundwave said:

Like Nintendo is in the business of selling 100-150 million units, not selling $700 niche ROG Allys, right? 

You do realize that phones can sell 100-250~ million units in a fraction of the time of a single console, right?

The ROG does not exist in a vacuum.

Soundwave said:

For that price range, size considerations, battery considerations, and given that the market has spoken very clearly and they want a hybrid form factor, this level of tech is very acceptable. 

It's not a hybrid form factor. It doesn't physically change.

If it's like the Switch, it's 100% mobile.

Soundwave said:

People thinking that like Nintendo is just holding everything back and like a Sony could magically pull something 3-5x better in this market space for that same cost are full of shit. This is not the DS/Wii/Game Boy/Wii U at all, Nintendo is offering fairly competent hardware here, it's too bad they are going to miss a holiday 2024 release date because likely software was running behind, but that's not the fault of the hardware. 

After Wii U and 3DS, launching thin is 2000% a non-option for Nintendo, they'll never do that again. 

Nintendo has always held things back and been conservative with hardware since the Wii.

I have also asked more from Sony and Microsoft's hardware, this isn't me being biased against Nintendo, you need to get over that.
I want all three console manufacturers to give consumers more and better hardware for the money.

It's people like -you- who make excuses on why their platform shouldn't be the best it possibly can be at the detriment of the consumers dollar.

This is not "competent" hardware for a device that will output to a TV, 12GB of Ram with only 120GB/s of bandwidth and one of the slowest RTX GPU's in nVidia's entire arsenal isn't what I would regard as competent.

Soundwave said:

After Wii U and 3DS, launching thin is 2000% a non-option for Nintendo, they'll never do that again. 

Never once asked Nintendo to do a repeat of the 3DS or WiiU.

I just want better. I will always want better.
Not for you, but for me and all the other consumers in the world.

We should always expect more for our dollar, consumers should always come first, multi-billion dollar corporations should come last, not the other way around.

Oneeee-Chan!!! said:

Currently, UFS storage is
produced only a little because there is only niche demand for high-end digital cameras.
It would be cheaper if it were mass-produced due to switch demand.

UFS is used in Laptops, Tablets and Phones.

It's used in hundreds of millions of products sold.

UFS uses the same kind of memory known as "NAND" that high performance SSD's use, it's just a set of standards with a bespoke interface... Every Nintendo console since the Wii has technically had an "SSD".

Oneeee-Chan!!! said:

Yeah, Switch2 does not need large 4K textures because it renders 4K with AI upscaling instead of internal output.

Keep in mind many Switch 1.0 games are 20-40GB in size, increase the graphics and asset quality in Switch 2.0 games and you could see sizes potentially double that... Which means 256GB is not going to go far.

Plus the console will have less than 256GB of usable space as the OS will steal a chunk for itself.

Oneeee-Chan!!! said:

If you are worried that 256GB of UFS storage is too small, remember that the Switch 1 only had 32GB of storage. The actual usable size was 25GB.

To be fair, I have a 1 Terabyte MicroSD card in my Switch and it's about 90% full.
But I also have a pair of 16 Terabyte Hard Drives on my Xbox Series X and that is also about 90% full.