| curl-6 said: Switch Lite was pretty much the same hardware as the original, with components cut out to reduce cost, so it would've been very cheap to develop. |
That is exactly what a Switch TV would be.
Components cut-out to reduce cost, so it would have been very cheap to develop.
| curl-6 said: The OP describes the device in question as a "powerful console" that would "compete with PS and Xbox"; that would take a lot more than just some cheap mobile components, you'd have to invest some serious money, and I doubt it would be worth it commercially when the audience who wants graphics will still find it lacking due to all its game being held back by the portable SKU. |
The Switch has significant clockspeed headroom on it's SoC, overclocking results have shown marked performance improvements upwards of 50% or more...
But that's taking clocks from:
CPU:
Default: 1020Mhz
Overclock: 2090Mhz
A 104% improvement. Aka. Doubling.
GPU:
Default: 768Mhz (Docked)
Overclock: 1305Mhz
About a 70% improvement.
Memory:
Default: 1333/1600Mhz
Overclock: 2500Mhz
A 56% improvement.
Some games see significant improvements to framerates of 50% or more, two of the Switch's biggest bottlenecks is the CPU and DRAM bandwidth, the CPU is held back by ancient ARM A57 cores clocked at only 1Ghz... And 1600Mhz Ram is not setting any records.
This would bridge the "gap" to the Xbox One easily enough.
******
Nintendo doesn't need to compete with the Xbox Series X or Playstation 5, it just needs to be "good enough".
And I would argue many ports are not offering a "good enough" experience with muddy textures, low resolutions, lots of pop-in and sub 30fps experiences.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
