By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Wall Street Journal Japan Reports A New Switch Model Will Release In The Second Half Of 2019

JEMC said:
Soundwave said:

This is how I would do it.

Switch Lite (launches Spring/Summer 2019)
Die-shrink Tegra X1 chip to 14nm FinFet
Left/right bezels on Switch eliminated, resulting in smaller system (less width)
Less weight
60% increase in battery life

Price reduction to $249.99 for holiday 2019 with Mario Kart 8 Deluxe or Breath of the Wild bundled (user's choice)

Switch Pro (March 2020)
7nm custom Nvidia Tegra (comparable to Apple A12X)
450-500 GFLOP undocked, 1.2 TFLOP docked
8GB RAM with 58GB/sec bandwidth
1080p 7.4 inch display, 128GB onboard flash storage
$349.99 MSRP

All Nintendo games run on both models, only difference if you have a Pro is the resolution will increase to 900p-1080p undocked and 1080p-1440p (4KTV required) docked. Same with the bulk of indie games.

Nintendo does allow for about 10-12 3rd party games per year that are Switch Pro only. Kingdom Hearts 3, Resident Evil 2 Remake, Call of Duty, GTAV, Dark Souls III, Fallout 76 in 2020. Goal is not to get every 3rd party PS4/XB1 title, just a few of the bigger ticket ones. Eventually this number will rise and Switch will transition over to Switch Pro as main model and Nintendo will start making some of their own games Switch Pro only (around holiday 2021). 

Why would Nintendo pay for the redesign of the X1 on a smaller node when they can get the same result, and cheaper, using a Tegra X2 runing at lower frequencies?

And why would Nintendo pay for a custom designed chip, specially given that they went for an off-the-shelf product for the Switch, when they can get the same or very similar results using a Tegra X2 at full capacity (1.5 TFlops FP16 at 15W)?

They could use the X2 for the slimmer Switch, but it doesn't look like it from the leaked Switch OS hack, there's something called a Tegra Mariko chip which has a model number T214 (Tegra X1 is T210), the Tegra X2 has a completely different model number. 

1.5 TFLOPS at FP16 is only half that at actual FP32, which is what most devs use, so 750 GFLOPS at 15 watts is alright, but Nvidia can likely do better than that for 2020. 15 watts may be a bit too hot as well, the current Switch runs at 11 watts docked. 

I don't think Nintendo necessarily wanted to go with an off the shelf part, it may have been a decision based on time/cost, but it's also had some headaches for them like hackers being able to easily exploit the X1. For future Switch iterations I believe they will use custom chips but chips that are based off of existing designs Nvidia has. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 10 November 2018

Around the Network
Soundwave said:
JEMC said:

Why would Nintendo pay for the redesign of the X1 on a smaller node when they can get the same result, and cheaper, using a Tegra X2 runing at lower frequencies?

And why would Nintendo pay for a custom designed chip, specially given that they went for an off-the-shelf product for the Switch, when they can get the same or very similar results using a Tegra X2 at full capacity (1.5 TFlops FP16 at 15W)?

They could use the X2 for the slimmer Switch, but it doesn't look like it from the leaked Switch OS hack, there's something called a Tegra Mariko chip which has a model number T214 (Tegra X1 is T210), the Tegra X2 has a completely different model number. 

1.5 TFLOPS at FP16 is only half that at actual FP32, which is what most devs use, so 750 GFLOPS at 15 watts is alright, but Nvidia can likely do better than that for 2020. 15 watts may be a bit too hot as well, the current Switch runs at 11 watts docked. 

I don't think Nintendo necessarily wanted to go with an off the shelf part, it may have been a decision based on time/cost, but it's also had some headaches for them like hackers being able to easily exploit the X1. 

The new part number doesn't necessarily mean a die shrink or even a major chamge. It could be the old X1 chip with the needed hardware changes to improve its security and fight against the homebrew and emulators going around.

I see you catched my trick with the X2 flops, good job . In any case, an X2 should be more than enough to run current Switch games at 1080p@60fps without troubles. Forget about 1440 or 4K, just because the competence has done that, it doesn't mean that Nintendo should follow their path. And you wouldn't need to run the X2 at full speeds to achieve those results, saving power.

Another thing to consider is that using the X2 for both devices would be better for Nintendo as they could get a better deal for the chips due to the higher volume. The extra RAM will prevent users from buying the Lite model and "unlocking" it to the Pro one.

Remember that Nintendo has to eventually launch a Switch 2, and if they go full power on a Switch Pro, what they'll use for it?



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

JEMC said:
Soundwave said:

They could use the X2 for the slimmer Switch, but it doesn't look like it from the leaked Switch OS hack, there's something called a Tegra Mariko chip which has a model number T214 (Tegra X1 is T210), the Tegra X2 has a completely different model number. 

1.5 TFLOPS at FP16 is only half that at actual FP32, which is what most devs use, so 750 GFLOPS at 15 watts is alright, but Nvidia can likely do better than that for 2020. 15 watts may be a bit too hot as well, the current Switch runs at 11 watts docked. 

I don't think Nintendo necessarily wanted to go with an off the shelf part, it may have been a decision based on time/cost, but it's also had some headaches for them like hackers being able to easily exploit the X1. 

The new part number doesn't necessarily mean a die shrink or even a major chamge. It could be the old X1 chip with the needed hardware changes to improve its security and fight against the homebrew and emulators going around.

I see you catched my trick with the X2 flops, good job . In any case, an X2 should be more than enough to run current Switch games at 1080p@60fps without troubles. Forget about 1440 or 4K, just because the competence has done that, it doesn't mean that Nintendo should follow their path. And you wouldn't need to run the X2 at full speeds to achieve those results, saving power.

Another thing to consider is that using the X2 for both devices would be better for Nintendo as they could get a better deal for the chips due to the higher volume. The extra RAM will prevent users from buying the Lite model and "unlocking" it to the Pro one.

Remember that Nintendo has to eventually launch a Switch 2, and if they go full power on a Switch Pro, what they'll use for it?

I think Nintendo will do away with the "hard system relaunches". It's really not good business to be honest to reset back to 0 every 5-6 years and flush basically all your hard work down the toilet. Especially now that they don't have a secondary hardware platform to bank on, what would have happened to Nintendo during the GameCube era if GBA was not around? What would've happened to Nintendo during the Wii to Wii U transition if 3DS wasn't there? It's too risky to just bet everything on Switch 2, audiences are fickle and can be gone at the snap of a finger, I think Nintendo will change this whole system to protect themselves. 

I think they will instead adopt a more Apple like model of new Switch hardware every 3 years and 2-tier hardware approach. Meaning one Switch model that occupies a cheaper price point ($200-$250) and one that occupies a more profitable higher price point ($350) and as years pass, the higher end model becomes the cheaper one and a new higher end model takes the $350 slot. Sony/MS have already discovered this, and Nintendo is already doing this too in a way with the 3DS and Switch being both sold. I think they will want to keep that setup. 

It's simply smarter business. There won't be a "Switch 2" so much as there is a "Switch Model 1, Switch Model 2, Switch Model 3, Switch Model 4" etc. etc. etc. and Nintendo won't make as big of a fuss about every hardware iteration, it'll just be "oh another Switch model" all under one ecosystem, branding, account system, etc. That's my prediction anyway, just like Switch has completely change the rules for the handheld/console delineation in hardware terms, Switch will also break the traditional Nintendo hardware lifecycle formula and embrace a more Apple like one. 



Soundwave said:
JEMC said:

The new part number doesn't necessarily mean a die shrink or even a major chamge. It could be the old X1 chip with the needed hardware changes to improve its security and fight against the homebrew and emulators going around.

I see you catched my trick with the X2 flops, good job . In any case, an X2 should be more than enough to run current Switch games at 1080p@60fps without troubles. Forget about 1440 or 4K, just because the competence has done that, it doesn't mean that Nintendo should follow their path. And you wouldn't need to run the X2 at full speeds to achieve those results, saving power.

Another thing to consider is that using the X2 for both devices would be better for Nintendo as they could get a better deal for the chips due to the higher volume. The extra RAM will prevent users from buying the Lite model and "unlocking" it to the Pro one.

Remember that Nintendo has to eventually launch a Switch 2, and if they go full power on a Switch Pro, what they'll use for it?

I think Nintendo will do away with the "hard system relaunches". It's really not good business to be honest to reset back to 0 every 5-6 years and flush basically all your hard work down the toilet. Especially now that they don't have a secondary hardware platform to bank on, what would have happened to Nintendo during the GameCube era if GBA was not around? What would've happened to Nintendo during the Wii to Wii U transition if 3DS wasn't there? It's too risky to just bet everything on Switch 2, audiences are fickle and can be gone at the snap of a finger, I think Nintendo will change this whole system to protect themselves. 

I think they will instead adopt a more Apple like model of new Switch hardware every 3 years and 2-tier hardware approach. Meaning one Switch model that occupies a cheaper price point ($200-$250) and one that occupies a more profitable higher price point ($350) and as years pass, the higher end model becomes the cheaper one and a new higher end model takes the $350 slot. Sony/MS have already discovered this, and Nintendo is already doing this too in a way with the 3DS and Switch being both sold. I think they will want to keep that setup. 

It's simply smarter business. There won't be a "Switch 2" so much as there is a "Switch Model 1, Switch Model 2, Switch Model 3, Switch Model 4" etc. etc. etc. and Nintendo won't make as big of a fuss about every hardware iteration, it'll just be "oh another Switch model" all under one ecosystem, branding, account system, etc. That's my prediction anyway, just like Switch has completely change the rules for the handheld/console delineation in hardware terms, Switch will also break the traditional Nintendo hardware lifecycle formula and embrace a more Apple like one. 

People have been inducted to believe that they need a smartphone, that they are a necessity. Consoles aren't. To think that you can successfully apply the same business model of smartphones to consoles is wishful thinking. Plus, consoles are designed to last for years, until the next gen comes out, while smartphones can last three or four years, and that's if the battery doesn't die before than that.

If the PS4 Pro and XboxOneX have taught us something, is that console revisions increase sales, but don't move as many units as completely new machines, and the reason is simple, most people don't buy a new machine to play the same games that they do on their actual machines. Sooner or later, you need to break the cycle and launch a new machine with games that can't be played on the older model(s).

Lastly, if you're afraid of what could happen to Nintendo when launching a new machine, they can simply do what most third parties have done this gen: launch cross-gen games. With a strong line up of exclusive games like a new Zelda or proper Mario, paired with smaller titles for both machines, Nintendo can minimize that danger and keep the income high until the install base is high enough to sustain the business by itself.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

pls. just, everything the same, but better.

Like DS lite.

Bigger, better screen. Bigger, better battery. Sturdier build, better reception, smoother rails, sleeker (and heavier) dock, less annoying + and - placements, 8X system storage, less flimsy kick stand, smarter charger outlet placement.

People asking for more horse power are playing with fire.



Around the Network

I gree with the many that think a NS Lite is more likely than a NS Pro.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 
 


Soundwave said:

This is how I would do it.

Switch Lite (launches Spring/Summer 2019)
Die-shrink Tegra X1 chip to 14nm FinFet
Left/right bezels on Switch eliminated, resulting in smaller system (less width)
Less weight
60% increase in battery life


Switch Pro (March 2020)
7nm custom Nvidia Tegra (comparable to Apple A12X)
450-500 GFLOP undocked, 1.2 TFLOP docked
8GB RAM with 58GB/sec bandwidth
1080p 7.4 inch display, 128GB onboard flash storage
$349.99 MSRP

Sounds good, but is point 2 possible ?

ps. thx @ Oneeee-Chan

Last edited by KazumaKiryu - on 11 November 2018

I hope the new model comes out late next year and is a worthy upgrade. I need a 2nd Switch for Pokemon trading.



Tag:I'm not bias towards Nintendo. You just think that way (Admin note - it's "biased".  Not "bias")
(killeryoshis note - Who put that there ?)
Switch is 9th generation. Everyone else is playing on last gen systems!

Biggest pikmin fan on VGchartz I won from a voting poll
I am not a nerd. I am enthusiast.  EN-THU-SI-AST!
Do Not Click here or else I will call on the eye of shinning justice on you. 

Probably just a Quieter Switch.



Pocky Lover Boy! 

JEMC said:
Soundwave said:

I think Nintendo will do away with the "hard system relaunches". It's really not good business to be honest to reset back to 0 every 5-6 years and flush basically all your hard work down the toilet. Especially now that they don't have a secondary hardware platform to bank on, what would have happened to Nintendo during the GameCube era if GBA was not around? What would've happened to Nintendo during the Wii to Wii U transition if 3DS wasn't there? It's too risky to just bet everything on Switch 2, audiences are fickle and can be gone at the snap of a finger, I think Nintendo will change this whole system to protect themselves. 

I think they will instead adopt a more Apple like model of new Switch hardware every 3 years and 2-tier hardware approach. Meaning one Switch model that occupies a cheaper price point ($200-$250) and one that occupies a more profitable higher price point ($350) and as years pass, the higher end model becomes the cheaper one and a new higher end model takes the $350 slot. Sony/MS have already discovered this, and Nintendo is already doing this too in a way with the 3DS and Switch being both sold. I think they will want to keep that setup. 

It's simply smarter business. There won't be a "Switch 2" so much as there is a "Switch Model 1, Switch Model 2, Switch Model 3, Switch Model 4" etc. etc. etc. and Nintendo won't make as big of a fuss about every hardware iteration, it'll just be "oh another Switch model" all under one ecosystem, branding, account system, etc. That's my prediction anyway, just like Switch has completely change the rules for the handheld/console delineation in hardware terms, Switch will also break the traditional Nintendo hardware lifecycle formula and embrace a more Apple like one. 

People have been inducted to believe that they need a smartphone, that they are a necessity. Consoles aren't. To think that you can successfully apply the same business model of smartphones to consoles is wishful thinking. Plus, consoles are designed to last for years, until the next gen comes out, while smartphones can last three or four years, and that's if the battery doesn't die before than that.

If the PS4 Pro and XboxOneX have taught us something, is that console revisions increase sales, but don't move as many units as completely new machines, and the reason is simple, most people don't buy a new machine to play the same games that they do on their actual machines. Sooner or later, you need to break the cycle and launch a new machine with games that can't be played on the older model(s).

Lastly, if you're afraid of what could happen to Nintendo when launching a new machine, they can simply do what most third parties have done this gen: launch cross-gen games. With a strong line up of exclusive games like a new Zelda or proper Mario, paired with smaller titles for both machines, Nintendo can minimize that danger and keep the income high until the install base is high enough to sustain the business by itself.

You're wrong from the premise, and we have multiple cases.
GBA > GBA SP
DS > DS Lite

Both showed cases of people upgrading and also a market expansion.
I think you're underestimating the market of people who will pay money to upgrade their hardware and those more likely to pay money to buy it in the first place if it reaches levels of satisfaction. It is all about making the successor compelling, and a simple "half gen upgrade for 4K TVs" isn't as compelling a sell as a Switch gen 2, Switch gen 3, etc... Especially when Switch 2 and 3 are serving an obvious demand with more power, longer battery life, and/or different sized screen; meanwhile there wasn't much interest for the "more power for 4K TV Xbone or PS" product. Additionally, a hard reset on the product means those "half gen" consoles are halfway through the lifespan. Meanwhile, for the iOS model that platform has no end date, just upgrades to the hardware and software versions. A Switch iterative generation means you're buying the first or second most up to date hardware for a platform that isn't going to die in a few years.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.