Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Your thoughts on the Next Ninty Console

I don't consider Switch really to be true hybrid, from my POV it's fairly powerful portable that has "turbo" when docked...dock (or 3rd party dongle) in this case providing AC and connectivity to TV. I hope Switch 2 has dock that packs additional CPU/GPU/RAM that works together with portable unit when connected,



Around the Network
Soundwave said:
Miyamotoo said:

Wrong, GTA Online was running on PS3/360 but after GTAV launch for PS4/XB1 they focused on online just for those consoles and cut PS3/360 support, and that actually have sense. So GTA5 was running on PS3/360 in any case. Also even if Online is problem for Switch, I dont see how Switch Pro could solve that.

Yes we do know how much RE7 is demanding, point that RE7 runs at locked 1080p with very stable 60PFS on base Xbox (while Doom for instance runs at 830p with FPS that most of time is below 60) is telling us that's not demanding game and that Switch wouldnt have problem running that game (probably at least 900p/30FPS docked). RE2 maybe could run maybe couldn't, but that's different story, we still dont know how will run on XB1/PS4.

 

But thats huge number of games in any case that couldnt run on much higher part of Switch install base, and that's far from realistic scenario that we could have. Pro Switch is not only possible Switch revision, potential lower price point Switch is far more possible than Switch Pro, so its not like that in any time of Switch life span potential Switch Pro would only Switch revision that will be in sale. Also buy time Switch Pro could arrive, current Switch would probably have 50m+ install base, hardly that any 3rd party devs would release game that cant be played on higher number of install base of one platform. Also you need to have your expactions in check, I mean look at New 3DS compared to regular 3DS, you have just few games that couldnt run on older model, similar will be probably with "New Switch" (no Pro Switch, New will maybe have around 2x more power than current Switch), but expecting 8-15 bigger games per year that could run only on "New Switch" is IMO crazy.

Not really, you can easily expand internal memory by MicroSD card, but devs cant do nothing about currently high price of Switch carts. I agree that by time costs of Switch carts will go down, maybe even next year, but I talking about one of current biggest problems when comes to some big 3rd party games that could come to Switch, so for those games its not power problem.

You will have both a Pro model and "kids" models (cheap/smaller/whatever). Nintendo wants to sell the most hardware, the success of the PS4 Pro and XBox One X is a revenue model Nintendo will not look off of, it's too much money and it helps hardware sales too much to ignore. It also allows you to keep selling models at a premium price point which reaps higher profit margins as time goes on, which is something every business suit at Nintendo will like.. PS4/XB1 would be showing larger signs of decline without Pro/X revisions all the sales metrics say that. Just like paid online + smartphone gaming, Nintendo won't be able to ignore that money. Besides that, there are already relaible insiders on ResetEra that basically have stated a "Switch Pro" exists internally at Nintendo. 

Money talks to the new Nintendo, they're not the same company from 15 years ago, the board of directors aside from Miyamoto is completely different and the business priorities are clearly on maximizing revenue/profit, so old rules like "we don't charge for online", and "we'll never make smartphone games, and even if we did we'll never do the gacha revenue model" ... uh nope and nope. 

Switch Pro isn't out today, so the cost of a 32GB cart today is irrelevant. By 2020 that will likely be cheap, and a Switch Pro can have higher internal storage to boot (as the price of that will also be dropping as time goes on). Likely Nintendo is offering 64GB next year because the of a scale down in pricing ... 32GB will likely become as cheap as the 16GB, and 64GB will occupy the price point of the current 32GB. 32GB even for a cartridge supplier is nothing these days. Today's Nintendo won't be able to stay away from the money that premium "Pro" models bring in (Apple does it too, iPhone XS, iPad Pro, etc. etc. the big money is in the fatter profit margins you get). Of that I'm reasonably confident. 

Pro models as a concept are here to stay (not just New 3DS style unimpressive upgrades), MS and Sony are already reaping the benefits of it, it won't be long before Nintendo is too. 

But Nintendo already have different price points including models for kids and for more advanced users New 3DS XL with 3DS line, I mean 3DS line covers price point from $80 to $200, ignoring Nintendos own example and looking at PS/MS examples is wrong. But even if you look at PS4 Pro and Xbox X, fact is that all games works on base and new models. Expecting so much big 3rd party games that could run only on one Switch revision is not realistic at all. Pro is just naming, maybe we talking about New Switch not Switch Pro, and that revision would have improved hardware performance in any case compared to current Switch version.

Money talks to Nintendo when something has sense, and splitting Switch user base with big numbers of games that couldnt run on bigger part of Switch install base dont make sense not just from Nintendos point, but from 3rd party devs.

It relevant, because some big 3rd party games dont coming to Switch currently on first place because Switch carts cost/size/availability problem, not because power difference. You sound like you think that Switch Pro could arrive in 2020. but point is that in 2020. Switch will most likely have around 60m install base, and you really think that 3rd party devs would release some game that cant work on install base of around 60m, you are tottally wrong (I mean I could see some exaptations in best case), like 99% devs would want to reach full Switch install base in any case.

Point is that Nintendo was already doing mid gen upgrades before and you ignore that and look that just through PS4/XB1 while in same time you ignore that all PS4/XB1 games runs on all version of PS4/XB1 hardware.

Talking about New 3DS upgrade compared to base 3DS, we actually talking about solid upgrade:

-CPU from DualCore 268MHz went to QuadCore 804MHz CPU

-RAM went from 128MB to 256MB

-VRAM went from 6MB to 10MB (while there's also some extra L2 cache on the CPU)

 

 

Soundwave said:
curl-6 said:

Miyamotoo already covered some of this, but you can assess how demanding a game is by how is performs on real hardware.

For example, RE7 operates at 1080p and between 50-60fps on Xbox One. Wolfenstein II operates at 810p with a similar framerate, and Doom can drop to 828p or lower and the framerate into the 40s.

On PS4, RE7 is a locked 1080p/60, yet Doom can drop below that in both resolution and framerate, and Wolfenstein II wavers between 50-60fps at 1080p.

Ergo, it can be surmised that RE7 is less demanding than Doom and Wolfenstein II.

RE7 isn't really any prize anyway. The games you want are RE2 Remake and RE8. You want to have Kingdom Hearts 3 and FF7 Remake. You want to have Call of Duty series (even in Japan, this sells a lot). You want to have GTAV with online play. If a Pro model can accomodate that easily and make it so the dev doesn't have to jump through 3000 hoops to get the game running acceptably, that's probably worth doing. You don't need to have every game but you want to have some of these bigger IP.

RE7 is main RE series, and game didnt come to Switch despite its not demanding game and Switch could run that game, why? GTAV online and base game was working on PS3/360, so it could run on Switch also. You again missing clear fact that if some game could run on Switch doesn't mean will come on Switch in any case, point that Switch could have upgrade doensnt meant that those game could come now on Switch when some of those game already could run on Switch, espacily when devs know they would releasing those games on much lower install base.

 

Just record I expecting upgraded Switch with revision (New/Pro/XL) but point is that wouldn't practically changed nothing regardless 3rd partys, you will again 99% of games runining on all version. But cheaper price points of Switch carts will change things much more than New/Pro model would.



curl-6 said:

The Switch is modern hardware capable of running many third party games, and it's still missing out on plenty it could viably handle. A Switch Pro won't suddenly get an avalanche of third party games like RE2R , KH3, or ES6, just like the current Switch is still missing RE7, GTA5, Overwatch, Spyro Reignited, etc.

Overwatch needs to be on Switch. Missed opportunity in my opinion.
Would be good if they had crossplay with Xbox and Playstation too.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

No I think you will see bigger upgrades than things like 3DS XL and New 3DS and 2DS ... those types of things don't excite consumers. None of the 3DS revisions caused a notable increase in sales for the 3DS, whereas XBox One X has caused a very noticable increase in XBox One sales and PS4 Pro is helping the PS4 with higher than anticipated sales for being in the back half of its hardware cycle, so much so that Sony had to revise sales expectations up.

"Pro" models have been helping Apple and Samsung sell more phones and tablets for years too.

People like the premium model, I'm talking bigger than things like 3DS XL, PS4 Slim, XBox One S, or even New 3DS.

A New 3DS type revision for Switch alone is not really gonna lit many people's world on fire. It's 2019 almost, you gotta bring more to the table than that. "It's slimmer and has a few new features" doesn't cut it, it's not 2004 anymore. 

There will be a slimmer/smaller/more power efficient Switch sure, but that won't be the only model Nintendo sells, a Pro model is gonna happen eventually too IMO, one that has a significant upgrade. And Sony and MS will also release new model PS5s and XBox 2s 3-4 years into that cycle. It's simply going to become the new normal and it'll become more like the PC side where generations become basically blurred.



Pemalite said:
Miyamotoo said:

Difference is that Jaguar in PS4 is 8-core CPU that runs at 1.7GHz while A57 is 4-core CPU that runs at 1GHz. If I recall, A57 vs Jaguar core vs core on same clocks had similar results in benchmarks.

The Playstation 4 Operates at 1.6ghz, not 1.7ghz.

ARM A57 and AMD's Jaguar should be roughly equivalent in performance per clock. But Jaguar operates at a higher clock and has more cores. - But you are just reinforcing my argument at this point.

Remember though... AMD's Jaguar was AMD's absolute worst CPU at a time when even their high-end CPU's were trending towards the low-end. - Perspective.

Miyamotoo said:

PS5/XB2 will have huge update in CPU, but possible Switch 2 will also have huge upgrade in CPU side in any case, I mean if just now curently imagine for instance A76 6-core CPU running at 2GHz compared to current A57 4-core CPU runing at 1GHz, we talking about huge difference, and Switch will most likely using more stronger and more advance CPU than latest ARM CPU for potential Switch 2 that would most likely be released in 2023, and that would be most likely enough to runs 4K PS5/XB2 games at 1080p at least in docked mode.

The Switch 2 will also have an increase in CPU capability, it would be pretty asinine to assume otherwise anyway.
The jump from A57 to A72 was 90%.
The jump from A72 to A73 was 30%.
The jump from A73 to A76 was 35%.

The jump from Jaguar to Zen you are probably looking at 400% or more. - 800-900% if it's an octo variant of Zen+.
And that is before we start looking at Zen 2...

Fact is... AMD spent years trailing the industry, where-as ARM hasn't... And that pays off for the current Switch in comparison to the Playstation 4/Xbox One. - But that all goes away next gen as AMD finally has a CPU design worth talking about, the performance delta on the CPU side of the equation is set to grow next gen, that's just a reality of AMD catching up to Intel.

Miyamotoo said:

No I didn't forget, I actually wrote its 20nm, and 20nm is reason why they couldnt go with higher clocks, higher clocks with X1 thats 20nm would mean higher heating and less battery life.

It's part of the reason.
The other is that it's a Maxwell derived part. - nVidia made significant engineering changes with Pascal in order to drive up clockrates for the same amount of power.

Miyamotoo said:

If they for instance used Tegra X2 you can bet they would use higher clocks for CPU and GPU. Biggest bottleneck for Switch is CPU not GPU, and that was obvious from day one.

I disagree, the largest bottleneck is the GPU. - It simply doesn't have the bandwidth/fillrate to drive higher resolutions... And that is evident in the many games that aren't even in HD/720P.
The CPU doesn't really help in some games though.

 
curl-6 said:

GTA5 runs on the Xbox 360. Anything that runs on the 360 could run on Switch.

Anything the Xbox 360 can do, the Switch can do better.

Miyamotoo said:

Again, point that some game isn't on Switch (at least currently) doesn't meant that game couldnt run on Switch. Actually we had multiply different insiders saying that current one of biggest problem for some biggest 3rd party games coming to Switch is size/cost/availability of Switch carts, and games like GTAV and CoD are heavily hinted examples. So Pro model still wouldnt solved currently one of biggest Switch problems regardles big 3rd party games. I mean there is reason why no one using even 32GB Switch carts (so 16GB is biggest cards that are using).

Also can't forget that... The Xbox One and Playstation 4 tend to have uncompressed 7.1 audio, which takes up a massive chunk of space. - And then 1080P FMV on top of that.
Carts are technically superior to optical disks on every front, except... Cost.

It costs to have large capacities, so something has to give somewhere.

My bad, XB1 operates at 1.75GHz.

Yeah, I know that, but ARM A57 was in Switch was heavily constrained buy 20nm, thats why has 4 core and operates at only 1GHz.

 

Well person I was replying to was talking like Switch 2 will stay on ARM A57.

Thats just jump when you talk about same clock and some Core count, tell for instance about how much difference we talk only if Switch 2 uses for instance A76 6-Core CPU clocked at 2GHz compared to A57 4-Core 1GHz? And its safe to say that potentail Switch 2 will use more stronger CPU than A76.

Like you wrote earlier, 8-Core ARM A57 at 1.7GHz would be very comparable to PS4/XB1 CPU. I was very clear that PS5/XB2 will again have stronger CPUs than Switch 2 in any case, I dont arguing that. But with all that on mind, Switch 2 could easily have stronger CPU than PS4/XB1 have, and IMO that would be enough to run 4K PS5/XB2 games at least 1080p in docked mode maybe even in 1440p with maybe some other downgrades, and that was my main point.

 

Well that's my point, Tegra X2 would alow Switch to have higher CPU and GPU clocks than currently has, even higher memory bandwith (double compared to current one).

 

Switch has enough power to run some games at higher resolution than it does currently, but doesn't have enough CPU power to maintain probably even 20 FPS in that case. From specs reveal devs said that biggest bottleneck is A57 that has 3-cores available for games and operates at only 1GHz. Next biggest bottleneck is RAM bandwidth, when you look hole Switch configuration, GPU is biggest advance of Switch hardware and after that size of RAM.

 

Yeah, one of biggest problems for some 3rd partyes when to comes to Switch support is cost of Switch carts.



Around the Network
Soundwave said:

No I think you will see bigger upgrades than things like 3DS XL and New 3DS and 2DS ... those types of things don't excite consumers. None of the 3DS revisions caused a notable increase in sales for the 3DS, whereas XBox One X has caused a very noticable increase in XBox One sales and PS4 Pro is helping the PS4 with higher than anticipated sales for being in the back half of its hardware cycle, so much so that Sony had to revise sales expectations up.

"Pro" models have been helping Apple and Samsung sell more phones and tablets for years too.

People like the premium model, I'm talking bigger than things like 3DS XL, PS4 Slim, XBox One S, or even New 3DS.

A New 3DS type revision for Switch alone is not really gonna lit many people's world on fire. It's 2019 almost, you gotta bring more to the table than that. "It's slimmer and has a few new features" doesn't cut it, it's not 2004 anymore. 

There will be a slimmer/smaller/more power efficient Switch sure, but that won't be the only model Nintendo sells, a Pro model is gonna happen eventually too IMO, one that has a significant upgrade. And Sony and MS will also release new model PS5s and XBox 2s 3-4 years into that cycle. It's simply going to become the new normal and it'll become more like the PC side where generations become basically blurred.

New 3DS had solid upgrade, but those things didnt exited consumers because we were still talking about low power in any case at end, despite its solid upgrade. I disagree, New 3DS is one of reasons why 3DS maintain good sales, you can bet that without revisions 3DS sales would be much worse. Xbox X had good effect on sales because people were buying X to have best system currently available for their 4K TVs, Pro has much less effect on PS4 sales than X has for Xbox.

What you keep ignoring that despite Pro models all apps and games still works on weaker Apple and Samsung devices. Same is for PS4 Pro and XB1 X, and for around 99% games will be same for Switch in any case.

Base is still selling much better in any case than Pro model.

Switch Pro wont made also people on fire, PS4 Pro also didnt made people on fire, if current Switch didnt set on fire some people, New Switch or Switch Pro want do also. It will boost sales offcourse in some degree in any case, but its not like we getting brand new console that will make people that didnt had any intrest in Switch before will Pro make them buying one. Cheaper/low price point Switch would have higher effect on sales than potental Switch Pro.

It will be multiply revisions for Switch in any case, but you totally wrong if you think that plenty of 3rd partys would want to release game just for on revision and where most of Switch install base couldnt play. Around 99% of games will be still be playable through hole revisions in any case.

 

Pemalite said:
curl-6 said:

The Switch is modern hardware capable of running many third party games, and it's still missing out on plenty it could viably handle. A Switch Pro won't suddenly get an avalanche of third party games like RE2R , KH3, or ES6, just like the current Switch is still missing RE7, GTA5, Overwatch, Spyro Reignited, etc.

Overwatch needs to be on Switch. Missed opportunity in my opinion.
Would be good if they had crossplay with Xbox and Playstation too.

I am pretty sure it will be, they several times said they considering Overwatch for Switch, probably it will be E3 announcement same Rocket League and Fortnite were.

Last edited by Miyamotoo - on 02 December 2018

Miyamotoo said:
Soundwave said:

No I think you will see bigger upgrades than things like 3DS XL and New 3DS and 2DS ... those types of things don't excite consumers. None of the 3DS revisions caused a notable increase in sales for the 3DS, whereas XBox One X has caused a very noticable increase in XBox One sales and PS4 Pro is helping the PS4 with higher than anticipated sales for being in the back half of its hardware cycle, so much so that Sony had to revise sales expectations up.

"Pro" models have been helping Apple and Samsung sell more phones and tablets for years too.

People like the premium model, I'm talking bigger than things like 3DS XL, PS4 Slim, XBox One S, or even New 3DS.

A New 3DS type revision for Switch alone is not really gonna lit many people's world on fire. It's 2019 almost, you gotta bring more to the table than that. "It's slimmer and has a few new features" doesn't cut it, it's not 2004 anymore. 

There will be a slimmer/smaller/more power efficient Switch sure, but that won't be the only model Nintendo sells, a Pro model is gonna happen eventually too IMO, one that has a significant upgrade. And Sony and MS will also release new model PS5s and XBox 2s 3-4 years into that cycle. It's simply going to become the new normal and it'll become more like the PC side where generations become basically blurred.

New 3DS had solid upgrade, but those things didnt exited consumers because we were still talking about low power in any case at end, despite its solid upgrade. I disagree, New 3DS is one of reasons why 3DS maintain good sales, you can bet that without revisions 3DS sales would be much worse. Xbox X had good effect on sales because people were buying X to have best system currently available for their 4K TVs, Pro has much less effect on PS4 sales than X has for Xbox.

What you keep ignoring that despite Pro models all apps and games still works on weaker Apple and Samsung devices. Same is for PS4 Pro and XB1 X, and for around 99% games will be same for Switch in any case.

Base is still selling much better in any case than Pro model.

Switch Pro wont made also people on fire, PS4 Pro also didnt made people on fire, if current Switch didnt set on fire some people, New Switch or Switch Pro want do also. It will boost sales offcourse in some degree in any case, but its not like we getting brand new console that will make people that didnt had any intrest in Switch before will Pro make them buying one. Cheaper/low price point Switch would have higher effect on sales than potental Switch Pro.

It will be multiply revisions for Switch in any case, but you totally wrong if you think that plenty of 3rd partys would want to release game just for on revision and where most of Switch install base couldnt play. Around 99% of games will be still be playable through hole revisions in any case.

 

Pemalite said:

Overwatch needs to be on Switch. Missed opportunity in my opinion.
Would be good if they had crossplay with Xbox and Playstation too.

I am pretty sure it will be, they several times said they considering Overwatch for Switch, probably it will be E3 announcement same Rocket League and Fortnite were.

PS4 Pro is probably in the range of being 30%+ of PS4 sales which is not a small amount. In Japan PS4 Pro and regular PS4 models are now selling almost 1:1. 

XBox One X has caused a huge shift in XBox One year over year sales and probably is also selling 1:1 or better than the base model despite being the most expensive game hardware SKU out there. 

There's simply not much of a chance Nintendo isn't going to follow suit. Not only do these models sell well to the point that they're causing upward trends in both the PS4 and XB1, they're also more profitable long term too, there was a report that Sony makes more money off the Pro model, because the cost of chips come down in price relatively quickly, but the higher price point then nets you a higher take home profit. 

As for whether 3rd parties would make a few games Pro only, I think it could happen if the system is cheap enough to port to. If its something that isn't a big damn pain in the ass to port and has a reasonable amount of power where they can outsource the port or have it done with a small team, probably for some titles you will see that done. Take2 just released a console quality "patch" for NBA2K19 on iPad that gives the game PS4/XB1 tier graphics and runs at 2K+ resolution at 60 frames per second. They did that for a version of the game that basically can only run on the new iPad Pro which is like $800. Doubling or tripling a mobile chip simply opens up more possibilities for game experiences. 

You will get your New 3DS/2DS etc. style revisions for Switch sure. But you will also get a Pro model. Nintendo is not ignoring that revenue stream and it's an option that's proven itself to be very popular with consumers and helps the bottom line of Sony and MS, Nintendo isn't going to ignore that. Looking at how Apple operates there was already the notion to do something like that anyway, but Sony/MS doing it with home consoles basically sealed the deal. It's not an either/or thing, the PS4 and XBox One have also gotten "smaller/cheaper" revisions like the PS4 Slim and XBox One S. It doesn't stop a Pro model from happening. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 02 December 2018

Miyamotoo said:

My bad, XB1 operates at 1.75GHz.

Yeah, I know that, but ARM A57 was in Switch was heavily constrained buy 20nm, thats why has 4 core and operates at only 1GHz.

ARM A57 was designed for 20nm.

The issue with the Switch is that... It's not going to have short, bursty processing workloads.

For example, in a typical mobile device the A57 would clock up to 2ghz whenever there is demand and race back to idle... For example, you open up the browser and the CPU will clock to 2ghz during the initial load and then settle down to it's idle clocks, there isn't a need for the full clockrate when browsing a webpage.
This phenomenon is known as "race to idle" - Where you want the processing done as fast as possible so the chip can enter a power saving state.

The Switch on the other hand doesn't get that privilege... Video games, demanding video games will peg every single core at 100%, which means there will be significant power drain, it cannot race to idle because there is always more work to be done.
That's not a design issue with the Switch or the A57 or the node it's fundamentally on, that's just the nature of the processing load.

So Nintendo rightfully opted to limit clockrates and voltages so that power consumption will always be in check for CPU loads.

THAT is the real reason why the Switch's CPU's are at only 1ghz.


Miyamotoo said:
Thats just jump when you talk about same clock and some Core count, tell for instance about how much difference we talk only if Switch 2 uses for instance A76 6-Core CPU clocked at 2GHz compared to A57 4-Core 1GHz? And its safe to say that potentail Switch 2 will use more stronger CPU than A76.

I would be very surprised if the Switch 2 used anything less than a 6-core complex to be honest.

Whether the Switch will use A76 or a newer derivative is still up for debate though, nVidia has Denver remember, they might wish to push their own CPU design over ARM's direct architecture.

Miyamotoo said:
Like you wrote earlier, 8-Core ARM A57 at 1.7GHz would be very comparable to PS4/XB1 CPU. I was very clear that PS5/XB2 will again have stronger CPUs than Switch 2 in any case, I dont arguing that. But with all that on mind, Switch 2 could easily have stronger CPU than PS4/XB1 have, and IMO that would be enough to run 4K PS5/XB2 games at least 1080p in docked mode maybe even in 1440p with maybe some other downgrades, and that was my main point.

I think you might find that because of the large CPU performance delta between Xbox One/Playstation 4 and Xbox Two/Playstation 5, that the Switch 2 will struggle to get demanding ports, especially ports that leverage Ryzen to it's absolute fullest extent, that's not to say the Switch 2 won't get ports, it should get some, not every game is going to be running stupidly complex simulation on the CPU next gen... And the Switch 2 should get those if the developer/publisher bothers.

The jump from Jaguar to Ryzen is a significantly larger one than what you will get with Switch and Switch 2. - Nintendo simply lucked out as AMD didn't have a decent CPU for the consoles, let alone PC.

The Switch 2 should be able to match or exceed base the Xbox One/Playstation 4 CPU's. - By how much is yet to be determined for obvious reasons... The Xbox One X's CPU does muddle things though as it does offload some processing and has the highest clockrate.

Miyamotoo said:
Well that's my point, Tegra X2 would alow Switch to have higher CPU and GPU clocks than currently has, even higher memory bandwith (double compared to current one).

Indeed. Or Nintendo could have kept the same performance level and increased battery life substantially.
I am sure Nintendo had it's reasons for opting for the old chip that it did.

It's still a very capable device though at the end of the day, it just could have been that little bit more.

Miyamotoo said:
Switch has enough power to run some games at higher resolution than it does currently, but doesn't have enough CPU power to maintain probably even 20 FPS in that case. From specs reveal devs said that biggest bottleneck is A57 that has 3-cores available for games and operates at only 1GHz. Next biggest bottleneck is RAM bandwidth, when you look hole Switch configuration, GPU is biggest advance of Switch hardware and after that size of RAM.

I think you are trying to paint to much of a black and white scene.
Whether the CPU, GPU or Ram is the biggest limiter really comes down to the individual games themselves.

Some games will drive home the CPU loads more than others... Whilst other games will push the GPU harder.

Miyamotoo said:
I am pretty sure it will be, they several times said they considering Overwatch for Switch, probably it will be E3 announcement same Rocket League and Fortnite were.

It's just one of those games that just makes sense for the platform. - Plus Overwatch is not technically demanding anyway, it can run on a toaster... And even when downscaled to low visual settings still looks semi-decent thanks to blizzards atypical strong art style.





--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:

I would be very surprised if the Switch 2 used anything less than a 6-core complex to be honest.

Whether the Switch will use A76 or a newer derivative is still up for debate though, nVidia has Denver remember, they might wish to push their own CPU design over ARM's direct architecture.

I wouldn't be as more cores means nothing without a good memory subsystem because most games have a decent amount of synchronization overhead with contended memory accesses and that's probably why Intel still wins in most of the gaming benchmarks despite the fact that even as good as AMD is with RyZen, Intel scales noticeably better with higher core counts ... (practically no mobile CPU designers have went for more than 4 of it's big main cores and all will probably be just content with raising higher clock speeds) 

Nvidia's CPU designs are fairly mediocre as well and the others like Qualcomm's Snapdragon 845 which features custom A75 cores still have laughably slow L2/L3 caches compared to whatever AMD/Intel have ... 

I don't think A76 cores will be good enough in general to have competitive performance against Zen 2 cores and the same will likely be true for it's successor since by that time they'll eventually have performance just above that of an Apple A10 ? 



Soundwave said:
Miyamotoo said:

New 3DS had solid upgrade, but those things didnt exited consumers because we were still talking about low power in any case at end, despite its solid upgrade. I disagree, New 3DS is one of reasons why 3DS maintain good sales, you can bet that without revisions 3DS sales would be much worse. Xbox X had good effect on sales because people were buying X to have best system currently available for their 4K TVs, Pro has much less effect on PS4 sales than X has for Xbox.

What you keep ignoring that despite Pro models all apps and games still works on weaker Apple and Samsung devices. Same is for PS4 Pro and XB1 X, and for around 99% games will be same for Switch in any case.

Base is still selling much better in any case than Pro model.

Switch Pro wont made also people on fire, PS4 Pro also didnt made people on fire, if current Switch didnt set on fire some people, New Switch or Switch Pro want do also. It will boost sales offcourse in some degree in any case, but its not like we getting brand new console that will make people that didnt had any intrest in Switch before will Pro make them buying one. Cheaper/low price point Switch would have higher effect on sales than potental Switch Pro.

It will be multiply revisions for Switch in any case, but you totally wrong if you think that plenty of 3rd partys would want to release game just for on revision and where most of Switch install base couldnt play. Around 99% of games will be still be playable through hole revisions in any case.

 

I am pretty sure it will be, they several times said they considering Overwatch for Switch, probably it will be E3 announcement same Rocket League and Fortnite were.

PS4 Pro is probably in the range of being 30%+ of PS4 sales which is not a small amount. In Japan PS4 Pro and regular PS4 models are now selling almost 1:1. 

XBox One X has caused a huge shift in XBox One year over year sales and probably is also selling 1:1 or better than the base model despite being the most expensive game hardware SKU out there. 

There's simply not much of a chance Nintendo isn't going to follow suit. Not only do these models sell well to the point that they're causing upward trends in both the PS4 and XB1, they're also more profitable long term too, there was a report that Sony makes more money off the Pro model, because the cost of chips come down in price relatively quickly, but the higher price point then nets you a higher take home profit. 

As for whether 3rd parties would make a few games Pro only, I think it could happen if the system is cheap enough to port to. If its something that isn't a big damn pain in the ass to port and has a reasonable amount of power where they can outsource the port or have it done with a small team, probably for some titles you will see that done. Take2 just released a console quality "patch" for NBA2K19 on iPad that gives the game PS4/XB1 tier graphics and runs at 2K+ resolution at 60 frames per second. They did that for a version of the game that basically can only run on the new iPad Pro which is like $800. Doubling or tripling a mobile chip simply opens up more possibilities for game experiences. 

You will get your New 3DS/2DS etc. style revisions for Switch sure. But you will also get a Pro model. Nintendo is not ignoring that revenue stream and it's an option that's proven itself to be very popular with consumers and helps the bottom line of Sony and MS, Nintendo isn't going to ignore that. Looking at how Apple operates there was already the notion to do something like that anyway, but Sony/MS doing it with home consoles basically sealed the deal. It's not an either/or thing, the PS4 and XBox One have also gotten "smaller/cheaper" revisions like the PS4 Slim and XBox One S. It doesn't stop a Pro model from happening. 

But that doesn't mean that PS4 would sell 30% less without Pro model, only reason why Pro is selling currently 1:1 in Japan is because Pro had recently price cut in Japan.

I was very clear about, X is selling good because people are buying it like best 4K consoles for their 4K TVs, but that doesn't have anything with potential Switch Pro.

You ignoring fact that Nintendo was already doing similar thing, New 3DS or DSi are already some kind of 3DS and DS upgrades. Difference is that PS4 and XB1 were already strongest hardware on market and that bring more attention, also they bring 4K support (in case of PS4 Pro we talking about upscaled 4K).

Yeah, you could have few games, but expecting 8-15 bigger 3rd party games per year just for Pro is not realistic at all, we want have even 8 bigger 3rd party only for Switch LT, not per year. Point is that huge majority of 3rd party if want to release its game for Switch would rather want to release game that could be played hole Switch install base than just small part of it, if game cant run, they will not bother porting in on first place just one revision. But thats a point, iPad Pro maybe recived NBA2K19 patch, but point is that have also version of NBA2K19 game that works on previous iPad, while in case of Switch Pro you talking just about exclusive games not versions of games, you keep comparing potential Switch Pro with PS4 Pro/X and iPad Pro, while you ignoring fact that all games for those devices runing on base version of those devices also.

We will see if we will get Pro or New Switch revision and we probbably talking about same thing, because New 3DS or DSi are something similar what Pro is for base PS4, and offcourse that Nintendo was never ignored higher revenue stream, we have New 3DS and we have New 3DS XL, so there is no reason so to pretend like Nintendo wanst doing that before. No one arguing that, what I arguing with you and some other people here, is because you expecting big number of big 3rd party games that would be released just for one Switch revision, and that's not realistic at all.