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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - What do you want in a Switch 2?

There are rumors/leaks recently that are showing that Ryzen 4000 mobile APU's will be capable of PS4 levels of performance at just 15w. That's with 8 Ryzen CPU cores on 7nm next year.

If this is true, then Nvidia should be able to create a similar performing SOC soon that can do so under 10w with their tech.

The big question is how much would that cost next year? It should be reasonably doable all around by 2021 though. Definitely by 2022. By then we will be a year or two into a new gen with consoles around or above 10TF, so a 2TF handheld (while docked anyway), wouldn't be out of the question.



Around the Network
Nu-13 said:
JRPGfan said:

^ that cannot be done with todays technology....

I think maybe you can get a Switch 2, thats around where the Base PS4 is (when docked).
That could probably be possible in 2021.

That would mean Switch 1 -> Switch 2, is a jump of x3-4 times in terms of power.

My, I can't even begin here. For starters, we're talking about something coming 3 years from now. Today's technology being irrelevant. A system like the switch could have released last month while already being more powerful than a ps4. And no, the gap between the switch and ps4 isn't 3-4x, more like 2-2.25.

Switch docked = 393 Gflops
Base PS4 = 1,840 Gflops.

"more like 2-2,25"

You need to stop bullsh*tting and spreading false info.

1840 / 393 = 4,7x performance differnce.

Now you can aruge that Nvidia flops are like 20% better than AMD ones in terms of graphics performance, compaired to the calculation numbers it can do...

But your still looking at over a x4 differnce.

Then you need to factor in the memory bandwidth stuff, ect..... theres massive differnce between the devices.

Which is fair, becasue the Switch is a handheld that uses like 20-25watts while docked, compaired to a PS4 slim, thats like 90-110watts+.

^ thats lie / falsehood Nr #1.


"we're talking about something coming 3 years from now."

^ this is Lie / Falsehood Nr #2.

Technology doesnt move at a pace, where 3 years, you can get 5 times more performance pr watts, over a 3 year periode.
Things have slowed down alot, and processing node technology shrinks arnt as meaningfull anymore, as they used to be.

Theres no way what your claiming is gonna be possible 3years from now either.



Slownenberg said:
JRPGfan said:

^ that cannot be done with todays technology....

I think maybe you can get a Switch 2, thats around where the Base PS4 is (when docked).
That could probably be possible in 2021.

That would mean Switch 1 -> Switch 2, is a jump of x3-4 times in terms of power.

Well we aren't talking about today's technology, we're talking about a release in over 3 years from now. A Switch 2 released in 2023 I would expect to at least be more powerful than the base PS4. Main reason I would want Nintendo to target something around PS4 Pro level is so that Switch 2 could do a better job of getting third parties to port their AAA games over to Switch 2, obviously they'd still be graphically downgraded, but still close enough in power to be running well and looking great on Switch 2.

Unless the Switch 2 turns out to be laptop in size, thats just not happending.
if it stays in more or less same shape/size as the current switch, that wont be possible, even in 2023.

A slightly bigger switch mode, with a bigger screen 1080p, and performance around a PS4 (not pro),
will still be a huge step-up from the current Switch.



JRPGfan said:
Nu-13 said:

My, I can't even begin here. For starters, we're talking about something coming 3 years from now. Today's technology being irrelevant. A system like the switch could have released last month while already being more powerful than a ps4. And no, the gap between the switch and ps4 isn't 3-4x, more like 2-2.25.

Switch docked = 393 Gflops
Base PS4 = 1,840 Gflops.

"more like 2-2,25"

You need to stop bullsh*tting and spreading false info.

1840 / 393 = 4,7x performance differnce.

Now you can aruge that Nvidia flops are like 20% better than AMD ones in terms of graphics performance, compaired to the calculation numbers it can do...

But your still looking at over a x4 differnce.

Then you need to factor in the memory bandwidth stuff, ect..... theres massive differnce between the devices.

Which is fair, becasue the Switch is a handheld that uses like 20-25watts while docked, compaired to a PS4 slim, thats like 90-110watts+.

^ thats lie / falsehood Nr #1.


"we're talking about something coming 3 years from now."

^ this is Lie / Falsehood Nr #2.

Technology doesnt move at a pace, where 3 years, you can get 5 times more performance pr watts, over a 3 year periode.
Things have slowed down alot, and processing node technology shrinks arnt as meaningfull anymore, as they used to be.

Theres no way what your claiming is gonna be possible 3years from now either.

You're the one spreading false information. Flops aren't performance and even if you were to do something as ridiculous as look only at gpu and flops to compare two consoles, the ones from nvidia would equal a LOT more than 1.2x those of amd.

And the hell you're talking about technology and performance per watts? Technology moves, period. We already have technology to match and exceed the ps4 using the switch form factor and as the years pass, new more powerful gpus/cpus will release as usual. To deny that is like saying the switch has the same power as a ps3 or x360. Because that's how powerful the switch would have to be for it's successor in 2022 to only be at ps4 level.



Nu-13 said:
SwitchUP said:

What chipset is that? I'm genuinely asking.  I dont keep up on those things much. That's pretty crazy for a portable chipset to be equal to or above a ps4 in power, and awesome. But I imagine that it would be far too expensive to put into a Nintendo handheld. Hopefully in 3 years though....

The chipset doesn't exist because it wasn't released yet. Nintendo will use tech released in between 2020 and 2021. There's nothing crazy about a switch 2 being a lot more powerful than a ps4 just like there's nothing crazy about the switch being a lot more powerful than the ps3.

SuperNova said:

Seeing that the A12x in the 2018 IPad Pro is the only chip on the market that even comes close to your claim (and not that close either, it has Xbox One S like performance according to apple) and the cheapest device it‘s in goes for 800$+, what you‘re saying is pretty outlandish.

Also todays technology is extremely relevant to a product coming out 2-3 years from now, seeing that the tegra x1 is a 2015 chip in a 2017 product. And even then it was only really cost effective to use it in the Switch since it was somewhat of a dead end for Nvidia, who pivoted away from gaming applications with the successor chips hard. Nvidia had stock to clear and Nintendo got a good deal.

It‘s fair to assume that Nvidia is working on something more custom and for Nintendos next console, and they’re probably going to make sure that it has the most current architecture, but it‘s not going to be some monster, top of the line chip if they want to have any chance of maintaining a 300$ pricepoint.

The tegra x2 all the way from 2015 is already on par or better than the xbox one gpu. And are you seriously using overpriced phones for an argument? The switch was going to release in 2016 with a 2015 chip that was high end. My expectations are the same for the switch 2: a 2022 release using a high end 2021 mobile gpu and proportional advances in ram + cpu.

Bofferbrauer2 said:

Even in 5 years that won't be possible without having less than 1 hour of battery life or a handheld that weights a ton. Maybe by 2028 or so they could do so effectively, but with Moore's Law looming ahead, I have my doubts.

Also, Nintendo by far and large prefers using proven technology rather than the newest non-plus-ultra bleeding edge tech. In 3 years Nintendo will be using today's technology as far as computing hardware goes.

Switch can reach about 400 GFlops docked and 240 GFlops undocked. Even just the XBO S is over 3x in terms of raw performance compared to docked Switch, PS4 even almost 5x as powerful. Even the beefiest Smartphone chips can't reach that yet, Snapdragon 855+ stands at around 1000 GFlops - and if you game on those something that fully uses the power, either their battery is sucked empty in short notice or the chips are downclocked to save battery, at cost of lowered performance.

Finally, despite the rather weak performance compared to the consoles, the main gripe players had was not performance, but battery life. Hence why Nintendo used the new chip from NVidia not to enhance performance, but battery life.

In short, if by 2024 a successor to the Switch will come out (I don't expect one earlier unless Switch sales start to tank like those of the Wii) and will still be a hybrid console like the Switch, it will probably be much closer to XBO S performance and not come anywhere near XBO X.

The switch already proves you wrong because nintendo went for the best they could get  while breaking even or having a small profit per unit at $299. It used a 2015 gpu with a release scheduled for 2016.

FLOPS =/= PERFORMANCE. If you're going to use just flops, you should first make an "exchange rate" of up to 2:1 because nvidea gpus tend to perform similarly to amd gpus with a lot more flops. In your language, it's like those 400 gflops on switch are equal to 700-800 when compared to the other amd gpus. Tegra volta already has like 1.3 tflops. Several years later and with a 7/8nm shrink, it should be very easy for nvidea to deliver a 3-3.2 tflop mobile gpu in 2021. That would already match or be close to the raw performance of xb1x gpu.

That's like saying in 2013 that a $299 mobile hardware in 2016 would barely surpass an x360 but the switch is here to prove that wrong. The ps4 and x1 are 2013 consoles using 2012 tech. We're talking about a 9 year technological gap that actually favors mobile tech (it's obviously gonna stay bellow non mobile but the gap is smaller). The switch 2 will be obviously superior than those consoles in every aspect and the only thing that might be close is portable mode gpu power. There's nothing surprising about that, it's just how technology works.

Nintendo didn't take the best they could, far from it. If they wanted the newest stuff, they would have opted for a Tegra X2 instead. In fact, most hoped it would be an X2 or a custom chip, and it only being an X1 was a serious bummer for many. A Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 or 821 would also have been a more modern and powerful possibility.

I know very well Flops ain't equal to performance. However, if you have a better metric to compare the raw performance between a console and a mobile chip, let me know about it, please.

@bolded: Well, there's your problem. The GPU is what limits in 99% of the cases. I agree that a Switch 2 will have much better CPU and more technologies to enhance visuals, but the raw performance will be limited by the GPU. Well, the GPU and the RAM, as GDDR5/6 are way too power hungry for handheld use and (LP)DDR5 will still be much slower in terms of bandwidth than GDDR5 was back then, choking the SoC down.

Pemalite said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Even wih the best current hardware that consumes about 100W while the Switch is at below 5W iirc. PS4 Pro performance is just unrealistic at this point - even just base PS4 performance would drain the battery way too fast right now.

We aren't far away from matching the Playstation 4 today... The Snapdragon 865 will beat the Xbox One... And the difference between the Xbox One and Playstation 4 isn't generationally different.

Let alone what nVidia has cooking with Orin or even Xavier.

Afaik that's peak performance, and they can't keep that performance over long distances. I'm pretty sure the 865 will stay well below XBO after the first minute or two, otherwise the case would become too hot and the battery drain too fast.

Orin is a 65W chip and thus doesn't qualify for handhelds even in the slightest. It's fully axed to deep learning, so not even sure if it could bring it's performance to the ground in a console.

Xavier is more interesting, as NVidia just announced 2 new, low consumption versions of the chip. Their name? NX! The 10W version could actually be quite interesting for a mid-life upgrade of the Switch, as it could run at near full speed (Tegra X1 was specified for 15W and had been consequently slowed down a lot)



Around the Network

So many things. It feels like the switch was basically massively rushed because of the wii U. Yet none of that stuff tops my list. I don't care the switch lacks netflix. I'd never watch netflix on it.

Unrelated to that: for them to change their pathetic policies.
People have to PAY MONEY for the ability to save. Any form of saving. And even then they don't allow it for all games. I'm waiting for the first story of someones switch with 100 hours of Animal cross breaking. It is going to happen, and I'm ready for the rage.

Also allow achievements. Does Mario need them? No. You don't need to create them. But you should allow them. FF12 has them. PC/PS/XB has them. Nintendo doesn't. That's dumb.

Also "options" for switches. I rather have a switch lite that can plug into my TV, than one with detachable controllers that needs a $90 dock to change/connect to my TV.



  • Deadliest mass shooting by an individual in US history (10/01/2017)
  • Deadliest high school shooting in US history (02/14/2018)
  • Deadliest massacre of Jews in US history (10/27/2018)
  • Political assassination attempt of TWO former presidents(and 10+ other people)  (10/23/2018 - and beyond)
Bofferbrauer2 said:
Nu-13 said:

The chipset doesn't exist because it wasn't released yet. Nintendo will use tech released in between 2020 and 2021. There's nothing crazy about a switch 2 being a lot more powerful than a ps4 just like there's nothing crazy about the switch being a lot more powerful than the ps3.

The tegra x2 all the way from 2015 is already on par or better than the xbox one gpu. And are you seriously using overpriced phones for an argument? The switch was going to release in 2016 with a 2015 chip that was high end. My expectations are the same for the switch 2: a 2022 release using a high end 2021 mobile gpu and proportional advances in ram + cpu.

The switch already proves you wrong because nintendo went for the best they could get  while breaking even or having a small profit per unit at $299. It used a 2015 gpu with a release scheduled for 2016.

FLOPS =/= PERFORMANCE. If you're going to use just flops, you should first make an "exchange rate" of up to 2:1 because nvidea gpus tend to perform similarly to amd gpus with a lot more flops. In your language, it's like those 400 gflops on switch are equal to 700-800 when compared to the other amd gpus. Tegra volta already has like 1.3 tflops. Several years later and with a 7/8nm shrink, it should be very easy for nvidea to deliver a 3-3.2 tflop mobile gpu in 2021. That would already match or be close to the raw performance of xb1x gpu.

That's like saying in 2013 that a $299 mobile hardware in 2016 would barely surpass an x360 but the switch is here to prove that wrong. The ps4 and x1 are 2013 consoles using 2012 tech. We're talking about a 9 year technological gap that actually favors mobile tech (it's obviously gonna stay bellow non mobile but the gap is smaller). The switch 2 will be obviously superior than those consoles in every aspect and the only thing that might be close is portable mode gpu power. There's nothing surprising about that, it's just how technology works.

Nintendo didn't take the best they could, far from it. If they wanted the newest stuff, they would have opted for a Tegra X2 instead. In fact, most hoped it would be an X2 or a custom chip, and it only being an X1 was a serious bummer for many. A Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 or 821 would also have been a more modern and powerful possibility.

I know very well Flops ain't equal to performance. However, if you have a better metric to compare the raw performance between a console and a mobile chip, let me know about it, please.

@bolded: Well, there's your problem. The GPU is what limits in 99% of the cases. I agree that a Switch 2 will have much better CPU and more technologies to enhance visuals, but the raw performance will be limited by the GPU. Well, the GPU and the RAM, as GDDR5/6 are way too power hungry for handheld use and (LP)DDR5 will still be much slower in terms of bandwidth than GDDR5 was back then, choking the SoC down.

Pemalite said:

We aren't far away from matching the Playstation 4 today... The Snapdragon 865 will beat the Xbox One... And the difference between the Xbox One and Playstation 4 isn't generationally different.

Let alone what nVidia has cooking with Orin or even Xavier.

Afaik that's peak performance, and they can't keep that performance over long distances. I'm pretty sure the 865 will stay well below XBO after the first minute or two, otherwise the case would become too hot and the battery drain too fast.

Orin is a 65W chip and thus doesn't qualify for handhelds even in the slightest. It's fully axed to deep learning, so not even sure if it could bring it's performance to the ground in a console.

Xavier is more interesting, as NVidia just announced 2 new, low consumption versions of the chip. Their name? NX! The 10W version could actually be quite interesting for a mid-life upgrade of the Switch, as it could run at near full speed (Tegra X1 was specified for 15W and had been consequently slowed down a lot)

Nintendo took the best they could on a $299 retail price and I expect them to do it again next time.

How the hell is the bolded a problem? Switch games are made for docked mode and merely run in lower resolution in portable mode. Funny that you mention Ram, because that area will probably be the one that closes the gap the most next generation. If we assume rumours are true and the XSX has 16gb of ram, with 13gb for games, that's a 2.6x increase over the X1 5gb. A Switch 2 using 16gb of ram, with 14-15gb for games would be a 4.6-5x increase. Both should be using a newer type of ram over the previous system (gddr6 and lpddr4/5).



At least PS4 specs, PS4 Pro specs if it's possible for the size and battery of a hybrid
Needs at least 500GB of internal storage. 32GB is beyond pathetic
Launch with YouTube, Hulu, Twitch, Netflix, Disney+, and an Internet Browser
Return of the Virtual Console
Achievements, Proper Voice Chat and Networking Features
Free games each month like PlayStation Plus and Xbox Live Gold
Backwards compatibility with the Switch, duh.
Double kickstand, felt in the dock to prevent wear and tear



Lifetime Sales Predictions 

Switch: 144 million (was 73, then 96, then 113 million, then 125 million)

PS5: 105 million Xbox Series S/X: 60 million

PS4: 120 mil (was 100 then 130 million, then 122 million) Xbox One: 51 mil (was 50 then 55 mil)

3DS: 75.5 mil (was 73, then 77 million)

"Let go your earthly tether, enter the void, empty and become wind." - Guru Laghima

JRPGfan said:

Switch docked = 393 Gflops
Base PS4 = 1,840 Gflops.

"more like 2-2,25"

You need to stop bullsh*tting and spreading false info.

1840 / 393 = 4,7x performance differnce.

Now you can aruge that Nvidia flops are like 20% better than AMD ones in terms of graphics performance, compaired to the calculation numbers it can do...

Flops is irrelevant.
Switch = Maxwell.
Playstation 4 = Graphics Core Next.

A GTX 960 based on Maxwell with 2.36 Teraflops of single precision floating point capability...
Is able to beat a Radeon 7970 with 3.78 Teraflops of single precision floating point capability.

That is a 60% flop advantage to the 7970.

https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1722?vs=1744

Bandwidth is irrellevent as well.

The GTX 960 has 112GB/s verses the 7970's 264GB/s or 135% more bandwidth.

In your ideal fantasy world a GPU with 60% more flops and 135% more bandwidth should win, right? I mean... Right?



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

JRPGfan said:

"we're talking about something coming 3 years from now."

^ this is Lie / Falsehood Nr #2.

Technology doesnt move at a pace, where 3 years, you can get 5 times more performance pr watts, over a 3 year periode.
Things have slowed down alot, and processing node technology shrinks arnt as meaningfull anymore, as they used to be.

Theres no way what your claiming is gonna be possible 3years from now either.

That makes zero sense. We are in fact talking about 3 years from now, so it is not a lie. Unless you come from the future to tell us that for the next 3 years somehow unbelievably there will be no advancement in technology!

Seriously, though, you just picking random completely true statements and calling them lies isn't helping your case.