Forums - Nintendo Discussion - How The Switch 2 Could Do 4K@120fps

Pemalite said:
Let's actually have a Nintendo console achieve 1080P/60fps consistently first before we start drooling over 4k/120fps.

Tegra Orin should be able to beat the Playstation 4 hands down and that should release next year and be cheap/mature enough for a 2023 console inclusion for Nintendo.

Orin is rated for a TDP of 65W, that's way too much for a handheld format like the Switch. Also, it's heavily axed towards Deep Learning and AI, too much for it's performance to not become squandered or very hard to tap on (similar to the Cell in the PS3). I'd be more expecting a new Tegra chip with more consumer-related hardware, which NVidia probably wants to develop anyway for it's Shield line of products, which uses the same chips as the Switch does.

In other words, I'm more expecting something with 4-8 Tegra cores (Carmel or Hercules) and 384-512 Cuda Cores (Turing or next-gen) and a 128bit bus of 8-16GB LPDDR4X or LPDDR5 without too many bells or whistles, as they currently are too taxing for a handheld format, even in 7 or 5nm. And that should be enough to get PS4-like performance from a handheld anyway



Around the Network
OneTime said:

JEMC said:

True, but there's what, one only company capable of making mobile GPUs poweful enough? By the way, that's the kind of low end chip that can go in a handheld/hybrid console like the Switch successor.

And yes, Tegra when it comes to the mobile market has been a failure, but Nvidia has found another market for it with self driving vehicles and AI. Not ideal for a console, mind you, as they focus on computing and the CPU side of it, but it's a template that they can use to make a design that works for Nintendo.

Maybe... but I'd far rather see Nintendo be a cutting edge ARM Mali customer than some using left over bits of Nvidia's afterthoughts.  Maybe they can magic up a custom Nvidia laptop chip that does Tegra backwards compatibility?

Nintendo is known for sticking with its hardware partners as long as possible (their jump to Nvidia was quite a surprise for a lot of people). Therefore, I actually believe that Nvidia's quote about partnering with Nintendo for 20 years isn't based on nothing and, while Nvidia can provide them with the right tools, Nintendo will keep using their products.

The best case scenario I can think of right now is one like what Boffer described, a Switch 2 using 8 Carmel cores with up to 512 GPU cores, at least Turing to be able to use DLS and VRR, and 8GB connected via a 128bit bus.



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.

Bofferbrauer2 said:
Pemalite said:
Let's actually have a Nintendo console achieve 1080P/60fps consistently first before we start drooling over 4k/120fps.

Tegra Orin should be able to beat the Playstation 4 hands down and that should release next year and be cheap/mature enough for a 2023 console inclusion for Nintendo.

Orin is rated for a TDP of 65W, that's way too much for a handheld format like the Switch. Also, it's heavily axed towards Deep Learning and AI, too much for it's performance to not become squandered or very hard to tap on (similar to the Cell in the PS3). I'd be more expecting a new Tegra chip with more consumer-related hardware, which NVidia probably wants to develop anyway for it's Shield line of products, which uses the same chips as the Switch does.

In other words, I'm more expecting something with 4-8 Tegra cores (Carmel or Hercules) and 384-512 Cuda Cores (Turing or next-gen) and a 128bit bus of 8-16GB LPDDR4X or LPDDR5 without too many bells or whistles, as they currently are too taxing for a handheld format, even in 7 or 5nm. And that should be enough to get PS4-like performance from a handheld anyway

Anyone throwing out TDP's must also state that the chip could be on a smaller node than the theoretical numbers given for Orin, there's just not enough info given about that chip to understand why it needs 65-70w. The only difference with Switch is that its not just one thing or the other, so it needs a chip design that allows it flexibility to provide decent performance in handheld but also ramp up for dock mode.(The idea of Switch is much closer to a laptop than a phone)

There are mobile chips currently on the market that eclipse the PS4, but Switch 2 will definitely be challenged on memory bandwidth and storage read speeds. Back during the GC days Nintendo put up a 1 billion dollar multi-year deal with IBM for processors, so they aren't completely against spending out for technology. Especially with something like this where they have a clear vision of where their platform should continue to go...(Not saying they will ever spend out like that again, but now makes more sense to.)



Though Nintendo could do this, I don't think they will. Nintendo is almost never willing to take losses on hardware. This would almost certainly require the Switch 2 to sell for at least $400, which I don't think Nintendo wants to do.

I do think Switch 2 will be at least base PS4 specs, PS4 Pro if we're lucky. I unfortunately think anything Xbox One X spec level or higher is out of the question due to thermals or cost.



Lifetime Sales Predictions 

PS4: 130 mil (was 100 million) Xbox One: 55 mil (was 50 mil) Switch: 110 million (was 73, then 96 million)

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

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

Though Nintendo could do this, I don't think they will. Nintendo is almost never willing to take losses on hardware. This would almost certainly require the Switch 2 to sell for at least $400, which I don't think Nintendo wants to do.

I do think Switch 2 will be at least base PS4 specs, PS4 Pro if we're lucky. I unfortunately think anything Xbox One X spec level or higher is out of the question due to thermals or cost.



Lifetime Sales Predictions 

PS4: 130 mil (was 100 million) Xbox One: 55 mil (was 50 mil) Switch: 110 million (was 73, then 96 million)

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

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

Around the Network
JEMC said:
OneTime said:

Maybe... but I'd far rather see Nintendo be a cutting edge ARM Mali customer than some using left over bits of Nvidia's afterthoughts.  Maybe they can magic up a custom Nvidia laptop chip that does Tegra backwards compatibility?

Nintendo is known for sticking with its hardware partners as long as possible (their jump to Nvidia was quite a surprise for a lot of people). Therefore, I actually believe that Nvidia's quote about partnering with Nintendo for 20 years isn't based on nothing and, while Nvidia can provide them with the right tools, Nintendo will keep using their products.

The best case scenario I can think of right now is one like what Boffer described, a Switch 2 using 8 Carmel cores with up to 512 GPU cores, at least Turing to be able to use DLS and VRR, and 8GB connected via a 128bit bus.

The only problem I see with this is that even Nvidia are off of the Carmel cores idea they just recently licensed out usage of Hercules, so that probably has the better chance of making it into Switch 2. When it comes to Nvidia we currently don't have a real world example of just how efficient their technology is on 7nm or lower, so it can be a little hard to imagine how many cores Nvidia could squeeze into a chip the size of Tegra X1 or slightly larger. 

All of the new gpu advancements that Nvidia are showing and proving work, couldn't benefit anyone more right now than Nintendo with their next system. I kind of get those GC reminiscent days of when that system was so well built and thought out that it was doing some graphical effects in hardware that the others just weren't set-up for. It completely allowed for some impossible looking games running on it, with also punching way above its status specs wise...



Wman1996 said:
Though Nintendo could do this, I don't think they will. Nintendo is almost never willing to take losses on hardware. This would almost certainly require the Switch 2 to sell for at least $400, which I don't think Nintendo wants to do.

I do think Switch 2 will be at least base PS4 specs, PS4 Pro if we're lucky. I unfortunately think anything Xbox One X spec level or higher is out of the question due to thermals or cost.

Does anyone ever even bother to read the actual original post? 

The *whole point* of DLSS 2.0 is that it allows a medium end GPU to basically construct a 4K image (or any resolution output basically, you can do the same for 1440p, 1800p, 1080p, whatever) while only really having to render like 1/4th the pixels. 

That means for a Switch 2 using DLSS 2.0, it could display a 1080p undocked image while only having to render at 540p.

And for 4K docked, that means the Switch 2 would only have to actually render enough pixels for 1080p. 

That's the whole freaking point of DLSS technology. You get super high resolutions while the system itself is only rendering a fraction of the pixels. DLSS is an AI algorithm that then takes the lower resolution image and can construct and image equal to a much higher resolution from that, in fact I find the 1080p and 4K DLSS constructed images to look even better than native 1080p and 4K. 

In lay man's terms: A PS4+ level chip with DLSS 2.0 basically would become fairly comparable to a PS5 because it would only have to render at a fraction of the resolution. 



Ck1x said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Orin is rated for a TDP of 65W, that's way too much for a handheld format like the Switch. Also, it's heavily axed towards Deep Learning and AI, too much for it's performance to not become squandered or very hard to tap on (similar to the Cell in the PS3). I'd be more expecting a new Tegra chip with more consumer-related hardware, which NVidia probably wants to develop anyway for it's Shield line of products, which uses the same chips as the Switch does.

In other words, I'm more expecting something with 4-8 Tegra cores (Carmel or Hercules) and 384-512 Cuda Cores (Turing or next-gen) and a 128bit bus of 8-16GB LPDDR4X or LPDDR5 without too many bells or whistles, as they currently are too taxing for a handheld format, even in 7 or 5nm. And that should be enough to get PS4-like performance from a handheld anyway

Anyone throwing out TDP's must also state that the chip could be on a smaller node than the theoretical numbers given for Orin, there's just not enough info given about that chip to understand why it needs 65-70w. The only difference with Switch is that its not just one thing or the other, so it needs a chip design that allows it flexibility to provide decent performance in handheld but also ramp up for dock mode.(The idea of Switch is much closer to a laptop than a phone)

There are mobile chips currently on the market that eclipse the PS4, but Switch 2 will definitely be challenged on memory bandwidth and storage read speeds. Back during the GC days Nintendo put up a 1 billion dollar multi-year deal with IBM for processors, so they aren't completely against spending out for technology. Especially with something like this where they have a clear vision of where their platform should continue to go...(Not saying they will ever spend out like that again, but now makes more sense to.)

Well, no node is mentioned, but considering it's only supposed to come out next year, 7nm would be pretty much the minimum, if not even 5nm or any variation of and in between those two.

On the other hand, it's pretty clear why the TDP is so large: 12 core CPU based on the A77, and while no clock speed or GPU details apart from being next gen are detailed, the bandwidth target of 200 GB/s is 50% higher than on Xavier's top-end chip, which means the GPU will get even bigger and probably reach close to 1650 size - and performance.

For comparison's sake, what's in Xavier is pretty much right in between the MX250 and MX350, both in size and performance, and those draw already about 20W, which leaves 10W for the 8-core Carmel CPU if it stays within it's 30W target.

@bolded: yeah, in Laptops, which have a much higher TDP as they can dissipate heat easier through the keyboard and have more space for a larger battery. And even then, to hold those clock speeds necessary to beat the PS4, they still need to use H chips, the 15W U chips are not enough. Ryzen 4000 U-series could change this, but we'll have to wait for tests of those.



Bofferbrauer2 said:
Ck1x said:

Anyone throwing out TDP's must also state that the chip could be on a smaller node than the theoretical numbers given for Orin, there's just not enough info given about that chip to understand why it needs 65-70w. The only difference with Switch is that its not just one thing or the other, so it needs a chip design that allows it flexibility to provide decent performance in handheld but also ramp up for dock mode.(The idea of Switch is much closer to a laptop than a phone)

There are mobile chips currently on the market that eclipse the PS4, but Switch 2 will definitely be challenged on memory bandwidth and storage read speeds. Back during the GC days Nintendo put up a 1 billion dollar multi-year deal with IBM for processors, so they aren't completely against spending out for technology. Especially with something like this where they have a clear vision of where their platform should continue to go...(Not saying they will ever spend out like that again, but now makes more sense to.)

Well, no node is mentioned, but considering it's only supposed to come out next year, 7nm would be pretty much the minimum, if not even 5nm or any variation of and in between those two.

On the other hand, it's pretty clear why the TDP is so large: 12 core CPU based on the A77, and while no clock speed or GPU details apart from being next gen are detailed, the bandwidth target of 200 GB/s is 50% higher than on Xavier's top-end chip, which means the GPU will get even bigger and probably reach close to 1650 size - and performance.

For comparison's sake, what's in Xavier is pretty much right in between the MX250 and MX350, both in size and performance, and those draw already about 20W, which leaves 10W for the 8-core Carmel CPU if it stays within it's 30W target.

@bolded: yeah, in Laptops, which have a much higher TDP as they can dissipate heat easier through the keyboard and have more space for a larger battery. And even then, to hold those clock speeds necessary to beat the PS4, they still need to use H chips, the 15W U chips are not enough. Ryzen 4000 U-series could change this, but we'll have to wait for tests of those.

Well I think realistically in docked mode a Switch 2 could possibly get away with pulling 20-30watts if they actually go with a magnesium alloy frame(which would help dissipate heat). The current Switch is about as thick as the new Suface Pro-X and that sports the SQ1 putting out 2.1 Tflops @ 20w max. So the possibilities are there but many factors would determine what they could put into this system, such as the consoles material build.

But of course it wouldn't need max power draw in handheld mode and something closer to current Switch's pull of 7-8w total would be more than enough. Especially with techniques like DLSS and VRS on a smaller 1080p screen, image quality would look pretty amazing and most wouldn't notice the visual imperfections and artifacts as much since they aren't blown up in size...



Ck1x said:
JEMC said:

Nintendo is known for sticking with its hardware partners as long as possible (their jump to Nvidia was quite a surprise for a lot of people). Therefore, I actually believe that Nvidia's quote about partnering with Nintendo for 20 years isn't based on nothing and, while Nvidia can provide them with the right tools, Nintendo will keep using their products.

The best case scenario I can think of right now is one like what Boffer described, a Switch 2 using 8 Carmel cores with up to 512 GPU cores, at least Turing to be able to use DLS and VRR, and 8GB connected via a 128bit bus.

The only problem I see with this is that even Nvidia are off of the Carmel cores idea they just recently licensed out usage of Hercules, so that probably has the better chance of making it into Switch 2. When it comes to Nvidia we currently don't have a real world example of just how efficient their technology is on 7nm or lower, so it can be a little hard to imagine how many cores Nvidia could squeeze into a chip the size of Tegra X1 or slightly larger. 

All of the new gpu advancements that Nvidia are showing and proving work, couldn't benefit anyone more right now than Nintendo with their next system. I kind of get those GC reminiscent days of when that system was so well built and thought out that it was doing some graphical effects in hardware that the others just weren't set-up for. It completely allowed for some impossible looking games running on it, with also punching way above its status specs wise...

Correct me if I'm wrong (I know very little about AMR processors), but aren't those Hercules chips designed for security tasks? I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Nvidia has licensed them just to make their own SoC more safe.

As for the node and TDP of the SoC inside the Switch' successor, we should remember that we're not only talking about Nvidia, but also Nintendo. The Switch launched with original Tegra X1 chips made at a 20nm node (already dated) and, despite that chip being rated at 15W TDP, Nintendo lowered clocks to reduce heat and power consumption even more.

I don't think Nintendo will jump to 7, much less 5nm tech, and the chip will also have to use very little power to make it suitable for a handheld without burning the owners hands.



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.