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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Bloomberg: New Switch Model With Larger OLED Display And 4K Docked. Production Begins In June.

I've gotta say, I've been hearing these "Switch Pro" rumors for about 3 years now, but this is the first one that actually sounds credible.  

“The OLED panel will consume less battery, offer higher contrast and possibly faster response time when compared to the Switch’s current liquid-crystal display,” said Yoshio Tamura, co-founder of display consultancy DSCC.

That part sounds totally believable.  This looks like a cheap way to get improved graphics and more battery.  That is the sort of thing Nintendo usually looks for.  On the other hand, when it comes to 4K I wouldn't expect much.  The XB1 S can stream 4K, but it's still less powerful than the base PS4.  I think the main graphical upgrade we are going to see is going to come from the OLED screen.  This new model will probably get a minor processor upgrade like the 3DS, but not a major one like the mid gen upgrades of PS4/XB1.

So, I think this article is true as long as you don't get your hopes up about the 4k.  I can actually believe Nintendo will have an upgraded model sometime this year, because 2021 is about the right time for it.  I can also believe it will have an OLED screen and a longer battery life and maybe a small upgrade to the processor like the New 3DS did.  This upgrade is going to resemble the New 3DS upgrade a lot more than it resembles the XBox 1 X upgrade.



Around the Network

I'm confused as to why would Nintendo do something like this for "just" a Pro model of the Switch.

Since there's no way the chip powering this new console will be able to render games at native 4K, it's obvious that it will need to use DLSS to achieve that, but in order to do that you need Tensor Cores. Neither the Tegra X1 nor the X2 feature such cores, they were introduced with Volta that powers the Tegra Xavier, a much bigger and powerful Tegra chip designed for AI.

But why would Nintendo waste this incredible jump in performance in a Pro model when it makes more sense for a Switch successor?



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.

Dulfite said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

Bold: Um, power wise, N64 > PS1.

N64 Vs. PS1: Which Console Is More Powerful (In Terms Of Tech Specs) (thegamer.com)

It isn't always that simple. Developers probably saw how much more realistic textures could look on PS1 and disregarded the overall better power/graphics of the N64 to publish more games on PS1.

That article is just an opinion piece.
When they throw out blatant pieces of opinion like: "graphics have graduated beyond polygons" then you know to take their opinion with a grain of salt.
Polygons are still the fundamental building blocks that forms the basis of all games today.

The reason why texturing was different wasn't because the PS1 had more "realistic" textures, it's because it's textures weren't limited to 4kb and it wasn't filtering them.

They weren't actually more realistic, developers just chose a different artistic design.

JEMC said:

I'm confused as to why would Nintendo do something like this for "just" a Pro model of the Switch.

Since there's no way the chip powering this new console will be able to render games at native 4K, it's obvious that it will need to use DLSS to achieve that, but in order to do that you need Tensor Cores. Neither the Tegra X1 nor the X2 feature such cores, they were introduced with Volta that powers the Tegra Xavier, a much bigger and powerful Tegra chip designed for AI.

But why would Nintendo waste this incredible jump in performance in a Pro model when it makes more sense for a Switch successor?

Doubt there is DLSS. I would assume just a rudimentary upscale.


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

4k support doesn't mean that it will be more powerful and the games will be rendered in 4k, maybe is just for streaming, YouTube, and maybe simple games that can be rendered in 4k in current switch, but the system do not support.
DLSS can make its debut on consoles on switch 2.



Chicho said:
Dulfite said:

N64 Vs. PS1: Which Console Is More Powerful (In Terms Of Tech Specs) (thegamer.com)

It isn't always that simple. Developers probably saw how much more realistic textures could look on PS1 and disregarded the overall better power/graphics of the N64 to publish more games on PS1.

Ps1 games ususally had higher resolution textures and audio samples because on N64 to make a 32mb game was cheaper than a 64mb game but on ps1 you could go to 600mb at the same price because a disc would be the same to produce. Ps1 had cheaper storage not more power.

But that's my point, that PS1 was able to achieve better looking visuals to people because of that, or at least visuals that were more appealing to consumers. So in many developer's minds they still preferred to make games for PS1 and adjusting for the 64 was too annoying. 



Around the Network
Pemalite said:
JEMC said:

I'm confused as to why would Nintendo do something like this for "just" a Pro model of the Switch.

Since there's no way the chip powering this new console will be able to render games at native 4K, it's obvious that it will need to use DLSS to achieve that, but in order to do that you need Tensor Cores. Neither the Tegra X1 nor the X2 feature such cores, they were introduced with Volta that powers the Tegra Xavier, a much bigger and powerful Tegra chip designed for AI.

But why would Nintendo waste this incredible jump in performance in a Pro model when it makes more sense for a Switch successor?


Doubt there is DLSS. I would assume just a rudimentary upscale.

The DLSS part comes from another rumor, an "insider" (I really have no clue on how reliable he is) from Resetera.



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:

I'm confused as to why would Nintendo do something like this for "just" a Pro model of the Switch.

Since there's no way the chip powering this new console will be able to render games at native 4K, it's obvious that it will need to use DLSS to achieve that, but in order to do that you need Tensor Cores. Neither the Tegra X1 nor the X2 feature such cores, they were introduced with Volta that powers the Tegra Xavier, a much bigger and powerful Tegra chip designed for AI.

But why would Nintendo waste this incredible jump in performance in a Pro model when it makes more sense for a Switch successor?

Because if that's what they think they need to postpone a Switch successor to 2025 or later, then they'll do it.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

numberwang said:
Vodacixi said:

The Switch doesn't have access to any major streaming platform. This is true even 4 years after its release. Do you really believe that they will make a new Switch model with 4K to use it on stuff Nintendo has made very clear they give two shits about? 

Streaming money is in expensive premium accounts with 4K HDR+ content and Switch can't offer that so streaming companies are avoiding Switch. These services will be available on a 4K capable Switch Pro.

Do your realize that base PS4 and Xbox One don't have 4K output and yet they have access to pretty much every streaming service available on the market? Also, there are plenty of modern devices that only support 1080p output, but are compatible with streaming services regardless like the base models of Amazon Fire Stick or Google Chromecast.

I don't know... I don't think your point makes too much sense...



Vodacixi said:
numberwang said:

Streaming money is in expensive premium accounts with 4K HDR+ content and Switch can't offer that so streaming companies are avoiding Switch. These services will be available on a 4K capable Switch Pro.

Do your realize that base PS4 and Xbox One don't have 4K output and yet they have access to pretty much every streaming service available on the market? Also, there are plenty of modern devices that only support 1080p output, but are compatible with streaming services regardless like the base models of Amazon Fire Stick or Google Chromecast.

I don't know... I don't think your point makes too much sense...

PS4 was released in 2013 when 4k content or HDR was nearly nonexistent so they have legacy support. Times have changed and Nintendo has to support modern resolutions and features to be relevant for streaming platforms, better late than never.



siebensus4 said:
Elputoxd said:

Don't get hyped. Get ready for it. Nintendo has never sold a console at a loss.

The 3DS was sold at a loss after its first price cut. Also GameCube was sold at a loss with its 99 $ price tag.

Nintendo only really sells at a loss when their consoles aren't selling well. The 3DS was sold at a loss due to underwhelming sales and the Gamecube was selling like shit. The Switch is far from that point.