My expectation is Switch 2 will be to the PS4/PS5 what the Switch 1 is to the PS3/PS4.

More powerful and modern than the the PS4 but obviously not with the PS5 but has a feature set more comparable to the PS5 so and as a result can even run some PS5 games just like the Switch 1 runs some PS4 games like DOOM Eternal, Wolfenstein 2, Witcher 3, now FIFA/FC with Frostbite Engine, Dragon Quest XI S, Alien Isolation, etc. etc.

Maybe even moreso because I think DLSS depending on how its implimented can be a complete game changer. There probably are a bunch more PS4 games that could run on the Switch, but there's not a lot of motivation from devs to make a 360p undocked/540p docked ugly looking port ... not many people probably the figure want to pay $50-$70 for a port that looks fugly. But if the current Switch had DLSS and could have those games run at 720p undocked/900p docked, you'd probably have a lot more devs considering it/doing it. 

Switch was technically superior to the Xbox 360.

Gflops is irrelevant in this instance as the XBox 360 couldn't do Rapid Packed Math, didn't have delta colour compression, didn't have DX11 compliant tessellators, geometry culling, hardware instancing and all the other efficiency improvements that nVidia introduced with Fermi and Maxwell that didn't exist on the Xbox 360's Radeon x1900/2900 hybrid GPU.

Tegra Orin... All of them. - With the exception of the Nano variants, would beat a base Playstation 4 without contest.

Nintendo+nVidia are gunning for efficiency rather than the most hardware units they can get... And efficiency has exploded since 2012 when AMD introduced Graphics Core Next which was very compute and power heavy.

You cannot assert whether someone has done research or not, you don't have the evidence for that claim.

Consequently, it's all well and good to "research" but unless it comes from a legitimate authority on the subject matter, then it's absolutely irrelevant whether you have done research or not.

People research garbage like "Flat Earth", "Chemtrails", "Climate change is a hoax" all the time, despite there being no real, substantiated, empirical evidence to backup their claim, they just cling to whatever they agree with, rather than the science.

Consequently, we don't know what variant of Tegra we are getting in the Switch 2, it may not be the T239 variant, it hasn't been confirmed... So the amount of "research" you do on this topic is again... Irrelevant.

"leaks" have been false fabrications in the past.

Plans can also change.

Switch OLED is more like a variant rather than a Pro model.

Nintendo could have opted for clock speed increases for their Pro model, which would not have required a new silicon revision.

The die shrink for Tegra X1 ironically wasn't just for Switch, nVidia has it's DRIVE, SHIELD and Jetson initiatives, some of those products used and benefited from the shrink. - Plus fabbing on the older nodes was getting more difficult and more expensive.

It's not just down to nVidia. - Nintendo could have increased DRAM clock and capacity (As one of the largest bottlenecks of Switch is RAM and Ram speed) and we would have seen marked improvements for the same power and cost.

We also know the Switch has a fuck-ton of headroom in regards to clockrates to increase performance.

DLSS will be developer dependent and not in every game, some developers will likely opt for FSR instead, especially for Multi-plats as it can run on every platform.

DLSS is also nVidia propriety technology... So if Nintendo ever changes chipset to say... AMD or Qualcomm, they would have to break backwards compatibility.


Honestly I don't want to see Switch 2 use DLSS for the above reasons, but that's just me personally... Unlikely to get my wish as all modern Tegra chipsets support DLSS to varying degrees.

Yeah presumably DLSS will lead to a lot more ability to get current gen console ports on Nintendo. Take a 4k/60fps console game, knock it down to 360-540p/30fps and take out ray tracing if it has it, then use DLSS to bump it up to 720p undocked and probably 1080p docked, and there will probably be far less downgrading of graphics needed at that point, if any.

Without DLSS I'd expect Switch 2 to be in the same situation as Switch was with XB1/PS4 ie able to get ports but with a good amount of downgrading of graphics which makes them look muddy compared to games actually made for Switch. But with DLSS that problem should presumably be avoided and I would think will make it much much easier to port games to Switch 2 with only small changes.

Easy: release two SKUs since day 1, one of them equivalent to the switch lite.

Supposing switch 2 standard SKU would have DLSS tensor cores, SSD, dock, joy-con like detachable controllers (with communication modules, sensors, etc) at 400$.
They could ditch the tensor cores if was reasonable to decrease costs, slash the ssd size, wont have a dock, cables. Make a single board with controlelrs included.
Seems reasonable it can be sold for around 250 to 300$.

Also, PS5 is selling well at 500$, switch oled is doing well at 350$.

Yep. From 540p DLSS 2.0+ in Super Performance mode can actually resolve well past 1080p too, that's enough pixels that it can run a game at probably at 1440p. 

The pixel disparity is pretty huge if the Switch 2 has that kind of DLSS performance

Even if we "splurge" on pixel resolution a bit to give DLSS more to work with ...

853x640 (Switch 2 portable mode DLSS to 1080p) = 545,000 pixels to render

1280x720  (Switch docked mode DLSS to 4K) = 921,000 pixels to render

3840x2160 4K native resolution (PS5) = 8,294,400 pixels to render

Even if Switch 2 is say 2.3 teraflops in docked mode, the PS5 has to render a resolution of 9x higher (or push 9x the amount of pixels), and a PS5 is not 9x greater than 2.3 teraflops (it's only actually about 5x better than 2.3 teraflops which is the same gap between the PS4 and Switch docked). 

Don't think you can just remove the tensor cores like that, it would probably actually end up costing Nintendo more money as Nvidia would consider it a completely new chip design and probably charge them accordingly. 

If Nintendo was really that concerned with budget pricing (sub $300) the Switch 1 would have been there a year ago ... the fact that they actually increased the price with a new SKU tells you how today's Nintendo (not 1996's Nintendo) feels about pricing. 

I think two SKUs on day 1 makes a lot of sense. I don't think it'll be a Lite, but could definitely see a lower end hybrid and a higher end hybrid. Do a less disk space, and smaller LCD screen on lower end. Do like 512gb disk space and larger OLED screen on high end. Price them at like $330 and $380. They are gonna want to launch under $350 for sure I think to avoid being seen as overpriced, so I think the options are either do two hybrid SKUs or only do a cheaper one, and given that its next gen I think they definitely need an option at launch that is at least as nice as OLED in terms of display and I doubt a next gen equal to Switch OLED display is gonna come in at the same price as Switch OLED, no matter how much bank they are currently making on every OLED Switch sold.

Later on do a Lite and some sort of extra premium model at $250 and $400, dropping the originals slightly to $300 and $350 by then.

If they keep bringing good content, woke free games, beautiful female characters and well developed bug free games I'll pay whatever they ask for the system.

Who are these beautiful female characters you're talking about? Pretty sure Waluigi is a boy

wtf?!