When the RTX 3050ti does outperform the RTX 3050 6GB, we're looking at 5%-10% gains in average framerates (but still often worse 1% lows.) When the RTX 3050 6GB outperforms the RTX 3050ti 4GB, such as in Assassins' Creed Valhalla or Forza Horizon 5, we're looking at 30-70% higher average framerates (and much better 1% lows.)
The 3050ti and 3050 6GB have the same number of CUDA cores (which is why I didn't bring up the 3050 4GB.)
And yet... It still beats it.
Either way, the whole 3050 4GB vs 6GB argument is irrelevant.
Because like I alluded to before, video game developers build games within the confines of the hardware walls, not out of it.
The 4GB 2050 is also not a 3050 4GB or 6GB.
It's actually worst with a fraction of the bandwidth, which means it is even more useless at managing large datasets.
112GB/s vs 176GB/s/192GB/s is a big difference... Bandwidth is what is holding back the 2050 the most, not memory capacity.
Yes, it is 95W vs. 75W, BUT the GPU clocks are comparable and the 3050 is running at roughly 72W. 1965 MHz for the 3050ti and 1942 for the 3050 6GB. And the difference is +74%. That's not just because of a 20 watts difference, especially when that difference isn't affecting max clock rates.
TDP has a massive influence over mobile hardware... To the point where a lower-end part with a higher-TDP will outperform a higher-end part.
I.E. RTX 3070 outperforming the RTX 3080. - Despite the 3080 having twice the VRAM.
I don't think it will be the target for every game and especially not for the most demanding games. I think most games will have native 720-900p, upscaled to 1080p (or maybe a bit higher when 900p is the internal resolution.) But for many games 1080p is viable. BOTW isn't the most demanding game, but it is still impressive that the Switch 2 is able to run it at 4k (upscaled, likely from 1080p) 60fps, given that enhanced 360 games (ex: Mirrors Edge) on the Series S tend to target 1440p 60fps.
But yeah, given that even the PS5 has some games that fail to reach 1080p natively in performance mode, it is unrealistic to expect the most demanding Switch 2 games to reach that mark.
Keep in mind that Breath of the Wild also runs on a:
* Triple core CPU @ about 1.25Ghz
* 1GB Ram.
* Radeon 5550 class GPU.
It doesn't have hardware demands that are regarded as "intensive". 4k or not.
Sure, and we've seen what had to be done to Hogwarts Legacy to get it to run on Switch. It's not surprising that given the state of the Switch version, it can run in a 3GB pool. My point though is that I don't anticipate Nintendo's OS increasing significantly from 1GB to >2.5GB unless they add more features (media apps, achievements, better streaming overlays, browsers, etc.) I suppose if they go hardcore on a ram-hungry security system to prevent privacy it's possible, but that is the only scenario where I can see it.
Nintendo OS Ram use has generally increased in memory footprint every console generation.
Not only that, but one of the Switch's biggest issues is the extremely slow and laggy eSHOP performance, more memory dedicated to that task would clean it up a ton.
..And if they implement features like you alluded to, such as voice chat natively on the console itself, that would also require more RAM.
2. There is a good chance that the Switch 2 will be on a 5/4nm TSMC node (especially if it releases late 2024/early2025 and will be updated with a refresh say 2028-2029), meaning that underclocking to the base clock of the RTX 2050 might be too aggressive of a simulation. Of course, if the Switch 2 is running at Switch TGP levels, maybe not.
Very much unlikely to be on a 5/4nm TSMC node as it's expensive.
Anyway, I have argued that the Switch 2 would likely be roughly in between the 2050 and 3050 (30-35W) in terms of performance for the last few months. Closer to the prior than the latter, but probably a bit better than the prior still. You and a few others thought that even the 2050 was a stretch. Digital Foundry makes a video suggesting that that is likely a good estimate for what we should expect. The whole point of that original post was to argue that the Switch 2 and Rog Ally should be roughly comparable, even if we take Digital Foundry's estimate as the most likely outcome.
Actually my argument is that the Switch 2 will be closer to the 2050, not 3050.
So that is false.
Another thing to consider is that the 2050 in the Digital Foundry test was not able to run the Matrix Awakens demo due to VRAM capacity limitations. We are all pretty confident (Digital Foundry as well) that the Switch 2 (or at least a dev kit version of it) ran the demo.
Radeon RX 570 is running Matrix Awakens demo.
It is a 4GB card.
This guy also gets the demo working on a 1650S 4GB at 1080P low.
So it's actually possible, not impossible.
What is the thought on storage for the S2? I ask because most modern AAA titles are 60 to 100 gb. Cartridges are not cheap nor are they fast. Even the V90 SD I think are 100 to 200 mb/s read speeds. Not much compared to the M2 5000+ mb/s. M2 is expensive, and I don't see Nintendo going that route. I honestly don't know how they plan on handling storage.
They would likely stick with ROM again... Or rather a blended ROM/NAND makeup. Performance should increase either way... As not all loading is storage bound, but rather CPU bound, which is why when Nintendo unlocked the CPU clocks during game loading we saw significant increases on that front.
However compression will be key... And developers having part of the game as a download.
NAND has come down in price, but the issue of bit flipping as they age, ROM tends to be more immune to that.
But I think we are in the era where longevity isn't really a concern anymore.
While I think this is only true with the 2017 model (2h 30min on BotW, decreasing with years of use, WTF?), it got much better with the Lite, 2020 and OLED models.
But since we are talking about a new, much more powerful (and hungry) console, I'm concearned about this as well. Ideally, I would want at least 3h minimum with the most taxing games. Maybe it's unrealistic, but I can dream xD
I have a clip-on battery pack that supplements the Switch's battery... I can get about 6 hours out of mine... Some can take the Switch to 8 hours and adds a heap of ergonomics.