So much cheaper than an iPhone 15 Pro or Pro Max with just a few AAA games.

• iPhone 15 Pro: £/$999 / €1149 (128GB) up to £/$1499 / €1829 (1TB)
• iPhone 15 Pro Max: £/$1199 / €1449 (256GB) up to £/$1599 / €1949 (1TB)

No one needs a game console, even less so the audience that needs one for $700 because they want shiny reflections on windows, most people need their smartphone day to day and wouldn't be caught dead leaving home without it. It's the first thing they look at when they wake up, they carry it around with them all day at work or school, etc. etc. etc. 

The latest Switch 2 leak is concerning to say the least, I really hope it is bogus. I see 3 main mistakes in the leaked specs:

1. Only 8 GB of RAM. Devs are already frequently complaining that 10 GB (8 useable by devs) on Series S is not enough, so if Nintendo only has 8 GB (6 useable) it definitely feels like many 3rd parties won't want to port their games to Switch 2, just like Switch 1 before it. Imo they need 12 GB of RAM (10 useable by devs).

2. 64 GB of internal storage. Games continue to get bigger and bigger, with some games like CoD now regularly over 100 GB, and the upcoming GTA 6 likely shaping up to be 200 GB+. How in the heck will Switch 2 get ports of these games with such low internal storage? Xbox for instance already committed to putting CoD on Switch 2, but how in the heck will they manage to get a 100 GB+ game to fit on Switch 2? Physical carts only, no digital download? Solid state storage is fairly cheap now, you can get a 500 GB PCIe 3.0 SSD at retail for like $35 now, and Nintendo is buying wholesale, not retail. Why not go big on storage and embrace digital sales where the profit margin for Nintendo is much higher than on physical sales where they waste alot of money on pricey carts?

3. 120hz screen. This just seems pointless. Very few games will be capable of running over 60 fps in handheld mode (ports of older generation games and low graphics indies at most), so why spend money on a higher refresh rate screen when you can put more money into fixing the above RAM and storage problems instead?

12 GB RAM could happen. Steam Deck is obviously a lot weaker than the 9th gen consoles but has 16 GB RAM. I really don't see Nintendo using that much. Nintendo will probably use 8 or 10, but 12 like you said would be awesome. 

64 GB storage is indeed very paltry. Let's look at some file sizes.

Switch is closer to an Xbox 360 and PS3 in specs than an Xbox One and PS4, but is still clearly above those old consoles.

Uncharted 3 on PS3 is about 43.5 GB. I don't know of any Nintendo games on Switch with that high of a file size, but there are some that are 17 GB and up with updates and DLC. And of course, NBA 2K24 is 61.7 GB. With that in mind Switch having 32 GB (64 GB for OLED) of storage is still small, but not the craziest thing for a hybrid.

Now let's look at Xbox One and PS4, which Switch 2 will be more in line with. COD Modern Warfare is 175 GB+, and I'm sure some third-party games on Switch 2 might be around that. There will probably be a good number of Nintendo games that push 20 GB, some might even go above 40 GB.

128 GB seems like the minimum amount of storage for Switch 2, with 200-256 GB as more ideal. 

It won't handle it well but since it'll be using using an Nvidia chip with more recent architecture it'll probably be pretty competitive with RT compared to the PS5 and Series X at least. Splatoon 4 can maybe do something with it for the ink.

The Switch 2 will be using the equivalent of half an RTX 3050 in all likelihood - a card that already lags significantly behind the performance of an RX 6700/6700 XT in Port Royal and Cyberpunk 2077 RT (both good benchmarks for heavy usage of said resource).

Also, keep in mind that the draw calls for rays rely heavily on the CPU side. So no, it probably won't.

Since using RT will have a lower impact on average, you might see more titles using it if they can spare the frames. It'll just be very light implementations, however.

The latest Switch 2 leak is concerning to say the least, I really hope it is bogus. I see 3 main mistakes in the leaked specs:

1. Only 8 GB of RAM. Devs are already frequently complaining that 10 GB (8 useable by devs) on Series S is not enough, so if Nintendo only has 8 GB (6 useable) it definitely feels like many 3rd parties won't want to port their games to Switch 2, just like Switch 1 before it. Imo they need 12 GB of RAM (10 useable by devs).

2. 64 GB of internal storage. Games continue to get bigger and bigger, with some games like CoD now regularly over 100 GB, and the upcoming GTA 6 likely shaping up to be 200 GB+. How in the heck will Switch 2 get ports of these games with such low internal storage? Xbox for instance already committed to putting CoD on Switch 2, but how in the heck will they manage to get a 100 GB+ game to fit on Switch 2? Physical carts only, no digital download? Solid state storage is fairly cheap now, you can get a 500 GB PCIe 3.0 SSD at retail for like $35 now, and Nintendo is buying wholesale, not retail. Why not go big on storage and embrace digital sales where the profit margin for Nintendo is much higher than on physical sales where they waste alot of money on pricey carts?

3. 120hz screen. This just seems pointless. Very few games will be capable of running over 60 fps in handheld mode (ports of older generation games and low graphics indies at most), so why spend money on a higher refresh rate screen when you can put more money into fixing the above RAM and storage problems instead?

It's not a leak. It's a rumor.

16GB needs to be the target, Nintendo is less efficient with it's memory usage compared to Microsoft, so it needs to be more than the Series S.

Keep in mind a lot of that storage consumption is due to things like uncompressed audio assets.

Games dont need to be 100GB-200GB, it's a developer choice, the Switch 2 by having inferior hardware is thus going to have downgraded assets, which means space savings.

MicroSD cards will be the way to go to augment storage.

Frame generation, variable refresh rate.

A higher refresh screen doesn't actually increase the bill of materials that much, most of the cost comes in the form of quality assurance... Having a higher refresh rate with an unlocked frame rate would be a great thing later on down the line if Nintendo releases a Switch 2 Pro console, games get an automatic upgrade.

For instance PC gamers for decades have been taking 60hz LCD panels and "Overclocking" them to 90-120hz.

In saying that, portable consoles need to prioritize power consumption first, higher refresh rate displays use more battery.

 But this is the issue with rumors rather than facts, people get their knickers in a knot despite the hardware not being unveiled or confirmed.

12GB would require:
1) A 96bit memory bus with a corresponding decrease in bandwidth, fillrate and performance.
2) A clam-shell memory design, with partitioned memory pools so as not to impact gaming performance, likely the most headache-inducing for developers.
3) A 192-bit memory bus with a corresponding increase in bandwidth, fillrate and performance and cost. - Would probably be better with 16GB as a balance.

64GB is fine, developers don't need games to be 100-200GB, it's a choice by using high quality lossless assets.

Before the 9th gen releases I argued that the "Power of the compression" in the Playstation 5 and Series X wouldn't result in notable reduction in file sizes, which has turned out to be true for the most part.

Developers are just using that extra space to shoe-horn higher quality assets.

If the Switch 2 has smaller storage, then developers will work around that, it's a lower powered console so it's not going to need 16k/32k textures with full 7.1 uncompressed audio anyway.

What do you mean Nintendo is less efficient with their memory usage than Microsoft? Not saying your wrong but just curious why that is