Asking the other way around.. how likely is it that Switch 2 will not face the issue that games are not released on the system due to its specs?
Because that is what I want Nintendo to avoid at all cost. There should not be even one instance where you have to purchase a 2nd system because a multiplatform 3rd party game skips the system. That is my wish.

New specs leak just dropped:

• TSMC N4 node process (4 nanometre?)

• 8-core A78C CPU, clock rates unknown, don't know what's meant by GA10F (this could be the GPU line)

• 12 stream multiprocessor GPU, performance ranging from 3.5 to 4.5 TFLOPs docked and 1.7 to 2.0 TFLOPs handheld

• 100GB/s memory bandwidth docked and 88GB/s handheld

• Memory cache specifics uncertain, Tegra GPU cores may be able to access CPU cache

• Display is 8" screen with 1080p and 60hz refresh rate

• Cartridge specifics unknown, but 3D-NAND may provide a cost-effective way to significantly increase storage

Seems reasonable.  I've been expecting the memory bandwidth to be a bottleneck.  100 gb/s for a portable is fair but very slow compared to home consoles.  Ps4 is 176, series s is 225, ps5 is 500 and a good gpu is 700.

As a reference point, steam deck is 88 gb/s.  

I'm sticking with my ps4 like visuals given the bottleneck.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Arp3H_mgR8



Iphone 15 pro Max, looks like it would need like 4 times its current performance, to match a base PS4 (in this game).
However.... that is still insane.... its a PHONE..... its not ment to be able to match a console, that again, draws 100's of watts of power.

And again, you have to understand this is not even the max performance, these games are not optimized properly for hardware, with consoles you get a dev team to actually sit down and tailor make a version of a game specifically to one hardware spec, these are just PC games with settings sliders moved around, if a a dedicated dev team actually sat down and worked on a port for like 6-8 months, fine tuning every area of the game just for one piece of hardware, you'd have better performance than this. 

Personally, I'm expecting it to be a lot more powerful than a PS4, just like the Switch was way ahead of the PS3. It won't be as powerful as the PS5, but the power gap between the Switch 2 and the PS5 will be smaller than the power gap between the Switch 1 and the PS4.

Not a leak. It's an unsubstantiated rumor. We need to start knowing the difference, otherwise people start to peddle rumor as fact.

TSMC N4 node is advertising. It's NOT 4 nanometer.

TSMC N4 is actually based on it's 5nm technology which ironically has a bigger gate pitch and interconnect pitch than IRDS 7nm definition, take that as you will.
But the scaling just isn't happening at the moment.

GA10F does refer to a Geforce Ampere class GPU.

Teraflops is meaningless. It's theoretical, not real-world.

720P again confirmed? ;)

This has been a Tegra feature for some time.

Cache coherency is however, only 1-directional, Tegra X1 in the Switch should be able to do this.

https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cuda-for-tegra-appnote/index.html

Good luck getting 1080P happening with 100GB/s of bandwidth.
You will not get the fillrate necessary to drive that.

And will not last long.

Bitflip is a big issue with NAND, you loose data extremely quickly.
3D NAND would exacerbate that issue.

ROM is the way to go.

Steamdeck gets away with it because it's only running 720P levels of resolution.

Keep in mind that Delta Colour Compression is a technology that the Playstation 4 lacks, so that can give Tegra an extra 60% bandwidth boost if the patterns fit with DCC.

Playstation 4 level of capability but with a few extra tricks (Ray Tracing) is the most logical scenario here.

Keep in mind is also running CUSTOM silicon and CUSTOM software to MAXIMISE performance.

You do NOT get that same privilege on other platforms.

You do realise that is exactly what console developers so? Essentially just move a slider?
Digital Foundry does it all the time and "adjusts" PC sliders to get an identical visual representation of the console release and gets those games running on equivalent PC hardware.

It doesn't need to match PS4 specs to beat it.

"weaker" hardware on paper today is leagues ahead of "faster" hardware from 10+ years ago, efficiency does actually improve, which is why the Switch is able to beat a Playstation 3, WiiU and Xbox 360, nVidia Maxwell is just a significantly more efficient chip despite the "flops" not representing that visual leap.

Why would you ever run any game at native resolution on Switch 2 to begin with? There's no point when you have DLSS, undocked really never needs to go above 540p as far as I'm concerned. Yes native looks slightly better, but not good enough that it's worth forcing the system to render 4x the pixels. On top of that DLSS gives you basically a "free" form of anti-aliasing. Running at native + wasting resources on top of that for AA is just brain dead, in fact I would postulate that DLSS implementation is the automatic default for Switch 2 dev kits, the system will be designed to run with that on. 

Especially on a freaking small 7-8 inch-ish display, the regular joe, even most "game enthusiast joes" are not really going to know or care that their game is actually only rendering from 540p, shit I think you could go even lower than that. 

Yes you can move sliders around on PC games that have a performance overhead to "match" lower console settings, that doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm saying. I'm saying if the Steam Deck version of Ratchet & Clank runs at 30-40 fps, if Insomniac sat down with a team of 20-30 people who worked on the port for 6-7 months JUST for that one hardware, do I think they could get that up to a solid locked 40 fps and/or maybe even bump the settings from Low to Medium 30 fps ... yes, I do. Optimization does matter.

540p or less native scaled to 1440p or 4k is going to look terrible on a big TV.  You seem stuck talking about how games will look on a small screen....  the switch 2 is a hybrid and needs to look good on a large TV, not just 8 inch screen.

If it helps I agree on a small screen the pixel density is goof enough where low resolution and low settings is fine.  Docked mode is the issue when comparing to the ps5.

540p to 1080p looks fine on a smaller display, shit I have even tested this on my 77 inch Samsung QD-OLED S90C that I got for Black Friday (with kick ass second gen QD OLED panel, so don't lecture me on TV tech, that's not a can of worms you want to open up) and it's passable. I had friends over who are guys who play COD, Elden Ring, GTA, Madden NFL (ie: typical gamers) and they had no idea that they were playing Cyberpunk 2077 at only 540p to 1080p resolution. From 540p, DLSS can begin to resolve a pretty decent looking image. 

For docked mode 720p to 1440p would look fine. With 720p DLSS can definitely start to cook. 

There is no freaking point to rendering natively on a system like this, if you have a PC GPU that can draw 300 watts, that's a different story, but on a Switch as a developer there is no point to native rendering. DLSS gives a good enough image that has anti-aliasing basically baked in on top of that, you'd be stupid to render natively. 

Lol, so you are going from "comparable" to "passable."  Good stuff.  Either way we are saying the same thing.  Switch 2 games on a large TV will be passable buy not great quality.  1080p was antiquated a decade ago.  

720p DLSS will beOK, not great.  

The story hasn't changed.  Mobile has limitations, personal opinion on what people prefer.  I'll stick with my native 1440p upscaled to 4k at 60 fps.  

Actually I will say 720p to 1440p DLSS does look great. It does look like you are playing something very close to real 1440p. 

I've tried it and tested it on a 77 inch display, on a 27 inch PC monitor that I sit right in front of too, it looks great either way. I have larger displays in my house than "Joe Average" does. 

You'd have to be a fucking moron as far I'm concerned to render those games natively on Switch 2, native 1440p is not worth anywhere close rendering 4-8x more pixels. 

You have to push DLSS down to to about 360p (which is ridiculously low) to really have the image quality look actually bad. From 540p it starts to look good more than good enough for a small screen display, 720p to 1440p looks very good, 1080p to 4K looks fantastic. Someone would have to present a pretty compelling case as far I'm concerned for why you would ever really want to render above 540p undocked, and 720p-1080p docked on Switch 2. There's no point. Even 1080p is kind of ridiculous, I think 900p DLSS would be more than good enough, you can get a very nice image quality from just 1280x720 pixels going to 1440p, and yes I'm talking about for big screen TVs. 

No one is realistically going to stop playing a game because some power lines 50 feet in the distance are a little fuzzy. That type of gamer isn't even in the market for a Switch so their opinions on the matter are frankly irrelevant.