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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Rumor/Leak for specific RAM and storage capacity of the Switch sucessor (Centro Leak)

Pemalite on 12 May 2024
Doctor_MG said:
Pemalite said:

As above... It is certainly memory hungry for the "work" and features the OS has. Which isn't a lot... And it still ends up being slow on top of it.

Completely disagree here. Switch OS is snappy, and I actually can't understand how anyone would think otherwise. It's certainly faster than the Wii U, and even faster than the PS4 for certain tasks, such as going to the home screen mid game or switching profiles. 

The Nintendo eShop is the slow thing, not the OS in general.

The SwitchOS is not snappy.

Games take awhile to load.
Opening menu's and the eShop has delays.

The Xbox Series/Playstation 5 OS's are "snappy". - But they have the Ram and CPU time to do that...

Soundwave said:

Yep. As much I thought ideas like Miiverse were neat ... if you're going to put RAM into a video game console, the RAM should be for games first and foremost. 

You do realize you can unload things from RAM? Windows has been doing it for 30+ years.

Soundwave said:

The Switch OS does everything it needs to do and does it fast enough, honestly I wouldn't mind if Nintendo just reused the exact same OS but just made it faster due to being on UFS 3.1 (way faster than EMMC) and kept the foot print at only around 1GB of RAM usage total but they'll probably allow it to have 2GB this time around. 

That's a lie. The Switch OS does not do everything it needs to do.

It needs to use a smart-phone/tablet just to manage voice chat... Otherwise you need to deal with this bullshit:


Soundwave said:

The gap between a Series S and a Switch 2 is going to be considerably lower than the gap between a Switch 1 and XBox One though I think. 

It will be about the same. The Switch 2 will not and can not use the fastest Tegra chip available.

The Series S would likely be 2-3x faster than the Switch 2.0. That bandwidth man. I don't think you understand how much it benefits the Series S at 1080P.

Soundwave said:

I don't know if it's luck so much as it looks to me like they have specifically designed a machine that simply can handle modern ports or at least that was of greater consideration in the design process this time around. 

Xbox One released in November 2013.
Switch 1.0 released in March, 2017.

That's a gap of 3.3 years... And as such the Switch got to enjoy years without worrying about upgraded next-gen consoles hardware features hampering ports.


The Switch 2.0 is rumored to release in March 2025 or 4.3~ years after the current generation consoles launched... And Microsoft may replace their Xbox hardware as early as 2026 or about a year and a half after the Switch 2.0 and potentially be the largest "generational leap ever" if you believe their baseless hyperbole.

That is going to complicate ports to lesser hardware.

Soundwave said:

I think DLSS will be baked into the Switch 2 at the dev kit level, as in it's the standard default. 

DLSS is likely going to be used as a "crutch" to get acceptable performance and image quality in many badly made games.
We are already seeing it with games using DLSS/FSR/XESS/Unreal Engine 5 TSR on other platforms like the Xbox Series S/X and Playstation 5.

It's NOT going to enable the Switch 2.0 to "keep pace" with more powerful platforms as they are ALSO using upscalers.

The issue that people seem to be ignoring about DLSS is that it's also nVidia propriety technology, thus if Nintendo ever chooses to go with a different chip manufacturer for the Switch 3.0... All DLSS enabled games won't be backwards compatible.

DLSS is also up to the developer, not all developers are going to use it anyway.


haxxiy said:
Soundwave said:

ROG Ally's teraflop numbers are juiced too for marketing purposes, it doesn't actually push 8 teraflops in a realistic sense otherwise it would be double the performance of a Series S which we know isn't true and they have been called out for that misleading marketing. S2 and ROG Ally are likely going to be similar in performance, which is fantastic for Nintendo players, ROG Ally is one heck of a device, it can run pretty much any modern game thrown at it even with no real hardware level optimization, something the Switch 2 will have benefit of.

It's not as much of a market ploy (as in, an unreachable boost clock) as much as it is how RDNA3, Ampere, and Ada work. All these architectures have doubled FP32 instructions per INT32 inside their GPU cores but that affords little benefit in real-life workloads and hence isn't relevant for gaming.

That's the reason a lot of people are going to be bamboozled when they see a 36 TF PS5 Pro or a 4 TF docked Switch 2 thinking they are thrice as fast as a Series X or equal to a Series S... when they aren't.

The RDNA3 *can* get a healthy increase in FP32 and INT32 instructions, approaching almost it's peak theoretical performance thanks to the dual issue units, however... And this is the big caveat... That's not going to happen in gaming.
The GPU has other issuing bottlenecks that come into play which tend to make the FP32 throughput ultimately redundant, that and it tends to be more compiler heavy anyway.

The Dual-Issue units that essentially "inflate" it's Teraflop performance numbers was designed to capitalize on pure compute. Think: Crypto.

Chrkeller said:

I do think people are misunderstanding vram.  The size is how much can be stored and bandwidth is how fast data can be loaded and unloaded from the vram.  The ps4 was 176 gb/s and the ps5 is 448 gb/s.  That was a massive jump.  Don't get me wrong the switch to S2 is an absurd jump.  But I think people are focused way, way, way too much on size of the ram and are ignoring bandwidth.  

One of the reasons the Ally and Deck are limited in resolution and fps is because both of those require high memory bandwidths.  

120GB/s of bandwidth and 10GB of available memory is going to hold it back with 1080P gaming, especially once you start throwing Ray Tracing at it.

It will make a potent 720P+ device though.

But the question begs... Are we okay with another 720P console?

curl-6 said:
Chrkeller said:

It is a bigger jump, I'm not arguing that.  I was just pointing out rating the jump by amount only doesn't paint the full picture.  

I was including that in my assessment. Maybe I just wasn't explicit enough in that.

At any rate, 12GB of LPDDR5X at (apparently) 120 GB/s is gonna be a big jump from the Switch's 4GB of LPDDR4 at 25 GB/s, and games like the next Zelda and Xenoblade should benefit greatly.

Nintendo have *always* made some pretty stunning games that show off it's hardware. Not all. - Mario Kart 8 didn't feature any real rendering upgrades other than a resolution bump, which is the systems best seller.

Breath of the Wild was stellar on the WiiU. - Tears of the Kingdom didn't shift the bar much over that.
Zelda: Links Awakening with it's material shaders and DoF impressed me on the Switch.

But it's the ports. - It was great the Switch got games like Doom and The Witcher, but compared to it's other contemporary versions of those same titles, they looked muddy by comparison and were definitely not the best way to play those games.

The Switch 2.0 will bridge the visual gulf between the current Switch and the Xbox Series/Playstation 5, but it may only last for a short duration if Microsoft is set to release a next gen console soon.



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

Around the Network
Tober on 12 May 2024
burninmylight said:
Tober said:

There where a couple of Wii U Deluxe versions early in the Switch life cycle, but that was also because Switch was not backwards compatible.

I cannot remember Nintendo launching Deluxe versions or ports of older games within any other System's launch window when it was backwards compatible. Assuming the Switch is backwards compatible, I'm therefore assuming we will not get Deluxe versions or ports of Switch games at least not in the first year.

Link's Awakening DX. If you consider the Game Boy Color the same console as the original GB and not an full successor, then it's a deluxe version within the same console's life.

True, I missed that one. But it is not a common thing. Let's see what Nintendo is going to do.



Chrkeller on 12 May 2024
Pemalite said:
Doctor_MG said:

Completely disagree here. Switch OS is snappy, and I actually can't understand how anyone would think otherwise. It's certainly faster than the Wii U, and even faster than the PS4 for certain tasks, such as going to the home screen mid game or switching profiles. 

The Nintendo eShop is the slow thing, not the OS in general.

The SwitchOS is not snappy.

Games take awhile to load.
Opening menu's and the eShop has delays.

The Xbox Series/Playstation 5 OS's are "snappy". - But they have the Ram and CPU time to do that...

Soundwave said:

Yep. As much I thought ideas like Miiverse were neat ... if you're going to put RAM into a video game console, the RAM should be for games first and foremost. 

You do realize you can unload things from RAM? Windows has been doing it for 30+ years.

Soundwave said:

The Switch OS does everything it needs to do and does it fast enough, honestly I wouldn't mind if Nintendo just reused the exact same OS but just made it faster due to being on UFS 3.1 (way faster than EMMC) and kept the foot print at only around 1GB of RAM usage total but they'll probably allow it to have 2GB this time around. 

That's a lie. The Switch OS does not do everything it needs to do.

It needs to use a smart-phone/tablet just to manage voice chat... Otherwise you need to deal with this bullshit:


Soundwave said:

The gap between a Series S and a Switch 2 is going to be considerably lower than the gap between a Switch 1 and XBox One though I think. 

It will be about the same. The Switch 2 will not and can not use the fastest Tegra chip available.

The Series S would likely be 2-3x faster than the Switch 2.0. That bandwidth man. I don't think you understand how much it benefits the Series S at 1080P.

Soundwave said:

I don't know if it's luck so much as it looks to me like they have specifically designed a machine that simply can handle modern ports or at least that was of greater consideration in the design process this time around. 

Xbox One released in November 2013.
Switch 1.0 released in March, 2017.

That's a gap of 3.3 years... And as such the Switch got to enjoy years without worrying about upgraded next-gen consoles hardware features hampering ports.


The Switch 2.0 is rumored to release in March 2025 or 4.3~ years after the current generation consoles launched... And Microsoft may replace their Xbox hardware as early as 2026 or about a year and a half after the Switch 2.0 and potentially be the largest "generational leap ever" if you believe their baseless hyperbole.

That is going to complicate ports to lesser hardware.

Soundwave said:

I think DLSS will be baked into the Switch 2 at the dev kit level, as in it's the standard default. 

DLSS is likely going to be used as a "crutch" to get acceptable performance and image quality in many badly made games.
We are already seeing it with games using DLSS/FSR/XESS/Unreal Engine 5 TSR on other platforms like the Xbox Series S/X and Playstation 5.

It's NOT going to enable the Switch 2.0 to "keep pace" with more powerful platforms as they are ALSO using upscalers.

The issue that people seem to be ignoring about DLSS is that it's also nVidia propriety technology, thus if Nintendo ever chooses to go with a different chip manufacturer for the Switch 3.0... All DLSS enabled games won't be backwards compatible.

DLSS is also up to the developer, not all developers are going to use it anyway.


haxxiy said:

It's not as much of a market ploy (as in, an unreachable boost clock) as much as it is how RDNA3, Ampere, and Ada work. All these architectures have doubled FP32 instructions per INT32 inside their GPU cores but that affords little benefit in real-life workloads and hence isn't relevant for gaming.

That's the reason a lot of people are going to be bamboozled when they see a 36 TF PS5 Pro or a 4 TF docked Switch 2 thinking they are thrice as fast as a Series X or equal to a Series S... when they aren't.

The RDNA3 *can* get a healthy increase in FP32 and INT32 instructions, approaching almost it's peak theoretical performance thanks to the dual issue units, however... And this is the big caveat... That's not going to happen in gaming.
The GPU has other issuing bottlenecks that come into play which tend to make the FP32 throughput ultimately redundant, that and it tends to be more compiler heavy anyway.

The Dual-Issue units that essentially "inflate" it's Teraflop performance numbers was designed to capitalize on pure compute. Think: Crypto.

Chrkeller said:

I do think people are misunderstanding vram.  The size is how much can be stored and bandwidth is how fast data can be loaded and unloaded from the vram.  The ps4 was 176 gb/s and the ps5 is 448 gb/s.  That was a massive jump.  Don't get me wrong the switch to S2 is an absurd jump.  But I think people are focused way, way, way too much on size of the ram and are ignoring bandwidth.  

One of the reasons the Ally and Deck are limited in resolution and fps is because both of those require high memory bandwidths.  

120GB/s of bandwidth and 10GB of available memory is going to hold it back with 1080P gaming, especially once you start throwing Ray Tracing at it.

It will make a potent 720P+ device though.

But the question begs... Are we okay with another 720P console?

curl-6 said:

I was including that in my assessment. Maybe I just wasn't explicit enough in that.

At any rate, 12GB of LPDDR5X at (apparently) 120 GB/s is gonna be a big jump from the Switch's 4GB of LPDDR4 at 25 GB/s, and games like the next Zelda and Xenoblade should benefit greatly.

Nintendo have *always* made some pretty stunning games that show off it's hardware. Not all. - Mario Kart 8 didn't feature any real rendering upgrades other than a resolution bump, which is the systems best seller.

Breath of the Wild was stellar on the WiiU. - Tears of the Kingdom didn't shift the bar much over that.
Zelda: Links Awakening with it's material shaders and DoF impressed me on the Switch.

But it's the ports. - It was great the Switch got games like Doom and The Witcher, but compared to it's other contemporary versions of those same titles, they looked muddy by comparison and were definitely not the best way to play those games.

The Switch 2.0 will bridge the visual gulf between the current Switch and the Xbox Series/Playstation 5, but it may only last for a short duration if Microsoft is set to release a next gen console soon.

I'm 100% aligned with you.  The switch 2, for 3rd party games, is going to be very behind.  It isn't the powerhouse some think it will be.  120 gb/s is severely limited.  

Heck the 4070 with 12 gb dedicated vram at 504 gb/s got crunched with new games at max settings.

Do I think the S2 can run modern games?  Most of them, yes.  But severely downgraded compared to other hardware.  Do I think the S2 will Rebirth or GTA6, no I don't.  

For me 3rd party is exclusively PC.  But I do think Nintendo games, given their art style, will look great on the s2.  

If people are okay with 3rd party 720p, 30 fps and low settings...  that is their choice and I don't have issues with it.  I just know it isn't for me.  RE4 at native 4k, ultra settings at 100+ fps is amazing.  



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Switch OLED

Doctor_MG on 12 May 2024
Pemalite said:
Doctor_MG said:

Completely disagree here. Switch OS is snappy, and I actually can't understand how anyone would think otherwise. It's certainly faster than the Wii U, and even faster than the PS4 for certain tasks, such as going to the home screen mid game or switching profiles. 

The Nintendo eShop is the slow thing, not the OS in general.

The SwitchOS is not snappy.

Games take awhile to load.
Opening menu's and the eShop has delays.

The Xbox Series/Playstation 5 OS's are "snappy". - But they have the Ram and CPU time to do that...

To prove the point that Switch's OS is too slow for the amount of RAM it uses you had to compare it to two consoles who have almost four times the RAM reserved for their OS AND the RAM those consoles use have over 10x the bandwidth the Switch does. 

It's like comparing a bike to a sports car and saying the bike isn't well built. It doesn't actually prove anything. 

As for your complaints. I'm not sure if your switch is broken, but booting a game from the main menu takes no time at all (an OS task). Loading IN game can take a while, but that's not because of the OS. The opening menu rarely ever has any delays for me. I did mention the eShop already. 



Phenomajp13 on 12 May 2024

No reason at all to be aligned with Permalite because he is clearly not as knowledgeable as he pretends to be. Clearly the console market with the dying brand is the one Nintendo should follow according to him. Nintendo, PS, and the rest of the world could careless about MS jumping to the next generation early because no one buys Xboxs to begin with. PS isnt jumping early because PS is already struggling to be profitable now. MS jumping early is exactly what Sega thought and it ended their console business. MS right now is making games for their competitors lol. The Switch OS is more than snappy enough and lacks all those apps, yet the market said we only care about games and this thing being a gaming console and will sell as much as Xbox 360, Xbox One, and Xbox Series combined. Nintendo isn't interested in trying to keep up with Xbox OS and will likely only care about upgrading what they feel necessary. Permalite also missed the memo about the Nintendo online app not being required by 3rd parties at all. The largest multi-player games on Switch by 3rd parties Fortnite, Apex, Rocket League, and Overwatch don't use the app to voice chat at all. I simply plug in my headphones into the headphones jack or in docked mode I use my USB PS headset.



Around the Network
zeldaring on 12 May 2024

I swear this has Been going since the wii days every time Nintendo gets leaksd specs, people that pretend they know what they are talking about over exaggerate by 2 to 3x its a t239 just watch digital Foundry and they always give a realistic expectation of what to expect this won't be touching series s, and for 2025 will be very dated.



sc94597 on 12 May 2024

I think there is a lot of over-estimation in here on how important memory bandwidth will be. 

An RTX 3050 4GB mobile has about 70% more (1.7 times the) memory bandwidth of an RTX 2050 4GB. Otherwise they are identical chips. What is the difference in their relative performance at the same resolution (1080p) and TGP (40W)? At most 12%. On average 4.2%. Is that a meaningful bottleneck? I'd say no, but you might say yes. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIimIAMv7sk

These are the same architecture as the T239, so it is as roughly a like to like comparison as we can get. 

At the 800p/900p/1080p native resolutions that the Switch 2 likely will target in docked mode, I don't think memory bandwidth is going to be the main bottleneck. Memory capacity (like with the Series S and these low-end Nvidia laptop GPU's) is probably going to be a bigger bottleneck as we've been seeing with recent titles (Alan Wake 2, TLOU Part 1, Hogwarts Legacy, etc.) 

Still I think Nintendo has gone a pretty balanced route, assuming these specs are true. Nothing seems extremely lopsided. I expect most Switch games to target native 800p/900p in docked mode and upscale to 1080p or higher effective resolutions using DLSS, given these details. That was more than I was expecting a few months ago (mostly sub-720p -> 1080p in demanding titles.) 

Should put it about a quarter-tier above the Rog Ally and a quarter-tier below RDNA 3.5 (Strix Point) handhelds, which probably will release late this year/early next year. I am expecting those RDNA 3.5 handhelds to be competitive with the Series S in terms of performance when at their 30W-40W power profiles and in devices with good thermals. 



JRPGfan on 12 May 2024

Have you guys seen this yet:

Nintendo Switch 2 Specs: Nvidia T239 Projected GPU Performance

Digital foundry are trying to project/estimate, what it would look/run like.
A switch 2.

Its going to be capable enough to run alot of PS4 games, at just some lower resolutions.
I expect Switch 2, to get alot of "late" ports, from the last gen, so its users can enjoy these games.
(naturally mainly 3rd party games from that gen, but perphaps also a few PS and Xbox ones)

edit:

I got baited.... this is a new clip buttttt....., taken from a old video (like 5-6 months old).

Last edited by JRPGfan - on 12 May 2024

sc94597 on 12 May 2024
zeldaring said:

 and for 2025 will be very dated.

What are you basing "very dated" off of?

Low-TDP(25-40W) RTX 2050/3050 level of performance is top-end currently for gaming handhelds (that's basically what the Rog Ally and Legion Go perform at when using 30-40W), and would be about mid-tier in 2025, given that Strix Point handhelds are only going to be a half-tier upgrade (RDNA 3.5 vs. RDNA 3.) 

Hardly "very dated." More like middling for its release period. Which makes sense for what is likely a $400 MSRP platform released by a company that always tries to make a profit on its hardware. 



zeldaring on 12 May 2024
sc94597 said:
zeldaring said:

 and for 2025 will be very dated.

What are you basing "very dated" off of?

Low-TDP(25-40W) RTX 2050/3050 level of performance is top-end currently for gaming handhelds (that's basically what the Rog Ally and Legion Go perform at when using 30-40W), and would be about mid-tier in 2025, given that Strix Point handhelds are only going to be a half-tier upgrade (RDNA 3.5 vs. RDNA 3.) 

Hardly "very dated." More like middling for its release period. Which makes sense for what is likely a $400 MSRP platform released by a company that always tries to make a profit on its hardware. 

I don't expect a cooling fan in the dock. I'm expecting this to be just like what DF expected a  few months back, which we expected years ago in a pro version and steam deck 2 will probably smoke this in 2026.