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)

haxxiy said:
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. 

Consider even against the PS5, 448GB/sec bandwidth versus the Switch 2 having 120GB/sec is only about a 3.65x gap. The Switch 1 versus PS4 (I'll leave the XBox One out because it used a large embedded RAM buffer which kinda makes it hard to compare directly) was 25.6GB/sec versus 176GB/sec ... that was like a 7x gap in memory bandwidth (huge difference), on top of that you also then factor in the Switch 2 is probably going to be rendering at far, far lower resolutions than the PS5 does because of DLSS.

Like a PS5 game that's rendering 1440p natively lets say ... sure it has about 3.65x the bandwidth, but it would also have to render more than 3.65x the pixels per frame as a Switch 2 version of the same game that's running at say 540p undocked (DLSS up to 720p) and 720p docked (DLSS up to 1440p). That has to be part of the equation too, yes, the PS5 has more bandwidth obviously but it also has to render a metric shit ton of more pixels per frame. 

They definitely didn't have to choose 120GB/sec RAM (or a GPU that probably requires that much bandwidth) just to have Mario and Pikachu and friends in PS4 quality even at 1440p (which you could just DLSS up from 720p or 900p) ... it just seems to me like a lot of hardware choices here that are way overkill if that was all Nintendo wanted/needed. 

The LPDDR4 would have had significantly lower latency and the Maxwell GPU had features such as delta color compression that the PS4 lacked, however, so I doubt it was a major bottleneck.

Besides, even when all other factors are equal, bandwidth doesn't need to scale linearly. The 4090 does just fine with twice the bandwidth of a PS5 despite being 4 times faster, for instance.

I expect DLSS on the Switch 2 to be as common as PSSR and FSR will be in the upcoming years (unless it's mandated), so that evens out.

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

Native rendering is a massive waste of resources, even for a game like Animal Crossing, why render at 1440p native on a device like the Switch 2, there's not much to gain. 

And you're right Nvidia GPUs can use bandwidth in different ways, but if anything that's a plus for a Switch 2 not a minus.

It just makes a Switch 2 version of games an easier sell to publishers. You can make a Monster Hunter 6 on PS5 at 1440p and make that system sweat hard enough but still not cut yourself out of the Switch 2 market for example. I think that's going to become something a lot of devs are going to have to think about. 

Going ridiculous balls out on graphics just inflates your budget, why not instead make the consoles/PCs sweat on raw native rendering performance, be sensible with your graphics aims to keep your budget reasonable (under $175 million), and you likely also then give yourself a nice chance of a good Switch 2 version that can really lean on DLSS to bring the resolution down very low (540p/720p) and have a version for what is probably going to be the best selling console (in Japan that's a lock). 

That's a good position for Nintendo to force 3rd parties in, especially Japanese developers who don't want to be making games that could bankrupt them if they fail anyway. 



Around the Network
Soundwave said:

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

Native rendering is a massive waste of resources, even for a game like Animal Crossing, why render at 1440p native on a device like the Switch 2, there's not much to gain. 

And you're right Nvidia GPUs can use bandwidth in different ways, but if anything that's a plus for a Switch 2 not a minus.

I had hoped that would be the case, but not all games will have the overhead or even be able to feed at an engine level the motion vectors and depth buffer it needs to work. So probably not mandatory, even if there's plenty of incentive to use it in most cases (definitely more than the adoption of similar techs on the current-gen consoles--up until now, that is).

Mind, that was the case back with Maxwell vs. GCN 1.0/1.1, nowadays both sides are pretty even in bandwidth usage, and it would have been a limiting factor only in higher resolutions, anyway.



 

 

 

 

 

Was Switch "Pro" legit a thing that didn't release, or was it actually the OLED model the entire time?
What's the possibility that Nin has decided they want to have a 2 SKU approach like PS and XB?
What if they're taking the XB Series hardware approach of base model and upgrade at launch?

Switch 2 - $349-$399 (for consumers who plan on buying only Nin games) (3rd party titles not guaranteed)
Switch 2 "Pro" - $499 (for consumers who plan on playing 3rd party titles)

3rd party games could have a "Pro required" designation if only made for the "Pro" model. This way 3rd parties could focus on just a single more powerful SKU, leading to more support.

Nin could make it so both play 3rd party titles I guess, which would make things a bit simpler for consumers, but also more difficult for 3rd party. If they let 3rd party get away with only developing for the "Pro" model if they so chose, it would only be harder on Nin since all their games would need to work on both. Nin has said recently that development time is gong to take longer, and having 2 SKU's with different performance would cause that.

*I forgot to add, these leaked specs suggest $499 to me, which would be for the Switch 2 "Pro" model.

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 10 May 2024

I remember reading somewhere that the Switch OS uses 750MB of RAM to run. Another 96MB is taken by the system if a game uses the recording feature. I searched about it today and aparently the source of this information is a leaked document for developers that I couldn't find, so yeah, take this information with a huge grain of salt.

I don't think this number is false however, it's less RAM than what the Wii U used but there's a lot less going on in the Switch OS. I also don't think they will reserve 4GB for the OS, it's probably going to be something like 1-2GB.



@Pemalite

"I wouldn't be surprised if they push more than 2GB as people want new features... Like Voice Chat, Video Streaming, Themes, Social/Party aspects, Apps like Web Browsers and even other services, which Microsoft is pushing heavily front and center.

If Nintendo wants to bring it's console into the current generation, then it's going to need more Ram for that."

Considering the philosophy the adhered during this generation for the Switch and the current way the OS functions. Likely moreso the next OS won't support many changes to it's ecosystem. 

I really don't see them bloating the overall experience with Apps or a web browser for a machine, they essentially want you to game with. 

Maybe themes/music or an integrated voice chat would be possible ? They did discover the console does have a microphone built-in so it would be likely. 

But I don't see them derailing much from the core gaming experience.

Last edited by Mar1217 - on 10 May 2024

Switch Friend Code : 3905-6122-2909 

Around the Network
Chrkeller said:

So what do we think launch titles will be? I am guessing Mario Kart 9 with a 3D Mario a few months later. I am also expecting/thinking a 1440p/60fps Breath and Tears, question is if that will be upscaled via BC or require re-buying the entire games. Knowing Nintendo it will be a re-buy.

Thinking of the next Mario Kart .... Kind of incredible of even today, MK8 DX managed to be such a showcase title for the system during it's whole.

I wonder if they'll be capable of pulling another ace like they did that time for the sucessor. 

RedKingXIII said:

I remember reading somewhere that the Switch OS uses 750MB of RAM to run. Another 96MB is taken by the system if a game uses the recording feature. I searched about it today and aparently the source of this information is a leaked document for developers that I couldn't find, so yeah, take this information with a huge grain of salt.

I don't think this number is false however, it's less RAM than what the Wii U used but there's a lot less going on in the Switch OS. I also don't think they will reserve 4GB for the OS, it's probably going to be something like 1-2GB.

Using that extra GB to actually make sure the Eshop functions well I suppose 🤭



Switch Friend Code : 3905-6122-2909 

Mar1217 said:

@Pemalite

"I wouldn't be surprised if they push more than 2GB as people want new features... Like Voice Chat, Video Streaming, Themes, Social/Party aspects, Apps like Web Browsers and even other services, which Microsoft is pushing heavily front and center.

If Nintendo wants to bring it's console into the current generation, then it's going to need more Ram for that."

Considering the philosophy the adhered during this generation for the Switch and the current way the OS functions. Likely moreso the next OS won't support many changes to it's ecosystem. 

I really don't see them bloating the overall experience with Apps or a web browser for a machine, they essentially want you to game with. 

Maybe themes/music or an integrated voice chat would be possible ? They did discover the console does have a microphone built-in so it would be likely. 

But I don't see them derailing much from the core gaming experience.

I don't see Nintendo using more than 2 gb for the OS.  I think it is a safe assumption that the S2 will have 10 gb of ram, which should allow for some medium settings on third party games.  I also expect, as a result of low memory bandwidth, the S2 for third party is going to be 30 fps all day long.  To the degree that matters is a personal opinion.  



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Mar1217 said:
Chrkeller said:

So what do we think launch titles will be? I am guessing Mario Kart 9 with a 3D Mario a few months later. I am also expecting/thinking a 1440p/60fps Breath and Tears, question is if that will be upscaled via BC or require re-buying the entire games. Knowing Nintendo it will be a re-buy.

Thinking of the next Mario Kart .... Kind of incredible of even today, MK8 DX managed to be such a showcase title for the system during it's whole.

I wonder if they'll be capable of pulling another ace like they did that time for the sucessor. 

RedKingXIII said:

I remember reading somewhere that the Switch OS uses 750MB of RAM to run. Another 96MB is taken by the system if a game uses the recording feature. I searched about it today and aparently the source of this information is a leaked document for developers that I couldn't find, so yeah, take this information with a huge grain of salt.

I don't think this number is false however, it's less RAM than what the Wii U used but there's a lot less going on in the Switch OS. I also don't think they will reserve 4GB for the OS, it's probably going to be something like 1-2GB.

Using that extra GB to actually make sure the Eshop functions well I suppose 🤭

I think the S2 will be successful, but overall I don't see them repeating the switch's success, just because of how absurd it has performed.  I'm still amazed at how well the Switch is selling and how much software it is pushing.  I think a fast start for the S2 (in sales) is important to get third party to take it seriously.  Mario Kart 9 would do that with ease.  And I can't imagine how cool it would be to play Mario Kart with ps4-ish range graphics.  It will be such a huge step up compared to what we currently have.  



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

A fan in the dock may be a pretty good indication too that we could be looking at the option of a full clocked or very high clocked Tegra T239 in docked mode. Two fans and a fan at all in docked mode just seems very extreme unless you are planning to push the chip to max or near max and really use all of those 1536 CUDA cores. 

That does then kind of ask the question about the handheld mode. Obviously a larger battery in a larger system is a given, but that still may not give you enough juice if they're going so hard on docked mode. 

I wonder if we could see something like Joycon battery sharing with the main unit in handheld mode, because think about it, bigger Joycons should be able to accommodate themselves larger batteries too, that extra battery could theoretically be shared with the main unit, like two external battery packs. It would make an awful lot of sense for higher performance games.

The shape of the dock also seems interesting, now this is a different leak but it's been said that the new dock will be a curved to flat shape, kind of like the Burj Al Arab building in Dubai. Maybe this shape is better for cooling?:

Last edited by Soundwave - on 10 May 2024

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.