• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Switch 2 Developer claims that "The hardware is very capable"

Branded

Member
It all depends on the software developers at the end of the day.
We can expect Monolith Soft, Retro Studio, Nintendo EPD, etc. to look awesome on Switch 2, while Game Freak and the gang to look shit like always.
Yeah currently playing Fire Emblem Three Houses and it's shocking to me how bad that game looks and performs. Game looks appalling on a TV lol.
 
Last edited:

kevboard

Member
Pokémon Legends ZA was originally supposed to come this year. Maybe Game Freak delayed it because they finally learnt to take their time.

Am I right in thinking that the T239 being semi-custom means that downclocking should less severe that what Nintendo did with the X1?

it's so hard to predict what Nintendo will do.

however, due to targeting 4K screens this time, it would be absolutely stupid not to push the chip as high as their cooling solution allows.

last time the target resolution difference between 720p handheld and 1080p TV was an increase of 125% in target resolution when docked.

a 1080p handheld target vs a 4K TV target for the Switch 2 is an increase of 300%. So that alone will hopefully mean that docked clock speeds will be as high as the chip can handle.



with absolutely max clock speeds it would be a really nice little console. in handheld mode it's less of an issue for people to have low resolutions I feel, especially if those lower resolutions can be somewhat aided by DLSS.
 
Last edited:

wafflecioccy

Neo Member
it's so hard to predict what Nintendo will do.

however, due to targeting 4K screens this time, it would be absolutely stupid not to push the chip as high as their cooling solution allows.

last time the target resolution difference between 720p handheld and 1080p TV was an increase of 125% in target resolution when docked.

a 1080p handheld target vs a 4K TV target for the Switch 2 is an increase of 400%. So that alone will hopefully mean that docked clock speeds will be as high as the chip can handle.



with absolutely max clock speeds it would be a really nice little console. in handheld mode it's less of an issue for people to have low resolutions I feel, especially if those lower resolutions can be somewhat aided by DLSS.
I highly doubt the game devs optimizing for Switch 2 will be targeting any sort of 4K resolution, upscaled or not.
 

kevboard

Member
I highly doubt the game devs optimizing for Switch 2 will be targeting any sort of 4K resolution, upscaled or not.

that is entirely irrelevant. they are targeting 4K screens, which have 300% more pixels than a 1080p screen.

this means the target screen resolution difference between handheld and TV is substantially larger this time than for the Switch 1.
 
Last edited:

FireFly

Member
You might be right on that, but I can't see Nintendo paying for exclusivity on it.
Nvidia decided to leave the mobile market and focus on automation. That's why Nintendo had to get a semi-custom chip designed. Obviously they can rejoin the market if they want to, but that would be a strategic decision, not one they would make simply because they have a semi-custom APU available.
 
Last edited:

Just_one

Member
Give me a full blown open world pokemon game with various weathers in 4k or full 1080p with all the regions and then we can talk
 

wafflecioccy

Neo Member
that is entirely irrelevant. they are targeting 4K screens, which have 300% more pixels than a 1080p screen.

this means the target screen resolution difference between handheld and TV is substantially larger this time than for the Switch 1.
Give me some of what you had to drink last night so it can be examined
 

Gambit2483

Member
Launch titles will be so strong.
Metroid prime 4
Mario Kart 9
Probably a new 3d mario.
Again, I don't see them releasing MP4 before MP 2/3 Remasters.

Are people completely forgetting that Nintendo sits on finished games for years just to fit them in their release schedule?
 

Gambit2483

Member
I hope Bayonetta 3 will run way better on it like 1080p at 60fps at least.
There was a rumor that a Bayo Trilogy remaster was in the works for Switch 2. 4k/60fps, one complete package.

Edit: Considering the situation Platinum Games was recently revealed to be in, I could see them doing this as a quick and easy project to secure funds for future projects.

 
Last edited:

Warspite

Member
I remember "PS5 like" with it running the matrix demo.

Who knows if this was true or not.

It cant be, half of the PS5 bulk is the heat sink and fan to keep it from overheating, you are not getting that into a handheld form factor.

Graphics wise it going to be a balance of what they can get in a tablet form factor and how much power can the battery give and still be last about 3 hours.

If we get PS4 handheld and PS4 Pro docked, we will be going ok I think.
 
Last edited:
I will be surprised if it's even close to the Series S when docked. It could be, but I can see Nintendo going really low on the clocks due to being overly cautious on the thermals. The Switch could easily have had higher clocks when docked than it did. They should stick a fan and a heatsink in the dock.
 

ReyBrujo

Member
Wait, people still think the N-gen Nintendo console will be as powerful as N-1-gen from other companies? It's 2024, come on...

Is this true, Gaf?
The original assumption was that it was around 3 times as powerful as a normal PS4 (whereas PS5 was like 9 times?). Not sure how that compares to PS4 Pro tho.
 
Last edited:

Buggy Loop

Member
It cant be, half of the PS5 bulk is the heat sink and fan to keep it from overheating, you are not getting that into a handheld form factor.

Graphics wise it going to be a balance of what they can get in a tablet form factor and how much power can the battery give and still be last about 3 hours.

If we get PS4 handheld and PS4 Pro docked, we will be going ok I think.

Sigh

Peoples don’t understand what PS5 like is

Let me explain



Is it pixel perfect to PS5? No
Framerates like PS5? No
Resolution like PS5? No

Close enough that it looks like someone watching a PS5 game on YouTube on mobile device? Quite close

This is with old ass hardware without DLSS. There’s mass produced chips out there such as the one used in Quest 3 that have more power than Steam Deck. Why would Nvidia aim lower than even Qualcomm’s offer, especially since Qualcomm did knock on Nintendo’s door to get into Switch 2.

PS5 like is not meaning much when 90% of the PS5 games could look roughly the same on PS4. SSD not really being a bottleneck on mobile devices as they are always solid state.
 
Last edited:

Soapbox Killer

Grand Nagus
Is this true, Gaf?



Extrapolating from known information, YES. It should be able to handle PS4 / Xbox One performance in real world situations. It will have to cut some corners while undocked simply due to power /battery restrictions but that "should" all come out in the wash on a 1080p 8" screen.


Any player with even a reasonable level of expectations should be more than happy with the graphic ability. I think it will land somewhere in the Xbox One X range, and that machine even today is very capable (this might be optimistic )




Steam Deck Pro, for lack of a better option.
 
Last edited:

amigastar

Member
Are they, rly??
200w.gif

I can't imagine that, maybe some selected titles.
 

Soapbox Killer

Grand Nagus
I will be surprised if it's even close to the Series S when docked. It could be, but I can see Nintendo going really low on the clocks due to being overly cautious on the thermals. The Switch could easily have had higher clocks when docked than it did. They should stick a fan and a heatsink in the dock.


For this reason alone, I think the dock should be sold separately or at least in a separate bundle. $399 base $499 w Dock and let the dock do some of the heavy lifting with the heat to punch up on the clocks.
 

Buggy Loop

Member
Because Nintendo is cheap.

They aren’t at the helm of R&D a new chip, Nvidia is. Exactly because they are cheap. And like Switch, Nvidia is most likely proposing the same as they’ll use it for Shield’s next iteration.

No, Nvidia will not take one of its modern chipset and R&D it again to a lower node. No TSMC won’t undust its >20nm lines for mass production.

That’s what peoples don’t get, the days of Nintendo duct taping is over, they don’t have the money to finance Nvidia to R&D a turd chipset. Even the baseline old Ampere jetson kits would give steam deck a run for its money. Remove windows, direct x API and usual port optimization out of the equation and you squeeze a lot more juice out of it than any Windows handheld.
 
Last edited:

Warspite

Member
When you state PS5, you are giving a bench mark that people have in their home's and can judge what the Switch 2 against.

Saying that PS5 like doesn't mean an actual PS5 like games and actually means something that meets a list of specific stipulations and conditions is misleading.
 

Polygonal_Sprite

Gold Member
The gap between the Switch 2 and PS5 appears to be smaller than the gap between the Switch and PS4, so no reason why the device won’t handle a lot of games quite well. Especially considering the Series S and how long cross-gen has dragged on for.
It’s much, much, much closer to real world PS5 performance than Switch was to PS4 for a multitude of reasons.
 

Buggy Loop

Member
When you state PS5, you are giving a bench mark that people have in their home's and can judge what the Switch 2 against.

Saying that PS5 like doesn't mean an actual PS5 like games and actually means something that meets a list of specific stipulations and conditions is misleading.

No, everyone that understands the limits of hardware and diminishing returns know exactly what PS5-like means. If you get hung up expecting the same performances pixel for pixel, that’s on you.

Imagine how long this crossgen has been between PS4 and PS5?

Now imagine an architecture that is leagues ahead of AMD’s 2012 PS4 GPU, way more efficient memory and cache management, concurrent tasks for AI and RT, I/O management for VRAM streaming, and so on. Even with a baseline teraflops of PS4, the architecture is a decade ahead of what you found on PS4.

That’s just old ass ampere jetson. A grandpa by 2025 Nvidia standards.

That same PS4 that is quite « PS5 like » if you slapped any meaningful I/O for streaming. We won’t even go into how silly the jaguar CPUs will be bitchslapped around.

This is the point where hardware barely makes a difference, talent, money and huge teams makes the difference, just as Sony studio have done on PS4 with the likes of Last of Us part 2 and Uncharted 4. This hardware baseline is beyond anything Nintendo will ever push.
 
Last edited:

kevboard

Member
Give me some of what you had to drink last night so it can be examined
Even PS5 & Xbox consoles barely do 4k. Everything is upscaled

this will be a long text, just to make sure noone will hopefully misinterpret what I am saying:

Let's start with simple observations and realities:
__________________________

Targeting =/= Natively Rendering at

the PS4 Pro targeted 4K screens.
just like the Xbox One and Switch 1 targeted 1080p Screens.

The One X targeted 4K screens and was more successful at targeting 4K screens than the PS5 and Series X are currently. (cutting edge AAA titles of the time like RDR2 reaching native 4K without any upsampling)

Switch games targeted 720p in handheld mode, while often not reaching 720p.
Switch games in docked mode targeted 1080p, while often not reaching 1080p.

but many Switch games did indeed reach 900p or 1080p, even tho the Xbox One (a system 4x as powerful) targeted the same resolution and also often failed.

what do we learn from these observations? resolution target has nothing to do with hardware power. it's about target specs being used optimally to reach the target.
and even then, a target can still be missed.

the 6 TFLOPS Xbox One X did a better job reaching native 4K in cutting edge games than the 12 TFLOP Series X does.
while the PS4 Pro often had convincingly 4K like presentations in games like Deus Ex or Witcher 3 even tho it only rendered at half or below half of that resolution natively.
__________________________

with that being said, none of the above changes WHAT THE TARGET IS.
the target is looking acceptable on those target screens.
and to be able to do this while having 2 different screen targets, like it is the case for a hybrid such as the Switch and the Switch 2, you have to adjust the target clock speeds according to the difference in target output, so that each target gets served well.


on Switch 1 this TARGET (not necessarily native render res) difference was a 125% increase from Handheld to TV.
Nintendo clearly optimised for handheld clock speeds first, and then increased docked mode clock speeds according to this 125% target resolution increase.

if we assume they will do the same with the Switch 2 (and there is no reason to assume they won't do that), then they would need to take a 300% or 4x target resolution increase into account.

ergo, Nintendo would be well advised to not arbitrarily limit the clock speed of the Switch 2 like they did with the Switch 1.
the Switch 1 launched with 2 handheld profiles, a 307.2 MHz and a 384 MHz mode. developers could chose which one to use depending on their game's load.
Docked mode is 768 MHz.
which shows they basically looked at the target res difference and just locked the GPU down to that target.
(they did add a 460 MHz handheld profile very soon after launch, closing the gap even further without adjusting docked clock speeds accordingly)

meanwhile even the launch model Tegra X1 could have been pushed to ~1000 MHz.
and the CPU could have been pushed to ~1700 MHz but is permanently locked to 1020 MHz (except during loading screens).


so my hope is that Nintendo will not lock any clock speeds down arbitrarily. we know the cooling system of the Switch 1 can easily handle near max clock speeds, the OLED and revision models especially, and was locked down completely arbitrarily, maybe with the thought of "streamlining development" in mind.

what we have seen since the system launched was that basically no game has issues running on full clock speeds, which means this locking down of clock speeds didn't even really help game development, and we also have seen the rise of 30 and 60 fps modes in games.

so having Docked mode run the CPU, GPU and RAM as fast as their cooling system and/or SoC allows would be the best way forward.
this way, even if their handheld clock speeds limit a game to 30fps for example, the docked mode could increase this to 60fps + a res boost.
or if a game targets the same framerate in both docked and handheld mode, the docked mode can massively increase resolution.

Switch 1 games always targeted the same framerate in both modes. yet having the memory clocks only slightly faster in docked mode meant the handheld mode in many games actually ran smoother than the docked mode, because at those higher resolutions the system was bandwidth starved thanks to the low memory clock speeds, which could in theory have been bumped from the 1331 MHz in handheld mode, all the way to ~1860 MHz, but docked mode is locked down to 1600 MHz instead.

in conclusion:
1: the Switch 1 had a hard time reaching its target output and a hard time matching handheld performance while targeting a screen that's 125% higher res than its handheld screen.
even so, it often came close, with games like Zelda running at 900p, a resolution often associated with the more than 4x more powerful Xbox One.

2: in order to fix the issues the Switch 1 had (which were entirely self inflicted by Nintendo and not the fault of the hardware), Nintendo would be best off absolutely running the Tegra 239 at full blast in docked mode.
we know the T239 at full speed could reach a similar performance to the Series S (slightly below, but hard to 1:1 compare due to vast architectural differences), which would be most likely more than enough to boost games that target a 1080p PS4-esque handheld to a perceptibly 4k image quality.
just like the PS4 Pro was often able to do this with a mere 2.2x increase in raw GPU grunt, and barely any upgrade in Memory bandwidth.

3: in games that are ports of high end current gen titles, running at full blast would allow them to still look presentable, even if they will look very clearly sub-4K.
In the end THEY STILL HAVE TO TARGET 4K SCREENS because those are the screens people own now, so even if it's rendering far below 4K natively in demanding games, these still have to look at least ok on those TVs that people own. that's what TARGETING a screen resolution means. they have no choice but to target 4k, just like the Xbox One and Switch 1 had no choice but to target 1080p screens.
meanwhile in handheld mode, such games will be easily forgiven to run at far below native res, as low internal resolutions are less of an eyesore on small 7"~8" screens that you hold in your hand.
I am currently playing Ghostrunner 2 on the Deck, at FSR2 quality mode, which is ~480p native upsampled to 1280x800, and it still looks fine.



so, this was hopefully comprehensive enough.
 
Last edited:

Soapbox Killer

Grand Nagus
this will be a long text, just to make sure noone will hopefully misinterpret what I am saying:

Let's start with simple observations and realities:
__________________________

Targeting =/= Natively Rendering at

the PS4 Pro targeted 4K screens.
just like the Xbox One and Switch 1 targeted 1080p Screens.

The One X targeted 4K screens and was more successful at targeting 4K screens than the PS5 and Series X are currently. (cutting edge AAA titles of the time like RDR2 reaching native 4K without any upsampling)

Switch games targeted 720p in handheld mode, while often not reaching 720p.
Switch games in docked mode targeted 1080p, while often not reaching 1080p.

but many Switch games did indeed reach 900p or 1080p, even tho the Xbox One (a system 4x as powerful) targeted the same resolution and also often failed.

what do we learn from these observations? resolution target has nothing to do with hardware power. it's about target specs being used optimally to reach the target.
and even then, a target can still be missed.

the 6 TFLOPS Xbox One X did a better job reaching native 4K in cutting edge games than the 12 TFLOP Series X does.
while the PS4 Pro often had convincingly 4K like presentations in games like Deus Ex or Witcher 3 even tho it only rendered at half or below half of that resolution natively.
__________________________

with that being said, none of the above changes WHAT THE TARGET IS.
the target is looking acceptable on those target screens.
and to be able to do this while having 2 different screen targets, like it is the case for a hybrid such as the Switch and the Switch 2, you have to adjust the target clock speeds according to the difference in target output, so that each target gets served well.


on Switch 1 this TARGET (not necessarily native render res) difference was a 125% increase from Handheld to TV.
Nintendo clearly optimised for handheld clock speeds first, and then increased docked mode clock speeds according to this 125% target resolution increase.

if we assume they will do the same with the Switch 2 (and there is no reason to assume they won't do that), then they would need to take a 300% or 4x target resolution increase into account.

ergo, Nintendo would be well advised to not arbitrarily limit the clock speed of the Switch 2 like they did with the Switch 1.
the Switch 1 launched with 2 handheld profiles, a 307.2 MHz and a 384 MHz mode. developers could chose which one to use depending on their game's load.
Docked mode is 768 MHz.
which shows they basically looked at the target res difference and just locked the GPU down to that target.
(they did add a 460 MHz handheld profile very soon after launch, closing the gap even further without adjusting docked clock speeds accordingly)

meanwhile even the launch model Tegra X1 could have been pushed to ~1000 MHz.
and the CPU could have been pushed to ~1700 MHz but is permanently locked to 1020 MHz (except during loading screens).


so my hope is that Nintendo will not lock any clock speeds down arbitrarily. we know the cooling system of the Switch 1 can easily handle near max clock speeds, the OLED and revision models especially, and was locked down completely arbitrarily, maybe with the thought of "streamlining development" in mind.

what we have seen since the system launched was that basically no game has issues running on full clock speeds, which means this locking down of clock speeds didn't even really help game development, and we also have seen the rise of 30 and 60 fps modes in games.

so having Docked mode run the CPU, GPU and RAM as fast as their cooling system and/or SoC allows would be the best way forward.
this way, even if their handheld clock speeds limit a game to 30fps for example, the docked mode could increase this to 60fps + a res boost.
or if a game targets the same framerate in both docked and handheld mode, the docked mode can massively increase resolution.

Switch 1 games always targeted the same framerate in both modes. yet having the memory clocks only slightly faster in docked mode meant the handheld mode in many games actually ran smoother than the docked mode, because at those higher resolutions the system was bandwidth starved thanks to the low memory clock speeds, which could in theory have been bumped from the 1331 MHz in handheld mode, all the way to ~1860 MHz, but docked mode is locked down to 1600 MHz instead.

in conclusion:
1: the Switch 1 had a hard time reaching its target output and a hard time matching handheld performance while targeting a screen that's 125% higher res than its handheld screen.
even so, it often came close, with games like Zelda running at 900p, a resolution often associated with the more than 4x more powerful Xbox One.

2: in order to fix the issues the Switch 1 had (which were entirely self inflicted by Nintendo and not the fault of the hardware), Nintendo would be best off absolutely running the Tegra 239 at full blast in docked mode.
we know the T239 at full speed could reach a similar performance to the Series S (slightly below, but hard to 1:1 compare due to vast architectural differences), which would be most likely more than enough to boost games that target a 1080p PS4-esque handheld to a perceptibly 4k image quality.
just like the PS4 Pro was often able to do this with a mere 2.2x increase in raw GPU grunt, and barely any upgrade in Memory bandwidth.

3: in games that are ports of high end current gen titles, running at full blast would allow them to still look presentable, even if they will look very clearly sub-4K.
In the end THEY STILL HAVE TO TARGET 4K SCREENS because those are the screens people own now, so even if it's rendering far below 4K natively in demanding games, these still have to look at least ok on those TVs that people own. that's what TARGETING a screen resolution means. they have no choice but to target 4k, just like the Xbox One and Switch 1 had no choice but to target 1080p screens.
meanwhile in handheld mode, such games will be easily forgiven to run at far below native res, as low internal resolutions are less of an eyesore on small 7"~8" screens that you hold in your hand.
I am currently playing Ghostrunner 2 on the Deck, at FSR2 quality mode, which is ~480p native upsampled to 1280x800, and it still looks fine.



so, this was hopefully comprehensive enough.
Well Done. Very nicely explained.
 

Woopah

Member
Wait, people still think the N-gen Nintendo console will be as powerful as N-1-gen from other companies? It's 2024, come on...


The original assumption was that it was around 3 times as powerful as a normal PS4 (whereas PS5 was like 9 times?). Not sure how that compares to PS4 Pro tho.
Why not? Switch was more powerful than N-1 from Sony and Microsoft
 
No, Nvidia will not take one of its modern chipset and R&D it again to a lower node.

The chip the Switch 2's SoC is derived from uses Samsung 8 nm. Which is why you would expect by default that the Switch 2 will use that too.

Porting it to any other node is purely speculative and would also cost Nintendo more.

No TSMC won’t undust its >20nm lines for mass production.

TSMC makes a boat load of money off it's old nodes. It's a big part of their business.
 
Last edited:

Hohenheim

Member
Of course they claim this. And hopefully he's right! Would be funny though if a Switch 2 developer said the hardware is very poor and limited, even before the thing is released.
 

Robb

Gold Member
Rumor is the dock has a fan, right?
Yeah, iirc the component shipments for Switch 2 specified two fans, and the system itself would only fit one. So the second one is speculated to be inside of the new dock.
 
Last edited:

kevboard

Member
I don’t think that’s possible considering the form factor. Dissipation is not the best in thin devices.

well full blast as in as high as they can. the Switch 1 locked clock speeds down to arbitrary values that were based in part on the handheld mode clock speeds. they optimised battery life in handheld mode, and then from there increased docked GPU and Memory clock speeds to a value they thought was good enough. and the CPU clocks were locked down to the same in both modes, likely because they thought that would reduce issues during game development, even tho modern engines don't have an issue with changing CPU clocks as they all basically run on PC these days, and PC CPUs have ridiculously variable clock speeds, with sudden spikes and sudden drops.
increasing CPU speeds to the highest the T239 supports would possibly allow 60fps modes in docked mode to be something devs could add when handheld CPU speeds limit them to 30fps.

my main point is that the Switch 1 was never limited by the cooling.
running the Switch's Tegra X1 at its highest manufacturer rated clock speeds doesn't overheat the system in the slightest.

and that is what I mean when I say they should run it at full blast.
lock the clock speeds to a value where it runs at safe heat levels. and if these safe heat levels happen to be reachable at full tilt then they should run it at full tilt. and all parts of the chip should run as fast as possible when docked, CPU, GPU and RAM.
30fps at 720p in handheld mode isn't much of an issue for many... but on a 4K OLED TV you'd hope for significantly more than that... running the T239 as high as their cooling solution allows when docked will mitigate issues in docked mode by a lot. especially now that the difference between the Handheld and the TV screen is a 4x increase instead of of the 1.2x the Switch 1 had to take into account
 
Last edited:

Radical_3d

Member
Rumor is the dock has a fan, right?
The Switch 1 has a fan. But the heat dissipation you can achieve with a small heatsink inside the case is only so much…

I could be wrong, tho. If they go with a lower manufacturing process you can increase the power a lot. Look at the Apple chips. I just wouldn’t expect Series S raw performance in a 10x smaller case (although with DLSS final output will be much better than Series S).
 
Top Bottom