analog_future
Resident Crybaby
TIL you can only sell gaming consoles for either $400 or $20,000
-
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 T239 SoC rumored to be on TSMC 5nm and clocked at 2.6 GHz (info found on a LinkedIn profile of an engineer who worked on the project)
- Thread starter Thick Thighs Save Lives
- Start date
- Rumor
TIL you can only sell gaming consoles for either $400 or $20,000
Zannegan
Member
The whole idea of a Pro Dock with any additional processing power (beyond upscaling) is terrible, IMO, unless said dock can operate as a completely independent console. Accessories always end up remaining niche, so they'd be halving their production capacity, increasing their costs, complicating their distribution, muddling their message to consumers, and when all is said and done you'll end up with piles of unwanted pro docks on walmart shelves creating more ewaste and eating into Nintendo's profit margins, all for features that most devs won't even bother with because they're only available to 20% of the installed base, if that. (Willing to eat crow, of course, I just don't see it).
And even if Nintendo did bet on a pro dock, there's no way you'll see those devices at those prices. This is the company that charges nearly $100 for a dummy dock, and $350 for the upgraded version of current hardware. You think next gen is going to walk the price of baseline hardware back to $250 and sell a dock with actual hardware inside for $200? I wish I could believe it, but $400 seems much more likely for console alone, even if it is more inline with a Lite than a Switch.
To be fair, I wouldn't put it past Nintendo to do something that crazy, but it wouldn't go well (again, line me up for crow if I'm wrong). And I doubt it aligns with their core values anyway. They'll want to go for simplicity of message, ease of use, and as few moving parts as possible. Much more likely, we'll see an all-in-one hybrid like the Switch for $400.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
its an inside joke.
OverHeat
recently admitted he's on divorce watch after he spent $20k on his pc without telling his wife.
Last edited:
Caio
Member
Yep, I meant "relative performance", and somewhere between PS4 and PS5; probably, as you said, closer to PS4, or between PS4 and Series S. I miss a Nintendo Hardware, and I really hope to be surprisedYou don't think Nintendo can produce something comparable to a Series S @ $399 in 2024? I think they can, and still have healthy profit margins (economies of scale will help a lot in their case). Here's what I see the Switch 2 being:
>Hybrid (of course)>Portable component with a modest screen size and resolution. ~ 20w total power usage (undocked & discharged). 6 GB LPDDR5. GPU ~ 1 TF (slightly stronger but not terribly much), some form of DLSS3 for frame generation. CPU with 8-core setup, dual-threaded. Targeting ~ 30% boost to Switch-level gaming performance on average resolution-wise, ~ 50% boost framerate-wise. 256 GB internal storage.>Docked component: 6-8 GB GDDR6 (leaning with 6 GB). GPU ~ 2-3 TF, DLSS 3.2. Pixel and texture fillrate comparable to Series S. Primitive culling & rasterization comparable to Series S. Used exclusively by games when Switch 2 is docked (Portable's GPU is either disabled or only used for OS UI stuff), alongside some components in the portable (mainly CPU & some LPDDR5 RAM). Thunderbolt 4.0 interconnect, full-rate. Proprietary connection w/ some stupid encryption. Slot for faster and larger-capacity microSD cards to expand storage options. RJ-45 ethernet port on back. Additional cooling (better fan & heat sink for the GPU) built-in.>Two SKUs: #1 Portable & Joy-Cons only (no dock), $249. #2 Portable & Dock, $399. Dock also sold separately, $199At the volume Nintendo will be making these things, I think these specs and prices are more than doable.
Bruh, no. You're not getting 4K 60 FPS with even Series S-level games on Switch 2, even with a souped-up dock. Maybe some of the less technical Switch games running in BC can hit 4K 60 with DLSS 3.0, but I think that'd require the system to be docked.
That said, I think Switch 2 is going to be a good bit more powerful than some are thinking, particularly when it's docked. It'll blow past Steam Deck in some areas (GPU, CPU, memory bandwidth), but be beaten in others (storage, RAM capacity (I'm thinking 6 GB LPDDR6 & 6 GB GDDR6, vs Steam Deck's 16 GB LPDDR5 for example).
Not between PS4 and PS5; Switch 2 isn't touching PS5 in terms of performance, unless you're talking relative performance and with a really small screen so you don't notice the pixelation even with DLSS 3.0 or better in there.
However, somewhere between PS4 and Series S? I'm 100% expecting that for the Switch 2. IMO, it'll be ~ around PS4 (not exactly; for example weaker TF and less memory bandwidth) undocked, but roughly Series S-level when docked. And with DLSS 3.2, able to outperform Series S a bit better in resolution, likely quite a bit better in framerates. But even docked, I don't see it getting in the Series X or PS5 ballpark on average, let alone the most technically demanding games, even considering docked mode with DLSS.
Of course altogether I think docked it'll cost more than a Series S ($399 vs. $299 or $349), but you're getting the convenience of actual hybridization and, obviously, Nintendo's 1P exclusives. If it can perform at or slightly above Series S levels when docked, expect Switch 2 to get A LOT more Japanese & Western 3P AAA support.
Ironically, I don't see that helping the Series S tho. In fact, it'll probably kill off any remaining market relevance it has, but that should at least lead to more Series X (and PS5, and Switch 2) sales.
kiphalfton
Member
Bunch of optimists.
Zathalus
Member
Anyone thinking that this is getting near a Series S must be having a joke.
The Rog Ally has 45min battery life at 30w and although ARM and Nvidia is better then x86 and AMD when it comes to performance per watt it's not a increase of 4x.
The only thing I can see it beating a Series S is available RAM.
The Rog Ally has 45min battery life at 30w and although ARM and Nvidia is better then x86 and AMD when it comes to performance per watt it's not a increase of 4x.
The only thing I can see it beating a Series S is available RAM.
Silver Wattle
Gold Member
I've joined team 5nm, but I'm leaning towards it being Samsung 5nm.
The physical size of the T234 is just way too big for a switch, and even after removing the unnecessary elements and then adding more SMs (the custom T239) I still think it would be too big on the same 8nm node, it needs a shrink.
We even had a "twitter leaker" post something about it being on Samsung's 5nm but then said some gibberish about NVIDIA cancelling it.
The physical size of the T234 is just way too big for a switch, and even after removing the unnecessary elements and then adding more SMs (the custom T239) I still think it would be too big on the same 8nm node, it needs a shrink.
We even had a "twitter leaker" post something about it being on Samsung's 5nm but then said some gibberish about NVIDIA cancelling it.
Last edited:
deriks
4-Time GIF/Meme God
Nintendo was just three years bleeding money... do you even realize how many tech companies achieve that?
Mr.Phoenix
Member
This isn't a thought problem.... its a physics or real-world problem.
look at the NS2 as a 15-20W in portable mode system, and then a 30-40W in docked mode system. How powerful comes down to that. And yes, you are limited in either direction by thermals. You put in a cooling system that fits in a handheld, which ends up limiting how high you can push it in docked mode.
It's going to end up being something that is about as powerful as a PS4. Thinj Ps4 1.8TF, NS2 2.5TF. But that is going to be just fine being that it only needs to drive an at best 1080p screen in port mode, which would be reconstructed from a 480p/540p base, and then in docked mode, it would be pushing a 900p/1080p base reconstructed to 2160p using Dlss.
Last edited:
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
Many people who were not gamers in the past managed to grow up with a Playstation or Xbox just fine... myself included
LordOfChaos
Member
*PS4/XBO-PS4 Pro-XBO X
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
SNES had more ram, a far better GPU, and a superior sound chip than both the Genesis and PC-Engine... Which makes sense, as those 2 released in the 80s while SNES had the advantage of being a 1990s system
N64 crushed both PS1 and saturn too, as you can see by the smoother polys, lack of texture warping, texture filtering (though not an advantage in all cases) and more polys being pushed on screen
Gamecube couldn't touch Xbox, but it did smash PS2 in power.
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
Also remember that Switch 2 will be downclocked heavily from base clocks for battery life and heat reasons. Look at the first one, it was capable of running TOTK at 60fps 1080p when overclocked. The system was much more powerful than we gave it credit for, but it's not really gonna be able to achieve that true potential when it has to be portable
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
I don't quite agree with this. For starters, the dock in this case could be sold for a profit, even when bundled in the system. The purpose of the dock would be to target those who want better performance for their games, it's similar in way to the Pro consoles but more scalable. If the dock can sell on its own for a slightly higher price, and they know demand is high, they can reduce the amount of bundles and increase the amount of the portable and dock sold separately. At the end of the day, they'll know people want both at a high rate, so just make enough supply to meet the demand.
In reality, it's not too different from what Sony plans to do with the new PS5s, the ones with the detachable disc drive. They'll make bundles for those too, and offer the disc drive as its own purchasable item. You likely won't be able to use it on its own, but the audience for it would be people who are already buying the new PS5 model. It's the same in principal here. The messaging is no more muddy than the Pro consoles: if you want higher performance, get the dock. If you just want portability, get the portable on its own. They can release a cheaper dock without the extra horsepower and just charges the system, and include that with the cheaper SKU.
About the devs not using the extra power argument...technically that could apply to the Pro consoles, as well. It's not really so much about them using the extra power (which, if they are making games for Series S, they would inevitably have versions that can scale easily to this hypothetical Switch 2 & extra processing Dock, since it'd be comparable in performance) so much as extra power being there to give a free boost. But just like with the Pro consoles, I'd expect devs to put some work towards enhanced performance with the docked mode.
I mean you just said it yourself: the current Switch dock is like $80 - $100 depending where you look. I mean, they could charge $199 or $249 for an enhanced performance dock, it really doesn't matter. Either way I think they'd have good margins with economies of scale. They're going to increase the baseline of software next gen anyway to $70, and Nintendo barely ever drops the prices on their games. They might bite a bit of a small bullet in somewhat smaller profit margins out of the gate if it means they're effectively seeing equivalent-or-better-than-Switch profit margins on the software, services, and any planned accessories.
Hey, it's basically a 50/50 chance at this point. I'd personally want something quite a bit more, and feel it could be realistically possible at a good price point and still get Nintendo what they want. But like you said, it could just as easily be a lot more conservative in the end.
We will have to see. I've been hearing things about this "Orin" chip/APU, and will have to read into it. Because some think that's what the Switch 2 will be based around.
Unknown?
Member
Bet Spencer didn't know by gimping his console with the S, he basically guaranteed parity with Nintendo on 3rd party.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
For me, whatever GPU speed they'd need to get Series S-tier pixel and texture fillrate performance docked, is good enough for me. So hopefully it's something below 2.6 GHz. Could kinda not care less what the GPU clock is undocked.
The Series S is 2019 AMD RDNA2 technology. A Switch 2 with even half the TF (and keep in mind, TF is hardly important for actual gaming performance as-is) of Series S can match up with it when DLSS 3.x gets factored into the picture. The important thing would be to make sure there's enough RAM, and at least some type of decent storage (no SSD, but at least allow support for higher-speed SDXC microSD cards) in there, and a good enough CPU.
RAM doesn't have to be the biggest bottleneck; personally I think 12 GB could get things done, if you split it 6 GB LPDDR5, and in some enhanced dock, 6 GB GDDR6. So the complication could end up being the CPU.
Agreed here. I would hope Nintendo open up a TDP of roughly 40 watts docked, assuming they can do a dock with additional processing in it (think something like an eGPU, which is how I tried describing it earlier). In portable mode it can go for those lower wattage usages, and keep it under 20 watts when it starts discharging.
The thing though, is that Nintendo's going to have tech that in some ways is just simply better at various things than what the Series S, Series X and PS5 had going into them when their specs were more or less finalized by end of 2019/early 2020. In terms of raw power, there's no chance Switch 2 matches up to any of them. But none of those systems have features like DLSS built into them the way Switch 2 will inevitably have.
I'm just picturing, and hopeful, Nintendo can make a Switch 2 that, when docked, can perform at a level around the Series S. I think they can deliver that at a $399 MSRP.
Not quite; it may've had more RAM (I don't know, personally), but GPU (although these systems didn't really have GPUs the way we know them today)? It depends. PC-Engine could display more on-screen colors than SNES (484 vs 256), but from a smaller palette of total colors. Meanwhile the Genesis actually could do "blast processing", which basically was like a per-pixel like effect using DMA (something like a predecessor to modern-day direct framebuffers introduced with the Atari Jaguar), but few commercial games actually used it. SNES's big advantages were the sprite scaling hardware and a bus suited for different co-processor chips in carts.
Though yeah, it's true SNES benefited from coming later...even if it had a worst CPU than say the Genesis/MegaDrive.
Yeah N64 had all those advantages, though polygons-onscreen was iffy. I think that was only possible with microcode Nintendo banned developers from using, though the devs on some of the Star Wars games for the system got around that by writing their own microcode. It's really hard to say the N64 was a straight-up more powerful system than PS1 or Saturn though, because it had obvious shortcomings.
Use of carts (severely impacted the size of games, and size of texture assets), no dedicated sound processor, horrible high-latency Rambus RAM, are three of the biggest shortcomings of N64. Which meant doing certain massive games, or games relying on FMV, or high-quality 2D art/textures, was a big challenge on the system compared to PS1 and Saturn.
Actually Gamecube was within Xbox's ballpark, but it did lack some then-modern features the Xbox had thanks to using Nvidia GPU. IIRC, the Gamecube GPU can push out more polygons than Xbox. It could do more FLOPs, MACs and vertices calculations. More multi-textured polygons than Xbox. Had a slightly larger bus between CPU - GPU than the Xbox, and better texture compression bandwidth.
The PS2 dwarfed Xbox in framebuffer, Z-buffer and texture buffer bandwidth by at least 2:1 (almost 8:1 in case of framebuffer and Z-buffer bandwidth), CPU-GPU bandwidth (tho less than Gamecube), pixel fillrate (> 2:1), texture fillrate (~ 2:1), multi-texture fillrate, and 32-bit (32-pixel?) multi-textured polygon rate.
So even here, Gamecube had its advantages (and disadvantages, obviously).
And very likely rendering Series S itself completely redundant in the process.
Last edited:
hinch7
Member
I was talking generally Kepler is usually right on with their information - look at their history. And if both Kepler and Kopite nods towards the same thing. Its most likely accurate.Check the reddit thread, folks there have stated that kopite7kimi has gotten plenty of things wrong in the past, including details on the T239 SoC itself.
Last edited:
Raploz
Member
This is very misleading.
The guy in the video says one of the LinkedIn profiles talks about the T239, however, the resume stating those clocks is from ANOTHER employee at the same company, who may or may not have worked on T239 project.
The only reason the guy in the video is connecting those two people is because they entered and left that company at similar times. That's only a loose connection and not confirmation of anything.
The resume doesn't state what product that info was from. It could be an RTX 4xxx card (because, again, that resume is from another employee, not the one who said they worked on the T239 chip). If you pay attention, those high-end RTX 4000 cards clock very close to 2.6Ghz at boost clocks (2.4~2.5) and 2.6GHz is supposed to be the max theoretical clock that employee validated. Also, the RTX 4000 cards are made on the 5nm node, the same node listed on the resume. Pretty suspicious, no?
If this info is related to the T239 AT ALL , then that's likely the CPU clock, not the GPU clock. Even desktop GPUs consuming hundreds of watts have trouble reaching that frequency, but we have phone CPUs nowadays running at over 3GHz clocks passively on worse nodes. Also, those are theoretical maximum clocks for the CPU, and the final chip would very likely be clocked lower.
The guy in the video says one of the LinkedIn profiles talks about the T239, however, the resume stating those clocks is from ANOTHER employee at the same company, who may or may not have worked on T239 project.
The only reason the guy in the video is connecting those two people is because they entered and left that company at similar times. That's only a loose connection and not confirmation of anything.
The resume doesn't state what product that info was from. It could be an RTX 4xxx card (because, again, that resume is from another employee, not the one who said they worked on the T239 chip). If you pay attention, those high-end RTX 4000 cards clock very close to 2.6Ghz at boost clocks (2.4~2.5) and 2.6GHz is supposed to be the max theoretical clock that employee validated. Also, the RTX 4000 cards are made on the 5nm node, the same node listed on the resume. Pretty suspicious, no?
If this info is related to the T239 AT ALL , then that's likely the CPU clock, not the GPU clock. Even desktop GPUs consuming hundreds of watts have trouble reaching that frequency, but we have phone CPUs nowadays running at over 3GHz clocks passively on worse nodes. Also, those are theoretical maximum clocks for the CPU, and the final chip would very likely be clocked lower.
Last edited:
Fabieter
Member
Yea I know dozens of switch owners who came in the first time after the wii times. No one would buy a switch 2 for like 499 to 599 Euros and with all the rumors this has to be the pricing
.
Mr.Phoenix
Member
Its a double-edged sword.
its not going to be, a super powerful console with dlss on top of it. Its going to be, thanks to dlss we don't need to have a super powerful console.
Nintendo wants a handheld that can allow for PS5 ports. All they need is to be able to run internally at 360p - 648p before dlss to 1080p.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
That is true. And, as such, I'm assuming assets would not have to be as large, so lower RAM capacity needed. RAM bandwidth could also be scaled back some.
Guess it would come down to how low an internal resolution games could get away with before there's too little pixel data to sufficiently work with, even having DLSS 3.2 or what-have-you. There is likely a floor limit that can't get dropped below, and I have a feeling 360p would be below that floor. But 480p could be right at the floor level to get by.
Just spitballing here; I don't know much about the internal, technical workings of DLSS, particularly what's specifically new and improved in the 3x line when it comes to resolution upsampling. Though, I know frame generation is a big feature of the 3x spec.
EDIT: Although I'm also thinking...if the RAM capacity and bandwidth is notably less, wouldn't devs have to re-scale their textures and certain other assets to fit in the new footprint? That could be asking for a lot of work on the part of devs, there's likely only so much they can further compress certain texture assets before needing to draw up new ones, which can become time-consuming.
So, that could be a situation where the Switch 2 has a much more conservative GPU for internal rendering (and upscaling making up the difference thanks to DLSS), but would need enough RAM and bandwidth to still make that feasible anyhow.
Last edited:
zeldaring
Banned
It depends on the game. dead space remake has fsr down scaled to 936p at 60fps basically the same as dlss. developers seem to be using FSR ,more and more on ps5 which is basically the same as DLSS just not as good.
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
I’m started to wonder if Switch will be sold as two separate devices
1) A handheld
2) A console
They can have a “cheaper” handheld while simultaneously going significantly more powerful with a more expensive dock
This seems like a winning strategy to me, rather than combining the two devices and forcing consumers to pay for both.
I suspect many audiences play either entirely handheld or docked, but seldom overlap both
Last edited:
AutumnLeaves
Member
Please have backwards compatibility.
Zathalus
Member
It's just simple physics, x86 and RDNA3 on 5nm operating at the likely power budget of a switch (under 10w) at best matches a stock PS4 with a better CPU. Nvidia does have better performance per watt but even using Ada on a 4nm SoC you will at most be 60/70% over that. Then you have a number of other issues, even the best LPDDRx does not offer much faster then 130GB/S bandwidth. Then we have the CPU which is Cortex A78c based at best. That has similar IPC to Zen 2 (albeit no dual threading as ARM does not support it) and no way is that going to clock near current gen consoles.
DLSS 3 is nice but you don't get any real performance boost over FSR, just much improved image quality. Frame generation would not really be used as it is only good for boosting 50-60 fps up to over 100.
The Switch can maybe match the Series S GPU when docked, but it will be weaker in CPU and memory bandwidth. Hoping for anything better is simply going against the laws of physics. 4nm isn't that much better over 7nm.
Hudo
Member
It will most likely have BC. Furukawa himself said at some investors meeting that they want the transition to be as smooth as possible. That sounds pretty much like BC to me. Question is how they will go about it for physical games. Will the new Switch come with support for your Switch 1 game cartridges or will there be some sort of download scheme for your physical games or something?
Thirty7ven
Banned
Because if you adjust for inflation 399$ will be the highest priced launch Nintendo ever done. At least since the GameCube.
Last edited:
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
SNES's GPU compared to PC Engine is sort of like Nvidia compared to AMD, where yeah, the AMD GPU may do raster just as good if not better but is lacking the hardware features that can make Nvidia special.
SNES has a broader color pallette than PC engine, (32,768 vs 512) so even if less colors could be displayed on screen the colors were more varied and games were more lush looking. Mode 7 and Transparency were also major factors that helped elevate SNES over PC Engine visually despite the lower onscreen color palette. SNES simply had more relevant features for the time. Even Genesis had enough colors to make beautiful games like Sonic 3, so the PC Engine's advantage there isn't as important as being able to scale backgrounds and create transparent images
Maybe that could be true since Genesis games are known for their wacky effects on screen, but I maintain my stance that Blast Processing was nothing more than a marketing term used to advertise the Genesis' CPU being more than 2x faster than the SNES. It really isn't any real hardware feature as much as it is a hardware advantage. It's about as simple as that, and why games like Gunstar Heroes, Contra Hard Corps and Sonic of course wouldn't work as well on a Super Nintendo. Though the faster CPU does lend itself better to hardware trickery as we saw with many of Traveler's Tales games on the system.
Bernoulli
M2 slut
they can do 399 base and 499 oled and sell like hot cakes
Mr.Phoenix
Member
In this digital foundry timestamped video you can see 540p being reconstructed to 1080p using dlss 2.0 with great results. I imagine you are right and 480p would work just as fine.
These games are already made with the ability to scale built in. Texture rez, geometry detail, density, asset rez...etc, can all be scaled. And as long as the switch version doesn't have some stupid parity clause, it would be easy for devs to just cut out features of the game that may be too hard to port down from the PS5SX versions.
When it comes to supporting games or ports, funny enough... the most important thing is actually the CPU followed by RAM quantity. Those are things you just cant cheat your way out of. You have to be close enough to the spec of whatever you are porting from. Bandwidth isn't that important, it hinges on what resolution you are chasing. If the NS2 is trying to run internally at under 720p... it would need less bandwidth than even the PS4 to do that.
Yes, Dlss is better than FSR.. but that is not what is important here. What you should be looking at, is if on the PS5, a dev has to use FSR with an internal rez of 900p to get 60fps@1440p or whatever, what do you think they would've to do on a console that is less than a quarter the power of the PS5?
Mozza
Member
A game that has never sold big numbers, is going to be a Switch 2 system seller, somehow I do not believe you.
StereoVsn
Member
If cooling is decent and new dock is better designed (say with a fan), they might be able to push 30-40w in docked mode.
Yeah, handheld mode ain't going to go over 15w tops, but docked is another matter.
PeteBull
Gold Member
Jokes aside, this mashine will be weaker even from xss, that is weaker from last gen xbox one x;D
tkscz
Member
Samsung and Nvidia aren't really working together anymore. It's not a rumor that the 5nm Ampere+ was cancelled, it straight up was. The next Tegra model was going to be called Atlan and was supposed to use that 5nm Ampere+ but it was cancelled a d replaced with the 4 TSCM based Thor. I believe it had to do with the bad yield rate when it came to the 30 series. It's why I believe the previous rumor that Nintendo and Nvidia moved away from the 8nm model, just not this one
alucard0712_rus
Member
My buying Pro version with OLED and more storage for sure!
Thick Thighs Save Lives
NeoGAF's Physical Games Advocate Extraordinaire
Switch launched back in March 2017 for $299 and If we adjust that price for inflation it gives us $375; a $25 premium on top of that for the base model tracks. Oh and those who think that Nintendo will keep the $299 in this inflationary economy are in for a rude awakening, just like those who thought the PSVR2 will be priced at $400.
Sure, they'll eventually release a Switch 2 lite at $299 as a mid-refresh option alongside a more premium oled model.
RoboFu
One of the green rats
Well you got to think .. what’s the point of not wanting the blue sky rumors to be true? Why would someone not want every console to be the best it could possibly be?
There is only one reason I can think of ...
Silver Wattle
Gold Member
Yeah but it's not a NVIDIA exclusive decision, the Thor model is going to be some AI dev kit SoC so they have the room to absorb the costs of 4nm, where Samsung 8nm can port to Samsung 5nm in a more straightforward manner than a switch from Samsung to tsmc.
Last edited:
zeldaring
Banned
probably cause we had 3 generations in Nintendo console tear downs and neogaf paying a company to get the actual specs and they were always worse case scenario. so people are probably just tired pf the same old people over hyping the specs because they are delusional. lets be honest Nintendo hasn't cared about actually giving powerful hardware or for 20 years since the GC came out.Well you got to think .. what’s the point of not wanting the blue sky rumors to be true? Why would someone not want every console to be the best it could possibly be?
There is only one reason I can think of ...
Last edited:
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Just give me a machine where 1440p and 60 fps is the standard then I am happy.
Before anyone screams that would cost too much, keep in mind that Nintendo games do not require anywhere NEAR the processing power of PS5/XSX games.
No reason they couldn't make Tears of the King run at 4K/60 (or at least 1440p) with PS4 level specs. DLSS should make this feasible.
Before anyone screams that would cost too much, keep in mind that Nintendo games do not require anywhere NEAR the processing power of PS5/XSX games.
No reason they couldn't make Tears of the King run at 4K/60 (or at least 1440p) with PS4 level specs. DLSS should make this feasible.
zeldaring
Banned
i'm pretty sure Nintendo will deliver on that
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
And I will be one happy motherfucker! Nintendo will end upo back in my life. Played Tears of the Kingdom on Yuzu emulation and had a blast.
Absolutely loved it.
TAS
Member
I've been saying this for years.
Ideally Nintendo would forgo a "pro" dock and instead offer a set-top box alternative (like the Nvidia Shield) that can run at much higher wattages.