Switch 2's CPU already outdated?

[Xzi]

Nintendo seems to have a bad habit of cheaping out on one component or the other with their modern console releases, in order to guarantee profit from every unit sold. In Switch 2's case, the CPU appears very weak compared to Steam Deck, and weak perhaps even by smartphone standards. The 8-core ARM Cortex A78C weighs in at 998MHz (docked), 1101MHz (mobile), with a max possible clock speed of 1.7GHz. What's most disappointing about that is that it will no doubt become a bottleneck to the respectable GPU in a few years time, capable of producing 3.07 TFlops according to the specs sheet.

Memory bandwidth and availability is also a mixed bag. Obviously 12GB of DDR5X is a big upgrade over Switch, but 3GB of that is reserved by the OS, and bandwidth only surpasses Steam Deck while docked (20GB/s less than Deck when in portable mode). If Nintendo was trying to definitively top the Deck, they only got about halfway there on the hardware side. Thoughts?

 

[SAIYAN48]

Nintendo is known for not using powerful hardware.

 

[Kioku]

I don't know. We knew the Switch was vastly under-powered at the time of its release because we knew it used an X1 variant. Even then, that was likely due to years of R&D before it released and they couldn't pull the "Duke Nukem Forever" special and keep upgrading to the newer and better thing every time something came along. I assume it's the same logic here..

 

[DiscostewSM]

There are a number of caveats to consider. Steam Deck when running a game that pushes the GPU forces the CPU to get throttled because the APU has a 15W TDP limit. The CPU can drop down to 2.0Ghz and lower from it's 3.5Ghz max because of this. This essentially drops it down below Switch 2's potential in a PC environment. Bandwidth is not likely to be an issue because Ampere tends to utilize an average of 25GB/s per TFlop. AMD RDNA 2 (and even RDNA 3) tend to use quite a bit more than that, which is why AMD introduced Infinity Cache. It handles the rasterization with its 2TB/s bandwidth. The majority of that is mainly for 4k and such, but is still beneficial with lower resolutions because it doesn't take from the main VRAM. It's essential like eDRAM in the X360 and Wii U, but to the next level. The problem? Infinity Cache only exists in AMD's discrete GPUs. All of their APUs lack it, which includes PS5/Pro, the Series consoles, and even their APUs used in portable PCs like Steam Deck and ROG Ally. So they all have to use their existing RAM bandwidth to compensate.

This isn't even taking into account the console vs PC side of things, which ALWAYS favor consoles because of the closed-platform optimization benefits. Hell, Switch 2 is showing to exceed Steam Deck in portable mode based on end results, using less than 10W for the entire system while the Steam Deck chews through 15W on just it's APU. And this is with using Samsung 8nm as opposed to the SD's TSMC 7nm. That's some black magic going on there.

 

[Xzi]

I don't know. We knew the Switch was vastly under-powered at the time of its release because we knew it used an X1 variant. Even then, that was likely due to years of R&D before it released and they couldn't pull the "Duke Nukem Forever" special and keep upgrading to the newer and better thing every time something came along.

True, but in terms of clock speed, Switch 2's single-core performance isn't any better than Switch 1's. I'm sure it'll be more powerful just by grace of being several generations newer, but it seems like a waste to saddle a relatively-powerful custom GPU with that.

 

[DiscostewSM]

Something else to note. Nvidia GPUs are pretty good at handling various tasks that the CPU would normally do, like physics. Take The Witcher 3 for example. Cloth physics on all consoles except the Switch were handled by the CPU. Saber, who worked closely with CDPR in porting the game to Switch, had moved the cloth physics over to the GPU, granting more CPU power to the rest that needed to be handled.

Being a closed-platform with one single architecture set, devs can make these kind of optimizations. Even Doom 2016 was considered an "impossible port" because DF went to try and mimic the Switch specs with a PC, and their results were far below what the actual port was capable of. One thing as I understand is that RTX GPUs on PC aren't able to use all of their features because the APIs managed by system OSs like DirectX cannot access them. One in particular is a pretty heavy ray tracing step that is all done by CPU on PC and AMD-based consoles. Switch 2 having an RTX GPU with an API specific to making use of it would handle it in hardware rather than software.

Certainly the specs look bad, but rather than focus on numbers, it's best to focus on end results.

 

[RyanTheArchivist]

Nintendo seems to have a bad habit of cheaping out on one component or the other with their modern console releases, in order to guarantee profit from every unit sold. In Switch 2's case, the CPU appears very weak compared to Steam Deck, and weak perhaps even by smartphone standards. The 8-core ARM Cortex A78C weighs in at 998MHz (docked), 1101MHz (mobile), with a max possible clock speed of 1.7GHz. What's most disappointing about that is that it will no doubt become a bottleneck to the respectable GPU in a few years time, capable of producing 3.07 TFlops according to the specs sheet.

Memory bandwidth and availability is also a mixed bag. Obviously 12GB of DDR5X is a big upgrade over Switch, but 3GB of that is reserved by the OS, and bandwidth only surpasses Steam Deck while docked (20GB/s less than Deck when in portable mode). If Nintendo was trying to definitively top the Deck, they only got about halfway there on the hardware side. Thoughts?

The hardware was seemingly finalized and planned for release as early as 2022 so can't be shocked it's tech from the era.

 

[CMDreamer]

Nintendo is known for not using powerful hardware.

"Powerful hardware" don't mean good games, that's not how it works, and Nintendo delivers the most imitated console games.

Ask Sunny of a Beach and Microsucks, they have to copy-cat Nintendo games trying get something "new and original", without success of course.

 

[JFizDaWiz]

this isn't the early 2000s, higher clock speeds don't automatically mean better performance.
IPC is a better means of comparing performance. S2 could have same or lower clock speeds but still outperform the S1

 

[Xzi]

this isn't the early 2000s, higher clock speeds don't automatically mean better performance.
IPC is a better means of comparing performance. S2 could have same or lower clock speeds but still outperform the S1

Well of course, the expectation was always that it would outperform Switch and Steam Deck, and the beefy GPU alone accomplishes that, but the gap isn't as wide as it could've been had they just a slightly more performant CPU in it instead. ARM processors are super cheap regardless.

 

[NyaakoXD]

I wouldn't think too hard on if it's "outdated"' and such. By nature, any console is already "outdated" by the time they're released.

At the end of the day, it's all about the games you want to play on it.

 

[ChibiMofo]

I cannot believe most of what I just read. Talk about the blind leading the blind. Suggesting that the Switch 2's single core performance isn't any better than S1... OMFG!
If Nintendo had done all the things you wanted, the Switch 2 would have no trouble running GTA6 at 120 FPS at 4K. It would cost $3000 and have a battery the size of a car battery, and still the battery life would be measured in minutes. You'd also need these to hold it in handheld mode:

Nintendo learned from both the overengineered N64 and the GameCube that they were better off not being on the bleeding edge of technology and were better off making affordable systems and great games. Has worked every single time except for the Wii U and its stupid gamepad nobody asked for.

 

[yankii]

More worrying is the RAM. Productivity laptops have more bandwidth than that...

 

[Jayro]

People are comparing it to a 3050 mobile chip.

 

[subcon959]

It's to be expected since they sat on the bloody thing for years before finally releasing it. I have a feeling the Nvidia side of things will still get them off the hook though as long as there's always enough CPU grunt for DLSS. For example, it's speculated that SF6 is upscaling from 540p which is pretty ridiculous in 2025.

For me, their only mistake was not sticking with a 720p OLED screen.

 

[Xzi]

People are comparing it to a 3050 mobile chip.

The DLSS capabilities of the 3000 series, sure, but in terms of raw power more like a 1050ti.

 

[isoboy]

More worrying is the RAM. Productivity laptops have more bandwidth than that...

Good. Let's emulate all this shit.

 

[Rune]

Nintendo seems to have a bad habit of cheaping out on one component or the other with their modern console releases, in order to guarantee profit from every unit sold. In Switch 2's case, the CPU appears very weak compared to Steam Deck, and weak perhaps even by smartphone standards. The 8-core ARM Cortex A78C weighs in at 998MHz (docked), 1101MHz (mobile), with a max possible clock speed of 1.7GHz. What's most disappointing about that is that it will no doubt become a bottleneck to the respectable GPU in a few years time, capable of producing 3.07 TFlops according to the specs sheet.

Memory bandwidth and availability is also a mixed bag. Obviously 12GB of DDR5X is a big upgrade over Switch, but 3GB of that is reserved by the OS, and bandwidth only surpasses Steam Deck while docked (20GB/s less than Deck when in portable mode). If Nintendo was trying to definitively top the Deck, they only got about halfway there on the hardware side. Thoughts?

My thoughts are if these things matter to you, then you arent the target demographic for the Switch 2.
Theres other devices out there that suit your preferences.

If you still want a Switch 2 but are disappointed in the spec upgrade, then I have to wonder why you expected more considering how dated the previous Switch was.

 

[Lostbhoy]

My thoughts are if these things matter to you, then you arent the target demographic for the Switch 2.
Theres other devices out there that suit your preferences.

If you still want a Switch 2 but are disappointed in the spec upgrade, then I have to wonder why you expected more considering how dated the previous Switch was.

Got to agree with this... We always knew it was not gonna be the best of the best due to past form and leaks.

The ninjas know what they're doing and have to make a console that is appealing and affordable to everyone and not just the hardcore who play the same games better on other consoles. They're not bothered as the core fanbase aren't interested in those titles.

I understand the want for better specs but it's Nintendo!

 

[CruelAlchemist]

People are comparing it to a 3050 mobile chip.

that's cuz of the fact that the new chipset is using the ampere architecture from the RTX 3000 series of graphics cards based on previous rumors, and the best comparison from that series would be the cheapest card available which is the 3050, I believe digital foundry used a laptop that housed the mobile version of the RTX 2050 (which also used the ampere architecture) when trying to gauge the power of the switch 2

The DLSS capabilities of the 3000 series, sure, but in terms of raw power more like a 1050ti.

I honestly doubt that it's similar to the 1050ti in terms of power, I bet it'll be more like the 2050 mobile in terms of power cuz of the Switch 2's tegra chipset using the ampere architecture