Switch 2's CPU already outdated?

[YYDeckard]

Yeah those Llamsoft games I rule at are completely casual ! And the hundreds of hours on Dead Cells to get 5BC - didnt realise how rude this place was but hey ho the sales will prove me right and I love the word "casual" just cause I cant be bothered to spend my entire gaming life on a steam deck or PC trying to get "perfect" settings. Anyway I will check back in a year to see how it went.....

"But if they choose Switch 2, they're making a declaration that they care more about fake hardware specs than real ones. That's a VERY different problem, and it's not the lesson we want gaming companies to learn."

Surely the "masses" and it will be the "masses" (like 50 million plus at least) are saying I want 4k HDR Nintendo games and I want my kid , brother ,dad to just play games and not give a shit about working out the tech to get the thing to run at 120fps or with anti-aliasing etc...N have never worried since the gamecube about tech specs and this just a nice give-the consumer-what they-want Pro version of the S1.

 

[Delerious]

What you're saying kind of makes sense in a vacuum, but it leaves out one important issue -- the Switch 1 was NOT sold and upsold to us based on its tech stack or its ability to play PC ports. It was sold as the cheapest system on the market on the basis of playing Breath of the Wild and Mario Odyssey with a unique hybrid form factor.

Early reports are already showing Cyberpunk looking really rough. On Switch 1, people accepted this kind of thing with big games because it was "amazing it was able to run as well as it does." Console-level handheld play was a novelty. That doesn't fly anymore when the system is priced competitively and 75% of the games won't even be physical anymore.

My problem is not the performance of the games on its own. It's the performance being offered on a system that is upcharged FOR the specs. That's a big difference. When people chose Switch over PS/XBOX, they were making a declaration that they care more about exclusives and novelty than pure hardware. That's fine. But if they choose Switch 2, they're making a declaration that they care more about fake hardware specs than real ones. That's a VERY different problem, and it's not the lesson we want gaming companies to learn.

If 90% of people who buy it don't have much of an issue with it, and are ultimately satisfied with their purchase, is it really a problem?

The general audience, which is going to make up the majority of the consumer base for this thing, isn't going to care, regardless. They just see a portable way to play games with a Nintendo logo on it, and will go for it, and Nintendo fans are likely going to buy it, regardless. For those who don't like it, well, let's face it -- we're in the bloody minority. No matter how much of the bad news about this thing hits trending on social media, it's primarily the loudest of us in the minority that are sounding the alarm. Shit, people sounded the alarm about Pokémon Scarlett and Violet having performance issues, and that game still sits at over 26 million units sold as of December. And if I'm wrong, and much of the audience doesn't like it, well then, that's more Nintendo's loss than it is ours, because the market will react and it will impact them. Meanwhile, some of us may elect to just wait for the next Steam Deck or ROG Ally to come out. And considering the rising cost of silicon, those may well be more expensive than their first iterations, too, even if you don't account for tariffs.

 

[Moogley]

If 90% of people who buy it don't have much of an issue with it, and are ultimately satisfied with their purchase, is it really a problem?

We don't have to argue hypotheticals because I get what you're saying. All I'm saying is, guys were saying this EXACT thing about Star Wars 10 years ago. "Force Awakens made $1 billion+. Star Wars fans will watch anything. Complainers will always be in the minority. Etc."

I said it then, and I'm saying it again now, legacy art brands need legacy fans. No, the economic impact won't be immediate. Yes, Switch 2 will sell fine. But once the most passionate fans aren't even passionate enough to complain anymore, I don't care how big the brand is. It's gonna sink. With Star Wars, we're already at the point where a show gets cancelled after losing millions, a Solo movie bombs, an open world Star Wars game BOMBS. 10 years ago, that was inconceivable. People said it was IMPOSSIBLE for that to ever happen to Star Wars.

How did that happen? Because casual fans can't sustain brands. Casual fans will buy what you tell them, but they won't go the extra mile. They won't support you through your failures too. All I know for sure is I'm the biggest Nintendo fan I know, and I will never own a Switch 2, as painful as it is. And that means something. How much does it mean? No bloody clue. But it means something.

 

[Delerious]

We don't have to argue hypotheticals because I get what you're saying. All I'm saying is, guys were saying this EXACT thing about Star Wars 10 years ago. "Force Awakens made $1 billion+. Star Wars fans will watch anything. Complainers will always be in the minority. Etc."

I said it then, and I'm saying it again now, legacy art brands need legacy fans. No, the economic impact won't be immediate. Yes, Switch 2 will sell fine. But once the most passionate fans aren't even passionate enough to complain anymore, I don't care how big the brand is. It's gonna sink. With Star Wars, we're already at the point where a show gets cancelled after losing millions, a Solo movie bombs, an open world Star Wars game BOMBS. 10 years ago, that was inconceivable. People said it was IMPOSSIBLE for that to ever happen to Star Wars.

How did that happen? Because casual fans can't sustain brands. Casual fans will buy what you tell them, but they won't go the extra mile. They won't support you through your failures too. All I know for sure is I'm the biggest Nintendo fan I know, and I will never own a Switch 2, as painful as it is. And that means something. How much does it mean? No bloody clue. But it means something.

True. But even outside of casuals, Nintendo fans will still be Nintendo fans, and there will always be another cycle of casual buyers, as well. Also, a Nintendo console will always be the "only" place you can play Nintendo games. (Quotes, because emulation exists). To most of them, it still won't matter. It really only matters to two people: the people who care about visual fidelity and high, stable frame rates, and developers. Unfortunately, those of us that want the power will never have it with a Nintendo system, because they want to make money off their consoles, rather than sell them at a loss.

Now, things will undoubtedly change at some point in the future. Heck, maybe they'll change with the Switch 3, or even sooner with a proper Microsoft (*laughs*), or Sony handheld. But then we have to consider some of the other equations you noted earlier as well, such as the physical vs digital front. Will XBox or Playstation games have a physical presence on either of those systems, and how much will that matter compared to the power angle? I think the lack of physical media will matter more for much of the older audience, but likewise, Nintendo don't seem to be helping on that front, either. So if Sony (because let's be real, Microsoft won't be comptetive) can offer a more compelling experience AND sell it at a reasonable price point, then yes. At that very point can we say that the power of the CPU (and hardware, in general) definitively matters. Because let's also be real, the current sales metric is saying that people aren't rushing out to Target or Best Buy to get their hands on a PC handheld, even in the gaming space.

 

[YoureALoser]

True. But even outside of casuals, Nintendo fans will still be Nintendo fans, and there will always be another cycle of casual buyers, as well. Also, a Nintendo console will always be the "only" place you can play Nintendo games. (Quotes, because emulation exists). To most of them, it still won't matter. It really only matters to two people: the people who care about visual fidelity and high, stable frame rates, and developers. Unfortunately, those of us that want the power will never have it with a Nintendo system, because they want to make money off their consoles, rather than sell them at a loss.

Now, things will undoubtedly change at some point in the future. Heck, maybe they'll change with the Switch 3, or even sooner with a proper Microsoft (*laughs*), or Sony handheld. But then we have to consider some of the other equations you noted earlier as well, such as the physical vs digital front. Will XBox or Playstation games have a physical presence on either of those systems, and how much will that matter compared to the power angle? I think the lack of physical media will matter more for much of the older audience, but likewise, Nintendo don't seem to be helping on that front, either. So if Sony (because let's be real, Microsoft won't be comptetive) can offer a more compelling experience AND sell it at a reasonable price point, then yes. At that very point can we say that the power of the CPU (and hardware, in general) definitively matters. Because let's also be real, the current sales metric is saying that people aren't rushing out to Target or Best Buy to get their hands on a PC handheld, even in the gaming space.

FYI, no console has ever been sold at a loss. That is nothing more than a marketing gimmick to make gullible people believe they are getting a good deal.

 

[pinbi7]

Doesn't pretty much every console release with an outdated CPU? Unless it's some weird shit like the Cell.

What does Jennifer Lopez have to do with this?

 

[subcon959]

FYI, no console has ever been sold at a loss. That is nothing more than a marketing gimmick to make gullible people believe they are getting a good deal.

Strange since it's pretty much universally said that almost every console is sold at a loss initially, until manufacturing costs come down.

 

[Moogley]

But even outside of casuals, Nintendo fans will still be Nintendo fans, and there will always be another cycle of casual buyers, as well. Also, a Nintendo console will always be the "only" place you can play Nintendo games.

You're right, but then again, casual audiences are fickle. History has shown us that Nintendo is never too big to drop an N64 or a Wii U when they don't treat their developers quite right or market the system the right way.

The issue right now is that they have no competition, so standards are a luxury none of us can afford. Like, I had a Switch this gen. It's where I bought all the games I played. Was I satisfied with that? Not really. But I value the physical experience enough to hold onto it, one more time.

How many people are like me? People who on-paper make it seem like Nintendo is doing amazing but are ready and willing to bolt to ANYTHING else if it offers what we're looking for? Idk. Maybe not a ton, but not a negligible amount either.

So if Sony (because let's be real, Microsoft won't be comptetive) can offer a more compelling experience AND sell it at a reasonable price point, then yes. At that very point can we say that the power of the CPU (and hardware, in general) definitively matters.

For me, it comes down to this. If Nintendo is allowed to itemize fake hardware upgrades for cash on a per-game basis and basically fleece fans on the basis of loyalty for game-level optimization that should be STANDARD at release ... we're just screwed. The ONLY way to solve this is competition, just like in the 90s when another "golden age" of Nintendo was really just a front for market manipulation and anti-consumerism.

I'd be so giggly if Sony could get its head out of the live-service clouds and remind Nintendo why they used to be king. A Vita 2 might crush it right now, if they did it right.

 

[Bladexdsl]

people actually thought it was going to be on par with the deck?! knew from the very beginning it was going to be a switch-U

 

[Moogley]

people actually thought it was going to be on par with the deck?! knew from the very beginning it was going to be a switch-U

Nintendo fans are speedrunning cope this time. Thing isn't even out yet and they're already at the third stage of grief.

 

[DiscostewSM]

people actually thought it was going to be on par with the deck?! knew from the very beginning it was going to be a switch-U

It's already exceeding the Steam Deck with WIP titles, and this is based on results, not flops or mhz.

 

[Cheez]

Lmfao hardly. Nintendo creates trash games these days. Switch had no good first party games. Newer Zelda games are absolute trash & shouldn't even be called Zelda. Nintendo hasn't released a quality game in over a decade. Idiots such as yourself will continue supporting them though because you're a casual gamer that doesn't know what quality games are.

It sounds more like you're somebody who doesn't know how to enjoy anything anymore.

 

[FluffyLunamoth]

It sounds more like you're somebody who doesn't know how to enjoy anything anymore.

Terminally online gamers these days literally can't go about their day without being angry at something, or whining about something. It'd be sad if it wasn't so gosh dang pathetic.

And they'll buy it anyway, because that's how they are.

 

[DiscostewSM]

Maybe Nintendo’s betting on DLSS and dev-side optimization to carry the weaker CPU—kind of like how they squeezed surprising longevity out of the original Switch. But will that be enough in a few years when third-party demands grow?

DLSS doesn't really help a weak CPU. It's supposed to help prevent a strong CPU from spending so much time sitting idle in GPU-bound games. After the CPU processes the logic frame, it has to wait until the GPU is ready to accept the data before it can proceed to the next logic frame. If the GPU takes a long time, then the CPU just sits there waiting. Using DLSS with a pre-step of reducing the rendering resolution allows the GPU to finish quicker, get the data sooner from the CPU, thus allowing the CPU to then start the next logic frame sooner.

 

[64bitmodels]

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?

Its super nintendo all over again

NES, weak console weak CPU
SNES, strong console weak CPU

Switch, weak console weak CPU
Switch 2, strong console weak CPU

And people said calling it the Super Switch was a bad idea

 

[grcd]

I am not quite sure how or why we think the Switch 2 APU is weak - or why we even compare it with Steam Deck. Switch 2 tech is clearly a generation ahead of Steam Deck. Comparing it to 7840/8840U onwards is also not an Apples to Apples comparison because it is clearly designed for a lower TDP. And that's good. I am sick and tired of 'mobile' APUs where you can game for less than 90 minutes on higher TDP. What's the point? (And yes, I have both a Steam Deck and an Ayaneo Flip DS).

 

[kikisland]

I saw the teardown video, same stick drift joycons, I think Nintendo build things on the cheap instead of putting the latest and greatest tech in it, they are probably like apple who kept the same 12mp camera in their phones for years then when there was an upgrade it was minor

Post automatically merged: Jun 7, 2025

I saw the teardown video, same stick drift joycons, I think Nintendo build things on the cheap instead of putting the latest and greatest tech in it, they are probably like apple who kept the same 12mp camera in their phones for years then when there was an upgrade it was minor

 

[Purple_Shyguy]

I am not quite sure how or why we think the Switch 2 APU is weak - or why we even compare it with Steam Deck. Switch 2 tech is clearly a generation ahead of Steam Deck. Comparing it to 7840/8840U onwards is also not an Apples to Apples comparison because it is clearly designed for a lower TDP. And that's good. I am sick and tired of 'mobile' APUs where you can game for less than 90 minutes on higher TDP. What's the point? (And yes, I have both a Steam Deck and an Ayaneo Flip DS).

Bro switch 2 is reportedly only getting 2 hours playing Mario Kart. A launch title. Imagine a few years down the line with something that really pushes the hardware to maximum. Will it get literally 1 hour of battery life? It's genuinely not looking good for NS2

 

[PatrickD85]

Well a console is always outdated the moment it's finalized. You can't compare it to PC in such a way.
Consoles are as is, pc's are customizable/updateable etc.
Never see the use to bring that up. you get a console for the ease of not having to change/update gpu/cpu/memory etc.

Just my 2 cents ... to each his own

 

[SteinsGoat]

Bro switch 2 is reportedly only getting 2 hours playing Mario Kart. A launch title. Imagine a few years down the line with something that really pushes the hardware to maximum. Will it get literally 1 hour of battery life? It's genuinely not looking good for NS2

Two hours!? That’s insane… what’s the source?