Mmmh… less than half is not a small enough difference and GPUs tend to tolerate latency better than CPUs. Lots of work that can be scheduled actually helps to hide latency of other tasks that are waiting for memory.
Not saying that lower latency is not unhelpful, but bandwidth needs to be comparable too. Exaggerating how wide this chip is compared to XSX and PS5 which use GDDR memory too… so mmmh…
Yeah the bandwidth for the Switch 2 is better than Steam Deck but it's a ways off from even base PS4, let alone PS4 Pro and Series S.
What does benefit Switch 2 compared to those systems though, is it'll have a more modern GPU with better GPU data decompression (specifically for graphics data), and it also benefits from DLSS, which can further help reduce the data size of assets in RAM since upscaling can reconstruct the output to a desired target resolution.
The Steam Deck seems to probably still have the better CPU though, which should come with its own advantages here and there. Especially if Valve can reduce resources for Proton as time goes on.
The Switch OLED model has a lower profit margin than the OG Switch model, to this day, and that's with it selling at $349 instead of $299. How is a next-gen Switch model going to come in $100 lower than current-gen Switch OLED, and allow Nintendo to be profitable day one? Nintendo doesn't subsidize console sales at a loss in order to sell more units, like PlayStation and Xbox do.
They will if initial sales are slow. In fact they did that with the 3DS with a temporary price cut to spur sales after they fell behind post-launch.
But since that won't be the case here, yeah I am finding it hard to picture Switch 2 coming in at anything below $449. Maybe $399 if they want to be aggressive in specific markets like Japan, but in that case I can see them having some strict proof of address/residency to curb on importers buying up stock to resell in foreign markets (would also help with cutting down on scalping).
Yeah. And "better than Steam Deck" might depend on a lot of things, too. Better visual fidelity for higher-end games? Maybe docked, since it doesn't use battery power when connected to a TV. But doesn't Steam Deck have 16GB of RAM? No way Nintendo is putting 16GB of RAM into Switch 2.
It depends on various other things, not just RAM capacity. GPU decompression for example; if Switch 2's GPU can decompress graphics data better than Steam Deck's (and it likely will), then you are getting more mileage out of it's 12 GB than you are out of the Deck's 16 GB, per GB. It might be enough to help Switch 2's RAM capacity "feel" more like 14 GB in many cases.
Then you have respective OS overheads and what differences will likely be between them. Steam Deck also needs to run a translation layer for Proton; Switch 2 doesn't have to do anything like that, so that's a benefit to total system resources. Also don't forget DLSS and what part that can help in smartly designed games minimizing their RAM footprint in a Switch 2 vs. a Steam Deck.
Like, I'm definitely not saying the Steam Deck has zero advantages. It could still have the better CPU between the two for example (how much better I don't know, but at least on paper it seems still slightly better). But you remember what other console had a better CPU way back against a Nintendo one? The SEGA Genesis. And sometimes that CPU advantage did help (particularly early on). However with various customizations it was ultimately a wash due to SNES's feature set.
That's more or less how I see the Steam Deck (Genesis) and Switch 2 (Super NES). Even the differences in release dates kind of match up
If it runs games directly off cartridges still and the storage is mostly saves, system data, and maybe a SSD cache, that's workable if you mostly buy physical. I expect there will still be an SD card to add your own too.
Unless it's going more the way of the other two contemporary consoles and new games require SSD installation?
And this would then be ~ 120GB/s of main memory bandwidth if I math right?
I think this is fine, add modern DLSS upscaling and it's going to be such a visual improvement over the long aging Switch 1
Nah. Physical is too important for Nintendo and by having the games run off the carts they can justify the prices holding as long as they do (in addition to just the regular demand). That type of physicality is part of the allure in their games to the fanbase, in being able to not drop prices as often years after the game launches. Customers inherently perceive them as being of more worth due to the cartridges.
That plus, if it's already going to be BC with Switch carts, might as well have Switch 2 carts as well. Maybe they have partial install requirements to internal storage but other data would read from the cart? That's assuming cartridge speeds aren't fast enough on their own (they'll inherently be slower than UFS 3.1 but I don't see why the cart and internal storage can't use the data decompression simultaneously, and share the bandwidth reserved for storage & carts).
semiconductor.samsung.com
