Wednesday, November 6th 2024

Nintendo Switch Successor: Backward Compatibility Confirmed for 2025 Launch

by
AleksandarK
 Discuss (24 Comments)
Nintendo has officially announced that its next-generation Switch console will feature backward compatibility, allowing players to use their existing game libraries on the new system. However, those eagerly awaiting the console's release may need to exercise patience as launch expectations have shifted to early 2025. On the official X account, Nintendo has announced: "At today's Corporate Management Policy Briefing, we announced that Nintendo Switch software will also be playable on the successor to Nintendo Switch. Nintendo Switch Online will be available on the successor to Nintendo Switch as well. Further information about the successor to Nintendo Switch, including its compatibility with Nintendo Switch, will be announced at a later date."

While the original Switch evolved from a 20 nm Tegra X1 to a more power-efficient 16 nm Tegra X1+ SoC (both featuring four Cortex-A57 and four Cortex-A53 cores with GM20B Maxwell GPUs), the Switch 2 is rumored to utilize a customized variant of NVIDIA's Jetson Orin SoC, now codenamed T239. The new chip represents a significant upgrade with its 12 Cortex-A78AE cores, LPDDR5 memory, and Ampere GPU architecture with 1,536 CUDA cores, promising enhanced battery efficiency and DLSS capabilities for the handheld gaming market. With the holiday 2024 release window now seemingly off the table, the new console is anticipated to debut in the first half of 2025, marking nearly eight years since the original Switch's launch.
Sources: Nintendo, via VideoCardz

Related News

Add your own comment

24 Comments on Nintendo Switch Successor: Backward Compatibility Confirmed for 2025 Launch

#2
Vya Domus
It's interesting how backwards compatibility has created a serious incentive for these companies to stick with the same chip maker, Nintendo is basically forced to stick with Nvidia in the same way Sony and MS are forced to stick with AMD lol.
Posted on Reply
#3
londiste
Vya DomusIt's interesting how backwards compatibility has created a serious incentive for these companies to stick with the same chip maker, Nintendo is basically forced to stick with Nvidia in the same way Sony and MS are forced to stick with AMD lol.
Would backwards compatibility with Switch be that big of a problem that it needs sticking with the same chip maker? Switch SoC is not that powerful, they can pretty much take Ryujinx and run it on whatever :D
Posted on Reply
#4
Hyderz
Much needed for the switch, Switch games in the past 3 years or so had been severely limited by its hardware even when you drop all its visuals down it stills chugs
Posted on Reply
#5
64K
I'm sure a lot of people will be pleased that it's backwards compatible. I was reading a few months ago that about one billion software units total had been sold for the Switch.
Posted on Reply
#6
Vya Domus
londisteWould backwards compatibility with Switch be that big of a problem that it needs sticking with the same chip maker
It sure seems like it, there were some leaks according to which Sony was looking at both AMD and Intel for the next console and apparently one of the deciding factor was the fear of backwards compatibility issues if they went with Intel, they just don't want the headache of messing around with software.
Posted on Reply
#7
Chomiq
Vya DomusIt's interesting how backwards compatibility has created a serious incentive for these companies to stick with the same chip maker, Nintendo is basically forced to stick with Nvidia in the same way Sony and MS are forced to stick with AMD lol.
Forced is a strong word seeing how since last gen we've been moving away from custom designs and PS and Xbox consoles are running on Zen based APU's. The last true custom made design was PS3.
Posted on Reply
#8
Vya Domus
ChomiqForced is a strong word seeing how since last gen we've been moving away from custom designs and PS and Xbox consoles are running on Zen based APU's. The last true custom made design was PS3.
You've got this backwards I think, non custom designs make backwards compatibility a more relevant matter whereas custom designs basically ensure that's not even on the cards. For instance PS4 was never going to be compatible with the PS3, backwards compatibility becomes feasible when the designs don't differ that much hence why there is now an incentive to stick with the same chip maker more than ever.
Posted on Reply
#9
TheinsanegamerN
64KI'm sure a lot of people will be pleased that it's backwards compatible. I was reading a few months ago that about one billion software units total had been sold for the Switch.
That's me. My switch has been great and being backwards compatible means the switch 2 becomes much more appealing. I can invest in more games and snatch the system day 1 knowing I have plenty to play until switch 2 exclusives release.
Posted on Reply
#11
mrnagant
Vya DomusYou've got this backwards I think, non custom designs make backwards compatibility a more relevant matter whereas custom designs basically ensure that's not even on the cards. For instance PS4 was never going to be compatible with the PS3, backwards compatibility becomes feasible when the designs don't differ that much hence why there is now an incentive to stick with the same chip maker more than ever.
PS3 is pretty unique, makes it more difficult. Look at the X360. Used the same PowerPC processor in the PS3 (three of them instead of just one), but didn't have those Cell SPEs. Emulation runs fine on the Xbox One for games that made it over. The Switch is super easy to emulate. Switch emulator on the Steam Deck, you can run any Switch game at higher resolution, and higher frame rates no problem. ARM Cortex A57 are pretty weak processors and well understood in terms of emulation.
Posted on Reply
#12
kondamin
Won't be much of a 4K gaming machine
Posted on Reply
#13
TheinsanegamerN
kondaminWon't be much of a 4K gaming machine
Neither is any other console. or most PCs for that matter.
Posted on Reply
#14
Darmok N Jalad
Good to hear, and hopefully that means future games will still play on OG Switch, even if it means reduced visuals. Really, Nintendo could have gone either way here, as they do like to sell remastered first party titles for easy pickins. I guess they could still do both.
Posted on Reply
#15
Vya Domus
mrnagantPS3 is pretty unique, makes it more difficult.
It was the same story with PS2 backwards compatibly, even though they both use the same weird floating point standards and whatnot Sony still chose to use actual PS2 hardware for the launch PS3, PS2 emulation runs fine on PS3 but even to this day it has problems.
Posted on Reply
#16
LastDudeALive
Can someone explain why they're going with Ampere instead of Ada? With battery life being so important for a handheld, I would think the incredible power efficiency of Ada would make it a no-brainer, and if they're looking at using DLSS the addition of DLSS 3 would be massive.

Is it because Nintendo's been working on it since before Ada was released? I understand they might have started development looking at Ampere, but 2 years should be enough time to adjust their development to the Ada architecture.

Is it because they're just modifying an existing SoC that has Ampere? With 146 million Switch sales, I would think Nintendo of all people would have the leverage to work with Nvidia to make a slightly updated SoC with a newer GPU. I mean, AMD and Intel are both releasing a bazillion variations of their SoCs for handhelds that don't come close to the Switch in sales. Unless Nvidia's SoCs are more tightly integrated and complicated to develop, I just don't get it.

Is it because Ampere silicon is far less expensive than Ada? I get wanting to control costs, but Ada can output more performance with fewer cores so that saves some costs, plus the power efficiency means you could clock the GPU higher.
Posted on Reply
#17
kondamin
LastDudeALiveCan someone explain why they're going with Ampere instead of Ada? With battery life being so important for a handheld, I would think the incredible power efficiency of Ada would make it a no-brainer, and if they're looking at using DLSS the addition of DLSS 3 would be massive.

Is it because Nintendo's been working on it since before Ada was released? I understand they might have started development looking at Ampere, but 2 years should be enough time to adjust their development to the Ada architecture.

Is it because they're just modifying an existing SoC that has Ampere? With 146 million Switch sales, I would think Nintendo of all people would have the leverage to work with Nvidia to make a slightly updated SoC with a newer GPU. I mean, AMD and Intel are both releasing a bazillion variations of their SoCs for handhelds that don't come close to the Switch in sales. Unless Nvidia's SoCs are more tightly integrated and complicated to develop, I just don't get it.

Is it because Ampere silicon is far less expensive than Ada? I get wanting to control costs, but Ada can output more performance with fewer cores so that saves some costs, plus the power efficiency means you could clock the GPU higher.
Because nintendo doesn't like to spend on hardware and goes for old stuff that is cheap and barely good enough.
Nor do they really care about third party games, their first party titles bring in the audience and they make their money on the consoles.
Posted on Reply
#18
slyphnier
LastDudeALiveCan someone explain why they're going with Ampere instead of Ada? With battery life being so important for a handheld, I would think the incredible power efficiency of Ada would make it a no-brainer, and if they're looking at using DLSS the addition of DLSS 3 would be massive.

Is it because Nintendo's been working on it since before Ada was released? I understand they might have started development looking at Ampere, but 2 years should be enough time to adjust their development to the Ada architecture.

Is it because they're just modifying an existing SoC that has Ampere? With 146 million Switch sales, I would think Nintendo of all people would have the leverage to work with Nvidia to make a slightly updated SoC with a newer GPU. I mean, AMD and Intel are both releasing a bazillion variations of their SoCs for handhelds that don't come close to the Switch in sales. Unless Nvidia's SoCs are more tightly integrated and complicated to develop, I just don't get it.

Is it because Ampere silicon is far less expensive than Ada? I get wanting to control costs, but Ada can output more performance with fewer cores so that saves some costs, plus the power efficiency means you could clock the GPU higher.
i am guessing its more to nvidia soc offers, i have yet find device with nvidia tegra that get custom soc different from nvidia standard lineup/offering

"atlan" which is supposed to use Ada is cancelled by nvidia back in 2022, and then they announced "thor" which expected to use blackwell (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tegra)

so i guess nintendo, they opted to just use what available, rather than waited for next one, as they also have release schedule
Posted on Reply
#19
GhostRyder
You know, it sounds great but man I feel Nintendo just refuses to make games. I rarely hear about a game on switch that I want to play (Yes I have all the usual suspects) and its sad because the ones I have I do love. I am just missing all their amazing IP's that just sit around collecting dust.
Posted on Reply
#20
Space Lynx
Astronaut
TheinsanegamerNGuess that means I'll be buying one then.
launch day buy for me too
Posted on Reply
#21
wolf
Better Than Native
Chances are this is a day 1 buy for me, back compat along with a 6 year old kiddo seals the deal.
Posted on Reply
#22
Raiden85
If they didn't have backwards compatibility, it would have been a really stupid move.
Posted on Reply
#23
chrcoluk
Vya DomusIt's interesting how backwards compatibility has created a serious incentive for these companies to stick with the same chip maker, Nintendo is basically forced to stick with Nvidia in the same way Sony and MS are forced to stick with AMD lol.
Nvidia has served them well, and DLSS probably is the best upscaler right now. So there is a reason other than BC I think.

Pretty crazy I am playing Vesperia on a device consuming 10 watts.
LastDudeALiveCan someone explain why they're going with Ampere instead of Ada? With battery life being so important for a handheld, I would think the incredible power efficiency of Ada would make it a no-brainer, and if they're looking at using DLSS the addition of DLSS 3 would be massive.

Is it because Nintendo's been working on it since before Ada was released? I understand they might have started development looking at Ampere, but 2 years should be enough time to adjust their development to the Ada architecture.

Is it because they're just modifying an existing SoC that has Ampere? With 146 million Switch sales, I would think Nintendo of all people would have the leverage to work with Nvidia to make a slightly updated SoC with a newer GPU. I mean, AMD and Intel are both releasing a bazillion variations of their SoCs for handhelds that don't come close to the Switch in sales. Unless Nvidia's SoCs are more tightly integrated and complicated to develop, I just don't get it.

Is it because Ampere silicon is far less expensive than Ada? I get wanting to control costs, but Ada can output more performance with fewer cores so that saves some costs, plus the power efficiency means you could clock the GPU higher.
Probably cost, A ampere based Switch 2 costing say £300 is better than a ada based switch 2 costing £400 in my opinion. Price is part of the product spec. The chip however from what I understand has at least one feature backported from ada.
Posted on Reply
#24
GhostRyder
Raiden85If they didn't have backwards compatibility, it would have been a really stupid move.
100%, without it that would be pointless because they lack a huge Library and are so slow to make games.

I am still made the the new Metroid Prime game I have been dieing for keeps getting pushed back. Guess I will have to buy the new switch to hope it comes out.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 21st, 2024 07:49 EST change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts