you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 39 points 17 hours ago (18 children)

What you don’t want a switch 64?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 17 hours ago (11 children)
  • [–] 10 points 17 hours ago (9 children)
  • [–] 12 points 17 hours ago (8 children)
  • [–] 12 points 17 hours ago (6 children)
  • [–] 3 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

    Why not go big and make it a Switch 128?

    I understand that there's a diminishing return and that a 128-bit processor core doesn't really add much in the way of performance over 64-bit, but it would be like having a V8 under the hood with an obscene amount of horsepower that you never use, no? People drive those anyway.

    Or be the true innovators again and release a ternary gaming system 🤯 They could call it the Nintendo3 (pronounced "Nintendo Base Three"), the Nintendo Trit, or the Nintendo ThreeWay

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 13 hours ago (1 child)

    128-bit addressing would add memory and processing overhead that would make it not worth it. 64-bit addressing is already more memory than will ever be in a Nintendo console (16 exabytes, or 16 million TBi).

    The Nintendo Swirch 2 also has a 128-bit memory bus, which means it can move up to 128 bits of memory at once. This does make memory operations faster, effective increasing the bandwidth of memory operations.

    The PS5 has a memory bus width of 256 bits. The Xbox Series S has 128 bits, and the Series X has 320 bit memory bus width. So, wide buses aren’t uncommon on modern architectures.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

    Just realized that was for 64 bit

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments