Ok, all caught up, we know that if Switch 2 launches in 2023 or 2024, it will be T239, because 12 months ago, Nvidia was hacked and NVN files (up to date from Feb 2022) only supported 3 SoCs, T210 (Erista), T214 (Mariko), T239 (Drake). There is no other hardware as of 13 months ago, that this updated custom Nvidia API for Nintendo was being built around. Switch 2 was also shown by public files to have engineer samples out in April 2022 and final Silicon in August 2022, through the linux Kernel, we also know the hardware is still being worked on, which wouldn't be the case for canceled hardware, it also wouldn't make sense for Nvidia to continue to build T239 as a product if it wasn't a custom part for millions of devices, which realistically only Nintendo is even being hinted at. We also have job postings at both Nvidia and Nintendo from 2020 through 2023, that mention DLSS, next gen console, and AI work...
This video started a lot of debate for sure. Like most people, I think it is a given that Switch 2 will have to have proper BC to be successful. And I can't think of any technical difficulties Nintendo/NVidia could not overcome.
On the tech specs front, it seems we got 0 real leak since a long time, and that most people take for granted that it will be T239 based. And, well, let's assume it will be the case.
What's unknown is the fab process (Samsung 8? Samsung 5? TSMC 4?), and tied to that, the all important frequencies.
But regardless of what the chip is, there is no black magic. And the "portable console" constraints are still there. The device must be small, cheap and powerful.
Best case scenario will be more or less a smaller SteamDeck with equivalent performances. More than that is just wishful thinking IMO.
So... I'm fully prepared for "super low" CPU freqs: ~1.3Ghz. Same for GPU ~650/1300Mhz mobile/docked. Anything above that would be pleasant news to me.
So let's assume it's just that: a Switch with ~PS4 level of performances... will it be enough? Many call this a generational update, but, Idk, it seems to me that's a very small "genarational" jump.
I'm wondering if the better option would not be to wait two to three years more so we really get to enjoy a generational leap.
5nm Samsung is the worst node that Nvidia would go with if end of this year or early next year, because 8nm is already winding down production lines from what I've been hearing, and Nintendo was kicked off 20nm and had to move to 12nm around 4 years after 20nm was introduced. Exynos 980 was introduced September 2019 and was the first 8nm chip from Samsung, and 8nm is an enhanced process node of Samsung's ancient 10nm technology, so releasing at the end of 2023 or in 2024, 5nm Samsung is pretty much the oldest chip Nvidia would be able to produce without having to shrink it right away and have a new version out the following year at the absolute latest, which makes it far too costly to go with 8nm, also 5nm Samsung recently massively improved production failure rates, making it cheaper than Drake on 8nm would be, in the end we are also talking about something like ~150-190mm^2 which is reasonable at 5nm, but would be twice that on 8nm, and completely unrealistic in terms of cost.
I said that to say that your CPU clocks are too low, Nintendo used just under 2 watts for the original Switch's CPU, Drake's CPU is going to also use around 2 watts, this is pretty clear IMO, because DLSS benefits the GPU's power consumption so much that they can get away with a "higher" CPU ratio, ~2w on Samsung 5nm should give around 2GHz for the 8 core A78C, which is the most efficient modern ARM CPU atm anyways. 2GHz on 7 cores for gaming, should offer something around 70-85% of Steam Deck's CPU, because that Ryzen 2 CPU while clocked higher, only has 4 physical cores, though 8 threads, much like A78C's 8 cores 8 threads. A78C at 2GHz should offer around 66% of Ryzen 2 core at 3.5GHz, which is where I ultimately get these numbers from, it's of course not exact science, and custom, closed environments like the Switch, do benefit from efficiency gains thanks to task focus and native ports directly to the system, being able to code closer to the "metal" and what not, so that 70-85% number seems pretty safe.
Your GPU frequencies are about what I've been expecting for a long time, somewhere between 600-700MHz for the GPU in handheld and 1.1-1.2GHz docked, that is why that DLSS NVN test is so interesting to me, it fits with the original Switch's power consumption, 4.2w for 660MHz (2.05TFLOPs) + ~2w for the CPU, and 2-3w for the rest of the system, falls right inside the original Switch's ~5.5w TX1 SoC and 1.6-3.5w (screen really sucked power) for the rest of the system. This left the Original Switch with 7.1w - 9w power consumption based on minimal / maximum brightness and other connectivity settings found in original Switch menu from launch while playing botw. The above power consumption for Drake would be around 8w and maybe go as high as 10w, which OG Switch does hit in handheld mode with more demanding games.
Ampere's flops are inflated, mainly because Int cores from Turing architecture, were expanded in Ampere to run FP32 cuda core code. This allows for much higher paper stats, but those int cores did do int work, and these expanded FP32 cores do have to now do int work too, so it's not 2TFLOPs in handheld, it's 1TFLOPs dedicated FP32 + 1TFLOPs of FP32/Int cuda core work, which will always involve some Int work outside of synthetic benchmarks, having said that, these numbers basically would give us:
Handheld
CPU 70-85% of Steam Deck / >50% of PS5's CPU performance
GPU (2TFLOPs) Greater than Steam Deck / PS4, before DLSS is used to free up performance, pushing handheld performance up, maybe around 680M native resolution performance? (hard to say, but could have trade offs against PS4 pro, though screen resolution might be fairly limited, the small screen would also allow for lower graphical fidelity to not matter as much, much like when Steam Deck lacks in some settings.
Docked
CPU Same CPU clocks/performance as handheld.
GPU (3.456TFLOPs) I think it makes the most sense to compare this with XBSS, it will have less raw flops available, especially after Int performance is drawn from the same Flops pool, however thanks to DLSS's superior reconstruction, it should match up fairly well with XBSS, and does offer some RT support with 12 RT cores, allowing it to have similar RT performance to the bigger brother consoles in PS5 and XBSX, it really depends on the bottleneck here, because it could have superior RT performance, especially thanks to DLSS' help with RT performance drops.
Switch 2 launching next year, would be in Switch's 8th year on the market, the oldest console Nintendo will have ever replaced by that point, and I don't expect them to stop selling Switch, since this new hardware is unlikely to be below $399, they will keep the V2 redbox/non OLED model on the market at $249 like the new mario bundle without a mario game would indicate (reports are that OLED models are slowing production, and the new bundle is a 2019 Mariko redbox model, not OLED), and Switch LIte or a replacement Switch Mini at $149 (sort of like how New 2DS XL launched at $149 4 months after Switch, in July 2017).
This isn't a super powerful console, but it's a nice increase from Switch, especially on the CPU side, but this comes from higher clocks and core count matching modern development (of the last decade), and DLSS' black magic reconstruction tech, without it, it would fall behind XBSS pretty easily, I'd say at best it would match PS4 Pro on that front without DLSS, but could even exceed XBSS given a low enough render resolution, compromising some IQ.
