You have a source for the claim that 5LPP is >3x more per wafer?
Let's be generous here and ask for proof that 8nm is 3x more expensive than TSMC 4nm!
There were a lot of educated guesses on the Switch 2 famiboard thread which came to the conclusion that the difference in price should actually be pretty minimal. Which I'm inclined to believe given we have Android consoles sporting a high-end Qualcomm chip based on TSMC 4nm, available now, for $379.
Unless one is part of the few people on this world who has access to whatever deal Samsung and NVidia signed for T239, it's simply impossible to compare per chip prices across fabs and nodes.
My point is that a better process than 8nm doesnt have enough advantages to offset the >3x higher wafer prices and the higher development costs. And similiar performance is possible with a mobile SoC with a (very) wide GPU.
Same pb here, we don't really know how large of a gap a move to a vastly better process (N4) would grant.
Say it gives the Switch 2 at least 30% higher clocks... then even if it costs more, having such a perf gap for a device that is supposed to last 8+ years is enough and then some. It could mean:
- 60fps games instead of 40fps one
- 30fps games instead of cannot run at all so won't be ported
- less work for devs to get the same output as less optimisation is needed
I view this as a big deal, and it will be a real bummer if it turns out T239 is indeed a Samsung 8nm chip.
The actual funny thing is that if it's 8nm, it will inevitably have a revision later on down the road (5LPP or 4LPP) and we will then be able to know exactly what the Switch 2 should have been from the start as there is no "rushed to market" excuse this time around.