davec00ke
Octorok
Because it would be exspensive for a half step console. The same reason Sony did not do it for the PS4 Pro and Microsoft toowhy would you assume they wouldn't add compatibility?
Because it would be exspensive for a half step console. The same reason Sony did not do it for the PS4 Pro and Microsoft toowhy would you assume they wouldn't add compatibility?
It wouldn't be hardware compatibility, it'd be an OS function. Which would also carry over to future hardware. This is how they will most likely solve BC on DaneBecause it would be exspensive for a half step console. The same reason Sony did not do it for the PS4 Pro and Microsoft too
There isn't any indication that Switch OLED was ever supposed to use Dane. It's always been Mariko since it first showed up in firmware.I'm really skeptical about Dane being made on 8 nm. We haven't had any official data concerning Orin S and a lot of mobile chips will have transitioned to nodes with extensive use of EUV with only entry level proposition still being made on 8 nm.
Nintendo having postponed the use of Dane separately from the OLED components and form factor could be an indication of a change of SoC and thus using a better node. Especially when fall 2022 will see the emergence of firsts 3 nm chips and 4/5/6 nm being cheaper.
We may never see Dane or a newer chip in the TX1 version of the switch OS. We don't know if Nintendo are planning to use switch OS and letting informations concerning their new SoC at the mercy of dataminers.There isn't any indication that Switch OLED was ever supposed to use Dane. It's always been Mariko since it first showed up in firmware.
We may never see Dane or a newer chip in the TX1 version of the switch OS. We don't know if Nintendo are planning to use switch OS and letting informations concerning their new SoC at the mercy of dataminers.
Also, they can just as easily be writing updates to the Horizon OS behind a whole new code base/major version update, not unlike what other OS creators do when they have new major features/UI changes planned. The fact we knew about OLED through data mining tells me that they weren't as concerned about knowing a new model of the same hardware was planned and used the active code base for the current version of Horizon OS.This was brought up on the old boards when it got noticed (if anyone can source the thread, please do so, since not sure how to search for it), but earlier in the year, late last year, Nintendo had a job listing was looking for people to help port the OS to different hardware. So the intent seems "currently" as of whenever that job listing got posted, is to likely keep the OS the same. But with anything, plans can change.
Those phones aren’t cheaper because they use a newer node though.Cheaper phones are already using EUV nodes (at least those of Chinese brands).
There still cheaper even with better OLED screens, 2-3 camera modules, 4g-5g capabilities, upgraded RAM/MEM and a similar battery capacity.Those phones aren’t cheaper because they use a newer node though.
These phones are heavily subsidized and are being produced at a loss.There still cheaper even with better OLED screens, 2-3 camera modules, 4g-5g capabilities, upgraded RAM/MEM and a similar battery capacity.
I would not say heavily subsidized. At one point, those brands have to recoup on these supposed losses (they don't benefit from software revenues). As for being produced at a loss, I would say that PS5, XSS and XSX are produced at a loss too. One of the last successful Nintendo product has been sold at a loss (3DS).These phones are heavily subsidized and are being produced at a loss.
I'd say the 3DS was sold more with "zero profit" but the Wii U was definitely sold at a loss (as in it cost more to produce than sell).I would not say heavily subsidized. At one point, those brands have to recoup on these supposed losses. As for being produced at a loss, I would say that PS5, XSS and XSX are produced at a loss. One of the last successful Nintendo product has been sold at a loss (3DS).
Zero profits is literally saying at a loss.I'd say the 3DS was sold more with "zero profit" but the Wii U was definitely sold at a loss (as in it cost more to produce than sell).
...Lest BOTW sequel gets delayed/date given for 2023.Zero profits is literally saying at a loss.
Even if some Chinese brands are heavily subsidized, they constitute one of their several opponents in the hybrid mobile gaming market. Steam Deck, xCloud/xbox console streaming, the rest of the Cloud gaming market, powerful middle end smartphones (>1tflop GPU) weren't there in 2017 while some of these markets are reaching maturity in 2021. Moreover, they may not have another BOTW at launch date.
At this rate, I would think that the next switch model will be scheduled for 3 months before the Mario movie with a 3D Mario game with voice acting....Lest BOTW sequel gets delayed/date given for 2023.
Zack Snyder's Nintendo Switch DLSS model...featuring Chris Pratt as Mario and Idris Elba as Knuckles...and Dante from the Devil May CryTM serires. New Funky Modes, etc.At this rate, I would think that the next switch model will be scheduled for 3 months before the Mario movie with a 3D Mario game with voice acting.
I'm curious about this. Wouldn't this mean they'd have to start their SoC from scratch should they change fab nodes?Rumors point that Nvidia is going to TSMC for their Lovelace based GPUs because Samsung’s fabs are prone to low yields.
That doesn’t sound good even if Dane is roughly 1/5 or 1/4 of the size of a normal GPU die.
I hope Nintendo ponies up and goes with TSMC for better yields or doesn’t it matter since Samsung will be cheap as “dirt” compared to TSMC?
At the same time, other rumors are pointing out that AMD and Qualcomm have grown tired of TSMC's politics that are heavily favouring Apple that have the priority and most of all their cutting edge capacities and thus would have switched for Samsung 3GAE for 3 nm.Rumors point that Nvidia is going to TSMC for their Lovelace based GPUs because Samsung’s fabs are prone to low yields.
That doesn’t sound good even if Dane is roughly 1/5 or 1/4 of the size of a normal GPU die.
I hope Nintendo ponies up and goes with TSMC for better yields or doesn’t it matter since Samsung will be cheap as “dirt” compared to TSMC?
Yes. 5LPE was seeing lower yields compared to N5. But it was still better and more profitable than N7+/N6. Samsung nodes are good as long as we talk about small mobile chipsets. A bad yield tends to have a bigger impact when it comes to bigger GPU chipsets. That's why GPU manufacturers are going MCM the same AMD have gone MCM for their CPU products. To benefit from mobile yields and denser libraries.I do have a question: Lower yeilds with compared to what exactly? Is it TSMCs at a comparable node? And since it's likely to be one of the more mature nodes, doesn't that mean that it wouldn't be a s supply constrained as the more bleeding-edge ones like 3nm, etc.
I think the rumours so far are only talking about high-end consumer Lovelace GPUs when talking about TSMC's N5 process node being used. No one knows if entry-level and/or mid-range consumer Lovelace GPUs will also be fabricated using TSMC's N5 process node, or will be fabricated using Samsung's 5LPP process node.Rumors point that Nvidia is going to TSMC for their Lovelace based GPUs because Samsung’s fabs are prone to low yields.
I highly doubt the first 3 nm** chips are coming in autumn 2022. TSMC won't be shipping 3 nm** wafers until Q1 2023. Samsung's 3GAE process node, which is planned to start high volume manufacturing by the end of 2022, is only available to Samsung, not other consumers. And Samsung's 3GAP process node is planned to start high volume manufacturing by the end of 2023.Especially when fall 2022 will see the emergence of firsts 3 nm chips and 4/5/6 nm being cheaper.
Yes. Volume production (risk production) beginning in early 2022 and mass production in fall 2022 with first chips delivery in 2023.I think the rumours so far are only talking about high-end consumer Lovelace GPUs when talking about TSMC's N5 process node being used. No one knows if entry-level and/or mid-range consumer Lovelace GPUs will also be fabricated using TSMC's N5 process node, or will be fabricated using Samsung's 5LPP process node.
I highly doubt the first 3 nm** chips are coming in autumn 2022. TSMC won't be shipping 3 nm** wafers until Q1 2023. Samsung's 3GAE process node, which is planned to start high volume manufacturing by the end of 2022, is only available to Samsung, not other consumers. And Samsung's 3GAP process node is planned to start high volume manufacturing by the end of 2023.
And I highly doubt that a 4 nm** process node, at least from TSMC, will become cheaper in autumn 2022. Apple's rumoured to use one of TSMC's 4 nm** process nodes for fabricating the Apple A16 Bionic.
a better oled screen that is irrelevant in use for gaming, they barely match the performance that their specs dictate. The cameras in those phones are pathetic compared to the higher end phones and upgraded memory only just now, the latest switch is on the LPDDR4X, phones are briefly getting to LPDDR5 and next year 5X.There still cheaper even with better OLED screens, 2-3 camera modules, 4g-5g capabilities, upgraded RAM/MEM and a similar battery capacity.
While it is certainly true that direct references to Dane are unlikely to show up in the public firmware builds for Switch 1, one would expect the Mariko version to show up fairly late if it was a last minute decision, which isn't really what happened. Switch OLED has been in the public firmware since right around when the pandemic started, and probably earlier than that for developers.We may never see Dane or a newer chip in the TX1 version of the switch OS. We don't know if Nintendo are planning to use switch OS and letting informations concerning their new SoC at the mercy of dataminers.
We have started to get concrete Orin/Ampere informations in the second half of 2019 that led to the taping out process in early 2020. I suppose that Nintendo may have had T239 data on 8 nm at the same time during Ampere evaluation on Samsung's node. They may have made their decision to stay on 12 nm for 2020-2021 at the moment they known the power consumption of Dane on 8N. I believe that an 8 nm Switch should have been released in the 2020-2021 time frame instead of 2022-2023. IMHO the fact that we didn't get a new model in 2020-2021 would be a indication of the use of 7 nm (or better) instead of 8 nm.While it is certainly true that direct references to Dane are unlikely to show up in the public firmware builds for Switch 1, one would expect the Mariko version to show up fairly late if it was a last minute decision, which isn't really what happened. Switch OLED has been in the public firmware since right around when the pandemic started, and probably earlier than that for developers.
Also there's really no reason to think that the OS for Dane won't at least be descended from their current one, if it isn't just the exact same one.
It also coincide with TSMC's taking the lead which will probably be less obvious with Intel 7 and 3GAE.I want to mention that I think the advantages of quickly adopting the most advanced process nodes are becoming not as obvious as in the past, especially when more technological and economical problems arise from process nodes becoming more and more advanced, such as slow SRAM scaling, poor power scaling, logic process steps increasing as process nodes become more and more advanced, advanced packaging challenges, rising costs of semiconductor tools, cost of transistors rising slowly and steadily after 28 nm**, etc.
I think that's contingent on Intel and Samsung not screwing up the chance to catch up with TSMC.It also coincide with TSMC's taking the lead which will probably be less obvious with Intel 7 and 3GAE.
Generally speaking, that's correct.If I understand things, the newest and greatest process nodes also leads to a temporary increase in binning, thereby reducing production capacity.
So according to NotebookCheck, the CPU frequencies are as follows:
I still think Samsung 7nm will be an option for Dane LiteIf I understand things, the newest and greatest process nodes also tends to have a temporary increase in binning or disqualified chips that do not meet any retail product requirements, thereby reducing production capacity. A matured process node with far fewer fabrication hiccups makes better sense for a mass-market product selling for less than $500. TX1 was using a matured 20nm process in 2017 when Switch launched, lest we forget.
And, to be clear, waiting for a new process node to mature down the line gives room for a Dane Lite after the initial release.
I think Samsung's 5 nm** process node is also an option, assuming Nintendo plans on releasing a new Nintendo Switch Lite model equipped with Dane at around 2024 (assuming Nintendo still plans on releasing the DLSS model* in holiday 2022) and Nvidia plans on using Samsung's 5 nm** process node for the entry-level and/or mid-range consumer Lovelace GPUs.I still think Samsung 7nm will be an option for Dane Lite
Yeah, they’ll want a mature process that gives them ample performance-per-watt savings, so it‘ll mostly depend on when Dane launches and how Samsung’s process nodes have matured by then.I think Samsung's 5 nm** process node is also an option, assuming Nintendo plans on releasing a new Nintendo Switch Lite model equipped with Dane at around 2024 (assuming Nintendo still plans on releasing the DLSS model* in holiday 2022) and Nvidia plans on using Samsung's 5 nm** process node for the entry-level and/or mid-range consumer Lovelace GPUs.
if price scaling kicks back in for 5nm, I can see Nintendo jumping to it. I guess that's what 4nm is forI think Samsung's 5 nm** process node is also an option, assuming Nintendo plans on releasing a new Nintendo Switch Lite model equipped with Dane at around 2024 (assuming Nintendo still plans on releasing the DLSS model* in holiday 2022) and Nvidia plans on using Samsung's 5 nm** process node for the entry-level and/or mid-range consumer Lovelace GPUs.
I still think Samsung 7nm will be an option for Dane Lite
If I'm not wrong, Samsung's 5 nm is using the same toolings used for their 7 nm node. That would explain why we are seeing a lot of 5LPE chipsets instead of 7LPP/6LPP. S780 were eating S888 capacities with a lower margin than S888 on 5LPE so Qualcomm decided to make stop the S780 production for the more profitable 5LPE chip.I think Samsung's 5 nm** process node is also an option, assuming Nintendo plans on releasing a new Nintendo Switch Lite model equipped with Dane at around 2024 (assuming Nintendo still plans on releasing the DLSS model* in holiday 2022) and Nvidia plans on using Samsung's 5 nm** process node for the entry-level and/or mid-range consumer Lovelace GPUs.
N4 and 4LPX (probably 4LPP too). The former is a derivative of N5 which is going to support massive Lovelace/M1max chipsets. The latter will probably follow soon after with smaller middle end Lovelace chipsets.What would be considered a "mature" node for a 2023/2024 launch window?
How likely would it be for them to jump the project to a new node?N4 and 4LPX (probably 4LPP too). The former is a derivative of N5 which is going to support massive Lovelace/M1max chipsets. The latter will probably follow soon after with smaller middle end Lovelace chipsets.
Intel 7 can probably be considered as a mature node too.
samsung 10nm started around 2017, so 8nm is very matureI wish there was a chart which shows where 8nm is in terms of node maturity.
Global chip shortages has a bigger impact on legacy nodes (28 nm and more) than cutting edge nodes. Founders don't want to increase capacity on these older nodes.How likely would it be for them to jump the project to a new node?
I'm assuming they have the money to "restart" development on a new SoC or configuration. The other factors being the global chip shortage still impacting any potential 2022/2023 launch.
As much as one could remain skeptical about Nintendo's next flagship console (i.e. the "Nintendo gonna Nintendo" crowd), one can't deny the possibility that sitations outside their control are very likely to force them to more recent (ARM) architectures and/or nodes if they want to avoid a paper launch of a new device...
Samsung's 6LPP process node is not available to general consumers. And hence, there's no chip that's publicly announced to be fabricated using Samsung's 6LPP process node.If I'm not wrong, Samsung's 5 nm is using the same toolings used for their 7 nm node. That would explain why we are seeing a lot of 5LPE chipsets instead of 7LPP/6LPP. S780 were eating S888 capacities with a lower margin than S888 on 5LPE so Qualcomm decided to make stop the S780 production for the more profitable 5LPE chip.
As for 8cx3, the media coverage is stating that it uses 4*X1 but there is no proof that those big cores aren't just A78s with more $ memory.
I don't think adopting the Armv9 architecture will help with avoiding a paper launch, especially if demand for the DLSS model* will be as strong as demand for the Nintendo Switch. Product shortages are unfortunately inevitable, especially with the global chip shortage predicted to not end until 2023 at the earliest.As much as one could remain skeptical about Nintendo's next flagship console (i.e. the "Nintendo gonna Nintendo" crowd), one can't deny the possibility that sitations outside their control are very likely to force them to more recent (ARM) architectures and/or nodes if they want to avoid a paper launch of a new device...
Actually, I was saying that there is no evidence that what Qualcomm called 'big' cores in their presentation were X1s instead of A78(C)s in 8cx3.Samsung's 6LPP process node is not available to general consumers. And hence, there's no chip that's publicly announced to be fabricated using Samsung's 6LPP process node.
And Arm explicitly said that the Cortex-X1 uses a 5-wide decoder in comparison to the 4-wide decoder used for the Cortex-A78, and the Cortex-X1 has an out-of-window size of 224 entries in comparison to the Cortex-A78, which has an out-of-window size of 160 entries. So the increased amount of cache is definitely not the only reason why the Cortex-X1 is physically larger than the Cortex-A78.
The Snapdragon 8cx Gen 3 Geekbench 5 single-core scores are much closer to the Snapdragon 888 Geekbench 5 single-core scores than the Exynos 1080 Geekbench 5 single-core scores (and the Snapdragon 780G Geekbench 5 single-core scores for good measure).Actually, I was saying that there is no evidence that what Qualcomm called 'big' cores in their presentation were X1s instead of A78(C)s in 8cx3.
Yes but the A78s in 8cx3 would be configured as big cores than 1080/780 that are middle end chips (Kirin 9000 chips could be more comparable to big A78Cs than E1080 big cores).The Snapdragon 8cx Gen 3 Geekbench 5 single-core scores are much closer to the Snapdragon 888 Geekbench 5 single-core scores than the Exynos 1080 Geekbench 5 single-core scores (and the Snapdragon 780G Geekbench 5 single-core scores for good measure).
So you believe that Qualcomm's outright lying to NotebookCheck, XDA Developers, Hardwareluxx, etc.?Actually, I was saying that there is no evidence that what Qualcomm called 'big' cores in their presentation were X1s instead of A78(C)s in 8cx3.
Qualcomm has never used the "Prime" nomenclature to describe the Cortex-A78 though. Qualcomm so far has reserved the "Prime" nomenclature to the Cortex-X1. And I'm saying this, because Qualcomm described that the Snapdragon 8cx Gen 3 has 4 "Prime" cores and 4 "Efficiency" cores.Yes but the A78s in 8cx3 would be configured as big cores than 1080/780 that are middle end chips (Kirin 9000 chips could be more comparable to big A78Cs than E1080 big cores).
I’m not really sure what you mean here, can you clarify?Yes but the A78s in 8cx3 would be configured as big cores than 1080/780 that are middle end chips (Kirin 9000 chips could be more comparable to big A78Cs than E1080 big cores).
Not a terribly surprising outcome. That ARM acquisition was always going to be an uphill battle.Edit: The FTC has sued to block Nvidia's attempt to acquire Arm. I think Nvidia's attempt to acquire Arm is dead.