You think enough people would buy a higher SKU model with 512GB for $500Y’all crazy. Look I understand we might get an MSRP bump at launch over $300, but no way in hell will they try and sell a $500 Switch successor.
At this point, they’ll want it to sell precisely because production is already more expensive than necessary due to the chip shortage. The alternative of iterative upgrades (see: PS4 Pro, New 3DS) only typically sell at about a 20% rate of the hardware line they’re a part of as opposed to a successor, which it is able to be due to the disparity in compute power it will be able to achieve from Switch. Nintendo isn’t spending all this money on R&D (and likely extra for manufacturing due to current circumstances) for a system with this kind of capacity to cut its legs out from under it at retail.Who says it will be sold as a successor?
Transistor chip shortage? There’s no shortage of transistors lolSwitch 2 for 2022 not being a thing makes more sense now than before. From transistor chip shortages, to Nintendo likely still selling well (as long as they have the 1st party software), to PS4 and xbone still be supported in games for another year, to saving costs. .
Although I'm 100% ready for a fall 2022 release
You think enough people would buy a higher SKU model with 512GB for $500. Sure it's $650 on steam deck, but Switch 2 probably won't be coming out until March 2023-Nov 2023, so price will drop. Not to mention Nitnendo will likely get a better deal from Nvidia, and it doesn't have to be the same SSD.
Or they'll sell it as both.At this point, they’ll want it to sell precisely because production is already more expensive than necessary due to the chip shortage. The alternative of iterative upgrades (see: PS4 Pro, New 3DS) only typically sell at about a 20% rate of the hardware line they’re a part of as opposed to a successor, which it is able to be due to the disparity in compute power it will be able to achieve from Switch. Nintendo isn’t spending all this money on R&D (and likely extra for manufacturing due to current circumstances) for a system with this kind of capacity to cut its legs out from under it at retail.
I'm kind of expecting a GameBoy Color situation, where Nintendo don't actually explicitly call it a successor (and count it alongside Switch sales), but for all intents and purposes it's a successor.Or they'll sell it as both.
Position it as an iterative upgrade at first and then discontinue the base model a few years down the line so that it becomes the de facto successor.
Yeah this is what I think too. They'll let journalists decide what exactly to call it but for all intents and purposes it'll essentially be both an upgrade and a successor.I'm kind of expecting a GameBoy Color situation, where Nintendo don't actually explicitly call it a successor (and count it alongside Switch sales), but for all intents and purposes it's a successor.
Considering how long it existed before it was replaced, we should call Game Boy Color what it really was: a stopgap.I'm kind of expecting a GameBoy Color situation, where Nintendo don't actually explicitly call it a successor (and count it alongside Switch sales), but for all intents and purposes it's a successor.
OK, so what’s the impetus for doing this? Why has this not been a part of the game industry business model since the beginning If it’s so advantageous to do it this way? What are the potential financial positives for Nintendo that offset the potential financial negatives that I mentioned? What technological limitations will be imposed to make it “part of the Switch family”, if any? How does a distinction without a difference like what you’ve described benefit anyone?Or they'll sell it as both.
Position it as an iterative upgrade at first and then discontinue the base model a few years down the line so that it becomes the de facto successor.
I'm kind of expecting a GameBoy Color situation, where Nintendo don't actually explicitly call it a successor (and count it alongside Switch sales), but for all intents and purposes it's a successor.
I kind of doubt a company as particular and controlling as Nintendo would do this.Yeah this is what I think too. They'll let journalists decide what exactly to call it but for all intents and purposes it'll essentially be both an upgrade and a successor.
I'm pretty sure I've answered a number of those over at install base. And to be clear this idea isn't very different from what Sony has done since they entered the console business, it's just new for Nintendo home consoles.OK, so what’s the impetus for doing this? Why has this not been a part of the game industry business model since the beginning If it’s so advantageous to do it this way? What are the potential financial positives for Nintendo that offset the potential financial negatives that I mentioned? What technological limitations will be imposed to make it “part of the Switch family”, if any? How does a distinction without a difference like what you’ve described benefit anyone?
I’ve never received any legitimate answers to these questions, and it’s not because I stop asking them.
Nintendo has never had a single platform with one software environment before. Continuing the Switch family keeps current Switch owners engaged and allows current Switch developers to tap into that same base.OK, so what’s the impetus for doing this?
...it has. Again this is not very different from what Sony does, the only real difference is marketing strategy. Plus Nintendo did it with the GBC...Why has this not been a part of the game industry business model since the beginning If it’s so advantageous to do it this way?
What negatives? The positives would be the ability to price it like a premium product at launch which the enthusiasts would gladly pay. And again it would help solidify the Switch concept as a family of devices that everyone with any model is a part of, which helps older Switch games and developers retain a more engaged audience.What are the potential financial positives for Nintendo that offset the potential financial negatives that I mentioned?
None? We're all talking about the same device here, this distinction is purely about marketing and messaging. Dane is a known factor at this point, that's not going to change.What technological limitations will be imposed to make it “part of the Switch family”, if any?
I've answered this already.How does a distinction without a difference like what you’ve described benefit anyone?
One thing I wonder is about pricing and profit margin. Typically if you're releasing a new generation console you're either selling it at about break even (Nintendo), or at a loss (MS and Sony), and work towards increased profitability over the course of the generation. I believe MS and Sony would usually move from a moderate loss to a small profit, and I would imagine that both the PS4 Pro and Xbox Series X were sold at a small profit. There's no point taking losses on hardware late into a generation, and I'm sure Nintendo made reasonable profits on both the DSi and new 3DS when they launched.Yeah this is what I think too. They'll let journalists decide what exactly to call it but for all intents and purposes it'll essentially be both an upgrade and a successor.
never do thisThey'll let journalists decide
IIRC the 3DS did not have a comfortable profit margin at $250, it was more or less sold at their typical minor profit. The price cut really harmed their financials for a few years. Whatever the reason they really did seem to overspend on the 3DS BoM.One thing I wonder is about pricing and profit margin. Typically if you're releasing a new generation console you're either selling it at about break even (Nintendo), or at a loss (MS and Sony), and work towards increased profitability over the course of the generation. I believe MS and Sony would usually move from a moderate loss to a small profit, and I would imagine that both the PS4 Pro and Xbox Series X were sold at a small profit. There's no point taking losses on hardware late into a generation, and I'm sure Nintendo made reasonable profits on both the DSi and new 3DS when they launched.
The Switch is in a weird place, though, as it was launched at around break-even, and is still being sold 5 years later for the same price, so they're obviously making a very comfortable profit on the hardware by this point, with or without the chip shortage. If they're releasing a 'pro' model of the Switch, then logically they wouldn't want to sell it for a significantly lower profit margin that the current model, which means designing something that, at say $350-$400, sells for a comfortable profit.
If they're releasing a new generation device, though, they're going to want to price much closer to break-even at launch to bring in early adopters, and then rely on cost reductions to increase profitability over time if they can. They could try launching a new generation with higher margins, but that really didn't work out well for them with the 3DS, so I wouldn't expect a repeat any time soon.
Which means that the distinction would actually be a pretty important one in terms of the hardware they can use in the device. A $400 device designed around a similar profit margin to the current Switch would look very different to a $400 device designed around selling break-even as a new generation console. In fact, I would suspect we're actually comparing a higher-priced (maybe $400) less powerful "pro" console to a lower-priced (possibly $350) more powerful new generation, given the target markets of each device.
One of the questions behind this would be how long do they expect to keep making Switch style consoles? If they release a "pro" model, then given the age of the Switch, I would imagine a new generation would be only around 2 years or so behind it, but it really doesn't seem like they would release a Dane-powered pro model in 2022, then a Switch 2 with another new Nvidia SoC just two years later. It would be like if the DSi were closer architecturally to the 3DS than the DS. If they do release a "pro" model in the next year or so, then honestly my expectation is that we wouldn't even see a Switch 2, it's probably intended to extend the life-cycle of the Switch while they prepare something completely different.
If they release a GBC-style midway point then I'd still say it's a sign that they've got something different planned, which incidentally was the case with the GBC, as the GBA came out only around 2 and a half years later. Perhaps they'd get a bit more time out of it than a "pro" model, but that really depends on how customers react. If they simply see it as a pro model (which is, thanks to Sony and MS, now pretty much the norm for gaming consoles), then adoption might not amount to enough to keep things going for very long.
I know that trying to apply my own sense of logic to Nintendo's decisions is a futile process, but to me it seems logical that Nintendo should want to keep the Switch family of systems around for as long as possible. Moving from separate home consoles and handhelds has been a very good move in many ways, but it does amplify the risk that goes along with new system launches. Previously if they launched a new console that was unsuccessful, like the GameCube, they could still remain profitable if the other half of their hardware business (the GBA) was doing well. This gave them the freedom to try things like the Wii (and unfortunately also the Wii U). They don't have that leeway any more, and trying to reinvent the wheel after the extremely successful Switch would be extraordinarily risky. So, logically, they should release a successor to Switch with the same form-factor and with backwards compatibility (ie a Switch 2, whether they call it that or not).
Therefore, to me, it wouldn't really make sense for them to release anything but a Switch 2 (in function if not in name) at this stage. With the earliest launch 5 and a half years after the original Switch, and 6+ years a possibility, it's too late for a Pro, unless it's a short term solution while they try something completely different (which would be crazy following the Switch). A Switch 2 released around 5 and a half to 6 years after the original, with a slow cross-gen transition of software over to the new console, seems a very sensible approach to transition over to a new generation as the original Switch winds down. It also would seem a waste to me to take a generational leap in architecture, with both A78 CPUs and Ampere, and use them up in a pro model with a small marketshare and only a handful of exclusives.
So, if it were me, I'd take what technology I had available to me, and make the best device I could for a roughly break-even ~$350 selling price, treat it as a new generation console, and try to really push new buyers onto it.
There's one big gap between that thought, though, and the information we have available to us. Namely, 8nm. For a $350 or $400 device with a healthy profit margin, an 8nm SoC would be fine, and an 8nm Ampere SoC could definitely give us nicer looking Switch games, plus 4K output thanks to DLSS within a Switch form-factor and thermals.
For a device launching perhaps in 2023, at around break-even for over $300, though, 8nm is a pretty serious restriction. It's old. It's far from state of the art, much further, in fact, than the 20nm TX1 was when Switch launched. The first TSMC 20nm chips launched in early 2015, so Nintendo was behind by about 2 years, and 20nm was actually state of the art when it launched, at least (not a great state of the art, but the best node available in 2015). FinFET 16nm/14nm based devices had only started arriving around a year before Switch launched, so 20nm, while not ideal, was far from ancient.
Even with the most optimistic launch of late 2022, though, 8nm is getting pretty ancient. The first Samsung 8nm chip was the Exynos 9820, which launched in late 2018, a full 4 years before our best case for the new Switch. Even then, 8nm is an evolution of Samsung's 10nm process, which saw its first chips in early 2017, only shortly after the original Switch. To put this in perspective, if Nintendo were to use a 2-year old manufacturing process (like they did for the original Switch) in late 2022, they'd be using TSMC 5nm, which is an absolutely enormous leap over Samsung 8nm.
Now, it's true that the progression in manufacturing technology has slowed a lot in the past few years. Post 28nm, we haven't seen the automatic jumps to new process nodes on a regular cadence, for a variety of reasons. It's also true that the high demand over the past two years means we haven't seen the same cost reductions we may otherwise have. Still, 8nm is a much more conservative choice of manufacturing process than the original Switch, and the choice of manufacturing process is especially important for a device like the Switch, where power efficiency of the SoC is the single biggest design limit on performance.
If we look at comparable devices, TSMC's 6nm would seem the most obvious choice at the moment. It's an evolution of their 7nm EUV process (which has been in commercial products since 2019, and is itself based on the non-EUV 7nm which was seen in products back in 2018), so it's hardly bleeding edge, and it seems TSMC is pushing new 7nm clients over to the 6nm variant. It's also a significant improvement over Samsung 8nm in both transistor density and power efficiency, to the point that I'd probably expect 50% more performance if you were to tell me Dane were build on TSMC 6nm vs Samsung 8nm.
The TSMC 7nm/6nm nodes are also used in devices at a similar price range to the new Switch. The Steam Deck is the obvious example, and although it doesn't come with a dock, it does use a huge 16GB of LPDDR5, and is made in much smaller volumes than Switch. If we look at phones, the mid-range 6nm Snapdragon 788G (which, incidentally, uses A78 CPU cores) could be found in phones from around the $300 price point (eg this, this and this) a year before the soonest we expect the new Switch to launch. We've also seen Mediatek's 6nm Dimensity 810 SoC in the €200 Poco M4 Pro 5G, which, as the name suggests also contains a 5G modem, not to mention a 50MP camera, while being sold for a profit.
Basically, the idea of them releasing a proper successor, at close to break-even pricing, doesn't really coalesce with the rumour that Dane is being manufactured on Samsung's 8nm process. Kopite7kimi is the source of the 8nm claim, though, and he's about as reliable as we can get for Nvidia rumours. It is still a rumour, and it's possible he could be wrong, but it would seem quite unlikely (particularly as he correctly claimed Orin would also be 8nm in the same tweet). They could in theory go with a larger chip on the cheaper 8nm node, but as I've said before, in practice there's a limit to this as the power consumption becomes too high for portable mode at base clocks.
It's also possible that they don't agree with my logic, and either Dane is being used in a "pro" model which will be followed by something very different in a few years, or they're releasing a new generation device at a comfortable profit margin. Both of which seem like pretty risky ideas when you've only got a single hardware line to rely on, but then again I don't think I've ever successfully predicted Nintendo's movements in the hardware space before, so who am I to know?
Another possibility is Samsung's 5LPE process node or Samsung's 5LPP process node.To put this in perspective, if Nintendo were to use a 2-year old manufacturing process (like they did for the original Switch) in late 2022, they'd be using TSMC 5nm, which is an absolutely enormous leap over Samsung 8nm.
I believe the Kirin 990 from Huawei is the only chip publicly revealed to be fabricated using TSMC's N7+ process node, which I don't think is surprising, considering TSMC's N7+ process node isn't IP compatible with TSMC's N7 process node. (And AMD mentioned Zen 3 isn't fabricated using TSMC's N7+ process node.)If we look at comparable devices, TSMC's 6nm would seem the most obvious choice at the moment. It's an evolution of their 7nm EUV process (which has been in commercial products since 2019, and is itself based on the non-EUV 7nm which was seen in products back in 2018), so it's hardly bleeding edge, and it seems TSMC is pushing new 7nm clients over to the 6nm variant. It's also a significant improvement over Samsung 8nm in both transistor density and power efficiency, to the point that I'd probably expect 50% more performance if you were to tell me Dane were build on TSMC 6nm vs Samsung 8nm.
Gabe Newell mentioned that selling the Steam Deck at the MSRP of $399.99 is painful. So Valve's definitely selling the Steam Deck at a loss. And nobody knows if Nintendo's willing to sell at a loss or not.The Steam Deck is the obvious example, and although it doesn't come with a dock, it does use a huge 16GB of LPDDR5, and is made in much smaller volumes than Switch.
I mean semiconductors.Transistor chip shortage? There’s no shortage of transistors lol
I don't necessarily think the source got it wrong, but a change of plans could be/is happening. I do think a 2023 switch model will be in the 5-7nm node range, but we'll see.So if Dane is on Samsung 8nm and we feel it's dated by 2023, either the source got it wrong or Nintendo is falling back into their bad habits again
I'm kind of expecting a GameBoy Color situation, where Nintendo don't actually explicitly call it a successor (and count it alongside Switch sales), but for all intents and purposes it's a successor.
Except it’s extremely expensive and time consuming to change process node.I mean semiconductors.
I don't necessarily think the source got it wrong, but a change of plans could be/is happening. I do think a 2023 switch model will be in the 5-7nm node range, but we'll see.
I might be beating a dead horse but given the prevalence of hardware sales in Nintendo's earnings (close to 30% of their revenue), I'd say there is a 90% chance that they will go for a model they will sell at breakeven point or for a slight profit (if not for a comfortable margin).Gabe Newell mentioned that selling the Steam Deck at the MSRP of $399.99 is painful. So Valve's definitely selling the Steam Deck at a loss. And nobody knows if Nintendo's willing to sell at a loss or not.
Gabe Newell mentioned that selling the Steam Deck at the MSRP of $399.99 is painful. So Valve's definitely selling the Steam Deck at a loss. And nobody knows if Nintendo's willing to sell at a loss or not.
In comparison to the switch, it's a great jump. In comparison to everything else, it's old. Pricing is also a major considerationSo if Dane is on Samsung 8nm and we feel it's dated by 2023, either the source got it wrong or Nintendo is falling back into their bad habits again
Or to play devil's advocate, outside of price, Samsung's 8N process node is the best choice when yields and securing enough capacity are concerned when compared to Samsung's 7LPP process node, Samsung's 5LPE process node, and Samsung's 5LPP process node.So if Dane is on Samsung 8nm and we feel it's dated by 2023, either the source got it wrong or Nintendo is falling back into their bad habits again
The current chip shortage will be lasting until 2027 at least, so it means nothing in regards to launch timing.At this point, IMO most likely we will have full next gen Switch launch in any way instead of upgrade, do Switch Pro but Switch 2,
there is chip shortage so I dont see new hardware from Nintendo this year, also Switch is still selling great in any case, so I dont see point of relesing Switch upgrade in 2023. for instance instead of full next gen Switch (Switch 2), offcourse current Switch models would sale and recive games at least 2-3 years after Switch 2 launch.
The current chip shortage will be lasting until 2027 at least, so it means nothing in regards to launch timing.
Also Dane releasing in 2022 is a lot more desirable/impressive than Dane releasing in 2024+. The hardware we're hearing about is not likely to change regardless of when it's launched, so waiting an extra few years does nothing but make it less and less cutting edge.
You don't know this. Also, it's not "intense" when it comes to things needed to make Switches, considering they're still making ~23-24M a year. They just launched a brand new model in October 2021, why would they do that if they thought the chip shortage was a reason to postpone new hardware launches?It will not be same intensity of chip shortage until 2027.
I'm not sure I understand. There's not going to be any meaningful difference in the hardware itself if they call it a pro or a 2, the hardware is a somewhat known quantity. If they release this hardware in 2022 it'll be a lot more capable of receiving games made for other consoles in the recent past and near future than it would be if they release in 2024+.Its not point about whats more impressive but whats best for Nintendo, and chip shortage and Covid effect on Switch "Pro" launch until now in any case,
thing is that in 2023. Switch is entering its 7. year on market so at this point it makes more sense for Nintendo to have full next console launch instead of next gen upgrade.
You don't know this. Also, it's not "intense" when it comes to things needed to make Switches, considering they're still making ~23-24M a year. They just launched a brand new model in October 2021, why would they do that if they thought the chip shortage was a reason to postpone new hardware launches?
I'm not sure I understand. There's not going to be any meaningful difference in the hardware itself if they call it a pro or a 2, the hardware is a somewhat known quantity. If they release this hardware in 2022 it'll be a lot more capable of receiving games made for other consoles in the recent past and near future than it would be if they release in 2024+.
Or to play devil's advocate, outside of price, Samsung's 8N process node is the best choice when yields and securing enough capacity are concerned when compared to Samsung's 7LPP process node, Samsung's 5LPE process node, and Samsung's 5LPP process node.
Unlike Samsung's 7LPP process node, Samsung's 5LPE process node, and Samsung's 5LPP process node, I haven't heard reports and rumours about Samsung's 8N process node having serious yield issues when mobile SoCs are concerned. And considering that Dane's probably a relatively high volume chip, having good yields is extremely important.
Of course, TSMC's advanced process nodes are much better than Samsung's advanced process nodes across the board in terms of performance and power efficiency. However, securing enough capacity for TSMC's advanced process node is extremely difficult and probably extremely expensive since demand for TSMC's advanced process node is absurdly high, coupled by the fact that Nvidia probably doesn't have as much preferential treatment from TSMC as Apple, Mediatek, AMD, and etc., considering Nvidia's only #6 in the list of TSMC's largest customers. In fact, unlike TSMC's top 3 largest customers, Nvidia has to spend significant amounts of money in prepayments to TSMC to secure enough capacity for TSMC's N5 process node. Hopper and Lovelace (specifically high-end Lovelace GPUs for now) are currently rumoured to be fabricated using TSMC's N5 process node. And I don't know if Nvidia considers the margins for Dane high enough to warrant using TSMC's N5 process node for fabricating Dane, at least without making Dane at least considerably more expensive.
their margins have shrunk. whether it's to the point of losses, we don't know, but with the sky high demand of games, losses have been reduced to the point of irrelevance, IMO.For all the talk about chip shortages, is anyone losing money right now on their consoles? Obviously Nintendo/Sony/MS would prefer the ability to produce more (consumers too) and rake in even more revenue (shareholders too), but if there are only shortages because the demand is crazy high, then I think all lot of the talk and concern is overblown (unless you're a shareholder I guess).
Sure, PS5 hunting sucks. And (unlike MS & Sony who had already announced their consoles before the Covid shit hit the fan), I guess Nintendo could always hold back until they can guarantee the ability produce enough Dane units to hit a certain level of revenue, but I think that if Nintendo predicts they can manufacture enough of them to hit the break even point, (and everything else is good to go), they'd pull the trigger. But who knows.
Doesn't seem like it was ever finalized to begin with. It's one thing if it was taped out,. but...Except it’s extremely expensive and time consuming to change process node.
I’m in the 8nm camp, even with a 2023 release date. Yeah its dated compared to other chips coming out, but Nintendo doesn’t compare itself to those. And with Orins feature set, it will provide a nice generational leap.
I think that's definitely a possibility, especially since there's also a possibility Nvidia has mid-range and/or entry-level Lovelace GPUs be fabricated using Samsung's 5LPP process node.8nm capacity will likely be more readily available for Nintendo or alternatively if it follows X1's pattern it will land on some intermediate process, but I don't know if that's what actually the plan is or if nvidia's plan was always to maximum volume on the 8nm process and maintain it once they move on from manufacturing consume GPUs to a newer process by slotting Dane on it.
Jetson AGX Orin is probably already taped out since Jetson AGX Orin devkits are scheduled to become available in Q1 2022, which should be relatively soon. And Jetson Orin NX is probably a binned version of the Jetson AGX Orin going by the specs, so Jetson Orin NX's probably already taped out as well. Considering that Nvidia indirectly mentioned that Orin was fabricated using Samsung's 8N process node, and that max CPU and GPU frequencies for Jetson AGX Orin and Jetson Orin NX are practically the same as the max CPU and GPU frequencies of the Tegra X1, I'm inclined to believe Samsung's 8N process node is being used for the Jetson AGX Orin and the Jetson Orin NX.Doesn't seem like it was ever finalized to begin with. It's one thing if it was taped out,. but...
If Switch 2 does use a version of the Orion NX chip, it's probably gonna be whatever node size that will be..
Or I could be wrong and it uses 8nm as kopite claims... in 2023.
And I imagine around right now is probably the absolute latest for Nintendo and Nvidia to make a decision to continue using Samsung's 8N process node or migrate to Samsung's 4LPE process node or Samsung's 4LPP process node for fabrication, and ensure Nintendo and Nvidia has enough capacity secured, in the possibility of a holiday 2023 launch.the only way I can see Nvidia making a chip off 8nm is if TSMC suddenly has spare capacity that Nvidia buys up or Samsung gives out steep discounts for 4nm. the latter sounds more likely to me if this chip gets pushed out further to late 2023
That's definitely one benefit. Another benefit is that chips can theoretically be considerably smaller due to the transistors being smaller as the process nodes become more advanced. (I say theoretically since there are technical complications associated with process nodes becoming more advanced that results in making chips being smaller much more difficult. One example is that the Apple A14 Bionic failed to achieve a real world transistor density very close to the max theoretical transistor density of TSMC's N5 process node, due to the technical complications with scaling down SRAM.)What are the potential benefits of Samsung’s LPE or LPP process nodes vs. sticking with 8N? I’m assuming it’s more power efficient but is it realistically enough that Nintendo would be swayed to stray from the currently speculated Orin-offshoot?
if they keep the performance the same as an 8nm chip, then they would get a smaller chip that consumes less power. if they keep the power consumption and area similar, then they get better performanceWhat are the potential benefits of Samsung’s LPE or LPP process nodes vs. sticking with 8N? I’m assuming it’s more power efficient but is it realistically enough that Nintendo would be swayed to stray from the currently speculated Orin-offshoot?
It was very close to finalized, and maybe it is now. There’s no way to know.Doesn't seem like it was ever finalized to begin with. It's one thing if it was taped out,. but...
If Switch 2 does use a version of the Orion NX chip, it's probably gonna be whatever node size that will be..
Or I could be wrong and it uses 8nm as kopite claims... in 2023.
That's definitely one benefit. Another benefit is that chips can theoretically be considerably smaller due to the transistors being smaller as the process nodes become more advanced. (I say theoretically since there are technical complications associated with process nodes becoming more advanced that results in making chips being smaller much more difficult. One example is that the Apple A14 Bionic failed to achieve a real world transistor density very close to the max theoretical transistor density of TSMC's N5 process node, due to the technical complications with scaling down SRAM.)
My guess is that Samsung's 8LPA process node's being used to fabricate Samsung's 5G RF chips.Whatever happened to Samsung's 8LPA process update they added just last year?
"In the previous process, in the evolution of the 10LPE process, Samsung added an 8LPA. Samsung said that compared to 8LPU, 8LPA achieves a 10% performance improvement and 15% power consumption reduction."
My guess is that the inventory shortages for the consumer Ampere GPUs would be at the very least considerably worse, considering that Andrei Frumusanu mentioned that the binning of the Exynos 990 units Anandtech received are apparently bad, with the binning of most Exynos 990 units out there being as bad, or worse. And I imagine that yield problems for Samsung's 7LPP process node would increase exponentially as the die size grows.what if Nvidia took the time to design Ampere for Samsung 7nm long ago![]()
Do you think they rebranded it then because it kind of reads like a process specialized for RF based technology...My guess is that Samsung's 8LPA process node's being used to fabricate Samsung's 5G RF chips.
My guess is that the inventory shortages for the consumer Ampere GPUs would be at the very least considerably worse, considering that Andrei Frumusanu mentioned that the binning of the Exynos 990 units Anandtech received are apparently, with the binning of most Exynos 990 units out there being as bad, or worse. And I imagine that yield problems for Samsung's 7LPP process node would increase exponentially as the die size grows.
what I'm saying is, since for the longest time, it was thought that Ampere was to be on 7nm, it could be possible that Ampere is designed for both Samsung 8nm and 7nm. if so, maybe it's possible that Nvidia can bring forward their 7nm design since they don't have to fear large die size and high power consumption. this would allow Dane to be more flexible and utilize Samsung's advanced 7nm nodes like 5nm or 4nmMy guess is that the inventory shortages for the consumer Ampere GPUs would be at the very least considerably worse, considering that Andrei Frumusanu mentioned that the binning of the Exynos 990 units Anandtech received are apparently, with the binning of most Exynos 990 units out there being as bad, or worse. And I imagine that yield problems for Samsung's 7LPP process node would increase exponentially as the die size grows.
Absolutely possible. This is certainly not the first time Samsung has rebranded a process node, as shown below.Do you think they rebranded it then because it kind of reads like a process specialized for RF based technology...
Actually, Samsung's 4LPE process node is now considered a separate process node branch from Samsung's 7LPP process node branch instead of Samsung's 4 nm** process nodes being an evolution of Samsung's 5 nm** process nodes and a further evolution of Samsung's 7LPP process node previously. (There was also mention of Samsung's 6LPP process node, but given that there hasn't been any chips from Samsung or any other company announced to be fabricated using Samsung's 6LPP process node, and Samsung's 6LPP process node's effectively only available to Samsung and perhaps some of Samsung's largest customers, Samsung's 6LPP process node practically doesn't exist.)what I'm saying is, since for the longest time, it was thought that Ampere was to be on 7nm, it could be possible that Ampere is designed for both Samsung 8nm and 7nm. if so, maybe it's possible that Nvidia can bring forward their 7nm design since they don't have to fear large die size and high power consumption. this would allow Dane to be more flexible and utilize Samsung's advanced 7nm nodes like 5nm or 4nm
Outside of some GTC 2022 (Spring 2022) sessions potentially being of some interest, not really.Anything new in here?
Wishful thinking IMO.I’m out of step here… why are we considering that the Samsung 8nm process node is out?
"It's old"I’m out of step here… why are we considering that the Samsung 8nm process node is out?