• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Furukawa Speaks! We discuss the announcement of the Nintendo Switch Successor and our June Direct Predictions on the new episode of the Famiboards Discussion Club! Check it out here!

StarTopic Future Nintendo Hardware & Technology Speculation & Discussion |ST| (New Staff Post, Please read)

Reader mode
Anime Avatar said:
I'm pretty illiterate when it comes to the more sweaty tech talk so maybe this is obvious in which case I apologize in advance but does DLSS also help in frame rates like it does with resolutions?
Click to expand...
Indirectly, yes. DLSS is an AI upscaler, so the hardware outputs at a lower resolution (say 1080p) but the AI upscaler "fakes" it to a higher resolution (4k for example). "Faking it" takes a lot less resources than naturally outputting the higher resolution which leaves more resources for other tasks. This will lead to a higher framerate than if 4k was naturally outputted by the hardware.

Add on to this that Nvidia's DLSS tech is very sophisticated; it is becoming harder to tell the difference from natural output and DLSS. So for average people, it almost always presents itself as a "magical" boost in framerate.

Hope this helps! My first time explaining this to anybody :)
 
Gerald said:
25M was very hard to reach, that good fiscal year even ps2,ps4,switch 1 never have, no one ever have
Click to expand...
"no one ever have" ...
... unless we are talking about Nintendo.


NDS FY08/03: 30.31M
NDS FY09/03: 31.19M
NDS FY10/03: 27.11M

WII FY09/03: 25.95M

NSW FY21/03: 28.83M
 
Last edited:
Shareholder Chad said:
Edit: Just to stay on topic and relate this back to Nintendo and switch 2. One thing Nintendo hasn’t done is lose focus on their strategy and direction for first party games. They’ve done a good job there and even find ways to keep surpassing themselves. The switch first party offerings had tons of best in series iterations.
Click to expand...
Nintendo can't afford to lose focus because games is their business.
 
Anime Avatar said:
I'm pretty illiterate when it comes to the more sweaty tech talk so maybe this is obvious in which case I apologize in advance but does DLSS also help in frame rates like it does with resolutions?
Click to expand...
monkeygotyou said:
Hope this helps! My first time explaining this to anybody :)
Click to expand...
Well said! Nvidia's marketing was, for a long time, just about the frame rate boosts.

DLSS - (most of) the frame rate you get from low resolution and (most of) the quality you get from high resolution. It is (mostly) a win-win
 
Awesome update for you guys:

I just played the new Immortals of Aveum update on my PS5, turns out the input lag impact of FSR 3 is actually quite minor even with V-Sync and I have a 120hz VRR display (the input lag is worse with a 60hz display). I tested the smoothness with it on/off during combat where the framerate can dip as low as around the mid 30s. With Frame Generation enabled it was still very smooth and completely playable with very little to no artifacts from the Frame Generation side with screen tearing only being visible in the rare scenario when the interpolated framerate is also below 48fps. V-Sync makes the interpolated image nice and smooth.

Overall, this changes a lot of my perception of how FSR 3 could work on the Switch successor. If by some miracle, Nintendo included a 120hz VRR display on the Switch successor, man oh man, game modes could be optimised to run around 40fps and have the FG boost it further. Since this new system will also have access to reflex as well as the controller being bound to the system in handheld mode, decreasing latency slightly, I could see many choosing to play an interpolated performance mode only if Nintendo had a 120hz VRR screen.


FSR 3 has made me see just how awesome FG is. Combine it with DLSS and I would be in awe!
 
Last edited:
I think if Nintendo provides a very good SW lineup by FY2025/26 (this must include new 3D Mario, Mario Kart and Animal Crossing) + killer third party SW with lots of day 1 muti titles, and well enough stock. I think +25 million console shipments must be possible (+5 or more from first launch month that is part of current FY).
 
darthdiablo said:
for the laymen: was this to see how low you can take resolutions before getting (hopefully stable) 1440k and 4k? and 853 x 480 was the edge (although still somewhat unstable), but 900 x 600 would probably work better for output to 1440k/4k?
Click to expand...
Right. I'm used to assuming that with DLSS, a higher output resolution is going to look better. 720 to 1080p? Good. 720 to 1440p? Better. 720 to 2160p? Even better. But that's under normal circumstances, still within the limits of what they officially support on PC games (Ultra Performance at 33.3%). I was wrong to assume that could be extrapolated endlessly.

As I saw this time, there are limits. 360 to 2160 was worse to look at overall than 360 to 1080, because it introduced a lot of flickering. And this escaped my attention until having all the screenshots, but some things with fine details on moving objects like the palm tree leaves ended up with worse detail at the higher output resolution. Seems to have turned itself around by 600p, though.
d21Fm6m.png
 
JoshuaJSlone said:
Right. I'm used to assuming that with DLSS, a higher output resolution is going to look better. 720 to 1080p? Good. 720 to 1440p? Better. 720 to 2160p? Even better. But that's under normal circumstances, still within the limits of what they officially support on PC games (Ultra Performance at 33.3%). I was wrong to assume that could be extrapolated endlessly.

As I saw this time, there are limits. 360 to 2160 was worse to look at overall than 360 to 1080, because it introduced a lot of flickering. And this escaped my attention until having all the screenshots, but some things with fine details on moving objects like the palm tree leaves ended up with worse detail at the higher output resolution. Seems to have turned itself around by 600p, though.
d21Fm6m.png
Click to expand...
Huh
480p ain’t terrible really… its not great … but it reminds me of like … doom or Witcher on switch
I’m guessing 540p will be the low end of internal target resolutions for intense ports
 
JoshuaJSlone said:
Right. I'm used to assuming that with DLSS, a higher output resolution is going to look better. 720 to 1080p? Good. 720 to 1440p? Better. 720 to 2160p? Even better. But that's under normal circumstances, still within the limits of what they officially support on PC games (Ultra Performance at 33.3%). I was wrong to assume that could be extrapolated endlessly.

As I saw this time, there are limits. 360 to 2160 was worse to look at overall than 360 to 1080, because it introduced a lot of flickering. And this escaped my attention until having all the screenshots, but some things with fine details on moving objects like the palm tree leaves ended up with worse detail at the higher output resolution. Seems to have turned itself around by 600p, though.
Click to expand...
This is neat data - it makes sense, the higher the output resolution, the more frames before you've accumulated that much data, and the more choices the upscaler has to make on individual pixels. That's more opportunities for the upscaler to make the wrong choice wrt to temporal stability, and more places where those wrong choices can cause visible breakup.
 
JoshuaJSlone said:
Right. I'm used to assuming that with DLSS, a higher output resolution is going to look better. 720 to 1080p? Good. 720 to 1440p? Better. 720 to 2160p? Even better. But that's under normal circumstances, still within the limits of what they officially support on PC games (Ultra Performance at 33.3%). I was wrong to assume that could be extrapolated endlessly.

As I saw this time, there are limits. 360 to 2160 was worse to look at overall than 360 to 1080, because it introduced a lot of flickering. And this escaped my attention until having all the screenshots, but some things with fine details on moving objects like the palm tree leaves ended up with worse detail at the higher output resolution. Seems to have turned itself around by 600p, though.
d21Fm6m.png
Click to expand...

I think handheld mode 360p to 1080p will be fine. Docked Mode I think 540p to 1440p or 720p to 4K would be the minimum I'd accept.

And we have to target a framerate above the target correct due to the CPU load? So 45fps to get 30fps. 75fps to get 60fps etc?

I wonder what dynamic resolution would look like? I think it'd be harder for DLSS to manage because it's got to sample frames in order to give one good frame, I can wonder if it's struggle with frames dipping to lower resolutions on the fly?
 
Just from testing DLSS myself in several different games, honestly I find 540p is where DLSS clicks well enough in most games that I think most "Regular Gamer" (even core gamer types) aren't going to notice or question the end image. It just looks like your standard HD image (1080p). Even on larger displays, like a 65 inch OLED, I've tested this on and it looks fine. You get the odd bit of shimmer (like power lines in Death Stranding) but it's really not that big of a deal.

I could see a lot of games that do 540p undocked, but even offer maybe a 60 fps mode at 540p docked. The resulting image looks close enough to 1080p HD that a lot of people will prefer having a better frame rate.
 
PeachyLaCox said:
I think handheld mode 360p to 1080p will be fine. Docked Mode I think 540p to 1440p or 720p to 4K would be the minimum I'd accept.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of 1080p games on Series S. Hell, there are a few on PS5. Acceptable or not, I think a 360p to 1080p upscale on a big screen TV is inevitable.

PeachyLaCox said:
And we have to target a framerate above the target correct due to the CPU load? So 45fps to get 30fps. 75fps to get 60fps etc?
Click to expand...
This turns out to be a really tricky technical issue, but the short version is "basically, yes." DLSS has a cost, and it's not small, so you need some room in the budget to use it, usually. DLSS's cost is fixed, but there are ways to hide it , so how much headroom you need varies from game to game.

PeachyLaCox said:
I wonder what dynamic resolution would look like? I think it'd be harder for DLSS to manage because it's got to sample frames in order to give one good frame, I can wonder if it's struggle with frames dipping to lower resolutions on the fly?
Click to expand...
It depends on how low the dynamic resolution goes. Most dynamic res systems stick within a range of about 50% resolution. That's not too bad, that's like dialing down the mode. So if you see some video comparing DLSS modes, basically imagine that the mode briefly drops down one notch.
 
monkeygotyou said:
Indirectly, yes. DLSS is an AI upscaler, so the hardware outputs at a lower resolution (say 1080p) but the AI upscaler "fakes" it to a higher resolution (4k for example). "Faking it" takes a lot less resources than naturally outputting the higher resolution which leaves more resources for other tasks. This will lead to a higher framerate than if 4k was naturally outputted by the hardware.

Add on to this that Nvidia's DLSS tech is very sophisticated; it is becoming harder to tell the difference from natural output and DLSS. So for average people, it almost always presents itself as a "magical" boost in framerate.

Hope this helps! My first time explaining this to anybody :)
Click to expand...
oldpuck said:
Well said! Nvidia's marketing was, for a long time, just about the frame rate boosts.

DLSS - (most of) the frame rate you get from low resolution and (most of) the quality you get from high resolution. It is (mostly) a win-win
Click to expand...
Gotcha, its just that when DLSS comes up in these conversations about the Switch 2 it's almost always about resolution so I wasn't sure if framerates would be affected as well. Good to know both for third parties and Nintendo's own studios.
 
Anime Avatar said:
Gotcha, its just that when DLSS comes up in these conversations about the Switch 2 it's almost always about resolution so I wasn't sure if framerates would be affected as well. Good to know both for third parties and Nintendo's own studios.
Click to expand...

It's kind of odd because it really depends on the angle you look at it from. Say we're talking about using DLSS Performance Mode to upscale 1080p to 2160p. If you start from native 1080p, then DLSS won't improve your performance - it will actually lower it, in return for a massive boost to image quality that's similar to actually quadrupling the rendered pixels traditionally. But if you start from native 2160p, then you will see a massive boost to performance, with a minor hit to image quality. And if you start from native 1440p, you'll generally see an improvement to both. So the question "does DLSS improve framerate or resolution?" can have different answers.
 
0
Got in late regarding the talk of CPU and freq-to-power consumption, and I was wondering. Switch's CPU profile is roughly 2w at 1Ghz, right? Is that just for the 4 A57 cores, or does that include the inaccessible/unused A53 cores? I don't know if those would draw any significant consumption just for existing.
 
monkeygotyou said:
Indirectly, yes. DLSS is an AI upscaler, so the hardware outputs at a lower resolution (say 1080p) but the AI upscaler "fakes" it to a higher resolution (4k for example). "Faking it" takes a lot less resources than naturally outputting the higher resolution which leaves more resources for other tasks. This will lead to a higher framerate than if 4k was naturally outputted by the hardware.

Add on to this that Nvidia's DLSS tech is very sophisticated; it is becoming harder to tell the difference from natural output and DLSS. So for average people, it almost always presents itself as a "magical" boost in framerate.

Hope this helps! My first time explaining this to anybody :)
Click to expand...
You got it on point but i'd like to give some additional perspective on how it will be used on Switch 2:

While yes, the main use-case of DLSS on PC is to increase framerates thanks to wasting less GPU resources rendering a high-res image and letting AI add detail that isn't there on the lower-res input image, DLSS being hardware accelerated means it's effectiveness is bound to how much hardware power is available and how fast it runs.

Switch 2 has a very low amount of Tensor Cores, i think it was only 48? (for comparison the RTX 2050 has 64 of those) and when docked it might still be lower clocked than any RTX GPU on the market. We do know its Tensor Cores are based on the standard rate of Desktop Ampere cards, not the double rate of Orin T234 and A100, so DLSS will only get you so far before hitting diminishing returns.

Given how power constrained the hardware needs to be to fit into a small tablet, you're likely not gonna get increased framerates with DLSS, but rather increased resolutions at the same framerate target developers would've aimed for without DLSS. It will still be a very useful feature, just not to the extend it is currently being used on PC.
 
Thombias said:
You got it on point but i'd like to give some additional perspective on how it will be used on Switch 2:

While yes, the main use-case of DLSS on PC is to increase framerates thanks to wasting less GPU resources rendering a high-res image and letting AI add detail that isn't there on the lower-res input image, DLSS being hardware accelerated means it's effectiveness is bound to how much hardware power is available and how fast it runs.

Switch 2 has a very low amount of Tensor Cores, i think it was only 48? (for comparison the RTX 2050 has 64 of those) and when docked it might still be lower clocked than any RTX GPU on the market. We do know its Tensor Cores are based on the standard rate of Desktop Ampere cards, not the double rate of Orin T234 and A100, so DLSS will only get you so far before hitting diminishing returns.

Given how power constrained the hardware needs to be to fit into a small tablet, you're likely not gonna get increased framerates with DLSS, but rather increased resolutions at the same framerate target developers would've aimed for without DLSS. It will still be a very useful feature, just not to the extend it is currently being used on PC.
Click to expand...

If we target the same output resolution (720 as an example) couldn't DLSS give a boost of FPS rendering the game at lower resolution and then upscale it to target output?
 
0
Discostew said:
Got in late regarding the talk of CPU and freq-to-power consumption, and I was wondering. Switch's CPU profile is roughly 2w at 1Ghz, right? Is that just for the 4 A57 cores, or does that include the inaccessible/unused A53 cores? I don't know if those would draw any significant consumption just for existing.
Click to expand...
A53 is completly off
 
0
@Thraktor after thinking about your write up, I can't help but think the maximum power requirements could be significantly reduced if the Tensor and/or RT concurrency is disabled, especially with the added clock gating logic that we know about. Maybe that is the secret sauce to getting handheld friendly power draw on 8nm.
 
1080p is seriously more than fine in docked mode especially in living rooms. I have zero complaints about the 1080p games on Switch or running games at 1080p on Steam Deck. You are unlikely to notice the lower resolution in comparison to 4K when sitting 8 feet away from a TV, and even at this 'lower resolution' there's still 2 million pretty pixels being resolved in front of your eyes, vs the (often dynamic) 1.4 million and 0.9 million pixels of 900p/720p that a lot of Switch 1 games ended up being.

I would prefer to have a temporally stable image. However, I would like to see more examples of dynamic resolution being combined with DLSS. So you can always target 2160p at 60 FPS and have the internal resolution fluctuate. There are so few videos of this on YouTube.

really-wish-more-games-had-dynamic-dlss-like-rachet-and-v0-ig3y7e2didfb1.png
 
Not going to comment directly on the Switch successor but before we end up with another wave of misinformation, I'll just say to be careful on the DLSS speculation (including extrapolating too much from that Digital Foundry T239 video). Tensor cores are very under-utilized (mostly idle) on PC as they're pretty overkill for the task they're typically used for. For a handheld console, this fact would actually work in its favor and would likely be more balanced in terms of performance.

Just wait for the first dedicated console with a bespoke development environment designed for [custom fork] DLSS to actually demonstrate what it can do for the hardware before making too many assumptions. Comparing it to implementations on PC is just not going to work in real world scenarios for a variety of reasons.
 
www.techpowerup.com

NVIDIA's Arm-based AI PC Processor Could Leverage Arm Cortex X5 CPU Cores and Blackwell Graphics

Last week, we got confirmation from the highest levels of Dell and NVIDIA that the latter is making a client PC processor for the Windows on Arm (WoA) AI PC ecosystem that only has one player in it currently, Qualcomm. Michael Dell hinted that this NVIDIA AI PC processor would be ready in 2025...
www.techpowerup.com www.techpowerup.com

The person who made the rumour about NVIDIA being "frustrated" with the switch and NVIDIA working with MediaTek for their ARM SoC now says that the ARM SoC will use Cortex X5 CPU cores and Blackwell GPU on TSMC N3P.

Kepler_L2 says that it's intel 3nm not TSMC.

Cortex-X4 is currently in the MediaTek 9300. There's been some showing of the Cortex-X5 in the MediaTek 9400 through geekbench [1]. It's rumoured to be coming (showed) in Q4 2024 made on TSMC N3E [2].

Consumer Blackwell has not been revealed yet, but "Industry" Blackwell is created on a custom-built TSMC N4P.

So there are quite a few things that are spread out like that, and I'm curious what the final SoC will be like. Nonetheless, T239 is custom-made for Nintendo and looking at all rumoured NVIDIA partnership, Samsung is just not in the view.

1. Source
2. Source
 
Stinky Horse said:
@Thraktor after thinking about your write up, I can't help but think the maximum power requirements could be significantly reduced if the Tensor and/or RT concurrency is disabled, especially with the added clock gating logic that we know about. Maybe that is the secret sauce to getting handheld friendly power draw on 8nm.
Click to expand...
Power is only part of the equation. With a known SM count of 12 there's no way they're fitting all that within a SEC8N die that doesn't exceed GA107's size, which is absolutely not feasible in a space-constrained design like the Switch 2. Especially considering the Switch 2's SoC will be using the exact same substrate dimensions as every Switch model thus far, they would need to physically reduce the SM count (probably by half) for SEC8N to make sense.
 
HyruleanKnight said:
Power is only part of the equation. With a known SM count of 12 there's no way they're fitting all that within a SEC8N die that doesn't exceed GA107's size, which is absolutely not feasible in a space-constrained design like the Switch 2. Especially considering the Switch 2's SoC will be using the exact same substrate dimensions as every Switch model thus far, they would need to physically reduce the SM count (probably by half) for SEC8N to make sense.
Click to expand...

A chip that is ~4mm wider and ~4mm taller is hardly going to be a problem in a system that is ~10mm wider(?) and ~5mm taller.
 
Raccoon said:
that's the neat part, she doesn't
Click to expand...

I believe insider information is out there and plenty of it. For my area of expertise (stocks/finance) its basically impossible to weed out the trash and find the good stuff with acceptable accuracy. I wonder how similar that is for others in marketing, retail, tech and other spaces.
 
HyruleanKnight said:
Within the same substrate dimensions? I doubt so. It would've maybe made sense if the substrate was larger.
Click to expand...

I thought LiC (the one who figured out size of substrate for T239 from shipment data) said besides substrate size being the same it also doesn’t tell us if it’s SEC8N or 4N because either one can fit in the substrate space?
 
You know, the most annoying thing with that node situation is that even if Nintendo finally revealed / "fully" announce the system, this discussion won't end.

It will go on until someone does a teardown and has the tools to provide images where the die size can be seen.
 
Bonejack said:
You know, the most annoying thing with that node situation is that even if Nintendo finally revealed / "fully" announce the system, this discussion won't end.

It will go on until someone does a teardown and has the tools to provide images where the die size can be seen.
Click to expand...

Yeah that’s pretty much a given/understood.

However we can still try to infer the node process from clock speeds alone. Problem is Nintendo won’t announce clock speeds either so someone would need tools to measure for that (which is easier than dieshot analysis)
 
For comparison, this is a crude example of what we would be looking at with a 200mm^2 die vs the 20nm TX1's 118mm^2 die on the same substrate


And this is assuming it will be 200mm^2, because it probably won't. GA107 has 16 SMs and is entirely a GPU only, those 8 A78 cores will take up more space than the 4 SMs they will be replacing:


We can actually use the T234 as an example - yes it has 33% more GPU cores and 50% more CPU cores, but it is also a mammoth 455mm^2 die. Remember, GA107 is only 200mm^2, so the T234 is over double the size of GA107 whilst having the same number of SMs. Notice how the CPU cores are actually quite a distant away from the GPU cores, that means a hypothetical T239 on SEC8N with 12SMs and 8 CPU cores would probably be around 300mm^2. I'm not even accounting for the FDE block that will definitely take some die space.

If you're wondering what that would look like on the same substrate:


Now does it fit physically? Yes. But there's more to physically fitting a silicon within a substrate that is just a little bigger than the silicon itself; there are data and interconnect lines within the substrate that need to be away from the silicon itself to be designed feasibly.

I do not think T239 on 4N will be as small as 20nm TX1 either, it will definitely be much bigger. AD107 has 24 SMs on a 159mm^2 die, so taking half that and adding the A78 cores, cache, FDE block, Memory and PCIe controllers, interconnects etc. into account we are most likely looking at something closer to 160-180mm^2 itself.
 
Last edited:
darthdiablo said:
I thought LiC (the one who figured out size of substrate for T239 from shipment data) said besides substrate size being the same it also doesn’t tell us if it’s SEC8N or 4N because either one can fit in the substrate space?
Click to expand...
The substrate for the original TX1 was tiny: https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Google+Pixel+C+Teardown/62277

For whatever reason the later ones like Switch's were a lot larger. So for a chip we've never seen, I don't know what we are supposed to be able determine from substrate size alone.
 
Serif said:
1080p is seriously more than fine in docked mode especially in living rooms. I have zero complaints about the 1080p games on Switch or running games at 1080p on Steam Deck.
Click to expand...
If I wanted to be limited to 1080p60 I'd just keep playing the highest class Wii U games. But for hardware maybe a dozen times more capable, including parts specifically for aiding in resolution? Naaahh.
 
JoshuaJSlone said:
If I wanted to be limited to 1080p60 I'd just keep playing the highest class Wii U games. But for hardware maybe a dozen times more capable, including parts specifically for aiding in resolution? Naaahh.
Click to expand...
In context I would hope it's clear I'm talking about the games that wouldn't be able to run at higher resolutions without significant hits to image stability or framerate. I would obviously hope and expect most Nintendo games, indies, less demanding current-gen games, and last-gen/cross-gen titles to run at 1440p+.

You did, after all, post a comparison pic of upscaling from extremely low resolutions and demonstrated that the image loses coherence when upscaling to 2160p from very low (360p/480p) vs 1080p. I would prefer a cleaner 1080p image than a fuzzy 2160p one, since 1080p will look fine when upscaled to the 2160p framebuffer.

There are current-gen games that run at 1080p so the Wii U is irrelevant here. It is an acceptable minimum bar for demanding multi-plats. If they can achieve higher that's good.
 
Last edited:
Stinky Horse said:
@Thraktor after thinking about your write up, I can't help but think the maximum power requirements could be significantly reduced if the Tensor and/or RT concurrency is disabled, especially with the added clock gating logic that we know about. Maybe that is the secret sauce to getting handheld friendly power draw on 8nm.
Click to expand...
I believe it's the opposite direction, actually.

Idle components uses energy, turning on and turning off constantly is likely wasting energy changing states. And registers/cache can't be turned off or you have to fetch/recalculate everything.

So, using everything in parallel should deliver more performance per watt. And if you reach peak performance per watt but the wattage is too high and you have to sacrifice performance to lower that, making a smaller chip will get you better results for cheaper.

And that's the main thing against 8nm. It's not impossible, but given the power budget they're working on, everything points to a smaller 8nm SoC (8 SMs + 6 A78 for example) being cheaper AND delivering more performance AND not requiring heavy customizations. So why would Nvidia/Nintendo do that, when they have full control of the SoC design?
 
Last edited:
RennanNT said:
And that's the main thing against 8nm. It's not impossible, but given the power budget they're working on, everything points to a smaller 8nm SoC (8 SMs + 6 A78 for example) being cheaper AND delivering more performance AND not requiring heavy customizations. So why would Nvidia/Nintendo do that, when they have full control of the SoC design?
Click to expand...
The power budget they're working with is assumed to be at least battery life of Mariko or better right? Which I would think is a good/safe assumption to work with.

I am a relative latecomer here to this discussion (I joined around the time of Gamescom leak), was wondering if power budget was something that might have been discovered in nvidia leak, or if we have been working with assumption that they want to equal Switch v2's battery life or better all this time.
 
darthdiablo said:
The power budget they're working with is assumed to be at least battery life of Mariko or better right? Which I would think is a good/safe assumption to work with.
Click to expand...
I thought the power budget x battery life was that Nintendo would aim to achieve better than Erista, with 3 hours minimum. Mariko levels of battery life are only possible on advanced node + low clocks + big battery.

Mariko does easily 5 - 6 hours on advanced 3D games. That's just unfeasible for a much bigger SoC design unless concessions are made.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Please read this new, consolidated staff post before posting.

Furthermore, according to this follow-up post, all off-topic chat will be moderated.
Last edited by a moderator:


Back
Top Bottom