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

[Gerald]

NVIDIA

jetson-tools.nvidia.com

I used the Jetson AGX Orin 32GB as it is the closest to the T239 (and I believe oldpuck used the same)
Everything except CPU disabled, EMC set to 3199 and load level set to low
CPU load level set to high

Now you can play around with the active CPU core and clockspeed sliders and calculate the power consumption values. Whatever you get, halve the number to get an estimated value for TSMC 4N because these are SEC8N numbers.


I believe Thraktor's methodology was slightly different, because afaik he went a step further and calculated the per core power usage at different frequencies and then multiplied each by a factor of 8.

Thus there are bound to be some discrepancies; these are estimates and don't forget these are SEC8N numbers, so realistically they mean nothing for TSMC 4N. That one's Voltage-Frequency curve will be completely different and it is entirely possible we will see a similar "sweet spot" for clockspeeds like we did for SEC8N between the 1.50-1.73GHz range. What I do know is that sweet spot is likely to be higher than SEC8N's - this is probably the only useful information we can glean from the tool with a given CPU power budget.

Additionally, A78C will be a single 8-core cluster unlike the dual 4-core cluster Orin configuration we're using here, so there will be some power savings due to not having to bother with the interconnects between the two clusters.

What clocks you bet for switch 2

 

[Darknut85]

Nintendo fans are in many ways the opposite of Nintendo, so the probability of Famiboards Lawyers (and Ninjas) is pretty lo-…

…what was this shadow moving by my window. Maybe a-

Never mind, just were some racoon goons because I forgot paying my weekly 1.000 bells.

 

[Shoulder]

You are 100% correct, but there are a lot of people, myself included, who would like to make Switch 2 their 1st and only console, not their second console. With the diminishing returns Playstation and Xbox are giving, I wouldn't underestimate Switch 2's ability to take a shot at this market even if that isn't Nintendo's main goal.

I do think Indie titles are on their way to replace AAA games though for most gamers, or at least fill up that AA space.

There is the elephant in the room, which is these AAA 3rd party publishers, and how budgets have skyrocketed, development schedules have increased to such an extent, it requires sometimes over a thousand people for just one game, and it takes a good half decade to make, if not more. In fairness, it’s not as though there’s a consistent thousand people on the game non-stop for five years or so though. Teams will come and go to work on other projects while others step in, or at other times get replaced.

But it is also clear that kind of development is unsustainable, and contrary to what some have said regarding AI, you’re going to see it more and more in the industry in order to streamline the process, generate models, maybe even create music, and on top of this, develop the code for the games themselves.

I think video games are reaching that industrialized realm as it were where you're going to need that full assembly line from conception to launch like what we saw when the Automotive Industry popularized adding automation into the assembly line for cars. It’s going to remove a lot of jobs in the industry as more of the process becomes automated. But at the same time, it just may make games being completed at a faster rate, but not necessarily reduce the quality, provided all the QA/QC is in place.

Where the Switch, and Switch 2 afterwards may have an advantage over the competition is that cutting edge tech which came out a few years ago is now trickling its way down so smaller developers can take advantage of it, while also maybe implementing their own unique ways to optimizations, and creative design.

If PC Gaming is Formula 1, or LMP Race cars, and Xbox and PlayStation are British Touring Car Championship, Switch is your average Joe, or Jane taking their own car, or some cheaper built ca, and racing it on the track to their hearts content because it’s more readily accessible to the masses. And Mobile gaming is just a regular consumer car you drive to work every morning…

The technology trickles down from the most advanced and cutting edge to what the average person could attain and afford. And the Switch 2 could continue that bridge for smaller devs. And hopefully AAA 3rd party also comes along for the ride as the price of admission is lower too.

 

[Superstarxalien]

“Hey furakowa, How open is Nintendo to direct sequels in terms of previously released titles in a “series”. For example: Super Mario 64 pt 2. Taking the same idea and iterating on it rather than making a brand new 3D Mario with the same overall theme of worlds + missions.

i don't think this is something you need to ask the president of nintendo about. it's clear, at least to me, that, though nintendo does iterate on games on broad scales, they always prefer doing something new rather than simply a rehash of what came before. at least in terms of single player games of course
this is to say you're never getting super mario 64 2 or super mario galaxy 3 or whatever

addendum: you have games like twilight princess and nintendo switch sports which were conceptualized simply as direct successors to ocarina of time and wii sports. both of these exist due to perceived customer demand

 

[Concernt]

Well it wouldn't exactly be a stupid lawsuit when she's leaking private info that is crucial for their billionaire business, would it?

She should be aware of the risks, but people sometimes simply go too far.

Actually, I don't think people's lives should be ruined because a billion-dollar company said so.

It wouldn't be 'legally' stupid - just entirely immoral to go beyond CnD.

Companies using the violence of the state against people they view as their enemies is... Bad, I think.

 

[Steve]

That's my thoughts exactly!
What wacky ideas would Nintendo come up with if they made Mario 64 today?
It would definitely be the perfect tech demo to show off Switch 2's capabilities. The painting portals, Metal Mario and water levels would look amazing...

Somehow Mario 64 DS returns.

But I can totally see it happening maybe in the half latter of the Switch 2 cycle.

 

[Lancelot]

There is the elephant in the room, which is these AAA 3rd party publishers, and how budgets have skyrocketed, development schedules have increased to such an extent, it requires sometimes over a thousand people for just one game, and it takes a good half decade to make, if not more. In fairness, it’s not as though there’s a consistent thousand people on the game non-stop for five years or so though. Teams will come and go to work on other projects while others step in, or at other times get replaced.

But it is also clear that kind of development is unsustainable, and contrary to what some have said regarding AI, you’re going to see it more and more in the industry in order to streamline the process, generate models, maybe even create music, and on top of this, develop the code for the games themselves.

I think video games are reaching that industrialized realm as it were where you're going to need that full assembly line from conception to launch like what we saw when the Automotive Industry popularized adding automation into the assembly line for cars. It’s going to remove a lot of jobs in the industry as more of the process becomes automated. But at the same time, it just may make games being completed at a faster rate, but not necessarily reduce the quality, provided all the QA/QC is in place.

Where the Switch, and Switch 2 afterwards may have an advantage over the competition is that cutting edge tech which came out a few years ago is now trickling its way down so smaller developers can take advantage of it, while also maybe implementing their own unique ways to optimizations, and creative design.

If PC Gaming is Formula 1, or LMP Race cars, and Xbox and PlayStation are British Touring Car Championship, Switch is your average Joe, or Jane taking their own car, or some cheaper built ca, and racing it on the track to their hearts content because it’s more readily accessible to the masses. And Mobile gaming is just a regular consumer car you drive to work every morning…

The technology trickles down from the most advanced and cutting edge to what the average person could attain and afford. And the Switch 2 could continue that bridge for smaller devs. And hopefully AAA 3rd party also comes along for the ride as the price of admission is lower too.

This is all technically correct but one thing... This cutting edge tech is already available to the masses, it's unlikely to get any cheaper due to the so many factors you mention but it is available to consumers in the form of AMD/Nvidia and consoles, as well as consumer-grade GPUs from said manufacturers. Smaller developers can take advantage of UE5 and its features right now and ship a game for consoles using it, many of them have already done it and have indeed streamlined development to great heights (see the just released HB2). Thing is, it's already prohibitively expensive in many ways and it's not going to get any cheaper, so adding another ~100M system can make all the difference in the world, that's the true importance of Switch 2.

 

[Steve]

Actually, I don't think people's lives should be ruined because a billion-dollar company said so.

It wouldn't be 'legally' stupid - just entirely immoral to go beyond CnD.

Agree, but I don’t think Midori would be in trouble if she ever get caught, instead the employees will probably get fired and get D listed in the industry.

Also I wouldn’t be surprised if she secretly enjoys hit, since social media clout is like dopamine for some people.

 

[Jerm411]

You are 100% correct, but there are a lot of people, myself included, who would like to make Switch 2 their 1st and only console, not their second console. With the diminishing returns Playstation and Xbox are giving, I wouldn't underestimate Switch 2's ability to take a shot at this market even if that isn't Nintendo's main goal.

I do think Indie titles are on their way to replace AAA games though for most gamers, or at least fill up that AA space.

Great point….I really do believe this is Nintendo’s best shot at what you bring up in a long time, all the stars are aligning.

I think 3rd party support is gonna be huge, everyone is going to want all their games on this thing…you combine that with all the indies you could want, the hybrid nature of the console that appeals to so many myself included, and the best 1st party in gaming and it’s a perfect storm.

I’ve already decided the Switch 2 is it for me…I’m not buying anything for the foreseeable future. I’m locked in to GP until next year so I’ll continue to use my XSX for that but I’m not spending another cent in that ecosystem and my PS5 continues to collect dust and I don’t see that changing.

Also if I’m being real honest….I’m pretty much disillusioned with both Sony and MS at this point and bored to tears with almost all of the AAA scene.

Like I know there’s games I’ll miss out on, with my life now though that already happens so I’ve made peace with it. I’ll have more than enough to keep me busy.

 

[Darknut85]

Agree, but I don’t think Midori would be in trouble if she ever get caught, instead the employees will probably get fired and get D listed in the industry.

Also I wouldn’t be surprised if she secretly enjoys hit, since social media clout is like dopamine for some people.

While for some others it’s like a detective club.

 

[HyruleanKnight]

What clocks you bet for switch 2

tl;dr at the end

The problem is we don't know how much power will be allocated for the CPU. Switch allocates around 2W afaik, and I'm personally taking a high estimate of 4W. My reason for the high estimate is an increased overall power envelope, suggested by an overall 34% increase in tablet dimensions in the x and y axis. Bigger device = better cooling and bigger battery; I don't think Nintendo is seeking a similar power envelope as the Switch v1 but with an enormous battery for 6+ hour run times.

Now let's look at some numbers:

• Platform: Jetson AGX Orin 32GB
• Everything except CPU disabled, EMC frequency set to 3199MHz and load level set to low.
• CPU load level set to high. However, keep in mind that high loads during gaming will be instantaneous rather than sustained, so the average power usage will be a little lower.
• I calculated power for 4 cores and 8 cores, then deduced the power consumption of a single core. Lastly I multiplied the final value with 8 to get the total power consumption for an 8-core CPU.
• Remember, this is on SEC8N.

1113.6MHz - 2.00W or 0.250W per core
1267.2MHz - 2.60W or 0.325W per core
1497.6MHz - 3.20W or 0.400W per core
1651.2MHz - 3.80W or 0.475W per core
1728.0MHz - 4.00W or 0.500W per core
1881.6MHz - 4.80W or 0.600W per core
2035.2MHz - 5.60W or 0.700W per core
2188.8MHz - 6.80W or 0.850W per core
2201.6MHz - 7.00W or 0.875W per core

Let's graph this:


Notice how around 1700MHz onwards power usage gets a little steep. Also, between 1270MHz and 1500MHz the line is relatively flat, meaning clocks below 1500MHz won't yield as much power savings. So in this scenario I can safely bet a 1500-1700MHz CPU clock.

Now if we were to replicate this on TSMC 4N, power usage will obviously be lower. How much lower, we don't know exactly. Oldpuck estimates 40%, but I'd like to lean more towards 50% due to not having to bother with inter-cluster shenanigans. Let's assume an average of 45% and extrapolate the data:

1113.6MHz - 1.10W or 0.130W per core
1267.2MHz - 1.43W or 0.179W per core
1497.6MHz - 1.76W or 0.220W per core
1651.2MHz - 2.09W or 0.261W per core
1728.0MHz - 2.20W or 0.275W per core
1881.6MHz - 2.64W or 0.330W per core
2035.2MHz - 3.08W or 0.385W per core
2188.8MHz - 3.74W or 0.468W per core
2201.6MHz - 3.85W or 0.481W per core

Notice how we can easily achieve 1.7GHz on a 2.2W budget. At 3W we're getting a nice 2.0GHz clock but beyond that power usage goes up exponentially. But if I were to stick to the 4W budget, there seems to still be some clock headroom since we're at 2.2GHz at 3.85W

Now I don't want to get too optimistic, because there are too many estimated variables at play here, but I don't see why a 2.0GHz clock is unreasonable given that I do not think Nintendo is aiming for a similar power envelope as the Switch v1.

Also remember that the Power-Frequency curve for SEC8N will not necessarily line up with TSMC 4N. Meaning we could be looking at diminishing gains/losses at a different range compared to SEC8N's 1.5-1.7GHz. We have A78 cores running at 3GHz in some 5nm designs, and while the power usage is significantly higher than these numbers it gives me a reason to believe the range is much higher than SEC8N's.

tl;dr I bet on a 2.0GHz clock. It's a safe bet, and I won't be surprised if it's higher than this. I will be surprised if it is lower though, unless they decide to allocate more power to the GPU and/or other components instead of the CPU.

 

[HyruleanKnight]

Actually, I don't think people's lives should be ruined because a billion-dollar company said so.

It wouldn't be 'legally' stupid - just entirely immoral to go beyond CnD.

Companies using the violence of the state against people they view as their enemies is... Bad, I think.

Remember when that couple who ran a ROM website got hit by a 12 million dollar fine? Nintendo is ruthless when it comes to these things.

 

[Giancarlo]

she obviosly refering to the next 3D Mario

 

[Dekuman]

tl;dr at the end

The problem is we don't know how much power will be allocated for the CPU. Switch allocates around 2W afaik, and I'm personally taking a high estimate of 4W. My reason for the high estimate is an increased overall power envelope, suggested by an overall 34% increase in tablet dimensions in the x and y axis. Bigger device = better cooling and bigger battery; I don't think Nintendo is seeking a similar power envelope as the Switch v1 but with an enormous battery for 6+ hour run times.

Now let's look at some numbers:

• Platform: Jetson AGX Orin 32GB
• Everything except CPU disabled, EMC frequency set to 3199MHz and load level set to low.
• CPU load level set to high. However, keep in mind that high loads during gaming will be instantaneous rather than sustained, so the average power usage will be a little lower.
• I calculated power for 4 cores and 8 cores, then deduced the power consumption of each core. Lastly I multiplied the final value with 8 to get the total power consumption for an 8-core CPU.
• Remember, this is on SEC8N.

1113.6MHz - 2.00W or 0.250W per core
1267.2MHz - 2.60W or 0.325W per core
1497.6MHz - 3.20W or 0.400W per core
1651.2MHz - 3.80W or 0.475W per core
1728.0MHz - 4.00W or 0.500W per core
1881.6MHz - 4.80W or 0.600W per core
2035.2MHz - 5.60W or 0.700W per core
2188.8MHz - 6.80W or 0.850W per core
2201.6MHz - 7.00W or 0.875W per core

Let's graph this:


Notice how around 1700MHz onwards power usage gets a little steep. Also, between 1270MHz and 1500MHz the line is relatively flat, meaning clocks below 1500MHz won't yield as much power savings. So in this scenario I can safely bet a 1500-1700MHz CPU clock.

Now if we were to replicate this on TSMC 4N, power usage will obviously be lower. How much lower, we don't know exactly. Oldpuck estimates 40%, but I'd like to lean more towards 50% due to not having to bother with inter-cluster shenanigans. Let's assume an average of 45% and extrapolate the data:

1113.6MHz - 1.10W or 0.130W per core
1267.2MHz - 1.43W or 0.179W per core
1497.6MHz - 1.76W or 0.220W per core
1651.2MHz - 2.09W or 0.261W per core
1728.0MHz - 2.20W or 0.275W per core
1881.6MHz - 2.64W or 0.330W per core
2035.2MHz - 3.08W or 0.385W per core
2188.8MHz - 3.74W or 0.468W per core
2201.6MHz - 3.85W or 0.481W per core

Notice how we can easily achieve 1.7GHz on a 2.2W budget. At 3W we're getting a nice 2.0GHz clock but beyond that power usage goes up exponentially. But if I were to stick to the 4W budget, there seems to still be some clock headroom since we're at 2.2GHz at 3.85W

Now I don't want to get too optimistic, because there are too many estimated variables at play here, but I don't see why a 2.0GHz clock is unreasonable given that I do not think Nintendo is aiming for a similar power envelope as the Switch v1.

Also remember that the Power-Frequency curve for SEC8N will not necessarily line up with TSMC 4N. Meaning we could be looking at diminishing gains/losses at a different range compared to SEC8N's 1.5-1.7GHz. We have A78 cores running at 3GHz in some designs, and while the power usage is significantly higher than these numbers it gives me a reason to believe the range is much higher than SEC8N's.

tl;dr I bet on a 2.0GHz clock. It's a safe bet, and I won't be surprised if it's higher than this. I will be surprised if it is lower though, unless they decide to allocate more power to the GPU and/or other components instead of the CPU.

Great summary. Knowing Nintendo's hardware teams tend to compensate for the prior console's 'weaknesses' i suspect they will go with 2GHz as well or higher. CPU was one of the issues on the Switch, not because of any design oversight, but it's just the avaiable SoC to them at that time. Wth T239 they have a chance to significantly close the gap with the PS5/XBOX Series to make ports easier. They have the right core counts.

 

[Concernt]

Bigger device = better cooling and bigger battery; I don't think Nintendo is seeking a similar power envelope as the Switch v1 but with an enormous battery for 6+ hour run times.

This is an assumption, not an absolute truth.

The size and power consumption of T239 on 4N really is comparable to the Tegra X1 on 20nm, in fact, a little smaller.

I 100% believe Nintendo is seeking a similar power envelope to the original Nintendo Switch and using that extra space for a bigger battery. There are real, practical reasons far beyond size that informed that power envelope. The battery life, of course, the battery's rating, the size and capabilities of the charger and dock. 2W for the CPU is actually quite a bit! 8 cores at ~1.6Ghz is quite a nice chunk of change, performance wise!

If we look at what are quite possibly leaked power consumption targets, the GPU's lower power consumption mode target is 4W, in line with the original Nintendo Switch. 6W total across CPU and GPU, some for the other components of the SOC, the new high speed storage interfaces, you're looking at a nigh identical power envelope to the original Nintendo Switch. Which makes a lot of sense!

The device is almost certainly larger, but does not appear any bit thicker, which again makes sense, thicker reduces portability. That means however that the heat sink can't realistically be much bigger, the air channels any thicker or the fan much deeper. The power caps informed by the design hardly change at all - Nintendo Switch is an actively cooled device, it's not nearly as constrained by its internal volume as it is the fan.

2W for the CPU, 4W for the GPU, these are perfectly fine numbers for handheld mode. A 6 hour run time is not by any means enormous, it is nothing more than average, and if you want to talk weaknesses of the original Nintendo Switch, battery life absolutely was one.

 

[Gerald]

tl;dr at the end

The problem is we don't know how much power will be allocated for the CPU. Switch allocates around 2W afaik, and I'm personally taking a high estimate of 4W. My reason for the high estimate is an increased overall power envelope, suggested by an overall 34% increase in tablet dimensions in the x and y axis. Bigger device = better cooling and bigger battery; I don't think Nintendo is seeking a similar power envelope as the Switch v1 but with an enormous battery for 6+ hour run times.

Now let's look at some numbers:

• Platform: Jetson AGX Orin 32GB
• Everything except CPU disabled, EMC frequency set to 3199MHz and load level set to low.
• CPU load level set to high. However, keep in mind that high loads during gaming will be instantaneous rather than sustained, so the average power usage will be a little lower.
• I calculated power for 4 cores and 8 cores, then deduced the power consumption of each core. Lastly I multiplied the final value with 8 to get the total power consumption for an 8-core CPU.
• Remember, this is on SEC8N.

1113.6MHz - 2.00W or 0.250W per core
1267.2MHz - 2.60W or 0.325W per core
1497.6MHz - 3.20W or 0.400W per core
1651.2MHz - 3.80W or 0.475W per core
1728.0MHz - 4.00W or 0.500W per core
1881.6MHz - 4.80W or 0.600W per core
2035.2MHz - 5.60W or 0.700W per core
2188.8MHz - 6.80W or 0.850W per core
2201.6MHz - 7.00W or 0.875W per core

Let's graph this:


Notice how around 1700MHz onwards power usage gets a little steep. Also, between 1270MHz and 1500MHz the line is relatively flat, meaning clocks below 1500MHz won't yield as much power savings. So in this scenario I can safely bet a 1500-1700MHz CPU clock.

Now if we were to replicate this on TSMC 4N, power usage will obviously be lower. How much lower, we don't know exactly. Oldpuck estimates 40%, but I'd like to lean more towards 50% due to not having to bother with inter-cluster shenanigans. Let's assume an average of 45% and extrapolate the data:

1113.6MHz - 1.10W or 0.130W per core
1267.2MHz - 1.43W or 0.179W per core
1497.6MHz - 1.76W or 0.220W per core
1651.2MHz - 2.09W or 0.261W per core
1728.0MHz - 2.20W or 0.275W per core
1881.6MHz - 2.64W or 0.330W per core
2035.2MHz - 3.08W or 0.385W per core
2188.8MHz - 3.74W or 0.468W per core
2201.6MHz - 3.85W or 0.481W per core

Notice how we can easily achieve 1.7GHz on a 2.2W budget. At 3W we're getting a nice 2.0GHz clock but beyond that power usage goes up exponentially. But if I were to stick to the 4W budget, there seems to still be some clock headroom since we're at 2.2GHz at 3.85W

Now I don't want to get too optimistic, because there are too many estimated variables at play here, but I don't see why a 2.0GHz clock is unreasonable given that I do not think Nintendo is aiming for a similar power envelope as the Switch v1.

Also remember that the Power-Frequency curve for SEC8N will not necessarily line up with TSMC 4N. Meaning we could be looking at diminishing gains/losses at a different range compared to SEC8N's 1.5-1.7GHz. We have A78 cores running at 3GHz in some 5nm designs, and while the power usage is significantly higher than these numbers it gives me a reason to believe the range is much higher than SEC8N's.

tl;dr I bet on a 2.0GHz clock. It's a safe bet, and I won't be surprised if it's higher than this. I will be surprised if it is lower though, unless they decide to allocate more power to the GPU and/or other components instead of the CPU.

Very thanks for that deep analysis, agree that 2ghz is very safe bet, but is likely that it will be higher,4w for cpu and 4w for gpu is pretty guaranteed im think

 

[HyruleanKnight]

Great summary. Knowing Nintendo's hardware teams tend to compensate for the prior console's 'weaknesses' i suspect they will go with 2GHz as well or higher. CPU was one of the issues on the Switch, not because of any design oversight, but it's just the avaiable SoC to them at that time. Wth T239 they have a chance to significantly close the gap with the PS5/XBOX Series to make ports easier. They have the right core counts.

Yeah, according to this table by Anandtech A78 has a very slight IPC advantage over Zen 2. Meaning at 2.0GHz we're looking at 2.137GHz if this was a 8-core Zen 2 CPU. That is roughly 61% of the performance of the PS5's 3.5GHz 8-core Zen 2 CPU in single-threading.

The problem is the PS5's CPU also does multi-threading, but afaik most (if not all) games don't really use more than 6-8 threads, and if any future game does plan on using it they will a) get a 30-35% performance boost only and b) highly likely be PS5 exclusives.

This doesn't even take into account of the L3 cache on both platforms, since we're currently looking at somewhere between 512KB to 8MB for the Switch 2, while the PS5 has 8MB. Then again, no other CPU arch loves L3 cache like Zen does, so maybe those A78s could get away with less. And most importantly, the PS5's CPU is pretty badly hobbled by GDDR6's insanely high latency, which the Switch 2 may not have to suffer from. High memory latency affects a CPU's IPC negatively, so the actual performance gap of 39% may be even smaller.

 

[Gerald]

Great summary. Knowing Nintendo's hardware teams tend to compensate for the prior console's 'weaknesses' i suspect they will go with 2GHz as well or higher. CPU was one of the issues on the Switch, not because of any design oversight, but it's just the avaiable SoC to them at that time. Wth T239 they have a chance to significantly close the gap with the PS5/XBOX Series to make ports easier. They have the right core counts.

Console manfufactures is listening and talking to the studios about what is the "weakest" point of the previous console for them, with RAM we already know that nintendo has chosen 12lpddr5x, which means that developers will have a lot of bandwith, and it was the biggest weak point in Switch 1 alongside cpu, so I don't think that nintendo will try to cheap on cpu clocks, anyway 4w budget for cpu and 4w budget for gpu are really not much compared to these pc handhelds

 

[Gerald]

Yeah, according to this table by Anandtech A78 has a very slight IPC advantage over Zen 2. Meaning at 2.0GHz we're looking at 2.137GHz if this was a 8-core Zen 2 CPU. That is roughly 61% of the performance of the PS5's 3.5GHz 8-core Zen 2 CPU in single-threading.

The problem is the PS5's CPU also does multi-threading, but afaik most (if not all) games don't really use more than 6-8 threads, and if any future game does plan on using it they will a) get a 30-35% performance boost only and b) will highly likely be PS5 exclusives.

This doesn't even take into account of the L3 cache on both platforms, since we're currently looking at somewhere between 1MB to 4MB for the Switch 2, while the PS5 has 8MB. Then again, no other CPU arch loves L3 cache like Zen does, so maybe those A78s could get away with less. And most importantly, the PS5's CPU is pretty badly hobbled by GDDR5's insanely high latency, which the Switch 2 may not have to suffer from. High memory latency affects a CPU's IPC negatively, so the actual performance gap of 39% may be even smaller.

Gddr6 not gddr5, in terms of l3 cache im dont think we talk too much besides that a78c can have up to 8mb, we talk about gpu l2 cache a lot beacuse mention was found of both 1mb and 4mb everyone hope that it will be 4mb

 

[HyruleanKnight]

This is an assumption, not an absolute truth.

Yeah, but I figured there really isn't much to add with all that extra space in there, unless there's a new piece of equipment inside that we don't know about. The Switch OLED has shown that there was plenty of space savings to be had as a result of optimization over several revisions, but Nintendo ultimately chose not to pursue it, possibly because of costs associated with retooling some of the parts. Thus there was a lot of dead space inside the Switch OLED.

The size and power consumption of T239 on 4N really is comparable to the Tegra X1 on 20nm, in fact, a little smaller.

I 100% believe Nintendo is seeking a similar power envelope to the original Nintendo Switch and using that extra space for a bigger battery. There are real, practical reasons far beyond size that informed that power envelope. The battery life, of course, the battery's rating, the size and capabilities of the charger and dock. 2W for the CPU is actually quite a bit! 8 cores at ~1.6Ghz is quite a nice chunk of change, performance wise!

If we look at what are quite possibly leaked power consumption targets, the GPU's lower power consumption mode target is 4W, in line with the original Nintendo Switch. 6W total across CPU and GPU, some for the other components of the SOC, the new high speed storage interfaces, you're looking at a nigh identical power envelope to the original Nintendo Switch. Which makes a lot of sense!

The device is almost certainly larger, but does not appear any bit thicker, which again makes sense, thicker reduces portability. That means however that the heat sink can't realistically be much bigger, the air channels any thicker or the fan much deeper. The power caps informed by the design hardly change at all - Nintendo Switch is an actively cooled device, it's not nearly as constrained by its internal volume as it is the fan.

2W for the CPU, 4W for the GPU, these are perfectly fine numbers for handheld mode. A 6 hour run time is not by any means enormous, it is nothing more than average, and if you want to talk weaknesses of the original Nintendo Switch, battery life absolutely was one.

That is another way of looking at this, yes. So it really comes down to whether Nintendo wants to achieve a greater level of performance with a similar battery life as, say, the Switch V1 or a more conservative approach with the added bonus of vastly superior battery life.

I'm leaning on the former. But if it does turn out to be 2W for the CPU, we're still looking at 1.7GHz at the minimum. That's not that bad, to be perfectly honest. 2.0GHz will need 3W though, not 4W. We're pushing clocks much higher than 2.0GHz at 4W.

 

[Gerald]

Yeah, but I figured there really isn't much to add with all that extra space in there, unless there's a new piece of equipment inside that we don't know about. The Switch OLED has shown that there was plenty of space savings to be had as a result of optimization over several revisions, but Nintendo ultimately chose not to pursue it, possibly because of costs associated with retooling some of the parts. Thus there was a lot of dead space inside the Switch OLED.


That is another way of looking at this, yes. So it really comes down to whether Nintendo wants to achieve a greater level of performance with a similar battery life as, say, the Switch V1 or a more conservative approach with the added bonus of vastly superior battery life.

I'm leaning on the former.

For sure, the battery will also be larger with higher capacity, looking at the standard today it will be 5000-6000mah

 

[HyruleanKnight]

Gddr6 not gddr5

My bad, thanks for pointing it out. I've made the correction.

in terms of l3 cache im dont think we talk too much besides that a78c can have up to 8mb, we talk about gpu l2 cache a lot beacuse mention was found of both 1mb and 4mb everyone hope that it will be 4mb

Could you provide a source for this? This is the first time I've heard about it. Maybe I did mix up the CPU and GPU L3 cache, I need to do some more digging to confirm.

 

[ShadowFox08]

tl;dr at the end

The problem is we don't know how much power will be allocated for the CPU. Switch allocates around 2W afaik, and I'm personally taking a high estimate of 4W. My reason for the high estimate is an increased overall power envelope, suggested by an overall 34% increase in tablet dimensions in the x and y axis. Bigger device = better cooling and bigger battery; I don't think Nintendo is seeking a similar power envelope as the Switch v1 but with an enormous battery for 6+ hour run times.

Now let's look at some numbers:

• Platform: Jetson AGX Orin 32GB
• Everything except CPU disabled, EMC frequency set to 3199MHz and load level set to low.
• CPU load level set to high. However, keep in mind that high loads during gaming will be instantaneous rather than sustained, so the average power usage will be a little lower.
• I calculated power for 4 cores and 8 cores, then deduced the power consumption of each core. Lastly I multiplied the final value with 8 to get the total power consumption for an 8-core CPU.
• Remember, this is on SEC8N.

1113.6MHz - 2.00W or 0.250W per core
1267.2MHz - 2.60W or 0.325W per core
1497.6MHz - 3.20W or 0.400W per core
1651.2MHz - 3.80W or 0.475W per core
1728.0MHz - 4.00W or 0.500W per core
1881.6MHz - 4.80W or 0.600W per core
2035.2MHz - 5.60W or 0.700W per core
2188.8MHz - 6.80W or 0.850W per core
2201.6MHz - 7.00W or 0.875W per core

Let's graph this:


Notice how around 1700MHz onwards power usage gets a little steep. Also, between 1270MHz and 1500MHz the line is relatively flat, meaning clocks below 1500MHz won't yield as much power savings. So in this scenario I can safely bet a 1500-1700MHz CPU clock.

Now if we were to replicate this on TSMC 4N, power usage will obviously be lower. How much lower, we don't know exactly. Oldpuck estimates 40%, but I'd like to lean more towards 50% due to not having to bother with inter-cluster shenanigans. Let's assume an average of 45% and extrapolate the data:

1113.6MHz - 1.10W or 0.130W per core
1267.2MHz - 1.43W or 0.179W per core
1497.6MHz - 1.76W or 0.220W per core
1651.2MHz - 2.09W or 0.261W per core
1728.0MHz - 2.20W or 0.275W per core
1881.6MHz - 2.64W or 0.330W per core
2035.2MHz - 3.08W or 0.385W per core
2188.8MHz - 3.74W or 0.468W per core
2201.6MHz - 3.85W or 0.481W per core

Notice how we can easily achieve 1.7GHz on a 2.2W budget. At 3W we're getting a nice 2.0GHz clock but beyond that power usage goes up exponentially. But if I were to stick to the 4W budget, there seems to still be some clock headroom since we're at 2.2GHz at 3.85W

Now I don't want to get too optimistic, because there are too many estimated variables at play here, but I don't see why a 2.0GHz clock is unreasonable given that I do not think Nintendo is aiming for a similar power envelope as the Switch v1.

Also remember that the Power-Frequency curve for SEC8N will not necessarily line up with TSMC 4N. Meaning we could be looking at diminishing gains/losses at a different range compared to SEC8N's 1.5-1.7GHz. We have A78 cores running at 3GHz in some 5nm designs, and while the power usage is significantly higher than these numbers it gives me a reason to believe the range is much higher than SEC8N's.

tl;dr I bet on a 2.0GHz clock. It's a safe bet, and I won't be surprised if it's higher than this. I will be surprised if it is lower though, unless they decide to allocate more power to the GPU and/or other components instead of the CPU.

2.0 GHz would be amazing at 3 watts. I'll take 1.7GHz as well.. Hard to say how much of a difference 17% in CPU will be.. Might not be worth the extra watt for Nintendo. Anything above 2GHz feels a bit much, but having it available for certain games I would be totally fine with.

Clearly the biggest question is how much power draw is Nintendo willing to allow on handheld mode, and how big of a battery can they include to make up for some of it (if they go on the higher end)
if they decide 2-3 watts for CPU, and up to 4 for GPU.. They still need to account for the rest of the system too... RAM, UFS 3.1 storage, screen, battery and other stuff. Will lpddr5x RAM, UFS 3.1, and screen will be a combined 3 watts? That's 9-10 watts right there.

its Important to note that OG Switch is running at 11-12 watts (fully charged) in docked (15 when charging) and 7-9 undocked.

Playing With Power: A Look At Nintendo Switch Power Consumption

www.anandtech.com

I believe OLED runs at 7 watts in docked.

So would Nintendo really be willing to run near Switch power draw docked numbers on Switch 2 handheld?

My bad, thanks for pointing it out. I've made the correction.

Could you provide a source for this? This is the first time I've heard about it. Maybe I did mix up the CPU and GPU L3 cache, I need to do some more digging to confirm.

It's not guaranteed that the A78c will have it Just that it supports up to 8mb of L3.

Secure scalable performance with Arm Cortex-A78C CPU

This blog provides details about key features and benefits of the Arm Cortex-A78C CPU, which is the latest addition to the Cortex-A78 family.

community.arm.com

 

[Gerald]

My bad, thanks for pointing it out. I've made the correction.

Could you provide a source for this? This is the first time I've heard about it. Maybe I did mix up the CPU and GPU L3 cache, I need to do some more digging to confirm.

Cortex-A78C

The Cortex-A78C CPU provides a scalable solution with advanced security features and large big-core configurations.

developer.arm.com

 

[HyruleanKnight]

Cortex-A78C

The Cortex-A78C CPU provides a scalable solution with advanced security features and large big-core configurations.

developer.arm.com

Very obvious source. Stupid me.

Thanks.

 

[Gerald]

2.0 GHz would be amazing at 3 watts. I'll take 1.7GHz as well.. Hard to say how much of a difference 17% in CPU will be.. Might not be worth the extra watt for Nintendo. Anything above 2GHz feels a bit much, but having it available for certain games I would be totally fine with.

Clearly the biggest question is how much power draw is Nintendo willing to allow on handheld mode, and how big of a battery can they include to make up for some of it (if they go on the higher end)
if they decide 2-3 watts for CPU, and up to 4 for GPU.. They still need to account for the rest of the system too... RAM, UFS 3.1 storage, screen, battery and other stuff. Will lpddr5x RAM, UFS 3.1, and screen will be a combined 3 watts? That's 9-10 watts right there.

its Important to note that OG Switch is running at 11-12 watts (fully charged) in docked (15 when charging) and 7-9 undocked.

Playing With Power: A Look At Nintendo Switch Power Consumption

www.anandtech.com

I believe OLED runs at 7 watts in docked.

So would Nintendo really be willing to run near Switch power draw docked numbers on Switch 2 handheld?

7-8w for cpu and gpu, 3w for rest of system, and we have 10-11w for whole console, sounds good, and like im said for sure we will have bigger battery with much higher capacity 5000-6000mah looking at today standard, we will not have again 4310mah battery like in switch 1

 

[Mr Swine]

Switch 2 Soc in docked mode shouldn’t have a problem using 18w if it sufficient cooled right? Can they bypass the SoC when charging the controllers or is it tied it?

Portable mode using 2w more for CPU/GPU shouldn’t be a problem compared to Switch v1 I think

 

[Shish]

Off topic

I wonder if in the future most of the people will stop thinking about the technical specifications of future consoles, already in 2024 people are wondering why they should buy a PlayStation 5, let alone a PlayStation 6.
Nintendo certainly knows about this and I don't think they will make a switch 3 and 4 as well.

 

[Gerald]

Off topic

I wonder if in the future most of the people will stop thinking about the technical specifications of future consoles, already in 2024 people are wondering why they should buy a PlayStation 5, let alone a PlayStation 6.
Nintendo certainly knows about this and I don't think they will make a switch 3 and 4 as well.

Switch 3 and 4 will be for sure thing in future lol, hybrid console is the best strategy for nintendo,

 

[HyruleanKnight]

I wonder if in the future most of the people will stop thinking about the technical specifications of future consoles, already in 2024 people are wondering why they should buy a PlayStation 5, let alone a PlayStation 6.

That's because the jump from PS4 to PS5 wasn't nearly as big as prior generational jumps. This isn't exactly Sony's fault, advances in hardware has slowed down a lot since the PS4 days. Add to that the absolutely terrible state of AAA gaming in 2024, and the much greater interest towards indie games, most of which could as well run on the Switch let alone the PS4. Chasing after hyper-realism graphics is getting exponentially expensive (both computationally and otherwise) and non-sustainable.

Portable technology is still advancing at a much healthier pace though, so I do see a Switch 3 or even a 4 happening either from Nintendo or any other console manufacturer. Games are getting too big and complex and take too long to develop, so it's high time they pair things back a little and focus on making actually fun to play games instead of computationally expensive set pieces for the sake of it.

This is just another way of saying Nintendo was right all along.

 

[Dekuman]

Yeah, according to this table by Anandtech A78 has a very slight IPC advantage over Zen 2. Meaning at 2.0GHz we're looking at 2.137GHz if this was a 8-core Zen 2 CPU. That is roughly 61% of the performance of the PS5's 3.5GHz 8-core Zen 2 CPU in single-threading.

The problem is the PS5's CPU also does multi-threading, but afaik most (if not all) games don't really use more than 6-8 threads, and if any future game does plan on using it they will a) get a 30-35% performance boost only and b) highly likely be PS5 exclusives.

This doesn't even take into account of the L3 cache on both platforms, since we're currently looking at somewhere between 512KB to 8MB for the Switch 2, while the PS5 has 8MB. Then again, no other CPU arch loves L3 cache like Zen does, so maybe those A78s could get away with less. And most importantly, the PS5's CPU is pretty badly hobbled by GDDR6's insanely high latency, which the Switch 2 may not have to suffer from. High memory latency affects a CPU's IPC negatively, so the actual performance gap of 39% may be even smaller.

i think @oldpuck shared a benchmark a few days ago that i forgot to bookmark for reference showing per core performance was around 55% of the PS5's with all threads counted at 2Ghz. I could have misremembered though.

 

[HyruleanKnight]

i think @oldpuck shared a benchmark a few days ago that i forgot to bookmark for reference showing per core performance was around 55% of the PS5's with all threads counted at 2Ghz. I could have misremembered though.

I'd like to have a look at that too, 55% is a decent bit off the 61% I calculated using the table from Anandtech but it's still not too bad. I couldn't find any other source for the PS5's CPU going head to head with a A78 CPU.

 

[Shish]

Switch 3 and 4 will be for sure thing in future lol, hybrid console is the best strategy for nintendo,

Sure this strategy is working for now, but that doesn't mean it will last forever.
For me the only way that Nintendo continues to make hybrid consoles is that they use gimmicks, something that was not used before or most likely underused.
And the exclusives obviously, considering that people aren't buying PlayStation 5 because many of the exclusives are on PlayStation 4 and/or PC.

 

[Gerald]

Sure this strategy is working for now, but that doesn't mean it will last forever.
For me the only way that Nintendo continues to make hybrid consoles is that they use gimmicks, something that was not used before or most likely underused.
And the exclusives obviously, considering that people aren't buying PlayStation 5 because many of the exclusives are on PlayStation 4 and/or PC.

PS5 actually sells almost same as PS4 in same timeframe, Xbox Series X|S sells same as Xbox One, Also GTA VI is next year and it will sells consoles massive

 

[Shish]

PS5 actually sells almost same as PS4 in same timeframe, Xbox Series X|S sells same as Xbox One, Also GTA VI is next year and it will sells consoles massive

I thought they had sold less, I was partly wrong.

 

[HyruleanKnight]

So I did a little fun experiment to see just how big of a jump the 8-core A78 running @2.0GHz would be over the current Switch's four A57s @1.02GHz

First we have 7 ÷ 3 for the number of cores available to games, giving us 2.333x
Then we have 2.00GHz ÷ 1.02GHz for the clock speed, giving us 1.961x
Finally, based on Anandtech's table we have a 89% ÷ 35.9% in IPC difference, giving us 2.479x

Multiplying the three, we get 2.333*1.961*2.479 = 11.34x or a 1034% total increase in CPU performance. This does not account for any shortcomings due to cache/RAM differences, but even so that is an astronomical jump.

Going from a ~2W TSMC 20nm CPU to a ~3W TSMC 4N CPU with that kind of uplift is pure insanity.

 

[LinkURL]

Illustrated for others so they know what to look for (CTRL-F as he said)

I think those are the only "counterpart" examples I could find that has hac and p01 in both.

The other p01 subdomains seems to have no hac counterparts:

ofure.p01.dd1.idobata.srv.nintendo.net 13.35.58.40 CloudFlare is off
ofure.p01.jd1.idobata.srv.nintendo.net 18.245.46.18 CloudFlare is off
ofure.p01.sandbox.idobata.srv.nintendo.net 13.32.27.73 CloudFlare is off
ofure.p01.sd1.idobata.srv.nintendo.net 18.244.18.4 CloudFlare is off
ofure.p01.sp1.idobata.srv.nintendo.net 108.156.60.58 CloudFlare is off
ofure.p01.td1.idobata.srv.nintendo.net 18.239.18.96 CloudFlare is off
ofure.p01.xd1.idobata.srv.nintendo.net
aauth.p01.sandbox.ndas.srv.nintendo.net
wc.p01.dd1.savanna.srv.nintendo.net 2.19.126.198 CloudFlare is off
wc.p01.dp1.savanna.srv.nintendo.net 95.101.54.243 CloudFlare is off
wc.p01.jd1.savanna.srv.nintendo.net 2.19.126.153 CloudFlare is off
wc.p01.lp1.savanna.srv.nintendo.net 95.101.54.243 CloudFlare is off
wc.p01.sd1.savanna.srv.nintendo.net 2.16.238.153 CloudFlare is off
wc.p01.sp1.savanna.srv.nintendo.net 2.16.238.153 CloudFlare is off
wc.p01.td1.savanna.srv.nintendo.net
policy-origin.p01.dd1.scsi.srv.nintendo.net 18.238.243.9 CloudFlare is off
policy-origin.p01.jd1.scsi.srv.nintendo.net 108.156.46.86 CloudFlare is off
policy-origin.p01.sd1.scsi.srv.nintendo.net 143.204.98.41 CloudFlare is off
policy-origin.p01.sp1.scsi.srv.nintendo.net 3.161.82.100 CloudFlare is off
policy-origin.p01.td1.scsi.srv.nintendo.net

Kind of crazy, but what if each internal Nintendo department, and perhaps even external partners, used different codenames? We've already seen P01, Ounce, Oz, Muji, NG, NX2.
I don't remember other consoles with so many possible codenames.

 

[kingman]

Do we know how much of an improvement is the switch 2's UFS 3.1 storage compared to the PS4/XB1's HDDs?

 

[Gerald]

So I did a little fun experiment to see just how big of a jump the 8-core A78 running @2.0GHz would be over the current Switch's four A57s @1.02GHz

First we have 7 ÷ 3 for the number of cores available to games, giving us 2.333x
Then we have 2.00GHz ÷ 1.02GHz for the clock speed, giving us 1.961x
Finally, based on Anandtech's table we have a 89% ÷ 35.9% in IPC difference, giving us 2.479x

Multiplying the three, we get 2.333*1.961*2.479 = 11.34x or a 1034% total increase in CPU performance. This does not account for any shortcomings due to cache/RAM differences, but even so that is an astronomical jump.

Going from a ~2W TSMC 20nm CPU to a ~3W TSMC 4N CPU with that kind of uplift is pure insanity.

Is gigantic update, is more than generation jump

 

[Gerald]

Do we know how much of an improvement is the switch 2's UFS 3.1 storage compared to the PS4/XB1's HDDs?

Speed ufs3.1 is 2100mb/s( mark cerny said that devs ask about minimum of 1000mb/s), PS4 and Xbox One HDD speed is less than 100mb/s

 

[Koren Lesthe]

Do we know how much of an improvement is the switch 2's UFS 3.1 storage compared to the PS4/XB1's HDDs?

It's not as fast as a SSD, but still pretty fast, much better than PS4/XB1 HDDs, and Switch 1.

 

[HyruleanKnight]

Do we know how much of an improvement is the switch 2's UFS 3.1 storage compared to the PS4/XB1's HDDs?

UFS 3.1 is basically SSD, and can achieve read speeds upto 2100MB/s

PS4/XB1's HDDs were limited to SATA speeds, and but actual read speeds were probably around the 100-150MB/s. Even the Switch's MicroSD card slot was comparable at 100MB/s.

 

[darthdiablo]

So I did a little fun experiment to see just how big of a jump the 8-core A78 running @2.0GHz would be over the current Switch's four A57s @1.02GHz

First we have 7 ÷ 3 for the number of cores available to games, giving us 2.333x
Then we have 2.00GHz ÷ 1.02GHz for the clock speed, giving us 1.961x
Finally, based on Anandtech's table we have a 89% ÷ 35.9% in IPC difference, giving us 2.479x

Multiplying the three, we get 2.333*1.961*2.479 = 11.34x or a 1034% total increase in CPU performance. This does not account for any shortcomings due to cache/RAM differences, but even so that is an astronomical jump.

Going from a ~2W TSMC 20nm CPU to a ~3W TSMC 4N CPU with that kind of uplift is pure insanity.

Assuming your calcs aren’t off, that’s a big gap between the 6x more (the number that was shared previously here) performant number compared to Switch. 11.5x sounds like too big of a jump but I’ll take a number anywhere between 6x to 11.5x inclusive

 

[HyruleanKnight]

Assuming your calcs aren’t off, that’s a big gap between the 6x more performant number compared to Switch. 11.5x sounds like too big of a jump but I’ll take a number anywhere between 6x to 11.5x inclusive

I did mention I am not accounting for every possible factor, and I was basing the IPC difference from that table. Assuming the table itself isn't off, with my proposed 2.0GHz clock that is the number I got.

Interestingly, if I were to take the clock frequency out of the equation I do get 2.33*2.479 = 5.78x uplift, maybe that's where the 6x number came from.

Actually now that I think about it, the only way a 6x uplift would make sense is if clocks were extremely low, like ~1GHz. Think about it, we're getting a 2.33x uplift in core count, no way to refute that. We also know we're getting at least a 2x IPC uplift, so multiplying those two gives us 4.66x, meaning for the 6x to make sense we need clocks as low as 1.3GHz at the maximum, and almost exactly 1GHz at the minimum. Those kinds of clocks don't make sense at all.

 

[Gerald]

Assuming your calcs aren’t off, that’s a big gap between the 6x more performant number compared to Switch. 11.5x sounds like too big of a jump but I’ll take a number anywhere between 6x to 11.5x inclusive

Remember that switch 1 cpu was like four cores from 2012, a78c eight cores is from 2021

 

[darthdiablo]

Remember that switch 1 cpu was like four cores from 2012, a78c is from 2021

Yeah. I’m not expert on this kind of thing but I thought things like # of cores was accounted for when it was estimated Switch 2 would be 6x more performant compared to Switch 1 when that calc was shared here couple of months ago (I might be misremembering)

Anything over 6x I would welcome too lol

 

[Gerald]

I did mention I am not accounting for every possible factor, and I was basing the IPC difference from that table. Assuming the table itself isn't off, with my proposed 2.0GHz clock that is the number I got.

Interestingly, if I were to take the clock frequency out of the equation I do get 2.33*2.479 = 5.78x uplift, maybe that's where the 6x number came from.

11x+ jump is like 2.5x generations jump, is insane man

 

[kingman]

UFS 3.1 is basically SSD, and can achieve read speeds upto 2100MB/s

PS4/XB1's HDDs were limited to SATA speeds, and but actual read speeds were probably around the 100-150MB/s. Even the Switch's MicroSD card slot was comparable at 100MB/s.

Speed ufs3.1 is 2100mb/s( mark cerny said that devs ask about minimum of 1000mb/s), PS4 and Xbox One HDD speed is less than 100mb/s

It's not as fast as a SSD, but still pretty fast, much better than PS4/XB1 HDDs, and Switch 1.

Holy spit...didn't realize the jump was that massive!

I know SSDs helped in Ratchet and Clank, but what other benefits does fast storage potentially have for Nintendo games?

 

[TLZ]

You are 100% correct, but there are a lot of people, myself included, who would like to make Switch 2 their 1st and only console, not their second console.

On that note, I wish Nintendo would give us a trophy system. I'm not a trophy hunter and I don't go looking for them, but I do like them. I'm sure a ton of others do. I'll honestly say it also what tips me towards buying PS/Xbox versions of games. I do like them for history/log reasons, just as I like the hours played too.

They can call them stars or medals.

 

[Giancarlo]

2.0 GHz would be amazing at 3 watts. I'll take 1.7GHz as well.. Hard to say how much of a difference 17% in CPU will be.. Might not be worth the extra watt for Nintendo. Anything above 2GHz feels a bit much, but having it available for certain games I would be totally fine with.

Clearly the biggest question is how much power draw is Nintendo willing to allow on handheld mode, and how big of a battery can they include to make up for some of it (if they go on the higher end)
if they decide 2-3 watts for CPU, and up to 4 for GPU.. They still need to account for the rest of the system too... RAM, UFS 3.1 storage, screen, battery and other stuff. Will lpddr5x RAM, UFS 3.1, and screen will be a combined 3 watts? That's 9-10 watts right there.

its Important to note that OG Switch is running at 11-12 watts (fully charged) in docked (15 when charging) and 7-9 undocked.

Playing With Power: A Look At Nintendo Switch Power Consumption

www.anandtech.com

I believe OLED runs at 7 watts in docked.

So would Nintendo really be willing to run near Switch power draw docked numbers on Switch 2 handheld?

It's not guaranteed that the A78c will have it Just that it supports up to 8mb of L3.

Secure scalable performance with Arm Cortex-A78C CPU

This blog provides details about key features and benefits of the Arm Cortex-A78C CPU, which is the latest addition to the Cortex-A78 family.

community.arm.com

Nintendo Switch is heavily downclocked, so it allow Nintendo to meet battery standard, could Nintendo also downclock the console, to meet a performance/battery criteria? even if mean downclock around 30/50% of what Switch sucessor is possible, kinda like they did with Switch.