the TX1 as a barometer is gonna give you bad data because the situation is different. Nintendo didn't pick 20nm, Nvidia did. remember that the TX1 was not a gaming product, it was a multi-purpose chip that was meant to go into everything, from cars, to android set top boxes, to game consoles. they settled on 20nm because it was the next step after 20nm, but they and the rest of the industry realized 20nm was trash. but Nvidia bought a fuckload of capacity that they would have paid penalty for if Nintendo didn't step in.Not exactly doubting your original post, I agree with most of it but I still have some questions in my mind which I'll get to later.
First off, a bit of historical context to explain why I agree Nintendo picking 8nm as a node makes no sense:
Back in 2015, Switch's Tegra X1 chip release date, it's manufacturing process was 20nm. Taking a look at other mobile SoC's released at a similar timeframe, 20nm seems to be a common node, for example: the Snapdragon 810. But some were already being manufactured under 14nm like the Exynos 7420.
Of course, in 2015 if we look at any budget phone, we'll see that ~28nm was widely used.
But the Switch had a 2015 chip for a product released in early 2017, a year in which 10nm was becoming more common with chips like the Exynos 8895 on the higher end and 14nm on mid range phones with chips like the Exynos 7885 and Snapdragon 821.
Sure, you would still see 20+nm phones releasing in 2016 through 2017 in the low to very low end of the market but overall, 14nm and under was quite common. Now, one could question Nintendo on why they picked 20nm in 2017 instead of shipping 16nm early. And well, I think this relates to how the hardware was taped out for mass production back in a time where 20nm was the best option available to them.
Now, the more recent context for mobile chips released from 2022 through mid 2023 is: "low end" to mid range phones commonly use 5nm SoCs eg: Exynos 1330 and 1280. But, higher end actually expensive phones are shipping with 4nm chips such as: the Snapdragon 8 gen 2 and Exynos 2200.
But those are reaally fresh phone releases. I'm talking < 4 months ago. If we take a look just a while back, 7nm was quite common in some mid-range Sammy and Qualcomm chips like the Snapdragon 865.
In conclusion:
Considering previous historical context but, taking Thraktor's efficiency analysis into account, I'm not really questioning whether or not sub 8nm is what Nintendo will pick. Instead, I'm wondering whether or not they'll go 7nm with a die shrink later to 5nm or even 4nm or, if they'll wait until manufacturing under 5nm becomes cheaper.
But I'm starting to believe that they'll go with 5nm anyways because I believe they're aware of what happened to some 2017 switches by now.
And considering the hardware tapeout for drake took place around 2022 then I think there's no doubt.
But I'm still skeptical about how high they'll clock the SoC.
Drake is not the same as it's made, ground up, for Nintendo at Nintendo's behest. you can't die shrink a 7nm down to 4nm like you could 20nm to 16nm/12nm. 16nm/12nm are greatly improved 20nm while 5nm is not the same as 7nm. it might cost Nintendo and Nvidia more money to design for 7nm and then design for 4N