Controversial Nintendo Switch 2 chip manufacturing process claimed by reputable leaker in T239 reaffirmation

[Redaktion]

The expected Nintendo Switch 2 SoC and its manufacturing process has been discussed recently by a well-known leaker. The information offered up by the reasonably reputable source has been greeted with a mixture of dismay, caution, and even optimism. Once again, it is mentioned that an Nvidia Tegra T239 chip will be at the heart of the Switch 2 console.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Controversial-Nintendo-Switch-2-chip-manufacturing-process-claimed-by-reputable-leaker-in-T239-reaffirmation.750881.0.html

[Ramsey]

This does makes sense.

I don't see Nintendo going for a bleeding-edge process node, now less than ever with the manufacture and price constraints, when a 8nm can still provide a big boost from the OG Switch. They have demonstrated that hitting the right price is more important than the performance.

[WaitWhat]

Ampere is based on Samsungs 8N node so of course the Switch chip will be fabbed on Samsung 8nm. Otherwise Nvidia would have to redesign the whole architecture to work on a different node.
Plus the node is dirt cheap by now which is exactly the price point Nintendo wants. And it's not like their games are so graphically demanding that the need the bleeding edge.
People should really use their brains for once before speculating about bs

[thadec]

This is a non-issue. The Steam Deck, Playstation 5 and XBox Series X use the TSMC 7nm node. The PlayStation 4 Pro used the TSMC 16nm node. So this is proof that the Switch 2 is going to perform in between the PS4 Pro and the PS 5. The people who believe that gaming consoles are the equal of $3000 workstations and gaming PCs like the Mac Studio and HP Omen 45L need to explain why said consoles only cost $500. Yes, Sony and Microsoft lose money on hardware in order to make it back by selling you $60-$70 games, but not that much money.

Also, the Switch 2 merely needs to be powerful enough to play games in 4K and support modern ports. Honestly the Switch 1's CPU and GPU were powerful enough to play 4K games. The Nvidia Shield TV and Nvidia Shield tablets way back in 2015 were able to play Android games in 4K, though often via upscaling. The reason why the Switch couldn't had more to do with Nintendo's software - the 3DS operating system - than the hardware. Nintendo was going to use a customized version of Android for the Switch but changed their minds, and had to get it out as quickly as possible so they didn't have time to create a new OS. This time Nintendo and Nvidia will have had plenty of time to write an OS that takes full advantage of the hardware. It would be neat if it were Android, but it will likely be Linux. Ubuntu would work the best because it natively supports the Nvidia drivers and the ARM desktop version is "pretty good."

[thadec]

Also, this same process was used to make the Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G that was used in some of the best selling smartphones in 2021. How "controversial" could it have been?

[Hartie95]

Also, the Switch 2 merely needs to be powerful enough to play games in 4K and support modern ports. Honestly the Switch 1's CPU and GPU were powerful enough to play 4K games. The Nvidia Shield TV and Nvidia Shield tablets way back in 2015 were able to play Android games in 4K, though often via upscaling. The reason why the Switch couldn't had more to do with Nintendo's software - the 3DS operating system - than the hardware. Nintendo was going to use a customized version of Android for the Switch but changed their minds, and had to get it out as quickly as possible so they didn't have time to create a new OS. This time Nintendo and Nvidia will have had plenty of time to write an OS that takes full advantage of the hardware. It would be neat if it were Android, but it will likely be Linux. Ubuntu would work the best because it natively supports the Nvidia drivers and the ARM desktop version is "pretty good."

I fully agree with that the switch just needs to be powerful enough.
But I'm pretty sure you are wrong in terms of the os.
First, it's not the 3ds os, it's a full rewrite based on the knowledge from the 3ds os. So it's very similar in many points, but still different.
It's also pretty optimized for gaming, and better than android or Linux would be, especially in terms of security, which is important for Nintendo, but also in terms of resource management.
Nintendo also puts a lot of work in the switch os behind the scenes, and does big changes to components, which they would not do this late into the switches lifefycle, unless they plan to use it for the successor.
We also have already of some (limited) info about the new console model and soc in the os, so they seem to use the switch os on the new console.
Another thing is the sdk. The Nintendo sdk is tightly intigrated with the os, and the other way around, and Nintendo build it from the ground up to be usable with future consoles too.

[lucas millington]

Ampere is based on Samsungs 8N node so of course the Switch chip will be fabbed on Samsung 8nm. Otherwise Nvidia would have to redesign the whole architecture to work on a different node.
Plus the node is dirt cheap by now which is exactly the price point Nintendo wants. And it's not like their games are so graphically demanding that the need the bleeding edge.
People should really use their brains for once before speculating about bs

tegra x1 was based on maxwell which was 28nm yet it was 20/16nm so

[lucas millington]

This is a non-issue. The Steam Deck, Playstation 5 and XBox Series X use the TSMC 7nm node. The PlayStation 4 Pro used the TSMC 16nm node. So this is proof that the Switch 2 is going to perform in between the PS4 Pro and the PS 5.

you obviously have no idea how this s*** works, just because the node is similar to ps5 it dosent mean its going to perform the same as ps5,the ps5 runs at 200 watts, the switch runs at 15 watts max, if the switch 2 runs at 15 watts with 8nm its not getting anywhere close to ps5 lmao, it might be able to get close to ps4 pro but even thats a push, power draw is everything and the lower the die size the lower the power

[lucas millington]

Ampere is based on Samsungs 8N node so of course the Switch chip will be fabbed on Samsung 8nm. Otherwise Nvidia would have to redesign the whole architecture to work on a different node.
Plus the node is dirt cheap by now which is exactly the price point Nintendo wants. And it's not like their games are so graphically demanding that the need the bleeding edge.
People should really use their brains for once before speculating about bs

knowing nintendo they will end up charging 500 dollars for some batshit insane reason, i remember when nintendo handhelds cost 99 dollars

[Dewey]

This does makes sense.

I don't see Nintendo going for a bleeding-edge process node, now less than ever with the manufacture and price constraints, when a 8nm can still provide a big boost from the OG Switch. They have demonstrated that hitting the right price is more important than the performance.

I thought so too this, but now I'm not so sure anymore - feel like it could be argued either way. If the rumors / leaks are to be believed (that in docked mode it'll do 4 TFlops and 2 TFlops), I find it hard to believe that level of performance could be extracted from 8N Samsung fab node, while keeping it < 15 w. Ampere is less efficient than rdna2 in terms of power per watt (partly due to TSMC 7nm being superior), remember the steam deck could only pull 1.6 TFlop at 15w on a superior node. So no idea, how the switch 2 will be able pull 2.5x the TFlops (yes I know completely different architectures but still) without switching to a better node. But then again arm vs x86 CPU core differences. Arm probably takes way less silicon / die space and power, so maybe it is still possible?

5nm isn't really bleeding edge anymore either, it'll be basically soon be a 3 year old node by the time this device launches. 3nm is already here practically. But then again 4N (slightly more optimized 5nm), is already being used on H100 Ai accelerators and TSMC already have stated that they're having trouble meeting demand with wafer production. Also most 5nm/4N products are still kind of expensive, knowing Nintendo they'll most likely try to keep the device cost cheap with somewhat decent margins. So they might actually have to go a slightly older node. I recently heard tho, that 8nm samsung would actually be more expensive to produce in volume production for devices because it's so old now that it'd be cheaper going 5nm/4N. So yeah, really confused now, dunno what to believe anymore...

Ampere is based on Samsungs 8N node so of course the Switch chip will be fabbed on Samsung 8nm. Otherwise Nvidia would have to redesign the whole architecture to work on a different node.
Plus the node is dirt cheap by now which is exactly the price point Nintendo wants. And it's not like their games are so graphically demanding that the need the bleeding edge.
People should really use their brains for once before speculating about bs

But this is consoles, we're talking about here where semi-custom silicon is the norm. I think the current switch is literally the only console that used off the shelf Tegra X1 part with no customization. Pretty sure when Nvidia make an architecture they design for multiple nodes just in case as a backup plan and that it'd not be too difficult for a company of their size and resources to port it to another node. Nintendo often like do like changing things up gen-to-gen so just because they did something previously doesn't necessarily mean they'll do the same again.

[Abc]

5nm isn't really bleeding edge anymore either, it'll be basically soon be a 3 year old node by the time this device launches. 3nm is already here practically. But then again 4N (slightly more optimized 5nm), is already being used on H100 Ai accelerators and TSMC already have stated that they're having trouble meeting demand with wafer production. Also most 5nm/4N products are still kind of expensive, knowing Nintendo they'll most likely try to keep the device cost cheap with somewhat decent margins. So they might actually have to go a slightly older node. I recently heard tho, that 8nm samsung would actually be more expensive to produce in volume production for devices because it's so old now that it'd be cheaper going 5nm/4N. So yeah, really confused now, dunno what to believe anymore...

Yes, volume dictates pricing. When car manufacturers needed to use super old 40nm nodes because their "stable" processors were only designed for those, they had to pay a premium compared to newer processes. Technology doesn't always get cheaper with age. It gets cheaper with volume. It only gives the illusion because the cutting edge tends to be volume constrained, which does mean the cutting edge usually gets cheaper as it ages.

Pretty sure when Nvidia make an architecture they design for multiple nodes just in case as a backup plan and that it'd not be too difficult for a company of their size and resources to port it to another node.

Definitely not. Designing for a node isn't as simple as it seems. Just look at how much time Intel spent doing node shrinks (Cannon Lake) and backports (Rocket Lake). It is costly and have no benefits when things work smoothly. When things gets delayed usually they just delay the whole architecture and re-release the old arch with a new name (maybe clock them higher, maybe add some cores). There is basically no reason to do multi-node designs unless your nodes get delayed for 5+ years (like what happened to Intel).

[Cyber]

While per wafer do cost more the smaller it goes, it didn't mean it cost more to produce a switch 2 because of it. 
For example SiliconExpert has some data on how much wafer cost on TSMC chips.
5nm FinFET cost $16,000 per wafer and 7nm FinFET cost $10,000 per wafer.  However, there's two more data point needed to discuss.  Wafer density and yield.  I will cut to the chase, the density between 7nm and 5nm is 1.8X.  Which means it cost less per chip in the 5nm process.

What about the yield? 

It sound weird but the yield gets better for some reason(using last years data), the 5nm process has 80% and the 7nm has 70% yield.  The data is from Granitefirm

If you search online like wiki you fill find that the 5nm has once again increase to 90% yield.  Since I can't find anything on the 7nm, I use last year's number for comparison.

As you can see, it in fact cost less using a smaller node... assuming you are TSMC chips.  I can't for the life of me find the cost and yield for a Samsung 8nm wafer of any kind.  I know Samsung has lower yield, but that about it.  Nintendo may use Samsung wafer if
1. TSMC production if full and can't receive any order until later
2. Samsung even with its bad yield has lower prices
3. With a different node Nintendo has to redesign the board around it.  It maybe lack of time, laziness, or cost for the redesign.

Some of you may wonder why 5nm has less defect then 7nm.  Well, is a balancing act, I will not go into detail.  But I would think one key factor is like AMD chiplet vs intel Monolithic chipset some years ago.

Since I am a "guests" it will not allow me to post any links to show any of my data.

[Cyber]

One thing I forget to add.  Assuming Nintendo wanted to put this on a 8nm process but change its mind later.  The tooling needed to be remade, which would cost millions.

My degree is in Integrated systems Engineering. However, my job is process improvement using lean Six Sigma at a hospital.  So I may have forgotten a lot of stuff and/or things has change since collage.