| haxxiy said: These are just about the same nodes in terms of size and power consumption, though. In fact 14 - 12 nm is larger, but with FinFets. Any meaninful die shrink would be 10 nm or 7 nm, and possibly the former since Nintendo hasn't ever woven a relatively novel die shrink into their consoles. That is, if they do it at all, none of their home consoles has ever gotten a meaningful hardware revision since the 1997 SNES I think? Though of course handheld is another story entirely. |
None of their consoles ever got a meaningful revision because they never really needed to do it.
But ding it now would be the only way they can reduce the price of the switch. And something as simple as a die shrink (which isnt simple at all) could result in s many more natural benefits. Its not really a case of if but one of when. And that is only limited by if its possible or not. And we know it is possible.
The real question is how nintendo plays it. I personally don't feel they will put the same chip in two different skus and basically tell people hey the reason this ne is the pro is because we put in a bigger battery.
And another thing is that nintendo has never been about "more power"; hell we can safely say they have carved out a niche for themselves as being the platform that doesnt care about power. So this to me means they will focus on things like along battery life, lesser heat generated which pens the door for even going with a fanless design, larger flash storage (another benefit of die shrinks)...etc. All resulting in what will be a cheaper machine for them to make and all the benefits of around 20% more performance being taken as a bonus.
