How Will be Switch 2 Performance Wise?

[Pemalite]

sc94597 said:

So you basically just agreed with what I said (they use the same chip, and that is why you can compare clock rates), and then said "this is false." The chipset in the original Switch was not designed specifically for the original Switch, unlike the chipset in the Switch 2. It was designed for a wide range of systems (including the Nvidia Shield) and then repurposed for/inherited by the Switch with very minor modifications meant to fit its form-factor (reduced clocks being one.) This is characteristically different from the T239, which was built with the Switch 2 in mind from the very start and with its form factor under consideration throughout the whole development process. There is no other hardware with the T239, unlike the T210.

If the hardware for the Switch were designed specifically for it, there wouldn't be a discussion of "under-clocking" because there is nothing else to compare it against to say "it is under-clocked." It is appropriately clocked for its target hardware that it was specifically designed for. We see this in that with the T239 there really isn't an analogous chip to compare against. The closest thing to it is the T234, which is very different hardware with a different targeted form factor and purpose (edge compute for sensors vs. gaming.) 

The one part where you disagreed is the bolded. The bolded ignores the fact that the major cost for Nvidia (as the designer) isn't the cost of producing the chips but the R&D of designing the chips. Nvidia needs to recoup those R&D costs. So yes, it is a "hand me down." They were selling essentially more of a product they needed to recoup the R&D cost on that they already did the bulk of the design work for (that is money already spent) with other devices being considered in that work, and therefore they gave Nintendo a deal, rather than fully designing hardware from a less developed stage (and accruing more R&D costs.) If they were specifically designing the hardware for Nintendo they wouldn't likely provide them with the T210, but something more custom, even if similar. Nowhere did I suggest there was manufactured hardware already produced. You pulled that out of the aether. Nvidia's (being fabless) role in this process is as chip-designer not chip-manufacturer. It's the mature extant design that is handed down, not extant physical chips. 

You have twisted my statements to try and fit your narrative.

Nintendo didn't purchase the Tegra X1 as a "Hand me down". That's your false statement.

The Tegra X1 is not "Custom designed" for any form factor. nVidia made a chipset and threw it everywhere they could... Which is why it ended up in Tablets, HTPC's, Handheld and Automotive.
It's literally not custom designed for anything, it's a general purpose SoC with an emphasis on GPU capability.

nVidia literally every single year... Takes a chip, adjusts it's clockspeeds and sells it to a different market, form factor or price bracket, Tegra X1 is no different.
Nintendo had to make the decision to be conservative with clocks to keep TDP and Battery life within an acceptable "Worse case scenario".
nVidia had nothing to do with that clockspeed decision, that was Nintendo, which is why Switch consoles are capable of overclocking so well.

sc94597 said:

The one part where you disagreed is the bolded. The bolded ignores the fact that the major cost for Nvidia (as the designer) isn't the cost of producing the chips but the R&D of designing the chips. Nvidia needs to recoup those R&D costs. So yes, it is a "hand me down." They were selling essentially more of a product they needed to recoup the R&D cost on that they already did the bulk of the design work for (that is money already spent) with other devices being considered in that work, and therefore they gave Nintendo a deal, rather than fully designing hardware from a less developed stage (and accruing more R&D costs.) If they were specifically designing the hardware for Nintendo they wouldn't likely provide them with the T210, but something more custom, even if similar. Nowhere did I suggest there was manufactured hardware already produced. You pulled that out of the aether. Nvidia's (being fabless) role in this process is as chip-designer not chip-manufacturer. It's the mature extant design that is handed down, not extant physical chips. 

The cost of designing the chip was already done and dusted before the Tegra X1 even released.
The GPU is derived from their Desktop offerings, being Maxwell based.

nVidia then licensed the ARM cores from... Well. ARM.

What do you think happened? nVidia designed the CPU and GPU architectures from scratch? No. No. That didn't occur.

It is no more of a "hand me down" chip than what the Xbox Series X, Playstation 5 and Switch 2 has... They are all based on already developed CPU and GPU architectures.

nVidia, AMD and Intel build "libraries" which are blocks of semiconductors that they can line up with other libraries in order to expedite time-to-market chip development by partnering one library up with another.

This is no different than the Switch 2 SoC being based on another nVidia chip used for IoT, Cars and more.
It's based once again on ARM I.P and uses the PC Ampere GPU architecture... Again, this technology is several years old at this point.