Yeah, my original point in the context of my response to bonzobanana wasn't even about whether or not the T239 will be a better (relatively) chipset for Switch 2 than the T210 was for Switch 1.
Bonzobanana inquired about "confirmed specs" and my response was to highlight that because the Switch 1 had a T210 that was a "hand me down" (probably should have used "off the shelf" instead) pre-existing Nvidia design, it was a lot easier to get those confirmed specs because we knew them for devices like the Shield TV and we could reasonably use words like "underclocked" in this context because they are the same exact chipset with different clock frequencies in those two devices.
We can't do this as easily for the Switch 2 because it has a semi-custom chipset. No other device has a T239 upon the Switch 2's release, and it wouldn't even make sense to talk about clock rates vs. a T234 because they have different core-configurations (confirmed for the GPU, and we don't know enough about the CPU to say.) The Switch 2 isn't going to be "under-clocked" compared to anything else because the chipset is specifically designed to only be used in Switch 2s.
The best we have are the "leaked" specs.
That was the original context of my post and using the idiom "hand me down" makes sense because we are talking about not just the final configuration set by Nintendo (which was part of the conversation), but whether or not the chipset is the same as in other devices which have confirmed specs (such as the Switch 1 vs. Shield TV.) There is no Shield TV-equivalent for Switch 2. A T234 =|= a T239. A SOC designed for edge computing can't be easily compared with a SOC designed for gaming, while a SOC that is designed to be general-purposed, and is in fact the same exact SOC used in multiple devices, can be compared in those different devices, especially when those devices are doing similar things (Shield TV & Switch.)
Last edited by sc94597 - on 04 May 2025
