sc94597 said:
What hard evidence do you have that .8 Tflops (260Mhz) is "all it is going to be capable of with a 10Nm/8Nm fabricated chipset."? That is a very specific number to go off of based on the very rough heuristic you're suggesting here. Process node matters in the chip efficiency, but it isn't the only thing that matters. Actual chip architecture matters too, and we don't have anything to compare this chip to. There is no "Nvidia Shield TV" for the Switch 2. It is a semi-custom chip where as the Switch's chip was the same exact chip with a few very minor modifications as what existed in the Shield. Comparing to the power scaling of Ryzen and Celeron laptops that are using x86 chipsets that target a higher TDP from the start isn't a proper comparison as well. If the Switch 2 handheld's target max GPU clock is 561Mhz (which seems likely) then it isn't in dispute. Handheld mode is 1.71 Tflops in its highest power state, which would correspond with the 2 hour battery life. Where does the 561Mhz come from? The same people that leaked everything else. |
I only mentioned the Celeron and Ryzen purely because the Celeron with its lower power draw extends the life of the battery pack considerably just as a positive benefit of the Switch 2 being lower performance than first thought now that we have that video that analyses the spec. That video doesn't really factor in battery power to their equation but their figure for portable performance is comparable to GTX 750 Ti which is about 1.4 Teraflops but consuming up to 12-17W, someone has put a figure of 800 Gflops as peak performance in portable mode for 2 hours use. I assume they have done the analysis of battery consumption. On face value I would of thought my figure of 600 Gflops was more accurate as it can probably only consume a max of 5-6W in total excluding the screen. So the Switch 2 can do short life peak power of around 1.4 Teraflops in portable mode but it can't maintain that for 2 hours. Of course the final figure is not known, maybe Nintendo have over-stated the minimum 2 hours runtime and the reality is only 90 minutes for portable mode and the clocks can go up again. Everyone is agreed that 20Wh is the battery though and this video confirms a much more power hungry chipset than first thought. I guess we need someone to analyse the power consumption of this chip based on this new information from this video. We are still guessing with regard portable performance because the 20Wh battery doesn't seem to be factored in. There is going to be fantastic analysis in a few weeks I'm sure of retail hardware and how much power it is consuming in portable mode.
Ultimately I think we have to be realistic based on the information that is coming our way at the moment, the chipset is a much cheaper fabrication process than first expected and it is clear the design is relying on DLSS upscaling heavily to compensate for a cheap power hungry chipset. The picture is building of a fairly low spec console with regard graphics hardware but very decent CPU performance that takes it way beyond PS4 for example. It's a clever design that has enough CPU performance to do the main code of modern games with optimisation and then the output state of the graphics is upscaled. For a long time the information we have heard about Switch 2 was a console that relied heavily on upscaling and that is the reality surely that we know now.
