| bonzobanana said: All chipsets designed for portable hardware like handheld consoles and laptops target efficient power profiles, there is nothing new in the Switch 2 in that regard. |
Not really. The GA107 is designed to optimally work in the 30W - 115W range. No product that uses it targets <30W, and there is no reason to believe it would work optimally below its used range.
Meanwhile the T239 is specifically designed with the Switch 2 in mind, and likely designed with 3W-20W being the power target.
| Surely your argument if anything shows Nintendo are best advised to clock low on the Switch 2 to get maximum battery life so if anything reinforces my believe about the real performance level of the Switch 2. The efficiency curve for performance per watt is set in the design, it would have been designed from the ground up to be efficient at its stock frequencies and more power would only be wasted and achieve poor performance levels for the increased frequencies/wattage so for these types of designs reducing power will have a noticeable drop in performance just like if you set your laptop to a 83% performance level you don't suddenly get twice as long out of the battery that isn't how it works. These are already power optimised designs. Yes you can throw more power at them and achieve some small performance gains but they are not designed this way. The Switch 2 isn't capable of delivering superior power efficiency with a dated fabrication process and small capacity battery. |
This is false because, again, process node isn't the only thing that matters. SOC architecture matters too. Power-efficiency isn't a univariate function of only process-node. There are other variables. I already showed you a real-world example of how you can nearly halve the power-consumption and still retain 83% of the performance. There is no reason or need to compare to laptops, when we have an example of a handheld system that targets sub-15W power-usage, where this is true.
|
I'm personally quite confident that the Switch 2 will be achieving a sub 1 Teraflop performance level in portable gaming to achieve around 2 hours but the final numbers will probably be revealed in a month or so. Ultimately if Cyberpunk has a native resolution as low as 360p this surely is an indicator of GPU power level available. Lets not forget the Deep Learning Super Sampling is there to upscale amazingly and the games will already be optimised so they work exceptionally well with that upscaling technology. Hence less artifacts than doing the same on PC. It's a very clever design that doesn't need to be that powerful. Yes if Nintendo had coughed up for a better fabrication process which could have had much longer battery runtime for the same performance level but they didn't. It is what it is. Lets not forget either that with this cheaper fabrication comes more heat and therefore cooling requirements which is another reason to clock low which they appear to have done according to that video. Nintendo designs very reliable hardware generally and doesn't want to cough up for warranty claims if they can. They are completely focused on margins and profit. |
I already addressed the rest of this, but @bolded. This isn't necessarily the case because DLSS has its own performance penalty/latency. It is possible that the Switch 2 could have targeted something like 540p - 720p native in handheld mode (roughly Steam Deck performance), but the end-result would be worse. Then the decision would be performance mode, ultra-performance mode DLSS, or some bespoke variable internal resolution between the two. The fact that the Switch 2 goes as low as ultra-performance DLSS isn't evidence that it would have a very low native-resolution without DLSS. It's just evidence that when using DLSS sometimes ultra-performance mode is required to get the target frame-rate.
Last edited by sc94597 - on 13 May 2025
