By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - VGC: Switch 2 Was Shown At Gamescom Running Matrix Awakens UE5 Demo

sc94597 said:
zeldaring said:

its says sept 14 but maybe something is up with with the dates.

Yeah that is what prompted the discussion here, yesterday, September 14th. 

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9469862

what you think of this

It's sort of true, but also not really that relevant to the comparison. Partly because we're comparing between different foundries. TSMC's more mature nodes very likely have better yields than their newer nodes, but there's no particular guarantee that an older Samsung node has better yields than a newer TSMC node. TSMC's 5nm node family (which includes 4N) reportedly achieved very good yields at an early stage, and now has been used in shipping products for over 3 years, so is relatively mature in any case.

Secondly, yields are inversely proportional to die size, and if you are comparing yields of the same chip between the two processes, this is probably going to be the bigger factor. In this case, we're talking about the same chip either way. We know it's got 8 CPU cores, 12 Ampere SMs, and has assorted other coprocessors, interfaces, etc., and these things are going to take up the same number of transistors whether it's on TSMC 4N or Samsung 8N, so it would have to be a much bigger chip on 8N.

For the sake of argument, let's say it's a 10 billion transistor chip, just for a round number. On Samsung 8N, Nvidia was getting a transistor density of around 45.6 million transistors per mm², which would indicate a die size of 219.3mm². On TSMC 4N, Ada chips are coming in at about 121.1 mT/mm², which would give a die size of 82.6mm². The 4N version of the chip is obviously much smaller.

Now let's talk about yields. You may see articles claiming that a process has "70% yields" or "90% yields", which are irrelevant if you don't know the size of the die. A 70% yield on an 800mm² chip would be incredible, whereas a 90% yield on a 20mm² chip would be below-par. The actual measurement of yields* is defect density, which is a measure of how many defects you have per unit of die area. Typically this is measured in defects per cm². This Anandtech article from before TSMC 5nm chips hit the market indicated they were operating at a defect density of about 0.1 per cm², and showed yields had improved more quickly than their previous nodes.

There's a little maths involved to calculate the yield of a chip from a die size and defect density:

Yield = (1 - DefectRate)^DieSize

Where both the defect rate and die size are measured in the same units (in this case we want to convert them to cm²).

Let's assume for a second that both Samsung 8N and TSMC 4N have the same 0.1 per cm² defect rate. Using the die sizes above, and the formula for yield, we get a yield of 79% for 8N and 92% for 4N. That's the difference the die size makes. Even if Samsung had half the defect rate, at 0.05, it would still only manage 89% yields. Realistically, yields have almost certainly improved for TSMC's 5nm class of process in the 3 years since that article, so I wouldn't be surprised if we're at around 95% yields on 4N for T239.

* There's actually also a second, completely separate measurement of yields, called parametric yields. The parametric yields are considered low when chips, although functional, aren't able to hit the required clock speeds, or require too high a voltage to do so. This is quite a different problem, as much to do with chipmakers expectations as to do with the actual process, but clearly wouldn't be a problem for 4N, as it would produce chips capable of much higher clocks at much lower voltages than 8N could.


Around the Network

Its is goint to have less TF than PS4.
But it will feature AI for DLSS to inclrease resolution,raycores to ray DLSS tracing.
So, no match to ps4, even in slower TFlops.

But will look on par to ps5 and xbx visually (btw even the ps4 isnt that far away),



zeldaring said:
sc94597 said:

Yeah that is what prompted the discussion here, yesterday, September 14th. 

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9469862

what you think of this

It's sort of true, but also not really that relevant to the comparison. Partly because we're comparing between different foundries. TSMC's more mature nodes very likely have better yields than their newer nodes, but there's no particular guarantee that an older Samsung node has better yields than a newer TSMC node. TSMC's 5nm node family (which includes 4N) reportedly achieved very good yields at an early stage, and now has been used in shipping products for over 3 years, so is relatively mature in any case.

Secondly, yields are inversely proportional to die size, and if you are comparing yields of the same chip between the two processes, this is probably going to be the bigger factor. In this case, we're talking about the same chip either way. We know it's got 8 CPU cores, 12 Ampere SMs, and has assorted other coprocessors, interfaces, etc., and these things are going to take up the same number of transistors whether it's on TSMC 4N or Samsung 8N, so it would have to be a much bigger chip on 8N.

For the sake of argument, let's say it's a 10 billion transistor chip, just for a round number. On Samsung 8N, Nvidia was getting a transistor density of around 45.6 million transistors per mm², which would indicate a die size of 219.3mm². On TSMC 4N, Ada chips are coming in at about 121.1 mT/mm², which would give a die size of 82.6mm². The 4N version of the chip is obviously much smaller.

Now let's talk about yields. You may see articles claiming that a process has "70% yields" or "90% yields", which are irrelevant if you don't know the size of the die. A 70% yield on an 800mm² chip would be incredible, whereas a 90% yield on a 20mm² chip would be below-par. The actual measurement of yields* is defect density, which is a measure of how many defects you have per unit of die area. Typically this is measured in defects per cm². This Anandtech article from before TSMC 5nm chips hit the market indicated they were operating at a defect density of about 0.1 per cm², and showed yields had improved more quickly than their previous nodes.

There's a little maths involved to calculate the yield of a chip from a die size and defect density:

Yield = (1 - DefectRate)^DieSize

Where both the defect rate and die size are measured in the same units (in this case we want to convert them to cm²).

Let's assume for a second that both Samsung 8N and TSMC 4N have the same 0.1 per cm² defect rate. Using the die sizes above, and the formula for yield, we get a yield of 79% for 8N and 92% for 4N. That's the difference the die size makes. Even if Samsung had half the defect rate, at 0.05, it would still only manage 89% yields. Realistically, yields have almost certainly improved for TSMC's 5nm class of process in the 3 years since that article, so I wouldn't be surprised if we're at around 95% yields on 4N for T239.

* There's actually also a second, completely separate measurement of yields, called parametric yields. The parametric yields are considered low when chips, although functional, aren't able to hit the required clock speeds, or require too high a voltage to do so. This is quite a different problem, as much to do with chipmakers expectations as to do with the actual process, but clearly wouldn't be a problem for 4N, as it would produce chips capable of much higher clocks at much lower voltages than 8N could.

Thraktor said that.



So I bit the bullet and bought Cyberpunk 2077 on sale for PC just to try on my Nvidia 30 series laptop just to see how good Ultra Performance DLSS (the most extreme version of DLSS they have) is at the really low resolutions. I just wanted to get a sense of "is this playable, or it this a jaggy, shimmery mess"? I'm just focusing on if the image quality is good, no Youtube video compression or artifacts. 

At 2560x1440p DLSS (native res 853x480) ... honestly this is good enough for a large display. I was playing on a 15 inch 4K display and also a 27 inch monitor and it looked good on both displays ... I'll be honest, this to me would be good enough for a docked mode let alone undocked. Is it as good as native image quality? No, but I don't think average joe consumer really is going to care much. It doesn't scream out "holy shit this image it totally a 480p fugly ass image upscaled with all kinds of artifacting compromises!" the way I was sort of fearing. 

For shits n' giggles I tried the 1280x720 DLSS (native res is like 240p, so lower than some N64 games lol) ... I mean ... it's playable but it looks like one of the low-res Switch 1 games. That's where it starts to get noticable when you drop below 360p native. 

But from 360p it starts to really look pretty OK, and 480p is fine. My laptop is able to run Cyberpunk with ray tracing at the highest setting and all effects set to high and still gets about 45 fps, very playable on Ultra Performance DLSS @ 2560x1440 with both ray tracing lighting AND shadows. The PS5 can't do ray tracing lighting at all (only shadows). Pretty wild.

I'm impressed. Is it magic? No, but it is impressive from how low of a resolution this can go and produce a passable image quality. I'd honestly be completely ok with 360p undocked/480p docked (1080p/1440p upscaled) resolutions for "impossible ports" on Switch 2, it looks way better than the "impossible ports" on the current Switch. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 16 September 2023

Ok so there is a french developper who works for portage of Xbox and Switch's games who talked about all these : https://www.youtube.com/live/2JupUp-2M3k?si=48TNUarjnDrubwJD&t=3976

He was a bit harsh but basically he was saying not to believe in a "magic" technology. On the "transitions" kits for the new Switch, the power was that of an Xbox One. Beware of hype, it can be damaging in the end.

But he added that this remained his opinion. He repeated it several times.

On another topic they talk about how Apple could create a great hardware in this category if you are interested (and if you understand french).



Around the Network

We have gone from "ps5 visuals" to "passable." Lol, people are cute. Laugher aside I would like to think we can agree on a number of things:

1) DLSS will help mobile hardware produce better visuals than what was previously possible

2) average/casuals don't care about image quality

3) switch 2 isn't matching the ps5 in visuals and performance

4) DSLL artifacts become glaring on large screens (50+ inches)

(edit - meant in reference to 360p internal resolution being upscaled.  1080p internal to 4k on a big a TV looks great.  360p to 1080p may look fine on a small screen, but not big)

Last edited by Chrkeller - on 17 September 2023

i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Problems with reading comprehension idiocy returns I see.

For the sake of the rest of the thread and those posters who might actually be interested, I can easily just move my laptop to my 65 inch 4K TV in the living room and try out later what it looks like but it's not going to look much different from the 27-inch 4K external monitor I have in my office because I'm sitting from a desk position with the monitor only like 1.5 feet from where I'm sitting. 

It's not magically going to look vastly different on a 60 inch TV from the average seating position people place their couch at. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 16 September 2023

Soundwave said:

Problems with reading comprehension idiocy returns I see.

For the sake of the rest of the thread and those who might actually be interested, I can easily just move my laptop to my 60 inch 4K TV in the living room and try out later what it looks like but it's not going to look much different from the 27-inch 4K external monitor I have in my office because I sitting from a desk position with the monitor only like 1.5 feet from my face. 

Don't be so hard on yourself.  You are doing the best you can.  😀

I'm just happy you have caught up the rest of us and have conceded DLSS isn't the same as native.  It only took you weeks and over a dozen pages, but hey you got there.  I'm proud of you my friend.  

I have a gaming computer on a 55 inch LG C2 OLED and have tried DLSS.  So enjoy your experiment.  While I don't need your report, having first hand experience, others might enjoy hearing your thoughts.

Have a great evening.  👍 



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Oh good, reading comprehension idiocy has left, the rest of us can now actually discuss stuff until his alt shows up.

* This comment has been moderated.

Last edited by Bandorr - on 16 September 2023

Chrkeller said:

We have gone from "ps5 visuals" to "passable." Lol, people are cute. Laugher aside I would like to think we can agree on a number of things:

1) DLSS will help mobile hardware produce better visuals than what was previously possible

2) average/casuals don't care about image quality

3) switch 2 isn't matching the ps5 in visuals and performance

4) DSLL artifacts become glaring on large screens (50+ inches)

When it comes and its running at 30fps while home consoles at 60fps. we gonna hear the average joe doesn't care line.