Nintendo using a 4 year old TSMC process for their next console would be about as surprising as Leonardo DiCaprio's next girlfriend being in her 20s.

Kopite even admits a few months ago he got the node process for Tegra 50 series wrong, he said 3nm wasn't happening when other sources were saying 3nm, and then posted weeks later "I was wrong". He has some sources at Nvidia, but it's clear he doesn't have a full picture and gets a lot of things wrong as a result. He made 5 or 6 statements on the Switch 2 and 5/6 were shown to wrong over time, he got the name T239 correct and everything else wrong. 

If it was 8nm it would be a 6SM chip, paying for double the CUDA cores just to get almost no performance uplift and have worse yields (more manufacturing expense) makes zero sense.

If it is a T239, I am almost certain it is going to be something other than 8nm. 

For the very good reasons presented by those with the computer engineering knowledge. 

It comes down to this: why would Nintendo and Nvidia go with 12SM if 6SM or 4SM would be cheaper and provide better performance? 

But we know the T239 is 12SM from the leak. 

So either the Switch 2 will consume a lot more power than we think, or they are using a different node. 

I'd give it an 80% chance it is the latter and a 20% chance it is the prior.

The fact that you are 99% certain about something you have very little domain knowledge of should give you pause. 

Doesn't the scaled down Orin NX 16GB (only 1024 CUDA cores) still consume 10w-25w? I assume 10 watts is the chip downclocked significantly?

Keep in mind the Tegra T239 is showing 1536 CUDA cores, so that's a 50% increase in graphics cores ... unless those extra CUDA cores are running on Pikmin farts, they must be consuming some energy too even if you down clock. 

I mean I wouldn't even mind, but is this even possible at 8nm in something smaller than a ROG Ally or Steam Deck? 

Not really just not common sense. I been hearing people like you with domain knowledge be dead wrong about Nintendo hardware for generations. always over hyping the hardware by magnitudes and ignoring common sense. i can almost guarantee you were one of those that kept hyping fp16 saying ti would match xbox one and ignoring that it was a moile device that had to be down clocked. what about when wii u  had inferior ports well common sense would tell you if the GPU was 2x more powerful then 360 on newer architecture it would run games better nope they kept on arguing   till a developer leaked the specs.

The 8nm Nintendo Deck ladies and gents. 90 whole minutes of battery life when clocked like a Wii U! 

Also as an aside that ransomware attack on Nvidia was crazier than I thought. It basically exposed their entire product pipeline for like the next half decade. T239 is the only chip that has the NVN2 graphics API (Switch 2 API) so basically that has to be the chip. 

Seeing as how the Steam Deck litteraly chunks over the WiiU Gamepad ... Tells me how much portability the Deck has in practice. Which is almost none.

Why you can barely notice it in a pocket. 

The funny thing is the Switch 2 chip at 8nm that's being talked about would be a way bigger chip than then Steam Deck. The Steam Deck APU is a 162mm2, which is big, but the Switch 2 would be around 220mm2, lol. And likely it would have to be smaller than the Steam Deck just to be the same size as the Steam Deck ... what I mean by that is as we know the left and right sides of a Switch are not the actual hardware itself, they are removable joycons, so all the actual system hardware has to fit inside the behind the screen portion only.

So we're talking about a chip way bigger than the Steam Deck chip, with way less room inside to dissipate heat and presumably it's going to be some how thinner too? And *then* you can add the right and left Joycons ... so how big is this thing going to be exactly? Good luck with the engineering on this thing. 

"Common sense" does not supersede domain knowledge on this topic. You're delusional if you think so. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. You've shown this again and again in this thread (and on Neogaf.)  So there isn't much more to say. 

The person I sourced on 12SM vs. 6SM vs. 4SM was called a detractor by Nintendo fans when he was suggesting that 12SM was a stretch on 8nm and they should contain their hype. That's the opposite of "over-hyping." He remained consistent that 12SM and 8nm don't make sense at Switch power levels regardless of whether or not that means better performance or worse. 

But of course you never even knew what 12SM or 8nm meant until this discussion started. It doesn't even seem the case that you know what they mean now. Your whole post history on this topic was to accept whatever confirmed your bias. 

And no, I wasn't talking about Switch hardware in 2015/2016, because at the time I didn't have the technical knowledge I have now, and I was modest enough to consider the fact that I just didn't know something enough to comment on it, let alone suggest I was 99% certain about it. 

My thought, for that 20% likely prediction, was that Nintendo allows the system to run at 30W docked (which could make 12SM reasonable if they prioritize docked performance over handheld.) But of course it's Nintendo, they are obsessed about power-savings, so that is very much unlikely. 

30W should be possible with external cooling. Albeit the cooling would be expensive.

If Switch 2 is as big as a Steam Deck then Jnco jeans are primed for a comeback. A former friend was able to steal an SNES and N64 in his.