It's just marketing at this point apparently. I guess maybe they're claiming that it's the lowest feature size or something, rather than just transistor size?
I'm curious where they're gonna go from here on the marketing side. Picometers? Angstroms?
Based on how tech has progressed since the Switch, how powerful could a Switch Pro in early 2021 actually be?
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
It's just marketing at this point apparently. I guess maybe they're claiming that it's the lowest feature size or something, rather than just transistor size?
I'm curious where they're gonna go from here on the marketing side. Picometers? Angstroms?
"Hey nintendo-chan let me introduce you 8LPU, we made it for high end mobile chips and actually no one ever used it, we made it just for you"
Exactly like 20nm :p
Except it's not half as bad as 20nm was.
8 nm is the new 20 nm. Cheap and Hot (but good enough for M1/A12Z GPU performances with active cooling).
Ok, thank you (and the others who answered). Well yeah, a transistor below 20nm is gonna have too much leaks (and hot carrier effects depending on the design) to be worth it, indeed. I'm gonna try to look what kind of design they use. It seems interesting and I like videogames, so the heat I could do would be to learn a bit more about that.
10nm wasn't bad like 20nm though. it was just short lived. TSMC had 7nm up and running really quickly and Samsung simply didn't have many orders aside from Samsung SoCs
Marketing/inertia. They did originally refer to the length of some feature, but that stopped being the case in...late 90's was it? Anyway, the ITRS/now IRDS still sticks with the scheme cause... why not, I suppose? It started with 10 micrometers, then went to single digit micrometers, then hundreds of nanometers, then tens of nanometers, now we're in 'single digit' nanometers, and I guess the scheme will next move on to 'hundreds of' picometers.
'8nm' specifically though is a partial step. The actual generations surrounding it are 10nm and 7nm. So 8LPP's partial step starting from 10nm. As for actual feature lengths, wikipedia has Samsung 10nm at 68nm transistor gate pitch, 51nm interconnect pitch, 42nm transistor fin pitch, and 49nm transistor fin height.
'5nm' is supposed to be the generation after 7nm. Although I think that while TSMC is taking a full (short-ish) step here, Samsung's going for... more partial steps from 7nm? And 3nm is when Samsung makes their next full step attempt.
'8nm' specifically though is a partial step. The actual generations surrounding it are 10nm and 7nm. So 8LPP's partial step starting from 10nm. As for actual feature lengths, wikipedia has Samsung 10nm at 68nm transistor gate pitch, 51nm interconnect pitch, 42nm transistor fin pitch, and 49nm transistor fin height.
'5nm' is supposed to be the generation after 7nm. Although I think that while TSMC is taking a full (short-ish) step here, Samsung's going for... more partial steps from 7nm? And 3nm is when Samsung makes their next full step attempt.
WiiU was also the partial step between the Wii and Switch.
Correct.
But in all seriousness, if the next Nintendo Switch revision releasing next year is getting a customised SoC with an Ampere based GPU and is fabricated using Samsung 8LPP or Samsung 8LPU, I can see Nintendo releasing a revision in 2023 with the same SoC die shrunk to Samsung 5LPP.
I can see Nintendo releasing Tegra Orin S+ in 2023 on 'Further enhancement' 7.8LPU or 7.5LPU.Correct.
But in all seriousness, if the next Nintendo Switch revision releasing next year is getting a customised SoC with an Ampere based GPU and is fabricated using Samsung 8LPP or Samsung 8LPU, I can see Nintendo releasing a revision in 2023 with the same SoC die shrunk to Samsung 5LPP.
It could even release with a KH compilation.
Samsung is 10-7-3 with each of these being a huge technology change (DUV-EUV-GAA). Their 8nm is a part of 10nm "family", their 5nm is a part of 7nm "family".
Samsung's 5nm is similar to what TSMC is doing between N7P and N5, with the only difference being the lack of non-EUV processes in their 7nm "family" (TSMC have N7).
Whilst I presume Xiaomi's diagram for the Snapdragon 888's CPU cores is not drawn to scale, I think it gives a rough idea of how large the Cortex-X1 is compared to the Cortex-A78 and the Cortex-A55.
So setting aside that you think I'm a grifter, even though I have no public platform and make no money from the public.
I believe the headset is powered by Tegra, if you look at the headset, it has a security/power cord in the back, but the device itself is vented, and very small, it also weighs less (ideally) than would hurt your neck over the course of 5 minutes (the length of the ride) since it seems the tech is housed in the headset, there isn't many options with AI technology than Tegra, and using that software environment makes perfect sense for those functions and because it would seemlessly allow them to build the ride with familiar tools. Of course I could be wrong, it's clearly a ryzen 5950X with rtx 3090 machine.
As for having insider sources, I try to rely on just speculation for my tech discussion, I have shared everything I have heard from real sources that resetera as a community and a site see as insiders. Whenever I'm outside of those sources, which is extremely rare, I make it clear.
Sorry you're losing your mind because I believe this year's model could be as powerful as 2.3x the current Switch, but I guess my expectations are insane.
Please don't mock and insult me in Nintendo Era discords, I'm right here and you can simply mock me to my face. We will know soon, but my speculation is working with the same information as everyone else.
I'm not familiar with De Broglie's wavelength or hot carrier effects, and had to look them up. TIL. Thanks. 👍
Black turtlenecks and blue jeans... real original
So, the switch pro can be weaker than a Xbox one or even a Adreno 650?
It could be, however the 2.3x includes mixed precision, which ampere doesn't do. With mixed precision, Switch is ~60% of the xb1, times 2.3 and you get ~140% of the xb1, right in between XB1 and PS4.
Whatever they choose, we know it can't really be in the 16nm family i
I wonder how long before something like this is even possible in a handheld form... 25 years? 35 years?
CPU wise could probably be matched, maybe a very efficient GPU could reach that sort of performance on an advanced 1nm process, but just guess work, there is a limit to what can be done in 15W, though maybe a cooling solution for 30W and better battery tech will allow it in 10 years.
I think ultimately AR Glasses will take over though, social interaction is key to disruptive products, and having social ecosystems inside of AR Glasses, is going to quickly start to make people feel left out, which is why I think it will succeed smart phones.
It won't take too long to see if this has a path to success, I'd say by 2023 we will start to see popular AR devices and by 2025 something very much like the first wave of smart phones might happen, from there, 2 or 3 years until they become a standard, that leaves room for Nintendo to introduce their own AR glasses sometime in 2025-2027, up to 10 years after the Switch launched.
It's obviously something I'm just speculating about, but it could definitely be embraced like smart phones were.
I don't really think AR glasses are some step that would make sense as a full Switch replacement... more likely another pillar technology useful for specific experiences. Unlike VR, AR doesn't really immerse you as it is simply overlaying "holograms" on top of the existing world - it doesn't fully replace it. It's not even a window into another world like a TV screen. It would be great for Mario Party, is awesome for board games or tabletop games, but would be worse than the traditional handheld display form factor for the next Zelda or Mario.
I have zero interest in AR. VR however is the next frontier and something I would really like to see Nintendo doing.
I was an early adopter in VR (original Rift kickstarter, then Vive then Index). I wouldn't say it's a replacement to pancake gaming either, but it definitely goes in a very different direction compared to AR. VR is amazing for immersive experiences, hand interactions and first person gaming in general, but pancake games are still good for sitting back and relaxing or in person group games. Plus with its extreme framerate and performance costs I'm not sure that Nintendo is the most suited company for putting it out in a mass market device.
As far as non-PC based VR, I am more interested in seeing where Sony goes given the PS5 specs should provide a very impressive baseline performance for VR games (hopefully they can come out with decent controllers and tracking this time).
Maybe that is the future "switch", a mobile mode with lower power giving you an AR experience, and a stationary mode giving you a VR experience... There is a lot of technology that still is just now coming together, but there is no reason AR and VR has to be considered separately.
AR and VR are generally the same type of technology, it is all spatial computing. I think you are right that current experiences are not best, but I am not talking about a device made today, I'm talking about a device made almost a decade from now.
Sony showed off some AR technology in February this year, using depth sensors to avoid "pancake gaming", AR via glasses that have these type of sensors and further development into these technologies, should allow for a very interesting experience that isn't quite like what we see now.
Also, isn't Hololens AR and VR in a single device. Considering Nintendo is the company with the most popular AR game, their R&D into the technology and their overall willingness to try something new, they might be in the best position to introduce a $400 platform that focuses on AR/VR tech, as for traditional gaming, VR offers the ability to also just throw a big TV in your face virtually, so it's not like they would have to abandon traditional gaming to do this.
Hololens is basically just AR, it's far from immersive at that as the FOV is extremely narrow and it's more suited for business purposes. I think something like the Tilt 5 is cooler from a gaming perspective as far as AR possibilities go. As far as throwing a TV up in VR that is a terrible use of the technology (as someone who owns an Index I'm pretty familiar with its strengths). You are losing the sharpness and comfort of a traditional display and not really gaining any of the interaction or immersion of proper VR gaming.
And yeah it is possible that Nintendo could go headfirst into VR or AR in a consumer device, but I don't think it would replace the Switch due to what I mentioned above. AR is its own niche and VR conflicts too much with the Switch's use cases to fully replace it, it would be better as an additional, separate platform with maybe some specific games overlapping where applicable.
Thank you for the run down, it's a really good post and I think I am starting to see the issues myself. I think there is still a lot of work to do with the technology, and maybe it does make more sense as part of the overall nx platform, which is what I believe the nx-abcd "Aula" device to be.
This is getting off topic as I don't think it would be a Switch replacement, but I could see Nintendo doing one-off "Premium" family packages for AR gaming. Using Nintendo's scale and manufacturing/design they could put out like a 4 player "Mario Party" kit for €200-250 or something, with a physical game board that facilitates the AR and 4 sets of AR glasses. Take a look at what the Tilt 5 AR kit is doing and apply that to some of Nintendo's casual party IPs and I could see that being interesting. Fire Emblem would also be awesome but as a single player game I don't know that it would be worth the money as a one-off, but maybe a competitive Advance Wars spin on it would be? The key to making expensive one-off board games viable is making it a party/event type thing.
I see. What a really want to know is what is more realistic to expect:
1 - A Machine that can do 720p Ps4 pro/X1X games with a upscale to 4K via DLSS
2 - A Machine that can run upgrade switch games (like better frame rate) plus upscale to 4K via DLSS
3 - Basically switch with 4K via DLSS, not to expect anything more than that.
I mean the current Switch can already basically do some PS4/XB1 games at 720p, it certainly should be possible to get more of them up to there with even a very modest boost. And if DLSS is actually included I don't see why both 1 and 2 shouldn't be possible.
Yeah I don't expect Nintendo to massively invest in VR either; they have a good thing going on with the switch, no real competitor in that segment either. Smart business would be doubling down on the concept in my opinion.
But I really like VR, so I may eventually cave in and buy one if these fancy headsets.
AR games outside of Nintendo's 3DS AR stuff, don't use depth, virtual objects are just pasted on top of the real world. Like in Pokemon Go, the Pokemon are not in the world, they are layered on top of it.
I've been so frustrated at this thing. I still think VR+Nintendo is the love story that never happened and should have. I think VR represents everything Nintendo tried to do for years, it's perfect for them. Yet the tech was not ready, and now that it kinda is (but not really) they're late and they can't have their own innovative product so they snub it.
I mean the fact that the Oculus Quest 2 has literally the next gen ideal version of the Wii control (when you think Nintendo tried to keep that train on rail for 10 years) for 300$ + a powerful enough device and a vr screen.. This should have been a Nintendo product lol. Also Nintendo would have zero problem becoming first on the vr market i think, just by having some huge ips for it. It's like everything is perfect for them but they won't do it. (Would need to be a secondary device though.. and that means new problems of ressources to dev games)
I don't think they are late. Switch form factor is perfect for a VR device without lots of wires and forcing people to buy a standalone headseat.
If you think about it in those terms, the tech still isn't ready.
It's why VR is about to hit it big has been the battle cry for the entirity of the last 4 years or so, and it's still niche with VR chat being the most ubiquitous mass market application so far.
That said, whatever Nintendo do in the space will be additive VR. The device itself would play normal console games which is where most users will be. VR will always be a fractional userbase.
Last edited:
Like you say "some games". And even so, these games are not the same. Doom, like most of these games, runs at half the frame, witcher 3 has a lot of visuals drawbacks to be able to run on switch, and many games, like Assassin's Creed Valhalla, even can recieve a port on current switch.
That is why I want to know if a pro will open the gates for more games to be ported, or will at least give better versions of the current games, or will be the same but in 4K.
They are the same games, perhaps you mean they require a lot more work to fit into the Switch. But I would be hard pressed to say they arejnt the same games. They absolutely are. Witcher 3 even lets you carry your PC save file over. and vice versa.
AR glasses have been "dumb" devices, but they are starting to get the sensors required for the change to AI driven devices, and the processing technology is getting there too. A future Tegra device could easily power AI driven understanding of the world around the device, allowing much more immersive experiences with the technology.
I think a full Pokemon Go sequel with real time AR battles could be amazing and drive a lot of sales for a device like this, plenty of AR things to follow up with as well, and while I do think NX as a platform could house such a device, Switch itself would need to add cameras.
PDA devices were pretty niche for literally 20+ years, then they took over the world in just 2 or 3 years. AR technology is the same kind of disruption waiting to happen. I think the time frame is the end of the decade for sure, but it will certainly start to show signs that AR glasses technology will become very popular.
All we can do is speculate about it. Nintendo has certainly allowed exclusives on mid gen refresh hardware in the past, and third parties will be more inclined to bring their games to the Switch if there is a model of the Switch that runs the game well... We are seeing this with cyberpunk though, sometimes it won't be worth it.
I mean they're still the same games. My point is asking for 720p versions of PS4/XB1 gen games is a pretty low bar for any sort of upgraded revision, considering some of those games get there already.
Whether or not more are ported to just the pro is a different story, I don't expect many pro exclusives early on.
Yeah I'm more positive on AR than VR. You quoted me talking about VR. :) (the 2nd quote)
Ah, yes. I think the technology is tied together and that AR and VR devices will start to become the same thing, the only real difference from a physical perspective, is VR blocks out the world around you, AR glasses might be able to do this with some sort of shutter in the future... It's an interesting time to watch the technology IMO, it's about to show signs of growth.
Completely agreed. Nintendo's ideas for VR from the Labo experiment were very sound: use the tablet as the VR device and the joycons as trackers and have a separate team adding VR modes to existing titles people already own. You don't have to buy anything except for something to hold the tablet in place: you'd already own the required hardware and software.
Of course the Labo experiment was quite short-lived due to the launch Switch's technical constraints, but seeing VR as a Switch mode along with handheld, tabletop and docked modes makes a lot of sense from a conceptual level. It would make sense for Nintendo to continue further on this path with a revision or successor.
The same in content. But I'm talking about visuals and sacrifices.
Pretty low bar ? Remember that the Game Boy Color can't run NES games whith all their colors. That DSi still can run all effects of Mario 64 and new 3DS can't run Xenoblade at the same quality than Wii. Nintendo updates are often very weak. That's why 720p versions of PS4/XB1 is not a low bar, but the max I can expect from them.
Cyberpunk is the game I think when I hope for a 720p X1X machine. If pro can do what X1X do at 720p, maybe it can hold well until a true next gen switch release.
I think the perfect moment for Nintendo to enter the VR market is the 2013~2015 system, as the tech is there and they can market it as a new generation (regardless of traditional vs iterative gens).
Release a handheld hybrid AND a VR headset which can be docked too. Market it as a console first and foremost, so consumers will feel safer about the library, local multiplayer and in case they don't like VR. It also gives them the flexibility to only design games for VR once in a while (when it makes sense, rather than shoehorn it like motion controls).
Nintendo can trounce any competition through either library or price right now. But if they wait too long, cloud gaming headsets might eat a good chunk of the market. And Nintendo clearly loves their blue oceans...
Release a handheld hybrid AND a VR headset which can be docked too. Market it as a console first and foremost, so consumers will feel safer about the library, local multiplayer and in case they don't like VR. It also gives them the flexibility to only design games for VR once in a while (when it makes sense, rather than shoehorn it like motion controls).
Nintendo can trounce any competition through either library or price right now. But if they wait too long, cloud gaming headsets might eat a good chunk of the market. And Nintendo clearly loves their blue oceans...
Yes there are cutbacks just as the console Witcher games cut back from the PC version. They are still the same games.
I think your point being youd like to see the games with less visual sacrifices is a goal most of us can get behind but this isn't a situation where the Switch version is a different game.
Your idea of different is kind of too speficifc and seems to only had arbitrary cutoffs on Switch ports.
... but like I said the base Switch can already do that for some games. Probably most games. You're basically asking for like a 20-30% increase to get all games to their maximum dynamic resolution.
For reference the new 3DS had a 600% increase in CPU and ~50% for GPU. So even the supposedly weak new 3DS upgrade would be much more than enough for what you're asking for.
- Status