FCC entries for Switch "revision" and Lite models updated with internal photos

Daneel_O · Aug 2, 2019

Just found out, short confidentiality period for the Switch "revision" and the Lite model (which was previously not even listed as it was entirely confidential) dropped on 30/07.

The interesting part is that interna photos are now available for both models, so we can start comparing/understanding what changed from the OG model.

Here you are:

Updated OG Switch

Switch Lite

Executive Taxi · Aug 2, 2019

At a glance, the joysticks in the Lite seems fairly easy to replace without disturbing the other components of the device

inspectah · Aug 2, 2019

Did the OG Switch have 2 antennas?

boris_feinbrand · Aug 2, 2019

inspectah said:
Did the OG Switch have 2 antennas?

I don't think it did.

ShadowFox08 · Aug 2, 2019

Interesting...

Executive Taxi · Aug 2, 2019

inspectah said:
Did the OG Switch have 2 antennas?

boris_feinbrand said:
I don't think it did.

It does. See here

Daneel_O · Aug 2, 2019

inspectah said:
Did the OG Switch have 2 antennas?

Yes, in the same positions

boris_feinbrand · Aug 2, 2019

Executive Taxi said:
It does. See here

Ah thanks. Going off memory isn't as reliable as it used to

LuigiV · Aug 2, 2019

The updated switch looks pretty much identical to the original. Guess all they did was swap out the various ICs.

Edit: Actually, looking at photos of the old one, the screen is different too. The new screen has a much thinner bezel.

Advc · Aug 2, 2019

It still blows my mind the Switch Lite will be able to run The Witcher 3. Awesome techy stuff.

Gurgelhals · Aug 2, 2019

I could be wrong here, but the NAND chip on those images appears to be a 64Gbyte chip (its product key reads THGBMHG9C4LBAIR), which would be twice of what is in the original Switch. This would be weird, of course, because Nintendo didn't say anything about more storage, so maybe that thing is a dev unit or they used a 64Gbyte chip in the testing unit for whatever reason...

The writing on the RAM chips is even harder to decipher, but they seem to be Samsung LPDDR4x modules indeed.

Edit: Again, I might be seeing wrong here, but these appear to be 4Gbyte modules (comparing with Samsung's product keys, I'm reading K4U6E3S4AM-MGCJ and these would be 4Gbyte modules, i.e. a total of 8 Gbytes of RAM). Might just be a pre-production unit though.

Daneel_O · Aug 2, 2019

LuigiV said:
The updated switch looks pretty much identical to the original. Guess all they did was swap out the various ICs.

Edit: Actually, looking at photos of the old one, the screen is different too. The new screen has a much thinner bezel.

Keep in mind that the old photos are from pre-production units, things might have changed in retail units. And we already know that Switch changed panels after launch.

It's a pity they didn't provide unshielded pictures for the revision to see if ram modules were changed.

But we should be able to check if the Lite ones are really Lpddr4x

Deleted member 49166 · Aug 2, 2019

inspectah said:
Did the OG Switch have 2 antennas?

One for Bluetooth and one for WiFi ;)

Unicorn · Aug 2, 2019

Intoxicate said:
One for Bluetooth and one for WiFi ;)

But not my Bluetooth headset or ps4 controller 😭

NateDrake · Aug 2, 2019

Gurgelhals said:
I could be wrong here, but the NAND chip on those images appears to be a 64Gbyte chip (its product key reads THGBMHG9C4LBAIR), which would be twice of what is in the original Switch. This would be weird, of course, because Nintendo didn't say anything about more storage, so maybe that thing is a dev unit or they used a 64Gbyte chip in the testing unit for whatever reason...

The writing on the RAM chips is even harder to decipher, but they seem to be Samsung LPDDR4x modules indeed.

Yup. The RAM is LPDDR4.

JershJopstin · Aug 2, 2019

Gurgelhals said:
This would be weird, of course, because Nintendo didn't say anything about more storage,

Not in a press release, but the FCC filing actually indicated some change to the storage. I also recall the people who poked through the firmware data bringing up that the new model supported both 32 and 64 GB, though they couldn't tell which size would be for retail (if not both).

Gurgelhals · Aug 2, 2019

JershJopstin said:
Not in a press release, but the FCC filing actually indicated some change to the storage. I also recall the people who poked through the firmware data bringing up that the new model supported both 32 and 64 GB, though they couldn't tell which size would be for retail (if not both).

Well, can't be too long until we get a teardown of an actual retail unit.

Maybe they're saving the 64Gbyte upgrade for later or maybe the additional storage is in there but not available (or not available for now). Both would kind of suck, but Nintendo always does weird / frustrating shit with their hardware. Same for the RAM for that matter...

Daneel_O · Aug 2, 2019

JershJopstin said:
Not in a press release, but the FCC filing actually indicated some change to the storage. I also recall the people who poked through the firmware data bringing up that the new model supported both 32 and 64 GB, though they couldn't tell which size would be for retail (if not both).

To be fair, the FCC filing mentioned a change in NAND 'type'. I guess it can qualify for a size change as well, but it's really weird they are not mentioning it if that's the case.

ShadowFox08 · Aug 2, 2019

NateDrake said:
Yup. The RAM is LPDDR4.

Not LPDDR4X?

Enkidu · Aug 2, 2019

Intoxicate said:
One for Bluetooth and one for WiFi ;)

Bluetooth and WiFi share the same antenna. The second antenna is for WiFi MIMO.

Gurgelhals · Aug 2, 2019

ShadowFox08 said:
Not LPDDR4X?

It's LPDDR4x. The label reads K4U6..., which is a product key for Samsung LPDDR4x modules. Regular LPDDR4 modules begin with K4F. Contrary to my post above, it's still 4 Gbytes of RAM though, as these seem to be two 16 Gbit modules (i.e. 2x2 Gbytes), which is indicated by the number 6 in the product key. If these were 32 Gbit modules, the product key would begin with K4UB instead. Even though the label is really hard to read, it's pretty clear that the third letter is a 'U' (and clearly not an 'F') and the following number is a '6' (and definitively not a 'B').

Jraphics Horse · Aug 2, 2019

What would those plastic molds in the bottom corners of the Switch Lite be? Maybe it does have standard rumble? Or it was just something in the prototype?

AllEchse · Aug 2, 2019

Executive Taxi said:
At a glance, the joysticks in the Lite seems fairly easy to replace without disturbing the other components of the device

The Stick in the 3DS is fairly easy to replace too, so I was never scared of this being complicated.

Jraphics Horse · Aug 2, 2019

AllEchse said:
The Stick in the 3DS is fairly easy to replace too, so I was never scared of this being complicated.

I'm surprised they are sitting on top of the circuit boards here, unlike the 3ds and the joycons where there's a hole cut out for the sticks.

Deleted member 49166 · Aug 2, 2019

Jraphics Horse said:
I'm surprised they are sitting on top of the circuit boards here, unlike the 3ds and the joycons where there's a hole cut out for the sticks.

You have more space in the Switch lite since there is no battery behind the sticks (like in the joy cons). So you can use the space for the circuit board.

Elfotografoalocado · Aug 2, 2019

Maybe it's suggestion, but I get the impression the SoC in the Switch Lite is physically smaller than in the original Switch. IIRC, in the original Switch it's 121mm^2, and it has about the same side as the narrow side of the DRAM chips:

Meanwhile, in the images from the Switch Lite in that FCC filing the SoC is clearly smaller than the short side of the DRAM chips, and takes a smaller portion in the centre of its pin board, all while the dimensions of the pin board itself, the DRAM chips and the interface seems to be identical.

No Depth · Aug 2, 2019

What is the orange port for???!!

Daneel_O · Aug 2, 2019

Elfotografoalocado said:
Maybe it's suggestion, but I get the impression the SoC in the Switch Lite is physically smaller than in the original Switch. IIRC, in the original Switch it's 121mm^2, and it has about the same side as the narrow side of the DRAM chips:

Meanwhile, in the images from the Switch Lite in that FCC filing the SoC is clearly smaller than the short side of the DRAM chips, and takes a smaller portion in the centre of its pin board, all while the dimensions of the pin board itself, the DRAM chips and the interface seems to be identical.

I'd be surprised if that was not the case, we already assumed the new models used new Tegras at 16nm which would account for a visible reduction in size.
The Lite SoC clearly has a smaller footprint, about 40-50%?

On another topic, I remember the OG switch having a dedicate chip for the video output but I cannot seem to find where it was located. It would be interesting to look if the Lite is indeed missing hardware capability to dock.

Elfotografoalocado · Aug 2, 2019

Daneel_O said:
I'd be surprised if that was not the case, we already assumed the new models used new Tegras at 16nm which would account for a visible reduction in size.
The Lite SoC clearly has a smaller footprint, about 40-50%?

On another topic, I remember the OG switch having a dedicate chip for the video output but I cannot seem to find where it was located. It would be interesting to look if the Lite is indeed missing hardware capability to dock.

20, 16 and 12nm have the same footprint, the TSMC and Samsubg/GloFo 16/14nm finfet processes use all the BEOL technology of 20nm with an updated finfet FEOL, and they have the same density. A 20nm and 16nm version of the same chip would look identical and have the same size.

Gurgelhals · Aug 2, 2019

Daneel_O said:
On another topic, I remember the OG switch having a dedicate chip for the video output but I cannot seem to find where it was located. It would be interesting to look if the Lite is indeed missing hardware capability to dock.

Afaik, it's the small rectangular chip on the back side of the PCB right above the USB C connector. Doesn't look like the Lite has anything like it.

Daneel_O · Aug 2, 2019

Elfotografoalocado said:
20, 16 and 12nm have the same footprint, the TSMC and Samsubg/GloFo 16/14nm finfet processes use all the BEOL technology of 20nm with an updated finfet FEOL, and they have the same density. A 20nm and 16nm version of the same chip would look identical and have the same size.

Really?? But the Lite footprint is clearly smaller, or am I imagining things?

Spinluck · Aug 2, 2019

FFS OP.

A NSFW warning would've been nice!

Jraphics Horse · Aug 2, 2019

Intoxicate said:
You have more space in the Switch lite since there is no battery behind the sticks (like in the joy cons). So you can use the space for the circuit board.

Yeah I think I was just expecting the board to be nearer the front of the system, with the back needing room for the fan etc.

Elfotografoalocado · Aug 2, 2019

Daneel_O said:
Really?? But the Lite footprint is clearly smaller, or am I imagining things?

Yeah, it looks like it's a smaller chip. If that's the case, then maybe it's not in 16nm.

Deleted member 9135 · Aug 2, 2019

So is there any way to conclude that the lite does not include a video output chip?

Executive Taxi · Aug 2, 2019

Somewhatgroovy said:
So is there any way to conclude that the lite does not include a video output chip?

Video output is handled by the SoC. There is nothing to suggest a hardware limitation to prevent docking other than a physical size difference of the device

Elfotografoalocado · Aug 2, 2019

Executive Taxi said:
Video output is handled by the SoC. There is nothing to suggest a hardware limitation to prevent docking other than a physical size difference of the device

The OG Switch has a crossbar that has to handle the switching between the internal display, and a display port signal to the USB-C port. Lacking that, the Switch Lite cannot output video to the dock.

Daneel_O · Aug 2, 2019

Elfotografoalocado said:
Yeah, it looks like it's a smaller chip. If that's the case, then maybe it's not in 16nm.

Or they reduced (halved?) the number of cores and clocked them higher since the Lite has only to reach undocked level of performances? It sounds really cumbersome and unlikely although in the long run might be worth it in terms of cost.

ILikeFeet · Aug 2, 2019

Daneel_O said:
Or they reduced (halved?) the number of cores and clocked them higher since the Lite has only to reach undocked level of performances? It sounds really cumbersome and unlikely although in the long run might be worth it in terms of cost.

Making two chips when you can just make one is quite needless. Especially when the OS does the work already

dgrdsv · Aug 2, 2019

Elfotografoalocado said:
but I get the impression the SoC in the Switch Lite is physically smaller than in the original Switch

Even if it is smaller it's 100% not a 10 or 7nm chip since that would be considerably visually smaller. So it's pretty much confirmed to use 16FFx or 12FFN.

Skittzo · Aug 2, 2019

Elfotografoalocado said:
Yeah, it looks like it's a smaller chip. If that's the case, then maybe it's not in 16nm.

Or maybe it is 16nm/12nm and it's not just a simple die shrink but a new chip all together.

dgrdsv · Aug 2, 2019

Elfotografoalocado said:
20, 16 and 12nm have the same footprint

Not really, there are several versions of TSMC's 16nm (12FFN being one of them) and they can be pretty different in transistor densities depending on your design needs.

ILikeFeet · Aug 2, 2019

skittzo0413 said:
Or maybe it is 16nm/12nm and it's not just a simple die shrink but a new chip all together.

If it was, it would have a new name, but it's still the T210

Skittzo · Aug 2, 2019

ILikeFeet said:
If it was, it would have a new name, but it's still the T210

Right, good point.

Elfotografoalocado · Aug 2, 2019

dgrdsv said:
Not really, there are several versions of TSMC's 16nm (12FFN being one of them) and they can be pretty different in transistor densities depending on your design needs.

I think if you were to make a die shrink of an arbitrary 20nm chip to 16/12nm you would share many common design elements (Like the BEOL) and end up with the same size.
Look at Ryzen 2000 series vs Ryzen 1000 series, it's 12 vs 14 nm but the size and density are the same.

Skittzo · Aug 2, 2019

Interestingly enough, the second to last picture of the Lite shows the "Nintendo Switch" and logo printed backwards, just like in that blue shell leak from April (as if that needed further confirmation).

dgrdsv · Aug 2, 2019

Elfotografoalocado said:
I think if you were to make a die shrink of an arbitrary 20nm chip to 16/12nm you would share many common design elements (Like the BEOL) and end up with the same size.
Look at Ryzen 2000 series vs Ryzen 1000 series, it's 12 vs 14 nm but the size and density are the same.

Impossible to tell without knowing the specifics of choices made with X1/T210 and now, with T214.
It may be that they can pack transistors closer on 16nm FinFET process now since they are aiming at essentially the same performance as on 20 and their main target for this port is reducing power.

Elfotografoalocado · Aug 2, 2019

dgrdsv said:
Impossible to tell without knowing the specifics of choices made with X1/T210 and now, with T214.
It may be that they can pack transistors closer on 16nm FinFET process now since they are aiming at essentially the same performance as on 20 and their main target for this port is reducing power.

I guess we'll find out soon enough...

Bomblord · Aug 2, 2019

Still has a fan, that's honestly surprising to me. Maybe they intend to overclock it after all.

Skittzo · Aug 2, 2019

Bomblord said:
Still has a fan, that's honestly surprising to me. Maybe they intend to overclock it after all.

I don't think the fan is solely dependent on the heat output of the SoC. There's also a battery that's being charged and discharged constantly, and that generates a ton of heat.

FCC entries for Switch "revision" and Lite models updated with internal photos

One Winged Slayer

Attempted to circumvent ban with an alt-account

One Winged Slayer

Attempted to circumvent ban with an alt-account

▲ Legend ▲

DF Deet Master

DF Deet Master

Self-requested ban