ethomaz
Banned
There is only one Tegra X1 chip and it is made in 20nm.
Said that there is no real advantage with the X2 16nm.
Last edited:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nikkei: Less expensive portable Switch model due out this fall / Next-generation device after.
- Thread starter IbizaPocholo
- Start date
Said that there is no real advantage with the X2 16nm.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Wow crazy! I'm assuming Nvidia doesn't have any real reason to research and fab this down to 14nm or less? What's the deal with the chips being fabbed on such a big size?
SonGoku
Member
Why is that? Denver cores are the BIG cores
Yes but the switch is underclocked way below stock, even PLAIN X1 at stock speeds would be a massive improvement
Pascal being more efficient on top of 16nm should provide a nice boost in clock speeds (compared to the switch).
Unfortunately not a typo.
On the brightside that means theres plenty of room for improvement.
Its very costly to skrink chips, you have to redesign the chip to fit the new process, might as well ask for a custom design.
Its more efficient to design a new chip/arch for the new process, hence X2.
X2 is the direct replacement of X1, nintendo must have got a terrific deal on those unused, overstocked X1 chips.
They are "old" chips
Nvidia pretty much abandoned the mobile soc market after X2.
Xavier is not aimed at mobile soc market and doesnt even carry the tegra moniker.
Last edited:
Chozofication_
Banned
Well, Shit.
Guess ill wait for the switch mini then.
Guess ill wait for the switch mini then.
ethomaz
Banned
Die shrink cost money... it is not easy and most times need redesign... why should nVidia want to do that in a chip that already works fine?
Instead of a dieshrink they create the Tegra X2 Pascal in 16nm... I'm sure they will do a Tegra 7nm when the process get better.
Plus nVidia focus on mobile ship is becoming lower and lower due the low profitability... of course they get a good deal to sell the old Tegra X1 in their warehouses to Nintendo.
X2 production will never reach the X1 production I guess... nVidia never expected to sell that much with X2 like they did believe they will sell X1.
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Okay, that's the answer! Makes sense now that I know they abandoned the market. So it makes me wonder what will a Switch 2 look like as far as a CPU\GPU is concerned if Nvidia is out of the market. To be fair a Switch 2 will probably not be a thing. Nintendo is hard to predict most times.
ethomaz
Banned
Two big issues in my view.
- Denver 2 is more suitable to high single-thread performance while Cortex-A57 is geared for multi-threading (Switch games are developed using that scenario)
- Denver 2 will break the compatibility with X1 while A57 will maintain the compatibility (any game that runs on Switch X1 will run with little effort on Switch X2)
Even if Switch Pro uses X2 they will use only the A57 cores imo.
Last edited:
SonGoku
Member
Thats precisely what i was thinking the other day! Nintendo has a BC tradition to uphold, not to mention a successful switch ecosystem, its switch 2 successor must be bc. That locks Nintendo to nvdia, so they must be reassured by nvidia that they will provide a next gen soc for the Switch 2. Nintendo must know whats on nvidias roadmap for mobile.
So the two options i can think off are:
nvidia creates a 7nm Tegra X3 based on Turing arch for mobile or they sell Nintendo a gaming focused Xavier (stripped of ai/tensor bits)
But both are 64 bit, Nintendo games are running on top of an api layer anyways so it should be doable.
Multi threaded in this context just means more cores, is it not possible to use 4 Denver cores?
Last edited:
This rumor needs to die. Nintendo and Nvidia began talking in 2013 , two years before the X1 was available.
Volta on 10nm with HBM2 ,was on Nvidia's road map to launch in 2016 at the time, which didn't happen for numerous reasons.
The deal Nintendo and Nvidia had was probably for that chip and the X1 was just a stopgap until something like it is ready.
Chozofication_
Banned
Why do you doubt it
ethomaz
Banned
But we don't have anything new about Volta for ages...
BTW Volta is focused in AI processing.
Last edited:
SonGoku
Member
Whats the explanation for them skipping on X2 then? Newer architecture, smaller procces nodes, better cpu and more power efficient.
ethomaz
Banned
But X2 has only 2 Denver2 cores...
Denver 2 works better when you use its dynamic code optimization process but that still is a big unknown for games if you take the point that in a comparison between Denver 2 and A57 some applications will run better in the first and others in the second.
It is not because they are both 64bits that allow directly compatibility... both are different implementation and works in different ways internally... so why Nintendo will break the compatibility to use these 2 Denver2 cores? Makes no sense at all... they will be disabled just like the A53 in X1.
Chozofication_
Banned
Every one of the big 3 has done it. Not sure if you can even count vita lasting 4 years.
Backwards compatibility is the key.
Last edited:
SonGoku
Member
Thats for mobile use in general the BIG.little setup, use the big cores for more demanding apps. That dosnt meant in cant do multi threaded configurations, it would just consume more power
A53 were disabled because they are low power (little)
Would it take too much work to the point its not worth the cost to add 4 Denver cores? that way it retains compatibility
Exiting the market doesn't count, not a very favorable comparison either.
Last edited:
InterMusketeer
Member
Because, if this is going to be an affordable system, they're going to want to cut costs to keep profits high. A lower quality screen is one of the first ways they could lower production costs.
ethomaz
Banned
I"m not sure what are you trying to say... there is no direct compatibility between Denver2 and A57 used in Switch today.
I have no ideia how much work it needs to add more 2 Denver2 cores but there way others questions like why use Denver2??? Is it focused in gaming??? Why redesign X2 to add 2 more Denver2 cores??? For me makes no business sense to nVidia ou Nintendo use these Denver2 cores.
A57 is already there, have 100% compatibility, and works as good as Denver2... plus it takes less silicon size.
Just to give a bit more info...
TX2 boots by default with 4x A57 cores running at the full 2GHz and 2x Denver2 cores disabled probably because Linux can't take advantage of these cores (the OS running in TX2) so if you want to use them you need to enable and code yourself thought SDK.
The main ARM core A57 with id 0 can't be disabled no matter what... everything else can be disabled (A57 ids 3,4,5 and Denver2 ids 1,2).
Last edited:
//DEVIL//
Member
Part of me is happy that my switch won't be absolute or the way of the 3ds compared to the N3ds in terms of screens etc. Specially since I am OCD about screen quality dead pixels light leak etc.
But the geek inside me wanted a more powerful switch because who wouldn't want awesomeness on his hand ?
But the geek inside me wanted a more powerful switch because who wouldn't want awesomeness on his hand ?
SonGoku
Member
To use 4 Denver cores instead of A57. Compatibility should be doable with software
To get better perfomance, if its cost effective, thats why i asked.
Mikey Jr.
Member
More powerful will probably come with a higher battery consumption, right?
Thats the last thing I need from a handheld. Secondly, being size. For me, Switch is not a great handheld because it doesn't feel as portable as the ds and 3ds, lack of clamshell being the biggest thing.
Pie in the sky, but a foldable switch would be the best. That to me is the end goal.
Thats the last thing I need from a handheld. Secondly, being size. For me, Switch is not a great handheld because it doesn't feel as portable as the ds and 3ds, lack of clamshell being the biggest thing.
Pie in the sky, but a foldable switch would be the best. That to me is the end goal.
ethomaz
Banned
Dever2 core has better perfomance???
Last edited:
ThatStupidLion
Member
to me a " more portable" sku means smaller screen and battery and I'm not interested at all in either.
my switch is portable enough. it can fit in a bag for the airplane/train/bus or sit on my bedside table. It really doesnt need to be any more portable for my uses.
my switch is portable enough. it can fit in a bag for the airplane/train/bus or sit on my bedside table. It really doesnt need to be any more portable for my uses.
Last edited:
SonGoku
Member
Of course, thats why its better at single threaded operations.
ethomaz
Banned
How much??? Any evidence???
Last edited:
SonGoku
Member
What do you mean dude? The whole concept of the Big.Little setup is to use High power cores combined with low power cores
The evidence is thats better at single threaded performance, you said it yourself.
How do you compare different cores to see which one is better: Single threaded benches
Chozofication_
Banned
I kind of doubt it. I don't see anything wrong with my 2dsxl screen even though its a late model.
ethomaz
Banned
I just said what nVidia says but that is reasonable because when you use only Denver2 cores the clock goes high than only using A57 cores because it is 2 vs 4 cores (2.5-3Ghz vs 2.0Ghz)... that is why in single threaded tasks Denver2 will do better than A57 while in multithreaded A57 will do better.
I'm asking if there is any evidence a 4x Denver2 cores will have better perfomance than 4x A57.
I already Google everything I could and nobody knows that... nobody knows if Denver2 cores are really faster than A57 cores... of course specific applications will run better on Denver2 while others specific application will run better on A57.
You seem too focused in Denver2 when there is no evidence that it will do better than A57 on Switch.
Last edited:
SonGoku
Member
Nvidia lists 2GHz as the max speed for both clusters when used individually.
After some googling, to be honest i dont know anymore. I did a whole bunch of assuming with Denver, it seems its a CPU arch geared towards AI.
ethomaz
Banned
Last edited:
CyberPanda
Banned
This is going to sell like hot cakes in Japan.
prinz_valium
Member
A more portable Switch would be great.
The original Switch is big and clunky.
The original Switch is big and clunky.
brap
Banned
The switch is already fucking portable why another one? I just want to be able to play on a tv at 1080p. That shit should be standard in this day and age.
cireza
Member
Because Nintendo have a long history of going the cheap route as much as they can, and current Switch screens already had a downgrade. 3DS had the best screens at launch, and quality was drastically reduced when they lowered the price. Not even talking about 2DS...
Switch Mini is going to be a cheaper console, so of course they are going to take the cheapest route possible for manufacturing. Might change still because I really hate the form factor of the Switch.
Last edited:
Moses85
Member
Me too. I can‘t understand why Nintendo does this.
Volta was for gaming , before Nvidia decided to split up it's GPU's based on workload.
Not enough lead time ,higher cost, Nintendo wants everyone to get off their stopgap as fast as possible.
SonGoku
Member
What does this mean?
ethomaz
Banned
NVIDIA Volta AI Architecture | NVIDIA
NVIDIA’s Volta Architecture is the new driving force behind AI, fueling breakthroughs in every industry.
www.nvidia.com
NVIDIA Volta AI Architecture | NVIDIA
NVIDIA’s Volta Architecture is the new driving force behind AI, fueling breakthroughs in every industry.www.nvidia.com
Zannegan
Member
That's my question, where does Nintendo go from here? True, they're hard to predict, but given the success of the Switch and that comfortable niche they've carved out for themselves as the not-just-a-handheld, not-quite-a-console, less-expensive, "go anywhere" gaming device, I think they're going to want to follow up the Switch with a similar concept at least. But if the hardware isn't there, realistically, what can they even do?
JimiNutz
Banned
Nintendo for me = portable gaming.
I know that they have a rich history of home console gaming but I have other home consoles that will always take preference over a Nintendo console. The big appeal for me is in handheld and portable gaming and it's this feature that sets them aside from the competition. I'd welcome a cheaper more portable Switch.
I know that they have a rich history of home console gaming but I have other home consoles that will always take preference over a Nintendo console. The big appeal for me is in handheld and portable gaming and it's this feature that sets them aside from the competition. I'd welcome a cheaper more portable Switch.
Wolfgang Jr
Banned
They need a cheap switch for the upcoming Pokemon bundles.
Panda1
Banned
no i think like the previous handhelds - will be a small iteration - like 2ds or 3ds bumps. There is no need for switch 2 as switch selling very well and building up its library.