All is confirmed the Nintendo Switch is powered by stock Nvidia Tegra X1, same chipset used in Shield TV. The most surprising is the retention of 4 Cortex A53 processor cores, which have no use in the Nintendo switch as they can't be operated at the same time when Cortex A57 cores are running due to the ARM big.little configuration setup.

After subsequent processing of the GPU from the Nintendo Switch, we have determined that the processor is the Nvidia Tegra T210. The T210 CPU features 4 Cortex A57 and 4 Cortex A53 processor cores and the GPU is a GM20B Maxell core.

http://techinsights.com/about-techinsights/overview/blog/nintendo-switch-teardown/

Nvidia Tegra X1 features

• 8 core CPU (4 x Cortex A57 and 4 x Cortex A53)
• GPU is a GM20B Maxell core

A comparison to Shield TV. Switch specs on the left, and Shield TV on the right. The clock speeds are reported from Eurogamer, which are very much true.

• RAM: 4GB vs 3GB
• CPU: 1Ghz vs. 2Ghz
• GPU: 3 modes:307.2Mhz/384Mhz/768Mhz vs 1Ghz

Shield TV is clocked higher initially in both CPU and GPU, but don't forget Shield TV can't keep these clock speeds up for long, it throttles down to the exact switch's dock clockspeeds. Which further supports a stock X1.

 

[Foxi4]

How the hell would you put an HDD in a tablet? Even if it was possible, the battery would run out in 2 femtoseconds.

Nope, I talk about standard multipatform games. There is zero reason for 3rd-party devs not to publish games for the Switch.

2.5" HDD's peak at around 2-4W, they don't take much power to run at all, and most SSD's eat through about 1W. You're forgetting that initially iPods used 1.8" HDD's since flash storage was unavailable or prohibitively expensive at high capacities and those devices had killer battery life. I don't get where the HDD power drain myth comes from, but modern drives barely drain batteries.

 

[YourHero]

So I've thought about this, and I feel as though this Tegra X1 is custom and I will explain why.

My best example would be a custom PCB graphics card. Technical specs are identical to a non custom card, however the PCB is shaped differently, the VRM are different, etc. The chip on the Switch can easily be a standard Tegra X1, but the PCB around it can be custom. I'm trying to understand why these tear down videos don't realize this is allowed. Since this Tegra X1 is not the shape or standard layout of a Tegra X1 it is technically custom.

PCB is part of the tegra, and the switch has a custom built one.

The switch Tegra X1 does not look like this, and thus it is custom fit and modified for the switch needs. It is customized for the nand the switch uses, the screen, the wireless, etc.

 

[GerbilSoft]

Same argument can be used against you.You seem really mad not everyone is happy to get stiffed by nintendo.

I said that if you think Nintendo's console is "overpriced" or "underpowered" or whatnot, then you have a simple solution: Don't buy it.

The switch Tegra X1 does not look like this, and thus it is custom fit and modified for the switch needs. It is customized for the nand the switch uses, the screen, the wireless, etc.

That's a reference board. Custom PCB manufacturing is a fairly straightforward procedure, and you can use off-the-shelf parts on a custom PCB without any problems. For example, my ThinkPad X230 has a customized logic board, but its CPU is an off-the-shelf Core i5-3210M. (soldered to the board since it's an X series)

What the OP is referring to is the X1 SoC itself, not the supporting hardware or the PCB.

 

[DeslotlCL]

So I've thought about this, and I feel as though this Tegra X1 is custom and I will explain why.

My best example would be a custom PCB graphics card. Technical specs are identical to a non custom card, however the PCB is shaped differently, the VRM are different, etc. The chip on the Switch can easily be a standard Tegra X1, but the PCB around it can be custom. I'm trying to understand why these tear down videos don't realize this is allowed. Since this Tegra X1 is not the shape or standard layout of a Tegra X1 it is technically custom.

PCB is part of the tegra, and the switch has a custom built one.

The switch Tegra X1 does not look like this, and thus it is custom fit and modified for the switch needs. It is customized for the nand the switch uses, the screen, the wireless, etc.

Yah, of course if you move a single piece or part it becomes custom, that's exactly how original characters work :u

 

[Foxi4]

Yah, of course if you move a single piece or part it becomes custom, that's exactly how original characters work :u

The PCB is *not* a part of the SoC, that's a preposterous suggestion anyways. The "custom" part here is the clock speed, that's it, at least until someone finds differences on the silicon.

 

[s157]

So I've thought about this, and I feel as though this Tegra X1 is custom and I will explain why.

My best example would be a custom PCB graphics card. Technical specs are identical to a non custom card, however the PCB is shaped differently, the VRM are different, etc. The chip on the Switch can easily be a standard Tegra X1, but the PCB around it can be custom. I'm trying to understand why these tear down videos don't realize this is allowed. Since this Tegra X1 is not the shape or standard layout of a Tegra X1 it is technically custom.

PCB is part of the tegra, and the switch has a custom built one.

The switch Tegra X1 does not look like this, and thus it is custom fit and modified for the switch needs. It is customized for the nand the switch uses, the screen, the wireless, etc.

It's a stretch to consider it "custom" even then, but that's why Nvidia and Nintendo can get away with their announcements. It's not a lie, but the truth is not what we expect. That kind of marketing or information giving, along with the fact that they didn't bother correcting anyone who assumed it'd run at 1TFLOPS at FP32 is pretty shady. But yes, they weren't lying if you really want to go into word specifics.

 

[wolfmankurd]

The most surprising is the retention of 4 Cortex A53 processor cores, which have no use in the Nintendo switch as they can't be operated at the same time when Cortex A57 cores are running due to the ARM big.little configuration setup.

What do you mean? Isn't that the point of big.LITTLE? It's a power saving feature, you aren't supposed to run the at the same time in any setup.

If you aren't gaming the it should switch to A53, dynamically switching to A57 when needed.

 

[YourHero]

It's a stretch to consider it "custom" even then, but that's why Nvidia and Nintendo can get away with their announcements. It's not a lie, but the truth is not what we expect. That kind of marketing or information giving, along with the fact that they didn't bother correcting anyone who assumed it'd run at 1TFLOPS at FP32 is pretty shady. But yes, they weren't lying if you really want to go into word specifics.

I agree it is, and in my example most GPU designers such as MSI, Gigabyte, and ASUS increase the card clock by a minimum of 10mhz on their "custom" cards. But from what I have gathered, this is what they mean by custom. I am not saying it's right, but it's just standard marketing from what I have seen over the last 20 years of PC hardware.

 

[DeslotlCL]

The PCB is *not* a part of the SoC, that's a preposterous suggestion anyways. The "custom" part here is the clock speed, that's it, at least until someone finds differences on the silicon.

i just took the opprtunity to poke fun out of those sonic ocs, but oh well no one figured it out

 

[Mr. Wizard]

tl;dr

 

[Foxi4]

i just took the opprtunity to poke fun out of those sonic ocs, but oh well no one figured it out

Oh, I was getting at @YourHero's post more than anything, but yeah, OC's are top kek.

tl;dr

Rich keeps perpetuating the 1TFLOP value which is misleading. The X1 only reaches 1TFLOP at 1GHz, and it's at 16-bit precision - the processor only scores 512GFLOPS at FP32, and even less at Nintendo's clock speeds.

 

[the_randomizer]

2.5" HDD's peak at around 2-4W, they don't take much power to run at all, and most SSD's eat through about 1W. You're forgetting that initially iPods used 1.8" HDD's since flash storage was unavailable or prohibitively expensive at high capacities and those devices had killer battery life. I don't get where the HDD power drain myth comes from, but modern drives barely drain batteries.

Wouldn't it be better to use SDD, which has no moving parts, as opposed to HDD, which does? It would be more stable.

 

[Foxi4]

Wouldn't it be better to use SDD, which has no moving parts, as opposed to HDD, which does? It would be more stable.

I wasn't questioning that, I was questioning the idea that HDD's are power hogs - they're not. A small M.2 SSD would be the way to go for a mobile device nowadays, I don't know why companies insist on embedded memory. Even a half-size mSATA would be great, and those things are tiny.

 

[TheCyberQuake]

I wasn't questioning that, I was questioning the idea that HDD's are power hogs - they're not. A small M.2 SSD would be the way to go for a mobile device nowadays, I don't know why companies insist on embedded memory. Even a half-size mSATA would be great, and those things are tiny.

Have you seen the prices for ssd and m.2? Along with that in the near future we are getting price hikes on this devices, though I can't remember why.
So those are not cost effective enough to be put into a console without increasing price.
And yes you could put an hdd in, but it's not a great idea. The original iPod you mentioned is an example of why. Basically every one you can find now needs it's internal hdd replaced. The spinning disks suffer damage when moved while in use, so typically you want to not use them in mobile devices. It's the main reason device makers moved to flash based memory, even though they have less storage space.
If it were cost effective I'm sure companies would put m.2 drives in their devices
Edit: Also consoles embed everything to probably reduce hacking as well. Using proprietary stuff makes it harder.

 

[Mr. Wizard]

I wasn't questioning that, I was questioning the idea that HDD's are power hogs - they're not. A small M.2 SSD would be the way to go for a mobile device nowadays, I don't know why companies insist on embedded memory. Even a half-size mSATA would be great, and those things are tiny.

Ya they should have thrown this in there...

 

[Yil]

I wasn't questioning that, I was questioning the idea that HDD's are power hogs - they're not. A small M.2 SSD would be the way to go for a mobile device nowadays, I don't know why companies insist on embedded memory. Even a half-size mSATA would be great, and those things are tiny.

Why waste your time on modular units when you can put them on the board?

 

[Foxi4]

Have you seen the prices for ssd and m.2? Along with that in the near future we are getting price hikes on this devices, though I can't remember why.
So those are not cost effective enough to be put into a console without increasing price.
And yes you could put an hdd in, but it's not a great idea. The original iPod you mentioned is an example of why. Basically every one you can find now needs it's internal hdd replaced. The spinning disks suffer damage when moved while in use, so typically you want to not use them in mobile devices. It's the main reason device makers moved to flash based memory, even though they have less storage space.
If it were cost effective I'm sure companies would put m.2 drives in their devices
Edit: Also consoles embed everything to probably reduce hacking as well. Using proprietary stuff makes it harder.

I have. Have you?

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00K...ds=m.2+ssd&dpPl=1&dpID=41-uwWXnXOL&ref=plSrch

128GB from a name brand costs $60, and Nintendo can get them cheaper since they're buying it in bulk - millions of units kind of bulk. They're paying for FLASH memory *already*, it's on the board, the difference would be adding it on an interface instead, that's not that much more expensive. I also wasn't suggesting that they should've used HDD's, I was saying that HDD's are not power hogs, read the actual post.

Why waste your time on modular units when you can put them on the board?

There's billions of reasons. It simplifies manufacturing in case you have multiple SKU's with different capacity drives but the same motherboard (Wii U) - it's easier to have one line spitting out mobos and a dude plopping in appropriate sticks than to run two separate lines. They offer expandability for the customer - there's a reason why SD's exist and why people shit on the iPhone for not having an SD port. They simplify repairs in case of memory failure - take one out, put new one in, test, refurbishing complete. In an embedded scenario you have to recycle the whole board. I could go on forever.

 

[Mr. Wizard]

I question why they didn't go with UFS flash, must be some reason. Maybe the rest of the bus can't handle it so it would be a waste?

 

[wolfmankurd]

128GB from a name brand costs $60,.

http://www.digikey.co.uk/product-de...ECBH6-12-C/MT29F128G08CBECBH6-12-C-ND/6036305

Flash memory 128GB £6.50 (for quantities of 1000).

 

[Foxi4]

Ya they should have thrown this in there...

We can at least agree that 32GB is pathetic, can't we? I know the Switch has an SD port, but SD's are slower than SSD's or embedded memory *and* they have a capacity cap at this point in time. I don't know why this is a controversial point.

http://www.digikey.co.uk/product-de...ECBH6-12-C/MT29F128G08CBECBH6-12-C-ND/6036305

Flash memory 128GB £6.50 (for quantities of 1000).

I showed you a complete product with shipping and packaging for an individual customer and said very clearly that in bulk it would be significantly cheaper, what point are you trying to make? In bulk it would be entirely competitive, the difference between embedded memory and memory on a stick is a piece of PCB and a couple of SMD components.