This should have been announced like a year ago. Why does Nintendo keep delaying it?

sure reads like one

It's the lack of anything conversational about the reply, it reads exactly like a response generated by ChatGPT.

And your AI-generated response does not acknowledge anything that was said by that anon whatsoever. It's mostly a non sequitur.

>the cost of any given chip
All you've done is proven that you have no idea what your own AI post was even saying. An ASIC is not "any given chip", but rather quite the opposite. That's why I asserted that your dumbass bot reply is a non-sequitur to what was actually being discussed. You are a moron and are projecting hard.

>ASIC is the term used to describe literally any given design.
Not really, at least not in regular language. The Tegra SoC that the Switch uses is far morely commonly referred to as System on a Chip (SoC), than you'd ever hear it referred to as an ASIC. If you're talking about the Switch's ASIC, you'll just confuse the hardware mod community as they'll think you are referring to the Gamecard ASIC, the Lotus 3 chip, which has nothing to do with the Tegra SoC that anon was presumably referring to (although he wrongfully referred to it as the Switch's APU)

>Every SoC in design phase, the design itself, like literally every integrated circuit, is referred to as an ASIC
Is that true or are you talking out your ass?
I cannot find evidence or reference to back that up, and this is not my industry. Even if true, I question the relevance of bringing up the design phase when this discussion was about mass market production costs.
>Costs decrease over time because the foundry takes action to bring down costs.
Isn't that what anon had said in his first post?
He didn't assert that the cost magically goes down due to mass consumer purchases, he commented on how the cost price of units is lowered due to mass manufacturing methods, and improvements to lower the production cost per yield.

>Go run GPU-Z
>Look at the subsection denoting ASIC quality
That is literally just a voltage efficiency rating. If anything, it's a misnomer to call it ASIC quality.

I am 99% sure GPU-Z refers to voltage efficiency as "ASIC quality" to keep things simple for cypto miners, who were using ASICs before the majority migrated to using GPUs and therefore wanted to check a setting that read the same as their ASIC quality settings would when monitoring their mining efficiency on an ASIC. A GPU is not an ASIC, nor does it contain or consist of an ASIC.

>https://db.thegpu.guru/asics
those are ACIS on the pcb of the graphics/video card, not the GPU die itself as you were referring to earlier.
>The job position of a technician who oversees projects up to the point before they're passed along to a fab is literally called an ASIC Verification Engineer
News to me if true, I cannot easily find out whether Nvidia's ASIC Verification Engineer is involved with the development of the GPU die (or the Tegra SoC that the Switch uses, which is much more relevant to what we were initially discussing), but I can see that they have hired ASIC verification engineers in the past so can give benefit of the doubt, I guess?
If this is what you were referring to, though, why didn't you specifically mention ASIC verification engineers?
It is still true that the Tegra SoC is not an ASIC and does not incorporate one, and it is a strange logical leap to take to assume that by ASICs, you actually meant the ASIC Verification Engineers' involvement with the low-level design of these products.

Furthermore, none of this would be a 'smoking gun' against what that anon had said in the first place. In fact, most of what you and I have discussed would still support the initial port that anon had made. We're only arguing semantics by this point.

>those are ACIS on the pcb of the graphics/video card, not the GPU die itself as you were referring to earlier.
Actually no, this is another case of the cryptominers and overclocking community referring to the GPU as an ASIC

where THE FRICK is the virtual boy