Switch 2 vs PS5 Sales Comparison - September 2025 - Sales

Your entire argument rests on one unproven assumption and a stack of contradictions built on top of it:

If Sony just waits a year or two, the node will be mature, Apple/Nvidia will move on, capacity will magically free up, and Sony can stockpile PS6 units the way Nintendo did

That sounds neat. It also collapses the moment you apply even a basic understanding of how modern leading-edge semiconductor economics actually work

1- You keep pretending “mature node” means “low demand”
This is the core fallacy you never escape.

Nintendo’s situation worked because:

• Switch 2 is reportedly built on a 2018-era node
• That node is functionally obsolete for flagship mobile, PC, and AI products.
• Capacity for it is cheap, abundant, and no longer strategically valuable.

Sony’s situation is the exact opposite

Even if PS6 launches on a “mature” version of a modern node:

• That node will still be used by Apple, Nvidia, AMD, Microsoft, Qualcomm, AI accelerators, automotive, and data center products
• These companies do not abandon nodes the moment a new one appears. Apple alone keeps massive volume on N-1 and N-2 for years.
• TSMC has publicly stated multiple times that leading-edge nodes remain supply constrained for their entire useful life, not just at launch.

So no, waiting a year or two does not “free up space.”
It just means Sony arrives later to the same knife fight, except now the market expects more performance for the same price.

Nintendo avoided this entirely by choosing a node nobody else wanted anymore.
Sony literally cannot do that without launching hardware that would be laughed out of the market.

2- You keep treating architecture and process like Lego bricks

This is where the technical misunderstanding gets fatal.

You repeatedly imply:

“Sony can just take the latest AMD architecture and put it on an older, cheaper, mature node.”

That is not how GPU or CPU design works. At all.

AMD’s public commentary — echoed by Mark Cerny — has been crystal clear:

• Architectures are co-designed with the target process node.
• Power targets, clock behavior, die size, cache hierarchy, ray tracing blocks, and AI acceleration are all tuned around transistor density and electrical characteristics.

Backporting RDNA5 / UDNA to an older node would:

• Explode die size
• Destroy power efficiency
• Increase cost instead of reducing it
• Require a fundamental redesign (i.e. it wouldn’t even be the same architecture anymore)

Nintendo can do this because:

• Their performance targets are low
• Their SoC philosophy prioritizes efficiency and price over raw throughput

Sony cannot do this without abandoning the entire premise of a generational leap.

3- You contradict yourself on cost… repeatedly

You argue:

• PS6 can’t be expensive
• Sony must wait for cheaper nodes
• But also that Sony should delay for years and still deliver cutting-edge performance

Pick two. You don’t get all three.

Every credible analyst (including those Sony themselves brief) agrees on this:

• Waiting longer increases expectations
• Expectations increase die size, memory bandwidth, and silicon cost
• Which pushes BOM up, not down

Delaying PS6 doesn’t give Sony a cheaper console.
It gives Sony a more expensive console that has to justify the delay.

That’s exactly why Nishino explicitly said Sony does NOT delay launches just because the prior generation is selling well.
The tech cadence dictates the window — not vibes, not RAM spot prices, and not hope that Apple will politely step aside.

4- The “Apple and Nvidia will move on” argument is fantasy

This is probably the most detached-from-reality claim you keep repeating.

Apple doesn’t “move on” from nodes.
They:

• Consume multiple nodes simultaneously
• Lock capacity years in advance
• Outspend Sony by an order of magnitude

Nvidia?
They’re not leaving high-margin AI silicon on the table just because a newer node exists.
They actively backfill demand on every viable advanced node TSMC offers.

TSMC themselves have stated that:

• Advanced node capacity expansion lags demand
• Priority goes to the largest, longest-term contracts

Sony is important.
Sony is not Apple.
Sony is not Nvidia.
Sony does not get to clear the board just by “planning ahead.”

5- You keep misusing PS5 Pro as if it proves something

It proves the opposite of what you think it does.

PS5 Pro:

• Uses a node shrink to improve efficiency and clocks
• Reuses an older CPU architecture
• Exists explicitly as a stopgap, not a generational leap

Sony doing this mid-gen is normal.
Sony doing this for PS6 would be self-sabotage.

A node shrink does not equal an architectural leap.
You keep conflating them, and that’s why your argument never stabilizes.

6- Analyst “delay rumors” don’t support your case

You wave at rumors of delays as if they validate your position.

They don’t.

Those rumors are about:

• Market timing
• Software readiness
• Ecosystem alignment

They are not about Sony waiting around for some mythical moment when advanced nodes become Nintendo-cheap.

If anything, analysts consistently point out that the longer Sony waits, the harder the launch becomes, because Microsoft, PC handhelds, and cloud platforms keep moving.

7- Final reality check (the part you keep dodging)

Nintendo succeeded because:

• Low performance targets
• A dead, cheap node
• Minimal competition for capacity

Sony cannot replicate any of those conditions.

Even if Sony delayed PS6:

• The node would still be in demand
• Capacity would still be contested
• Costs would still be high
• Expectations would be higher than ever

Delaying does not turn a cutting-edge SoC into a legacy product.
It just turns it into an expensive one that launches late.

Bottom line

Your argument boils down to:

“Sony can do what Nintendo did if reality cooperates differently this time.”

Reality won’t. LMAO.

Nintendo’s strategy worked because it was Nintendo’s strategy, not because Sony somehow forgot how planning works.

And no amount of repeating “they’ll make it happen” changes the physics, economics, or public statements from Sony, AMD, or TSMC.

At this point, this isn’t a debate.
It’s just you insisting the semiconductor industry should behave differently so your conclusion can survive.

Spoiler: it won’t.

PS: Stop liking your own comments. Its cringe and needy. Want better for yourself.