PS4 not worth the cost, says Nvidia

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by HonoredShadow, Mar 14, 2013.

  1. DireBadger

    DireBadger Master Guru

    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Zotac GTX1070 AMP Extreme
    More likely that Sony and Microsoft were offering crumbs for hardware and Nvidia declined to supply them. AMD on the other hand are making loss after loss and will take whatever they can get.
     
  2. DAWG1

    DAWG1 Guest

    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA 670 sli
    Could be just an excuse but I can understand the thought process by nvidia. I have owned and operated my own construction business for 25 years. I can't work as cheap as some other contractors and know I lose jobs because of that. However, I am not going to sacrifice the quality of my product just to compete at a lower price point.

    It's a matter of deciding where you want your place in the market to be and doing business accordingly. Just my two cents....
     
  3. sykozis

    sykozis Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    22,492
    Likes Received:
    1,537
    GPU:
    Asus RX6700XT
    Does anyone outside of AMD and NVidia even know for a fact that NVidia was actually approached for this? It's quite possible that Sony or MS (whoever actually started development first) approached AMD directly without NVidia being involved at any point and this guy is simply stating what he THINKS happened without actually knowing any real details (which is the feeling I get from his statement). It's generally cheaper to buy CPU and GPU from the same vendor when they can offer it as a single package....which makes AMD's APUs rather attractive for a console. NVidia doesn't have an x86 license, whereas AMD does. This means either NVidia would have to acquire a license for x86 or development a specialized RISC processor (which they are licensed for). That would increase cost dramatically.....

    This has been an on-going trend over the last year. If your opinion doesn't follow that of the majority, for any reason, you get attacked.
     
  4. IPlayNaked

    IPlayNaked Banned

    Messages:
    6,555
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    XFire 7950 1200/1850
    I'm sure there were talks. You essentially have two graphics choices. Three if you count intel, which you don't. You don't just ignore one of them. You at least see what they're willing to do.
     

  5. eclap

    eclap Banned

    Messages:
    31,468
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    Palit GR 1080 2000/11000
    yeah, he talks nonsense. He doesn't know whether nvidia were approached, yet he said they turned it down because these guys wouldn't pay them enough. hence why people see this unprofessional and as if they're butthurt.
     
  6. Stukov

    Stukov Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    6970/4870X2 (both dead)
    I actually doubt there was talk with Nvidia, after the fiasco MS had to deal with them and the first Xbox, Nvidia burned that bridge, they really screwed the pooch on that one, (same CEO as well) and there was similar issue with Intel. Sony also wanted to go x86 for ease of development leaving only AMD who is known to work very well with other businesses to adopt a model that suits them. From some things Ive read all these years is AMD is more "friendly" in terms of working with, they will work with you hand in hand to develop what you need, where Nvidia and Intel (being dominate) simply strong arms you into accepting what they have or to hit the road.
     
  7. eclap

    eclap Banned

    Messages:
    31,468
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    Palit GR 1080 2000/11000
    you're forgetting one thing. console market is quite a big thing. Good console games sell more copies than any PC game can dream about (bar D3 and some WoW expansion etc). Console market is huge, consoles sell heaps. it's not like nvidia refused to co-operate with some unknown company from a 3rd world country.
     
  8. hallryu

    hallryu Don Altobello

    Messages:
    11,381
    Likes Received:
    15
    GPU:
    2x HD7970
    The really stupid comments in this thread have had infractions. First and last warning, further deliberate trolling and flaming will result in a ban.
     
  9. ---TK---

    ---TK--- Guest

    Messages:
    22,104
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    2x 980Ti Gaming 1430/7296
    sounds about right, amd gear is quite a bit cheaper than nvidia stuff. ps4 went with the cheaper costing hardware. good business sense imo
     
  10. lucidus

    lucidus Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,808
    Likes Received:
    1,384
    GPU:
    .
    Always let your competition bag the unprofitable contracts so that you can focus on better things. Sound decision, I'm surprised at all the absurd "butthurt" comments.
     

  11. Noisiv

    Noisiv Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,230
    Likes Received:
    1,494
    GPU:
    2070 Super
    I remember Jensen saying that Xbox, or was it PS3, can't remember...
    that it was such a hassle, putting tremendous strain on entire company and all that for very little money.

    That sentence from OP says the similar thing:
    "In the end, you only have so many engineers and so much capability [...]"

    In the end Nvidia chose Tegra, and Tegra alone is enough to drain their basic operations.
    They're not saying they would not like to have consoles also, but you have to have priorities.

    And of course, like Lane pointed out, NV's Senior VP is also talking to their investors, reassuring them etc.
    But basically a reasonable statement, so what's with emotions here??
     
  12. sykozis

    sykozis Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    22,492
    Likes Received:
    1,537
    GPU:
    Asus RX6700XT
    I won't comment on the response from NVidia aside from questioning whether or not NVidia was actually approached for it. However, given that NVidia is strictly a design firm, I find it rather hard to believe they'd turn down money.....especially when it wouldn't really take much effort to modify Tegra4 for a console. Given all the companies offering CPUs....unless they had intention of going x86, why not contact Samsung, Texas Instrument, etc for an ARM processor? They're much cheaper than an x86 processor. Which is exactly what leads me to question whether or not NVidia was even approached. If you know AMD, Intel and VIA are the only x86 CPU makers.....AMD and Intel being the only ones that offer capable APUs (at higher prices than an ARM based processor)....why would you approach NVidia for a graphics processor and AMD or Intel for the CPU unless you're trying to avoid ARM or are simply trying to get 2 products in 1 package....which AMD offers the best price/performance on APUs...
     
  13. eclap

    eclap Banned

    Messages:
    31,468
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    Palit GR 1080 2000/11000
    how is this reasonable? for someone to say this in one sentence?

    "I'm sure there was a negotiation that went on," - meaning he doesn't really know

    "and we came to the conclusion that we didn't want to do the business at the price those guys were willing to pay." - now suddenly he knows exactly what happened and then the wording he used "these guys" doesn't exactly sound like he should be allowed to speak on behalf of any big company.
     
  14. LesserHellspawn

    LesserHellspawn Master Guru

    Messages:
    690
    Likes Received:
    32
    GPU:
    RTX 3080ti Eagle
    Nvidiocy and fanATIcism this used to be called when Ati was Ati and not AMD. Personally I didn't have problems with either yet. At the very beginning I was on 3dfx. After the sellout to Nvidia, I avoided them for years. I guess I was a 3dfx fanboy back then. After a few years I wanted PhysX and SLI, so finally went Nvidia. As long as their cards operate fast, silent and cool, I'll keep it that way.
     
  15. deltatux

    deltatux Guest

    Messages:
    19,040
    Likes Received:
    13
    GPU:
    GIGABYTE Radeon R9 280
    Before the PS4 was announced I had a hunch that NVIDIA will not bother with the console business. Honestly, they don't really need the console business at all as the bulk of their resources has been invested into the mobile space. Heck, they're aggressively attacking that market that even the desktop space is experiencing a slow down from the company.

    Though, I've noticed that NVIDIA has gotten arrogant in recent years, the open source Linux community has definitely noticed that as well, NVIDIA's Linux support has been waning through the years (ironic since they're pushing forward with proprietary Android support). Which of course, has enraged Linus Torvalds and gave rose to his ever popular response to NVIDIA:
    [​IMG]

    AMD's Linux support is worse than NVIDIA's but AMD's recent efforts in improving their Linux drivers have been commended. You can actually game with AMD GPUs on Linux without suffering with OpenGL corruption in Linux or require disabling certain features in the kernel to work. AMD now needs to optimize their drivers for better performance with Linux.

    I do believe that AMD needs any sort of business they can get and the console space is still pretty alive. Not having the mobile space to contend with and their CPU marketshare still quite low, they would have the drive to take in any high volume business, and that also include video game console chip designing.

    I believe that Microsoft will also have AMD hardware, but don't think the CPU will be x86-based due to their desire to "own the design" which was a huge thing when they were designing the XBOX 360, so I have a feeling it's going to be based on IBM's PowerPC architecture again.

    deltatux
     

  16. KarAzrael

    KarAzrael Guest

    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 470 SLI
    Completely agree with what you said. Nvidia made a bad move in my opinion, the smart phone sector is too divided and now AMD will dominate the console market. I believe, AMD's dominance in the console market will help AMD regain ground with Radeon, in the GPU market.
     
  17. Redemption80

    Redemption80 Guest

    Messages:
    18,491
    Likes Received:
    267
    GPU:
    GALAX 970/ASUS 970
    Not that i think it's a ver good idea, but is it not Valve and Nvidia who have spent the last year optimising Linux as a gaming platform, don't think have ever saw AMD mentioned.

    This thread is another with a title that doesn't match the actual article, i came in here expecting Nvidia to be bitching and saying it was junk hardware, which would be sour grapes, but the reality is that they are just saying contracts just weren't worth their while.
    Many companies knock back work if it doesn't bring them in enough profit.

    It's hardly surprising though as the new consoles could make or break AMD, and it wouldn't surprise me to see the PC side of AMD's business deteriorate as their main priority will be too keep Sony and MS happy.
     
  18. IcE

    IcE Don Snow

    Messages:
    10,693
    Likes Received:
    79
    GPU:
    3070Ti FE
    The money to be made in consoles isn't made on the hardware itself. It's made on the software licensing fees and the subsidies provided by third parties (Like Hulu, Netflix, etc).

    It doesn't surprise me at all they didn't want to sell chips for a bargain basement price, barely pulling any profit at all while Sony makes a killing on licensing the games. It's a tax on their manufacturing, and without a significant offer from Sony, why would they bother?

    AMD on the other hand is so far in the red they basically can't refuse.
     
  19. eclap

    eclap Banned

    Messages:
    31,468
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    Palit GR 1080 2000/11000
    sorry, you're saying amd can't refuse an opportunity to barely pull any profit?
     
  20. tsunami231

    tsunami231 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    14,725
    Likes Received:
    1,854
    GPU:
    EVGA 1070Ti Black
    More of they have nothing to gain for proving the chips at price point they dont agree with. AMD on other hand has tons to gain for doing so. Seeing the cpu development is years behind intel and cant even compete with intel on performance per core stance.

    All they got left is the gpu which imo can actual compete with nvidia gpu, unlike there CPUs.

    A 4 year old i7 920 @ stock out performance a Vishera @ 4ghz in per core performance. Atlest on pcsx2 emulator which i find highly shocking. 2.6ghz beat 4 ghz on 1 year old cpu. Even in the realm of PC games Intel CPU are light years ahead of AMD in performance. Multi core performance AMD wins but 99% of all programs dont use multi core right so it dont matter. THis what amd gets for canning there development teams just so there heads of office can keep there pay.

    This is a hell marry for AMD in hopes of get them back in to the +, Nvidia has nothing to gain. unless Nvidia did agree to it just in spite of amd to make thing that much worse for amd.

    I personally dont care what in the ps4 as long as Real 1080p AA/AF and 60fps happen, No more sub 30 fps with even lower drops from there. + No more Screen tearing so many current console games have.
     

Share This Page