Nvidia: Not Enough Money in a PS4 GPU for us to bother

[Imouto]

Woah, bashing on dial 11 already?

 

[itsmydamnation]

lol, I love how AMD won the race to the bottom against companies who didn't want to lower their bottom dollar gets translated into AMD IS THE BESTEST CONSOLES ARE AWESOME!!!!

Enjoy your PS4, I'll continue blaming them for holding back PC gaming - PS4 and it's low tech spec's aren't going to change that.

still waiting, all talk, no substance........ dunce

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Oh good, you can't actually disagree with what I've said so you're resorting to childish mockery. :thumbsup:

Anything being said outside of what was in the article is pure speculation, often by users with their own agendas.

What you said has nothing to do with this thread, it's just you trying to further your own agenda based on stipulations you yourself set forth as the criteria for success in the next consoles.

 

[Spjut]

lol, I love how AMD won the race to the bottom against companies who didn't want to lower their bottom dollar gets translated into AMD IS THE BESTEST CONSOLES ARE AWESOME!!!!

Enjoy your PS4, I'll continue blaming them for holding back PC gaming - PS4 and it's low tech spec's aren't going to change that.

Can you say Nvidia's high-end cards since 2006 have changed that though?

Consoles are where it's at today, only by bringing their capabilities up will we see big advances being made
I'd bet DX11 finally becoming the standard is a side-effect of the imminent release of the next-gen consoles

And don't be so quick in judging the PS4's capabilities, the overhead on the PC is huge.

Look at those
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/03/16/farewell-to-directx/2

On consoles, you can draw maybe 10,000 or 20,000 chunks of geometry in a frame, and you can do that at 30-60fps. On a PC, you can't typically draw more than 2-3,000 without getting into trouble with performance, and that's quite surprising - the PC can actually show you only a tenth of the performance if you need a separate batch for each draw call.

http://www.examiner.com/article/ps4-and-xbox-720-performance-potential-discussed-by-nvidia-dev

If PS4 has a real-time OS, with a libGCM style low level access to the GPU, then the PS4 1st party games will be years ahead of the PC simply because it opens up what is possible on the GPU

http://www.computerandvideogames.co...d-that-pc-is-10-times-as-powerful-as-ps3-360/

"It is extremely frustrating knowing that the hardware we've got on the PC is often ten times as powerful as the consoles but it has honestly been a struggle in many cases to get the game running at 60 frames per second on the PC like it does on a 360," said Carmack.

 

[ICDP]

lol, I love how AMD won the race to the bottom against companies who didn't want to lower their bottom dollar gets translated into AMD IS THE BESTEST CONSOLES ARE AWESOME!!!!

Enjoy your PS4, I'll continue blaming them for holding back PC gaming - PS4 and it's low tech spec's aren't going to change that.

For the past half decade we have been suffering for the relatively limited hardware in consoles. This wasn't too bad 6 years ago when PS3 and PS4 weren't totally outdated. As the consoles stagnated so did console ports. The PS4 and XBOX Next gen will bring consoles to a far more level playing field compared to modern high end PCs and easily surpass the midrange mainstream PCs. This will in turn improve things for PC gamers as the vast majority of games will be multi platform.

To put this inperspective the XBOX 360 and PS3 were built with ~2005 technology. Could you imagine playing Crysis 3 on a 6800 Ulta or X850XT? So contrary to what you imply the current gen consoles have held up reasonably well.

This stupid idea that AMD won't make money from this new console deal is frankly idiotic fanboy BS at it's best. The hardware suppliers make their money even if Sony and MS make a loss on every new console sold from now until doomsday. They still have to pay their suppliers, so AMD make money even if Sony or MS don't

Sony and MS wanted x86 and Nvidia couldn't offer this, so AMD won the contract. There really is nothing more to it than that. It doesn't make AMD better than Nvidia, it just means AMD had what the console makers needed and Nvidia didn't. Anyone claiming this makes Nvidia inferior, or that AMD are bottom feeding the leftovers from Nvidia's awesomeness are dilusional fools. It's just economics.

Some people on this forum need to stop defending a faceless corporation as if their life depended on it. Get some perspective FFS.

 

[notty22]

I saw this on twitter:

Nvidia compares PS4 specs to a 'low-end CPU'

it's PlayStation 4 vs PC gaming rigs, and the gloves have come of

The PlayStation 4 announcement last month immediately led to a PS4 vs Xbox 720 debate, but perhaps Sony and Microsoft's next-generation consoles are competing for second place.

edit: not much new there, web site only trying to stir the pot.

 

[Keysplayr]

Sony and MS came into the store. Wanted the best there was. Then when the price got revealed. They then asked what they can get on discount

They wanted the best, and they got it. NVidia couldn't have offered anything as well integrated and efficient as what AMD gave them.

lol, I love how AMD won the race to the bottom against companies who didn't want to lower their bottom dollar gets translated into AMD IS THE BESTEST CONSOLES ARE AWESOME!!!!

Enjoy your PS4, I'll continue blaming them for holding back PC gaming - PS4 and it's low tech spec's aren't going to change that.

Oh good, you can't actually disagree with what I've said so you're resorting to childish mockery. :thumbsup:

Nor can you disagree with his. Who is the bigger child I wonder?
And I think his entire response actually "implied" disagreement. Don't you? Doesn't sound like he agreed with you.
I told you, the integrated/efficient/elegant argument is a non-starter.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Sony and MS wanted x86 and Nvidia couldn't offer this

So why were they even talking to them?

If they wanted x86, they'd want Intel, not AMD. They'd also want to leverage Kepler's superior perf/w. Obviously neiter of those two companies wanted to deal with low profit margin high volume crap, so that leaves who? Who is barely making it, has an x86 licence, and a gpu? "Won" is such a ridiculous term when dealing with bottom of the barrel consoles and a company that will work for pennies.

And yet we end up with eight 40nm atom level cores and a gpu that has half the performance of a 680, which is 40% behind a Titan, both of which can be overclocked, both of which will be replaced soon after the PS4 and Xbox come out with Maxwell, which is aimed to provide even greater perf/w increases over what we saw from Fermi to Kepler.

It's the same old song and dance, only this time the consoles are even further behind PC's at release, and will be eclipsed even faster because of it.

 

[Shmee]

A console is also cheaper than most gaming PCs. Though not nearly as powerful, they will hopefully become more open this gen, and with somewhat similar specs to PC, hopefully they will be more like PC's, and thus ports won't be as necessary, and when they are, they may be better.

 

[ICDP]

So why were they even talking to them?

If they wanted x86, they'd want Intel, not AMD. They'd also want to leverage Kepler's superior perf/w. Obviously neiter of those two companies wanted to deal with low profit margin high volume crap, so that leaves who? Who is barely making it, has an x86 licence, and a gpu? "Won" is such a ridiculous term when dealing with bottom of the barrel consoles and a company that will work for pennies.

And yet we end up with eight 40nm atom level cores and a gpu that has half the performance of a 680, which is 40% behind a Titan, both of which can be overclocked, both of which will be replaced soon after the PS4 and Xbox come out with Maxwell, which is aimed to provide even greater perf/w increases over what we saw from Fermi to Kepler.

It's the same old song and dance, only this time the consoles are even further behind PC's at release, and will be eclipsed even faster because of it.

It has already been pointed out in this thread, but I will mention it again.

• Intel could offer the x86 CPU but not a competitive GPU.
• Nvidia could offer a competitive GPU but no x86 CPU
• AMD could offer both a competitive x86 CPU and GPU.

Why involve 2 seperate vendors supplying two seperate components that involves working with two seperate engineering teams. If you can go with one supplier who provides both components and thus easier integration it makes much more sense. Like I said, it's economics 101, it isn't rocket science. It doesn't mean that AMD have better individial parts, just that they are unique in being able to offer both while Nvidia and Intel couldn't.

 

[Keysplayr]

It has already been pointed out in this thread, but I will mention it again.

• Intel could offer the x86 CPU but not a competitive GPU.
• Nvidia could offer a competitive GPU but no x86 CPU
• AMD could offer both a competitive x86 CPU and GPU.

Why involve 2 seperate vendors supplying two seperate components that involves working with two seperate engineering teams. If you can go with one supplier who provides both components and thus easier integration it makes much more sense. Like I said, it's economics 101, it isn't rocket science. It doesn't mean that AMD have better individial parts, just that they are unique in being able to offer both while Nvidia and Intel couldn't.

^ bold. You can't be serious. This has been done eleventy billion times on just about every single electronic device ever made in the history of man. Im sure you don't think samsung provides every single component in their smartphones, or their TV's. Texas instruments would have something to say about that. Or Sony? Or MS, or Nintendo? Your argument about using more than one vendor to create a product is nonsense and that is putting it lightly.

 

[Olikan]

I saw this on twitter:

Nvidia compares PS4 specs to a 'low-end CPU'

edit: not much new there, web site only trying to stir the pot.

LOL, kinda funny, if we use steam survey....
a 7850 is actually faster than like.... 70% of the users there

but hey, they are not gamers :hmm:

 

[ShintaiDK]

It has already been pointed out in this thread, but I will mention it again.

• Intel could offer the x86 CPU but not a competitive GPU.
• Nvidia could offer a competitive GPU but no x86 CPU
• AMD could offer both a competitive x86 CPU and GPU.

Why involve 2 seperate vendors supplying two seperate components that involves working with two seperate engineering teams. If you can go with one supplier who provides both components and thus easier integration it makes much more sense. Like I said, it's economics 101, it isn't rocket science. It doesn't mean that AMD have better individial parts, just that they are unique in being able to offer both while Nvidia and Intel couldn't.

There is no hinderence to use nVidia and Intel besides cost. And thats what its all about. neither Intel or nVidia wish to operate at the low margins that consoles bring.

 

[Keysplayr]

LOL, kinda funny, if we use steam survey....
a 7850 is actually faster than like.... 70% of the users there

but hey, they are not gamers :hmm:

A 7850 is a decent mid range performer...... today. Barely. Now throw 8GB of GDDR5 on it. Probably not powerful enough to use it. Now fast forward to Christmas 2013. All new hardware "should" be out by both AMD and Nvidia. Further pushing back the already aging today 7850.

It's like building a new car with a high mileage engine put into it.
Especially when we're talking about much higher resolutions for a console that weve seen up to now.

 

[Keysplayr]

There is no hinderence to use nVidia and Intel besides cost. And thats what its all about. neither Intel or nVidia wish to operate at the low margins that consoles bring.

Bingo. Cost is ultimately the deciding factor.

 

[ICDP]

^ bold. You can't be serious. This has been done eleventy billion times on just about every single electronic device ever made in the history of man. Im sure you don't think samsung provides every single component in their smartphones, or their TV's. Texas instruments would have something to say about that. Or Sony? Or MS, or Nintendo? Your argument about using more than one vendor to create a product is nonsense and that is putting it lightly.

Typical, only read the part that you want and ignore the rest. The sentence following that one qualified my statement as an why do this if you can go with an easier option. Easier usually means cheaper, hence my economics 101 statement.

 

[Olikan]

A 7850 is a decent mid range performer...... today. Barely. Now throw 8GB of GDDR5 on it. Probably not powerful enough to use it. Now fast forward to Christmas 2013. All new hardware "should" be out by both AMD and Nvidia. Further pushing back the already aging today 7850.

it will make the 7850 faster than 65% of all steam users

oh, btw...the PS4 uses sea islands...hehe not exacly old, just heavy power limited

 

[ShintaiDK]

Bingo. Cost is ultimately the deciding factor.

We would also have seen a quadcore Pilediver/Steamroller instead of Jaguar as well if it wasnt for the cost. Assuming AMD only as well.

 

[ICDP]

There is no hinderence to use nVidia and Intel besides cost. And thats what its all about. neither Intel or nVidia wish to operate at the low margins that consoles bring.

Read my entire post instead of the 1st sentence, the cost thing is of course my point. Nvidia could have offered a GPU solution for the new consoles but Sony and MS decided they should go with AMD because of cost. AMD offered a better and most likely cheaper solution CPU/GPU or APU. As a consequence Sony and MS could minimise development/engineering costs.

Using an Intel CPU with an Nvidia GPU = two suppliers demanding their cut. AMD providing both = one suplier demanding their cut.

For example (and these are made up numbers) but the fact remains AMD offer an all in one solution that would be cheaper than purchasing two seperate solutions from two seperate suppliers.

Option A - AMD say, "we can provide an APU or GPU/x86 CPU solution at $20 per unit".

Option B- Intel say we can do an x86 CPU solution for $15 and Nvidia say we can do a GPU solution for $15.

Why would Sony or MS opt for option B when option A costs less? They would go to Nvidia or Intel and say you need to lower your costs to $10 per unit for us to deal. Nvidia's response = "No way, that's not enough for us to even bother".

 

[BallaTheFeared]

It has already been pointed out in this thread, but I will mention it again.

• Intel could offer the x86 CPU but not a competitive GPU.
• Nvidia could offer a competitive GPU but no x86 CPU
• AMD could offer both a competitive x86 CPU and GPU.

Why involve 2 seperate vendors supplying two seperate components that involves working with two seperate engineering teams. If you can go with one supplier who provides both components and thus easier integration it makes much more sense. Like I said, it's economics 101, it isn't rocket science. It doesn't mean that AMD have better individial parts, just that they are unique in being able to offer both while Nvidia and Intel couldn't.

So explain why they even talked to Nvidia in the first place.

 

[Grooveriding]

So explain why they even talked to Nvidia in the first place.

For that to be worth answering you'd first need to show that Sony pursued nvidia to provide the chip rather than nvidia vying for the contract and backing out.

Another train wreck thread right here full of emotionally brand invested butt hurt and pseudo financial acolytes.

 

[badb0y]

According to this thread if Sony went with Intel/nVidia the spec sheet would be:

GTX Titan
i7 3960X
16 GB GDDR5 RAM

Lol.

 

[Grooveriding]

According to this thread if Sony went with Intel/nVidia the spec sheet would be:

GTX Titan
i7 3960X
16 GB GDDR5 RAM

Lol.

Exactly. The acolytes think Sony's ideal was a console with 600W of power consumption and an external brick PSU the size of a shoebox...

Because little Timmy is going to easily convince Mom & Dad to buy him the brand new PS4 for the low, low price of $2000.

 

[ICDP]

So explain why they even talked to Nvidia in the first place.

To try and make money of course. Do you really need to ask such a silly question?

Obviously Sony and MS ended up going with a solution they were happy with due to costs. AMD can provide a GPU/CPU combo or an APU solution that is cheaper overall than going for a GPU from Nvidia and a CPU from Intel/AMD. This is how business works, Nvidia couldn't provide a solution that matched AMDs for cost.

That doesn't mean that AMD accepted a pitance that Nvidia laughed at. Remember AMD are offering a CPU and GPU and thus margins/costs would be higher than for a GPU alone.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

For that to be worth answering you'd first need to show that Sony pursued nvidia to provide the chip rather than nvidia vying for the contract and backing out.

Another train wreck thread right here full of emotionally brand invested butt hurt and pseudo financial acolytes.

Why wouldn't we just assume they did, just like the people I posed the question to assume they were specifically looking for x86?

To try and make money of course. Do you really need to ask such a silly question?

That's a contradiction to what you've already said, you do realize that right?