Who said they weren't specifically looking x86? See how that works? Without details it is all speculation, AMD won a contract does not = Nvidia didn't want it anyway.
Who said they weren't specifically looking x86? See how that works? Without details it is all speculation, AMD won a contract does not = Nvidia didn't want it anyway.
No, it isn't a contradiction. The statement is qualified with the word "try", implying that an attempt to make money was made by Nividia but failed because the margins were to low.
This does not mean AMD are taking the scraps because none of us are privvy to thow much AMD are making for what is a totally different solution to what Nvidia could or did offer.
Last edited:
You did.
Nvidia said they didn't want it because the margins would be too low for them. Which caused a ruckus, which is being fanned by people who are known to operate in these types of threads.
Nvidia did not say they were offered it but gave it to AMD because AMD needed it more than them, or that they would have won if they really wanted it.
All that came from this thread and the people posting in it.
Nvidia said they didn't want it because the margins would be too low for them. Which caused a ruckus, which is being fanned by people who are known to operate in these types of threads.
Nvidia did not say they were offered it but gave it to AMD because AMD needed it more than them, or that they would have won if they really wanted it.
All that came from this thread and the people posting in it.
Grooveriding
Diamond Member
- Dec 25, 2008
- 9,147
- 1,330
- 126
Because that is making an assumption/creation to try and bolster a faltering argument, whereas the wanting x86 in the PS4 on Sony's part is a fact...
Sony: Developers Requested x86 Architecture
No, I didn't. It is a well known fact that games developers specifically asked for x86.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/PlayStation-Cell-x86-Michael-Denny-Architecture,21479.html
Agreed, but I already addressed this in my 1st post on this thread when I asked people to get some perspective and stop the delusional theories.
Given the fact that developers specifically asked for x86 this put AMD in the drivers seat because they could provide a single solution CPU/GPU. Nvidia could not provide an x86 solution and were at a distinct disadvantage. AMD won the contracts for PS4 and XBOX 720 because they offered a better solution overall.
Again we are back to economics. AMD could do an all in one x86/GCN solution at a lower margin than a seperate Intel/AMD CPU with Nvidia GPU solution or a souped up Tegra.
Last edited:
No, you're problem is that you take marketing speak and press releases at nothing but face value when it suits you. Nvidia could not offer Sony what they wanted, the best they could do would be a modified Tegra and that simply wouldn't be good enough.
Devs wanted doesn't equal Sony wanted, lol!
So we're just going back to the fact that Sony wanted x86, so let's assume that's the case.
Nvidia calls Sony, Sony tells them they need x86, Nvidia hangs up, later does an interview and says Sony wasn't offering the margins they needed to make it worth doing.
:thumbsup:
So we're just going back to the fact that Sony wanted x86, so let's assume that's the case.
Nvidia calls Sony, Sony tells them they need x86, Nvidia hangs up, later does an interview and says Sony wasn't offering the margins they needed to make it worth doing.
:thumbsup:
Come on man, you are smarter than this. Read the actual article, it comes straight from an interview with the Sony VP. The developers said we want x86 please, so Sony said fine, we will make it a requirement.
It's not an assumption, you were provided with a link were it is proved came direct from Sony.
Or couldn't provide an option that matched the AMD solution, but that is about the gist of it. No delusional "Nvidia didn't want it anyway", or "Nvidia suck" theories required.
NTMBK
Lifer
- Nov 14, 2011
- 10,519
- 6,031
- 136
I'd actually agree with you on half of this- it's definitely true for Intel. Take the equivalent of a (fictional) GT4 Haswell, with an absolute shedload of graphics shaders (maybe double what's on GT3), and 2-4 cores with HT enabled. Combine it with the eDRAM that high end Haswell would get, and throw in Intel's manufacturing advantage, and you've got a hell of a console chip. Intel could definitely deliver, but they only go in for high margins.
But NVidia? They've spent a vast amount of manpower and resources pursuing the mobile ARM market, which is notoriously cut-throat and low-margin. They shoved a five core Tegra 3 into the $200 Nexus 7- the margins on that deal must have been brutally low. At least with consoles you have a guaranteed multi-year contract, whereas smartphones and tablets have yearly turnover of devices. I don't buy NVidia turning down consoles over margin issues.
NTMBK
Lifer
- Nov 14, 2011
- 10,519
- 6,031
- 136
Doubt it to be honest. Piledriver/Steamroller are pretty terrible for performance/W, and that's where the consoles will be heavily constrained. Using a more energy efficient design gives them more thermal budget to blow on graphics.
NTMBK
Lifer
- Nov 14, 2011
- 10,519
- 6,031
- 136
Really? Consoles are all about integration and efficiency. They have a target price to market, and a target power consumption. You have set parameters to play around within, and you want to squeeze the maximum amount of performance out of what you have. With software optimized for it (which we don't have in the PC market), an APU setup can squeeze much more performance out of the same number of transistors, the same number of watts, and the same number of dollars.
I maintain that the consoles would have been integrated APUs/SoCs, regardless of whether they were built by AMD, Intel or NVidia.
NTMBK
Lifer
- Nov 14, 2011
- 10,519
- 6,031
- 136
I disagree with what he says alright. The essence of that post by Shintai is that Sony could have got a better performing console from NVidia, but went with AMD because they're cheap. I'd disagree with that because a) consoles have a set power budget, and within that budget an APU is the best way to squeeze out performance b) Nvidia cannot make well integrated APUs with shared address space etc. c) NVidia haven't avoided markets like ARM tablets because of low margins, so why start now?
Intel on the other hand is another matter. They could have made an extremely kickass APU, but yeah, cost and margin.
Olikan
Platinum Member
- Sep 23, 2011
- 2,023
- 275
- 126
Lonbjerg
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 4,419
- 0
- 0
No, not his premise at all. His theory is that...
- Yes it's about costs, but Intel would not be interested due to the low margins.
- Nvidia on the otherhand have shown they are keen on low margin markets in the past. So why state they aren't interested in high volume/low margin all of a sudden?
Last edited:
Lonbjerg
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 4,419
- 0
- 0
You think you can say consolespace = mobilespace...funny.
Son Intel is (rightfully) not interested due to low margins in the consolemarket...but NVIDIA cannot have the same stance about the consolespace as Intel :hmm:
WHO is talking BS now? :whiste:
LOL, now you are attacking me because I corrected your logical error? You are a classy piece of work. This was NTMBK's argument remember? It isn't about consolespace vs mobilespace, it is about Nvidia going after low margin design wins in the past.
Lonbjerg
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 4,419
- 0
- 0
You didn't correct anything...you made the same fallacy...sorry.
So Intel is allowed to reject low margin areas...NVIDIA isn't ...gotcha.
Will Robinson
Golden Member
- Dec 19, 2009
- 1,408
- 0
- 0
Did Intel have a ready to deploy APU with as good or better performance than the contract called for?
I think the personality of JHH may have played a role in this.
He may have looked at the Napoleonic scales of designing and supplying stuff for a World wide market and just thought...nup...too big,lots of inventory,lots of support etc and took a pass.
He's a very sharp cookie and Nvidia is cashed up and solid right now.
Maybe they are wise to sit this one out.
Last edited:
I will assume you are being obtuse because English isn't your first language. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that in the past Nvidia have shown they are willing to compete for low margins? NTMBK simply asked why should we assume Nvidia are suddenly not interested in low margin design wins?
1st Xbox
Tegra
Simply saying if Intel can do why can't Nvidia is not a valid retort, by virtue of the fact that Nvidia have pursued low margin design wins in the past and still do with Tegra.
Last edited:
Imouto
Golden Member
- Jul 6, 2011
- 1,241
- 2
- 81
In fact, both Nvidia and Intel are investing a buttload of money in their low margin mobile devices. As said before, rejecting consoles cuz of low margins doesn't even compute when Nvidia lost $157 millions in 2012, $60 m in 2011 and $49 m in 2010 in its Tegra division.
Then there is the shape of PC market, Haswell launching in 2H this year or the world economy going down the drain.
I wouldn't say "no" to anything at the moment.
Then there is the shape of PC market, Haswell launching in 2H this year or the world economy going down the drain.
I wouldn't say "no" to anything at the moment.
railven
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2010
- 6,604
- 561
- 126
Rule #1 don't talk to Lonbjerg.
Rule #2 don't talk to Lonbjerg.
Rule #3 don't talk to Lonbjerg.
Learn them rules, fast. He adds nothing, and the constant use of the word "fallacy" makes me eyes hurt.
"I think steaks are better medium rare."
"LOLZ Again wit ur fallacies! No, better, raw!"
My eyes can't take it any more haha.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter