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

[Lonbjerg]

I used to blindly hate consoles too but you have to remember PC gaming is not held back by consoles, it's held back by low-midrange PCs.

If that were true neither Crysis, Metro 2033 nor ARMA would ever have seen the light.

PC games have this funny thing called "SETTINGS"...something a console lacks.

Hence a PC game can span a MUCH bigger range.

And the Money isn't great for console games:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Ga...ing-Gears-of-War-Unreal-Tournament,13235.html

And Crytek also chimes on on the sagnation of consoles:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...gen-consoles-to-match-the-power-of-gaming-pcs

Do you have ANY soruces for you claim about mid-range Pc's holding gaming back(despite the "settings" thingy you totally missed)?

 

[thilanliyan]

They said it AFTER having had focus on console.
The main reason?
The 5-6 years lifespan of consoles.

Yes and they said it at the END of that 5-6 year lifespan...and I think they said it because there really wasn't much to get out of consoles graphically at the end of their lives, whereas comparing from the very start of the cycle to a couple of years in, you can still do better things technically (for example the Uncharted series which looked better with each iteration).

IMO devs will go to where the money is (especially games like CoD and the like), and right now that is mostly consoles and possibly mobile games now. I don't particularly like consoles any more than you do, but I know that most games will be developed for them...not PCs. There are exceptions of course like Blizzard MMOs that make money hand over fist.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Yes and they said it at the END of that 5-6 year lifespan...and I think they said it because there really wasn't much to get out of consoles graphically at the end of their lives, whereas comparing from the very start of the cycle to a couple of years in, you can still do better things technically (for example the Uncharted series which looked better with each iteration).

IMO devs will go to where the money is (especially games like CoD and the like), and right now that is mostly consoles and possibly mobile games now. I don't particularly like consoles any more than you do, but I know that most games will be developed for them...not PCs. There are exceptions of course like Blizzard MMOs that make money hand over fist.

Read the post above yours...that is what the devs ARE saying.

 

[Obsoleet]

Come on, quit pretending all of you actually play games and even care.

Crysis is not a game.

 

[thilanliyan]

Read the post above yours...that is what the devs ARE saying.

Did Epic do anything special on the PC since that article was posted in Aug. 2011? Genuine question...I really don't know. I know they had that impressive tech demo but I don't think there has been any game to deliver that tech has there?

I hope I'm wrong but I guess we will see in a couple of years whether they really ARE shifting back to the PC...or whether they were just saying that to win some goodwill with PC gamers.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Is the Titan stockpiled? How about Intel’s hex-core? What about the GTX280 when it launched for $649 and then dropped to $499? Was that stock-piled too?

Let’s take it back one step: do you admit the GTX280’s price drop was both good for consumers, and also directly caused by competition from AMD?

No, Nvidia is selling out every K20X, and Titan they can make. Doesn't that put a hole in your "overpriced" stance? Overpriced for me, you too, a lot of people - but clearly not overpriced for what the market will bare. Titan launched at $1000 and was 30% faster than a $400 card, yet Nvidia can't make them fast enough.

I would say the GTX 280 is an example of AMD benefiting consumers, while 7xxx is an example of AMD enabling Nvidia. I can't say life is perfect with or without, only that seemingly AMD's mind-share is in the toliet, and Nvidia is charging $500 for mid-range chips which destroys your example of $650 500+ mm2 flagships benefits of reduced price.

In both cases AMD contributes, in each case the benefactor changes.

 

[Dark Shroud]

I don't see MS or Sony putting ARM SOCs in their living room consoles at all. The devs specifically asked for x86 to make coding easier. MS also gets the benefit of pushing/developing DirectX with x86.

As for comments about why do consoles need octo-core CPUs. It allows the game devs to divide the workload up for on screen effects. This is a good thing and it will translate over to PC gaming.

Naughty Dog talked about this with the CELL's SPEs and thats why Uncharted looked so good. And the jumps in quality between the games as they learned how to better use the SPEs.

 

[Vesku]

It's not as if devs have the final say. If there was a competitive ARM SoC option MS and Sony would certainly have considered it. Granted it would have an uphill fight to make it into the final product due to the x86 cross development advantage but it could still win if the price to feature ratio was right.

Still there is no such ARM SoC atm, meaning the competitive alternative to AMD APU + dGPU was PowerPC/Intel/AMD CPU + Nvidia/AMD GPU. Clearly the APU has some very appealing aspects in terms of console hardware and simplifies the sourcing.

 

[blackened23]

It's not as if devs have the final say. If there was a competitive ARM SoC option MS and Sony would certainly have considered it. Granted it would have an uphill fight to make it into the final product due to the x86 cross development advantage but it could still win if the price to feature ratio was right.

Still there is no such ARM SoC atm, meaning the competitive alternative to AMD APU + dGPU was PowerPC/Intel/AMD CPU + Nvidia/AMD GPU. Clearly the APU has some very appealing aspects in terms of console hardware and simplifies the sourcing.

To be honest, i'm quite surprised that ARM based chips are even being mentioned here in the context of being used in a modern console. The only advantage ARM chips have is efficiency, at the expense of relatively poor performance. On top of this, most ARM chips are still using the extremely dated Vertex/Pixel shaders, which is basically a no-go in any modern console. The world has moved on to unified shaders some time ago - there really isn't any ARM chip that is good for anything except simplistic smartphone games, really. The lack of unified shader model kills that prospect, not to mention the complete lack of performance. Does tegra 4 have a unified shader model? I'm not even sure. The performance would be a non-starter, anyway even if so.

As I said. Efficiency is the only thing ARM based chips have going for them, period. Once intel matches ARM Chips on that front, I look forward to seeing intel dominating high end tablets. I think that will happen with broadwell. I could certainly see intel displacing anything ARM in 10 inch tablets, maybe 7 inch as well. Intel will be on a 14nm process before anyone else can possibly even dream of being on it. Should be quite funny when it does happen.

 

[Vesku]

I mention ARM because although there is no competitive SoC now, the x86 APU chosen for the consoles was the efficient option not the performance option. The ARM options just missed the console window by a couple of years, I think a 64 bit ARM + Maxwell Nvidia SoC will certainly be in the same category that was up for consideration and resulted in AMD Jaguar + GCN being chosen. Also because Intel is an outlier, mixing Intel CPU and another company's GPU in a console does not fit into the integration and cost control mantra of MS and Sony.

 

[Dark Shroud]

The only problem with what Nvidia might have by the next consoles is what Intel & AMD will have.

Intel is going to have eDRAM soon enough. I know Nvidia was talking about stacked DRAM in their video cards but I expect AMD to have eDRAM out by then in their APUs.

People seem to forget that AMD has very good mobile CPU cores. Add in their HSA and they have a good platform. AMD like Intel is steadily "building down" in mobile or making the chips more efficient while adding features. ARM in general has to build up in power that x86-x64 already has that's being steadily improved.

 

[Grooveriding]

No, Nvidia is selling out every K20X, and Titan they can make. Doesn't that put a hole in your "overpriced" stance? Overpriced for me, you too, a lot of people - but clearly not overpriced for what the market will bare. Titan launched at $1000 and was 30% faster than a $400 card, yet Nvidia can't make them fast enough.

I would say the GTX 280 is an example of AMD benefiting consumers, while 7xxx is an example of AMD enabling Nvidia. I can't say life is perfect with or without, only that seemingly AMD's mind-share is in the toliet, and Nvidia is charging $500 for mid-range chips which destroys your example of $650 500+ mm2 flagships benefits of reduced price.

In both cases AMD contributes, in each case the benefactor changes.

The myth of Titans going to perpetually sell out is long over. Launch weeks are gone and they are in stock all the time. You can buy one any time you want from multiple retailers.

Still doesn't change the likelihood that a Titan-like performing card on 20nm is going to cost $500... Enjoy :ninja:

 

[BFG10K]

No, Nvidia is selling out every K20X, and Titan they can make. Doesn't that put a hole in your "overpriced" stance?

No, it actually puts a hole in your stockpile theory, namely that people will pay whatever price if they really want something but don’t have a choice.

That’s exactly what’ll happen to both CPUs and GPUs across the board if AMD goes out of business, not just at the $1000 price-point we have now.

Overpriced for me, you too, a lot of people - but clearly not overpriced for what the market will bare.

The market could bear $649 GTX280s too; that doesn’t mean $499 isn’t better for consumers.

I mean if it’s all about what the market can bear, the oil cartels with the pricing we have now must be great for us. I mean people still can’t get petrol fast enough, right?

Look at any other monopoly situation (telecommunications, ISPs, DRM, Steam/Origin, etc.) to see the gouging people will put up with if they don’t have a choice. The market bears it, but only a lunatic would claim it’s good for consumers.

 

[NTMBK]

To be honest, i'm quite surprised that ARM based chips are even being mentioned here in the context of being used in a modern console. The only advantage ARM chips have is efficiency, at the expense of relatively poor performance. On top of this, most ARM chips are still using the extremely dated Vertex/Pixel shaders, which is basically a no-go in any modern console. The world has moved on to unified shaders some time ago - there really isn't any ARM chip that is good for anything except simplistic smartphone games, really. The lack of unified shader model kills that prospect, not to mention the complete lack of performance. Does tegra 4 have a unified shader model? I'm not even sure. The performance would be a non-starter, anyway even if so.

As I said. Efficiency is the only thing ARM based chips have going for them, period. Once intel matches ARM Chips on that front, I look forward to seeing intel dominating high end tablets. I think that will happen with broadwell. I could certainly see intel displacing anything ARM in 10 inch tablets, maybe 7 inch as well. Intel will be on a 14nm process before anyone else can possibly even dream of being on it. Should be quite funny when it does happen.

I thought that PowerVR's Rogue used unified shaders? A shedload of Rogues, a fast memory controller and 8-10 Cortex A15s could be alright. I'll admit it's a stretch, though.

I do think that something like Tegra5/6 might have been a good console part, if NVidia's Denver turns out alright. That combined with Kepler graphics cores? Could be good.

I don't think Broadwell is the horse to back in this race, though- I'm far more interested in the new 22nm Atom. There's a limit to how much they can squeeze down their mainstream cores without crippling high end performance, and I think we've hit it with their 13W/10W parts.

 

[Keysplayr]

No, it actually puts a hole in your stockpile theory, namely that people will pay whatever price if they really want something but don’t have a choice.

That’s exactly what’ll happen to both CPUs and GPUs across the board if AMD goes out of business, not just at the $1000 price-point we have now.


The market could bear $649 GTX280s too; that doesn’t mean $499 isn’t better for consumers.

I mean if it’s all about what the market can bear, the oil cartels with the pricing we have now must be great for us. I mean people still can’t get petrol fast enough, right?

Look at any other monopoly situation (telecommunications, ISPs, DRM, Steam/Origin, etc.) to see the gouging people will put up with if they don’t have a choice. The market bears it, but only a lunatic would claim it’s good for consumers.

It IS all about what the market can bear. Always has been, always will be. Whether there is competition or not. Competition is a factor of course, but that "primal law" of supply and demand is tireless. Good for consumers? I don't know what to think about that. On one hand, Titan costs 1000. Tough pill to swallow, but everyone has a choice to buy it or not. Same goes for any other tier card. If AMD goes out of business, then I can see Nvidia boosting prices a bit. But they can't boost the price so much as to makes products out of reach, otherwise, people won't buy them, or just stick to low tier products and that will effect Nvidia's bottom line. They'll make adjustments. Same goes for Intel and their CPUs.

 

[BFG10K]

It IS all about what the market can bear. Always has been, always will be. Whether there is competition or not. Competition is a factor of course, but that "primal law" of supply and demand is tireless. Good for consumers? I don't know what to think about that. On one hand, Titan costs 1000. Tough pill to swallow, but everyone has a choice to buy it or not. Same goes for any other tier card. If AMD goes out of business, then I can see Nvidia boosting prices a bit. But they can't boost the price so much as to makes products out of reach, otherwise, people won't buy them, or just stick to low tier products and that will effect Nvidia's bottom line. They'll make adjustments. Same goes for Intel and their CPUs.

All of this equally applies to the oil cartel:

• The market can bear it (oil companies are still in business).
• We have a choice (take a bus, cycle, work from home, etc).
• "Primal law" of supply & demand (we demand it, the oil cartel supplies).
• They can't price it out of reach or nobody will buy it (obviously people still buy petrol).

So, will anyone tell me (with a straight face) that current petrol prices - along with their rampant inflation levels - are good for the consumer?

It's amazing to see people argue against competition and not grasp the ramifications of a monopoly. Well maybe not in your case given you receive free hardware from nVidia, so their pricing doesn't affect you.

 

[Lonbjerg]

All of this equally applies to the oil cartel:

• The market can bear it (oil companies are still in business).
• We have a choice (take a bus, cycle, work from home, etc).
• "Primal law" of supply & demand (we demand it, the oil cartel supplies).
• They can't price it out of reach or nobody will buy it (obviously people still buy petrol).

So, will anyone tell me (with a straight face) that current petrol prices - along with their rampant inflation levels - are good for the consumer?

It's amazing to see people argue against competition and not grasp the ramifications of a monopoly. Well maybe not in your case given you receive free hardware from nVidia, so their pricing doesn't affect you.

It gives NVIDIA Money for R&D...it's so simple, yet you cannot see it?

 

[Jaydip]

All of this equally applies to the oil cartel:

• The market can bear it (oil companies are still in business).
• We have a choice (take a bus, cycle, work from home, etc).
• "Primal law" of supply & demand (we demand it, the oil cartel supplies).
• They can't price it out of reach or nobody will buy it (obviously people still buy petrol).

So, will anyone tell me (with a straight face) that current petrol prices - along with their rampant inflation levels - are good for the consumer?

It's amazing to see people argue against competition and not grasp the ramifications of a monopoly. Well maybe not in your case given you receive free hardware from nVidia, so their pricing doesn't affect you.

The corporations must give incentives so people can upgrade.Intel could have easily charged $499 for 3770K but they didn't. If the products are out of reach for 99% of consumers they are sure to fail.

 

[Keysplayr]

All of this equally applies to the oil cartel:

• The market can bear it (oil companies are still in business).
• We have a choice (take a bus, cycle, work from home, etc).
• "Primal law" of supply & demand (we demand it, the oil cartel supplies).
• They can't price it out of reach or nobody will buy it (obviously people still buy petrol).

So, will anyone tell me (with a straight face) that current petrol prices - along with their rampant inflation levels - are good for the consumer?

It's amazing to see people argue against competition and not grasp the ramifications of a monopoly. Well maybe not in your case given you receive free hardware from nVidia, so their pricing doesn't affect you.

It's amazing to see that because people don't see things the same way you do, that they don't grasp what you're saying. Because if they grasped it, then of course they couldn't see things any other way than you do.
Sheesh.
And in the future, try not to confuse me receiving evaluation hardware and my personal purchasing habits. I have 7 PC's (not counting notebooks) in my home. Did NV send me 7 Titans? Or 680's? or 7 anything? Newwwww. So prices affect me, genius.

P.S. Congrats to the oil cartels? I suppose? :: shrugs ::

 

[BallaTheFeared]

No, it actually puts a hole in your stockpile theory, namely that people will pay whatever price if they really want something but don’t have a choice.

That’s exactly what’ll happen to both CPUs and GPUs across the board if AMD goes out of business, not just at the $1000 price-point we have now.


The market could bear $649 GTX280s too; that doesn’t mean $499 isn’t better for consumers.

I mean if it’s all about what the market can bear, the oil cartels with the pricing we have now must be great for us. I mean people still can’t get petrol fast enough, right?

Look at any other monopoly situation (telecommunications, ISPs, DRM, Steam/Origin, etc.) to see the gouging people will put up with if they don’t have a choice. The market bears it, but only a lunatic would claim it’s good for consumers.

How do you figure people don't have a choice to get Titan or not? You can get a 7970 for $400 that is within 30% of it, or a 680 for $440 that is within 40%? Where is the lack of choice?

I would have liked a Titan, who are we kidding... But I made a choice to get a 7950 instead.

We're already there, $1000 cpus, $1000 gpus, neither make any sense compared to their $300 counterparts. i5-2500k makes a hell of a lot more sense than the 3960x, it also is insanely more popular, just like lesser cards make a lot more sense than Titan, and are also a lot more popular and will always be.

Free is better than $1 for consumers, but that doesn't mean it will happen. In a duo monopoly one company can either inhibit prices or enable them, in your situation AMD inhibited a 500+ mm2 die from selling for $650, in the current situation AMD is enabling a 294 mm2 die to sell for $500. Simple math tells me I'm getting more hardware for $650 at 576 mm2 than I am for $500 at 294 mm2.

I look at a monopoly as something that isn't too far away from what we have now, Nvidia is killing AMD in market share. Steam gives me some of the best prices around, the only place better are some off beat up starts with sales and Chinese cd key sellers.

My point isn't that monopoly's are good, it just that duo monopolies aren't much better. All it takes is a weak showing from one company and the other immediately pounces, $550 7970s was the product of a duo monopoly, $500 GK104's were a result of weak competition in a duo monopoly.


@Grooveriding "The Myth"

 

[BladeVenom]

@Grooveriding "The Myth"
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8371/8573887839_5d71f55445_b.jpg

Try Amazon they have them in stock. I think Microcenter does to.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

They come in and out of stock all day long last I checked.

 

[Imouto]

Duopoly, duopoly.

 

[railven]

I think I've seen it all. People openly being ok with a company trying to get as much money out of them. It's like they don't really care that the same product could be sold to them cheaper. They'll just smile and say thank you.

No wonder this country is in crippling debt. We got to buy the iPods, regardless how much. We just got to!

 

[Olikan]

Keep dreaming...

i can give you, that amd will never make such a card... if that makes you happy