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

[itsmydamnation]

Yes lets ignore all the facts in the news. Nvidia is wafer constrained, and AMD is paying off the manufacturer to not take product they contracted to buy. Then there is the gpu shipment numbers-reflecting business and Nvidia's workstation division.

AMD to sell Austin campus, then lease

20 Years Later, NVIDIA is Building a New Home

yes lets ignore all the facts and throw in completely unrelated, irrelevant "facts" .These chips are being built at TSMC .

 

[frozentundra123456]

This is common practice every where. Department stores, fabrication industries (well where everything isn't fully automated.)

You hire extra for crunch time, once crunch time is done you fire the excess.

My place hired extra temps during the flu season, they all got axed when that was over. No crocodile tears were shed.

From a fairness standpoint, I think it comes down to expectations at the time of the hire. Many companies now are hiring contract workers, either to meet a temporary need or to get a good evaluation of the personnel before making a permanent offer. Personally I dont like the technique, but if you know up front the prospects, it is your decision to take the job or not. OTOH, if you take a job expecting long term employment and get axed after a few months for no reason, that is unfair.

 

[Silverforce11]

EDIT: I still think Nvidia will end up in Valve's upcoming hardware, based on their collaboration with Linux performance and also based on some comments Gabe Newell has made here and there. If AMD GPU's were to end up inside Valve's steam box, and if the Steam Box is successful (which I think long-term it will be), IMHO Nvidia's video card business will suffer dramatically in the future.

Why would you think steam box will be a hit?

Most gamers these days know enough or know someone who knows, that they can put together a cheap PC gaming box as it is. Why go to a third man (ie. Valve) and add extra costs?

 

[badb0y]

It has nothing to do with nVidia vs AMD because nVidia simply can't provide what AMD can. Both of the console makers wanted to have x86 based CPUs since that's what developers wanted and we all know intel doesn't like small margins which meant the CPU contract was probably going to go to AMD anyways but it just so happens that AMD builds APUs which have both a CPU/GPU on die. nVidia can't provide this and Intel is too expensive.

 

[NIGELG]

AMD to sell Austin campus, then lease

20 Years Later, NVIDIA is Building a New Home

What does this have to do with this thread?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

So we should see a article from Sony saying they never even considered Nvidia here shortly, otherwise it makes Sony look cheap for going with AMD.

 

[Despoiler]

This is nothing more than saving face or deflecting investor scrutiny by NVIDIA. AMD won this contract straight up. They simply have a superior product offering that reduces the overall cost of the console. Sony knew that $599 for the base console isn't going to fly this time around. You can't tell me that NVIDIA can't quickly cut down an existing GPU design to compete for a 140 million chips based on the previous XB360 and PS3 sales numbers.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Couldn't possibly be for any other reason, so we should see once again Sony come in with the real facts here because this is basically slander by Nvidia.

You couldn't possibly tell me Nvidia with huge gains in several markets, including selling more workstation cards than all other generations combined, large discrete sales wins, huge laptop and notebook wins, apple, and tegra (what else), has the wafer capacity to support such an endeavor at low margin.

Wafers aren't in endless supply, at least last I checked.

 

[parvadomus]

Its obvious why nvidia wasnt interested: they dont know how to make a CPU.
What could they offer? Some tegra arm based thing? Thats too weak for a console.
The only way was to offer a GPU together with other company offering a CPU, then costs raises ofc cause this solution is worse on performance/price vs an APU.

 

[jpiniero]

This is nothing more than saving face or deflecting investor scrutiny by NVIDIA..

nVidia admitted they weren't getting the PS4/720 contracts a long time ago.

The part about Sony offering little money is probably true. We are talking about AMD here, they are desperate.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Nvidia might be inadvertently telling the truth. Because they can't provide an APU like AMD, they would have been splitting the profit between the GPU and the CPU. It's convenient for Nvidia to say they didn't want to bother because not enough ROI for them, and equally convenient to leave out the fact that they can't offer what AMD can.

PR as usual.

 

[blackened23]

Incoming Nvidia bashing, AMD praising!

Incoming Nvidia praising "we didn't want it anyway" and AMD bashing

Or put another way

"glass half full, glass half empty"

 

[Keysplayr]

When are these new consoles due anyway? PS4, and Xbox720?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Incoming Nvidia praising "we didn't want it anyway" and AMD bashing

Or put another way

"glass half full, glass half empty"

How is that praising?

"We couldn't fit a low margin high yield device into our current 28nm portfolio" sounds pretty legit to me.

Sure sounds a lot better than an eight core bobcat with projected (by AMD) 15% ICP increase to Jaguar at 1.6GHz with a 7850, which by the time it releases will be 100% slower than mid-range 20nm products wow'ing companies making it impossible for anyone else to get in.

 

[Keysplayr]

Nvidia might be inadvertently telling the truth. Because they can't provide an APU like AMD, they would have been splitting the profit between the GPU and the CPU. It's convenient for Nvidia to say they didn't want to bother because not enough ROI for them, and equally convenient to leave out the fact that they can't offer what AMD can.

PR as usual.

They also might just have a higher profit margin expectation than AMD does. Like Intel with their 50% margin or they won't take on a project. Itanic aside.

 

[jpiniero]

When are these new consoles due anyway? PS4, and Xbox720?

November 2013 for both probally. My guess is MS will announce the 720 a week or two before E3.

 

[DarkKnightDude]

When are these new consoles due anyway? PS4, and Xbox720?

I'd imagine just before the winter holidays like the last release.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Might be, might be not we simply don't know. Nvidia should have just kept their mouth shut instead of opening up a can of sour grapes on themselves.

They also might just have a higher profit margin expectation than AMD does. Like Intel with their 50% margin or they won't take on a project. Itanic aside.

 

[Ferzerp]

I don't see this as far fetched at all. It's been long known that the console contracts aren't very lucrative. If you would have to expand capacity to meet the orders (be that manufacturing or workers) for something that isn't going to be a real money maker for you, it often makes sense to pass (or be unwilling to negotiate).

The console contracts may sort of be like walmart purchasing agreements. Sure, it can be a lot of volume, but you aren't going to come out as a winner for it.

 

[Keysplayr]

Might be, might be not we simply don't know. Nvidia should have just kept their mouth shut instead of opening up a can of sour grapes on themselves.

Can we not do this please?

 

[Keysplayr]

I'd imagine just before the winter holidays like the last release.

I wonder if that Steam box will come to pass, and if it will arrive in time to compete with the other new consoles.

 

[tviceman]

Why would you think steam box will be a hit?

Most gamers these days know enough or know someone who knows, that they can put together a cheap PC gaming box as it is. Why go to a third man (ie. Valve) and add extra costs?

It will be a hit because Valve needs it to be a hit and they know WTF they're doing (obviously). They don't have to answer to shareholders and can therefore take risks and innovate. Otherwise Steam is living on borrowed time. Desktops as a complete build are barely sold nowadays, fewer and fewer people will spend $1000 just to play essentially most of the same games a $400 console can play, and with the desktop market drying up, home pc builders like you and I will slowly trickle off. The kids being brought up now on mobile and consolification want things to simply work, and also want them to work NOW NOW NOW. There are less tinkerers and more impatient people that don't want to have to figure out which driver to download or what settings to use.

And why do you think there is going to be extra costs with Valve's hardware? Do you think they're buying all their stuff off newegg after it's been sold from manufacturer to vendor, and then vendor to e-tailer? Do you think Valve is going to come to market and charge a premium for their product so it can be DOA? Do you really think they are that stupid? ;-)

 

[Keysplayr]

I don't see this as far fetched at all. It's been long known that the console contracts aren't very lucrative. If you would have to expand capacity to meet the orders (be that manufacturing or workers) for something that isn't going to be a real money maker for you, it often makes sense to pass (or be unwilling to negotiate).

The console contracts may sort of be like walmart purchasing agreements. Sure, it can be a lot of volume, but you aren't going to come out as a winner for it.

Like somebody said, we really don't know the deets. But it just might be better for Nvidia to keep doing what they are doing. Making more and more inroads in the mobile markets with Tegra.

 

[tviceman]

I wonder if that Steam box will come to pass, and if it will arrive in time to compete with the other new consoles.

Sampling to testers in 3-4 months.... I think that puts it on pace for a holiday release. But it also depends on what final hardware they choose to end up with. When Gabe gave the interview and talked about post-Kepler capabilities, it makes me wonder if that is for a future steam box (steam box 2.0), or if they're waiting until 20nm GPU's can be built. I doubt they're waiting.

 

[gorobei]

I don't see this as far fetched at all. It's been long known that the console contracts aren't very lucrative. If you would have to expand capacity to meet the orders (be that manufacturing or workers) for something that isn't going to be a real money maker for you, it often makes sense to pass (or be unwilling to negotiate).

The console contracts may sort of be like walmart purchasing agreements. Sure, it can be a lot of volume, but you aren't going to come out as a winner for it.

traditionally it hasnt been a money maker but it can be used for other things. the powervr guys used their work on the sega saturn and dreamcast to develop their later offerings used on celphones and portables, including the tech in the iphone. so there are benefits to working for someone else.

sony/ms/nintendo license a design and ati/amd oversee initial development and handle the back and forth with the foundry until it is sorted out and ready for full production. after that amd is more or less done with the process, so its a one time deal and the console maker takes over the dealings with the foundry afterword.

since nvidia doesnt have an x86 license it's moot.

as others have said, since sony/ms cant license an x86 apu, amd will be selling them chips which makes the situation new and unpredictable.