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

[blastingcap]

Nvidia is printing money with their GPU's. Especially the titan. I still can't believe they are selling for a grand. Makes me wonder if the next titan will start off at $1200?

Especially the titan? No. The same GPU sells for much more when sold as a Tesla. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814132008

 

[Ferzerp]

amd will be selling them chips which makes the situation new and unpredictable.

Original xbox was the same way. As I recall, it wasn't great for MS.

With the way AMD is struggling financially, it seems very irresponsible of sony to mate the success of their new console on the ability for AMD to continue to supply these procs for the next 5-7 years.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Can we not do this please?

Do what? I'm stating my opinion that what Nvidia said comes across as sour grapes.

With the way AMD is struggling financially, it seems very irresponsible of sony to mate the success of their new console on the ability for AMD to continue to supply these procs for the next 5-7 years.

Pretty sure Sony pays AMD for the tech but produces the APU on their own.

 

[itsmydamnation]

they cant because of X86 license, that said both Sony and MS are using AMD for X86. So that's got to be somewhere around 20-30million chips a year. Thats nothing to sneeze at.

 

[AnandThenMan]

they cant because of X86 license,

Good point. So then if AMD goes under, that leaves both MS and Sony high and dry? That is a big incentive for the respective companies to keep AMD in business.

It's a pretty interesting scenario, Nvidia will by proxy rely on MS and Sony due to console ports to the PC, but don't want to see AMD garner revenue from console sales. Intel not sure if they care because they do get licensing fees from AMD for x86 parts produced.

 

[Keysplayr]

So AMD isn't just designing the GPU/CPU for the consoles? they are actually getting them fabbed and then shipped to the console makers? I thought MS and Sony only purchased the designs and fabbed them on their own? (Whatever fabs they use)

 

[Ferzerp]

Intel not sure if they care because they do get licensing fees from AMD for x86 parts produced.

Incorrect. Neither AMD nor Intel pay one another any sort of royalties for the technology of the other that they leverage for the current x86 chips.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Incorrect. Neither AMD nor Intel pay one another any sort of royalties for the technology of the other that they leverage for the current x86 chips.

I don't believe that is true, unless the agreement changed as part of the Intel settlement. In the past AMD did pay royalties. Source on this?

And it is my understanding that AMD cannot license x86 to a 3rd party, meaning Sony can't go out and make the APU themselves in whatever fab they chose. I could be wrong though, or it could be getting into a grey area.

 

[Rezist]

Yeah AMD has to make it unless Intel would allow them to change the agreement they have. If AMD went under the next gen consoles are done.

Seems like the console makers were in a tough spot really. ARM still needs probably 2 or 3 years to catch a jaguar core. IBM cores may have been too power hungry. And intel is too expensive.

I feel the consoles after these though will all be ARM based going forward for compatability with tablets and there mobile devices.

 

[Vesku]

http://www.engadget.com/2013/03/14/nvidia-playstation-4/

I think going with the AMD APU made sense for the consoles so I don't know that MS or Sony would have wanted to go with Nvidia this round anyway, but I also agree with Nvidia that its not a real money maker by any stretch.

I mean AMD/ATI has had GPU's in consoles for a long time and dont have jacksh*t to show for it.....and Nvidia's Xbox and PS3 deal were never a big profit maker for them either. Steady revenue stream (which is important for AMD) but profit, not really.

Interesting to actually get a confirmation on the low profitability of this type of contract though.

Heh, it's like Apple speaking down on the next Samsung phone before it arrives. Throwing out some "Nice try, for a loser." PR costs very little.

If they really didn't care, why did they snag the guy in charge of making it happen?

http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/24/3180484/amd-bob-feldstein-xbox-720-ps4-wii-u-hired-nvidia

 

[AnandThenMan]

AMD no longer has to pay Intel royalties as per the 2009 agreement.

Another change: in the earlier patent cross-license agreement, AMD had to pay Intel royalties. Now neither company makes payments, Prairie said.

 

[gorobei]

So AMD isn't just designing the GPU/CPU for the consoles? they are actually getting them fabbed and then shipped to the console makers? I thought MS and Sony only purchased the designs and fabbed them on their own? (Whatever fabs they use)

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.

after xbox1 where nv was charging ms for chips and wanted a renegotiation for the refresh on smaller process, ms resolved to own/license all the ip on the chips that went into the xbox360.

ms licensed a gpu design from amd for 360 and amd was responsible for overseeing development production issues. when the cell processor wasnt able to handle the graphics side as well as cpu side load, sony licensed a last minute deal for a nv gpu design. in both cases they both owned the chip design so they could make as many as they wanted without paying amd or nv per chip.

if both had gone for a powerpc design for ps4 or xb720 they would have probably done similar gpu license deals. but they wanted to cut costs and development time, so they went with x86 because the game studios have way more familiarity and tools for it. there's still some uncertainty about how pure an apu both are using, there have been rumors of apu+dgpu.

i imagine they made sweetheart deals with both sony and ms such that the profit margins arent much better than a gpu license deal.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

I see AMD winning the console contracts as being more a HUGE investment for the gaming evolved program that also gets them some cash in the process. Every game is going to be gaming evolved for the next 5-10 years even if it says TWIMTBP on the PC splash screens.

Why does everyone see this continuous revenue stream even if it's not a huge amount per console as a negative? If they're only getting $20 bucks per cpu/gpu they stand to make around $2.8 billion dollars over the next 10 years. I also find it hard to believe that they are only going to be getting $20 bucks per console out of this deal.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I don't think it works like that, graphics cards aren't really all that dissimilar, one vendor might be stronger in one area than another, but overall they're basically the same.

Gaming Evolved costs them money, but it builds brand recognition. Weather it turns a huge profit or not really depends on how well it's marketed.

 

[HurleyBird]

It wasn't wise for Nvidia to let AMD win all of the console contracts. Now every single multiplatform AAA game is going to be aggressively optimized for AMD hardware.

That being said, AMD has a gift for shooting themselves in the foot. AMD is more likely to think "Everyone is targeting our architecture, sweet, that means we can stop innovating and save money by slashing R&D!" than think "Everyone is targeting our architecture, sweet, let's push our advantage as hard as we can and go for Nvidia's jugular!"

 

[Vesku]

It's not the innovation that has been AMD's weak side it's been execution and marketing. The aggressive build up of their Gaming Evolved program is already starting to pay off, imo. Guess R. Read wasn't all talk of morphing AMD into a predator. Remains to be seen if their execution is improving similarly (timely releases, full HSA hardware out this year).

Also employee retention is a concern, see the AMD console lead being hired away by Nvidia. Oh wait that's right there's no money in consoles guess Nvidia just liked the cut of his jib.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Just think Nvidia wanted to pick up more of the highly talented people AMD keeps tossing away in favor of marketing and management.

 

[Siberian]

The Xbox360 has a PowerPC chip in it. Which is why PowerPC has dominated x86. If what I read in this thread is true.

 

[Vesku]

The Xbox360 has a PowerPC chip in it. Which is why PowerPC has dominated x86. If what I read in this thread is true.

Not sure on domination but: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/03/07/nvidia-announces-physx-support-for-playstation-4

Can definitely put part of the blame on poor console ports on non-x86 cores inside. At a bare minimum I'd expect ported game complaints to diminish.

 

[Red Hawk]

The Xbox360 has a PowerPC chip in it. Which is why PowerPC has dominated x86. If what I read in this thread is true.

Vastly different situations, do you really need it explained to you?

 

[3DVagabond]

Original xbox was the same way. As I recall, it wasn't great for MS.

With the way AMD is struggling financially, it seems very irresponsible of sony to mate the success of their new console on the ability for AMD to continue to supply these procs for the next 5-7 years.

It's not like Sony's financials are rosy. They've cut jobs and sold off assets to soften the losses.

 

[Will Robinson]

LOL..it doesn't matter to NVDA much huh?
One can only imagine the PR avalanche here that would have accompanied Sony choosing NVDA.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

LOL..it doesn't matter to NVDA much huh?
One can only imagine the PR avalanche here that would have accompanied Sony choosing NVDA.

I think on a forum where just about everyone is running Intel cpu's (for good reason), with a decent GPU, as well as several MGPU users most of which don't care for consoles... Clearly it wouldn't matter if it was Nvidia or AMD, people would argue to death about how much better their company was for x or because of y.

 

[Dark Shroud]

So AMD isn't just designing the GPU/CPU for the consoles? they are actually getting them fabbed and then shipped to the console makers? I thought MS and Sony only purchased the designs and fabbed them on their own? (Whatever fabs they use)

Just to be clear this time around AMD is actually making & selling whole APUs to Sony & MS. This was the cheapest route for everyone involved.

It also insures long term compatibility if MS & Sony make the PS4 & 4th gen Xbox x86-x64 as well.

And to some of you, the official steam box won't be ARM based. That would kill compatibility with most games.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Consoles is a race to the bottom. Just to recall peoples memory. Sony lost around 5 billion$ on PS3 and MS around 3 billion$ on the Xbox360. Nextgen games are also 70$ to help offset this. Its simply a dance for the last chair. Wii U sales also collapsed already.

PC gaming is expanding, consoles are contracting. Who would have thought.

If AMD goes belly up during the lifespan of the xbox next and PS4. Then MS and Sony needs a new console right away. x86 is to rule it all tho. So its not like there is much, if any, options anymore.
I doubt there will be successors to Xbox Next and PS4 tho.

And the nVidia statement also shows that consoles is the leftover market that nobody really believes in anymore.