-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
[techradar] AMD on the PS4: We gave it the hardware Nvidia couldn't
- Thread starter Final8ty
- Start date
BallaTheFeared
Diamond Member
Yeah, you can't do that because then you'd say low end cpu and low-mid range ~$170 current market performance gpu, possibly even less once it's actually released assuming both AMD and Nvidia refresh.
What you need to do is release all the specs and talk up the product in the first review, highlight the gpu, then later in a second review try to avoid discussing the cpu.
It's like politics!
VulgarDisplay
Diamond Member
You make it sound like the nvidia guy actually had a point. He didn't. The consoles are price and power consumption/heat dissipation constrained. That's what is stopping them from having more than a current gen mid range GPU, and a lower power CPU.
The Nvidia PR shysters are hilarious by making statements that hint that they had something better because they didn't. Plain and simple.
BallaTheFeared
Diamond Member
It's just PR, Nvidia didn't have x86 to offer, but that doesn't change the fact that the specs for this are low/low-mid as stated.
Nothing better for what is claimed Sony was looking for, cheap and x86.
Fact is by the time it releases we'll be looking towards 20nm GPUs and 14nm Skylake for the growing PC market.
Nothing better for what is claimed Sony was looking for, cheap and x86.
Fact is by the time it releases we'll be looking towards 20nm GPUs and 14nm Skylake for the growing PC market.
VulgarDisplay
Diamond Member
By the time skylake and 20nm gpu's release we'll be looking forward to what's next again. This is what would fit in the power envelope while they developed these consoles. That's what we're getting.
This. Save for maybe exchanging 8 Jaguar for 4 Steamroller cores, this was about as good as they were going to do with an ~200W power envelope. Forget the price, I'd like to see what the best computer you'd be able to build limiting yourself to that little power would be.
Last edited:
RussianSensation
Elite Member
Not if the design decision was made within a particular power envelope where going with a high-end desktop GPU was not considered a viable option. HD7970M has a 100W TDP. In that case, the GPU design choice was easily the best in the context of PS4's price. If we ignore the CPU for a second and the additional manufacturing cost savings of going with an APU, regardless of that, NV was automatically out of the consoles by virtue of their ludicrous price/performance on the dGPU mobile side:
2GB GDDR5 NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 680M [Add $350.00]
The GPU inside PS4 actually has more memory bandwidth than HD7970M (176GB vs. 152GB). PS4's GPU gets 10% reduction in CUs and a 50mhz reduction in GPU clocks. Overall, it shouldn't be more than 15% slower than HD7970M.
"Thanks to the enormous lead in the last three titles, the Nvidia GPU is more or less 5% ahead of the AMD card - a negligible difference. With regards to costs, however, the performance of the Radeon HD 7970M is truly impressive as the 680M can run users $350 USD more than the Radeon. Nvidia's high-end graphics card continues to have very poor value per dollar." - Source
NV was never really in the running for next generation consoles because of 1 factor: price/performance. Their high-end mobile dGPUs fail miserably in price/performance -- arguably the most critical factor for consoles. Even if NV could hypothetically deliver a technically superior GPU than an 18 CU H7970M, they would never sell it for a reasonable price, which in turn would have resulted in Sony taking major losses on the console again or pushing the price well above $500, both non-starters in this economy/Sony's financial position.
Last edited:
I agree with what you're saying for the most part, although I'd imagine Nvidia would give other businesses with high volume sales a much better deal than they give you and I. But I think Balla is more onto the point here - regardless of price Nvidia simply did not have a competitive complete solution. Tegra 4 isn't nearly powerful enough, and having to source out a powerful enough dGPU as well as a CPU would have busted Sony's budget. AMD built an amazingly powerful APU (compared to what's currently out on the market) for Sony so it was a no brainer.
BallaTheFeared
Diamond Member
Your post can be summed up with one fact, what Nvidia charges consumers is not a product of cost, but a product of what consumers are willing to pay for their product.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Update-Radeon-HD-7970M-vs-GeForce-GTX-680M.87744.0.html
680m is overall faster, and more power efficient than the 7970M.
The real point here however, is the fact that the hardware in the PS4 is further behind PC standards than the PS3 was, and it didn't take very long at all (one generation) despite the "overhead" of Windows for it to show it's age.
What's different about the PS4 in this regard? It's low end, fixed hardware, with a ~7 year product cycle, what's good about it?
Nah, dont kid yourself. The only thing keeping them from from going higher end is cost. Sure, you're not going to slap a Titan GPU in there, but you make it seem like the got the max they could have gotten which is hardly the case. Did the do the best they could for the cost? Possibly, and that's quite likely something nVidia couldn't deliver.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
tviceman, you are right on the lower volume pricing than in retail but the same goes for AMD. NV wouldn't have been able to undercut AMD's volume pricing either. I am not implying that that the actual price difference to Sony between a 7970M and 680M would have been $350, but it would have been substantial nonetheless. Even if Tegra was competitive with Jaguar, NV would still not win. GTX650Ti Boost would have been a good option but it just came out, way too late to secure PS4 design win. Before that point, NV had nothing that was superior in price/performance on the desktop or mobile side other than GTX670, which is too expensive for PS4.
Last edited:
RussianSensation
Elite Member
5% faster on average. You can't even look at any problems related to HD7970M Enduro since Enduro is not a consideration for consoles - consoles do not run on batteries. Take a 7970M GPU and a 680M GPU and run both consoles from a power outlet where Optimus vs. Enduro is not a consideration, then what do you get? -- you'd be paying $350 more for 5% more performance.
Using some stat of how popular 680M is on notebook GPU forums or how many driver problems related to Enduro 7970M had is completely misleading since those factors are not relevant for PS4's design decision. The hardware is also coded directly to the metal. All in, NV had nothing that could even come close to 18 CU 7970M in price/performance at a similar TDP. Saying price/performance doesn't matter is laughable since when PS3 launched it cost $800 for Sony to manufacture and they sold it for $599. Given Sony's financial position and consumer's disdain to spend more than $500 for a next gen console, that always meant that NV was out regardless of tech - they could never match the price/performance, period. NV even stated themselves that the console business is low margin for them to care. In other words, they didn't even consider dropping prices low enough to get those wins.
If you were a lead engineer on PS4, you would have to work within a limited budget and TDP. At that point, you can't just put a GTX680 or a Titan in a console and call it a day. Once you consider price/performance and TDP constraints, NV was out, regardless of any performance advantages high-end Keplers have. If you wanted to go with a faster GPU than HD7970M, you would have had to pay through the nose for 680M (or similar) or go with NV's desktop versions (but HD7870 > GTX660 and HD7950 V2 > 660Ti). So once again, NV would have been out.
Last edited:
frozentundra123456
Lifer
Its miles ahead of any console now. I actually am quite impressed with the graphics. The CPU, not so much. Maybe it is enough without the overhead of windows. Ultimately is will depend on price.
If they can sell it for 300 to 350 I think it will be a good deal. If it is 400 to 500 then it will be a difficult sell.
BallaTheFeared
Diamond Member
Enduro wasn't the only problem.
Nvidia has more cash on hand than AMD is worth, they're beating/competing with AMD with less hardware, which we should assume using logic, doesn't cost as much to produce.
We seem to be having a problem here with your inability to accept the fact that GK104 out sold the 7970, while being marked up 100% over the same market design from the previous generation, and costing considerably less to make.
You seem to believe a dying, bleeding company with more costly hardware selling less products for less money has this super power to live off less margins. They don't, what they have is what Nvidia has allowed them to have this generation without creating a situation where there would be a monopoly.
Let me say it again, AMD isn't the guru of price/performance, they're at the shallow end of the pool trying to stay relevant. That applies for both GPUs and CPUs.
StrangerGuy
Diamond Member
No matter how you slice it AMD was the only logical choice.
Intel iGPUs are too weak and their CPUs cost an arm and leg, ARM doesnt have high wattage performance parts yet and NV doesn't have a reasonable CPU solution.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
You brought it up anyway and linked a thread from notebook GPU forums to comment on 680M vs. HD7970M. What was the point of you bringing it up? You just wasted my time explaining to you why what you linked was irrelevant.
Again, irrelevant. Was NV able or not able to match the price/performance of an 18 CU 7970M? In theory, able, but in practice unable since they care about their 50%+ profit margin. So again, AMD offered the superior product for Sony's needs. Most console engineers would accept a GPU with 95% of the performance for $350 less price (in practice less at cost but still who is dumb enough to sign off on a $150-200 more expensive 680M for 5% more performance?)
Once again, bringing up irrelevant points to the price, performance and TDP for consoles. How well 680 sold vs. 7970 is irrelevant, how well 680M sold vs. 7970M is irrelevant, how much NV was able to mark up GK104 vs. HD7970 on the desktop because of ABCDE, is irrelevant for console design win. Console design wins is a distinct project/proposal that NV was bidding for. If we simply look a the price/performance in retail of 680M vs. 7970M and extrapolating that to what NV and AMD offered at cost to Sony most likely means NV was not competitive.
Is that why NV charges $350 extra on Alienware 17x for 5% more performance when running both laptops from an outlet? I am glad to see the execs at Sony are a lot smarter than the people buying 680M for portability needs to realize that Enduro vs. Optimus is irrelevant for PS4 and paying hundreds of dollars more for 5% more performance when running the above GPUs from a wall outlet is a waste of $ for 99.9% of PS4 consumers.
You also forgot some key details - in modern demanding games and DX11 games that use compute, HD7970M smashes the 680M, while costing $350 less:
For example, the Radeon HD 7970M performs more smoothly in Far Cry 3 (+15 %), Hitman: Absolution (+22 %), Sleeping Dogs (+28 %), and Max Payne 3 (+32 %).
Since PS4 is expected to have a 5+ year life expectancy, it isn't even clear that 680M would have been a better GPU in the long-run to begin with. With more and more games being optimized for AMD Gaming Evolved and expected to use compute shaders, the GPU in PS4 may actually end up faster over PS4's useful life than 680M would have been. :hmm:
You seem to be oblivious to the idea that consoles are designed within constraints like budgets, TDP and with consideration of long-term performance. If it was affordable to put an HD7970 or GTX680 or Titan in the console, Sony would have went for that option. Your viewpoint is odd when you continue to disregard price/performance - if NV made a GPU for $10,000, you would continue to claim AMD can only competing on price and NV is the premium offering, etc.
Last edited:
ShintaiDK
Lifer
I am quite sure none of the PS4 parts are "mobile" versions.
BallaTheFeared
Diamond Member
Probably the part that was bolded, whereas you seem to have totally missed it and focused on the part that wasn't.
You seem to be looking at things from a consumer perspective, whereas the rest of the known business world looks at things from a business point of view.
You also fail to rationalize the bottom line, AMD takes far lower margins, creates less sales, and turns less profit while attempting to stay relevant. Nvidia didn't price the Titan at $1,000 because it cost $950 to make. Likewise, the 680m doesn't cost $350 more to make than the 7970m, which you seem to be unable to understand.
Nvidia is dealing in the high margin PC market, making loads of cash. AMD is stretching out to other markets, a market Nvidia was quoted as to saying (paraphrasing) "PS4 didn't offer the margins we were looking for". Nvidia also has a history of dislike for consoles, and have put a lot of effort into pushing recent PC exclusive titles.
AMD was probably the only choice here, because between them and Intel/Nvidia, they were the only company willing to work at such low margins. The specs, which is what I've been discussing, are simply awful compared to modern PC's, which was not the case for the PS3. Consoles, meh.
Last edited:
RussianSensation
Elite Member
Look at the specs of PS4's GPU, it's going to come in between HD7850 and HD7870 in performance. NV just delivered a good GPU in this area - GTX650Ti Boost - but it's too late for PS4's win. Until that point, NV's mid-range desktop and high-end mobile, other than GTX670, had worse price/performance. So what GPU from NV would Sony have gone with exactly if they desired to keep the console reasonably priced? Even 6 months ago, it was a done deal that Sony would use AMD just looking at prices and not even knowing that PS4 would use an APU.
Lonbjerg
Diamond Member
You and facts 😉
They tend to ruin a good "argument"...prepare for smoke&mirrors now 😉
And it the same sad show every time a new console comes out.
People act like low/midrange hardware sudden gets a puf of "magic pixie smoke"...fast forward two years and the limited performance becomes an apparant problem....and people start hyping the NEXT console...rinse and repeat.
BallaTheFeared
Diamond Member
Well if we're playing that game, they'd probably have gone with Nvidia since they actually would want to sell consoles instead of having to drop their prices and bundle them with free games to move inventory.
Lonbjerg
Diamond Member
So it's not mobile versions, right?
Kinda hard to tell with all the wiggling...
ShintaiDK
Lifer
You didnt answer the question. I assume its because you know its not a mobile version, even tho you kept talking about it and using it as reference in your manipulation.
People seems to like the "worse price/performance". Else AMD would lose so much marketshare. If it continues for much longer they will only have consoles left.
Last edited:
AtenRa
Lifer
Can you post the hardware for a PC build costing up to $500 and consuming up to 200W in gaming ??
ps: Including MS Win 8
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: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
