NVIDIA Has A Case Of Sour Grapes Over Consoles?

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I've read this article twice and, while it has to suck being shut out of the new generation of consoles, I just don't see where NVIDIA has a case of "sour grapes."

"It's nothing but goodness for the PC," continues Tamasi. "The PC will keep growing, but the consoles will give us that next bump," he says. "Developers can now build really awesome content that can then scale to the PC," he adds. And one more thing he wants to add: "To us, the consoles are great because they catch up from a features perspective."
 
I buy strictly NVIDIA cards and Intel CPUs but I'm glad that AMD got the deal because as long as AMD has money they can stay afloat and keep NVIDIA and Intel in check.
 
This I actually do agree with. Though I think in a few years, at the current rate of the PC growth (even by that chart if it continues on the same growth rate) the PC will once again be held back a lot.
 
That author seems to know very little about PC gaming and graphics. I think it's been common knowledge that the new consoles will push PC graphics a bit further....for now....

The part he doesn't talk about involving the graph is that over the next few years PC graphics will continue to become more powerful, while the consoles will stay flat where they are, until the next gen consoles come out (PS5 and Xbox4). By the end of cycle of the new PS4/XboxONE i'm sure PC graphics will be well over the 2.5x performance that the graph shows now.
 
The part he doesn't talk about involving the graph is that over the next few years PC graphics will continue to become more powerful, while the consoles will stay flat where they are, until the next gen consoles come out (PS5 and Xbox4).
Sidejack: What was in that expansion cartridge thing that the N64 had. Was it just extra RAM?
 
Nvidia made a very truthful statement. It's a given that consoles with better graphics engines is a good thing for the PC as more games like Warframe make the transition to multiplatform as opposed to PC only. In the future I see more Free to Play games such as Warframe doing multiplatform development and I'd like to see more PC graphics fidelity in those titles rather than having to downgrade like RAGE did.

Of course the console ports will look better also. But everyone knows that already. :)
 
With AMD getting this generation of consoles I am curious as to whether it will be better to have an AMD setup now.

Crap they have already annouced that BF4 will be "optimized" for AMD.
 
the problem is, is that companies need to get away form ports to PC from their consoles. They are basically cheating the customer and their hardware from straight up ports. The distinction being that if consoles looked and performed as well as consoles, then what would distinguish the pc from a console or vice versa?
 
With AMD getting this generation of consoles I am curious as to whether it will be better to have an AMD setup now.

Crap they have already annouced that BF4 will be "optimized" for AMD.

All that means is AMD will get first hands on with the new title to optimize drivers/software for the game. They'll also most likely have suggestions/help with the optimization of the game code itself.

Optimized is good.

Nvidia, after launch, will optimize their drivers accordingly.

I see this as a good thing, since in the past AMD has always lacked with driver update/optimizations after game releases while Nvidia is generally always reliable and consent with quickly updating their stuff.

I see this as a win-win for us, the gamers no matter which side of the fence you are on.
 
No edit button. I wanted to add that with AMD spearheading the multithreaded revolution that today's game engines will naturally be much more efficient in the coming years. Right now now most games aren't as multithreaded so there is a performance potential to be wrung from current multicore processors in future titles. This is an exciting time to be a Console or PC gamer.
 
the problem is, is that companies need to get away form ports to PC from their consoles. They are basically cheating the customer and their hardware from straight up ports. The distinction being that if consoles looked and performed as well as consoles, then what would distinguish the pc from a console or vice versa?

Wut?

While it probably is more work/harder for them to port a console game to the PC and utilize the full potential of the PC for a number of reasons. One, they'll have to redo so many textures, models, etc.. to tap into the power of the PC. Second, so many different PC configurations they have to be friendly with.

It's most likely easier to port a game from the PC to the Console simply because it's probably easier to just remove content and/or compress textures further to fit within' a consoles limitations. However, it might not be as optimized for the console, thus it will be a huge difference between the console and PC.

Where as now, they can optimize the least common denominator, then port to a much more powerful platform and just let it's raw power overcome and optimization or lack there of I should say.
 
With AMD getting this generation of consoles I am curious as to whether it will be better to have an AMD setup now.

Crap they have already annouced that BF4 will be "optimized" for AMD.

1) I don't like the sound of the "optimized for AMD" talks of exclusive visual bling but then again, PhysX :rolleyes:
2) If this somehow means Nvidia will have to buy the game on release date in order to start working on a driver, then that's AMD taking revenge and F that S. Work together instead of doing next to criminal activities.
3) Expected outcome:
- Better console to PC ports in all ways
- UbiSoft continues to complain of difficulties porting games over and being douches
- Many publishers end up impossible to convince to release actual PC versions of their games despite being developed in pure DX11 environments
 
3) Expected outcome:
- Better console to PC ports in all ways
- UbiSoft continues to complain of difficulties porting games over and being douches
- Many publishers end up impossible to convince to release actual PC versions of their games despite being developed in pure DX11 environments

But, but... The pirates!
 
With AMD getting this generation of consoles I am curious as to whether it will be better to have an AMD setup now.

Crap they have already annouced that BF4 will be "optimized" for AMD.



So? Look at all the titles that are AMD's "gaming evolved" campaign. Same thing. Nvidia controls roughly what? 60% of the Graphics card market. I don't think they are gonna alienate that big of the PC market. Of course its gonna be optimized for tthem. Both consoles have a modified Radeon 7790 at their core GPU. They would hurt their sales pc side big time if they think people are gonna switch back to Radeon just for BF4. I was with ATI/AMD from the first Radeon DDR to the R1900XT.

Never again, regardless of what game is optimized for AMD. And there are quite a few of us who were put off at rage3d over those years from Catalyst Maker-Terry Makedon--Even banned for simple questions regarding the failing T&L engine in the Radeon 8500 which never got recalled because of software work around. Yeah, I got a bug in my ass over that, specially when it was a really civil discussion, no name calling, finger pointing. Just banned because Muffinman and I pointed out a possible hardware problem. Would you go back?? Nope. Not to mention it took them half a year last year to get decent drivers to everyone as posted here in [H]'s year end driver review. And I won't be supporting either console this round. And Crossfire is still a stuttering mess, specially right when new games are launched!

They use to put gpu's that were a year ahead of the pc's. Now the tech has been out for a while. Gamers are getting shafted for actual advancement in console gaming. Now its about who sells the best "gimmick". If people let this crap consoles sit on the shelf like they did the Wii U, it would push the developers back to pc's and send a message to Sony and M$ we aren't buying just Gimmicky Consoles you Pricks. Give us an actually advancement, not a overglorified 1080p Web Cam. :mad:
 
- Better console to PC ports in all ways

Not really. The ports will just be better than they have been, supposedly. Since they have more powerful hardware right now. This will change in a couple to few years as the PC gets even more powerful, these ports will most likely not stress our systems much.

The only difference really is that all the consoles are using x86 w/ AMD's graphics. So scaling them SHOULD be easier, but that's not a guarantee.
 
"Developers can now build really awesome content that can then scale to the PC,"
How often has any developer actually scaled ANYTHING to PC?

They make it for consoles then just port. One hand can count the amount of times developers have "scaled" a game to PC.
 
Yeah that article has it backward.

This next gen of consoles is the most pathetic "upgrade" in graphics hardware in generations. Against what is available for the PC, the console isn't "leapfrogging" ANYONES gaming PC.

It used to be that when a new console released the graphics capability was a little over what a mid range graphics card on a PC could produce. That meant that it took a couple of years for the average price of a gaming graphics card that can meet or beat the console to become cheap enough to make building a game PC "cheaper and better" in the low price tiers.

This time around? Hell. You can pretty much match what the next gen consoles, which aren't even out yet, with a $120 card NOW. By the time either of these consoles release and get traction in the market? They'll be a joke against any $150+ graphics card.

In short, it means that the PC is about to get a REVIVAL of epic proportions as the console makers essentially gave up this round.

The PS4 at least is putting GDDR5 in... the Xbox One? I can't imagine what they were thinking. Any graphics hardware running on GDDR3 is already virtually obsolete in any enthusiast gaming environment.
 
The PS4 at least is putting GDDR5 in... the Xbox One? I can't imagine what they were thinking. Any graphics hardware running on GDDR3 is already virtually obsolete in any enthusiast gaming environment.

Isn't it just DDR3?
 
After reading this article, I can summarize what's going on: Nvidia is bitter because they're missing out on that profit, but won't admit the market has shifted heavily to Tablets and Consoles.
 
Sour grapes? Consoles are going to be an entire step and a half behind GPU wise by the middle of next year with Maxwell from NIVIDIA and Sea Islands.


As always, all multiplats will look better on the PC
 
No edit button. I wanted to add that with AMD spearheading the multithreaded revolution that today's game engines will naturally be much more efficient in the coming years. Right now now most games aren't as multithreaded so there is a performance potential to be wrung from current multicore processors in future titles. This is an exciting time to be a Console or PC gamer.

LMAO, AMD 'spearheading the multithreaded revolution', where do you get this stuff?
 
The XBOX One is using plan 2133Mhz DDR3 with additional eDRAM on the GPU. The PS4 is using GDDR5 @ either 5 or 6 GHz can't remember which.

But remember, GDDR has a really high latency that is good for GPUs but not so much for CPU's. So as much people may think the PS4 with it's GDDR5 will destroy the X1 with it's DDR3. It may be more even than you think.

Think of it in terms of Cars, most people will think a V8 will just flat kill a V6 because it has more raw power and in most case that is correct. But take a normal aspirated V8 against tuned, turbo V6 and you can watch the V6 destroy that V8. It is all in how Sony and MS tuned their respective hardware and software in consoles.
 
No sour grapes at all that I could see. It's actually an unusually truthful, factual article coming out of nVidia--which in itself is very refreshing. Of course nVidia would very much have preferred to see its technology win these contracts, that's only natural. But Tomato (I say tomato, you say Tamasi) is absolutely correct. Everything is going x86/Windows now which will certainly mean much easier times for developers since they can effectively develop one game for all three platforms (PC, ps4,xb1.) It's nowhere near the work involved in developing for x86/Windows PC, the Moto tricore cpu for the 360, and Cell for PS3! He's right--this is good news for PC gaming without a doubt.
 
I buy strictly NVIDIA cards and Intel CPUs but I'm glad that AMD got the deal because as long as AMD has money they can stay afloat and keep NVIDIA and Intel in check.

That's hilarious. I strictly but ATI cards and AMD cpu's. I so no to nVidiots and Lemmings for no other reason that to irk the "me too people". :p
 
Wut?

While it probably is more work/harder for them to port a console game to the PC and utilize the full potential of the PC for a number of reasons. One, they'll have to redo so many textures, models, etc.. to tap into the power of the PC. Second, so many different PC configurations they have to be friendly with.

It's most likely easier to port a game from the PC to the Console simply because it's probably easier to just remove content and/or compress textures further to fit within' a consoles limitations. However, it might not be as optimized for the console, thus it will be a huge difference between the console and PC.

Where as now, they can optimize the least common denominator, then port to a much more powerful platform and just let it's raw power overcome and optimization or lack there of I should say.


The biggest reason the ports will be better this generation is because PS4 and XBO are both x86 systems. The 360 used an 3 core IBM cpu and I forget what architecture the ps3 I believe* is the same. We will finally stop getting the shaft because the developers don't have to write for different architectures.
 
Yeah that article has it backward.

This next gen of consoles is the most pathetic "upgrade" in graphics hardware in generations. Against what is available for the PC, the console isn't "leapfrogging" ANYONES gaming PC.

It used to be that when a new console released the graphics capability was a little over what a mid range graphics card on a PC could produce. That meant that it took a couple of years for the average price of a gaming graphics card that can meet or beat the console to become cheap enough to make building a game PC "cheaper and better" in the low price tiers.

This time around? Hell. You can pretty much match what the next gen consoles, which aren't even out yet, with a $120 card NOW. By the time either of these consoles release and get traction in the market? They'll be a joke against any $150+ graphics card.

In short, it means that the PC is about to get a REVIVAL of epic proportions as the console makers essentially gave up this round.

The PS4 at least is putting GDDR5 in... the Xbox One? I can't imagine what they were thinking. Any graphics hardware running on GDDR3 is already virtually obsolete in any enthusiast gaming environment.

You mean this generation can actually run stuff in 1080p at 60 fps and the older generation got away with 720p and upscaled textures/graphics.

Your $150 card can not do the same, your card is used in windows and windows relies on drivers and your memory setup is also different timings and stuff matter on a console no such thing all the same hardware way more improvement for a console then you will ever see in windows.

GDDR5 has higher latency and the DDR3 in the Xbox one has a small sram buffer to cope with the bandwidth limitations.

I'm not sure if you are new or not but consoles have been weaker then store bought pc since forever. That software ports don't reflect this is usually due to poorly programmed and optimized code.
 
1) I don't like the sound of the "optimized for AMD" talks of exclusive visual bling but then again, PhysX :rolleyes:
2) If this somehow means Nvidia will have to buy the game on release date in order to start working on a driver, then that's AMD taking revenge and F that S. Work together instead of doing next to criminal activities.
3) Expected outcome:
- Better console to PC ports in all ways
- UbiSoft continues to complain of difficulties porting games over and being douches
- Many publishers end up impossible to convince to release actual PC versions of their games despite being developed in pure DX11 environments

1) If you ever played games that used Physx... you would understand that Physx plays a bigger role in graphics capabilities than none.. Perfect example is Borderlands 2.

2) Agree with you, but its also up to the company to release the games to them but it would be pretty shitty if they did that.

3) Agree with all the above.
 
The biggest reason the ports will be better this generation is because PS4 and XBO are both x86 systems. The 360 used an 3 core IBM cpu and I forget what architecture the ps3 I believe* is the same. We will finally stop getting the shaft because the developers don't have to write for different architectures.

The PS3 used the Cell processor.

I know the XBO, PS4 and even the Wii U all use x86 architecture... I already said that in this thread.

If you'll see what I bolded in the quote from the post you quoted me in, you'll maybe understand my "wut?" question.
 
The biggest reason the ports will be better this generation is because PS4 and XBO are both x86 systems. The 360 used an 3 core IBM cpu and I forget what architecture the ps3 I believe* is the same. We will finally stop getting the shaft because the developers don't have to write for different architectures.

Most people, even on these boards, have no clue as to the significance of that.
 
Until games make the jump to 4K resolutions in 3-4 years, consoles won't give PCs a run for their money graphics wise ... there is an enormous difference in the graphics required to run at 1080i or 1080p on a screen you sit 10 feet from and that required to run at 1440p or 1600p or 5760x1200 or 7680x1440 or 1600 on screens you sit 2 feet from ... the current high end standards for PC gaming and none of which are possible on non 4K Televisions ;)
 
You should see nvidas booth at e3 this year it is the biggist it has ever been and is as close to sonys booth as possible. it's set up in a way to say fuck you to sony because they changed to AMD. they are showing PC games that on crazy titan PCs on huge monitors.
 
umm... the article isn't sour grapes and there is some truths in it...

but was sour grapes was when nvidia said the ps4 contract wasn't worth it...
 
The PS3 used the Cell processor.

I know the XBO, PS4 and even the Wii U all use x86 architecture... I already said that in this thread.

If you'll see what I bolded in the quote from the post you quoted me in, you'll maybe understand my "wut?" question.
The Wii U is not x86.
 
Back
Top