NVIDIA: PS4 Not Worth The Cost

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
According to this article, NVIDIA's Senior VP of content and technology says his company was not willing to work with Sony at "the prices they were willing to pay." :eek:

"I'm sure there was a negotiation that went on," Tony Tamasi, Senior VP of content and technology at Nvidia told GameSpot, "and we came to the conclusion that we didn't want to do the business at the price those guys were willing to pay."
Click to expand...
 
So it might be the same deal as AMD got with the Xbox 360 etc. where they just sell the designs instead of a per console fee?
 
"It's better to own half a watermelon than a whole grape"

Like I've always said, Nvidia is more of a niche product due to their insane pricing on it's high end products.

If charging $1,050 - $1,100 for a single video card, their Titan product which btw is slower than than a pair of much cheaper but faster video cards, 2 x AMD 7970's ... why would they be willing to work with Microsoft or Sony?

Nvidia is high-brow don't you know ... lol
 
I think this will bite Nvidia in the butt in the long run...if all the current generation of consoles are running AMD hardware, that means we'll see more games optimized to run on AMD hardware (both console and discrete video cards). Although it might take this strategy some time to bear fruit, it looks like a very forward thinking move from AMD.
 
Nvidia doesn't have an SoC worth using in a console. I don't think Sony would want to use ARM (Tegra4). So if they have to source a CPU and then pay Nvidia just for a GPU then of course Nvidia is going to not like their cheap offer. AMD is providing a SoC so they get cpu+gpu cashola.
 
Lol. Their Tegra line is so far not really competitive to exynos, snapdragon or the Axs. They are seemingly behind on the mobile space and too expensive on the desktop space. I just think nvidia thinks of themselves too highly.
 
i think its a loss for Nvida, but maybe they are trying not to have too many irons in the fire.
 
Konig-Wolf said:
I think this will bite Nvidia in the butt in the long run...if all the current generation of consoles are running AMD hardware, that means we'll see more games optimized to run on AMD hardware (both console and discrete video cards). Although it might take this strategy some time to bear fruit, it looks like a very forward thinking move from AMD.
Click to expand...

If you want to see Nvidias future in gaming look at tomb raider. Nvidia stated they received the final game code 1 week before launch i suspect this is going to become the norm for the foreseeable future.
 
When one business won't do something, another usually does. I would only worry if NO businesses wanted to do it. Just because nvidia may not have been able to see a profit, does not mean AMD doesn't.

Especially indirectly...
 
Like I said, "It's better to own half a watermelon than a whole grape"

If you want to use catchy terms like bottom feeders, fine but it still doesn't do anything to change the fact that at the end of the quarter, profits are profits regardless of how much"
 
Nvidia seems to have a habit of being greedy. They tried to screw over MS during the early design phase of the 360.
 
AMD was the only choice.

NVIDIA doesn't have an x86 chip, let alone an x86 SOC. The Tegra 4 is nowhere near powerful enough for a high end console. Going with NVIDIA graphics would mean having a separate GPU chip which means lots of additional heat and power usage.

Intel has the CPU power but their integrated graphics are considerably weaker than AMD's offerings. I couldn't imagine trying to use Intel HD graphics for a console. As a result, going with an Intel CPU would require going with a separate GPU, which again, adds to heat and power usage.

For most games, the GPU is far more important than the CPU for performance. The kinds of games that are CPU bound are mostly strategy games and RTSes and you don't see those types of games on consoles. AMD has an inferior offering in the CPU department, as far as raw performance goes, but their integrated graphics are second-to-none.

The XBox 720 will, if it uses an x86 processor, almost certainly use something from AMD because they are the only ones that offer an integrated solution with acceptable performance in the graphics department. Intel's HD Graphics are not up to spec for a console and NVIDIA makes no x86 chips (nor do they have a license to do so). I don't think Microsoft wants a repeat of the XBox 360's RROD so they are most likely going to want to minimize power usage and heat as much as possible and that means integrating everything.
 
A lot of investors go into business looking for that knock out punch in hopes of finding that all elusive pot of gold at the end of the business rainbow.

For any business to be successful regardless of size you have to work hard for every dollar your earn. Not only that, your relationship with your customer is at times going to take priority over profits, sometimes even long term.

I think most people on this thread have already expressed that to a certain degree. It would have been better for Nvidia to work out a deal with Sony. And no, we really don't need a fancy degree to figure that out. Just common sense.
 
damicatz said:
For most games, the GPU is far more important than the CPU for performance. The kinds of games that are CPU bound are mostly strategy games and RTSes and you don't see those types of games on consoles. AMD has an inferior offering in the CPU department, as far as raw performance goes, but their integrated graphics are second-to-none.
Click to expand...
Yeah ... no.

We're talking about low resolution console games. The CPU is more important than GPU performance.
 
face2palm said:
Nvidia seems to have a habit of being greedy. They tried to screw over MS during the early design phase of the 360.
Click to expand...

Nvidia also has a habit of over promising and under delivering look at the tegra soc's if they where the holy grail as nv claims more products would be using them right yet they have very few actual products using their chips
 
alpha said:
Nvidia doesn't have an SoC worth using in a console. I don't think Sony would want to use ARM (Tegra4). So if they have to source a CPU and then pay Nvidia just for a GPU then of course Nvidia is going to not like their cheap offer. AMD is providing a SoC so they get cpu+gpu cashola.
Click to expand...

cptnjarhead said:
i think its a loss for Nvida, but maybe they are trying not to have too many irons in the fire.
Click to expand...

What these guys said. If we can believe that was the true and majority reason for not participating, then it seems like a business decision. The juice wasn't worth the squeeze. Pass on the watermelon and work on other types of fruits.

I do think AMD needed a win here and I'm happy for them. Competition is better for the consumers anyway.
 
WorldExclusive said:
Business don't aspire to be bottom feeders.
Console manufacturing, when is comes to profits, is bottom feeding.

MS, Sony and AMD will all be in the red for the next few years.
Click to expand...

Um, AMD gets paid for their chips, they don't give MS/SONY chips and go "Pay me later"

AMD is making out like a bandit on this, if MS or SONY wants to sell their consoles at a loss, that's their prerogative, AMD is still paid for their chips.

This is just Nvidia trying to make AMD's products "Sound cheap" and "Nvidia only deals with quality" crap FUD you hear out of Nvidia daily.

First working PhysX support for consoles, and now PS4/Xbox next are not worth a damn cause they use cheap chips?

Nvidia, kings of double talk.
 
ShamisOMally said:
Um, AMD gets paid for their chips, they don't give MS/SONY chips and go "Pay me later"

AMD is making out like a bandit on this, if MS or SONY wants to sell their consoles at a loss, that's their prerogative, AMD is still paid for their chips.

This is just Nvidia trying to make AMD's products "Sound cheap" and "Nvidia only deals with quality" crap FUD you hear out of Nvidia daily.

First working PhysX support for consoles, and now PS4/Xbox next are not worth a damn cause they use cheap chips?

Nvidia, kings of double talk.
Click to expand...

When did NV say any of this? And I think that what the person meant was the cost of making these chips will hit them pretty hard. Manufactoring/administrative/operations costs + unknown variables that I wouldn't know as an outsider to NV's inner workings.
 
bigdogchris said:
Yeah ... no.

We're talking about low resolution console games. The CPU is more important than GPU performance.
Click to expand...

Not anymore. My next console will have 4K resolution, just waiting for the projector to come down to $3000-$4000 and I'm buying one. :D

Yea, you are right. At the resolutions the consoles are using, the AMD card that is powering this thing will be just right. Unless they start throwing in some quality AA, it's fine (even then, it's probably good). CPU will be more important than the GPU in consoles.
 
i wonder if AMD cards will fair better with the next-gen console ports because of this?
amd x86 in the box, amd x86 in your rig?... hmmm
 
bigdogchris said:
Yeah ... no.

We're talking about low resolution console games. The CPU is more important than GPU performance.
Click to expand...
Yeah...no.

The only gamers who consider 1920x1080 "low resolution" are a subset of those who post here.

Grandparent was still very wrong (for example, GPUs don't handle NPC AI which is important and CPU-intensive in any single-player game) but your correction is incorrect.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Not anymore. My next console will have 4K resolution, just waiting for the projector to come down to $3000-$4000 and I'm buying one. :D

Yea, you are right. At the resolutions the consoles are using, the AMD card that is powering this thing will be just right. Unless they start throwing in some quality AA, it's fine (even then, it's probably good). CPU will be more important than the GPU in consoles.
Click to expand...

You'll be lucky if the next gen consoles manage native 1080p. The current batch barely even manage native 720p.

Most games on consoles are just upscaled sub-HD resolutions.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Not anymore. My next console will have 4K resolution, just waiting for the projector to come down to $3000-$4000 and I'm buying one. :D

Yea, you are right. At the resolutions the consoles are using, the AMD card that is powering this thing will be just right. Unless they start throwing in some quality AA, it's fine (even then, it's probably good). CPU will be more important than the GPU in consoles.
Click to expand...

its not a card its a custom apu with 8 kabani cores and a gcn 3.0 gpu using gddr5 as its memory interface :D. ironically Kavari will be using Gddr5 memory just like the ps4 is using why?! GDDR5 DIMMS and DDR4 Dimms use the same exact pcb :D
 
i wouldn't be surprised if nvidia and nintendo join up for a mobile gaming platform. the wii u does not seem to be a home run and a gameboy/fermi type handheld sounds kinda cool.
 
ShamisOMally said:
Um, AMD gets paid for their chips, they don't give MS/SONY chips and go "Pay me later"

AMD is making out like a bandit on this, if MS or SONY wants to sell their consoles at a loss, that's their prerogative, AMD is still paid for their chips.

This is just Nvidia trying to make AMD's products "Sound cheap" and "Nvidia only deals with quality" crap FUD you hear out of Nvidia daily.

First working PhysX support for consoles, and now PS4/Xbox next are not worth a damn cause they use cheap chips?

Nvidia, kings of double talk.
Click to expand...

You did not read the article did you? They said that Sony did not offer them enough money. That's what they mean by "not worth the cost". AMD had chips in both the Wii and 360 yet they are still not making a profit. There is no money in console hardware.
 
bigdogchris said:
Yeah ... no.

We're talking about low resolution console games. The CPU is more important than GPU performance.
Click to expand...

We are not talking about low resolution games. We are talking at a minimum 1080P with the possibility to go higher.

By switching all system memory to GDDR (which has two ports allowing for simultaneous access by both GPU and CPU vs regular non-graphics memory which is single port), they've eliminated the biggest bottleneck in integrated graphics.
 
Ya know I seem to remember nvidia being dicks with Microsoft over the original Xbox and chip pricing so Microsoft with 360 said OK well bye bye then.
 
Interestingly, it is not worth the cost for AMD to progress onto their next generation Graphics Cards. It is now better for AMD to focus on developing the chipset for the new range of upcoming Game PCs (PS4, Xbox, SteamBox, gPC, etc).
 
Konig-Wolf said:
I think this will bite Nvidia in the butt in the long run...if all the current generation of consoles are running AMD hardware, that means we'll see more games optimized to run on AMD hardware (both console and discrete video cards). Although it might take this strategy some time to bear fruit, it looks like a very forward thinking move from AMD.
Click to expand...

If anything Nvidia will just force game developers to include this logo on all their games.

images


Nvidia has had problems in the past with Microsoft and the Xbox 1. Why you think MS dumped them for ATI? Nvidia wouldn't negotiate on price. It's their way or the highway, and MS took the highway.
 
what a shocker. a rival company putting a spin on the reason why they were not selected.
 
PRIME1 said:
You did not read the article did you? They said that Sony did not offer them enough money. That's what they mean by "not worth the cost". AMD had chips in both the Wii and 360 yet they are still not making a profit. There is no money in console hardware.
Click to expand...

AMD Stock shot up shortly after the xbox 360 came out.
 
SixFootDuo said:
Like I said, "It's better to own half a watermelon than a whole grape"

If you want to use catchy terms like bottom feeders, fine but it still doesn't do anything to change the fact that at the end of the quarter, profits are profits regardless of how much"
Click to expand...

Yeah, their attitude sort of reminds me of how Apple ended up giving away the home computer market to Intel and Microsoft.

I used to always say that Apple would rather sell 10,000 macs at a $500 profit them a million at a $100 profit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top