NVIDIA: PS4 Not Worth The Cost

Silverbolth said:
Why do you all believe that it would coast the same amount of cash for AMD and Nvidia to offer a "similar" product to Sony...

Maybe the R&D was already done on AMD side and they could just sell it for less than Nvidia try to retake their spending on the R&D....Maybe AMD could sell it for less and still make money...
Click to expand...

Well AMD already had the jaguar design, the only thing nvidia could offer is Tegra4, So the choice is clear.
 
dr.kevin said:
so AMD was bleeding money and were willing to squeeze their margins razor thin.

nvidia wouldn't play that way.
Click to expand...

Yeah it would make sense for AMD to pass up on a deal where over the 1st 5 years of last generation sales were over the 60 million mark for those (xbox 360 & PS3) consoles alone.

and now for the higlight portion of the interview by Mark Walton (dear god you are one heck of a savy writer)
AMD will be hoping that its PS4 business pays off, having recently fallen on hard times. Earlier this week it sold its Austin-based HQ for $164 million to raise cash, while a leading analyst called it "un-investable" following an operating loss of $131 million in its quarterly earnings report.

In Nvidia's latest earnings call, the company posted a profit of $174 million.
Click to expand...

GO NVIDIA GO !
 
odditory said:
Yeah with ghetto pricing

Its more than obvious what happened here.
Click to expand...

It is. AMD had an actual product for reasonable price. They did state design on PS4 SoC is semi-custom.

Some of you guys are trying to spin it as a bad thing.
 
Stoly said:
Well AMD already had the jaguar design, the only thing nvidia could offer is Tegra4, So the choice is clear.
Click to expand...

You are assuming sony could not have just went with cell again which I do not think was a correct assumption.

The reason AMD one can be boiled down to 1 of 2 things.

1, They were desperate and they were simply willing to take less money than NVidia, if this is true it could be dangerous for AMD as they literally might not make money of the deal or make so little it does not matter.

2, They simply had an advantage NVidia could not counter, it could have been the APU, or the AMD seems to have more sizes of GPU to offer to slot in the right price point and was simply able to produce a chip that was cheaper than NVidia could. And this forced NVidia into a situation where they would have to bid too low in order to over come the advantage.

In either case we know that NVidia would have been approached by all the console makers and given a chance to outbid AMD. We also know that NVidia wanted these contracts as they always have. So the fact they missed them has to be 1 of those 2 reasons above.

Until AMDs financial statements start to show up over the next couple years we wont really know which one of these it was.
 
Nvidia is too damn greedy. Also what that guy from Nvidia said is imo a pretty bad public announcement snafu.
 
I am looking forward to hearing Microsoft's official console announcement, simply because I am curious to see what will really differentiate the three consoles this time around. If Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft are all running AMD hardware, I believe it will be good for the developers. Developers will have to spend less to provide a multi-platform title if they're not as drastically different as the Wii, PS3, X360 generation. I also believe we will see a greater focus on the unique overall media experience with each system, if indeed the hardware is so very similar across the three platforms. What will Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo do to draw people to their console, aside from exclusive games, when the competition offers the streaming audio and video selection (Netflix, Hulu+, Amazon, etc)? I hope we as consumers will see real innovation, as opposed to more FPS 6: Return of the Terrorists.
 
title should of read: "not worth the cost to research and design an X86 cpu competitive with AMD/Intel"
 
Say what you will about the situation but Nvidia's financials and balance sheet are in a much, much better position than AMD's. Nvidia can afford to be choosy while AMD is not in that same situation. A small profit is not necessarily a good thing - remember our friend opportunity cost - those same finite resources could potentially be applied somewhere else and make a higher profit. More than likely AMD beat Nvidia on a combination of price and design - hopefully for AMD it was more of a design win than a price win.
 
buttons said:
title should of read: "not worth the cost to research and design an X86 cpu competitive with AMD/Intel"
Click to expand...

QFT.

They would spend more $$$/Time trying to get around tech patents than the project would be worth.
 
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...

Only sane comment after so many posts. Who the hell cares about low margins that you won't even see for a few years. I applaud any company who isn't in the race to the bottom mentality that so many seem to be stuck in.
 
As long as Nvidia and AMD keep competing in the PC graphics card area, I don't care who makes video for consoles. I think not playing ball with Sony was a wise decision based on what Pieter3dnow quoted, as well as the fact that Sony has a history of screwing its customers. The console market is not the cash cow some people think it is - certainly not for the hardware manufacturers.
 
bacon said:
Only sane comment after so many posts. Who the hell cares about low margins that you won't even see for a few years. I applaud any company who isn't in the race to the bottom mentality that so many seem to be stuck in.
Click to expand...

Meh. I just bought a 7970. If it's racing to the bottom, then nVidia is still in the pits wondering if it's race day.

Yup, I own a lot of nVidia cards, from 200's to 600's. Even the notebook I'm typing on is nVidia GPU. And nearly all our work machines are AMD/ATI cards.

I suggest you try a 7970.. $400 on Amazon, free 2 day delivery.

nVidia's answer to the 7970 was to take their high $$$ Tesla card and consumerize it. Really? Is anyone running that company anymore?
 
Ehren8879 said:
Wouldn't this have been a lowest bidder type of thing anyway?
Click to expand...

Everything is.

When Apollo 13 blew up, one of the astronauts commented that his life depended on equipment made by the lowest bidder. (urban legend? you decide)
 
rudy said:
Until AMDs financial statements start to show up over the next couple years we wont really know which one of these it was.
Click to expand...

They have chips in both the Wii and the 360. How have their financial statements been over the last few years.

AMD is simply becoming more like Matrox or VIA. They don't run with the big dogs anymore so they make weaker profits off weaker parts in a niche market. I just don't see how they can hold of bankruptcy much longer.
 
Lord help us if Intel becomes the only major CPU provider.

The only thing that has kept Intel from charging $2000 for a consumer CPU is AMD.

Remember 1989? Roughly. The Intel DX80486-33 sold for $1100. Or about $3000 today.
 
PRIME1 said:
They have chips in both the Wii and the 360. How have their financial statements been over the last few years.

AMD is simply becoming more like Matrox or VIA. They don't run with the big dogs anymore so they make weaker profits off weaker parts in a niche market. I just don't see how they can hold of bankruptcy much longer.
Click to expand...

Read and comprehend, remember context
 
It's hard to take Nvidia at full sincerity since, as others have said, it has no input into the next generation of consoles.
 
It rather humors me that no matter what the topic is the thread will boil down to:

"OMG, AMD IS SINKING, ABANDON SHIP! ABANDON SHIP!"

"AMD IS GOING BANKRUPT!"

"HE'S [AMD'S] DEAD, JIM. WE CAN ONLY KEEP HIM ON LIFE SUPPORT FOR SO LONG!"

"MY PRECIOUS STOCK INVESTMENTS IN AMD ARE GOING TO THE SHITTER, MUST JUMP OUT OF THE BUILDING LIKE IN THE DEPRESSION!"

"INTEL PROCESSORS ARE GOING TO BE $20000 FOR A MID-RANGE CPU BECAUSE AMD IS GONE! WOE IS US!"

"THE RADEON BRAND IS DYING WITH AMD, NVIDIA WON! WHAT WILL WE DO?!"

It just makes me laugh honestly. Heck, there's a similar thread in the Video Card forum as we speak.

Restructuring or re-prioritizing one's focus into another market does not equate to going bankrupt.

Whether or not AMD is on its last legs, I highly doubt Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo would have made a deal with AMD or went to them if they knew they were going to go under.
 
Qinsp said:
Lord help us if Intel becomes the only major CPU provider.

The only thing that has kept Intel from charging $2000 for a consumer CPU is AMD.

Remember 1989? Roughly. The Intel DX80486-33 sold for $1100. Or about $3000 today.
Click to expand...

And in 1989 1 MB of Ram was ~$1000. Context is everything. Electronic component prices have seen not only price decrease but price decreases in real dollars - not many business segments can say that. Sure that is part competition, but a lot of that is simply technology. Even with a monopoly Intel couldn't get away with charging that kind of money for a mainstream consumer CPU. Not to mention, Intel couldn't really get all that relaxed with the ARM ecosystem hanging around the corner. And I'm sure somebody would snatch up AMD if they went under. I would be more concerned if the non-Intel foundries started going under - that's an extremely capital intensive business - image Intel being the only company to manufacture semiconductors.
 
Today, buy a new Intel 1366 chip. AMD adjusts their prices, Intel wants you to buy new mobos.
 
Yes, the reason they're in no next-gen console is because it just wasn't lucrous enough for them and had nothing to do with the fact that they have absolutely nothing to offer on the CPU or chipset side of things.

That is also why they're making project shield, because clearly a niche portable that you need to have their GPUs to use is far more profitable than something which between them is liable to sell more than 100,000,000 units.
 
Qinsp said:
Lord help us if Intel becomes the only major CPU provider.

The only thing that has kept Intel from charging $2000 for a consumer CPU is AMD.

Remember 1989? Roughly. The Intel DX80486-33 sold for $1100. Or about $3000 today.
Click to expand...

Precisely why I'll continue to support AMD.

At this point, any quadcore CPU is likely going to be more than good enough... even for enthusiasts. My DVD rip H264 encodes are more than 60fps sustained (which is more than twice the speed of 24fps real time playback), by that metric... real time video editing is already unhindered. After Effects does great on my system at 1080p when I need to render and stream out video loops for logos on televisions.

And my system cost me less than $300 to build. Something that I couldn't do with the slowest quadcore CPU that Intel offers.

Bear in mind... video encoding is the only time all cores in my setup are fully loaded. I'm more idle than loaded in any other circumstance. Even during heavy gaming.

Yet people want to say AMD chips are... garbage. Really?

Too many here have completely lost touch.

I thank god EVERY DAY for AMD for keeping Intel honest.
 
It's very far off topic, but you trolls are impossible to ignore so here goes:

The ARM cat is out of the proverbial bag. Tablets are everywhere. Everyone and their pet goldfish has a smartphone. Intel hasn't got much of a foothold in that market and its saturated with competition. If x86 CPU prices rise to absurd levels because AMD is gone, then that just makes ARM alternatives more appealing. Intel still has to compete with the ARM market even if it isn't a direct sort of competition.
 
Guess this means PC gaming will get a boost from nvidia.

As for the consoles using x86, making console ports not so crappy, pretty sure the 360 is x86.. so dont hold your breath.
 
Which I guess I'd like to use this is the time to point out that I think consoles should use the SPARC architecture. Thread scaling Intel only dreams about, sadly the cores are sharing FPU's in the latest versions.
 
Skillz said:
Guess this means PC gaming will get a boost from nvidia.

As for the consoles using x86, making console ports not so crappy, pretty sure the 360 is x86.. so dont hold your breath.
Click to expand...

360 was not x86 the original xbox was a pentium3 based celeron.
 
Qinsp said:
Lord help us if Intel becomes the only major CPU provider.

The only thing that has kept Intel from charging $2000 for a consumer CPU is AMD.

Remember 1989? Roughly. The Intel DX80486-33 sold for $1100. Or about $3000 today.
Click to expand...

They wont.. I think ARM is more of a worry than AMD, ever was, or will be. AMD is already licensing ARM.. with the future of computer begin something Akin to the iphones I think ARM is a real threat, AMD can be only because they seem to be getting smarter about how things are changing, and looks like they will have an offering in x86, as well as ARM servers (and possibly tablets with ARM-ATI customs chips, who knows)

Sorry to say, even think, but the future is not sandy-bridge, or the next core 9 or whatever wonderful chip intel pumps out... the i7 is pretty much over-powered already for most common uses (maybe not for professionals for video graphics stuff) is actually lower power, I have an
AMD A8, and just keep tossing crap to it, and it just laughs. anything I do at home with this computer, the A8 is more than sufficient, all at the same time too.
Its sucky but the Znet guy is right, albeit wrote it in an intentionally inflammatory way, the future of computing is that of a utility, controlled by big players. People argue, but the connectivity is not there, well Google has been trying to get more internet for the country, not because they love you, but because it benefits them.. the same will be MS, and maybe Apple (but they are greedy bastards so who knows) .
Its only a matter of time before computing is mainly a closed system, with no real user control.. the Znet guy is right, its only a few whiners, (i am one) but most people beg for the money to be removed from their pockets, and if the service works, no one care about DRM, 'privacy' or 'rights' and 'minor' stuff like that, because hey it has facebook.

Where znet is wrong, is that it will be cheaper, it will not, it will just be a 10bucks here, 20 there situation, amounting to 100s a year, year after year. MS know this, sure 99$ for 5 cloud office, they are fully aware, home-customers will use one, maybe 2, and even if they install all 5 licenses, the usage will be equivalent to 1.

Can I buy a 5 licensa package and sell 4 ? probably not, I am sure they will do something when they see access in alaska as well as michigan at the same time.

Yeah, cloud this and that. yeah sound sucky, its happening though.
 
AMD probably did take less money then Nvidia would have, but I'd imagine AMD's solution would be a lot cheaper to manufacture than Nvidia's - seeing as they have reasonably powerful x86 APUs and NV don't. That would lead to another extra layer that needs paid for (contracting out an x86 CPU) and it would make things more complex (i.e. what if the yields on it are poor? What if the 3rd party goes out of business? etc. etc.). It seems like a lot less of a headache going with AMD.

The margins are going to be small for AMD, but it's something - and on top of that you're denying a primary rival those margins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top