NVIDIA: PS4 Not Worth The Cost

octoberasian

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
4,082
Well, if Sony didn't offer enough money and Nvidia was asking for something higher, would this not have increased the price of the PS4 to something higher than the supposed $399 price of the console?

I don't think Sony or even Microsoft want to repeat the initial pricing of the PS3 and 360 consoles. Times have changed. Economics have changed. $399 should be a good price for a console even if it means little profit for AMD. Microsoft may come in slightly cheaper due to DDR3 RAM.

However, if Nvidia was asking more than what Sony has offered, it would have probably jumped the price of the console by quite a lot. The only comparable Nvidia GPU to the HD 7850/7970M supposedly in the PS4 is a $300 GTX 660 Ti or $230 GTX 660. The HD 7850 comes in at around $160 to $220.

Let's say the price of the GPU itself sans the RAM and other components is one-third the price of the actual card's retail price and the PS4 is $399. That would put the GTX 660 at $77 to $100 per GPU compared to $54 to $74 per GPU for the 7850/7970M. If Sony was asking maybe $75 or less per GPU unit, I think AMD lucked out here.

That and AMD was able to offer cost-competitive solution with the Jaguar-based SoC and integrating the GPU on-die, thus lowering power consumption as a whole.

I don't think Nvidia would have wanted to be paired alongside their competitor's CPU in the first place.

In the end, I consider this not just a business decision for considering Sony's offer too low but greedy as well. You can't expect consumers to pay for a $500 or $600 console in this current day and age.
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,704
I am sure to some degree NVidia dropped the ball, but in the end I don't care, I think that the overall affect of this could be really good for PC gaming. 1 now that NVidia has been pushed to only PC sales we might finally get someone in one of those big companies to start trying to push PC gaming hard. Second I am glad that a real x86 CPU finally went into a console, we may see a side effect of console ports being less shitty. Finally lets not mix words AMD is in trouble and for us PC gamers to have a good time we need a competitor and if this helps AMD much and allows them to keep floating their discreet graphics products I am all for it.

Of course it could all backfire and maybe AMD bid way to low and they will actually lose money or make nothing on these deals and end up going under anyway.
 

RangerXML

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 16, 2006
Messages
6,394
As the saying goes, the day consoles natively support keyboard and mice in games is the day I care. I would of paid money to see consoles go with a AMD APU solution (such great potential if it just didn't have AMD's crappy drivers behind it) and I'm an Nvidia fanboy.
 

cptnjarhead

Crossfit Fast Walk Champion Runnerup
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
1,669
As the saying goes, the day consoles natively support keyboard and mice in games is the day I care.

same here, but it seems that MS is trying to push the keyboard and mouse in the garbage.
 

octoberasian

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
4,082
As the saying goes, the day consoles natively support keyboard and mice in games is the day I care. I would of paid money to see consoles go with a AMD APU solution (such great potential if it just didn't have AMD's crappy drivers behind it) and I'm an Nvidia fanboy.

The PS3 does support keyboard and mice, and the PS4 should be no different.

Unfortunately, game developers will need to add that support into their own games. But, it doesn't make sense to add keyboard and mice support for a game that's going to primarily use a controller, especially when it's programmed to use it from the start

Hence, game console and gaming PC, two entirely different things.
 

robble

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 6, 2004
Messages
6,488
Yeah ... no.

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

Since when is 1080p considered low res? Considering it is by far the most common resolution used by gamers and people with newer tvs... Even on [H] I'd bet the largest percentage of us game at 1080p. Not everyone had the cash for larger/multiple monitors.
 

cptnjarhead

Crossfit Fast Walk Champion Runnerup
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
1,669
The PS3 does support keyboard and mice, and the PS4 should be no different.

Unfortunately, game developers will need to add that support into their own games. But, it doesn't make sense to add keyboard and mice support for a game that's going to primarily use a controller, especially when it's programmed to use it from the start

Hence, game console and gaming PC, two entirely different things.

True, console games are designed around the controller (which makes the levels suck and RPGs suck harder), but I think the intent was “when console become more versatile like PC’s then I will care” I realize they are not heading in that direction, but if console makers want my cash, they should look into it. I am a minority of course.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
5,448
So rather than having a consistent flow of money, the let AMD take it?

A lot of it is that nvidia is tied up in so many other areas right now. They made their huge push in the compute realm, and have every intention to further ramp up in that area. They are also investing quite a bit into the mobile category and have made some huge strides in that area as well. Finally, they seem to be pushing more continued R&D into the desktop GPU market, more so then ATI/AMD it would seem.

And the fact of the matter is that while there is profit to be made from console GPU's; It's not huge. Further, as others have said; Nvidia isn't even in a position to offer a complete SoC to the system builders. Nvidia doesn't do x86, nor will they ever.
 

ZodaEX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
4,233
The PS3 does support keyboard and mice, and the PS4 should be no different.

Unfortunately, game developers will need to add that support into their own games. But, it doesn't make sense to add keyboard and mice support for a game that's going to primarily use a controller, especially when it's programmed to use it from the start

Hence, game console and gaming PC, two entirely different things.

Even the Super Nintendo and PS2 have a mouse. I'm pretty sure we've been there for some time now.
 

Qinsp

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
2,154
Wouldn't nVidia have to outsource or license CPU technology?

Big advantage for AMD, is they engineer both CPU, GPU's and APU.

Perhaps nVidia's overhead to get a APU processor was the killer.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
5,448
Wouldn't nVidia have to outsource or license CPU technology?

Big advantage for AMD, is they engineer both CPU, GPU's and APU.

Perhaps nVidia's overhead to get a APU processor was the killer.

They'd have to work with AMD or Intel if the system builders refused to use anything but x86. That isn't an option for Nvidia.
 

wonderfield

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,396
As the saying goes, the day consoles natively support keyboard and mice in games is the day I care. I would [have] paid money to see consoles go with a AMD APU solution (such great potential if it just didn't have AMD's crappy drivers behind it) and I'm an Nvidia fanboy.
1) That isn't a saying. It's something you said just now.

2) You don't really want to play every genre of game with KB/M, do you? Side scrollers, racing sims, beat-em-ups, flight sims, etc., etc.? KB/M certainly dominates for certain genres with certain types of control schemes, but it's not a universally optimal control setup.

3) Have. Not of.
 

DeathPrincess

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
18,205
Even the Super Nintendo and PS2 have a mouse. I'm pretty sure we've been there for some time now.

Quake 2 on the PSone has the option of 4 player splitscreen with everyone using a mouse (+controller for movement/weapon switch) :D
 

DW-UK

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 27, 2012
Messages
1,122
AMD focusing on those console contracts was an excellent piece of direction.

After looking at the price, and benchmarks, of the new nVidia Titan, AMD does not need to waste time on a new graphics card. Two AMD 7970s, in crossfire, is cheaper and faster than it.

Plus, if AMD can improve their drivers, and get games optimised for their GPU (and CPU) architecture, then they should do even better than nVidia (possibly Intel). This leads me to believe that focusing on those console contracts was an excellent piece of direction.
 

Activate: AMD

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
1,994
sounds like a lot of sour grapes on the part of nvidia trying to save face. They've made it clear that their growth efforts are in the direction of mobile. I think thats a sound strategy, but their execution has been very disappointing overall. All the Tegra products so far have been underwhelming or brought along too many downsides to garner significant design wins. I think AMD is making a mistake by not trying to play in this space the way nvidia is, but in the meantime taking 100% of the next-gen console market isn't a bad consolation prize
 

fdiaz78

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 6, 2007
Messages
2,123
Hopefully this gives AMD some much needed cash. Competition is needed to keep players honest.
 

Geforcepat

Gawd
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
1,015
Since when is 1080p considered low res? Considering it is by far the most common resolution used by gamers and people with newer tvs... Even on [H] I'd bet the largest percentage of us game at 1080p. Not everyone had the cash for larger/multiple monitors.

Here here:cool:

sounds like a lot of sour grapes on the part of nvidia trying to save face. They've made it clear that their growth efforts are in the direction of mobile. I think thats a sound strategy, but their execution has been very disappointing overall. All the Tegra products so far have been underwhelming or brought along too many downsides to garner significant design wins. I think AMD is making a mistake by not trying to play in this space the way nvidia is, but in the meantime taking 100% of the next-gen console market isn't a bad consolation prize

Nope,not a bad prize at all.Lois instead of Lana;)
 

Kalabalana

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
1,313
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.

Not neccessarily, such an assumption includes the idea that because nVidia couldn't meet the price point with enough points on top, does not mean AMD failed in a similar regard.

Your bias is showing, or ignorance.
 

BrooksyX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
1,131
Sounds like nvidia is a little butt hurt lol

Long live AMD (well for graphics anyways)
 

Spire3660

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
1,032
Nvidia seems to have a habit of being greedy. They tried to screw over MS during the early design phase of the 360.

Turnabout is fair play. Yes it was a dick move on NVidia's part, but MS deserves it. If I was Huang, i might have done the same.
 

Spire3660

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
1,032
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

I think you over-estimate the success of PS4 and Durango. This launch is nothing like the last one, and success for either of them is NOT guaranteed. There arent 3 consoles and PC this time, there are legions of devices and platforms. MS and Sony have a rough road ahead of them.
 

BrooksyX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
1,131
I think you over-estimate the success of PS4 and Durango. This launch is nothing like the last one, and success for either of them is NOT guaranteed. There arent 3 consoles and PC this time, there are legions of devices and platforms. MS and Sony have a rough road ahead of them.

Agreed, I am afraid that the market is way over saturated right now with "gaming" devices and feel like we could nearing another video game market crash.
 

RangerXML

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 16, 2006
Messages
6,394
1) That isn't a saying. It's something you said just now.

2) You don't really want to play every genre of game with KB/M, do you? Side scrollers, racing sims, beat-em-ups, flight sims, etc., etc.? KB/M certainly dominates for certain genres with certain types of control schemes, but it's not a universally optimal control setup.

3) Have. Not of.

1) Common enough saying here.

2) I'll admit I use controllers on PC, never said I didn't (xbox 360 to be precise, I think its well designed and works great wireless). I even have a MadCatz FightStick TE and a modded SE for fighting games ($200+ worth of gear there). All I'm saying is if the option was there, especially for games that involve aiming, would save me a lot in computer upgrades.

3) Would of, could of, should of :p If you don't get what I'm implying here. I actually do pretty well for English being me second language (better then most English speakers I'd wager).
 

Qinsp

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
2,154
Hopefully this gives AMD some much needed cash. Competition is needed to keep players honest.


AMD's funeral announcement was more than 20 years ago. Wish they would hurry up, I hear the wake is Open Bar.
 

zero2dash

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
6,081
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.

Not gonna happen.
Nintendo doesn't partner with anyone.
They've had 2 partnerships and both ended up screwing them in the end....the failed Sony partnership led to the Playstation and the failed partnership with Philips led to the CD-i and Nintendo having to let Mario and Zelda appear on that busted POS.

Secondly the Wii U is not a home run (yet) because it has no competition.
Once the new consoles are out and it has some, it'll probably beat both on pricing and more than likely earn some more sales. The system also does not have a killer app yet and a lackluster library as well, and that's not helping either.

As for nVidia, who cares. Wah wah butthurt. Who cares.
nVidia deserves to lose something for a change, they've been running roughshod over AMD for the most part for the last decade because no matter what AMD's come out with that beats them on price/performance, nVidia still gets more sales and more recognition.

I just hope AMD gets enough of a share of the console revenue that they are able to stick around another 10 years and I hope they can eventually put out something that sways more buyers to their products.
 

hpglow

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
373
Secondly the Wii U is not a home run (yet) because it has no competition.
Once the new consoles are out and it has some, it'll probably beat both on pricing and more than likely earn some more sales. The system also does not have a killer app yet and a lackluster library as well, and that's not helping either.

Huh? I love my Wii U but you aren't making any sense. The Wii U isn't a sucess because there are no games for it. The only game woth a crap for it is Mario. Darksiders 2 I already got for $20 on steam, the rest of the good games are late to the race or suck. Nintendo will make money on this thing when it has games. Hey, here is an idea where the hell is Wii Fit U? My wife has been waiting for that lame ass game for months. What about a new Wii Sports? Neither of these games has to be hard to make. Face it Nintendo really dropped the ball on the Wii U launch. They could have had a home run with a couple more games, but now that no one is buying it all the 3rd party deveopers are jumping ship or moving money to other consoles. But lack of competition has nothing to do with why they aren't making money. The price point isn't great but its also not bad. If anything the fact that they don't have competition should draw people in, but the fact remains that they do have competition... XB360, PS3, and PC because none of their games have anything that can't be done on either of those three.

Anyway, back on topic. This nVidia statement reads to me like they are a little ass hurt that they weren't even considered this time around.
 

dr.kevin

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
3,053
so AMD was bleeding money and were willing to squeeze their margins razor thin.

nvidia wouldn't play that way.
 

MrSneis

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
2,714
I just hope the consoles don't have crazy failure rates like the 360's and first gen ps3's. It seems to get worse every generation. Not much to do with who designs and supplies the GPU though I guess...
 

next-Jin

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
7,034
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.

This is pretty much what everything boils down too, he probably is not lying about the price because for their price range they likely needed a SoC type design.

so AMD was bleeding money and were willing to squeeze their margins razor thin.

nvidia wouldn't play that way.

Yea no see above.

I am very interested on seeing how this pans out in the PC Gaming segment, in 3 years what could an AMD CPU + GPU bring to the table compared to that of an Intel + nvidia setup? Could AMD's gamble in their CPU designs pay off in gaming?

There should be no one hammering AMD when they won all three designs in the console market, they got them and nvidia didn't. The only question is how will this effect their future in the PC market because thats all anyone really cares about here on [H]. They have been dead set on their designs and roadmaps so it should be interesting.

On a related note do we know if they got paid for the design or if they are getting a percentage on shipped consoles?
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
51
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...
 

limitedaccess

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
7,594
On a related note do we know if they got paid for the design or if they are getting a percentage on shipped consoles?

No one knows for certain.

Throwing some numbers out including last gen so people have a better idea -

AMD is planning on classifying its PS4 (and likely xbox 720) sales as part of its Embedded Products revenue. This currently accounts for 5% (or ~270m as of 2012). They project this to grow to 20% of revenue by the end of 2013 (likely due to the launch of both) for their last quarter. However we do not know how much is growth from other sales (unrelated to consoles, as it already accounts for 5%) or decline in revenue possibly from other segments. Note that this is revenue and not profit.

Nvidia mentioned (I believe in 2011?) that they had made $500m from their licensing agreement with Sony and PS3 up until that point. Supposedly this was a more favorable contract than AMD had with the 360 (an interesting note is that Nvidia actually made off the 360 as well due to backwards compatibility :p).

AMD was estimated to make ~30m over the launch sales of the 360 (either over the first quarter, or maybe year, I cannot remember).
 

Stoly

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,714
My take is that nvidia didn't really have anything to offer other than Maxwell, and that's not coming out anytime soon.

So nvidia prefered to go with a highly profitable HPC market, which clearly dominates and where AMD is pretty much non existent. rather than cheap out on consoles.
 
Top