Top
930°

Nvidia gave AMD the PS4 because console margins are terrible

Nvidia’s original Xbox win was a sizable windfall for the company in 2002-2003 and the GPU designs of the Xbox 360 and PS3 (built by AMD and Nvidia respectively) were topics of intense discussion when those consoles were new and exciting.

Given these upsides, it might seem odd that Nvidia apparently walked away from the negotiating table with Sony on the PS4.

Read Full Story >>
extremetech.com
The story is too old to be commented.
snipermk01613d ago

blah blah blah.. and nVidia cured cancer. Anything else that is new?

1613d ago Replies(6)
Hitman07691613d ago

yeah I see what snipermk0 is trying to say. instead of standing by their product they feel the need to generate sympathy out of some sort of quasi-moto awareness scheme that is now using articles and idealogy like the ones behind this to basically tell us "Hey just cuz we aren't in PS4 we are still pretty friggin stand up guys you know". This isn't the 50's, we don't need that much personalisation to companies and it just seems silly.

GiggMan1613d ago

When you look at a console the average person has no idea what's in it. I have a gaming laptop (Asus G74sx) that has the ASUS logo on it along with the NVIDIA, Intel, and Windows logos. There is no brand recognition on consoles besides what MS, Sony, or Nintendo put on them. If you have a good quality product and partner with someone why not put a "powered by Nvdia" logo on the box or something like that? I think that's a point Nvdia is trying to make and it's valid.

Sure they may make money in the long run but imagine the advertising they can get off say 50million consoles sold each gen.

kayoss1613d ago

@GiggMan
The problem with this is that most of the parts in these cant be bought by consumers. Example, the AMD that SOny and Microsoft are using is custom built for the console. There is no way Sony and Microsoft will allow AMD to sell this "Custom" part to consumers.

cayleee1613d ago (Edited 1613d ago )

Its funny how people are making a big deal out of Nvidia not getting console business.

1. Making console chips hardly provides any profit.

2. Consoles inevitably eat into PC sales share. It would take many more console sales to equal the profit from a single PC graphics card sold. Hence Nvidia or AMD for that matter would always want more PC graphics cards sold.

3. Consoles tend to stagnate the industry. Since games are designed with consoles in mind, it means they are designed for old hardware. Hence even PC gamers can play games with relatively old hardware, as can be seen with this gen even a 6 year old 8800gtx can still play games. This never used to happen before. However thanks to consoles stagnating the industry it is causing Nvidia and AMD lost sales as the industry isnt progressing. Nvidia sees this, yet AMD doesnt.

4. Console sales arent too much to begin with. Even today there about about 70million PS3s sold after 6 whole years. That means 10 million chips per year. That isnt a monsterous amount of busuiness for a company like AMD or Nvidia.

Bottom line Nvidia has finally gotten it that supporting consoles just means compromising PC GPU sales as consoles inevitably slow down game graphics power requirement, thus causing a slow down in the PC industry. The slow down doesnt just effect PC GPUs sold, it also effects CPUs, Motherboards, RAM etc As things dont need to be upgraded as often.

AMD is just being dumb by supporting consoles for a small benefit. They will pay the price in a PC market slow down where they will see less and less of their consumer upgrading and like i said in the beginning it takes far more consoles chip sales to cover up profit lost on PC hardware sold.

Hence in the long run its not beneficial for any of these companies to support consoles.

GiggMan1613d ago (Edited 1613d ago )

@Kayoss. I get that and agree with you but advertisement is advertisement.

Take a game like the logo quiz games on smartphones and show the Nvidia logo to the average person to see if they get it right. Imagine if the AMD or Nvidia brand was printed on the console somewhere and consumers go into a store to purchase a new computer. They see the logo and can associate it with their PS or Xbox in or a good (or bad) way.

Sometimes that's all it takes is association. I'm sure Nvdia or AMD is really not noticed on a mainstream level and something like this would put their name out there.

one2thr1613d ago

@ Gig

Well if you read the box that the PS3 comes in, it shows you and tells you what's in the system...

Well at least the box that my "phat" ps3 came shows/tells me

gaffyh1613d ago (Edited 1613d ago )

The truth is, the Sony and MS are going with AMD next generation for a few reasons:

1. Their chips are smaller in terms of die size, and also produce less heat and require less energy to run. This means the heatsink, and the PSU that Sony and MS have to make can be smaller, making the console itself smaller, meaning it is cheaper to make as there are less components, plastics etc.

2. AMD have the ability to offer CPU and GPU on the same chip because they own two businesses that do this, at a much cheaper and more efficient cost that nVidia.

Simple fact of the matter is, nVidia cards, whilst very powerful, are not very efficient and would require a lot of power, and generate more heat. This would increase console failures, which is the another reason that MS and Sony are not going with them.

dedicatedtogamers1613d ago (Edited 1613d ago )

*looks at this article
*remembers Pachter saying "MS will bash Sony"
*remembers that MS has done that since MS-DOS

Methinks that the NextBox will be using an Nvidia graphics chip. I called it right here.

And you bet your butt that when MS reveals their next console hardware, 75% of their bragging will be about some newfangled, awesome, incredibly powerful, exclusive-to-NextBox Nvidia chip that is ONLY on NextBox (when in reality it's a 2-year-old Nvidia chip with a bit more RAM).

Maybe I'm wrong, but since Microsoft is likely going to try their hand (again) at merging mid-range PC gaming with their proprietary console market (attempted it with Games for Windows Live), partnering with the biggest PC card manufacturer may play a role in that.

papashango1613d ago

@gaffy

If we're talking about the processing chip you need to be comparing AMD to Intel and not graphics only.

AMD chips compared to Intel do not run cooler nor are they faster. They are in fact much slower. AMD I'm not sure if you're aware makes both graphics and CPU processors. Nvidia only has out at this point in time their Tesla line which is a mobile chip.

Intel Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge processors already have the ability to process graphics and are much much quicker than AMD offerings.

Dark_king1613d ago

@dedicatedtogamers nope MS wants nothing to do with them.they don't wont to drop the price of the gpu as it ages.This is the main reason for both Ms and Sony to stop using them.

kreate1613d ago (Edited 1613d ago )

@caylee

Ur comment was a interesting read.

However one point I disagree with is that (if im perceiving ur point correctly), is that u seem to imply that AMD doesnt see that supporting consoles equals lower sales on the pc components side.

I dont think that is true.
AMD is going into consoles so they can expand and sell more. They are doing this becuz the pc market is already stagnating.

Most ppl across the globe already have a pc. Its hard to sell ppl new pc w new hardware from Amd/nvidia cuz the general pc users dont care. The necessity to upgrade the gpu has declined amongst consumers.

Consoles are not the main variable To blame. Its actually smartphones/tablets/netbooks that are eating into that section of the market. Not consoles.

Microsoft is struggling becuz consumers are not buying windows 8. It is reported that pc sales have a drastic decline on a global scale. But its not becuz consoles are stagnating the pc market. Its becuz pc market is already over-saturated.

AKS1613d ago

I can't help but wonder if some of these comments making generalizations about AMD's CPUs are based on any actual facts. They were struggling a bit, but their latest CPUs have been performing quite well, especially the FX-8350. It was very competitive with Intel's CPUs.

http://i.imgur.com/0nIkCAb....

I personally went with an Intel/ Nvidia CPU/GPU combo in my PC, but AMD makes some very nice processors and cards. You don't have to hate any of these companies' competitors to like the other one.

Anyway, what gave AMD a big advantage as a player in both the high end CPU and GPU markets in getting all these console contracts is being able to put a solid CPU and CPU together on one die. It makes a lot of sense for all parties involved. They want to keep the price affordable and heat produced as low as possible.

gaffyh1613d ago

@papashango - I'm aware that AMD also make CPUs which is why I mentioned that they can make combined CPU/GPU chips much better than nVidia currently. I'm not saying that nVidia is crap, they do make the best PC graphics cards, and Intel make the most efficient processors right now, but the AMD option is easier and most likely cheaper than going the Intel+nVidia route.

It might not be as efficient as Intel chips, but it is cheaper because of it. And it might not be as powerful as an nVidia card, but it produces less heat and sucks less power because of this.

chaos-lockheart1613d ago (Edited 1613d ago )

Nintendo do have it, gamecube had the ATI logo so did the Wii. Nvidia just jealous, Sony said Nvidia were too expensive, and didn't want to use them when they were negotiating.

ChrisW1613d ago

cayleee,

Go somewhere else with your blasphemy!!!

People here at N4G hate hearing logic, truth, and common sense.

miyamoto1613d ago

yet they came up with that Project shield...oh the bitter irony!

Anarki1613d ago

Hell no! I don't want millions of $ I'd rather give our rivals more money!

R6ex1613d ago

Guess Project Denver is not ready.

pixelsword1613d ago (Edited 1613d ago )

This smells like valve, and what I meam by that is that when they couldn't immediately wrap their heads around programming for the cell they trashed the ps3, even though they didn't make a single game this gen that was as sophisticated as many games that came out on the ps3. Between the PC and the 360, they were squarely in microsoft's corner, even though they are a great company and didn't have to say any thing because their proudcts are loved, and did business with sony in the future. Now Nvidia's doing the same thing which suggests that they have something in the works with MS or Valve, but more likely valve because valve likely realizes that it needs to step-up or they may crash and burn in the future. The "winner" of this coming gen will likely buy-out the last one or two. (Nintendo was purchased by atari in the past before freeing themselves somehow ).

+ Show (15) more repliesLast reply 1613d ago
Donnieboi1613d ago

Nvidia is B.U.T.T.H.U.R.T.

Leviathan1613d ago

Actually, MS and Sony are BUTTHURT by Nvidia.

Nvidia royally screwed over both MS AND Sony. Microsoft got screwed when they assumed the price of the graphics chip would drop over time in the first XBOX.It didn't. Nvidia then MILKED MS because they had no chip pricing reduction over the product life.

Sony got hurt by Nvidia when they asked them to build a xenos style processor for the ps3,(a shader model 4.0 type GPU). Nvidia said they cant do it before the launch of the ps3 and then gave sony an old GPU. Almost INSTANTLY after sony ordered those old gpu's, Nvidia released the G80 processor which is exactly what Sony wanted. Nvidia intentionally gimped the ps3's graphics card by selling them an inferior product at current market prices.

And that kiddies is why Nvidia won't be in any consoles for the time being.

Kingnichendrix1613d ago

Ohh those Jimmies that have been rustled

tachy0n1613d ago (Edited 1613d ago )

epic sheep are epic,

keep in mind the PS3 GPU is made by nvidia and you have games like "the last of us" and games look better than x360 thanks to them in some part

also, the PS3 didnt suffered too much GPU overheat problems like the X360 had at launch, why? because the GPU is made by Nvidia.

stop being so sheep people, you only give a bad image to N4G.com

kayoss1613d ago

Hey can you say Baaaa!!!! no one is denying that nvidia is a good company for GPU and other components, but what we do question is why are they bashing the PS4? Sony did come to Nvidia for parts but both didnt come to agreement so they parted ways. But why do they feel the need to bash it? Good luck spending hundreds on a Nvidia graphic card to play one game.

Dark_Overlord1613d ago (Edited 1613d ago )

"also, the PS3 didnt suffered too much GPU overheat problems like the X360 had at launch, why? because the GPU is made by Nvidia. "

The PS3 had a much more well designed cooling system, MS crammed too much in the wrong places resulting in restricted air flow.

However, I just thought I'd point out, the main cause of YLOD in the PS3 was due to the lead free solder that they'd started using (something to do with green taxes), now lead free solder melts at a lower temperature than leaded solder. Although the PS3 never reached the required temp to turn the solder to a full liquid state, it did produce enough heat to weaken it from its fully solid state, couple this with the rapid cooling of the solder when the console was switched off, which in turn contributed to the solder 'cracking'. That's why re-flowing works so well, it melts the solder back into one whole lump.

So while the PS3 didn't suffer from overheating issues, heat was the cause of the solders problems. MS also used lead free solder in the 360. So both companies are at fault for not realising lead free solder melted at a lower temp :)

3-4-51613d ago

It's known that Nvidia GPU's run hotter than AMD's for the most part. Especially ones that aren't top of the line.

Captain Tuttle1613d ago

You're right about the lead-free solder but it was because the EU banned it
http://www.ihs.com/news/200...

The PS3 had a cooling system that was significantly more robust than the 360's. The PS3 was also a good deal larger to accommodate that cooling system.

Mkai281613d ago

I will tell you this, if it wasn't for the cell processors taking some of the load off the RSX GPU the graphics wouldn't have looked that good. Overheating would have possibly happened more. Remember the 360 has the better GPU, in which most of the work load was from the GPU alone. The PS3 was suppose to be a "360 with an cell processor." So don't make it like Nvidia was the only reason why games like Last Of Us exist. Have a nice day..

papashango1613d ago

@kayoss look around bro. Just about every Sony fanboy is saying Nvidia is not a good company.

kenshiro1001613d ago

Stop making up nonsense. No one ever said it wasn't a good company.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1613d ago
feels1613d ago

the cure for cancer already exists but obama is holding it back and not releasing it to the public because there's more money in treating people than curing them

shutUpAndTakeMyMoney1613d ago (Edited 1613d ago )

They may cure cancer way before sony could. Big ass super computers use nVidia. Just sayin.

AMD needs all the business they can get.
http://arstechnica.com/busi...
They are going down hill so this is good for them.