"We recently spoke to AMD's PR lead for gaming and enthusiast in graphics Robert Hallock about the next generation of gaming, technology, the PS4 and Xbox One and much more."
haha, isnt competition healty!
Indeed it is. So far it seems AMD has all guns roaring for them consoles wise.. But NVIDIA still holds the PC market and their upcoming mobile solutions are insane.
NVIDIA is bitter because they weren't given enough money to build next-gen hardware, so now they're trash-talking both AMD and the console market. But when they'll see all the studios happy about the next-gen, they'll shut their mouth up.
Sorry double post
NVIDIA doesn't make CPUs. That is the bad part of their deal. Their first Desktop ARM CPU Denver isn't out until 2015. AMD offered CPU support while giving GPUs out. Its an advantage NVIDIA doesn't have at the moment. NVIDIA has time to rebuilt itself up for the generation after this one with ARM tech. AMD still has x86 + ARM to work with so it could still hold an advantage.
@deadlyfire Tegra series.
Didn't Nvidia make the Shield handheld..? Why don't they talk about how there killing the market with there sales?!?!
With multi threading low power cores now in console AMD will be a more viable option for PC too. Games will with AMD optimsation in mind so i'ts a good move for AMD all round, it seems like they're making a good move in the PC and console market.
so, AMD said something that makes their decisions sound good and the competition sound wrong? tell me again how much PR for corporations tell the truth all the time. or is it only the truth if they're saying what you want to hear? Nvidia destroys AMD in the PC market and in overall profits. all this "Nvidia is butthurt" nonsense is ignorance at its finest. Nvidia did not become as successful as they are because they had GPUs in the PS3 and 360. that's not a big deal to them.
But the guns amd showed hardly make money...this deal means nothing.AMD is hardly making any money off these console no matter how much they sale.
@ mattdilla there is a difference between being bitter and successful-- nvidia arguably makes the best pc chipset and quite successful in that side of the business- but losing out in the console business is still a significant loss of revenue and loss of technology implementation. Fundamentally games are built with one or the other chip being the focal point while the other is secondary-- sorta like how certain games promotes amd and some other game promotes nvidia--- by losing out on the console front-- significant amount of games are going to be tailored around benefiting the amd chip. This by no means that nvidia will perform poorly but it certainly isnt a positive news for them if they want to showcase their technology. Ultimately the failure of securing a console deal falls solely on nvidia because of the policies with royalty and revenue, and their insistence on high cost development-- its one reason why both ms and sony abandoned ship. I really doubt nvidia will be partnered with any of the big three ever again to tell you the truth, if anything they may have to develop their own or side with some android console to be in consoles business again.
Funny how, now that the ps4 is using amd, all the fanboys are suddenly on the bandwagon... Lol. Fanboys are a joke. Btw, I'm getting a ps4..... Regardless of its gpu manufacturer.... You don't play cpu's and gpu's, you play GAMES!!!
I'm sorry your assessment that Nvidia still holds PC market share is incorrect. http://www.pcper.com/news/G... AMD now enjoys a 5.8% overall total market lead over Nvidia. AND dominates Nvidia when it comes to price/performance.
I think nvidia is more focusing on PC market, super computer market, as well as mobile. Their latest endeavor project Logan claims to have. Mobile processing with graphics capabilities beyond this next gen consoles. Now this is only speculation, I won't buy into it until I see more solid info. But, this was smart for nvidia, due to the potential dominance of android based gaming from a 60% total market share in smartphone mobile market. Nvidia is going after what would be more customers than consoles would reach, due to more people having a smartphone vs. a console. Even if people didn't play games on a particular cellphone that did have a nvidia processor, in the current case a tegra, nvidia still wins due to that being the phone or tablets main processor. While, game consoles are primarily bought for just games, though some are sold for media viewing purposes.
"their upcoming mobile solutions are insane." Qualcomm's Snapdragon series says hi Nvidia.
Simple, AMD has all of the cards in their hands. Last gen they had the PS3, but they literally spit in their face by not going with them this gen saying that their prized 1000$ Titan GPU card was 3 times more powerful than PS4... No shit, it better be for 1000$... but only 3 times for just 1 part of a full console that's 400$, it's like 10x more expensive for just that 1 part, still need a CPU/HDD/BD Player/RAM/Controller/All. Also, when you treat long time partners like that and spit in their face, you don't really create much business potential for the future. If NVIDIA made Desktop CPUs, they would have had an advantage there, but it's not, they run on Intel Processors for now.
@Gameratheart: You have a point! Fact of the matter is, nvidia is worth almost 4 times as much as AMD. nvidia also has far more profitability, stability and better economy than AMD. If you look at AMD, their weakness continues to show. Did you know AMD is now worth less (about half) of what it paid to acquire ATi to gain the GPU business? That consistently shows you how bad AMD is in their decision. A company that is a major player in both GPU and CPU business is worth less than a fraction of either it's competitor in both industries! Most fools will look at this and believe AMD, but would you buy their stock? Many aren't! When the richer company says, there isn't enough profit and the poor company that is desperate takes the job, what does that tell you?! It sure ain't because there is a lot of profit on the table! nvidia going after the more lucrative mobile market sounds like a lot better plan than a slowing down console market with very low profit margins. I love consoles, but facts are facts! Just sayin....
Here's my experience with both AMD and Nvidia products: Since 2007 I've owned 4 AMD/ATI graphics cards (2x 5870s, 2x 7990s) and 5 Nvidia gfx cards (8800 gts, 2x 580s, 1x 680 Lightning, 1x Titan). I have good experience with both and no bias towards either one. AMD gpu's generally run much hotter and less power efficient than Nvidia. As a consequence their video cards are almost always much louder and put out a lot more heat which may not sound like a big deal to a lot of ppl but trust me, it gets really uncomfortable after a long gaming session. When an AMD card is pumping out 375 watts of heat and almost 60 decibels to compete with an Nvidia product that has almost the same FPS with 250 watts and 40 decibels...it becomes obvious which one is superior. Once you go to a much better engineered piece of equipment from Nvidia you will immediately notice the difference and definitely appreciate how it's so much more refined, not just in a hardware sense but the software too. The driver team working for Nvidia does a much better job than AMD at creating a smooth gaming experience whether it's single gpu or multi gpu. I can honestly say at this point that I would not consider buying another AMD product unless they seriously raise the bar for quality in every aspect of their business. The fact that MS and Sony chose a really struggling company like AMD because it was cheaper than Nvidia is NOT a good thing for the gaming industry and only shows just how hurting the economy is at this point in time. Nvidia wanted more money because they had better technology to offer, instead we have to settle for consoles that have hardware from AMD that equates to mid range PC hardware from 2 years ago. While if you think back to the release of the 360/PS3 their hardware was equivalent to almost top-end PC hardware at the time.
AMD = more compatible and less problems. Yea they may perform 5% worse in terms of overall graphical output, but you deal with less BS using a AMD compared to Nvidia. Just from my experiences. It's different for everyone. They sound mega b hurt though.
since when? AMD has improved drivers compared to the ati days... but nvidia has almost always had better support.
5% difference? eh, my HD 7950 outperforms a gtx 670 all day long. I haven't experienced any of the dreaded driver issues that people like to trumpet all over the internet. In my opinion it is Overblown. Maybe I'm just lucky? Honestly it goes back an forth between them.
@ kevnb Better support, yes; but with gaming companies desiring to put games out on the PC and consoles with ease, that support may dwindle sharply this gen.
"Nvidia didnt touch the console business with a 10 footpole because they have standards and release top quality hardware and drivers." I guess after 2 generations of providing graphics chips for the consoles , nvidia finally gained some standards by not touching either console with a 10 ft pool right. "AMD is weak sauce and poor man's gpu and cpu.no wonder they in the business, because their hardware is cheap!" There are a hell of alot more poor man's pc than guys rocking dual $1000 titans. "Thats why top PC builds have Intel/Nvidia in them" And how many pc's actually need top end equipment to fulfill the specific roles desired of them. Why should people pay a premium, when a competitor is cheaper and still gets the job, i guess thats just a console gamers point of view.
No, it isn't.. the term "healthy competition" is an oxymoron. http://www.youtube.com/watc...
You misunderstand. Let me give you an example. Sony said that the best price they could offer the PS4 is $399. But lets assume Wii U and Xbox One didnt exist. Do you think that the PS4 would still cost $399? Because I think Sony would make damn sure they atleast break even if they had no competition. Thats whats happening with AMD and Nvidia. It's two companies aiming to outdo the other and bringing a valuable product to the market at a good price to COMPETE with the oppositions product... Hence why we have the clash talked about in the article. Also the video is another one of those "If only we could all be perfect" talks. I understand the point of trying to better our society, but some things are just out of our reach and unrealistic.
You're looking at competition from a market/corporate standpoint. I look at at from a real-world/societal standpoint. Since corporations or even consumerism/capitalism is not part of the natural world, I care little for what price Sony would charge, since it's irrelevant to the big picture. The thing to think about is what if all these competing companies were to work together to come with a product? Progress wouldn't be stifled by patents and recycled ideas by always trying to one up the competition, not to mention the amount of wasted resources, both tangible and non, that goes into developing 3 versions of essentially the same thing (game consoles,) with little differences between them. A good example is mentioned in the vid - what if during the space race, US and Russia worked together to achieve their goal, rather against each other? The potential is staggering. I won't even get into the negative sociological and development effects completion has on people.
@H0RSE "You're looking at competition from a market/corporate standpoint. I look at at from a real-world/societal standpoint." The market is a part of society therefore its connected. "Since corporations or even consumerism/capitalism is not part of the natural world" Ok but our society is arguably not part of the natural world. Its made by human-kind so you've got a slight contradiction there. Whether something is natural or not isnt really relevant to this argument :/ "The thing to think about is what if all these competing companies were to work together to come with a product?" Nothing new would be made until everyone owned one. There'd be no reason to advance any further than what we had already accomplished because here's something we all have: Greed. You see one day someone invented the phone. That same person did not invent what we call the smartphone. Sometimes the creator does not hold the answer on how to advance his/her creation. You see your assuming nothing good can come from competitiveness. But let me give you an example of something which will happen over the next (for arguments sake) 20 years. One day Google will release Google Glass. It will be extremely expensive. Another company will look at that and say "We need to make our own version of this! BUT we need something unique for ours which makes it look better". That there shows how competitiveness promotes the advancement in technology. Saying that being competitive is unhealthy is as I said above. One person thinking they know how to better the world and comes up with a solution which is unrealistic. Without competitiveness we wouldn't have things like Gaming or the Olympics. The world would just be one big and boring Sphere...
I have to agree with pekolie. Take the xbox 360 for example. Upon release it had no built in wireless capabilities and it didnt have an hdmi out. The ps3 didn't have trophies at launch or ps+. The ps2 received an external hard drive because ms put one in the xbox. Competition is a good thing. If all companies created one console there would be no need for improvements until the next gen or competitive prices.
@H0RSE: You are looking at it from the wrong perspective. It's like saying, what if all humans did their best in communism? It would work, but humans is also the reason it won't work! That is why most of the riches that come to communistic countries, are from being more capitalistic! Point being, the human element which companies are made of, causes co-operation for the sake of "the better good" without any form of compensation does NOT work! The sooner we accept humans as they are instead of chasing ideals, the sooner the world will be a better place!
"Ok but our society is arguably not part of the natural world. Its made by human-kind so you've got a slight contradiction there." - There's no contradiction, just poor choice of words. I added "societal" in an edit, perhaps I shouldn't have. --- "... There'd be no reason to advance any further than what we had already accomplished because here's something we all have: Greed." - Greed is learned behavior, not an intrinsic human trait. There are numerous studies and essays on the subject. If you need a simpler source, explain why some people are greedy and some are not. Greed is not a result of "human nature." --- "You see one day someone invented the phone. That same person did not invent what we call the smartphone. Sometimes the creator does not hold the answer on how to advance his/her creation." - But often times others do, and no amount of competition is needed to apply them. --- "... let me give you an example of something which will happen... One day Google will release Google Glass...Another company will look at that and say "We need to make our own version of this! BUT we need something unique for ours which makes it look better". That there shows how competitiveness promotes the advancement in technology." - That proves nothing. That same company could have just as easily have approached Google with their thoughts and ideas for improvements and collaborated on them together. Meanwhile, others (business or otherwise) could use the original product as inspiration to create entirely new technologies. All this taking place without an ounce of competition. What you described is not proof of competition promoting advancements. It is an example of how under the current social paradigm, money, or the acquisition of, is regarded so highly, that it promotes or even requires competition, where it otherwise would not be needed - it's a result of the current mechanisms within the system. Look at minds like Einstein or Salk, whose contributions do not derive from competition. When Jonas Salk developed the vaccine for Polio, it was for the betterment of mankind. When the media asked why he didn't patent it, knowing that he gave up a fortune, his response was that it wasn't his to patent - it belongs to the people. It's mindsets like that where true advancement takes place, not through practices to try and one up each other for profit. If competition truly promoted progress, then practices like "planned obsolesce" wouldn't exist. It isn't advancements that these companies are worried about, it's finding new ways to profit. If money can be made off it, they're interested, no matter how pointless. -- "... Without competitiveness we wouldn't have things like Gaming or the Olympics." - Gaming could exist, just differently, for ex., being based around co-op or single player. Only vs MP is competition-based, which even now is not a necessary part of the experience. As for the Olympics (or any sporting event) whether or not they would exist, I don't know, but more importantly is if they didn't exist, would it matter? Same for gaming. If they never existed, you wouldn't know what you were missing and they would likely be replaced with something else you were passionate about. --- "The world would just be one big and boring Sphere..." - it would be the opposite, where thoughts and ideas are shared freely amongst each other, not for profit but for overall betterment, without the fear or restrictions of copyright and patent infringement, and where the merit of ideas aren't based off their profit potential.
This going to benefit AMD GPU in a huge way. Because both PS4 and xbone will be same architecture and AMD CPU and GPU. This will inprove the performance on AMD GPU's. Now Multi platform games will be optimized for AMD hardware because it was developed for PS4 and xbone.
healthy competition is great
lol nvidia is angry now that sony, MS and nintendo are using AMD infact AMD graphics cards are started to become one of the best in business!(IMO). the only place nvidia will do good is PC end and thats it! and no mobile end they failed hard with tegrafail 4!
nvidia has been the better performance leader and getting updates out quicker than amd. but price per performance ratio amd offers better value and console manufacturers probably liked amd's competitive pricing more.
true say.. but i think amd has improved a lot in terms of putting out updated software... its just the bad reputation from ati days are still with them. which is kind of unfair since AMD are really good now.
I dunno. I have had an update for my gpu every month since I bought it. I bought my HD 7950 in october of last year. Performance has increased with almost every update too.
The problem with AMD is the same one they have been fighting all the time. They are always looking to undersell their chips to gain marketshare but instead go into the red hurting their business. The reason price performance is better on AMD is that they are not charging a true price for development. If they were, they would not be in the red all the time. Yes it great for customers buts definitely not healthy for their business. AMD actually will have to show that they are making profit from the consoles instead of Making comments. At the end of the day, if AMD is still in the red then something must be up.
When did they fail hard with the unreleaed Tegra 4?
it was supose to come out on january then it got delayed cz it was getting too hot! and they said they will hold it back for tegra 4i which suppose to be out end of this year? tegra 4 finally getting device made for it like the sheild but it has vents for fan! that thing on mobile platform will blow up! ARM has the best chip on the market and so does samsung then we have intel coming in then we have mediatek and texas instrements! no body is buying tegra chips no more! i mean nvidia is buliding theyre own tablet cz nobody will use tegra to make anything.
of course they have been bitter . obviously they are at ease with the pc and mobile market , but they would never spit on console dough . They just were greedy , all console manufacturer went AMD instead and now suddenly , for the last year , consoles hardware is "trash" in their interviews and even destroyed by mobiles and tablets . Yeah right , enjoy your tegra powered re-release of past GTA and angry birds star trek ...and keep believing the others wont be hot on your heels within the mobile market at some point
Sony went to NVIDIA FIRST. They wanted them to make a sexy supa powerful gpu but NVIDIA charged too much so AMD went " hey, you looking down, here. I'll cut you a deal *winks*"
AMD is gonna get alot more attention in the PC market now, with multiplat games being created mainly for AMD hardware. Nvidia is a little bit jealous of AMD right about now.
Unlikely. The PC is a market unto itself, where Nvidia graphics hardware make up a much larger percentage and Intel processors something like 80 percent(Eighty!). Also you are always addressing PC graphics hardware via various driver level layers, which masks the differences of architectures on PC so they essentially do the same operations and reach the same conclusions even if the hardware has variations of how they are actually performed. If this wasn't the case you would never be able to build anything for the various PC configurations. This large market share advantage won't be overlooked by developers making games for PC, what graphics hardware the consoles have has never really affected the PC market in the past. Besides, within 3 years the architectures in PC graphics will barely be recognisable from the dated hardware in the consoles. You could call a 1908 Model T a car and it does essentially the same thing as a modern car but the differences between it and modern offerings are fairly contrasting I would say! The passage of time and rapid advancement of PC hardware always limits the impact of different console architectures on the PC market. The main advantage the consoles bring to the PC scene is x86 central processors, which should align everything far more. X86 has much smaller, slower incremental improvements relative to graphics hardware, and has evolved over 35 years. The impact on PC ports will be far more significant than who made the GPU.
I had this same debate with someone in a PM, and I agree with @Xtra. The next few years will be good for AMD, but they won't flatout take over PC gaming. However, developers now have to code their engines to take advantage of the technologies AMD uses, since the PS4 & XB1 use AMD CPU's and all 3 console have AMD GPU's. All games made from this point forward should have a decent boost in performance because of this. Now on the CPU side of things I doubt this will finally make AMD superior to Intel, although it will make them more competitive without having to spend more money on building more powerful CPU's. An AMD FX 8350 is the go to CPU for AMD PC's right now, and it cost $200 and sometimes as low as $150 (w. rebates). That CPU is more than enough to run PC games without bottlenecking GPU's. Now factor in that developers will finally be coding games to take advantage of it's 8 cores, means realistically speaking there could be boost of up to 50% for AMD CPU's (real world boost of 20%), since most games focused on RAW core performance. Even with that 50% boost it's not topping Intel's best, but that level of performance combined with that budget pricing means AMD is going to give Intel trouble unless they drop their prices down 30% all around the board. On the GPU side of things the boost will be significantly less, but a boost is a boost and unfortunately for NVIDIA they don't flat-out beat AMD when it comes to GPU's like INtel does with CPU's. So AMD may have the GPU advantage for most of the generation as long as they don't dynamically change their GPU architecture. I believe he said the current PC usage rankings were. 80:20 in favor of Intel for CPU's 65:35 in favor of NVIDIA for GPU's. Over the next 5 years those percentages are going to change if performance does indeed boost for AMD (which it should). 70:30 in favor of Intel (there's no real need to upgrade your CPU this gen) 50:50 AMD and NVIDIA are going to be neck and neck this gen
The PC market used to be unto itself, there are very few games that are PC exclusive now. Now more than ever for developers, the gap in which to port over to consoles is smaller thanks to AMD sharing hardware with consoles. This means a lot for AMD as they have now become really the only option for those devs that are looking to develop on PC and console with their hardware being not only in low end, mid-tier, mid-high tier and top end PCs but being in all 3 current home consoles. When a game reads "Powered by Nvidia" you know for a fact, on PC, that title plays so much better on a Nvidia card, Now unless a developer really wants to be tied down to only PC, it will make more since to make AMD their platform of choice. Basically what has happened here is the same thing that has happened in the Mobile industry between iOS and Android. iOS has the lion share now (Nvidia) but there are just so many Android (AMD) devices now that it just makes sense to include them in the process of development and if current uptrends hold up for the underdog, they will soon be pick of the litter while the once proud Top Dog will be happy sharing the yard.
AMD or Nvidia , pc/consoles gamers will be happy next generation , I bet developers will make the lead in pc as standard since both consoles are easy to develop for . So even after 3 years from now developers can take advantage of the pc if they want unless they have agreements and then port it to the consoles easily with downgrades if necessary .. :P
I think you fail to understand the simple fact I presented, in that a gaming PC is not a games console. Games might indeed be led, designed and created for a specific set of console hardware, but for it to even run to a PC in a multiplatform guise, its very nature has to be generalised to the vast varieties of configurations, architecture differences and variants used in the PC market. This quickly waters down any specific technologies targeted on console for a PC version. For example the APU technology is still largely irrelevant to the core PC gaming market. It makes whatever brand and design hardware the consoles carry less important. The software layers that sit on top of PC HAVE to create an environment where no matter what sort of hardware you have (assuming it is compatible) the end result is the same, as in, you don't get totally different looking visuals or image quality or significant different features just because you changed the manufacturer of your graphics card. Physx is about as different as it gets and its market impact in favour of Nvidia is clearly limited. PS3 is case in point, the CELL CPU is not even remotely like an X86 CPU, and the NV47 graphics core (7800GTX) is barely related to even its immediate successor GPU (a G80 core, like an 8800GTX) However, despite utter and total differences in this console hardware to PC hardware, the games that they shared from day one to now even if they were designed primarily for PS3, Nvidia graphics, custom CELL processors whatever make virtually zero impact on how they run on PC and the various vendors we have. Anyone that believes that AMD dominance in console hardware making a significant impact on the performance of PC games or the balance of the PC market share don't really know the reality of PC gaming, sorry. Its impact will be minimal, the most significant aspect of these consoles will merely be they share a common CPU architecture with PC. As I pointed out, within a couple years I guarantee the graphics cores in PS4 and Xbone will barely resemble what people are using in their PC.... The fact that the PC gaming market is STILL dominated by Intel (who have not provided a CPU in a major console for a decade) and Nvidia (who only had two consoles out of six of the last two generations, neither of them the best selling) should make you heed my caution about this dream the PC landscape will change hugely merely because AMD now have a console lockout.
PS3's fancy new wacky hardware didnt make a jot of difference to pc gaming. Nobody ran out and bought a Nvidia graphics card just cos Nvidia was in PS3, nobody ran out to buy something else with a cell cpu or XDR memory in it because of PS3. Nobody bought an IBM powerpc processor for use at home cos it was in 360, in fact Apple quickly ditched them and went to intel in their macs as those consoles arrived. Nobody put eDRAM on their gaming PC chips just because Ati used it in 360's gpu. Dont see why the new generation consoles would make that difference either when most of their hardware tech advantages havent a lot of application when you make a pc game. Pc hardware is adapted and designed into new consoles, not the other way around. Thats how its always been.
The APU is a nice for consoles, Nvidia essentially has an APU with their Tegra processors, but x86 is miles ahead of ARM in terms of performance, likely the reason why AMD won.
Exactly what i was thinking. If Sony and Microsoft wanted to go with Nvidia then they wouldnt have a good APU solution. AMD on the other hand has a lot more experience with APUs so its only logical that both firms chose them. I pretty much agree that Nvidia while owning the majority of the PC market are just bitter that they couldn't rake in additional profit with these consoles. Tablet parts my arse the PS4 and the XBOX One are a lot more capable than any tegra tablet on the market.
APU solutions were chosen for their price performance ratio rather than their outright performance as per the previous generation of consoles with separate main processors. Sony and Microsoft were looking for the cheapest option for their required performance to limit the impact of manufacturing new consoles and avoid the significant losses incurred on hardware with PS3 and X360. AMD are the company in the best position to provide an APU with an x86 CPU and a modern graphics core having already designed plenty and having the in house experience melding the two. There were no other real competitors without them collaborating. Nvidia are primarily a graphics hardware company, it was always going to be unlikely they would see much of the consoles unless someone chose to build a machine with two separate chips. This was never gonna happen in the current economy or view of the last generation. Who knows in another 5 years.
In another 5 year's APU's will be the norm as it cuts out the only major bottleneck in pc architecture (PCIe bus).
Finally! Someone who understands!
I kind of wish if they went to the expensive side , that way we would have seen a huge jump but they chose profit over future that's why i'm expecting a lower life for next generation , we may see the ps5/x2 sooner then we think. I would pay another 600 or even more for a powerful console with sony exclusives >.< . I'm not even rich but that's a great investment lol . And people who can't afford it could have waited like this generation for a price drop but i guess people think of now more then the future...
APUs might be the norm for the majority of computers in 5 years but they still wont be the norm in pc systems built for games. Two separate chips will always be faster than one APU for games. Nature of making these chips means their size is limited. If you have one chip dedicated to do one task very well and another chip dedicated to do another task very well you wont be able to make a single chip large enough to match their combined efforts. No matter what gains you get from having individual graphics and cpu cores together on one die it cant make up for the raw performance of two larger more powerful components connected by a good bus. That will always cost more, and it'll always be faster. Last time I checked hardware cost mattered a great deal less for pc gaming than it did for making a console. Thats why the consoles have APUs, thats the whole point. Its cheaper. Thats why gaming PCs still have separate chips and will for the distant future. Its faster. Figures.
Profit is profit no matter how small it is.
Not really its all about forcasted market share gains. Can they get enough revenue and profit to further develop quicker than the competition? Just look what happened between the battle of Intel and AMD processors. To this day Intel has still not made ANY processor for the console market yet their chip division is much more profitable than AMD as a whole. Reason is because they had much more disposable income to expand and research faster.
It is somewhat of a win for AMD, but we have to remember AMD has not been doing well so recently (just look at the stocks and profit margins) Lets hope AMD gets at least some larger profit margins as the generation passes by so they can be a bit more competitive in the PC market (its not just about creating gaming hardware!) It is a gamble for AMD for producing at such lower margins, but it may payoff in the long run or it just might dig them deeper out of the PC market in terms of market share.
Funny how the fanboys forget that Nvida powered their PS3. They were in the consoles market, and they weren't impressed. And they're right. Forget about the PC or the consoles. Winning in those markets are nice, but nice isn't good enough. Now a days it's all about mobile. You have to compete there or you'll die off and in this regard they got AMD beat.
Dont forget the XBOX (not the one the first XBOX) as well. Its funny how Sony and Microsoft shifted over to AMD after their experience with Nvidia hardware in consoles.
Agree with you somewhat, but it is also about PC market. If a company uses alot of the resources for console market it can detrimental in the long run since they are not researching as fast on newer tech vs the competition. Plus if you look at the money standpoint there is alot more revenue in mobile and PC market vs console market (in terms of HARDWARE). Console makers realy make the money off software.
Nobody "forgot" anything, fanboys or otherwise. And it's not that Nvidia wasn't impressed. They weren't chosen by the console makers. It's as simple as that. Any company wants to win in all possible markets. They don't care if it's "nice." They want to win. Nobody enters a market to not win... unless they've got some ulterior motive(Google Fiber, for example). So it's great that Nvidia is winning in mobile, but I guarantee you they want to win PC, and would like to be in AMD's position in the console market, as well. ... really, what the hell do fanboys have to do with anything, here?
What is it with buttsore idiots at Nvidia. Ever since the console makers went with AMD they have been whinging and whining on a daily business. NO ONE CARES Nvidia. Go out there and be more competitive you sad saps and keep your moaning to yourselves.
EAT IT , Nvidia
Of course they are Sour Grapes right now, even if was true a low profit, (that is not), is still earnings fos AMD as a company, and obiously they are also on the PC market as well, and many PC users are buying AMD products as well, so is a win win situation for them
I buy amd products to do my part in avoiding a monopoly. Intel make better processors, but amd gives better value. AMD processors are actually also more than good enough for gaming, just don't get one of the $50 old as hell motherboards.
I did the same, and honestly I was very apprehensive about going with an amd cpu. All the fanboys made it sound like the FX 8350 was no better than a 2 year old I3 (LULWUT) after doing A LOT of research I found that with the exception of single threaded operations (AMD really does fall flat in that area) The FX 8350 is in the same performance catagory as the I7 3770K. In fact it out performs it in many catagories. When it came to gpus the choice wasnt soo clear cut, but after a few driver updates the 7 series cards were now outperforming the gtx 6 series cards (if only by a little bit) And for the performance I was looking for it was a no brainer to get the HD 7950... The equivalent nvidia card was between 60 and 120 dollars more expensive.