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 >>
The story is too old to be commented.
snipermk03019d ago

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

3019d ago Replies(6)
Hitman07693019d 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.

GiggMan3019d 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.

kayoss3019d ago

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.

cayleee3019d ago (Edited 3019d 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.

GiggMan3019d ago (Edited 3019d 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.

one2thr3019d 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

gaffyh3019d ago (Edited 3019d 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.

dedicatedtogamers3019d ago (Edited 3019d 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.

papashango3019d ago


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_king3019d 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.

kreate3019d ago (Edited 3019d ago )


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.

AKS3019d 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.

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.

gaffyh3019d 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-lockheart3019d ago (Edited 3019d 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.

ChrisW3019d ago


Go somewhere else with your blasphemy!!!

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

miyamoto3019d ago

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

Anarki3019d ago

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

R6ex3019d ago

Guess Project Denver is not ready.

pixelsword3019d ago (Edited 3019d 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 3019d ago
Donnieboi3019d ago

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

Leviathan3019d 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.

Kingnichendrix3019d ago

Ohh those Jimmies that have been rustled

tachy0n3019d ago (Edited 3019d 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

kayoss3019d 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_Overlord3019d ago (Edited 3019d 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 :)

3-4-53019d 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 Tuttle3019d ago

You're right about the lead-free solder but it was because the EU banned it

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.

Mkai283019d 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..

papashango3019d ago

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

kenshiro1003019d ago

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

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3019d ago
feels3019d 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

shutUpAndTakeMyMoney3019d ago (Edited 3019d 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.
They are going down hill so this is good for them.

Derekvinyard133019d ago

Lmao imagine if they do cure cancer somehow

negative3019d ago

omg you people are such little girls when it comes to this stuff.

get out more!!!!

Godz Kastro3019d ago

I usually dont write lol's but this comment deserved one... Bubble for u...haha

sonic9893019d ago

its already cured but the authorities wont allow it to go public
for nvidia well they are jealous of AMD's success
they could have acted like IBM pure class but i guess they are still a small company compared to those giants

NameRemoved00173019d ago (Edited 3019d ago )

@kayoss the PS4 chip will have a PC version that is very similar in 2014.

2v13019d ago

Well considering NVIDIA hasn't seen the AMD/Sony APU they are just talking out of their asses trying to save a little face with stockholders.

This whole statement was designed to set stockholders at ease. I am sure someone asked the top brass at NVIDIA "why didn't any NV GPU's appear in the next gen consoles."

Is NVIDIA supposed to be honest and say -- "well we do not have the capabilities to produce a CPU/GPU hybrid like AMD."

No they are going to polish a terd and say exactly what they did

Psn8003018d ago

Well if Nvidia walked away from the consoles why are they keeping on about the same subject all the time .

TemplarDante3018d ago

Nvidia does so much talking about consoles lately, do they realise how fast the pc market is shrinking?
The pc new sales have dropped 7% already from Q1 last year.
Their niche GPU days are almost over. s/idc_pc_shipments_declining_fa ster_anticipated2013

IcicleTrepan3018d ago

They are also on mobiles and tablets with the TEGRA chipset.

TheHergulaX3018d ago

You made my day, not even kidding, I needed to read something like this to get myself going today.

God bless u.

+ Show (11) more repliesLast reply 3018d ago
moodgamer3019d ago

And now they are crying abouyt it. Lol.

Irishguy953019d ago (Edited 3019d ago )

No they aren' fanboys are making them out to cry about it. When Nvidia only stated why they didn't take up sony's offer. Nvidia said it exactly the way it is. Nothing more. Fanboys just take it offensive when 'the best' GPU developer simply confirms Ps4 as a Mid range PC.

Sony couldn't afford Nvidia = "Nvidia are greedy"....said the Sony fanboy

Also, Nvidia are being asked why they didn't take up to offer, don't try and say they are coming out to whine about it...they are simply answering questions.

Gripple down there, 720 isn't getting mentioned because MS hasn't announced it yet. You think Nvidia are going to give away information from MS? That's called leaking. Whether or not Nvidia joined up with them is not confirmed, but the rumors which are likely accurate suggest they went with AMD too.

Edit- Saryk there is nothing at all negative about Sony or the Ps4 in my post. Again, as talking about Fanboys. Some people even see 'mid range gaming PC' as some type of offense, when a Mid tier is perfectly acceptable for next gen, because it is still very powerful. Mid range is the most common choice for PC gamers because it provides power for decent cost. 560 - 660 - 760 and Amd's gpus are almost always nearly on par with Nvidia when it comes to mid range cost effective GPU's these days

Again Dragonknight, they wouldn't be talking about it if they didn't keep getting questions asked about it in interviews. THey aren't just coming out making public statements for any reason, they are only answering questions.

Also...So what if it ses "Nvidia the way it's meant to be played" at the start? What does that have to do with anything? Is that the only thing you can come up with regarding your outlandish statement that Nvidia...a hardware company with the best support for their GPU's and gaming...have somehow " because it just seems as if they're straying from the focus on games". I mean what are you talking about? It's not up to Nvidia on who make games. They are just a hardware company.

Microsoft CAN afford Nvidia, but we all know Microsoft want maximized profits instead of a powerful system, Sony have had it bad these last couple of years, it's understandable if they don't want to go with Nvidia due to cost, MS have no excuse.

Saryk3019d ago

Irishguy Saying anything bad or slightly negative here about Sony, is like talking trash about Jesus in a Baptist church. But you are correct, regardless!

DragonKnight3019d ago

Irishguy95: They are crying about it. They haven't shut up about it since it happened. They are definitely upset (probably butthurt) because if they weren't they wouldn't have to keep talking about it. Microsoft is rumoured to be going with AMD as well, what excuse do you have for that? Microsoft can afford nVidia but all signs point to them choosing AMD so nVidia says "consoles aren't profitable enough for us."

Their entire stance is riddled with damage control.

Snookies123019d ago

Nvidia is not the "best" GPU developer out there. If they are, it's a REALLY close call with AMD in terms of tech. They used to be king, but now I go with AMD in my gaming PC because it just seems as if they're straying from the focus on games. Back in the day, you couldn't start a PC game with it saying "Nvidia, the way it's meant to be played." Now you never see that.

It all comes down to choice and opinion however. Just as any piece of tech does.

jukins3019d ago

i really havent seen the fanboys arguing over amd vs nvidia but it does seem nvidia, even though its probably out of context, is a bit miffed at not getting the into the console market. regardless of how low the margins are chances are they arent gonna sell 50+ million of any other single graphics chip.

DA_SHREDDER3019d ago (Edited 3019d ago )

Well that's what they get for even suggesting to put a crappy gpu in the ps3. Yes, Sony should have never developed the cell, way to expensive, and instead, should have concentrated their efforts to just building a machine that ran great. Bluray, standard HDD, blutooth, and easy game development should have been the focus.

But instead, I feel Nvidia had their own agenda. How they thought that selling Sony a crappy GPU would warrant them another round in the next gen. Honestly I feel like it was deliberate considering the 360 was out for a year already. The bottleneck was there from the get go.

So ya, Sony is gonna treat Nvidia like a ex wife that cheated on them, throw the beotch to the curb, and find a company like AMD who appreciates Sony's business. Also, Sony have actually learned from past experiences and are nurturing their business model.

The ps3 was a humbling experience. I'm glad that they got rid of that hoe Nvidia. Tell Nvidia to try to sabotage someone elses careers. Like their own. I'm glad that AMD is gonna beable to put their quality products in the next gen machines. They are of high quality at a fraction of the cost. Nvidia are the gold diggin whores in gaming. You made your bed now lay in it

Az1mov3019d ago

Very true, I see few games nowadays starting with "nVidia the way it's meant to be played"

Upbeat3019d ago

man sony could afford anything, SONY could buy nvidia over if they wanted.

Army_of_Darkness3019d ago (Edited 3019d ago )

I think the reason why people are thinking Nvidia are complaining and whiny babies is because everything that they have recently commented on involves the PS4 in which they have nothing to do with.

MysticStrummer3019d ago

Their recent statements sure make them look like they're crying about it. They seem like the person who got dumped from a relationship, talking trash about their ex and his or her new mate. They don't sound like the one who did the dumping by walking away.

Why o why3019d ago (Edited 3019d ago )

why do you hate on sony fans so much. nvidia sure seem to be talking a lot since the news... zero of three is not good. If they didnt say negative things nobody would be questioning everything they've said thereafter and who isnt about maximising profits... nvidia just priced themselves out

kenshiro1003019d ago

Give me a break.

You can't even criticize Microsoft either so what's your point exactly?

A pot calling a kettle black...seriously...

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 3019d ago
ginsunuva3019d ago

I don't see the crying. [email protected]

The media keeps interviewing them about it, it's not them speaking out of nowhere.

sandman2243019d ago (Edited 3019d ago )

Nvidia sounds like there upset that Sony went with the better deal. If the wanted Sony they should of gave them a better deal.

stuna13019d ago

That's it in a nutshell!

a_squirrel3019d ago

People might not realize that since the major consoles are going with AMD, the developers are going to do the most work on AMD Grapics Cards, optimizing them the best, whether you're on PC or not.

Nvidia lost business in more than one way.

OpenGL3019d ago

There is some truth to the statement, Nvidia is in a better financial position than AMD so they are less likely to take a deal like this.

At the same time, Nvidia cannot offer a package like the APU used in the PS4 so even if Nvidia was willing to design portions of the console at a cheaper rate, someone else would need to design the CPU so it would be less cost effective for Sony.

kevnb3019d ago

nvidia has been making arm processors, they seem to be doing fine with them. Many different android devices are using them.

MasterCornholio3019d ago

Didnt you get the memo?

Sony wanted the PS4 to be based off an x86 architecture not ARM.

The point behind the PS4 is to make the hardware as similar to PCs as possible that way PC developers wont have any issues porting their games over.

OpenGL3019d ago

ARM Cortex A15s if clocked high enough could be a suitable alternative to the Jaguar cores used in the PS4 APU, but they would still need to be paired with an Nvidia GPU that more closely resembles what they have in their laptop/mid range desktop lineup, Tegra 4 would not cut it.

Simply put, the PS4 APU more closely resembles what AMD was already working on for desktops and laptops. Nvidia would have to start from scratch designing an ARM SoC for a console.

kopicha3019d ago

and you fail to realize that it does not perform as well as you thought so. take a good look at the mobile market and you will see most top end mobile devices have ditch Tegra

GiggMan3019d ago (Edited 3019d ago )

I think both parties felt that it may not be worth it.

Typical-Guy3019d ago

Gotta love how they act... Well, if you didn't care about the console market why are you crying! I used to respect Nvidia but now they're acting like bitter brats....