-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Can consoles not go with Nvidia for some reason?
- Thread starter jorgejjvr
- Start date
tkscz
Member
Cost
Cheaper to work with AMD than Nvidia. You get both a CPU and GPU while with Nvidia you'd still have to get either an Intel or AMD CPU.
Last edited:
RoadHazard
Gold Member
The last time Sony did that Nvidia gave them a crap GPU and charged much more than AMD does.
Nvidia also doesn't make CPUs or APUs like AMD (only the mobile ones Nintendo uses).
Nvidia also doesn't make CPUs or APUs like AMD (only the mobile ones Nintendo uses).
How is Nintendo doing it then? They went with Nvidia and switch was profitable day 1, while consoles went with AMD and they were selling at a lost
analog_future
Resident Crybaby
AMD makes really solid hardware, and their mid-tier card, the type of card you'd see a variant of in a console (7800 XT), actually outperforms nVidia's mid-tier card (4070) for $100 cheaper.
They're behind on AI features but they're making progress with FSR 3.0 just around the corner, and their top tier card (7900 XTX) can't compete with nVidia's top tier card (4090), but it's also like 60% of the price.
AMD is just fine for consoles.
They're behind on AI features but they're making progress with FSR 3.0 just around the corner, and their top tier card (7900 XTX) can't compete with nVidia's top tier card (4090), but it's also like 60% of the price.
AMD is just fine for consoles.
Last edited:
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
tkscz
Member
It's the same. Microsoft worked with them on the OG Xbox and Sony worked with them on the PS3 and both got the shaft for the price they felt. Thus them going with AMD the very next generation.
Skyfox
Member
Xbox and PS5 both made a deal with AMD way back before DLSS reveal.
Nintendo got lucky because nvidia failed with the Shield portable which was similar to what Nintendo needed for the Switch so they made a deal with nvidia at that time and much later were able to renegotiate for the switch 2 to get nvidias DLSS support.
Nintendo got lucky because nvidia failed with the Shield portable which was similar to what Nintendo needed for the Switch so they made a deal with nvidia at that time and much later were able to renegotiate for the switch 2 to get nvidias DLSS support.
DLSS tho. Sounds like it might do wonders for switch 2 if rumors are true. Even better ray tracing?
RoadHazard
Gold Member
They do?
kiphalfton
Member
Probably because nobody else wanted the crap chip in the switch, after how poorly the Nvidia Shield did, and so Nintendo probably cut a good deal.
Last edited:
PS5 and series consoles were sold at a loss at launch (maybe even now?)
Switch since day 1 has been making money on it's hardware
Magic Carpet
Member
Just need an AI console machine.
analog_future
Resident Crybaby
FSR 3 is AMDs answer to DLSS.
No, it's not likely to be as good as DLSS, but even FSR 2.2 is good enough to the point that average gamers are not going to be able to tell the different between FSR 2.2 and DLSS in PQ.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
360 used an ATI (now AMD) GPU. Only the original Xbox and PS3 have ever used Nvidia (until Switch).
Last edited:
Okay. Guess we will see
I guess Nintendo just got incredibly lucky and will now reap the rewards
nowhat
Member
If you're content with an ARM CPU/SOC, then NVidia has you covered (see: Switch). Which would make more sense especially in a mobile setting. But if you want an x64 CPU + AMD/NVidia GPU, then you'd need a separate CPU and GPU, with more costs associated, not only for the base hardware but also for cooling and all that. So yeah, basically cost.
The Pleasure
Member
You forgot that nvidia refused to lower the price on the og xbox so every time microsoft cut the price, they lost money because nvidia refused to lower the gpu cost.
8BiTw0LF
Banned
You're right! My bad
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Or these claims of the Switch 2 being a portable PS5/SeriesX beater are massively exaggerated.
Yeah still very probable
Kakax11
Banned
Basically AMD got a SystemOnChip hardware or SOC, a lot less hassle to deal with Hardware-wise and getting an OS tailored for that specific hardware so instead of speaking to 2 or 3 hardware makers (Intel/Nvidia/samsung ram) you speak to AMD only to deal with all of the hardware you got
The Xbox360/PS3 era was a nightmare for devs
The Xbox360/PS3 era was a nightmare for devs
Gaming as a industry is a much bigger market now. Nvidia is certainly seeing it with the success of the switch
Destruction-1002
Member
By that logic, the PS4 GPU was crap in 2013 when GTX 780 was far more powerful
The PS3 GPU was based on Geforce 7800 GTX, which was a high end GPU from 2005.
Not to mention that PS3 was supposed to launch in 2005 but got delayed to 2006
Tams
Member
'Cos Ngreedia are cunts.
Nintendo only got a good deal because Nvidia couldn't find anyone else to use their ARM products in consumer products.
Nintendo's next console is almost certain to be Nvidia because Nvidia will, again, have them as the only large customer for their ARM products; will provide them with an older design that otherwise didn't sell well, it'll be an easier transition for Nintendo, and Nvidia have DLSS which will help Nintendo compete.
Even though Nvidia could easily offer an ARM based solution that would beat AMD's offerings; Nvidia would charge too much and have shown no inclination to do extensive custom work (the Switch is just clock tinkering). AMD will bend over backwards to meet console makers' needs.
Nintendo only got a good deal because Nvidia couldn't find anyone else to use their ARM products in consumer products.
Nintendo's next console is almost certain to be Nvidia because Nvidia will, again, have them as the only large customer for their ARM products; will provide them with an older design that otherwise didn't sell well, it'll be an easier transition for Nintendo, and Nvidia have DLSS which will help Nintendo compete.
Even though Nvidia could easily offer an ARM based solution that would beat AMD's offerings; Nvidia would charge too much and have shown no inclination to do extensive custom work (the Switch is just clock tinkering). AMD will bend over backwards to meet console makers' needs.
spons
Gold Member
They probably are. Nvidia has what a portable needs: energy-efficient hardware. Same with Apple M2. Both can't touch high-end alternatives with a ten foot pole though. Anything ARM gets hyped up for some reason, both Apple Silicon and now Switch 2. Video encoding on M1/M2 without hardware acceleration is fucking dreadful. Horrid performance, but hey at least you can do so for 10 hours straight.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
PS3 has a worse GPU than the 360 even though it was released much later.
lmimmfn
Member
7800XT beats 4070Ti? not a chance, you mean 7900XT can beat a 4070Ti, but none of those comparisons makes sense when comparing to consoles as those are comparable to a base 6700
Back on topic, you really don't want NVidia hardware in the consoles unless you're ok with inflated console prices.
Thick Thighs Save Lives
Gold Member
Not sure if anyone mentioned this already, but Nvidia also screwed over Apple lol. Here's an interesting read about it: https://blog.greggant.com/posts/2021/10/13/apple-vs-nvidia-what-happened.html
analog_future
Resident Crybaby
Sorry, I meant 7800XT beats the 4070 for $100 cheaper. Not the Ti
Dream-Knife
Banned
Ps4 pro had a 470, ps5 has an underclocked 6700 (effectively a 6600xt).
We have no proof that the ps5 pro will use a 7800xt.
The 4070ti is 20% faster at 1080p (what UE5 games will run at, at best, on consoles), 19% faster at 1440p, and 17% faster at 4k raster only.
With ray tracing the 4070ti is 38% faster at 1080p, 40% faster at 1440p, and 42% faster at 4k.
The 7800xt is $500.
The 4070ti is $800.
Both overpriced for what they are, but they are in two different performance segements.
analog_future
Resident Crybaby
Again sorry, I meant to say the 7800xt, at $500, outperforms the $600 4070. Not the $800 4070Ti.
iamvin22
Industry Verified
PS5 is no longer sold at a loss. Not sure about series.
Reizo Ryuu
Member
Not probable at all, these devices are still bound to their TDP, as in the energy to power it has to come from somewhere and the heat it generates has to go somewhere, DLSS is not some miracle cure, the base specs still need to be decent, but seeing as how a portable device needs a super low TDP, it's not going to beat a series x.
No,the have ARM CPUs since the created an APU so a theoretical Nvidia based system would look like Jetson Orin.
analog_future
Resident Crybaby
Honestly it's just a timing thing, and the fact that Nintendo looks to be actually pursuing graphical fidelity this time around (finally!).
Don't forget, when the Switch 2 comes out the PS5/Series X will be nearly 4 years old already. When next-gen and/or Pro consoles come out, they'll obliterate the Switch 2.
Just how the cycle works.
Last edited:
Dream-Knife
Banned
Looks like Apple is ultimately to blame for that. They want complete control over their hardware/software and the push to make macs run on the same chips as the phones.
DaGwaphics
Member
You have to figure in the technology that Nintendo went with as well (old processor, old process node). Both MS and Sony had issues getting price reductions on the console GPUs from Nvidia even as the costs of production was going down, I think MS's issue was settled in arbitration. I don't remember how the Nintendo/Sony situation played out.
It seems like AMD just offers the console makers a better deal at the performance level they want. Nintendo does their own thing and can go with lower spec hardware.
Holammer
Member
Consoles went with x86-64 based CPU because it's so gosh darned convenient and cheap. Plus backwards compatibility is x86-64's middle name.
Everyone talks about ARM right now, but that was a not a real option back then.
Nvidia sued Intel in the 2010's to get a license for x86-64, but eventually settled out of court.
Woopah
Member
None of the actual reports are saying Switch 2 is more powerful than PS5 ir Xbox Series.
We know from the Nvidia leaks that they are making a custom SoC for Nintendo (T239).
Mr.Phoenix
Member
I am selling a 3D printer that has a PET atomizer that converts it to real 18-carat gold. PM if you are interested in buying.
tkscz
Member
At the time both Nintendo and Nvidia were desperate. The WiiU was a failure and Nintendo needed something to make their hybrid idea work. Nvidia pushed the gaming capabilities of the Tegra X1 to no avail, even making their own handheld with it, but the shield wasn't exactly making money. Nintendo needed a handheld and Nvidia needed to get rid of their stock of Tegra X1s. Not to mention at the time there was really nothing else as Qualcom wasn't what it is today.
