CostI see these threads about Nintendo/switch 2 and Nvidia and how with dlss it could catch up simply due to software and AI wise.
If thats the case, why don't consoles go with Nvidia? Just like Nintendo. Is there a reason they are stuck with AMD?
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 lostCost
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 GPU.
If thats the case, why don't consoles go with Nvidia?
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.Not sure exactly. The only thing I heard from some people is that Nvidia are quite horrible to make deals with. But these are people from the datacenter/business equipment side. Not sure how it is for custom hardware/special hardware for embedded devices (like consoles are).
DLSS tho. Sounds like it might do wonders for switch 2 if rumors are true. Even better ray tracing?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 ti) for $100 cheaper.
They're behind on AI features but they're making progression 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.
I'm not that tech savvy
But did Nintendo struck lighting? They now got tech inside their device that can compete with consoles 6-7 times it's size, with 5-7 times it's terraflops?
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
PS5 and series consoles were sold at a loss at launch (maybe even now?)Post 2 and 3 are on point. Also factor in BC. Nvidia burned bridges with Sony and Ms during the PS3/ x360 era.
Would be way better with nvidia gpu but nvidia, when it comes to cost they just don't fit anymore with those two.
DLSS tho. Sounds like it might do wonders for switch 2 if rumors are true. Even better ray tracing?
OG Xbox and 360 used Nvidia GPU's - both were considered pretty high-end back then.
Okay. Guess we will seeFSR 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.
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.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.
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.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.
You're right! My bad360 used an ATI (now AMD) GPU. Only the original Xbox and PS3 have ever used Nvidia (until Switch).
Or these claims of the Switch 2 being a portable PS5/SeriesX beater are massively exaggerated.Okay. Guess we will see
I guess Nintendo just got incredibly lucky and will now reap the rewards
Yeah still very probableOr these claims of the Switch 2 being a portable PS5/SeriesX beater are massively exaggerated.
Gaming as a industry is a much bigger market now. Nvidia is certainly seeing it with the success of the switchLast time this happened was with Sony and Nvidia and they charged Sony more than AMD charged MS for the Xbox 360.
By that logic, the PS4 GPU was crap in 2013 when GTX 780 was far more powerfulThe 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).
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.Or these claims of the Switch 2 being a portable PS5/SeriesX beater are massively exaggerated.
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
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 6700AMD 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 ti) for $100 cheaper.
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.
Ps4 pro had a 470, ps5 has an underclocked 6700 (effectively a 6600xt).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 ti) for $100 cheaper.
They're behind on AI features but they're making progression 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.
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.
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
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.Yeah still very probable
No,the have ARM CPUs since the created an APU so a theoretical Nvidia based system would look like Jetson Orin.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.
Okay. Guess we will see
I guess Nintendo just got incredibly lucky and will now reap the rewards
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.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
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
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.I see these threads about Nintendo/switch 2 and Nvidia and how with dlss it could catch up simply due to software and AI wise.
If thats the case, why don't consoles go with Nvidia? Just like Nintendo. Is there a reason they are stuck with AMD?
Or these claims of the Switch 2 being a portable PS5/SeriesX beater are massively exaggerated.
None of the actual reports are saying Switch 2 is more powerful than PS5 ir Xbox Series.Yeah still very probable
We know from the Nvidia leaks that they are making a custom SoC for Nintendo (T239).'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.
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.I'm not that tech savvy
But did Nintendo struck lighting? They now got tech inside their device that can compete with consoles 6-7 times it's size, with 5-7 times it's terraflops?
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.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