Support NeoGAF

[SnakeSlashRO]

I don't understand why they showcased this xbox controller with a flip screen without showcasing titles designed for the system. You could have told us the specs and we could have had an idea of what it could do.


This seems like a waste of time to me, also the people talking about steam box, are you really going to get a stream box if your PC has better specs? I mean it isn't hard to have top of the line specs on PC's now days.

Unless Microsoft and Sony do as badly as nintendo has with Wii U, I don't see this nvida system doing much of anything. I also am fine with steam staying where it is, I will fucking lose my shit if they start with STEAM BOX exclusives.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Uh, wasn't MS aware of that fact of the GPU market and tried to acquire the rights to the GPU so they could handle it on their own, but nVidia refused?

Which is why they made sure they owned the design for the Xenos for the 360, or something.

Didn't they try to acquire the rights after the original contract? I haven't finished reading Dean Takahashi's book
'

 

[Risette]

Didn't they try to acquire the rights after the original contract?

I believe so, which was poor planning on their part, but I'm sure they didn't ask nVidia to just cough up their design for free or anything. Not sure of the specifics though; but nVidia does not seem like a very fruitful business partner in any case.

 

[Giant Panda]

Didn't Nvidia's RSX chip have a faulty scaler or something like that? Basically Nvidia seems to piss off every company they work with.

 

[Oemenia]

I believe so, which was poor planning on their part, but I'm sure they didn't ask nVidia to just cough up their design for free or anything. Not sure of the specifics though; but nVidia does not seem like a very fruitful business partner in any case.

Exactly, nVidia shouldve shown some discretion not just for the sake of goodwill but ultimately business. MS got their payback and got it on many fronts all the while a competitor was providing products that were just as goods.

 

[Angelus Errare]

I believe so, which was poor planning on their part, but I'm sure they didn't ask nVidia to just cough up their design for free or anything. Not sure of the specifics though; but nVidia does not seem like a very fruitful business partner in any case.

True

 

[Lonely1]

They got Ouya...

 

[nasos_333]

losing out to AMD on 3 fronts must have hurt. Have they burnt their bridges with the Xbox and PS3 to the point they have to produce their own platform ? This handheld seems almost a desperate attempt to stay relevent to me.

Because AMD offers great power at more affordable prices and less power consumption, all basic to a console system

 

[Chittagong]

Nintendo - screwed them over with broken promises of mobile chip performance
Sony - screwed them over with underpowered and overpriced GPU for PS3
Microsoft - screwed them over with overpriced GPU and holding the IP for BC hostage

Yeah I wonder why no one went with them. AMD just needed to open door to win the contracts.

 

[mkenyon]

Because AMD offers great power at more affordable prices and less power consumption, all basic to a console system

Actually Kepler has a much lower power draw than the current AMD offerings.

 

[ntropy]

hardware efficiency

 

[Hatten]

MSFT got shafted by nVidia with the Xbox

And the PS3 ended up having worse graphics than the X360

So who else was going to use nVidia? Nintendo did fine using the same ATI/AMD chip for two gens, aint broke so dont fix it.

Maybe thats why nvidia is making its own console now...

 

[Akuun]

Actually Kepler has a much lower power draw than the current AMD offerings.

Yes, but I'd imagine console manufacturers do not care quite as much about power draw as the average PC builder, because long-term power costs are handled on the consumer side, and not on the production side.

 

[JJD]

Yes, but I'd imagine console manufacturers do not care quite as much about power draw as the average PC builder, because long-term power costs are handled on the consumer side, and not on the production side.

Power draw is a huge concern for next gen.

They can't even have always on mode next gen if they don't follow power draw regulations.

Power consumption is something the hardware makers are looking closely.

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

losing out to AMD on 3 fronts must have hurt. Have they burnt their bridges with the Xbox and PS3 to the point they have to produce their own platform ? This handheld seems almost a desperate attempt to stay relevent to me.

They've been burdened with supply constraints this past year. Tegra 4 was delayed, the new Clover Trail was delayed.

May have had something to do with it.



ed


Though may still be some bad blood with MS.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

The more relevant question to me is what does AMD's hat-trick mean for the PC world?

Will multiplayer games end up better on AMD GPU's because of their close hardware relationship with these 3 consoles? Will developers continue to care about PhyX enough to make enough meaningful game enhancements just for the Nvidia crowd?

It has me in a holding pattern as I consider the next GPU for my rig. Next gen will likely see an even bigger multiplat experience than we say in gaming this generation, and on the surface it seems AMD has a real opportunity to arrest some market share and pull even with Nvidia because of this. But maybe this victory for AMD won't translate to the PC world at all. Maybe Nvidia money hats will continue to result in slightly better performance for key games for their hardware. I have no idea. I'd like to know, though. Maybe the summer will provide more clues. Wait and see, I guess.

 

[Tallshortman]

History would suggest they burned bridges with Sony and MS. Glad AMD got the contracts to make the company more competitive.

 

[Dictator93]

Yes, but I'd imagine console manufacturers do not care quite as much about power draw as the average PC builder, because long-term power costs are handled on the consumer side, and not on the production side.

except for the whole console schtick is based upon fitting in power within limited power and heat constraints..

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

Wonder what kind of performance difference having Tegra would have made for 3DS.

Do we know which Tegra Nintendo was looking into?

I think the second gen Tegra have multiple shader support, smaller die size, and way faster speed ratings.

 

[Serra]

The more relevant question to me is what does AMD's hat-trick mean for the PC world?

Will multiplayer games end up better on AMD GPU's because of their close hardware relationship with these 3 consoles? Will developers continue to care about PhyX enough to make enough meaningful game enhancements just for the Nvidia crowd?

It has me in a holding pattern as I consider the next GPU for my rig. Next gen will likely see an even bigger multiplat experience than we say in gaming this generation, and on the surface it seems AMD has a real opportunity to arrest some market share and pull even with Nvidia because of this. But maybe this victory for AMD won't translate to the PC world at all. Maybe Nvidia money hats will continue to result in slightly better performance for key games for their hardware. I have no idea. I'd like to know, though. Maybe the summer will provide more clues. Wait and see, I guess.

If I had to buy a new GPU in the near future I would still buy Nvidia. AMD drivers are dogshit.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

If I had to buy a new GPU in the near future I would still buy Nvidia. AMD drivers are dogshit.

I had a 6950 and now a GTX670. Honestly, I didn't see any meaningful difference in driver support. At all.

Maybe Nvidia provides updates more frequently? But my AMD gpu never gave me any software/driver issues except for the "black comb" mouse glitch occasionally in Dota2. Otherwise, quite stable and reliable. AMD GPU + Afterburner/ATITrayTools = good, easy times. Ymmv.

 

[TUSR]

I always figured that Nvidia would have a monopoly if AMD went under.

 

[Ryoma-Echizen]

Desperate attempt to stay relevant?

Yes.

Qualcomm&Samsung > the rest

Texas Instruments leaved consumer market.

In dedicated gpus AMD offers more performance for equal/less money.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Yes.

Qualcomm&Samsung > the rest

Texas Instruments leaved consumer market.

In dedicated gpus AMD offers more performance for equal/less money.

bolded is going to fuck with me all day.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I always figured that Nvidia would have a monopoly if AMD went under.

On the minscule tiny PC GPU market, sure.

There's a reason why Nvidia has been going so aggressively into ARM SoCs. It's because their traditional PC GPU market is tiny, has been shrinking for years, and only exists at the high end because Intel IGPs control the low end completely.

Nvidia's play in ARM SoCs is working out very well for them, and they have successfully gotten their GPUs into HPC markets. Nvidia is a company whose stock is investment-grade, in case you're looking to buy. AMD is a company without a future which will be bankrupt in 5 years or less.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

On the minscule tiny PC GPU market, sure.

There's a reason why Nvidia has been going so aggressively into ARM SoCs. It's because their traditional PC GPU market is tiny, has been shrinking for years, and only exists at the high end because Intel IGPs control the low end completely.

Nvidia's play in ARM SoCs is working out very well for them, and they have successfully gotten their GPUs into HPC markets. Nvidia is a company whose stock is investment-grade, in case you're looking to buy. AMD is a company without a future which will be bankrupt in 5 years or less.

you'd think they would have gone just as hard on the console front, considering they mean steady royalty income for a decade. Seems like someone should have been fired for failing to get any of the big 3.

 

[beril]

Wonder what kind of performance difference having Tegra would have made for 3DS.

Probably worse, as Nintendo presumably opted out for a reason. Tegra has always seemed like a weirdly overhyped tech to me. It's never really had much of an edge against adreno or PowerVR GPUs as far as I could tell, but still somehow recieved a lot of hype simply because of nVidias leadership in the PC department. I've tried my games on a bunch of Tegra devices and they haven't performed particularly well. Maybe you could optimise it more for the hardware to get better results, but I haven't really done much optimisation for the other GPUs either.

 

[Lonely1]

Tegra 2 was delayed by a significant margin and in the end was very underwhelming, Tegra 3 was just somewhat underwhelming. However, a Tegra 2 soc would have probably meant that the 3DS would sport a better CPU and run UE3 end Unity . I believe that 3DS CPU doesn't compare badly to Tegra 2 in performance, though.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

you'd think they would have gone just as hard on the console front, considering they mean steady royalty income for a decade. Seems like someone should have been fired for failing to get any of the big 3.

If that income was really that big or important, then Intel and IBM would care too. They don't. The income is miniscule, Nvidia doesn't even break out PS3/RSX revenue in their annual report because it's probably bupkis.

 

[infinityBCRT]

Nvidia and intel combined to fuck over MS by being really restrictive on what MS could do with those chips in the original xbox which forced their hand in bringing the 360 early to market. No one wants to work with either of those companies for consoles now.

 

[pelican]

AMD is ahead on power consumption/performance trade-offs, I think. AMD is also making SOCs that are more generally capable than what Nvidia is doing. And, as other posters have mentioned, Nvidia engaged in abusive practices with their "partners" last generation and this one. So a better question is why anyone would work with Nvidia.

I think some people automatically assume that NV create the best video cards.

The current generation of PC cards shows that AMD also produce fantastic cards, and performance is comparable. Thankfully the dark ages of shit drivers are gone for AMD too.

I would keep and take another MSi AMD 7970 Lightning over a 680 GTX any day of the week.

 

[beril]

If that income was really that big or important, then Intel and IBM would care too. They don't. The income is miniscule, Nvidia doesn't even break out PS3/RSX revenue in their annual report because it's probably bupkis.

Somehow, regardless of people trying to claim otherwise, I just can't see how some 50-100 million units of a single design could possibly be insignificant, regardless of how the deals are formulated. Maybe for Intel, who's got pretty much the whole PC market locked down, and maybe compared to smartphones, but nvidia is hardly the market leader there. Surely the console market, unless it will crash and burn next generation, is still quite formidable compared the dedicated PC GPU market.

 

[BeEatNU]

Didn't they screw both Sony and Microsoft over with pricing in the past?

they sure did.

console makers paid X price throughout the whole duration of the console even though the cost to make the GPU was ALOT less over time.

 

[Durante]

Somehow, regardless of people trying to claim otherwise, I just can't see how some 50-100 million units of a single design could possibly be insignificant, regardless of how the deals are formulated. Maybe for Intel, who's got pretty much the whole PC market locked down, and maybe compared to smartphones, but nvidia is hardly the market leader there. Surely the console market, unless it will crash and burn next generation, is still quite formidable compared the dedicated PC GPU market.

Sure, it's a lot of units, but as I understand it the profit per unit is incredibly small compared to other markets.

 

[KageMaru]

I don't know why people seem to be down on the RSX. The card was the best Nvidia could offer Sony back then. I don't know much about their contract, but the chip itself served it's purpose.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

If that income was really that big or important, then Intel and IBM would care too. They don't.

IBM 'been getting that money, dogg. what are you talking about?

IBM was making money off of every console the big 3 sold last gen. their CPUs were all designed AT IBM. Broadway, Xenon and Cell. All at IBM.

or did I misunderstand what you were trying to say here? Believe Nvidia didn't want that money if you want to. They just got outbid.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Sure, it's a lot of units, but as I understand it the profit per unit is incredibly small compared to other markets.

Correct. AMD is doing it because they are desperate. Intel, IBM, and Nvidia can't compete with desperate nor would it make any business sense for them to try.

IBM 'been getting that money, dogg. what are you talking about?

IBM was making money off of every console the big 3 sold last gen. their CPUs were all designed AT IBM. Broadway, Xenon and Cell. All at IBM.

or did I misunderstand what you were trying to say here?

You did. The next generation of MS and Sony seem to both be moving away from IBM. Wii U still uses the same basic CPU design in Wii that dates back to the GameCube. IBM doesn't seem particularly motivated to retain MS and Sony as customers. You have to realize that IBM couldn't even be arsed to try and retain Apple as a customer, they basically gave up on developing POWER4 for consumer markets so Apple switched to Intel for Macs.

 

[bigtroyjon]

Somehow, regardless of people trying to claim otherwise, I just can't see how some 50-100 million units of a single design could possibly be insignificant, regardless of how the deals are formulated. Maybe for Intel, who's got pretty much the whole PC market locked down, and maybe compared to smartphones, but nvidia is hardly the market leader there. Surely the console market, unless it will crash and burn next generation, is still quite formidable compared the dedicated PC GPU market.

Because they don't get income on every unit, they get paid a set fee for designing the chip and(at least in the case of MS) the hardware maker owns the chip, to do what they want with.

More expensive up front but significant savings over the long term.

 

[Momentary]

I don't understand people's thinking. As if a contract with two console developers is the end-all be-all of gpu money-making. AMD is struggling. They were the lowest bidder because they need the business. NVIDIA has a firm grasp on the tablet, mobile, design, science, engineering, and business sectors.

Why would they undersell their product to console manufacturers who are trying to get parts for cheap?

Microsoft and Sony are trying to get contracts for cheap GPUs and use cheap cooling and other cheaply made parts to make a sub-par product that's more than likely going to be returned by an embarrassing amount of people due to overheating issues among other things.

And why are people taking about how NVIDIA screwed console developers over?

XBox 360 used and ATI/AMD based GPU and how many of those systems got returned within the same year on their release.

PS3 was a little more expensive and used an NVIDIA based GPU and how many news articles have you seen about them having a ridiculous amount of GPU issues. How many years of use did most PS3 owners get out of their systems before GPU issues arose?

MOST of the time, you always get what you pay for when you go with the lowest bidder. I seriously don't understand why people don't get the reasoning behind NVIDIA not wanting to undersell their product. They have a reputation as being one of the most reliable GPUs for business, research, scientific study, design, and entertainment. They are not going to cheapin' their products to meet the needs of MS and Sony and sully their name because they cut corners to make a cheaply made mid-high end GPU for their HTPCs.

I've been console gaming for over 20 years and I'm done with it. Definitely looking forward to seeing where Valve and NVIDIA are going to try and take things now.

 

[Can Crusher]

Intel and Nvidia are terrible partners. Long term at least.

Microsoft and Sony are trying to get contracts for cheap GPUs and use cheap cooling and other cheaply made parts to make a sub-par product that's more than likely going to be returned by an embarrassing amount of people due to overheating issues among other things.

But of COURSE

 

[ikioi]

AMD is struggling.

In its CPU arm, the GPU side of the business has been its golden goose for some time.

XBox 360 used and ATI/AMD based GPU and how many of those systems got returned within the same year on their release.

The Xbox 360's imfamous RROD had nothing what so ever to do with ATi/AMD. The issue was due to the poor quality of solder on the mainboard and insufficient cooling. Neither of which AMD/ATi were responsible for. ATi/AMD manufacturered the chip, and it performed to spec. it was upto Microsoft and its assembly parters like Foxcon to assemble the Xbox 360. They stuffed up the assembly. The chips themselves from ATi/AMD were fine, it was the motherboard assembly that was not.

Can't blame AMD for the fact Microsoft used shit solder and board assembly processes.

PS3 was a little more expensive and used an NVIDIA based GPU and how many news articles have you seen about them having a ridiculous amount of GPU issues. How many years of use did most PS3 owners get out of their systems before GPU issues arose?

Also if anything, Nvidia have had for more issues with their chips QC then AMD. Have you already forgotten the imfamous 8xxx mobility GPU from Nvidia. They had to pay out hundreds of millions to vendors for faulty gpus. Apple, Dell, many OEM vendors received payouts from Nvidia due to the massive failure rate of the 8xxx series mobilty chips.

MOST of the time, you always get what you pay for when you go with the lowest bidder.

So you know the details on who bidded, how much, and how they made savings?

Or are you just making assumptions?

IMHO you're nothing but an ignorant fanboi looking for excuses as to why your favourite GPU vendor isn't present in the console industry this coming gen

 

[Vincent Alexander]

So you know the details on who bidded, how much, and how they made savings?

Or are you just making assumptions?

This part was bugging me too. If he has the inside scoop, I want the details.

 

[mkenyon]

Yes, but I'd imagine console manufacturers do not care quite as much about power draw as the average PC builder, because long-term power costs are handled on the consumer side, and not on the production side.

X Power draw = X watts of heat that need to be dissipated. That is hugely important when you are talking about something designed to live in cabinets.

 

[Datschge]

Because Nvidia never shares its IP. That's also why one only gets binary blobs from them as drivers, even for Open Source systems like Linux and Android. That's why it never contributes to Open Source, and where it actually has to to some degree, Android, everyone using it needs to sign an NDA first.

Both Microsoft and Sony burned themselves by using Nvidia tech in their systems as the latter kept all the rights to the IP. AMD on the other hand was (maybe a little too) readily willing to let go of their IP right and simply offering a service.