While on one hand these claims have some merit, seeing as how there are definetly bulk deals and incentives that need to be in place so consoles can be price competitive. On the other Nvidia doesn't have a CPU at all, and if you can negotiate a deal with a CPU/GPU developer in one die at the same time It keeps everything in check.
One chip yield won't outweigh the other, you pay everything to one business, you implement both on a simplified mobo with less of a heat footprint and perhaps slimming down the console itself. The list goes on with benefits that come with going with AMD. And also the fact that AMD is willing to haggle more more than Nvidia & Intel
I see Nvidia Shield as a response to console makers shunning nvidia from the market, not what nvidia claims being too busy. Besides, how can Nvidia Shield do better than what PS Vita can't. And Nvidia is not know for competitive pricing.
Since they are planning to move to console market also with the Project Shield, they might thinking that giving tech and developing for a competitor wouldn't end well.
Like Apple and Samsung which they are suing each other every hour that passes...
I think both NVidia and Intel have both just realized how important it is to develop a system with balanced CPU and Graphics potential. Nvida is graphics, Intel is CPU, so AMD's setup works in wider range of scenario's including consoles. Now (hopefully) they're better off supplying all the muscle for next-gen consoles.
[citation][nom]hagjohn[/nom]Considering a lot more games will be AMD (GPU/CPU) optimized, I think Nvidia has it wrong.[/citation]
This doesn't mean the games will be better for AMD hardware. A good example, Saints Row 3 which was in one way or another meant to have been focused more towards AMD hardware.
Yet from my personal experience, using a HD7850 with Catalyst 12.8 and 13.1, it suffers low framerates when set to ultra. (Drops to 30fps and lingers there at 1920x1080 with constant explosions).
Jumping to an Nvidia 680 with 304 drivers, it works smoothly and lingers at 60fps at 1080p. I know the difference in hardware performance is there, but I would have thought the AMD cards would have greatly benefited from the devs working with AMD. This wasn't the case, and in forums there are even AMD specific problems with the game.
[citation][nom]ilysaml[/nom]No, actually AMD did the best job inventing the APU with such a massive graphics power and getting it developed along generations. What nVidia came with?[/citation]
AMD aimed for desktop and laptop space, nvidia's current project is on mobile(Nvidia Shield and Tegra4). those two projects are probably what is keeping nvidia payign close attention to other topics at the moment. their opportunity cost trying to get a sony bid is not worth dropping the other projects on
Im not interested in cloud gaming .. its bad enough that you need an always on connection but when you throw in the latenancy for the games and the fact that it would be a niche market due to the lack of internet connectivity speeds for various locations... its not like its going to do much better then most of the other current cloud gaming services .. ehh.. AMD really seems to have put its self in a good position as long as they can provide on there end ..
Remember, ATI was only able to break into the industry because they acquired a GPU company that was building the GPU for the GameCube.
There was alot of concern among ATI investors that it would sink the company, because history has shown there is no profit in it. (console manufacturers like to sell consoles for a loss, and as such will F you in the butt as soon as it is convenient.)
[citation][nom]vaughn2k[/nom]"... and we came to the conclusion that we did'nt want to do the business at the price those guys were willing to pay..."It means that - "We did not won the project because PS4 wants to have a chip that is cheaper cost"[/citation]
Not quite, what it's really saying is: "we wouldn't make the profit that we think we should make to have the console market be worth our while to get involved with."
Like others have said, there is a lot to be said for HSA style hardware. Going with nVidia over AMD would have meant working with a second company on a CPU, and all three companies having to pass engineering prototypes back and forth to work out all the kinks in the designs. It adds extra overhead to a process that already has a lot riding on it. The only other game in town for an x86 architecture on par with AMD is Intel, and none of the console makers can afford Intel's prices. AMD has the APU expertise to make an excellent, yet low-cost complete architecture.
nVidia is also working on four projects. GRID, Shield, Tegra 4, and Geforce 8. I would say they have their hands full with that.
[citation][nom]myromance123[/nom]This doesn't mean the games will be better for AMD hardware. A good example, Saints Row 3 which was in one way or another meant to have been focused more towards AMD hardware.Yet from my personal experience, using a HD7850 with Catalyst 12.8 and 13.1, it suffers low framerates when set to ultra. (Drops to 30fps and lingers there at 1920x1080 with constant explosions). Jumping to an Nvidia 680 with 304 drivers, it works smoothly and lingers at 60fps at 1080p. I know the difference in hardware performance is there, but I would have thought the AMD cards would have greatly benefited from the devs working with AMD. This wasn't the case, and in forums there are even AMD specific problems with the game.[/citation]
Absolutely games will be more optimized for AMD hardware no doubt, the reason behind that is devs will want to harness all that power AMD hardware can create and translate that into games obviously. Now that its X86 the porting from console to PC is more straight forward than ever. TWIMTB titles 99% of the time performance better on Nvidia based hardware for example. You cannot lok at games like Saints Row and make a comparison since that is a PC game
Certainly sounds like excuses being made for not being chosen to provide hardware... the long and the short of it is that AMD can provide a better combination of hardware in a small package than NV can provide with a T/P processor.
" "I'm sure there was a negotiation that went on, and we came to the conclusion that we didn't want to do the business at the price those guys were willing to pay," Tamasi said. "
"I'm sure there was a negotiation..." -- doesn't sound very confident... If you are a Senior VP at Nvidia, you would have known if there was a negotiation... none of this "I'm sure.." business. Leads me to believe they were not a major consideration.
[citation][nom]dudewitbow[/nom]AMD aimed for desktop and laptop space, nvidia's current project is on mobile(Nvidia Shield and Tegra4). those two projects are probably what is keeping nvidia payign close attention to other topics at the moment. their opportunity cost trying to get a sony bid is not worth dropping the other projects on[/citation]
nvidia just justifying their sharing loss in the upcoming consoles, Sony and Microsoft have chosen AMD for their CPU&GPU integrity power on a single die, a solution which isn't offered by Intel nor nVidia.
on the other hand, I have read that there's no one adopting their Tegra 4, and the Project Shield isn't expected to be a big "hit" in the market.
The reason NVIDIA is making lame excuses is they don't have a processor, so couldn't hope to match AMD in price at the same performance.
You don't have a certain number of engineers, unless you don't have a HR department. You can actually hire people if your business grows, so your number can go up. Obviously, there's some a learning curve, but you generally have a decent amount of time with these things.
NVIDIA lost because they couldn't do it cost-effectively, not because they didn't want it. Getting consoles working with your technology can only help ports to PCs. Plus, more development tools for using the GPU in more types of apps.
This is just NVIDIA being NVIDIA. Lame, deficient, and making excuses.
Stick with a real true gaming platform Nvidia, the PC. Yeh there is a bunch of money to be made from consoles, cause its the lowest denominator when it comes to affordable gaming. Let AMD have it this round. Make better faster GPUs for the PC that continue to dominate any and all outdated console concepts.