to join the CVG community. Not a member yet? Join now!
CVG

PS4 partnership not worth the cost, says Nvidia

Your comments on our articles.

GPU firm defiant after AMD wins contract; says partnership wasn't worthwhile

An executive at graphics firm Nvidia has downplayed the significance of losing out to AMD in the bidding war to have its technology at the heart of the PS4.... read more

Moderators : CVG Staff, CVG Moderators

PS4 partnership not worth the cost, says Nvidia

Postby andy3050 » 14 Mar 2013, 17:36

As much as I like nvidia an prefer their cards, I can't help but wonder that it all came down to money. With nvidia cards having a little more of a premium price I would think that they wanted more money which I'm guessing Sony wouldn't want due to keeping costs and console price down.
andy3050 49
 
Posts: 144
Joined: 05 Jan 2003, 12:19
Location: United Kingdom

PS4 partnership not worth the cost, says Nvidia

Postby theholyone » 14 Mar 2013, 17:39

We have all heard about Nvidia refusing to lower the cost of chips it develops as the manufacturing costs come down. A simple contract will have been drawn up between Sony/Microsoft and AMD that states the initial price paid will be the going rate until certain points are reached. Then the price will loose a percentage of price and so on over the contract period. The initial high price covers the R&D and setup, with the remaining contract on diminishing price points. That's how the consoles become cheaper over time. Nvidia don't like these types of contract and fell out with Microsoft over their previous arrangements.
theholyone 49
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 17:36
Location: United Kingdom

Re: PS4 partnership not worth the cost, says Nvidia

Postby svd_grasshopper » 14 Mar 2013, 18:10

active defensiveness = facade
I LIKE ELECTRO, I LIKE RETRO, I LIKE GHETTO: HOUSE & TECHNO!
User avatar
svd_grasshopper 62
 
Posts: 4986
Joined: 18 Nov 2008, 13:00
Location: United Kingdom

Re: PS4 partnership not worth the cost, says Nvidia

Postby Dave_25 » 14 Mar 2013, 18:27

Nvidia chips are better, fact. I have a 690 in my PC and AMD have nothing that even comes close to it or the newer Titan, AMD play second fiddle to Nvidia and the one worry about the next generation of consoles is the AMD chip. I am actually hoping that MS went with Nvidia but I doubt it.
Dave_25 43
 
Posts: 422
Joined: 06 Feb 2007, 20:13
Location: United Kingdom

Re: PS4 partnership not worth the cost, says Nvidia

Postby Barca Azul » 14 Mar 2013, 18:28

Also unlikely to come out and say they blew it. It's not good PR.
User avatar
Barca Azul 62
 
Posts: 6235
Joined: 14 Nov 2007, 18:39
Location: Spain

Re: PS4 partnership not worth the cost, says Nvidia

Postby Bambis Dad » 14 Mar 2013, 18:32

Dave_25 wrote:Nvidia chips are better, fact. I have a 690 in my PC and AMD have nothing that even comes close to it or the newer Titan, AMD play second fiddle to Nvidia and the one worry about the next generation of consoles is the AMD chip. I am actually hoping that MS went with Nvidia but I doubt it.

I have some graphs if anyone is interested? Nope, what about the holiday in Margate?
Childhood pictures redeem, clean and so serene
See myself without ruining lines
Whole days throwing sticks into streams

I have crawled so far sideways
I recognise dim traces of creation
User avatar
Bambis Dad 52
 
Posts: 2405
Joined: 04 Dec 2011, 11:25

Re: PS4 partnership not worth the cost, says Nvidia

Postby HarshLanguage » 14 Mar 2013, 18:32

"I'm sure there was a negotiation that went on,"

I don't think being told to f**k off by Sony and Microsoft can be classed as a "negotiation"

:wink:
User avatar
HarshLanguage 11
 
Posts: 11
Joined: 04 Mar 2013, 14:06
Location: Ireland

Re: PS4 partnership not worth the cost, says Nvidia

Postby tmten » 14 Mar 2013, 18:37

The reason that Sony chose to go with AMD is no big secret and never has been - AMD were the only vendor that could offer a full HSA platform for a financial year 2014 launch. Intel, who were in the running at one point with larrabee, simply aren't ready, and nVidia don't have a CPU business, at least not a full HSA compliant one. ARM isn't quite there yet. So for Sony, and Microsoft for that matter, there simply was no choice. It was AMD or nothing.

In light of that this seems to be more spin from nVidia.
tmten 40
 
Posts: 123
Joined: 04 Oct 2001, 19:17
Location: United Kingdom

Re: PS4 partnership not worth the cost, says Nvidia

Postby HarshLanguage » 14 Mar 2013, 18:39

Bambis Dad wrote:
Dave_25 wrote:Nvidia chips are better, fact. I have a 690 in my PC and AMD have nothing that even comes close to it or the newer Titan, AMD play second fiddle to Nvidia and the one worry about the next generation of consoles is the AMD chip. I am actually hoping that MS went with Nvidia but I doubt it.

I have some graphs if anyone is interested? Nope, what about the holiday in Margate?


Margate you say.. definitely make time for that. :lol:

It's more intersting than an AMD v Nvidia , I've just built a gaming PC and my gfx card is the bestest
most awesomest silicon ever, pissing contest. :roll:
User avatar
HarshLanguage 11
 
Posts: 11
Joined: 04 Mar 2013, 14:06
Location: Ireland

Re: PS4 partnership not worth the cost, says Nvidia

Postby tmten » 14 Mar 2013, 18:45

Dave_25 wrote:Nvidia chips are better, fact. I have a 690 in my PC and AMD have nothing that even comes close to it or the newer Titan, AMD play second fiddle to Nvidia and the one worry about the next generation of consoles is the AMD chip. I am actually hoping that MS went with Nvidia but I doubt it.


Nice bit of trolling there. Few things - nvidia chips aren't inherently "better" than AMD's. Both companies have strong and weak cards from both a performance per watt, per mm2, per £, etc, and twas ever thus. HD 7990 is as fast as the GTX 690. And you're right to be worried about AMD's console wins. See what happened with Tomb Raider on the PC at launch - broken on nvidia hardware, and AMD cards significantly faster with heavy compute effects enabled, at least until nvidia can get some new drivers out the door - welcome to the next few years.
tmten 40
 
Posts: 123
Joined: 04 Oct 2001, 19:17
Location: United Kingdom

Re: PS4 partnership not worth the cost, says Nvidia

Postby andy3050 » 14 Mar 2013, 18:51

Dave_25 wrote:Nvidia chips are better, fact. I have a 690 in my PC and AMD have nothing that even comes close to it or the newer Titan, AMD play second fiddle to Nvidia and the one worry about the next generation of consoles is the AMD chip. I am actually hoping that MS went with Nvidia but I doubt it.


Xbox 360 used and ATI graphics chip (ATI is now AMD) and that didn't hurt the visuals too much... anyway, why are you so concerned about what the consoles use, you have a GTX690, surely your "PC master race" rig will be better than anything sony or microsoft bring out ¬¬
andy3050 49
 
Posts: 144
Joined: 05 Jan 2003, 12:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: PS4 partnership not worth the cost, says Nvidia

Postby liveswired » 14 Mar 2013, 18:52

Sounds like spilt milk to me. Anyways, it doesn't surprise me that both MS and Sony went with AMD.
^_* ^_^
liveswired 52
 
Posts: 1386
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 23:48
Location: United Kingdom
PSN ID: liveswired
Wii Code: 3DS 4081-5530-7050
Steam: liveswired

Re: PS4 partnership not worth the cost, says Nvidia

Postby liveswired » 14 Mar 2013, 18:59

Dave_25 wrote:Nvidia chips are better, fact. I have a 690 in my PC and AMD have nothing that even comes close to it or the newer Titan, AMD play second fiddle to Nvidia and the one worry about the next generation of consoles is the AMD chip. I am actually hoping that MS went with Nvidia but I doubt it.


Perhaps in the desktop world NVIDIA have the most powerful solution at the very high end, but AMD have NVIDIA in pretty much every other category - which is where it counts for console.

Sony or Microsoft aren't going to be bundling an £800 graphics card into their systems and selling for £350 now are they?
^_* ^_^
liveswired 52
 
Posts: 1386
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 23:48
Location: United Kingdom
PSN ID: liveswired
Wii Code: 3DS 4081-5530-7050
Steam: liveswired

Re: PS4 partnership not worth the cost, says Nvidia

Postby Malmo » 14 Mar 2013, 19:11

Not that it really makes a difference to our lives, AMD/ati have always been more interested in the console market and Nvidia have very much focused on mobile graphics development in recent years. They're already very well established in the PC gpu market, and mobile has no real competition in high end graphics.
Malmo 63
 
Posts: 637
Joined: 16 Nov 2005, 16:10
Location: United Kingdom
PSN ID: dead2theworld

Re: PS4 partnership not worth the cost, says Nvidia

Postby kirankara » 14 Mar 2013, 19:19

tmten wrote:
Dave_25 wrote:Nvidia chips are better, fact. I have a 690 in my PC and AMD have nothing that even comes close to it or the newer Titan, AMD play second fiddle to Nvidia and the one worry about the next generation of consoles is the AMD chip. I am actually hoping that MS went with Nvidia but I doubt it.


Nice bit of trolling there. Few things - nvidia chips aren't inherently "better" than AMD's. Both companies have strong and weak cards from both a performance per watt, per mm2, per £, etc, and twas ever thus. HD 7990 is as fast as the GTX 690. And you're right to be worried about AMD's console wins. See what happened with Tomb Raider on the PC at launch - broken on nvidia hardware, and AMD cards significantly faster with heavy compute effects enabled, at least until nvidia can get some new drivers out the door - welcome to the next few years.


It's true 7990 may match 690 in some respects, often amd cards will match or beat equivalent nvidia cards with avg fps , but this is slightly misleading, as they often have worse and sometimes far worse frame latency rates, especially with sli cards . The 7970 alone has worse latency than many sli nvidia cards, let alone two 7970's (that's what 7990 is)of them in sli.

Then there's power consumption to take into account etc.

Nvidia cards are by and large the better cards atm, although they are more expensive. You tend to get more bang for buck with AMD, and in terms of general computing AMD often are ahead there too. For gaming though, generally Nvidia cards are overall better cards . whether you think difference is enough to justify extra, everyone's got own opinion.

I have to admit that the number of games that are AMD funded is little disconcerting as an NVidia card owner, but then theres many of those games in past which still run better on Nvidia cards now, so not hugely worried.

PS Tress fx is not yet ready imo. Looks lovely at times, hilariously bad at other times
kirankara 57
 
Posts: 3309
Joined: 01 Apr 2009, 10:31
Location: United Kingdom

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

The forum teamDelete all forum cookiesAll times are UTC [ DST ]