or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › HTPC Gaming › Why is both Sony and Microsoft going with AMD instead of Nvidia?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why is both Sony and Microsoft going with AMD instead of Nvidia?

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 
Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that both the PS4 and Xbox Next are going to use AMD for the GPU. Nintendo is using AMD in the Wii U as well... Right? Yet, it seems on the PC side of things that Nvidia has the better bang for the buck.

Why are all the console companies going with AMD ?
post #2 of 19
It's all about the money! I'm sure they signed some sort of deal for cheap GPU's. The specs for sony and microsoft are not set in stone yet though.
post #3 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8DOGG View Post

It's all about the money! I'm sure they signed some sort of deal for cheap GPU's. The specs for sony and microsoft are not set in stone yet though.


Why didn't Nvidia try to give a decent deal? It must really hurt Nvidia to know that all of the big 3 companies are going with the OTHER guy.
post #4 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1 View Post


Why didn't Nvidia try to give a decent deal? It must really hurt Nvidia to know that all of the big 3 companies are going with the OTHER guy.

Who's to say they didn't try?
post #5 of 19
nvidia will still wipe the floor with pc anyways graphics wise. soon as the 720 and ps4 come out. the tech will at least be two years old.
post #6 of 19
How are they wiping the floor? I am not a Fanboy of either (I have had both GPU's) & right now I have a Sapphire Radeon 7850 (OC Edition) for $250 and it's an Awesome Card for the Money. I am very happy with it. Plus PC games are not pushing the limits of GPU's as most games are Console Ports with prettier graphics. The last game to really push PC graphics is Crysis & Metro 2033 (but that was because of bad coding).
post #7 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1 View Post

Why didn't Nvidia try to give a decent deal? It must really hurt Nvidia to know that all of the big 3 companies are going with the OTHER guy.

I dunno, maybe they did try. but Nvidia also has a lot of other areas to focus on where as AMD is kinda stuck. I'm sure there is a good reason that the 3 companys are going with AMD over Nvidia but we'll probably never know.
post #8 of 19
It will probably make porting between consoles much easier and cheaper if they all use AMD hardware, but who knows in the console world where easy is often confused with lazy.
post #9 of 19
To put it simply, ATi was better when they started building the PS3 and 360, plus they were priced well and all 3 companies did well with each other in this generation so it made it easier to just stick with a winner. Especially given that almost all of the problems with both consoles almost never had anything to do with the GPU's they used, and their now semi-longstanding partnership of success made it easier for everyone to sign on for another round.

Am I getting an nVidia for my new PC early next year, most likely. Does it make sense that console makers stuck with the brand that may not be performing as well so they could save more money on their next boxes, of course.

Now we just have to hope they realize that adequate cooling is the difference between lasting 2 years or 10 years.
post #10 of 19
Thread Starter 
Sony used Nvidia last round. Yeah, Xbox used AMD and so did Nintendo. It's not too suprising to see them stick with those companies if they are given the proper deal, but it just surprises me a little bit because Nvidia seems to really be knocking it out of the park right now in PC gaming. The AMD cards aren't bad by any means, but there are tons of games that just run better on Nvidia. You would think everybody would go with the company that currently is on top of things. Especially Sony, considering they had Nvidia last round.

Hopefully AMD will have some decent GPU's in those systems, but I have a hard time believing the Nvidia part wouldn't have had more bang per buck, unless AMD is just giving everybody an amazing deal and really undercutting Nvidia on the pricing.

How is Nvidia's stock doing if they have no console play? They have a bunch of portable GPU chips they sell right? I'm just a bit surprised that they would be content to let the console business just evaporate.
post #11 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1 View Post

How is Nvidia's stock doing if they have no console play? They have a bunch of portable GPU chips they sell right? I'm just a bit surprised that they would be content to let the console business just evaporate.

Nvidia has a good foothold with their Tegra (mobile) and Tesla (high performance computing) solutions in addition to their GeForce (gaming) solutions.

Nobody ever said that Nvidia is "content" with having no representation in the next generation console gaming world. We have no idea how they feel in this regard, and it could simply be that they could not compete with AMD's pricing and supply.
post #12 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1 View Post

Sony used Nvidia last round. Yeah, Xbox used AMD and so did Nintendo. It's not too suprising to see them stick with those companies if they are given the proper deal, but it just surprises me a little bit because Nvidia seems to really be knocking it out of the park right now in PC gaming. The AMD cards aren't bad by any means, but there are tons of games that just run better on Nvidia. You would think everybody would go with the company that currently is on top of things. Especially Sony, considering they had Nvidia last round.

Hopefully AMD will have some decent GPU's in those systems, but I have a hard time believing the Nvidia part wouldn't have had more bang per buck, unless AMD is just giving everybody an amazing deal and really undercutting Nvidia on the pricing.

How is Nvidia's stock doing if they have no console play? They have a bunch of portable GPU chips they sell right? I'm just a bit surprised that they would be content to let the console business just evaporate.


I stand corrected but it makes sense that Sony would move over to ATi after their showing with MS. They already have the capability to pump out thousands, even millions, of these things at this point.
post #13 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1 View Post

Sony used Nvidia last round. Yeah, Xbox used AMD and so did Nintendo. It's not too suprising to see them stick with those companies if they are given the proper deal, but it just surprises me a little bit because Nvidia seems to really be knocking it out of the park right now in PC gaming. The AMD cards aren't bad by any means, but there are tons of games that just run better on Nvidia. You would think everybody would go with the company that currently is on top of things. Especially Sony, considering they had Nvidia last round.

Hopefully AMD will have some decent GPU's in those systems, but I have a hard time believing the Nvidia part wouldn't have had more bang per buck, unless AMD is just giving everybody an amazing deal and really undercutting Nvidia on the pricing.

How is Nvidia's stock doing if they have no console play? They have a bunch of portable GPU chips they sell right? I'm just a bit surprised that they would be content to let the console business just evaporate.

Current-gen performance doesn't matter, because those aren't the chips they'll be using. It's not like they were deciding between including a 680 vs. a 7970. They'll be speccing chips about two generations back. I believe I read the xbox 720 will be using a 6670, which will be about two generations old by the time these come out. Back in those generations, I believe AMD had a pretty significant performance/watt lead over Nvidia as the original Fermi chips were power-sucking heat monsters. Also, they're not looking to use expensive low-yield chips in these machines that Nvidia can't even keep in stock. So while I agree with you that Nvidia is kicking some serious performance butt in this generation (minus their inventory problems), what matters is the performance/watt and price of the chips a gen or two back.
post #14 of 19
I'm guessing AMD took an "Achieve success at any cost" tact because consoles are what are keeping them alive. Their CPU's haven't been contenders in the PC world since the Core2Duo's came out years back, and their ATI line of video cards always seems stuck (in my mind) of being in constant second place. The only time they do well it seems is when Nvidia screws up with a product release (480's, for example).......AMD is probably as others have said in a better position to churn out chips.
post #15 of 19
I'd be very curious to know the answer because the consoles will sell millions and millions of units during their lifetime. OF COURSE Nvidia put their hat in the ring, so why they couldn't work out a deal is curious. Sometimes, these companies sacrifice too much to get an important deal. Look at Morgan Stanley (or is it J.P. Morgan) they sacrificed a ton for the Facebook IPO and now they are in hot water. It's a fine line I'm sure between final nail in the coffin and keeping the company afloat.
post #16 of 19
Well there was that thing with nvidia altering their drivers to get higher benchmarks with a loss of picture quality. Ati cards have always been known for their video ability. Perhaps Amd chips just integrate better. I've never heard of anyone buying a motherboard based on nvidia integrated graphics.
post #17 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Afroteddy View Post

I've never heard of anyone buying a motherboard based on nvidia integrated graphics.

?!?!

Does this make sense? If you are using integrated graphics it means you don't give a F about graphics quality and if you don't give a F about graphics quality you don't care if it's ATI or NVidia. That being said, if I was buying a laptop, I'd be looking for the best NVidia related graphics chip.
post #18 of 19
As long as its not "just enough" for some averaged goal for speed, ill be happy. I hope its fast, fast, fast. Fast enough to do 1080p in 2D and 3D and fast enough to allow for new innovations, as that Battlefield dev asked for. Fast enough so tens years down the line were not getting low rez textured ports for the PC.
post #19 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by tory40 View Post

As long as its not "just enough" for some averaged goal for speed, ill be happy. I hope its fast, fast, fast. Fast enough to do 1080p in 2D and 3D and fast enough to allow for new innovations, as that Battlefield dev asked for. Fast enough so tens years down the line were not getting low rez textured ports for the PC.

I'm just hoping that the new consoles have very good OpenCL compute capabilities among the combination of their CPU and GPU, to allow for advanced physics to be coded into games from the start and not merely as an afterthought as we've seen with games supporting Nvidia's hardware PhysX.

I think we are at the point where the interactive elements of a game generally matter much more than texture quality.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HTPC Gaming
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › HTPC Gaming › Why is both Sony and Microsoft going with AMD instead of Nvidia?