PS4 not worth the cost, says Nvidia!

[PeanutButterMunky]

Are you really trying to discount real world program and game benchmarks? (these aren't the BS synthetic benchmarks)

Those are the facts.

???????????????????????????????

Are we participating in the same conversation? I said nothing regarding benchmarks... I'm referring to your fictional storytelling that has nothing to do with the conversation or the point... such as what I quoted above.

[Completely Average]

Not sure why tom's did that. But running the ram at 1600Mhz vs 1866Mhz isn't going to result in a tangible difference (especially for gaming)

You obviously don't know much about PC gaming then. Bandwidth is a HUGE restriction on CPU benchmarks.

Or do you think it's purely coincidence that a CPU with a 14.5% reduction in memory speed resulted in a 14.5% lower frame rate?

Not sure what you are trying to get at with the anandtech link?

If you are trying to show me a benchmark where the AMD cpu did better, well than all I have to say is:

DUH, of course a 6 or 8 core processor will do better than a 4 core processor in a benchmark take advantage of more than 4 cores.

If you were trying to imply something else, you were too subtle about it.

Why don't you try reading what was being benchmarked? It wasn't the number of cores. Go ahead and read the first paragraph of the page, or is that too subtle for you?

[hood]

I just have to ask the question what's wrong with having a gtx 680/7970 as a gfx card. Isn't the point of having a console is that it's a closed off system that you wont need to update to play the latest games.

[PeanutButterMunky]

I just have to ask the question what's wrong with having a gtx 680/7970 as a gfx card. Isn't the point of having a console is that it's a closed off system that you wont need to update to play the latest games.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Cost would be the primary reason.

[MATRIX 2]

Do you see the hypocrisy of these two statements? I sure do.



These are what you would call your personal GUESS based on nothing more than what you want to believe. You don't have a shred of proof to support either, but you're going to grasp on to these straws as tight as you can because if you don't then you just might have to accept that you could be wrong.

And you're so unwilling to accept that possibility that you'll just make stuff up and pretend like it's the truth. You may even fool yourself into believing it if you find the alternative so bad that you just cannot accept it.



I'll readily accept and admit that after the Xbox no one went to Intel to ask them for a chip. Everyone knew that the Xbox deal did nothing but hurt MS, and MS wasn't going to repeat that mistake and no one else was willing to make the same mistake.

You admit that Nvidia was likely asked to produce a GPU but couldn't do it within the budget limits that manufacturers would accept. There is no other reason why they would turn down hundreds of millions, possibly even billions of dollars in profits.

Just imagine you're the CEO of Nvidia at the next investor meeting, and you have to tell the investors "We were offered the contract for console X which would have resulted in as many as 80 million consoles sold at $5 profit for us per console, and we turned it down." How long do you think you would have your job? Think you would last to the end of the meeting?

For the record the problem with the original xbox was with Nvidia, Microsoft has no issues with intel and the hardware they provided.

About the rest of the post:

You are criticizing me for even considering something as a possibility when nobody else was willing to do so?

I did not state it as a fact.

Sorry but I don't know what crusade you are on or what your goal is, but I'm not buying into it.

If you disagree with my statements, then you disagree. Simple as that. Stop trying to go out on some tangent to pursue some endgame nobody is interested in.

And about your hypothetical:

As far as we know sony had no issues with Nvidia's product in the PS3. And as far as we know Nvidia made money off of the RSX in the PS3. So based off of those two things why would nvidia not bite the bullet on potential initial losses of a ps4 gpu based on their successful history with Sony and the potential to make a good amount of money in the long run off of the ps4? This is in addition to all the other potential benefits stated in this thread? There has to be more to it than that.

Perhaps nvidia tried to reduce the price, but sony wanted too much (due to their financial situation), so they went with AMD because they were that much more willing to undercut any offer from Nvidia. Or perhaps because they offered other advantages (that nvidia didn't) like the ones I listed below.

Why don't you answer that question?

And when I was talking about potential reasons to pick a product other than the initial cost I was referring to things like how fast the manufacturing costs could be reduced or certain desirable traits (like a cooler running chip, lower power draw, better performance, ect.) that couldn't be found with competing hardware offered at lower initial prices.

[PeanutButterMunky]

For the record the problem with the original xbox was with Nvidia, Microsoft has no issues with intel and the hardware they provided.

About the rest of the post:

You are criticizing me for even considering something as a possibility when nobody else was willing to do so?

I did not state it as a fact.

Sorry but I don't know what crusade you are on or what your goal is, but I'm not buying into it.

If you disagree with my statements, then you disagree. Simple as that. Stop trying to go out on some tangent to pursue some endgame nobody is interested in.

And about your hypothetical:

As far as we know sony had no issues with Nvidia's product in the PS3. And as far as we know Nvidia made money off of the RSX in the PS3. So based off of those two things why would nvidia not bite the bullet on potential initial losses of a ps4 gpu based on their successful history with Sony and the potential to make a good amount of money in the long run off of the ps4? This is in addition to all the other potential benefits stated in this thread? There has to be more to it than that.

Perhaps nvidia tried to reduce the price, but sony wanted too much (due to their financial situation), so they went with AMD because they were that much more willing to undercut any offer from Nvidia. Or perhaps because they offered other advantages (that nvidia didn't) like the ones I listed below.

Why don't you answer that question?

And when I was talking about potential reasons to pick a product other than the initial cost I was referring to things like how fast the manufacturing costs could be reduced or certain desirable traits (like a cooler running chip, lower power draw, better performance, ect.) that couldn't be found with competing hardware offered at lower initial prices.

????????????????????

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/ps4-not-...nvidia-6405300

[hood]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Cost would be the primary reason.

Well because he say's that the PS4 is just a low end PC comparible to the GTX 680. I thought that it was pretty obvious to people that PC rigs will always dominate consoles. The only reason for buying a console was so that you could have fairly decent hardware without having to upgrade. I would be pretty content with a with a 7970 or even GTX 590 being used on consoles. Im pretty sure something like BF3/BF4 could run fairly well on a 7970 it wont have ultra settings and run over 60's fps. IMO it's not as crippling as Nvida is trying to portray everyone knows if you want that extra umph you buy a PC.

When i first layed eyes on the Killzone Shadow Fall i wasn't completely blow away the first thing that came to mind though was Crysis 2. I wasn't thinking omg this is totally nextgen this will blow Pc's out of the water.

[PeanutButterMunky]

Well because he say's that the PS4 is just a low end PC comparible to the GTX 680. I thought that it was pretty obvious to people that PC rigs will always dominate consoles. The only reason for buying a console was so that you could have fairly decent hardware without having to upgrade. I would be pretty content with a with a 7970 or even GTX 590 being used on consoles. Im pretty sure something like BF3/BF4 could run fairly well on a 7970 it wont have ultra settings and run over 60's fps. IMO it's not as crippling as Nvida is trying to portray everyone knows if you want that extra umph you buy a PC.

It's the job of the developers to code for the capabilities of the console. We're going to see amazing looking games regardless. Consoles don't work like PCs. Developers will continue trying to eek out every bit of performance they can from the PS4 and Nextbox within playable framerates. You have nothing to worry about.

[MATRIX 2]

???????????????????????????????

Are we participating in the same conversation? I said nothing regarding benchmarks... I'm referring to your fictional storytelling that has nothing to do with the conversation or the point... such as what I quoted above.

Tell me what the point of a forum is?

It is to discuss things, right?

Not just facts, but opinions, theories and conjecture.

What I'm doing is the latter parts of that sentence.

Just like everybody else is doing with rumored threads about the PS4, next xbox and other topics.

So why are you taking issue with my opinions, theories and conjecture and not anyone else's?

You obviously don't know much about PC gaming then. Bandwidth is a HUGE restriction on CPU benchmarks.

Or do you think it's purely coincidence that a CPU with a 14.5% reduction in memory speed resulted in a 14.5% lower frame rate?

I looked at the tom's test setup again. The ram kit ran at 2000Mhz except for the pentium G860 at 1866Mhz and the Athlon II X3 at 1600MHZ.

But even if what you said was true:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4503/s...-the-best-ddr3

Granted it is a different architecture, but the results shouldn't change significantly if they did the test with AMD's current FX cpu's.



[/quote]Why don't you try reading what was being benchmarked? It wasn't the number of cores. Go ahead and read the first paragraph of the page, or is that too subtle for you?[/QUOTE]

Overclocking? Really? That is the point you were trying to make?

OK, so AMD's chips overclock better, I still don't see your point? A lot of people do not overclock. And it isn't like you can't get good overclocks with intel's current processors, it's just harder than it was in the past.

[MATRIX 2]

????????????????????

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/ps4-not-...nvidia-6405300

Ok that is what Nvidia said. They tried to negotiate but didn't see the point in supplying the PS4's gpu for what sony was willing to pay?

I fail to see the issue with what they did. It wasn't worth the cost to them. That wasn't the case for AMD (Then again they had the WII U and next xbox locked up, along with the cpu for the PS4 so what is another gpu)

Seems like people are making a big issue out of nothing.

[PeanutButterMunky]

Seems like people are making a big issue out of nothing.

The irony.

[MATRIX 2]

Do you even remember what the topic is about?

I got a bit confused with the multiple different discussions I've been having in this thread. But my last post still stands. Where is the issue?

[GreatSpaceKoaster]

Anybody that thinks Intel was never approached is fooling themselves. Sony and Microsoft are at least gonna use Intel's price quotes to drive AMD's prices down. Happens all the time in business. I've had customers have my company go out of it's way to bring the price down to get the sale, only to have them turn around and use it to simply drive down the price from another company that they had every intention of going with all along.

[MATRIX 2]

Anybody that thinks Intel was never approached is fooling themselves. Sony and Microsoft are at least gonna use Intel's price quotes to drive AMD's prices down. Happens all the time in business. I've had customers have my company go out of it's way to bring the price down to get the sale, only to have them turn around and use it to simply drive down the price from another company that they had every intention of going with all along.

If intel was approached, what would they do, make a custom CPU instead of using an off the shelf design?

Doesn't seem like them based on their history.

Also MS is in bed with AMD so that would leave sony as the only potential partner with a good chance of picking intel. Doesn't seem like intel would want to bother for just 2 console. (Remember, IBM had a hand in the 360, ps3 and wii).

[TGO]

I find it weird people saying PS4 has off the shelf PC parts and heres Nvidia saying it wouldn't be worth the cost because they can't sell those parts on the market
So which is it, PS4 has parts available to PC owners or are they made just for PS4?

Sent via Codec

[PeanutButterMunky]

I find it weird people saying PS4 has off the shelf PC parts and heres Nvidia saying it wouldn't be worth the cost because they can't sell those parts on the market
So which is it, PS4 has parts available to PC owners or are they made just for PS4?

NVIDIA didn't say it wouldn't be worth the cost because they can't sell those parts on the market. They said it wouldn't be worth the cost because they feel they wouldn't make enough revenue in consoles. They didn't want to make hardware for the PlayStation 4 at the price Sony was asking... or so they say.

The hardware going into PS4 isn't simply "off the shelf" PC parts, but it is essentially PC hardware, which will make it a lot easier to developer for than last gen. It has a custom AMD APU with 8 GB of GDDR5 unified memory. You'll see more and more AMD APUs popping up in the not too distant future (you can get PCs with AMD APUs right as I type this).

[GreatSpaceKoaster]

If intel was approached, what would they do, make a custom CPU instead of using an off the shelf design?

Doesn't seem like them based on their history.

Also MS is in bed with AMD so that would leave sony as the only potential partner with a good chance of picking intel. Doesn't seem like intel would want to bother for just 2 console. (Remember, IBM had a hand in the 360, ps3 and wii).

They are at least gonna be approached. If Intel offered a powerful off the shelf or slightly customized CPU at a decent price, Microsoft would jump. Think about it. MS went with Intel in the Xbox, IBM in the 360 and AMD in the 720. There has been nothing loyal about them other than they are using AMD GPUs again in the 720.

I find it weird people saying PS4 has off the shelf PC parts and heres Nvidia saying it wouldn't be worth the cost because they can't sell those parts on the market
So which is it, PS4 has parts available to PC owners or are they made just for PS4?

Sent via Codec

It's semi-off the shelf parts. This CPU was basically already headed to PC. It seems to have been customized a little, although I haven't heard the clear difference from the one heading to the PC. Had Sony or MS not approached them to put these in consoles, it was still heading to the PC market. In that way...... it's more off the shelf then not.

[ElieKatzQueer]

Yeah right. This console is gonna rock.

[MATRIX 2]

They are at least gonna be approached. If Intel offered a powerful off the shelf or slightly customized CPU at a decent price, Microsoft would jump. Think about it. MS went with Intel in the Xbox, IBM in the 360 and AMD in the 720. There has been nothing loyal about them other than they are using AMD GPUs again in the 720.



It's semi-off the shelf parts. This CPU was basically already headed to PC. It seems to have been customized a little, although I haven't heard the clear difference from the one heading to the PC. Had Sony or MS not approached them to put these in consoles, it was still heading to the PC market. In that way...... it's more off the shelf then not.

Well with the original xbox, they need a qyick design so using (what was essentially) off the shelf intel/nvidia hardware made sense.

With the 360, they had more time and wanted a custom design, so working with IBM made sense.

With the next xbox, they want a design that has good thermal performance, low energy consumption and doesn't cost a lot of money. And since they already have a relationship with AMD, and amd already makes something similar to what thy want the choice was pretty simple.

Look at all the cpu's intel sells.

Look at the cost, thermal performance and power consumption of their 6/8 core cpu's. Clearly it doesn't match up with any of the goals listed above.

Intel might have been asked, but I'm pretty sure they would have declined/been ruled out pretty quickly.

[PeanutButterMunky]

Uh... yeah... you're still making things up.

[TGO]

It sounds to me like Nvidia are just a bit mad because none of the console makers went with them this gen with their console tech they've been working on, if Sony had went with them they wouldn't be saying this, although it maybe true ( actually the PS4 specs are above mid range so maybe not) developers have made games like GOW:A, TLOU and Beyond on that dated low end Nvidia card in the PS3
we can't look at the specs and compare them to PC specs, because the end result has a major difference, PS4 will be doing stuff current highend PC's can only dream of in 4 years
Yes Highend PC can out do the PS4, if they was in a closed environment, but they not
They can probably match the first wave of nextgen games but they will struggle to keep up on the second wave, not because the hardware aint there but because the resources aren't there, but most people will upgrade anyway
But my point is that comparison is a fulse representation
And Nvidia are just mad
And Crytek, yes PS4 is not gonna run Crysis 5 on max settings, but neither are current highend cards, in fact they probably wont run it ay all, so its stupid to even mention it
Sent via Codec

[ps3freak18]

Yeah this is just a matter of one company trying to downplay their competition's successful contract acquisition They had to take a shot at the PS4 to do it. Simple as that.

[MATRIX 2]

Uh... yeah... you're still making things up.

No I'm not. This is conjecture. If you can't understand that than seek help.

You never got around to answering my question though:

http://www.psu.com/forums/showthread...=1#post6046936

[GreatSpaceKoaster]

Yeah this is just a matter of one company trying to downplay their competition's successful contract acquisition They had to take a shot at the PS4 to do it. Simple as that.

Where was the shot that Nvidia was taking at the PS4? The fact they don't want to sell their chips at the price Sony was willing to pay is just business. They never dogged the PS4, they simply turned up their noses at Sony's chip price expectations.

I think you are PROJECTING that Nvidia took a shot at PS4, when Nvidia's own words don't back up your accusation that they did.

[Sufi]

Where was the shot that Nvidia was taking at the PS4? The fact they don't want to sell their chips at the price Sony was willing to pay is just business. They never dogged the PS4, they simply turned up their noses at Sony's chip price expectations.

I think you are PROJECTING that Nvidia took a shot at PS4, when Nvidia's own words don't back up your accusation that they did.

Did you miss the part where they compare it to a low-end PC?