AMD Console Wins for 2017?
- Thread starter orangpelupa
- Start date
-
- Tags
- amd
Silent_Buddha
Legend
If they were to go this route, I'd imagine they'd go the Gear VR route. Leverage their mobile phone business for VR. Perhaps partner with Occulus (assuming Samsung doesn't have exclusive rights, which they might) for instant access to an established VR store while also offering exclusive PlayStation VR games.
That does limit worldwide penetration, however, as they've withdrawn from quite a few markets for their phone devices, but does allow them to greatly mitigate the risks associated with a gaming only portable.
It's also possible they could just wait to see what the reception is to Nintendo's portable game console. They'll cede any advantage of a simultaneous or near simultaneous launch, but would get to see if the market is still there for a dedicated gaming device. However, considering how well playstation portable has done relative to Nintendo worldwide, it's an extremely high risk bet for a company that has in many ways grown more conservative in the short term (outside of PSVR which is leveraging the success of PS4) as they consolidate and improve on their financial standing.
Regards,
SB
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
To my knowledge, there have been approximately zero console makers who ended up happy with the business they did with nvidia.
The original xbox deal led to long and expensive lawsuits, whereas the PS3 ended up in an overall crappy architecture with 2 types of different memory that were difficult to handle and a GPU with subpar pixel shader performance whose limitations had to be worked around using the Cell's SPEs. Then there's rumored / pseudo-confirmed Tegra 3DS that was dropped halfway.
Couple that with the fact that nvidia has the most marketshare+mindshare in discrete GPUs and doesn't really need to offer a good deal to a console maker, I find it very hard to see nvidia doing a console this gen - if ever.
In fact, I think it's more likely to see a chinese SoC maker like Mediatek developing a "big performance SoC" with LPDDR4 than nVidia. IMO, Mediatek would be more than capable of developing a 8/12/16xCortex A53 + custom Midgard or Series 7XT GPU + quad-channel LPDDR4 and just go with it. Qualcomm could do the same but with a custom "big" Adreno 5xx GPU.
Of course, none of these is even remotely as probable as AMD.
True, the Wii U's hardware is crap, but IMO that's simply because Nintendo decided to cheapen out both in die area, process node and power budgets. I doubt anyone feels AMD is responsible for the Wii U's lack of performance. They probably would've been more than happy to put a GCN or at least a newer-gen and more powerful Terascale GPU in there.
The original xbox deal led to long and expensive lawsuits, whereas the PS3 ended up in an overall crappy architecture with 2 types of different memory that were difficult to handle and a GPU with subpar pixel shader performance whose limitations had to be worked around using the Cell's SPEs. Then there's rumored / pseudo-confirmed Tegra 3DS that was dropped halfway.
Couple that with the fact that nvidia has the most marketshare+mindshare in discrete GPUs and doesn't really need to offer a good deal to a console maker, I find it very hard to see nvidia doing a console this gen - if ever.
In fact, I think it's more likely to see a chinese SoC maker like Mediatek developing a "big performance SoC" with LPDDR4 than nVidia. IMO, Mediatek would be more than capable of developing a 8/12/16xCortex A53 + custom Midgard or Series 7XT GPU + quad-channel LPDDR4 and just go with it. Qualcomm could do the same but with a custom "big" Adreno 5xx GPU.
Of course, none of these is even remotely as probable as AMD.
True, the Wii U's hardware is crap, but IMO that's simply because Nintendo decided to cheapen out both in die area, process node and power budgets. I doubt anyone feels AMD is responsible for the Wii U's lack of performance. They probably would've been more than happy to put a GCN or at least a newer-gen and more powerful Terascale GPU in there.
I think the whole "Nvidia is a bad business partner" is getting a little old when their business is actually going well and we don't hear complains.
The thing is they have no reason to let their IPs out for cheap. I would be happy if Nintendo chose Nvidia their tech is awesome, Maxwell was a major break through in power consumption, Pascal is altogether in another league.
With A72+Pascal @14/16nm you might be able to deliver the level of performances this generation achieves with impressive power characteristics.
Now it won't happen because Nvidia is expensive, like Intel won't happen.
The thing is they have no reason to let their IPs out for cheap. I would be happy if Nintendo chose Nvidia their tech is awesome, Maxwell was a major break through in power consumption, Pascal is altogether in another league.
With A72+Pascal @14/16nm you might be able to deliver the level of performances this generation achieves with impressive power characteristics.
Now it won't happen because Nvidia is expensive, like Intel won't happen.
rockaman
Regular
I don't think anyone is betting on a handheld anymore besides Nintendo. Microsoft moves entirely too slow to make a dent in this space even if they tried. Plus they already have Surface going on, which seems to be picking up pace which is really good for them.
Success is not necessarily an indicator of being a good business partner, in every regard. Microsoft is wildly successful, yet how many people call them a good business partner from their early days? I doubt so many. Now I think many companies use their server services and OS services and many things. But are they only either a bad or a good business partner? I doubt it is so simple.
I'm sure Nvidia is probably good or great in the eyes of some developers like id maybe, but that doesn't account for every relationship. Maybe other developers, or other publishers too.
It may very well be they do not seek to be a part of, or are not willing to invest resources, into committing to the console space. Even though they did try mobile type chips like with Shield and some Android tablets, they may be behind in other respects, such as in offering a competitive or even more affordable price per performance offer to Sony or Microsoft or Nintendo.
There's many possibilities for why Nvidia might not be breaking into this space is all I'm saying.
Those 3 parameters could have being OK if they had used a modern tech instead of a 1999 CPU and if they hadn't allocated some precious die area to hardware BC and added complexity because of it.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Yeah kinda. I would dearly love a portable PlayStation but I want a hone console that is portable, I.e a Portable PS3 or PS4 - that that runs those games. That would also solve dev support issues.
Unfortunately.. technology and batteries.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Sony just needs to invent and launch a satellite into space that can harness solar power with solar panels and then beam that electricity down to terrestrial devices, preferably gaming consoles.
Problem solved.Regards,
SB
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Because at least Nintendo is still making a substantial amount of money with that market, so there's money to be made. And we don't know if the Vita isn't actually generating some profits despite Sony blatantly shitting on it since its birth (practically no money spent on marketing, 3rd party deals, 1st party exclusives, etc).
Nintendo is making money and better hardware would do a better use of the assets they create, not too mention it could allow ports from previous generations of consoles and PC. I believe that in the face mobile gaming pretty accessible to anyone handheld need to offer a better experience, more tablet like. Nowadays handheld are stuck with form factors which are coming from the pre-phone (and phablet) era. Handheld screen should be anywhere in between the WiiU screen size and 8 " tablets. Sony high-end approach to handheld was failed I see no future for it. Nintendo hardware is limiting even taking in account the average budget of a handheld game, I speak of technical specs and overall design; they just introduced a second analog stick to their design for example.
Ultimately I've few hope for the old dinosaurus to make anything out of that market, Google and Apple are engaged in bigger games. I actually think it could be a good place for a company like Facebook to start with proprietary hardware and OS. You get the kids on Facebook quite a win for them.. they would know pretty much from your inception to your death.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Are you sure of this?
I just got a new smartphone after 3 years with my One M7 (BTW Butterfly 3 is everything the M9 should've been), I go to the Play Store and all I see in the "top" lists are casual games.
It's exactly the same as it was 3 years ago. The more graphic demanding games of that time are the same graphic demanding games of today. It's impressive how stale the Play Store has remained in what relates to games.
And they are bringing vulcan to Android, there are really few cores, serious, games as found on handheld. The games on the top of list, they are already played on existing hardware and OS, that is a different market, nobody is going to throw away its phone because he bought a handheld. Different markets are different markets.
As for mobile every bit of extra power is wasted on resolution increases, most games make no money it is hard legitimate a big investment on higher quality assets, which by nature further reduce your aimed market. It is a hit and miss strategy, focused on solid gameplay and simple mechanics (which when done right does not forbid richness).
Handheld are core gaming devices, pretty niche on top of it some time (Jrpg comes to mind). Nintendo approach of the market limits the reach of the market but I am in an easy situation to criticize the company that still does the best job at understanding and so milking that market.
EDIT
I lost the goal of my post, yes gaming is relevant to Google and Apple, yet core gaming is not. When it is going to be an easy task for them to take that business away from existing actors they may not pass, but it is not now. But the time may be closing, I do not believe into the rumors stating that Nvidia got into a deal with Nintendo, though once Android supports Vulcan it makes sense for Nvidia to try to support OS supporting ARM CPUs (which allow them to launch system on their name and take the money for them self).
Google may not tackle core gaming anytime soon, it makes more and more sense for Nvidia (not to go all out in an attempt set to fail) but to continue pushing ports running on their dedicated gaming portal and exclusive to their hardware. If they go that way again their attempt could be more successful as I would expect their next Tegra to be designed with more thermal room as they are no longer aiming phone and foremost tablet. Even aiming at low power laptop type of power consumption could trigger significant design changes.
EDIT 2
Going back on topic, so AMD, a surprising turm of even would be for Google to have contracted them to make an Android TV.
Last edited:
That's possibly unfair. The biggest titles are titles played by everyone, so tens of millions. The core games would only ever appeal to a subset of that. You'd have to compare 'AAA' mobile title sales to see if they've grown or not.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Where are they? Which games are you talking about? I've looked and looked, and apart from PS2-era GTA ports and Gameloft F2P crap, I can't find them on the Play Store. They just don't exist.
Xbox One S?
http://seekingalpha.com/article/399...-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single
Nintendo home console? (not hybrid, not handheld thing)
Lisa Su said:
Nintendo home console? (not hybrid, not handheld thing)
