What's with the "came begging" ? Sony paid them did they not?
Why would anyone deal with Nvidia again in the console space? *spawn*
- Thread starter Rootax
- Start date
What's with the "came begging" ? Sony paid them did they not?
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
No you see.. Sony came begging nvidia for help, knees and forehead in the floor and incessant pray.
nVidia, in all their almightiness and vast mercifulness created RSX in two nights, and handed it down to Sony to use and prosper.
Thus, Sony was saved from impending doom.
It is known.
Tkumpathenurple
Veteran
FACT
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I heard Ken Kutaragi was had to dance in a tutu on Nvidia's executive boardroom table.
While begging.
First the CELL was never suppose to be a GPU, it was supposed to do all the vertex work with the SPU and be like the VU in PS2 and have a custom GPU like the PS2 but it would have been a very exotic console.
At least with Nvidia one side of PS3 was more PC developer friendly...
At least with Nvidia one side of PS3 was more PC developer friendly...
Garrett Weaving
Newcomer
Are there any articles detailing the Toshiba GPU that was supposed to go in the PS3 initially? I've been fascinated by this subject since I first heard of it a few months ago. PS3 truly is a curious beast!
No it is just what a guy who was working at Quantic Dreams told me, CELL as a GPU is an urban legend...
Can't imagine the ps3 price if they go with that
There's a patent/tech drawing with a variant of Cell showing some SPUs replaced with rasterisation units. Can't find it though.
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a5/67/e2/c4f8afa367f767/US20050081203A1.pdf ?
Spur of the moment find.
Last edited:
It shows how behind the technological paradigm Sony was that they had cell ready, but not their rasterizer. They were focusing on vertices and geometry as they did with PS2 (and even PS1 to some extent) and left rasterization and shading as an afterthought, right at the Gen when pixel shaders were the real game-changer graphics-wise. Late PS3 games ended up just shoehorning pixel-shader-like work into the spu's and eating up the stupid bandwidth cost of going back and forth from cell to GPU and cell again.
The reason for a company to go to Nvidia is its technological prowess both on the software and hardware.
The reason for a company not go to Nvidia is money. There are competitors (namely AMD) that are willing to make pretty incredible deal to console manufacturers. AMD did not have that many good (financially) quarter and years. The are still likely to sale tech (soft and hard) at a price Nvidia has no valid business reason to compete against.
R&D is getting more and more costly, no matter the volume they got through the GPU mining market AMD needs all the volume it can to pursue its R&D efforts.
In the handheld Nvidia tech has incredible potential though the price they are fund to ask is likely to be to high compared to competitors. Say you develop an all ARM SOC you havenot the same tools and supports /whatnots but for a company as (as an example) Microsoft it might not be that relevant compared to the money they save on hardware costs (from IPS to design).
The reason for a company not go to Nvidia is money. There are competitors (namely AMD) that are willing to make pretty incredible deal to console manufacturers. AMD did not have that many good (financially) quarter and years. The are still likely to sale tech (soft and hard) at a price Nvidia has no valid business reason to compete against.
R&D is getting more and more costly, no matter the volume they got through the GPU mining market AMD needs all the volume it can to pursue its R&D efforts.
In the handheld Nvidia tech has incredible potential though the price they are fund to ask is likely to be to high compared to competitors. Say you develop an all ARM SOC you havenot the same tools and supports /whatnots but for a company as (as an example) Microsoft it might not be that relevant compared to the money they save on hardware costs (from IPS to design).
As it stand I could see Intel have more intensive to do a deal than Nvidia. My personal opinion is that INtel was mismanaged in the recent years, they did not push near to hard enough on their R&D efforts on low-power cores. They faked volume through rebates instead of having the right products (which they were capable to deliver imo). Same on the GPUs, and computing side of things. They failed to follow up on theirs many cores efforts.
Intel might be a little late on their new process but t(hey still have many things for themselves (aka the quality of their existing process, edram, etc.), they need volume. Mobile hardware is dangerously good it would need really few at this point for it to take a good bite of the PC personal market if not pro as professional market is more and more about web apps and clouds for storage.[./quote]
Intel might be a little late on their new process but t(hey still have many things for themselves (aka the quality of their existing process, edram, etc.), they need volume. Mobile hardware is dangerously good it would need really few at this point for it to take a good bite of the PC personal market if not pro as professional market is more and more about web apps and clouds for storage.[./quote]
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
This is a common misconception and couldn't be further from the truth.
Out of their Q1 2018 earnings:
- 54% of their revenue is gaming. That's Geforce line only.
- 8% is professional visualization. Quadro, and maybe Titan.
- 22% is datacenter
- 5% (five per cent) is automotive
- 12% is OEM/IP (AFAIK it's mostly GPUs for mining and probably includes the TX1 for Switch).
These 5% were made before Tesla announced they were dropping nvidia as supplier for their AI compute system, so AFAIK this proportion is about to go down in 2019.
And unless nvidia stops trying to use GPUs to do inference and starts making chips akin to Google's TPU which are much more efficient for that, then other car manufacturers are sure to follow suit.
So make no mistake: nvidia makes money out of PCs first and foremost.
Revenue only there, though. The per-unit profitability is also an important factor in how they prioritize their markets.
Nvidia does care about money and margins, risks/benefits, ROI, etc.
As it stands the competition is too willing to make good deals that are out of Nv comforts zone (an extremely restricted one it seems lol ).
And a lot of that may be due to cryto currency miners.
What I should have said is that their SOCs may mostly be going into automotive, despite the success of the Switch.
