will PS3's GPU be more modern than PS2's GS for its time?
- Thread starter Megadrive1988
- Start date
I don't think Nvidia undercut Toshiba on pricing. I so think Nvidia was in a strange postion of being locked out of two of three console contracts, so they had nothing to loose.
I think sony made a decision to go with proven graphics technology instead of making everything from scratch (with or without toshiba). In other words, they had to bite the bullet and go for the more expensive choice. I just can't see how this would be cheaper than going with a partner like toshiba. So I think it came down to graphical features and support (drivers tools, etc) being the deciding factor.
I think sony made a decision to go with proven graphics technology instead of making everything from scratch (with or without toshiba). In other words, they had to bite the bullet and go for the more expensive choice. I just can't see how this would be cheaper than going with a partner like toshiba. So I think it came down to graphical features and support (drivers tools, etc) being the deciding factor.
NV probably offer them the price that is cheaper than what Sony could have done internally. This can be done, because it won't just be for PS3, unlike their contract with Xbox. This will cover the entire range of Sony's Cell devices. They are going for volume, since they're not fabbing them this time around.
Sony doesn't need to bite the bullet, they've got Playstation brand. They could have tack on any pixel engine to cell and it will be good enough.
I really don't see how going outside can be cheaper than doing it internally unless what was worked on internally was inferior or late in some way.
...and you think the GS3 would be just for PS3? by your argument sony would be able to reduce the cost of the GS3 by using it in many different devices.
Sure they needed to "bite the bullet" if they are suddenly interested in paying royaltees for graphics hardware. When you say they could have used anything tacked on, and it would be good enough, obviously that's not true otherwise they would have done that.
See that's the thing, I don't think any of those pixel engines were good enough, and that's why sony is spending more money going outside to nvidia. They wouldn't spend the money if they didn't have to. Nvidia has already stated they think they can make as much money off each chip in royaltees as they do PC graphics chips. I have my doubts on that, but if true, i don't see how that could be less expensive than sony doing "everything" in house.
Going outside can be cheaper, you cam go outside for several reasons, but as everything in business, cost is the main reasons. Strong Yen, going outside is cheaper. The same as how IT sector been farm out to India. Outside can be cheaper.
Exactly, so NV must have outbid them.
It doesn't matter how much NV makes, NV gave them an offer they can't refuse from cost point of view. If not they could have gone with other graphic vendors like Toshiba, PowerVR or ATI even. But with Cell project and PSP, Sony doesn't have infinite engineers you know.
Ok take your pick, you have a bunch of choice here for the reasons they switched to Nvidia from internal or toshiba.
a) It's cheaper
b) The GS3 was behind on schedule or Nvidia is ahead.
c) The GS3 was inferior in some way to what nvidia had to offer.
d) the GS3 was superior to what Nvidia had to offer.
There's more choices I'm sure, but this is all I had time to type.
a) It's cheaper
b) The GS3 was behind on schedule or Nvidia is ahead.
c) The GS3 was inferior in some way to what nvidia had to offer.
d) the GS3 was superior to what Nvidia had to offer.
There's more choices I'm sure, but this is all I had time to type.
Yeah but we're not talking about india here. We're talking about the US. The yen isn't that strong right now. Not only that if that changes it could have very drastic affects on how much sony pays out.
I still don't see how that would be possible.
OR sony had to bite the bullet and pay nvidia instead of doing it internally for one reason or the other. I don't see how you can ignore that. just think about the last time sony thought about going outside for graphics hardware in a console, and the reasons they considered.
The PSP design is already finished.
The only logical choice is, its cheaper, NV is the cheapest solution for what Sony needs. No question about it. When this technology has to go to a $300 console, that has to contains Blue ray and cell chip and sell it to mass market that knows little about what's superior or inferior, cost is not only a concern, its everything.
Why R&D when you can get it for cheap. They R&D cell because its not available elsewhere. Pixel engine, several companies already have that kind of technology, just go for the cheaper package.
USD is really poor at the moment, its no brainer to go for US company instead of Japanese company. It doesn't matter if there is a swing, since PS3 are sold in the US too.
Its the logical explanation, in the business world.
Why are you insisting Sony has to bite a bullet ?
Did they ? Sony will leverage their core competence and leverage everything that is cheaper.
like I said before, that could change. Do you really think sony isn't smart enough to realize any value added by dollar exchange could just as quickly vanish as it did appear? I think dollar exchange rate can simply be ruled out. labor tends to cost more in the US anyways.
Can to back up your oopinion with some more thought? I don't think your explanation holds water.
Why are you insisting sony is invulnerable and like eveyr othe rcompany on the plant makes decisions based on timing and cost?
Yes, they did. I see what you're doing. You seem to be only considering whateve rway would make sony look like this was a smart bsuiness move. I think it is a smart biz move, but I certainly don't think it's a cheaper one.
now that's pretty narrow minded V3. MS made thier decision to use nvidia over gigiapixel due to the time frame they wanted to launch in. They bit the bullet to pay more money so they could launch when they did. I think you'd have to be a fool not to consider sony could be making a similar decision.V3 said:
I agree with this. It's not that a Sony or Toshiba are in some way or form intrinsically incapable of matching the PC vendors in terms of technology, but that the cost to compete in this game is arbitrarily high due to IP and the established brain-trust these entities have. And, as I've posited before, the level of IP and patented technology concerning many of the more 'boring' rasterization aspects of the graphic pipeline are a likely barrier IMHO.
Wow vince, when i said that MS was doing things differently this time around with the licensing of ATI graphics tech instead of purchasing chips, you came out and said "how is this any different than last time" or something along those lines. i said it was cheaper to license, but not as cheap as developing things in house and you didn't have a problem with that.
Of course time may be a factor, but i still don't see how it could potentially cost more. not when you don't have to pay out royaltees on every chip produced after the R&D is compelte.
Well cost and time go together don't they? if the cost and or time invested to compete is high, then it's more worth while to license if you need it in a resonable timeframe. yes I agree with part of that but I think the no royaltee route is always mroe favourable than paying royaltees.
Of course time may be a factor, but i still don't see how it could potentially cost more. not when you don't have to pay out royaltees on every chip produced after the R&D is compelte.
Well cost and time go together don't they? if the cost and or time invested to compete is high, then it's more worth while to license if you need it in a resonable timeframe. yes I agree with part of that but I think the no royaltee route is always mroe favourable than paying royaltees.
You use this swing when you have it to your advantage. If it just to make one year worth of earning looks good, you would do it. And like I said PS3 are sold in the US too.
I already did. Look its $300 device. Now your argument is harder to proof.
They're not, I never said they are, I just said, that's what they base their decision on, cost. Now you on the other hand make this weird theory about Sony bitting a bullet for their decision, like how MS did once. MS has that luxury, Sony doesn't. And MS has proven that it doesn't work, taking a bullet.
If it is a cheaper one, sure its a smart biz move for Sony. Not if its a more expensive one. For company that come out of no where to take over the consoles market, I assume they know what's cheaper for them more than you.
Who's narrow minded ? I am just stating what MS had done.
And what Sony is doing. Sony doesn't have the luxury of MS, look at their restructuring and stuff, the company is under alot of pressure.
Under the pressure they are in, they won't bite a bullet.
V3 you're not making any sense imo, and you already contradicted yourself once. You said sony went with them because it was cheaper, but you also said they could tack on any pixel engine and it would have been good enough. If that were true, they could have stuck with the PS2 graphics tech because a) it's cheaper b) it would be good enough.
Sony chose to go with nvidia for a number of factors. I beleive thsoe to be timing, in that nvidia was more expensive but they could produce results far quicker.
I do not beleive it was Nvidia being cheaper than doing it internally there's a reason doing it internally won out with Sony before. When I say bite the bullet, I mean going outside the company to get what you want, and in almost all cases that will cost you more.
Sony chose to go with nvidia for a number of factors. I beleive thsoe to be timing, in that nvidia was more expensive but they could produce results far quicker.
I do not beleive it was Nvidia being cheaper than doing it internally there's a reason doing it internally won out with Sony before. When I say bite the bullet, I mean going outside the company to get what you want, and in almost all cases that will cost you more.
Qroach said:
I never said I didn't have a problem with it; I just didn't respond. It's a complex situation that's dependent on many factors, I just assume not get into it.
Q said:
It costs more because you can't just develop new techniques out of sheer serendipitous action. Ask yourself why the PC 3D field is consolidating and narrowing and why new start-ups are non-existent. For the same reason you don't see a huge field of start-up competitors taking on Intel or AMD. The barriers to entry are cost prohibitive, time is a cost and they are interchangable.
Ask Dave what the costs are to developing a new architecture for ATI or nVidia -- it's in the billions of dollars. And that's in a company which has the established IP base, the established engineering and brain-trust, that has the infastructure (computing, tools, etc).
I said pixel engine. GS lacks any kind of pixel shader. Let alone pixel engine.
NV is a cheaper solution.
Not always the case, here people here even argue how much cheaper Dreamcast was compare to PS2.
But internally isn't always cheaper, you've go to accept that.
Sony will go anywhere that is cheaper to get what they need. External is cheaper so be it.
Cheaper? Yes
Good enough? No
Sony went with nVIDIA for a number of reasons, the big ones being that nVIDIA already had a very capable next gen architecture built/almost completed, they already had all the tools built and the architecture fit in with Sony's visions, not to mention the solution obviously fills Sony's power requirements for what they wanted with the PS3 GPU.
So overall? It's cheaper, more developer friendly and will likely be more powerful than a in-house Solution that SCE+Toshiba could come up with.
