Nvidia boss: No longer possible for consoles to have better graphics than PC

Tamasi: "Its no longer possible for a console to be a better or more capable graphics platform than the PC. Ill tell you why. In the past, certainly with the first PlayStation and PS2, in that era there werent really good graphics on the PC. Around the time of the PS2 is when 3D really started coming to the PC, but before that time 3D was the domain of Silicon Graphics and other 3D workstations. Sony, Sega or Nintendo could invest in bringing 3D graphics to a consumer platform. In fact, the PS2 was faster than a PC."

More Below

http://www.pcpowerplay.com.au/2013/09/nvidia-interview-the-sky-isnt-falling/

Well, what he says makes sense.  Graphics card makers never made $700 and up graphics cards before.  As long as they are willing to cram that much graphics technology on a card that vastly out-strips the price of what people are willing to pay for a console, it's literally impossible for consoles to keep up or even launch with a performance advantage.

Why would NVIDIA have anything positive to say about consoles? They are still butthurt about Radeon making bank at the heart of every single gaming console.

Everyone knows this.

Wait, a $399 dedicated console can't perform as well as a PC that has a GPU that by itself costs as much, or more than a freaking console????   You don't say. 

So the PS2 was faster than a top PC with a then top end GeForce 256 DDR in 1999 ?

La glue du sniff ?

Everyone knows this.

kipsta77

Why would NVIDIA have anything positive to say about consoles? They are still butthurt about Radeon making bank at the heart of every single gaming console.

Heclogit

No they're not

You forgot the sexy graph.

I hope people realize that if AMD didn't get the consoles, that'd be it for 'em.

[QUOTE="Heclogit"]

Why would NVIDIA have anything positive to say about consoles? They are still butthurt about Radeon making bank at the heart of every single gaming console.

lostrib

No they're not

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="Heclogit"]

Why would NVIDIA have anything positive to say about consoles? They are still butthurt about Radeon making bank at the heart of every single gaming console.

Heclogit

No they're not

doubtful, they were offered the contract and they turned it down as it wasn't worth it to them.  It's not like they need it, unlike AMD

[QUOTE="Heclogit"]

Why would NVIDIA have anything positive to say about consoles? They are still butthurt about Radeon making bank at the heart of every single gaming console.

lostrib

No they're not

Realistically, the Titan was first realeased at the price point that is double the cost of the Xbone. If it didn't or couldn't outperform a console in the graphics department, then what's the purpose?  

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="Heclogit"]

Why would NVIDIA have anything positive to say about consoles? They are still butthurt about Radeon making bank at the heart of every single gaming console.

Benny_Blakk

No they're not

Realistically, the Titan was first realeased at the price point that is double the cost of the Xbone. If it didn't or couldn't outperform a console in the graphics department, then what's the purpose?  

[QUOTE="Heclogit"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

No they're not

lostrib

doubtful, they were offered the contract and they turned it down as it wasn't worth it to them.  It's not like they need it, unlike AMD

What entity that exists as a business turns down the opportunity to net billions? Now if it's not "worth it", obviously it would be due to alternatives that are more profitable. So where is this other contract of theirs? Truth is, they were feeling themselves, priced their own dumbasses out of the deal, both MS & SONY said kick rocks and went with AMD. THAT is real talk, my friend.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="Heclogit"] Haha their butts hurt so bad. You can obviously tell. They lost out on a lot money.Heclogit

doubtful, they were offered the contract and they turned it down as it wasn't worth it to them.  It's not like they need it, unlike AMD

I disagree with that article. It's not that 3D was the domain of consoles and not PC back then. In fact, 3D started on the PC. It's just that 10 to 15 years ago, the PC gpu hardware industry wasn't moving as fast as it is now. Back then, we'd have a major step up in hardware every 2 years (give or take 6 months). So it's entirely possible for a console to have locked in specs for a year and still launches with state of the art hardware not available to home PCs.

Things are much faster now. When MS and Sony were in discussions of locking in their hardware for the X1 and ps4 respectively 12 to 18 months ago, the latest gpu in the market was say....the HD7000 series by AMD. Now, we have the HD 8000 series, before either console even launches. That 12 months lead time is no longer enough for any particular hardware to stay on top.

But all that aside, absolute power was never the selling point for a console. It's all about hardware optimization. If Naughty Dog could make The Last of Us look that good on an old Nvidia 6000/7000 GT, imagine what they could do with an AMD HD7000 series. The hardware comparison between PCs and consoles has always been flawed.

[QUOTE="Benny_Blakk"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

No they're not

lostrib

Realistically, the Titan was first realeased at the price point that is double the cost of the Xbone. If it didn't or couldn't outperform a console in the graphics department, then what's the purpose?  

Well, what he says makes sense.  Graphics card makers never made $700 and up graphics cards before.  As long as they are willing to cram that much graphics technology on a card that vastly out-strips the price of what people are willing to pay for a console, it's literally impossible for consoles to keep up or even launch with a performance advantage.

Shewgenja

What entity that exists as a business turns down the opportunity to net billions? Now if it's not "worth it", obviously it would be due to alternatives that are more profitable. So where is this other contract of theirs? Truth is, they were feeling themselves, priced their own dumbasses out of the deal, both MS & SONY said kick rocks and went with AMD. THAT is real talk, my friend.

Benny_Blakk

[QUOTE="Benny_Blakk"]

What entity that exists as a business turns down the opportunity to net billions? Now if it's not "worth it", obviously it would be due to alternatives that are more profitable. So where is this other contract of theirs? Truth is, they were feeling themselves, priced their own dumbasses out of the deal, both MS & SONY said kick rocks and went with AMD. THAT is real talk, my friend.

lostrib

[QUOTE="Benny_Blakk"]

What entity that exists as a business turns down the opportunity to net billions? Now if it's not "worth it", obviously it would be due to alternatives that are more profitable. So where is this other contract of theirs? Truth is, they were feeling themselves, priced their own dumbasses out of the deal, both MS & SONY said kick rocks and went with AMD. THAT is real talk, my friend.

lostrib

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="Benny_Blakk"]

What entity that exists as a business turns down the opportunity to net billions? Now if it's not "worth it", obviously it would be due to alternatives that are more profitable. So where is this other contract of theirs? Truth is, they were feeling themselves, priced their own dumbasses out of the deal, both MS & SONY said kick rocks and went with AMD. THAT is real talk, my friend.

Heclogit

[QUOTE="Heclogit"][QUOTE="lostrib"]you realize nvidia makes chips for a number of other companies including apple. whatever Sony and ms were offering was not worth nvidias time. AMD desperately need the business

lostrib

Also, another reason why Sony didn't go for higher end GPU was because of the much higher power consumption.  The PS4 would have been gigantic if it sported a GPU as good as a GTX 770.  Sony aimed for the PS4 to be both cheaper to manufacture and consume less power than the original PS3. 

A console as big as a Full tower PC wouldn't sell well in the mainstream market.  

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="Heclogit"] LOL but it is worth their time to constantly release PR announcements about how consoles suck. They have a RAGING pain in their butt hole.Heclogit

Also, another reason why Sony didn't go for higher end GPU was because of the much higher power consumption.  The PS4 would have been gigantic if it sported a GPU as good as a GTX 770.  Sony aimed for the PS4 to be both cheaper to manufacture and consume less power than the original PS3. 

A console as big as a Full tower PC wouldn't sell well in the mainstream market.  

emgesp

I disagree with that article. It's not that 3D was the domain of consoles and not PC back then. In fact, 3D started on the PC. It's just that 10 to 15 years ago, the PC gpu hardware industry wasn't moving as fast as it is now. Back then, we'd have a major step up in hardware every 2 years (give or take 6 months). So it's entirely possible for a console to have locked in specs for a year and still launches with state of the art hardware not available to home PCs.

Things are much faster now. When MS and Sony were in discussions of locking in their hardware for the X1 and ps4 respectively 12 to 18 months ago, the latest gpu in the market was say....the HD7000 series by AMD. Now, we have the HD 8000 series, before either console even launches. That 12 months lead time is no longer enough for any particular hardware to stay on top.

But all that aside, absolute power was never the selling point for a console. It's all about hardware optimization. If Naughty Dog could make The Last of Us look that good on an old Nvidia 6000/7000 GT, imagine what they could do with an AMD HD7000 series. The hardware comparison between PCs and consoles has always been flawed.

jhcho2

[QUOTE="Heclogit"][QUOTE="lostrib"]you realize nvidia makes chips for a number of other companies including apple. whatever Sony and ms were offering was not worth nvidias time. AMD desperately need the business

lostrib

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="Heclogit"] LOL but it is worth their time to constantly release PR announcements about how consoles suck. They have a RAGING pain in their butt hole.Benny_Blakk

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="Benny_Blakk"]

What entity that exists as a business turns down the opportunity to net billions? Now if it's not "worth it", obviously it would be due to alternatives that are more profitable. So where is this other contract of theirs? Truth is, they were feeling themselves, priced their own dumbasses out of the deal, both MS & SONY said kick rocks and went with AMD. THAT is real talk, my friend.

Benny_Blakk

[QUOTE="emgesp"]

Also, another reason why Sony didn't go for higher end GPU was because of the much higher power consumption.  The PS4 would have been gigantic if it sported a GPU as good as a GTX 770.  Sony aimed for the PS4 to be both cheaper to manufacture and consume less power than the original PS3. 

A console as big as a Full tower PC wouldn't sell well in the mainstream market.  

lostrib

I disagree with that article. It's not that 3D was the domain of consoles and not PC back then. In fact, 3D started on the PC. It's just that 10 to 15 years ago, the PC gpu hardware industry wasn't moving as fast as it is now. Back then, we'd have a major step up in hardware every 2 years (give or take 6 months). So it's entirely possible for a console to have locked in specs for a year and still launches with state of the art hardware not available to home PCs.

Things are much faster now. When MS and Sony were in discussions of locking in their hardware for the X1 and ps4 respectively 12 to 18 months ago, the latest gpu in the market was say....the HD7000 series by AMD. Now, we have the HD 8000 series, before either console even launches. That 12 months lead time is no longer enough for any particular hardware to stay on top.

But all that aside, absolute power was never the selling point for a console. It's all about hardware optimization. If Naughty Dog could make The Last of Us look that good on an old Nvidia 6000/7000 GT, imagine what they could do with an AMD HD7000 series. The hardware comparison between PCs and consoles has always been flawed.

jhcho2

[QUOTE="Benny_Blakk"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]you realize nvidia makes chips for a number of other companies including apple. whatever Sony and ms were offering was not worth nvidias time. AMD desperately need the business

FPSfan1985

[QUOTE="jhcho2"]

I disagree with that article. It's not that 3D was the domain of consoles and not PC back then. In fact, 3D started on the PC. It's just that 10 to 15 years ago, the PC gpu hardware industry wasn't moving as fast as it is now. Back then, we'd have a major step up in hardware every 2 years (give or take 6 months). So it's entirely possible for a console to have locked in specs for a year and still launches with state of the art hardware not available to home PCs.

Things are much faster now. When MS and Sony were in discussions of locking in their hardware for the X1 and ps4 respectively 12 to 18 months ago, the latest gpu in the market was say....the HD7000 series by AMD. Now, we have the HD 8000 series, before either console even launches. That 12 months lead time is no longer enough for any particular hardware to stay on top.

But all that aside, absolute power was never the selling point for a console. It's all about hardware optimization. If Naughty Dog could make The Last of Us look that good on an old Nvidia 6000/7000 GT, imagine what they could do with an AMD HD7000 series. The hardware comparison between PCs and consoles has always been flawed.

FPSfan1985

Apparently this Nvidia boss hasn't seen the Steam survey

[QUOTE="Benny_Blakk"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]why wouldn't they? they make products for PCs and mobile devices, of course they want to release PR to boost their products profile. how would that not make sense

lostrib

[QUOTE="FPSfan1985"][QUOTE="Benny_Blakk"]The name of the game is profit. Nobody turns down billions. NOBODY! It is fact that negotiations fell through with billions at stake.To say  "it wasn't worth it" is wrong in more ways than one.Heclogit

Apparently this Nvidia boss hasn't seen the Steam survey

Davekeeh

[QUOTE="FPSfan1985"][QUOTE="jhcho2"]

I disagree with that article. It's not that 3D was the domain of consoles and not PC back then. In fact, 3D started on the PC. It's just that 10 to 15 years ago, the PC gpu hardware industry wasn't moving as fast as it is now. Back then, we'd have a major step up in hardware every 2 years (give or take 6 months). So it's entirely possible for a console to have locked in specs for a year and still launches with state of the art hardware not available to home PCs.

Things are much faster now. When MS and Sony were in discussions of locking in their hardware for the X1 and ps4 respectively 12 to 18 months ago, the latest gpu in the market was say....the HD7000 series by AMD. Now, we have the HD 8000 series, before either console even launches. That 12 months lead time is no longer enough for any particular hardware to stay on top.

But all that aside, absolute power was never the selling point for a console. It's all about hardware optimization. If Naughty Dog could make The Last of Us look that good on an old Nvidia 6000/7000 GT, imagine what they could do with an AMD HD7000 series. The hardware comparison between PCs and consoles has always been flawed.

emgesp

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="Benny_Blakk"]So you don't think they were even part of a negotiation at all? So then their infinite jabs at MS and SONY is due to being snubbed and never being considered. Either way, Nvidia is in real spiteful exgirlfriend mode right now.

Benny_Blakk

[QUOTE="Davekeeh"]

Apparently this Nvidia boss hasn't seen the Steam survey

emgesp

[QUOTE="Davekeeh"]

Apparently this Nvidia boss hasn't seen the Steam survey

emgesp