LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI don't see that as a real worry, if you are buying enough CPUs then they won't stop making them. Unless perhaps you try suing the CPU manufacturer over patents, but who would do a thing like that?Originally Posted by Agent
I don't see that as a real worry, if you are buying enough CPUs then they won't stop making them. Unless perhaps you try suing the CPU manufacturer over patents, but who would do a thing like that?
But ik9000 is talking about using off the shelf PC parts. As soon as you need to get them made for you out of the normal production cycle, then they are not off the shelf by definition.
Entire production lines change in line with what's being produced at the time. You'd either need to own the design and be able to get it made by who you choose, or pay Intel to keep that line in place.
Neither fall into the court of 'off the shelf'
Intel aren't going to discontinue a product that is making money. I suspect Intel would be quite keen on having a product line stay around for a bit longer than usual, it's an expensive business building those new fabs on the latest production process.
I have no doubt that if it was making Intel money and they had the capacity, they'd do it - it's what happened with the original Xbox to a degree. But that's not the issue here. ik9000 is talking about taking off the shelf bits and making them into a console.
The second you talk about getting dedicated production lines set up for your console, then there is little point in using off the shelf. You would go and check out the PowerPC offerings / ARM / Whoever, because you'd be crazy not to....at which point you're back in the same situation of not using off the shelf bits.
There really is little advantage to just taking x64 bits and mashing them together to make a console. If you have the sort of sales that are going to warrant entire dedicated production lines, you can pick and choose what you want.
I don't think we're disagreeing here
Nah, probably not
If this is true and thats a big if.. i'd say the only reason nvidia would agree to such a thing is to gain backing from intels manufacturing processes, they've had terrible luck in the past the 400 series almost never happened and i dont think yeild rates on the 500 and 600 series were all that great either to start with, and as everyone else has said i think intel is more interested trying to find ways to better its onboard graphics its the only thing they currently fail at lol
And as far as consoles are concerned, we wont be seeing what us PC enthusiasts would class as a powerful console on the market because theres no real need or place for a consoles that costs over £500.. which is exactly why they use low to mid range components (from a PC's veiwpoint) but have a much more optimised software base than the PC could ever dream of..
This reminds me of the days when DDR first came out and AMD monopolised it for their motherboards lol the good old days where intel were actually the underdog
Last edited by Iain162; 15-12-2012 at 09:24 PM.
No I'm not - I'm saying that existing tech is more than a match for current or next gen consoles. There ISN'T R&D to do, the fab processes are already established and proven. Order the parts and the producers will make them whether or not such parts are on the general retail circuit for DIY builders. Given the current economic climate I can't see a business turning down guaranteed custom for an extant fab process where no re-tooling is required. And if they do want to rejig the board lay-out of say a 660Ti or whatever then it is just that - rehashing the boards not redesigning the whole architecture and inventing a totally new feature set from scratch.
Enough people pay several hundred pounds over the odds for say Apple products - if the product is polished enough and sufficiently bests the competition, and is well marketed, people will flock to it. Maybe Nvidia should team up with Apple and release the i-rip-u-off console and watch the masses queue down Regent St to own one.
I'd pay to see that, any excuse to laugh at the expense of apple elitists..
There are advantages to designing custom parts for consoles, the likes of Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Sega, and so on, don't do it for a bit of fun. If nothing else, security hardware needs to be implemented in the silicon to prevent hacking/piracy/etc. You can use pretty much any console as an example, the PS2/PS3/Xbox 360 and most others hold their performance better than off-the-shelf components available at the time, and it's not just down to optimisation.
These huge companies know what's feasible and where the money is; if they could release a console which beats or matches current computers at graphical performance, at a price they could sell, and overcoming the other problems, they'd do it.
So if you're not talking about standard PC parts, what are you referring to?
Yes, if you want to build a PC. As said by me and others - a console is a different beast entirely for the reasons we have stated.
As long as there is a profit, sure. But you can't just go and order a few chips from Intel for a console. You'd need solid projected sales figures (and likely a pot for in case you didn't hit these). Sega and Crytek are both small fish compared to Sony, Microsoft and Intel. Even if nVidia got on board with both of them, you're still vastly underestimating the figures involved here.
As for retooling - that's all well and good, but a production line is a production line. If that line has to be tied down making old tech, you need to make sure that there is enough capacity for the new stuff. The "all business is profit" just doesn't add up when it comes to chip fabrication. It's very complex and very expensive.
The 660Ti can draw anywhere from 140W upwards when under full load (some figures on the net quote up to 170W). It requires a dual slot cooling solution on desktop PCs. Fitting this in a console is not trivial.
Lets just assume a worst case scenario of 170W. The first revision Xbox had a PSU capable of producing 203W. Assuming 100% efficiency, that leaves you with 33W for the CPU and the rest of the system or you're going to be making a more power hungry machine.
Cooling this and reliability (as MS found out) is a serious problem. You'd soon start to end up with a machine that would be approaching the size of a desktop PC....at which point, why bother? Just make a PC.
I totally agree, but how much do you think a console that beats the competition and is well marketed is going to cost? Billions.
To put it in perspective: Kinect had a marketing budget of $500 million. Not a console. Kinect.
I'm not quite sure where you're going with the entire 'teaming' thing though: nVidia simply do not care who they 'team' with. They make GPUs and want to sell them. If Microsoft, Apple or little Jimmy from Dudley can put in an order that's going to make them profit, they'll sell to them.
Last edited by Agent; 16-12-2012 at 01:28 AM.
If there is any semblance to this rumor could it be that nv have approached Intel about producing their gpus. Seeing as Intel don't sell there own discreet gpus they are not in direct competition and if anything high end graphs push the need for high end cpus. If that is the case I wonder if they would also accept and gpus
It would be a first AFAIK. And don't forget Phi is in direct competition with Tesla; I doubt it's in Intel's best interests to have Tesla on their 22nm node.
Still don't think there's anything in this, but maybe Intel are considering/considered licensing nVidia designs for their integrated GPUs rather than continuing to go alone.
Intel is already paying Nvidia licensing fees so it can produce its own IGPs:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4121/t...dia-15-billion
Well they've got access to the patents and some IP, but not actual GPU designs.
OTH,if they are really looking at mobile SOCs wouldn't buying Imagination Technologies make much sense?? They already have a working relationship with Intel and they would cost far less to purchase. On top of this Nvidia does not even make the best GPUs for mobile SOCs.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote