Its all rubbish about Nvidia not wanting consoles - they chased after the PS3 and XBox contracts even though they said the margins were not great and apparently they have chased after and got the contract for the Nintendo NX. They also made losses on Tegra too and that was probably since they sold them at a low price.Originally Posted by Lorcaran
Indeed, that's why i said AMD made the choices they made, my guess though is that AMD only started developing Mantel when they came to the realisation that there wasn't going to be a multithreaded version of DirectX anytime soon.You could argue that AMD should have created Mantle 10 years earlier then
Yea i think their GPU sales were effected the most, all I'm trying, and by the looks of it failing to get across, is that *if* we had an API that could've taken advantage of multi-core CPUs 10 years ago that AMD would probably have sold a lot more GPUs as GCN is/was better at that sort of thing than what the competition had.
They wanted them it's just the console manufactures didn't want to pay what they were asking.
You don't think it was to help consoles which don't run DirectX?
What you mean why they developed Mantle? If so then not really as IIRC one of the previous gen console ran DirectX and the other ran PSGL.
I've always seen Mantle as AMD's solution to there being no multithreaded API that leveraged the advantages of GCN.
That is what Nvidia PR said and yet they apparently got the low margin Nintendo NX console win and went after low margin phones and tablets and the PS3 and XBox deals were low margin. They also went after low margin licensing deals too.
Considering the r and d costs for consoles are paid for by the companies who commission them,so it is all counter PR.
Gross and net margins will be very close. Not much risk in reality.
What Nvidia PR says and the countless times they have gone after low margin deals with things like Tegra kind of is contradictory. Nvidia was counting on the ignorance of people to make an excuse for the fact they had no competitive CPU at the time.
Have you seen how people parrot the same old PR response even now. People should think before they say it considering how little was made from Tegra in phones and tablets.
Nvidia was quite happy to eat margins in that business but out of terror people seen to ignore it when it comes to the consoles.
That is the reason Nvidia did not win the PS4 or XBox One. They could not offer an SOC at the time which could do the job - they were still stuck with 32 bit ARM cores.
People seem fearful to admit Nvidia had a rubbish CPU at the time.
Do people actually think for a second??
What was Nvidia going to offer Sony and MS?? A anemic 32 bit ARM core with a Kepler GPU?? Seriously?? Are now people equating a 32 bit ARM core to something better than what AMD had??
Sony and MS would have had to go to Intel or IBM for a better CPU,which would have meant dealing with TWO companies. This would drive up cost and time to market.
Trying to wrap it up with margin costs is ridiculous when they have chased so many low margin businesses and have used GPUs to pay for them.
Even Intel has dropped margins for things like Atom - they have long had massive margins and make more money than AMD and Nvidia combined,and they were quite clear in them giving away free chips and using things like contra-revenue.
Nvidia is not some special case,and I have disdain for AMD PR being incompetent too. Nvidia PR is just lying through their teeth - another woodscrew type of thing there.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 20-05-2016 at 03:08 PM.
I'm not sure the margins argument works, sure NVidia have gone after and won what they consider low margin devices but what they consider low margins maybe another companies big profits, that's not to say the cost someone is willing to pay has changed, just that one company maybe better placed to supply something for less.
It's like getting your house decorated by a decorator living in the same street versus another who has to spend resources traveling to the job, they may both charge the same amount but for local guy there's more profit in it.
You forget the big picture... most games also am published for consoles if not for consoles then ported to PC today.... Think Vulcan, DX12, think that all developers make sure that their games will run with AMD Inside.Consoles don't seem to be helping their finances much.
That is just how I look onto it all, do not get me wrong, even if not making the big bucks on the Console market, they brand that their hardware is more than up to the task for running games and posibly also make them much less Software dependent, like Nvidia is for an instance.
I am not a Fanboy of either company... I am about to buy a brand new system.... but waiting for the new Intel 2011-v3 CPUs.... and since waiting for that anyway I am looking for the sweetest GFX card coming out next, don't care if it is Nvidia or AMD... I run with what is best and fastests and speed in my head is not in term of which one uses lesser power bs... that Nvidia for an instance brand themself so high on. and what seem like the longest term investment possible as well.
Unless nVidia persuade the devs to inject gameworks code for the PC portMost disappointing when a game runs great on console then bogs down on PC.
They chased low margins with Tegra in phones,tablets and things like the Ouya and they hardly made any money and had to chase cars - Tegra was making losses or small profits for quite a while,so they were even negative margins. They even admitted they were moving to other markets since they could not compete.
Then they contradicted what they said with winning the low margin NX. There is noise they actually went after it all costs(cheap).
They had low margins on the XBox and PS3 but chased after them.
Plus maybe people should think a bit - are they that scared and terrified to admit that Nvidia simply had nothing competitive to offer??
Nvidia only had 32 bit ARM cores. AMD had a better chip for the segment in terms of processing power,so could offer a one vendor combined CPU and GPU solution on a single chip. Are people that trusting to think Sony and MS wanted 32 bit cores in their next generation of consoles?? Really??
AMD really needs to learn something from Nvidia about marketing,so does Intel - think only Apple has one on them.
If MS or Sony had gone with Nvidia they would probably have had to go with Intel or IBM,which means they would have had to deal with two vendors.
AMD won since they had time to market advantages since they could make a chip using existing technology they had developed.
It is not rocket science - AMD had the tech in place under one roof and could deliver that in an easier way.
Yet the people parrot believing Nvidia PR,might as well want to keep believing it like the X-Files.
Why??
It means that they would have to be sceptical of Nvidia PR instead of believing it fully. Most of us are very sceptical about what AMD and Intel claim,so parrot believing Nvidia PR,after things like the woodscrews is being a bit too trusting.
What were Nvidia PR going to say??
Well done AMD,our CPU tech was not that great so you beat us,but fair play?? Yeah,right.
Apparently low margins are bad when having a dig at AMD,but low margins are good margins when Nvidia does them.
The whole low margins argument from Nvidia PR was counting on people reading it being ignorant of what Nvidia has done in the past.
I think I am leaving it at that.
I think the UK government needs to hire Nvidia PR.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 20-05-2016 at 03:51 PM.
I'm guessing you see things differently then, that's fair enough but is it necessary to be so inflammatory?
It makes having a discussion on the subject rather emotive when someone accuses people of ignorance, that they should think before they speak, and being parrots.
Interesting posting style.I'm guessing you see things differently then, that's fair enough but is it necessary to be so inflammatory?
It makes having a discussion on the subject rather emotive when someone accuses people of ignorance, that they should think before they speak, and being parrots.
Sorry you've lost me, why's it interesting to say i found a post antagonistic?
I bet APU's are taking a chunk of the discrete graphics market now.
They have been for a while, but nothing like the chunk that Intel iGPUs have been.
I think most of Intels chip are bought for the CPU, you just have no option of buying anything without the bundled GPU regardless if you ever use it.
Most PCs are bought without discrete GPUs so it's not like those Intel IGPs are going unused. Not every PC is bought with gaming in mind don't forget, far from it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote