If AMD graphics in all upcoming consoles, whence nVidia?

[psoomah]

Not only are AMD graphics looking to be a sure thing in all three upcoming consoles, but rumors are firming up Bulldozer based APUs have been chosen for the 720 and PS4.

All console games automatically optimised for AMD APU and graphic architectures would provide a natural gameplay synergy on laptops and PCs based on AMD APUs and discrete AMD graphics cards further driving the PC game buying demographic, from casual gamers to hardcore gamers, into the AMD camp from netbooks to high end PCs.

NVidia's long time cash cow mobile and mass market OEM graphics business and low end discrete board market will be pretty much dead in the water by this time next year and AMD owning the next generation consoles will eventually dry up their upper range discrete board sales. Why buy nVidia graphics when you know nearly all PC games are ported console games and ALL console games will be optimised for AMD graphics?

Where's the future for nvidia in x86 computer graphics?

 

[MangoX]

My magic 8 ball says "unlikely" that AMD will power all next gen consoles. Nothing has been confirmed yet.

 

[OCGuy]

Seems like we are taking rumours and trying to expand on those to speculate about the demise of nV?

 

[Seero]

Where's the future for nvidia in x86 computer graphics?

Phones, tablets, gaming computers, and GPU farms.

 

[Genx87]

Most games are compiled for an API. That being DX9\10\11. From there the card companies work with the game devs to optimize code for their respective hardware.

AMD has parts in the Wii and 360. Nvidia has parts in the PS3. Has this helped ATI\AMD at all crush Nvidia? What would adding Sony to the mix do to kill off Nvidia on the PC side?

Nvidia has and will most likely continue to have a much better development program than AMD. That will allow Nvidia to continue to be fine in PC gaming.

That being said consoles really dont have much to do with PC gaming anyways. Think about this. What does an Nvidia 7900 GPU and an AMD R600 have in common with todays graphics cards? How would they run todays games at the resolutions and settings of todays top end cards? Answer is not very well. Meaning consoles are a true lowest common denominator when it comes to programing for a GPU. Programming for a low end PC graphics card that is 3 generations older than todays best wont help todays card much at all imo.

Nvidia will continue to sell low, middle, and high end gaming cards for as long as the market exists and is profitable for their business model. In the mean time they will branch out into HPC, phones, Tablets, and eventually lower end laptops with their arm strategy.

 

[Red Hawk]

Phones, tablets, gaming computers, and GPU farms.

He said x86. Phone and tablet chips would be ARM-based.

 

[AtenRa]

He said x86. Phone and tablet chips would be ARM-based.

They are linked together,

Phone and tablets (Tegra) will generate income and some of that money will be put to R&D for GPUs

And for one more time i will say my opinion, Entry and Low End Discrete Graphics Cards will not be phased out due to APUs.

 

[Firestorm007]

Thats great news for AMD if this proves to be true! You have to give them credit; they're GPU arm is innovating at a great pace.

 

[Schadenfroh]

I imagine that if AMD is able to win all of the next-gen console contracts, that their margins from underbidding will be so thin it will only have real value in marketing.

 

[Firestorm007]

I imagine that if AMD is able to win all of the next-gen console contracts, that their margins from underbidding will be so thin it will only have real value in marketing.

Great Point. I didn't think of it like that; but that's certainly food for thought.

 

[Red Hawk]

And for one more time i will say my opinion, Entry and Low End Discrete Graphics Cards will not be phased out due to APUs.

They won't be "phased out" as in no graphics card will be called "Entry and Low End", sure. But the level that is considered "Entry and low end" will change. Stuff with the same relative performance level as a Radeon HD 4350 or a Geforce 210 will cease to exist. The "low-end" will be considered stuff with a little more relative brawn, like the Radeon HD 5570 or the Geforce GT 430.

 

[RussianSensation]

Not only are AMD graphics looking to be a sure thing in all three upcoming consoles, but rumors are firming up Bulldozer based APUs have been chosen for the 720 and PS4.

Source? From what we know, there isn't any "firming up rumors" that a 720 or PS4 will use an APU as opposed to a discete GPU setup. There simply isn't any information that confirms either. But even if NV isn't in next generation consoles, it doesn't matter anyway. The desktop discrete GPU market isn't really growing. NV makes $ off Tegra and Tesla/Quadro lines as well. As a company, they are in a much better financial position than AMD as a whole (no I am not going to prove this again....)

Seems like we are taking rumours and trying to expand on those to speculate about the demise of nV?

I am so sick and tired of this $#!#$!#$!. Been hearing this since Fermi days. Been hearing of AMD going out of business for 10+ years also. Probably going to hear about AMD graphics business going out of business in another thread too. I wonder how many people understand how a business actually functions, how cash flows are calculated in finance and how revenues and expenses are booked in accounting.

NVidia's long time cash cow mobile and mass market OEM graphics business and low end discrete board market will be pretty much dead in the water

None of those you listed is an NV's "cash cow" business. Please do your research.

All console games automatically optimised for AMD APU and graphic architectures would provide a natural gameplay synergy on laptops and PCs based on AMD APUs and discrete AMD graphics cards further driving the PC game buying demographic

False. Despite AMD GPUs found in Wii and XBox360, which collectively have more than 2/3 of console gaming market, NV had no problems with discrete GPU market share during GF8, 9, GTX2xx and GTX4xx series. Currently NV has about 58-59% discrete desktop GPU market share despite AMD's market share dominance in consoles. Not only that, but with GCN, AMD is actually moving much closer to the scalar GPU design which NV already has.

And finally, optimizations on consoles are never "automatically optimized" for any PC hardware (whether AMD or NV) since PCs have an OS/API overhead that requires its own optimization, while games on consoles are optimized/coded directly to the hardware. Therefore, any optimizations on consoles will not been seen the PC - which despite 10x more powerful AMD cards still runs some Xbox360 console ports poorly, given their inferior graphics. If game optimizations on consoles transferred automatically to the PC, then Crysis 2 would run 10x faster on the PC than it does on PS3.

 

[Red Hawk]

Most console games that appeared on PC were on both the PS3 and the 360. The PS3 uses an Nvidia GPU so there still had to be Nvidia-friendly optimizations on the console side that could carry over to PC development, boosted by the TWIMTBP program in various cases. If Nvidia is shut out of the next generation of consoles no considerations have to be made for Nvidia at all on the console side.

The Wii doesn't really factor in as it uses the Gamecube's long outdated architecture and rarely do any Wii games make it to the PC, or multiplatform at all. And if they did we've gotten to the point where even integrated graphics can play Wii games in their sleep.

 

[RussianSensation]

Most console games that appeared on PC were on both the PS3 and the 360. The PS3 uses an Nvidia GPU so there still had to be Nvidia-friendly optimizations on the console side that could carry over to PC development, boosted by the TWIMTBP program in various cases. If Nvidia is shut out of the next generation of consoles no considerations have to be made for Nvidia at all on the console side.

What optimizations from PS3 made into the PC? Think about this, if a game is optimized for PS3, how is that helping any graphics card from GF8 to a GTX580? 7900GS is a fixed pixel/shader pipeline architecture and has nothing in common architecturally to any NV GPU starting with GF8. So there is no optimization sharing whatsoever.

Secondly, the game engines are designed on PCs. When Asssassin's Creed is designed, no one sits there and says, OK guys lets optimize this engine for a 7900GS/X1900XT in the consoles. First the game engine is created and then it is ported to the consoles and optimized for their specific hardware. Similarly, NV/AMD work together with PC developers to try to incorporate features that may run faster on their hardware, or get more insight into the game code to better optimize their drivers.

For instance, NV already worked with game developers directly on Mafia 2, Hawx2, Lost Planet 2, Civ5, Starcraft 2, Batman AA, Crysis 2, etc. It makes 0 difference what graphics are in the consoles since optimizations on consoles happen on a hardware level, not at a driver level as is on the PC. If you want to argue that certain game engines run better on a particular architecture, that is true.

As long as NV works with developers to optimize the PC engine/or their drivers for that engine for their graphics card, it will run faster on a GTX6xx, GTX7xx, etc. Otherwise, the PC engine isn't designed to favour any particlar brand. Not only that, but NV has a clear lead in Tessellation technology at the moment. If anything, they are far better positioned for the future to take advantage of next generaton DX11 features.

My point is AMD gpus were found in 2 out of 3 consoles in the last 6 years and it didn't do squat for AMD. 8800GTX crushed 2900XT/3870, GTX280/285 beat 4870/4890, and GTX480/580 also beat 5870 and 6970. As long as NV produces fast GPUs as they have done in the past, it will make no difference.

 

[Dark Shroud]

He said x86. Phone and tablet chips would be ARM-based.

Intel & AMD have low end SOCs that will fit fin in Tablets

 

[Schadenfroh]

Most console games that appeared on PC were on both the PS3 and the 360. The PS3 uses an Nvidia GPU so there still had to be Nvidia-friendly optimizations on the console side that could carry over to PC development

From my experience, practically the only games "optimized" for the PS3 are the exclusives. The rest are 360 ports that typically do not run as well or look as good on the PS3 as they do on the 360, which is a shame because the PS3 had good potential...

 

[tonygeor]

AMD will have at least 2 out of the 3. Really the PS4 is the 'wild card'

 

[3DVagabond]

Seems like we are taking rumours and trying to expand on those to speculate about the demise of nV?

No, that's not the question. I think you're being defensive.

Phones, tablets, gaming computers, and GPU farms.

The question was, "Where's the future for nvidia in x86 computer graphics?" Not, "What are they going to do instead?". Every game is optimised for the particular hardware on that platform. That's the drawback for PC gaming, in general. All consoles, within a genre, are identical. You compile a game for Xbox and it works on all of them. Same with Playstation, Wii, etc... When you compile the game for PC you have to try and make it run on hundreds of possible combinations. Game devs just work to get it to run bug free. They aren't concerned on whether they can make it 10% faster on a particular brands hardware. That's up to the individual hardware companies. That's also where we run into some issues. When company "A" decides to do a bit more "optimizing" that serves to only screw over company "B" performance on the game.

I imagine that if AMD is able to win all of the next-gen console contracts, that their margins from underbidding will be so thin it will only have real value in marketing.

All margins for large contracts like that are razor thin. That's the only way to get them. If the rumors are true, the reason AMD would be able to undercut nVidia is their smaller chip designs. All else being equal, they cost less to manufacture, and therefore can be sold for less and still be profitable. Add to that they use less power, which reduces the cost of everything else, PSU, heatsinks, etc..., and it further reduces the overall cost of the platform.

M$, Sony, and anyone else at that level in the industry, know exactly how much the GPU's cost to manufacture. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they negotiate the price to make the chips with TSMC/GF themselves. IDC might be able to shine some light on this? I know I've been involved with contracts mega companies. They will go to the manufacturer and negotiate for themselves. They will then come to you and tell you how much the supplier is going to charge you for the item(s) and ask you for a bid to supply it.

 

[Red Hawk]

What optimizations from PS3 made into the PC? Think about this, if a game is optimized for PS3, how is that helping any graphics card from GF8 to a GTX580? 7900GS is a fixed pixel/shader pipeline architecture and has nothing in common architecturally to any NV GPU starting with GF8. So there is no optimization sharing whatsoever.

Secondly, the game engines are designed on PCs. When Asssassin's Creed is designed, no one sits there and says, OK guys lets optimize this engine for a 7900GS/X1900XT in the consoles. First the game engine is created and then it is ported to the consoles and optimized for their specific hardware. Similarly, NV/AMD work together with PC developers to try to incorporate features that may run faster on their hardware, or get more insight into the game code to better optimize their drivers.

For instance, NV already worked with game developers directly on Mafia 2, Hawx2, Lost Planet 2, Civ5, Starcraft 2, Batman AA, Crysis 2, etc. It makes 0 difference what graphics are in the consoles since optimizations on consoles happen on a hardware level, not at a driver level as is on the PC. If you want to argue that certain game engines run better on a particular architecture, that is true.

As long as NV works with developers to optimize the PC engine/or their drivers for that engine for their graphics card, it will run faster on a GTX6xx, GTX7xx, etc. Otherwise, the PC engine isn't designed to favour any particlar brand. Not only that, but NV has a clear lead in Tessellation technology at the moment. If anything, they are far better positioned for the future to take advantage of next generaton DX11 features.

My point is AMD gpus were found in 2 out of 3 consoles in the last 6 years and it didn't do squat for AMD. 8800GTX crushed 2900XT/3870, GTX280/285 beat 4870/4890, and GTX480/580 also beat 5870 and 6970. As long as NV produces fast GPUs as they have done in the past, it will make no difference.

Games optimized specifically for PS3 usually entails getting it to work best on the PS3's Cell CPU architecture, only loosely related to Nvidia's GPU tech as pertains to the PS3. Getting a game ported at all to the PS3 still involves making it Nvidia-friendly at a basic level.

More important than that, I think, is how much of a boost the R&D department gets for designing for a console. At least in AMD's case, a lot of the technologies they prototyped on the 360 was later applied to their desktop GPUs. They killed two birds with one stone. If Nvidia gets shut out of the console GPU market, they have to invest money into R&D on the gaming side with returns only expected through PC graphics sales.

And really, as far as high-tech gaming goes AMD has 1 of the 2 current consoles. The Wii isn't even worth mentioning; I'm not sure why you keep doing so.

 

[bryanW1995]

I imagine that if AMD is able to win all of the next-gen console contracts, that their margins from underbidding will be so thin it will only have real value in marketing.

That depends on what their cost is relative to nvidia's cost for the bid. Just like nvidia has synergy with their relatively large consumer gpus and professional graphics, perhaps AMD has taken advantage of their generally smaller gpu solutions and has been able to spread the R & D costs among the several different consoles + low/mid end gpus.

 

[Grooveriding]

Games optimized specifically for PS3 usually entails getting it to work best on the PS3's Cell CPU architecture, only loosely related to Nvidia's GPU tech as pertains to the PS3. Getting a game ported at all to the PS3 still involves making it Nvidia-friendly at a basic level.

More important than that, I think, is how much of a boost the R&D department gets for designing for a console. At least in AMD's case, a lot of the technologies they prototyped on the 360 was later applied to their desktop GPUs. They killed two birds with one stone. If Nvidia gets shut out of the console GPU market, they have to invest money into R&D on the gaming side with returns only expected through PC graphics sales.

And really, as far as high-tech gaming goes AMD has 1 of the 2 current consoles. The Wii isn't even worth mentioning; I'm not sure why you keep doing so.

Likely is referring to the Wii2 coming out shortly, which has an AMD GPU under the hood as well.

This will only become a performance advantage on PC for AMD when/if games start being coded to the hardware directly rather than through the DX API, both on consoles, and on PCs.

Which would be the best way to do it for us gamers, but who knows if it will happen on PC.

This is something AMD has been talking about and wanting for game development:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/03/16/farewell-to-directx/1

It's funny,' says AMD's worldwide developer relations manager of its GPU division, Richard Huddy. 'We often have at least ten times as much horsepower as an Xbox 360 or a PS3 in a high-end graphics card, yet it's very clear that the games don't look ten times as good. To a significant extent, that's because, one way or another, for good reasons and bad - mostly good, DirectX is getting in the way.' Huddy says that one of the most common requests he gets from game developers is: 'Make the API go away.'

'I certainly hear this in my conversations with games developers,' he says, 'and I guess it was actually the primary appeal of Larrabee to developers – not the hardware, which was hot and slow and unimpressive, but the software – being able to have total control over the machine, which is what the very best games developers want. By giving you access to the hardware at the very low level, you give games developers a chance to innovate, and that's going to put pressure on Microsoft – no doubt at all.'

 

[bryanW1995]

None of those you listed is an NV's "cash cow" business. Please do your research.

Thanks, it seems that this sort of question comes up at least once/week somewhere in VC&G. If the consumer video card market takes off when the next gen consoles come out (quite likely imho) then NV's stock will soar regardless of whether they have any of actual console business or not b/c there will actually be games coming out that stress high end gpus.

 

[Red Hawk]

Likely is referring to the Wii2 coming out shortly, which has an AMD GPU under the hood as well.

This will only become a performance advantage on PC for AMD when/if games start being coded to the hardware directly rather than through the DX API, both on consoles, and on PCs.

Which would be the best way to do it for us gamers, but who knows if it will happen on PC.

This is something AMD has been talking about and wanting for game development:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/03/16/farewell-to-directx/1

No, he said consoles over the past 6 years.

As for coding to the hardware, isn't broad compatibility why APIs like DirectX and OpenGL exist in the first place? On consoles, you don't have to worry about the hardware changing, so it's simple to code to the hardware. On PCs the API allows games to work on hardware that it wasn't necessarily tested for. If you were to code to the hardware, you would need to code for each chip that's released, making game development more difficult, and if you have a game that wasn't coded and tested for your graphics card? Sorry, won't work at all, or it will chug and tear and glitch like no tomorrow regardless of performance level. I think the API is necessary; it has its drawbacks but the benefits far outweigh those.

 

[Genx87]

No, he said consoles over the past 6 years.

As for coding to the hardware, isn't broad compatibility why APIs like DirectX and OpenGL exist in the first place? On consoles, you don't have to worry about the hardware changing, so it's simple to code to the hardware. On PCs the API allows games to work on hardware that it wasn't necessarily tested for. If you were to code to the hardware, you would need to code for each chip that's released, making game development more difficult, and if you have a game that wasn't coded and tested for your graphics card? Sorry, won't work at all, or it will chug and tear and glitch like no tomorrow regardless of performance level. I think the API is necessary; it has its drawbacks but the benefits far outweigh those.

Yup, AMDs blathering about directly coding for hardware is weird to me. AMD is a company with terribad dev relations and they are pushing for development that would benefit most a company with great dev relations like Nvidia? Me thinks they were shortsighted in this idea due to tesselation performance issues with their current hardware. I expect their tune to change again when they have hardware that looks like Fermi.

 

[Creig]

I expect their tune to change again when they have hardware that looks like Fermi.

Why would AMD want hardware that's late, hot and held together with wood screws?