Alby_da_Wolf on 15 March 2013
| Machiavellian said: I believe someone already stated this but the difference between Nvidia and ATI/AMD is that Nvidia is looking to make a profit. You cannot fault Nvidia if they did not want to make a chip for the price the console makers were offering. You have to understand that MS, Sony and Nintendo is going to look for the absolute lowest cost they can get their chips. They want to own the tech and be able to manufacture their chips as well. The cost of RD compared to the license they would get for the chips probably did not pay out enough for everything that goes into development. As noted by the article, Nvidia only have so much bandwidth so if they are doing something that is very high cost development but low cost return, then its probably not worth it. On the other hand people keep talking about how ATI/AMD parts come cheaper and was able to meet the cost the console makers were willing to pay. The problem is that ATI/AMD has been bleeding money for years and if this another situation where they are not pricing a profit from these endevors just to get market share, who knows if that will pay off. Yes, its great for gamers that ATI/AMD goes low ball but it doesn't look like its good for them. Will be very interested to see if ATI/AMD does become profitable since their tech is all of the consoles. At least for the last gen it did not do them any good being in the 360. |
But last gen they provided just the GPU for XB360 and Wii, this time they provide a GPU for Wii U, an APU for XB720 and one for PS4, and those APUs, stripped of MS and Sony customisations, are just the APUs AMD wants to sell for PCs too, so this time it will be able to obtain bigger economies of scale, further increased by the fact that being on PC and two 8th gen consoles, AMD's APU will become a sort of reference platform for mid-low range gaming PCs, ensuring it a longer shelf life.
