Darc Requiem said:
A few reasons. The main reason the original Xbox was around for four years was because Nvidia screwed MS on the contract. They were locked into a set price for the GPU. So while the cost of the PS2 and Gamecube decreased dramatically over time the Xbox remained expensive to manufacture. This contributed to MS losing so much money on the Xbox. While the contract situation was better for Sony on the PS3, the GPU they delivered was inferior to Xbox 360's. The Cell was often used to compensate for the GPU. Nvidia says they don't have interest in the low profit margins of the console market. I'm not sure if that's PR spin for AMD owning the console market or fact. While the console business does have low profit margins, it's a steady source of income over 4+ year period for a single chip design. What can be stated is that AMD has been easier to work with. Nintendo has worked with since the Gamecube*. MS started working with on the 360. Sony followed suit with PS4. They provided cost effective solutions and client friendly contacts. *ArtX designed the Gamecube GPU. They were subsequently acquired by ATI prior to the launch of their Radeon graphics card line. AMD later acquired ATI. |
They could always ask Intel instead... They can produce powerful GPU designs (Larrabee is living proof of that) but nobody seems to be interested in them...
