Wyrdness said:
Nvidia are fine in that aspect they're just as good, they were even supplying the chips for various consoles before AMD, the only reason the latter got all the contracts was because they were cheaper as is evident with the dispute between Nvidia and MS over the pricing of some of the Xbox chips. |
Nvidia cant supply a x86 soc with a gpu in it.
MS needs that because they want a unified library too (like nitnendo) where people can play xbox games on the PC, and with easy porting back and forth.
Sony & MS will probably want Xbox Two & PS5, to be BC with XB1 & PS4,..... thats alot easier with x86.
Its not just about price. I think amd can deliver things nvidia cant. Even something like HSA, which PS4 & XB1 might be useing here and there, would be lost.
The alternative would be to get 2 chips instead, 1 from intel and a gpu from nvidia.
There would be drawbacks, and it would be more expensive.
"Nvidia are fine in that aspect they're just as good, they were even supplying the chips for various consoles before AMD"
And they where hard to work with, they did not have good relationships with nvidia in the past.
I suspect Nintendo went to them because they didnt have a alternative.
AMD doesnt have a arm+gpu soc at Tegra x2 levels atm, and maybe its cheaper for nintendo to just buy a already designed chip from nvidia, than it is to use R&D and have AMD design a custom chip for them. AMD could make a arm+gpu soc if nintendo payed for it.
Nintendo didnt want to spend the R&D on it. And maybe nvidia left out in the cold gave nitnendo a really good price.
