By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Wyrdness on 02 November 2016
Edit Thread
Scisca said:

Lol. Loool. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you? Let me remind you that a console isn't just the GPU, but also the CPU. Both are important and it's far and away cheapest and most convenient, when they come on one chip, from one manufacturer. Now that you've learned that, look at this simple graph:

Intel - great CPU, shitty GPU <- pricey
nVidia - shitty CPU, great GPU <- pricey
AMD - great CPU (Zen), great GPU <- reasonably priced

Nuff said. AMD isn't going anywhere when it comes to home consoles, as it has no viable competition whatsoever. It's the only company out there, that can offer both the CPU and GPU which perform well enough for home consoles' needs. The only reason Nintendo went with nVidia is because AMD has nothing to offer for the handheld market, while nVidia has the Tegra. But when it comes to homeconsoles, no company can compete with AMD. If Sony/MS went with nVidia GPU, what CPU would they put in the console? Tegra? That would be a joke of a console and an instantly lost generation for the company that went this way. AMD is the only company that brings to table all that's needed in one sexy package, nVidia can't compete even if it wanted to. The Switch being a handheld is a blessing that allowed them to remain present outside the PC market.

Nah you don't say a console is more than a GPU, considering the CPU in PS4 and X1 are eseentially chips that normally are in mobile I don't think you really can boast about great CPUs for consoles in that regard, considering the debate is about GPUs that's a bit null and void as well.

You act like MS and Sony have never opted to utilize different companies for components, 360 from Gen7 did it just fine, companies will go with they feel is best, AMD being convenient doesn't lock the console market to them.