| thismeintiel said: As for Navi, I have a feeling MS may not have access to it. Sony is rumored to be working pretty closely with AMD on Navi. I kinda doubt they would want all of their input to go into their competition's machine. I would imagine Sony is going to have console exclusivity on Navi, at least for the beginning of the gen. I think Radeon VII, most likely customized, is the way MS is going to go. We have over a year for them to drop prices, which, like you pointed out, aren't the prices MS pays, anyway. It would give them a numbers win, most likely, in terms of Tflops. Of course, it won't be that large of a win, will cause it to be ~$499 vs a ~$399 PS5, and have fewer of the new technologies found in Navi. In the end, MS is going to make sure they can tout the most powerful system next gen, but I think it will mainly be on paper. Sony's 1st parties are going to show just what next gen can do. |
Wishful thinking I guess. AMD is not a Sony subsidiary to give them such a priority over Microsoft. Both MS and Sony are equal partners to AMD. The only way I can see AMD favouring any side is if someone pays them way more money than the other. But overall, AMD, unlike console warriors, is interested In both parties to succeed. It's their business. So, there is no way they dump Microsoft like this especially now that MS is going to use their tech for xCloud.
| shikamaru317 said: Yeah, I honestly think this is why AMD doesn't try very hard on the high end anymore. Why work your butt off, spending a ton of R&D dollars trying to make the absolute best high end chipset, when the market for it is so tiny? AMD does try a bit harder on the low-mid range though, Polaris for instance. When Polaris released, it's top of the line chipset, RX 480, roughly traded blows with Nvidia's 1060 in performance, beating the 1060 in games that were optimized for AMD cards and losing to it in games that were optimized for Nvidia GPU's (RX 480 also won on Vulkan games like Doom). And the best thing was the Rx 480 could usually be found for lower prices than the 1060, sometimes as much as $50 lower. I honestly think that AMD has the right strategy focusing primarily on the low-mid range rather than the high range. Could they still try harder on the low-mid range than they do? For sure, AMD is definitely behind Nvidia when it comes to efficiency even if they do roughly match them on performance and price, the 1060 had a 30 watt lower TDP than the RX 480 for instance. I would definitely like to see AMD step up their game when it comes to efficiency, and it certainly wouldn't hurt if they stepped up their game in terms of performance as well, as currently more games get optimized for Nvidia GPU's than AMD GPU's since Nvidia is the market leader, means that AMD needs to work harder if they want the performance crown on the low-mid range. |
GPUs like 1080, 1080Ti, 2080, 2080Ti are very important to PC gaming community though. The enthusiasts are willing to pay for such cards. And it's a shame that it looks like AMD struggles to be competitive in this segment as well. Because right now usually there is no choice for high-end PC gamers other than to go Nvidia route.
freebs2 said:
Don't really care of being Nvidia's defence force, but this is not very accurate. Yes, the original XB GPU was more expensive but it was largely superior to other consoles and yes, they (Nvidia) wanted and still want a larger cut of profits (that's what I'm saying from the beginning). As for PS3, the reason why the GPU was weaker is mostly due to the fact that until the later stages of HDW development Sony planned to use the Cell to render games instead of a regular GPU. The RSX was inferior simply because it was engeneered on a short notice. |
It was inexcusable for nVidia to not lower GPU prices for original Xbox when their factory costs decreased after a couple of years. nVidia was just in it to get a lot of money from Microsoft and they succeeded. This was one of the main reasons why Microsoft lost around 5 billion dollars on it.
As for PS3, while the first part that Sony initially intended to use 2 Cell CPUs is true, I don't think the other one is.
