| eva01beserk said: I will reply again but please refrain from adding things I never said like you keep doing. 1. Yes they do. The console market is very important. It's where the focus of game dev happens. Nintendo can do what ever they want and they always have. Its a free market. But nvidea also has a right to seek more benefits from a partnership. They are both free to stop cooperating when every they want. 2. I at no point related the CPU performance gains to the consoles. That point dint even refrence the consoles in any way. I said in the pc space this point in time resembles the point in time where amd beat intel and everybody was doubting. 3. Again you keep saying that its selling the console. That dosent help game devs or improves tools or any of the sort for the pc side of nvidea. Put it this way. Assasins creed for xbox and PlayStation are developed with consoles first. But whatever they decide to do can be improve in the pc space since it uses the same tools. Any other title after that can call back whatever technique they used. But now lets talk raving ravids. After that game is done whatever they did will die there. Nothing used on an optimised switch game will be transalted to the latest ampere cards. It's developement that dosent help push nvidea cards. And power has nothing to do with it. I dont even know why you bring that up as I never mentioned power when talking tools like dlss or tensor cores. And again I never claimed only consoles push anything. I said its a big factor as they are the focuse of developemnt for the majority of devs. And selling a console is not as good as selling a console and spreading your dev tools. |
I'm going to use quotes so you know I'm not putting words in your mouth.
1. I don't think you are understanding the point. If Nvidia needs Nintendo they are not in a position to make demands. They are in a position to compromise. Your argument suggests that because Nvidia CAN do something they WILL do something, but businesses are more careful with relationships than that. Especially Nvidia who has attempted to be a part of the console three times now and this is their first success.
2. " Like amds succes can be atrubuted in some part to ps4 and x1." and "Look what happened to Intel. AMD slowly beat them in performance while everybody was dismising their gains with ryzen. We are seeing the exact same with rdna.".
Are you saying that AMD's success was helped by the PS4 and Xbox One or no? I'm confused here. Was it only on the GPU side and not the CPU side? Because Ryzen launched in 2017, so either the PS4 and X1 helped with that or not, and, if they didn't, why are they helping with the GPU and not the CPU? For example, why are many games are still optimized for single core performance than multi core? I guess I can concede and say it's a factor because I don't want to say it isn't, but I don't agree that it's a significant factor. Nvidia still leads in both AI upscaling and raytracing by a significant margin (performance/quality wise).
3. You didn't say power explicitly, but how are developers going to optimize for a Switch 2 if there isn't some power parity? What makes you think that a Switch 2 would be able to pull of something like raytracing when even the Steam Deck isn't going to without severe compromises? Mobile technology simply isn't ready for that, and unless Nintendo has plans to drop the entire concept of the Switch (unlikely), I don't see it happening.
Look, it's been a cool debate, but I'm going to leave my argument at this. There is verifiable proof that Nvidia will continue making Tegra X1 chipsets, and they will do so until 2025. There is not verifiable proof that Nvidia is planning on stopping the production of the Tegra X1+ chip. In addition, this was supposed to happen in 2021, and we are already 2/3rds of the way through the year. If it happens, it happens and I'll admit I'm wrong, but I don't see it happening. I'll admit that Nvidia probably wants Nintendo to utilize hardware with DLSS, tensor cores, RTX, etc, but not in such a way that they would cannibalize profits and potentially hurt their relationship with the one hardware manufacturer that they've had a success with. Especially since they still hold majority share of the PC GPU market by a significant margin (and, in fact, have been increasing their marketshare since 2018). They aren't in a place where they need to make bold moves like that.
