Funny reaction by NVidia, but actually AMD has the right all-in-one chip for MS and Sony needs, so for the 8th gen it can fully benefit from console business more than other producers.
BTW x86 has been 64bit for quite a long time now and 64bit addressing is needed to fully exploit more than 4GB RAM without kludges (that reduce efficiency). ARM introduced 64bit versions more recently, 32bit are still the most widespread versions and on top of all this, after the golden times of Archimedes were over, ARM focused on very low power consumption versions, that while offering very good computing power per Watt don't reach the computing power required by latest gen home consoles, so specific versions should have been developed specifically for this market, without the opportunity of sharing development costs with PC versions.

 More likely AMD had a low power apu model and HSA for running unified memory model and that suits both Sony and MS more than Nvidia who don't have that all in one solution after all they don't have amd's advantage of a  x86 license.

  Has to his inference that they only have so many engineers to go round , that tells me that unlike last time where they used an off the shelf gpu , Nvidia would have had to get off their ass and come up with something more akin to what amd was offering , rather  than just you get a cpu and well match it with one of our gpu's.
The funny thing was he said he assumes there where discussions and this from the guy who's Dept handles this type of stuff .

 They aren't going to come out and say Sony and MS went with a certain solution, one that we would because of differing focus have to spend a lot of engineering resources to play catch up and there wouldn't be any certainty even then that we would get the contract.

I think you're just embarrassed that the headline upset/confused you and what that says about you. With all due respect of course.

P.S. The "Quote" and "Reply" buttons are there for you to use. It makes it a lot easier for those you converse with to find your replies. Typing into the "Quick Reply" box doesn't alert anyone specifically that you have engaged them in conversation.

I'm just talking the facts. I compared yours and cgi's post, saying that you were saying the same thing.
You in turn said, the title is not misleading.
I said that that would make you objectively wrong.
You've since admitted that being 'technically accurate' isn't misleading.
That's the very definition of misleading, to lead someone to an inorrect conclusion purposely.
You say if a person is misled it is their own fault, not the title, and the title not misleading.

There really is no argument here. There is you being wrong, and me being right. I wish we could both be right, but sadly this is an objectively one-sided contest.

Hmm this article is making me like AMD even more.

Neither the Xbox or PS4 are going to be using NVidia so who cares? Their only as good as their chips and if they arent being used its pointless to talk about them.

From what I've gathered both 360 and ps3 used nvidia and both said the deal was sour. I don't know the details, or even if they're correct, but apparently nvida was a big mistake for both sony and ms this past gen. It's no wonder they didn't go with nvidia, sadly. I've always liked nvidia and thought amd made a mistake by buying ati, but hopefully things turn around for them.
The first pc I built was amd. Best of luck to them on this venture.

I'm sure someone will have covered this in the thread but they will license the chip design so Microsoft/Sony can fabricate their own chips to help them reduce costs.  In the original Xbox Microsoft paid a fee per chip that was non negotiable and it meant they were unable to cut costs.  I would imagine if AMD went bust Microsoft and Sony would be able to fabricate their own chips still.

Wii and Xbox 360 used ATI(now AMD) chips, and PS4, Nextbox and WiiU have AMD chips inside. Nvidia can't compete with AMD price-wise, that's for sure.

ms used ati on there 360 not nivida. ms got robbed from ninvida on the frist xbox