If Nintendo could afford a Nvidia hardware for their next generation of console, do you think Sony and Microsoft will follow suit? Not necessarily on their iterations for their current gen (PS4, PS4 Pro, Xbox One S, Xbox Scorpio - and etc...), but for Playstation5 and Xbox [Whatever lame name].
Now that Nintendo can afford Nvidia, there are a couple of alarming things that come to my mind if AMD gets outsold by Nvidia for Sony and Microsoft's next full leap of generation of consoles, besides obvious monopoly of course.
1) This would undermine AMD's command in video game optimizations because:
The PS4 and Xbox One having an AMD hardware gives them leverage on API optimizations...
(DX12 and Vulkan, the very same APIs they were able to influence videogame technology adaptation because of console share).
2) Having AMD hardware present in consoles gives them hold on a portion of the gaming market share because console market massively out-dwarfs PC gaming market sales. Having Nvidia hardware in the future will cripple AMD's share.
3) AMD, as with their recent presses, have shown to favor the Server and other Scientific Applications more.
Their last attempt at a high-end GPU turned into a Radeon Duo Pro which catered to both gaming and professional work supporting both game and workstation drivers.
Their first reveal of Vega coincided with their new AMD 'Radeon Pro' brand, and their new Pro WX line of professional cards.
AMD, is focusing less and less on high-end gaming and only reserving their top tier hardware for the Professional and Server Computation side as evident by Polaris. Their gaming version of their highest-end Vega CES reveal was only ever so slightly better than 1080.
There are a few logical reasons as to why Nintendo had a Nvidia hardware of course (TDP, Power Consumption, Perf : Watt, & charging hefty premium for accessories), but I wanna know why ya'll would disagree.
Short answer - No... Long answer: Sony and Microsoft chose AMD over Nvidia because of the price. Nintendo chose Nvidia over AMD because of power consumption. AMD is not as efficient as Nvidia, and yet 3 to 6 hours battery life with a 720p screen definitely shows Nvidia superiority over the newly released 4K HDR capable PS4 pro and Scorpio... No. AMD developed Zen on the back of its GPU devision, now it's time for Zen to throw some money back at the GPU side to help it out. Anyway, AMD GPU is not dead.
AMD is cheaper true but Sony and Microsoft has more money than Nintendo, and ever since Maxwell, the race to lower TDP and per:watt has been the main focus unlike back at the tailend of the PS3 and Xbox360 lifespan where the PS4 and XboxOne was still in development.
I'm pretty sure most of the profit in the mobile gaming segment is from in-app purchases.
Your kind of doomsday approach to this is laughable, as AMD's future in gaming is far from doomed.
Also, untill both Vega and Ryzen are out, all people can do is speculate. So a thread like this is kinda pointless, unless you just wanna throw another theory out there for self gratification.
Not really... Sony is doing pretty bad aside from the PlayStation division. I read somewhere back when the PS4 was released, that Sony actually was selling them for something like 12$ profit per console. Not to mention they both went to Nvidia first, and Nvidia asked for too much and is now harvesting the fruits of that. 90% of the new games are AMD optimised, simply because it's easier to develop for both console and pc at the same time. RE7 is the latest example. Nvidia released new driver that improves performance, but the cheaper 480 still wipes the floor with the more expensive 1060...
Amd allows for custmization while nvidia does not, I thought. So if Sony can go to Amd and be like "bro hit us up with more shader cores" why would they go nvidia.
It is not so much Nintendo being able to afford it. It is AMD don't do ARM. On top of that in nVidia's own words Tegra was a mistake and a dead line. Every Tegra chip failed to have any real impact, bad battery life, huge heat output and completely unsupported by nVidia on the software side.
I have a feeling Nintendo got this cheap. They before this were only being use in about 2 tablets and the shields. And it does not look to be working well this time either considering they have to run it at lower than base clock even plugged in which has to be a thermal issue and a staggeringly low clock speed when mobile.
This smacks more of desperation from both Nintendo and nVidia than a good deal any other company should be worried about. Nintendo needed a game tablet and jumped at the first and worst suggestion and nVidia needed to dump Tegra on some poor fool.
Edit: As an addition, the original xBox used nVidia and it was such a bad relationship that nVidia dumped Microsoft after arguments over pricing. Once the original xBox ended nVidia dropped out of that so quickly, they wanted nothing to do with Microsoft. The PS3 also used nVidia and was also dropped due to AMD offering better options and custom spinoffs and again nVidia wanting out of that end of things.
AMD's gaming future is far from doomed. They've been on the upswing ever since the 300 series dropped (though that series never got the credit it deserved... everyone calling it a "rebrand/rebadge" when in reality it was a "refresh" as the performance increase was nothing to sneeze at). The reason they've been lagging behind is because they kept chopping off the head... you can't do that an expect success cough Buffalo Bills cough.
Absolutely not. I'll add to all the other really detailed explaination given by fellow forum members before that Nvidia produces really low quantities of those mobile chips. I'm sure the Nintendo Switch will be really hard to buy at launch and for several months after because of this. Do you remember the first dual core phone my by LG with the Nvidia CPU? Well I thought Nvidia would've steamed from there but, in fact, Qualcomm focusing only at making those mobile CPU destroyed Nvidia for popularity and availability. That's what will happen again in my opinion.
You forget that AMD is not really making much off of console sales, they sell so low its sad. If the didn't they would be flush with cash
Less green does the same, don't see it happening. Don't forget consoles don't care about performance, or the newest tech. 30 is more cinematic, and 4 year old hardware is fine.
Don't know hard numbers but iirc its nothing to not a lot. They sell them at cost from what I remember....
Buuuttt from google
If this is to be believed, They make more than sony and Microsoft? But again idk how much the chips cost to make so, still could be selling them cheap. Its all speculation
while AMD is likely making around
Internet seems to be as always very divided on green and red topics, as it varies from site to site why and how much amd makes and why everyone goes with them
