Jump to content



Photo

NVIDIA: "No Longer Possible" for Consoles to Better PC Graphics

nvidia consoles pc

  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#16 spenser.d

spenser.d

    Neowinian Senior

  • 11,044 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 03

Posted 25 September 2013 - 02:44

Yes, but Valve is looking to change that with SteamOS and SteamBox. Hopefully they will be able to break the hold that Microsoft and Sony have on gaming and create an open, flexible platform that offers cheaper games and better graphics. Mobile phones and tablets have been evolving at breakneck speed because they're flexible platforms - there is more innovation and more competition. It doesn't make sense to have consoles with eight-to-ten year lifecycles.


Why not. I'm perfectly happy getting a console that will last that long. I don't want to spend money on hardware more often. If I did, I'd be a PC gamer. Which brings me back to my other point about how consoles and PCs are two different ecosystems that can coexist perfectly fine together.


#17 OP theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,685 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 10 Preview
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 25 September 2013 - 02:55

Why not. I'm perfectly happy getting a console that will last that long. I don't want to spend money on hardware more often. If I did, I'd be a PC gamer. Which brings me back to my other point about how consoles and PCs are two different ecosystems that can coexist perfectly fine together.

They have coexisted but Microsoft and Sony have both struggled and it's an incredibly risky business to be in. Sega pulled out years ago and Nintendo is really struggling with the Wii U. That's why both Microsoft and Sony have played it very safe with specs in order to strive for profitability but that might not be enough. As pointed out, the X360 and PS3 were close to PC level when they were released but the XB1 and PS4 are lagging behind - they risk falling even further behind this generation, which will give the PC and other competitors a major opportunity to compete. You never know, we might see Apple jump into the gaming arena, as it's not much of a leap from mobile / tablet.



#18 spenser.d

spenser.d

    Neowinian Senior

  • 11,044 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 03

Posted 25 September 2013 - 03:06

They have coexisted but Microsoft and Sony have both struggled and it's an incredibly risky business to be in. Sega pulled out years ago and Nintendo is really struggling with the Wii U. That's why both Microsoft and Sony have played it very safe with specs in order to strive for profitability but that might not be enough. As pointed out, the X360 and PS3 were close to PC level when they were released but the XB1 and PS4 are lagging behind - they risk falling even further behind this generation, which will give the PC and other competitors a major opportunity to compete. You never know, we might see Apple jump into the gaming arena, as it's not much of a leap from mobile / tablet.


Sony and MS are far from struggling and have been for a long time. There's no reason to think they will start struggling any time soon especially if reports about preorder numbers are to be believed. I think you're deluding yourself if you think some sort of wrench is being thrown in the console game any time soon. There's no reason for anyone to do so. Consoles are doing well, Pcs are doing well, mobile is doing well. NVIDIA is just mouthing off because they're not getting any money out of the consoles.

#19 soniqstylz

soniqstylz

    Neowin Trophy Slore

  • 8,745 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 06
  • Location: In your panty drawer

Posted 25 September 2013 - 04:18

That's not really relevant to the discussion as that's not really how it works.  It's not like they can't pull from all their assets to specific divisions if they so choose.

 

That is exactly how it works in the eyes of the investors, and part of the reason Microsoft reorganized.

http://www.eteknix.c...-xbox-division/



#20 Skin

Skin

    Neowinian

  • 1,145 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 07

Posted 25 September 2013 - 04:27

Microsoft doesn't have the money? What?

Let's look at something:

MSFT Revenue: $78 billion
MSFT Profit: $27 billion

Nvidia Revnue: $4 billion
Nvidia Profit: $650 million

Microsoft's profit alone was almost 7x the amount of revenue Nvidia brought in. They can easily afford to spend $1.5 billion a year on research.

Not just for graphics and specific things... I think the point is, if your company is focused on a specific element and core, you can do a lot more than a company with a zillion times your budget, but are so diverse that they have their hands in a zillion things at once.



#21 uMadRabbit

uMadRabbit

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,788 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 12

Posted 25 September 2013 - 04:33

Nvidia starting to be butt hurt now? No **** console graphics aren't nor won't be on par with PC. If MS and Sony spent enough money they could throw in a 7990 or a Titan but who actually would buy the console for that price anymore? 



#22 Andre S.

Andre S.

    Asik

  • 7,800 posts
  • Joined: 26-October 05

Posted 25 September 2013 - 04:34

Architecturally the consoles are way ahead of the PC. They have fully shared memory and powerful integrated GPUs, stuff that we'll only start seeing a bit next year if AMD delivers. I think there's a lot of efficiency the consoles can tap into there. Carmack spoke at length about how latencies and indirections on PC killed performance vs what could be achieved on consoles and that was Xbox 360/PS3. Next-gen will be much more efficient even.



#23 Yusuf M.

Yusuf M.

  • 21,382 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 04
  • Location: Toronto, ON
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: OnePlus One 64GB

Posted 25 September 2013 - 06:48

Architecturally the consoles are way ahead of the PC. They have fully shared memory and powerful integrated GPUs, stuff that we'll only start seeing a bit next year if AMD delivers. I think there's a lot of efficiency the consoles can tap into there. Carmack spoke at length about how latencies and indirections on PC killed performance vs what could be achieved on consoles and that was Xbox 360/PS3. Next-gen will be much more efficient even.

That's true. Microsoft, Sony, and even Nintendo are in the business of making cost-effective gaming solutions. If they made consoles that are as powerful as PCs in terms of raw processing power, then it'll be too expensive for console gamers. There's no doubt that consoles are more efficient which explains why the image quality gap isn't so big given the spec difference. Of course, whenever people talk about PC gaming in comparison to console gaming.. they're usually thinking of a high-end system. And then there's the additional uses a PC has. It isn't just a gaming and entertainment machine.



#24 blerk

blerk

    Banned User

  • 716 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 10

Posted 25 September 2013 - 07:06

No, it's not possible for MS/Sony to best the top of the range offerings from AMD/Nvidia. Heck, we've got on the record statements by John Sell saying that MS deliberately did not target the absolutely best graphics possible, and I bet Mark Cerny would say the same thing privately, but he's never going to say that publicly because Sony want to **** all over MS (the console wars be serious business...).

 

MS/Sony are in the business (as pointed out by others) of delivering tightly engineered systems; even though they are not the most powerful gaming devices on the market, the consoles can deliver long term value to the customer, with graphics that will be on par with most custom higher end gaming rigs for quite a while.

 

Sure, Titans in SLI + i7 + 16GB ram +SSD will deliver exquisite visuals and performance, but this will be at great cost, and the result is something that not many people will ever experience. For most people, the console will give them the best gaming graphics they experience. 



#25 Zaic

Zaic

    Z

  • 375 posts
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Location: Lithuania

Posted 25 September 2013 - 07:27

Yes, but Valve is looking to change that with SteamOS and SteamBox. Hopefully they will be able to break the hold that Microsoft and Sony have on gaming and create an open, flexible platform that offers cheaper games and better graphics. Mobile phones and tablets have been evolving at breakneck speed because they're flexible platforms - there is more innovation and more competition. It doesn't make sense to have consoles with eight-to-ten year lifecycles.

Valve is exactly targeting the 8-10 year cycle with their steambox'es at least for another console life cycle that is... so don't expect valve dictating hardware trends in the next 15 years. As long as they are not dominating game sales compared to other consoles they have no word on when new generation of hardware has to be adopted, that's what happened to Nintendo, nobody cares if your hardware is a bit faster if you don't have support from devs/publishers/users.

 

And your talks about flexible and SteamOS or steamBox is wrong, if any impact it will bring to pc gaming its stability, games that are created with targeted hardware for optimal performance,



#26 George P

George P

    Neowinian Senior

  • 19,419 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 07
  • Location: Greece
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit
  • Phone: HTC Windows Phone 8X

Posted 25 September 2013 - 08:43

The consoles always have new things that come to the PC later though the PC is always ahead as far as raw power goes, by it's nature the PC has to though.  GPUs on the PC need to be beasts because the PC is always doing stuff besides playing a game.  My system alone has a number of apps open doing things and I'm using between 7-8GB of RAM without running a game at all.    Consoles are more custom and specific to specific tasks, before they just ran the game and nothing else, now the new ones will multitask a bit but nothing close to the level of a PC (XB1 can do up to 4 things at once tops for example).

 

Still, all the custom changes MS made to the SoC in the XB1 will make it's way into the PC hardware I'm sure, the same happened with the 360 GPU tweaks iirc that showed up in the PC a year later.

 

As far as performance and so on, consoles don't have to match a PC, imo.  As long as they give you good games as far as performance and looks go, who cares if they're slower than a PC?



#27 Skiver

Skiver

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,601 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 05
  • Location: UK, Reading

Posted 25 September 2013 - 08:58

To me this just seems to be an attempt at saying don't spend your money on a console, spend it on a nice new gfx card instead pretty please. I don't think I would have imagined that consoles ever really were better in terms of graphical quality, maybe for a small period on console launch but even that i doubt because of the speed of hardware advancements. By the time MS/Sony have agreed on a hardware spec for their "next gen" and put it into production one of the hardware companies will have launched something new and better.



#28 Yazoo

Yazoo

    Just a regular guy

  • 1,770 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 01

Posted 25 September 2013 - 09:09

Both Microsoft and Sony produce their consoles (hardware) at a loss, only to make profit from the software.  GFX card manufacturers make profit on all the hardware.  The GFX card may cost more than the console yet it still sells and sells at a profit, hence they can't compete statement.  

 

Imagine if the consoles had the same level of hardware as a PC, the cost of the console would be so much greater than it is now and it would be nigh on impossible to absorb that extra cost and pull in a profit just from the software. Think about what the games would be like though, at the moment all games are developed with consoles in mind so PC sees a lot of crap conversions.



#29 uMadRabbit

uMadRabbit

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,788 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 12

Posted 25 September 2013 - 09:13

Architecturally the consoles are way ahead of the PC. They have fully shared memory and powerful integrated GPUs, stuff that we'll only start seeing a bit next year if AMD delivers. I think there's a lot of efficiency the consoles can tap into there. Carmack spoke at length about how latencies and indirections on PC killed performance vs what could be achieved on consoles and that was Xbox 360/PS3. Next-gen will be much more efficient even.

 

I'm guessing you meant he GDDR5 memory in the PS4 right? Or the eSRAM. Surely those are ahead of PC in terms of bandwidth but those alone don't mean that they are ahead. The processing power of the CPU is far behind what we can have in  PC's (SC2 still uses CPU for the most intense part afaik), also the SSD's (be it SATA 3 or PCI-E) and many more factors to consider.

 

Also GDDR is said to come to desktop with Kaveri, if I'm not mistaken that either in the end of this year or in the early start of next year? So by that time the consoles will be on par with dekstop with that again. (While low amounts of GDDR memory will be implanted into dekstop at first because of the sheer price of it, 8GB is said to cost too much so AMD is focusing on 2 and 4 at first, tho it'll do just fine compared to 4 GB or DDR3 memory.)



#30 +zhiVago

zhiVago

    Pax Orbis

  • 9,319 posts
  • Joined: 04-October 01
  • Location: The Heartland
  • OS: Windows Seven

Posted 25 September 2013 - 09:29

1) Every word uttered by someone from a company's top management has one purpose - to please their shareholders;

2) NVIDIA has entered the mobile gaming with their SHIELD device. Naturally, it sees console gaming as its main rival.