Conflict of interest?

We all know why they chose AMD , because they were cheaper.
Not to say they are worst than Nvidia , considering they need raw power and not sophisticated CUDA, physx or some other gimmicks , then AMD is really a no brainer , decent arhitecture in an envoriment where it will be properly optimized to the last drop of performance.

Does this mean its going to perform less than Sony make it out to? :laugh:

EDIT: Completely read that as CPU and not GPU. Forgive me, AMD make half decent GPU's.

And AMD is almost always less power hungry with less heat. I just hope they don't chose some old crappy gpu.

So NVIDIA has lower yelds and lost all the console market and is losing laptop market share in leaps and bounds.......not looking good for the green team.

WOW!

Thats 3 very big contract to have :cool:

Didnt I read some where the the Wii 2 will also be AMD?

If I remember right the Wii U already confirmed to be running ATI, as well as many rumors that the 360 successor will run ATI as well due to the success it had on the 360. Seems to be quite the monopoly then.

www.guru3d.com/news/xbox-720-will-get-gpu-based-on-radeon-6670/

There's the article, granted it's quite a letdown if that's true, already aged tech going into a console that won't be out till more than likely the 9000s hit.

TheMailMan78So NVIDIA has lower yelds and lost all the console market and is losing laptop market share in leaps and bounds.......not looking good for the green team.

They havent lost the entire console market,it was rumored the new xbox will have an nvidia gpu. most likely something comparable to a 4 series but none the less nvidia

TheMailMan78So NVIDIA has lower yelds and lost all the console market and is losing laptop market share in leaps and bounds.......not looking good for the green team.

And yet they will make 2x as much money as the entire AMD, as usual. :laugh:

Now seriously. The console market is not very profitable for AMD/Nvidia, it's a very low margin market, so I don't think it's going to affect them much, compared to say gaining (or losing!) some ground in the GPU market, consumer and professional.

Nvidia is talking about more laptop design wins than ever before for Kepler. If true that angle is covered.

And regarding yields we don't know if they are lower than AMD's, lower enough to mean anything I mean. All they said is that they had lower than expected* yields, which is not to say the rest are not in the same boat. Like always the media has overdramatized a comment that was only suposed to explain why operating expenses went from $330-something to $380-something millions. At least that's what I read on the situation.

* Remember that Nvidia talked about not doing a paperlaunch, and they are going to (try to) release the entire lineup in 2-3 months (AMD in ~5-6 depending on when you start counting), that's a lot of chips in a short period and ANY yield problem, any yield lower than expected can affect you much more in this situation. Also remember that in the discreet GPU market Nvidia still has >60% market share and they want to retain it so they will need to launch more cards. They always release with a higher number of cards than AMD.

TheMailMan78So NVIDIA has lower yelds and lost all the console market and is losing laptop market share in leaps and bounds.......not looking good for the green team.

Nvidia is puhing Tegra (3) so hard right now it almost seems as though they have chosen their new path.

Then again, they are also still pushing CUDA very hard. And i think they're still very much HPC orientated with their designs. Amost as if the desktop market is an issue of pride more than design pedigree.

I just want Kepler info so I can go ahead and reassuredly buy my 7970.

AthlonX2They havent lost the entire console market,it was rumored the new xbox will have an nvidia gpu. most likely something comparable to a 4 series but none the less nvidia

Did you even read the article?
Its pretty much confirmed the Xbox720 or "durango" will use and AMD gpu, hell we already have a rumer floating arround of the specific type of AMD GPU, an HD6670.

You know what, im glad that consoles choose AMD over Nvidia. Lets see how many controllers get thrown to the wall when each game requires 2-3 driver updates :roll:

LDNLYou know what, im glad that consoles choose AMD over Nvidia. Lets see how many controllers get thrown to the wall when each game requires 2-3 driver updates :roll:

:laugh: or every game will just look muddy and washed out.

I'd agree except that Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft are the ones that manage the drivers for that hardware last I checked, nor do I recall any issues with the few 360 games I have played granted I hate the console in general.

LDNLYou know what, im glad that consoles choose AMD over Nvidia. Lets see how many controllers get thrown to the wall when each game requires 2-3 driver updates :roll:

I own the current Xbox and i can't remember a game this year that didn't require 1 or 2 updates out the box just to play, so no change there :laugh:

Sony isn't that much better, about 60% of the games i've played on my playstation required an update as well

Can't remember the same ever happening on my Nintendo consoles

All games now a days are rushed, to be quite fair most of those updates are bug fixes that don't relate to performance at all but game breaking glitches that developers ended up rushing out of the door because publishers forced them to. Same thing happens on PC, games get about a billion patches within the first two months due to publisher pressure. It's a lot different on the Nintendo consoles because those games are a lot simpler for developers to make, also the Wii uses an ATI GPU as well sooo yeah. Although the new Zelda had a game breaking bug that Nintendo had to resolve by actually patching the Wii game for the first time ever.

Well, it's not only that AMD is cheaper, it's also that Sony learns from its mistake, since the Nvidia's RSX gpu for the PS3 is just a modified Geforce 7800gt with reduced ROPs, I believe. AMD (ATI) designed a totally new and more advanced gpu (Xenos) for the Xbox 360 with embedded memory and unified shader architecture and all, and the result was evident, even now when compared to PS3 graphics in games, especially in most cross-platform games that are available for both console.

I'm sure this chart plays a big role in the choice as well.

OneCoolWOW!

Thats 3 very big contract to have :cool:

Didnt I read some where the the Wii 2 will also be AMD?

Yes, the WiiU also uses an AMD GPU.

www.joystiq.com/2011/06/14/wii-u-graphics-chip-outed-as-last-gen-radeon-which-is-still-pre/

Next-gen Xbox "Durango" also uses an AMD GPU.

www.techradar.com/news/gaming/consoles/super-powerful-xbox-720-chip-enters-production-1057384

If Sony ends up sticking with the PS3 design for the PS4 (as in using the Cell arc but using more of them), the GPU won't be extremely important. The AAA titles right now, like Uncharted 3, don't rely heavily on the GPU as much as they do on leveraging SPUs.

Sony was rumoring about dropping Cell arc due to the developer stress that it was causing and going back to normal multi-core solutions. Thus why you'll see rumors going around that the PS4 will run 16-cores and such.

TC-manWell, it's not only that AMD is cheaper, it's also that Sony learns from its mistake, since the Nvidia's RSX gpu for the PS3 is just a modified Geforce 7800gt with reduced ROPs, I believe.

Yeah but there was a reason for that and had nothing to do with Nvidia. Sony wanted Cell to do the graphics. When they realized that was stupid and Cell had nothing to do against a true GPU, they asked Nvidia to make them one ASAP and with such a short time they agreed to RSX.

Sony learned from its mistake, but it has nothing to do AMD or Nvidia's competence, they learned and went to a GPU directly.

And they go AMD in part because they can "bully" them, just as M$ did. Both Sony (PS3) and M$ (Xbox) reached agreement with Nvidia for a certain GPU at a certain price at a certain date. Nvidia delivered, but when their consoles were delayed for reasons not concerning Nvidia (i.e bluray), Sony and M$ tried to "bully" Nvidia into a new agreement over the price of those GPUs Nvidia had been stockpiling, because by that time, those chips had been made obsolete by other GPUs in the PC market.

BenetanegiaYeah but there was a reason for that and had nothing to do with Nvidia. Sony wanted Cell to do the graphics. When they realized that was stupid and Cell had nothing to do against a true GPU, they asked Nvidia to make them one ASAP and with such a short time they agreed to RSX.

Sony learned from its mistake, but it has nothing to do AMD or Nvidia's competence, they learned and went to a GPU directly.

And they go AMD in part because they can "bully" them, just as M$ did. Both Sony (PS3) and M$ (Xbox) reached agreement with Nvidia for a certain GPU at a certain price at a certain date. Nvidia delivered, but when their consoles were delayed for reasons not concerning Nvidia (i.e bluray), Sony and M$ tried to "bully" Nvidia into a new agreement over the price of those GPUs Nvidia had been stockpiling, because by that time, those chips had been made obsolete by other GPUs in the PC market.

Yes bully them into making bucket loads of money in the console market. Poor, poor AMD.

i'm happy for amd, i forsee some use of trinity in the new consoles, at least the xbox and ps...the wii u is probably too close for production, maybe it will be some form of fusion now, llano

anyways, i'm glad amd is getting some good news

I really hope that AMD GPUs are in all consoles...not because I don't like nVidia, but because the industry itself needs to get nV's fingers out of game development processes, and consolidating everything to a single unified rendering design is jsut gonna make things easier, so there will be less time spent optimizing for different GPUs/CPUs in each console.