Nvidia to $1000!

QUANTUMPHYSICSNvidia to $1000!

Do you mean stock price, or all the remaining products below $1000?

This is what got AMD out of the gutter but the thing is they weren't asking an arm and a leg for their stuff, Nvidia will.

Nvidia decided that consoles and other stuff with lower profit margins are now important? Who would have thought that?

Well, no surprises here. They wanted to buy ARM to become the Intel of the future. They failed buying ARM, but go with their plans anyway.

Vya DomusThis is what got AMD out of the gutter but the thing is they weren't asking an arm and a leg for their stuff, Nvidia will.

Microsoft will probably go with Intel for it's future console, but who knows. They could go with Nvidia and hope that Nvidia's brand recognition could help them win against PS6. Of course it will cost them and they will have to go with ARM architecture, but.... just a thought.

john_Microsoft will probably go with Intel for it's future console, but who knows. They could go with Nvidia and hope that Nvidia's brand recognition could help them win against PS6. Of course it will cost them and they will have to go with ARM architecture, but.... just a thought.

Nvidia's brand recognition is irrelevant to the console market. The console manufacturer is designing the entire software stack, the GPU manufacturer is only providing a single piece of hardware. The only thing that matters is the performance and price. If Nvidia can outbid Intel and AMD then sure. Otherwise I don't see how they'll be appealing if they ask more for less. Having to jump to ARM for the CPU is a huge negative as well. ARM makes sense for a mobile console like the switch but it does not scale well into higher power envelopes like that the consoles exist in.

Intel is at least a maybe but their problem is actually producing a chip that is significantly faster than existing console GPUs to call it an upgrade.

evernessinceNvidia's brand recognition is irrelevant to the console market. The console manufacturer is designing the entire software stack, the GPU manufacturer is only providing a single piece of hardware. The only thing that matters is the performance and price. If Nvidia can outbid Intel and AMD then sure. Otherwise I don't see how they'll be appealing if they ask more for less. Having to jump to ARM for the CPU is a huge negative as well. ARM makes sense for a mobile console like the switch but it does not scale well into higher power envelopes like that the consoles exist in.

Intel is at least a maybe but their problem is actually producing a chip that is significantly faster than existing console GPUs to call it an upgrade.

Nvidia will only outbid them my offering products at a loss.

Nvidia is too arrogant to realise all this new competition is partly to do with how AI researchers are sick of being locked into proprietary software locked to one hardware.

john_Microsoft will probably go with Intel for it's future console, but who knows. They could go with Nvidia and hope that Nvidia's brand recognition could help them win against PS6. Of course it will cost them and they will have to go with ARM architecture, but.... just a thought.

Really doubt it, consoles are optimized for cost, neither Intel/Nvidia can (nor do they want to) compete with AMD on that front. MS and Sony has worked with AMD for so long and everything is probably really streamlined by now they'd be shooting themselves in both feet with a shotgun.

Designs with a dedicated CPU/GPU are simply too costly, they need SoCs, Intel integrated graphics still suck and though Nvidia could build a decent ARM SoC it would be crazy expensive, just look at Jetson.

Well let hope Nvidia hires all the good IT workers that got laid off by other big corps last year :)

nguyenWell let hope Nvidia hires all the good IT workers that got laid off by other big corps last year :)

That would require all of those people to have whatever skills Nvidia needs that they don't already have in sufficient number. It's unlikely, as they might simply be trained in completely different fields, or maybe Nvidia has already more than covered the necessary number of people with the specific skill set.

In fact, if they didn't already, I'd expect Nvidia to also be laying off some people too, because everyone seems to be laying people off lately.:shadedshu:

At the end of the day, it boils down to cost and ease of working with the company to design custom chip. Both I believe are lacking with Nvidia. So it’s more like AI chips which offers very high profit margin, and hence, they are willing to customise for an even high margin.

As it turns out, the new consoles will be smarter than me. :(

Everyone here talking about Microsoft or Sony going ARM+Nivea don't think about the fact that doing so will render their new consoles unable to run any of their games that all were made for x86 architecture. They won't waste money or time to port their existent games catalogs from x86 to ARM.

The only real players in this market are AMD and Intel. Nivea can get in the existent console market only if they do a joint venture or get aquired by Intel so they can provide 1 single chip like AMD, not 2 that would increase the cost of console manufacturing by alot.

At last, real semicustom, not fake like others, lacking RTX™ and DLSS™.

1stn00bARM+Nivea

I don’t think skin lotion makes much sense in terms of providing cutting edge graphics, but maybe I’m missing something. Guess cosmetics industry has made some impressive breakthroughs.

So competing with someone like Xilinx or (now) AMD?

OnasiGuess cosmetics industry has made some impressive breakthroughs.

Such as :wtf:

R0H1TSuch as :wtf:

Explaining a joke makes it less funny.
…seriously, just google Nivea and it should click.

evernessinceNvidia's brand recognition is irrelevant to the console market.

I think the last 2-3 years Nvidia's brand is the only one that some can call "relevant". While the vast majority would not care or even know the manufacturer of the main SOC, Nvidia's brand, Nvidia's influence on tech press and all those hordes of trolls in various sites will make it sure that even the most clueless consumer will hear that "X console is better because it uses Nvidia chip, the trillion(s) dollars company)".

Vya DomusReally doubt it, consoles are optimized for cost, neither Intel/Nvidia can (nor do they want to) compete with AMD on that front.

I would also doubt it if conditions weren't favorable for a change. Intel is already in bed with Microsoft for the Surface line and getting XBOX could help it's GPU division to start having income. Also getting console games optimized for it's GPUs means less problems in PC games, easier job for it's driver developers for PCs. AMD enjoyed a much better support for it's hardware thanks to the consoles. Not to mention more work for it's fabs. If their Intel 5 and Intel 3 works, they can build a reasonably efficient SOC and latter if they manage to not mess up their 20A and 18A manufacturing, be able to offer a SOC that will be as efficient as anything coming out from TSMC.
Intel also proved that, while a premium brand that hates offering reasonable prices, when cornered will do show. The pricing of ARC line shows that. Also their hybrid design is perfect for a cheaper SOC, where they can just put 4 P cores and 8-12 E cores, for example. In a console environment there will be no GPU driver problems and maximum optimizations for a hybrid design.
The advantages for Intel are huge and with AMD focusing on servers and AI, Intel might have more reasons to offer a cheaper SOC than AMD. Su is great but has proven from the start that will throw a product line under the bus if another product line can offer her better margins. She killed AM1 and ARM based Opteron when she got the CEO position, while those last years we see gaming GPUs to be sidelined because she knows that she will either sell low numbers of GPUs at high prices or higher number of GPUs at a loss. Nvidia can kill AMD's GPU business tomorrow morning if decides to do so. We can almost see it happening with the SUPER line and the discounts, making even a $700 RX 7900XT to look like a not so good deal. That's why we see AMD focusing on products where they know they have advantages or at least a chance against the competition.

MS and Sony has worked with AMD for so long and everything is probably really streamlined by now they'd be shooting themselves in both feet with a shotgun.

I don't expect SONY to go Intel or Nvidia, but MS I am pretty sure they are not happy losing to PS every time. And MS does have a huge number of programmers. Going Intel will be pretty easy for them.

Designs with a dedicated CPU/GPU are simply too costly, they need SoCs, Intel integrated graphics still suck and though Nvidia could build a decent ARM SoC it would be crazy expensive, just look at Jetson.

I don't expect a combination of Intel CPU and Nvidia GPU. I don't expect them to abandon the SOC aproach. As I said MS does have a gazillion programmers and if they feel that ARM is coming to desktops and laptops, I am pretty sure they would like to be ready for that transision, not suffer the same defeat they suffered in smartphones. Their collaboration with Qualcomm is ending this year, Qualcomm is losing their exclusivity with Windows on ARM. Also Qualcomm proved to be unwilling or just uncapable of producing a SOC that could bring consumers to the ARM platform. On the other hand Nvidia is a totally different beast, capable of producing powerful SOCs especially in the integrated GPU area. So they could probably build a SOC in the near future that could become a competitor to Apple's M line of SOCs. Let's not ignore the fact that a collaboration between Microsoft and Nvidia already exists thanks to AI and they probably buy hundred of thousands of Nvidia GPUs every year. Adding a huge pile of console SOCs in there, at even zero profit margins for Nvidia could easily happen. Nvidia already gets billions from MS for AI GPUs, I doubt they care getting strong margins for a console SOC when they already get billions from MS at probably strong profit margins.
And there are some clear advantages for Nvidia by expanding their collaboration with MS. Nvidia gets a foot in the console market, gets closer and stronger collaboration with MS to push together Windows on ARM, based on Nvidia hardware, coming closer to Huang's dream of becoming the next Intel(he wanted an X86 license, Intel said no and latter killed Nvidia's chipset division. Payback time is coming.).
MS on the other hand gets the top GPU technology for it's console, one or more powerful SOCs for it's Surface line to go directly against Apple and even win, a strong (Nvidia based) platform to push Windows on ARM in the market, keeping Android out of it's realm.

OnasiI don’t think skin lotion makes much sense in terms of providing cutting edge graphics, but maybe I’m missing something. Guess cosmetics industry has made some impressive breakthroughs.

Isn't DLSS their most successful vaseline brand on the market ? :>

1stn00bEveryone here talking about Microsoft or Sony going ARM+Nivea don't think about the fact that doing so will render their new consoles unable to run any of their games that all were made for x86 architecture. They won't waste money or time to port their existent games catalogs from x86 to ARM.

The only real players in this market are AMD and Intel. Nivea can get in the existent console market only if they do a joint venture or get aquired by Intel so they can provide 1 single chip like AMD, not 2 that would increase the cost of console manufacturing by alot.

MS is used in making older hardware useless. When going from XP to Vista many rejected Vista because of the need for higher performing hardware and also the lack of drivers for their hardware. Going from 7 to 10 was again the same arguments. Windows 11 asked for TPM support and even fast enough hardware from 10 years ago is considered unsuitable for Win 11.
Also we are talking about consoles. Keeping an older console in home isn't that much of a problem. Just one more compact device next to the newer one. 20 years ago people had VCRs, Hi Fi systems, satellite and terrestrial receivers, amplifiers, CD and DVD players all pilled up in one room, putting a second console on top of another is not a problem really. Also new gamers, kids at the ages of 10-20 probably wouldn't care about older games, just the games that are all the hype at present time.
And then we have the Apple example. Going from X86 to ARM like it was the same architecture.

You'd have to be a complete idiot to give Nvidia profits for your wafer allocation. Death to Nvidia I say, time to stand up.

death to all monopolies.

This is all so very bad. Nvidia dominating an industry combined with its horrific business practices means that we are jeopardizing a potentially society changing technology. AI tech should be split amongst many players from many parts of the world. And if you are doubting what I am saying, look no further than Nvidia's attempt to acquire ARM. The entire world stepped up in a rare moment of unity to block that purchase. That's all you need to know when it comes to why Nvidia should never be allowed to significantly control anything.

DavenThis is all so very bad. Nvidia dominating an industry combined with its horrific business practices means that we are jeopardizing a potentially society changing technology. AI tech should be split amongst many players from many parts of the world. And if you are doubting what I am saying, look no further than Nvidia's attempt to acquire ARM. The entire world stepped up in a rare moment of unity to block that purchase. That's all you need to know when it comes to why Nvidia should never be allowed to significantly control anything.

Yeap, Nvidia dominating anything with a screen attach to it, or not, is bad news. Unfortunately AMD never took risks to try to grow as a company when it had the advantages, so now it is facing two giants. Intel with it's strong bonds with OEMs from the past and it's fabs that even in the condition they are today offers it the capacity to fulfill ANY order from a big OEM and Nvidia with it's gazillions of dollars that can even compete Apple in wafer allocation at TSMC, meaning others get the scraps.

What we need is Samsung to come out with a very good 3nm process, Intel fix it's problems and open up it's fabs to everyone, including AMD and Canon’s new “nanoimprint” lithography technology to be a successful alternative to ASML's technologies. Only with plenty of capacity around the world we can hope that companies like AMD will have the option to really grow and avoid monopolies.

amd does just fine you have to rember they were almost coompletely out of business, they went from bulldozer to Ryzen with 35% marketshare that is impressive and its not looking like it reached its peak yet. that with a much smaller budget, because intel is a gigant even in comparison to nvidia.

the problem of amd is the marketing not the products and stupidity of customers. also their team red marketing bullshit it embarassing and at best aimed at children.

This is purely to get more wafer allocation by using its customers allocations rather than its own. I doubt there is going to be much of any custom silicone, it's more lightly just to be nvidia chips under a different name.