Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Nvidia Claims Next Gen Consoles Slower Than Current Max-Q RTX Laptops - MMORPG.com News
System
Member UncommonPosts: 12,599
Nvidia Claims Next Gen Consoles Slower Than Current Max-Q RTX Laptops - MMORPG.com News
According to Nvidia boss Jen-Hsun Huang, next gen consoles are slower than current generation Max-Q laptops.
Comments
Actually it is about neither console using NVIDIA in their machines. Just some salt.
"You think this "A" stands for France?" Captain America
A business saying that their product is better than competitor's product isn't being salty. They should never be trusted, but a seller telling how his product is better than competitors' isn't being salty.
Its not being salty, its being bulshitter.
New players can get a welcome package and old/returning players can also get a welcome back package and 7 days free subscription time! Just click here to use my referral invitation
I would hope that a $2850 laptop is faster than a $600 console.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
I can agree with that since even on NVIDIA gpus (not just my old AMD) my room can get hot with my PC turned on long enough, but my PS4 stand has 2 fans so it doesn't get hot enough to act as a second heater lol.
Nvidia's expression
So I doubt this claim.
PC gaming is more work, and more expensive overall, but it's more satisfying and, for me at least, more comfortable. You don't have to set up a PC game so it can function using 10 buttons and a joystick, so it can have more depth and customization. At the end of the day, if gaming is your thing, PC gaming is better if you have the money to put into it.
Of course, a PC can also be used for more than just gaming and has much better VR.
But it's not about Nvidia getting greedy today, or even in 2013. It goes further back than that. Ordinarily, every two years or so after releasing a console, for as long as the company wants to actively sell a lot more of that console, the console vendor wants to do a die shrink. That brings down the cost of production, as well as the power consumption. Reduced power consumption can in turn bring down the noise level and physical size of the console.
If you buy a custom chip for a console, then it takes some further custom work to do the die shrink. At that point, you have vendor lock-in, as there's only one company you can go to in order to request a custom die shrink of a previously created custom chip. And when you have vendor lock-in like that, you have to do whatever it takes to get the company to do what you want or else do without the die shrink.
Vendor lock-in is pretty much always a bad thing if you're the customer. But being tied to some vendors is much worse than others. AMD has a reputation to defend for offering quality products at fair prices. Nvidia does not. Nvidia has a reputation to defend for offering some very good products, but not necessarily at prices you'll find agreeable.
When I mention Nvidia charging high prices, some people might think of $1200 for a GeForce RTX 2080 Ti, or even $2500 for a GeForce Titan RTX. But those aren't even a good example of what I mean.
Rather, look at their Tesla cards for compute. Nvidia created CUDA for the express purpose of having vendor lock-in. It's actually remarkably awful as a GPU-programming API goes. But Nvidia has offered a bunch of free training and paid people to write a bunch of code in CUDA, so they got a lot of people to use CUDA. During the Kepler generation, their top of the line Tesla card for compute was a Tesla K40 for $4000. Once they had a lot of people using it, though, they subsequently charged $6000 for a Tesla P100 and then $9000 for a Tesla V100. And for good measure, they also changed their licensing agreement to make it illegal to use those cheap $1200 GeForce cards instead of the $9000 server cards, at least if you need more than a few of them.
Even if vendor lock-in for a custom console chip is unavoidable, you really, really don't want to be locked to buying from Nvidia. They'll charge whatever the market will bear in the short-run, without any consideration for their long-term reputation. And in the case of vendor-lock in for a part that you have to pay for, that's going to be quite a lot and make it very difficult for you to make a profit on your console. Microsoft learned this the hard way way back with the original Xbox. Sony made that mistake with the PlayStation 3. Neither company wants anything to do with Nvidia today, at least for game consoles.
So why did Nintendo go with Nvidia for the Switch? Most game consoles have used custom chips, as there are a lot of advantages to having a custom chip where you can add absolutely anything you want. But paying Nvidia to make a custom chip for you is basically a death wish, so Nintendo didn't do that. Rather, they used a completely off the shelf Tegra chip, with the plan that they can later upgrade to some future, completely off the shelf Tegra chip. Or possibly even to a GPU from some other mobile vendor if Nvidia wants to play hardball on pricing, as plenty of other companies can use the same ARM cores as Nvidia.
You can use such off the shelf parts for relatively low performance chips. But the highest performance integrated GPU that you can get in such off the shelf parts isn't necessarily even faster than the Xbox One from 2014, so you can't do that for high end consoles. For that, you're going to have to get something custom. And given their history, it's very plausible that Microsoft and Sony would dismiss Nvidia out of hand even if they clearly had the best product to offer. Apple has been doing exactly that for a number of years now.
I play games for the games and honestly the graphics have been fantastic for over a decade- I grew up playing text games.
PS5 will be a quick purchase for me- The exclusives will (in all probability) be phenomenal as always.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다