So why wouldn't next-generation consoles use Nvidia GPUs instead of AMD?

Oh look a high end computer graphics card that is only 7 inches/177mm in length. This is a full Nvidia GTX 670. It requires very little power compared to other high end PC graphics cards, it produces much less heat (see those 2 small fans? that is all it needs), and it is small.

Now imagine this chip customized for consoles, intergrated onto the console mainboard with customized cooling. You can have a powerful console in a very small size. AMD's offerings are huge compared to this.

This would be a neat GPU to have on a console.

Expensive?

MS wisened up after the first Xbox, Sony seems to have done the same with PS4.

Expensive?

MS wisened up after the first Xbox, Sony seems to have done the same with PS4.

sneslover

AMD probably offered the better deal/support/technology for the consoles. The console manufacturers didn't decide who to go with on a fleeting whim, it would be a very important choice, and we know barely anything about what went on with choosing the hardware.

AMD has the better low end hardware which is probably what the next gen consoles are going to use

It's pretty crazy how the same company that could come up with the **** that was Fermi could come up with a beast such as Kepler.

Architecture, feature's and power aside, MS won't use them because Nvidia really screwed them over with the Xbox.

That, and i'm pretty sure both sony and ms have already signed deals with AMD, at least MS has.It'd be cool if Sony would use Kepler, but that's hoping for a bit too much. It's entirely possible, but isn't a given the next gen consoles will be that powerful.

power consumption is primarily to blame console makers cant afford to put a good power supply in their systems so a tiny weak mofo psu is basically a guarantee. it then comes down to lowest power consumption with the most well rounded preformance. in that regard amd holds all the cards. nvidia cant stack the ---- up

Die size.

The smaller it is, the more yield you get and the less likely it'll be damaged and rendered useless.

Because AMD offers similiar performance at much better Power Targets with an APU, which seems but certain to be the basis for both consoles at this point. Technologically there is nothing Nvidia offers AMD doesnt, except AMD is willing to sell out the designs and lose royalties, something Nvidia wont do.

Because nvidia is a terrible partner that has boned every console manufacturer that they've signed deals with.

AMD has the better low end hardware which is probably what the next gen consoles are going to use

NoodleFighter

It's pretty crazy how the same company that could come up with the **** that was Fermi could come up with a beast such as Kepler.theuncharted34

As a few have pointed out, it's most likely the pricing on Nvidia's end compared to what AMD may be asking/offering.

[QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

AMD has the better low end hardware which is probably what the next gen consoles are going to use

mitu123

It's pretty crazy how the same company that could come up with the **** that was Fermi could come up with a beast such as Kepler.theuncharted34

Don't believe me? Check out the benchmarks of Nvidia's GT series versus AMDs low range cards

Low range cards is where Nvidia needs to improve, they pretty much half ass it all the time

Because nvidia is a terrible partner that has boned every console manufacturer that they've signed deals with.

topgunmv

Just MS, it was Sony's own fault for signing with Nvidia when they knew what Xenos was capable of. I bet it would have saved Sony money going with Ati as well.

Every possible hardware decision Sony made for the Ps3 was awful.

[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="NoodleFighter"] Maybe so. [QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

It's pretty crazy how the same company that could come up with the **** that was Fermi could come up with a beast such as Kepler.NoodleFighter

Don't believe me? Check out the benchmarks of Nvidia's GT series versus AMDs low range cards

Low range cards is where Nvidia needs to improve, they pretty much half ass it all the time

Oh look a high end computer graphics card that is only 7 inches/177mm in length. This is a full Nvidia GTX 670. It requires very little power compared to other high end PC graphics cards, it produces much less heat (see those 2 small fans? that is all it needs), and it is small.

Now imagine this chip customized for consoles, intergrated onto the console mainboard with customized cooling. You can have a powerful console in a very small size. AMD's offerings are huge compared to this.

This would be a neat GPU to have on a console.

ShadowDeathX

With Radeon HD 7870, NVIDIA hasn't beaten AMD on performance per watt and performance per die size.

Compared to other high end PC graphics cards, Radeon HD 79x0 supports 64bit floating point math better than GTX 680.

Radeon HD 79x0 will be receive its own power reduction improvements via Radeon HD 7970 Ghz Edition's version 2 stepping .

Tahiti XT2, or Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition, will ship with a core clock speed of 1100 MHz, 175 MHz faster than the HD 7970. The GPU core voltage of Tahiti XT2 will be lower, at 1.020V, compared to 1.175V of the Tahiti XT

Radeon HD 7970(Tahiti XT1) consumes about 210 watts(1) @ 1.175V. If the amps remains the same, Tahiti XT2's 1.020V may yield about 182 watts i.e. lower than GTX 680's 190 watts. Tahiti XT2' @ 1.020V is also clocked faster at 1100Mhz i.e. 175Mhz faster than Tahiti XT1's 925Mhz.

References

1. 7970's consumes 210 watts link http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/Feature/296004,amd-radeon-hd-7970-reference-disassembly-guide.aspx

From http://www.guru3d.com/article/asus-radeon-hd-7970-directcu-ii-review/4 Radeon HD 7970 has 210 watts.

Believe it or not, the high end Radeon HD 7970 has a rated peak TDP (maximum power draw) of just 210 Watt, and that's really all right for a product of this caliber, features and performance.

From http://www.techspot.com/review/481-amd-radeon-7970/page2.html Radeon HD 7970 has 210 watts.

"it still chugs up to 210 watts under load"

Because AMD offers similiar performance at much better Power Targets with an APU, which seems but certain to be the basis for both consoles at this point. Technologically there is nothing Nvidia offers AMD doesnt, except AMD is willing to sell out the designs and lose royalties, something Nvidia wont do.

Cali3350

Because Nvidia is overpriced garbage?

AMD offers the same specs for less money. Nvidia can go out of business for all i care

If they are both using AMD cpus then they probably get a discount for buying GPUs.

Because Nvidia is overpriced garbage?

AMD offers the same specs for less money. Nvidia can go out of business for all i care

reach3

There is more than just specs

OVerall Average Nvidia has the better driver support and they have exclusive features such as GPU accelerated Physx (non nvidia users can use it but it would run better on a Nvidia system)

[QUOTE="reach3"]

Because Nvidia is overpriced garbage?

AMD offers the same specs for less money. Nvidia can go out of business for all i care

NoodleFighter

There is more than just specs

OVerall Average Nvidia has the better driver support and they have exclusive features such as GPU accelerated Physx (non nvidia users can use it but it would run better on a Nvidia system)

AMD also has GpGPU based Physics via open source Bullet Physics and DMM2 middleware. From http://www.itproportal.com/2010/03/08/amd-gives-away-gpu-physics-tools/ AMD gives away GPU physics tools.

The latest Futuremark 3DMark 11 has dumped NVIDIA's proprietary Physx middleware.

On Windows, Microsoft's C++ AMP reduce the need for NVIDIA's proprietary middleware

[QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

[QUOTE="reach3"]

Because Nvidia is overpriced garbage?

AMD offers the same specs for less money. Nvidia can go out of business for all i care

ronvalencia

There is more than just specs

OVerall Average Nvidia has the better driver support and they have exclusive features such as GPU accelerated Physx (non nvidia users can use it but it would run better on a Nvidia system)

AMD also has GpGPU based Physics via open source Bullet Physics and DMM2 middleware. From http://www.itproportal.com/2010/03/08/amd-gives-away-gpu-physics-tools/ AMD gives away GPU physics tools.

The latest Futuremark 3DMark 11 has dumped NVIDIA's CUDA/Physx middleware.

[QUOTE="reach3"]

Because Nvidia is overpriced garbage?

AMD offers the same specs for less money. Nvidia can go out of business for all i care

NoodleFighter

There is more than just specs

OVerall Average Nvidia has the better driver support and they have exclusive features such as GPU accelerated Physx (non nvidia users can use it but it would run better on a Nvidia system)

[QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

[QUOTE="reach3"]

Because Nvidia is overpriced garbage?

AMD offers the same specs for less money. Nvidia can go out of business for all i care

ronvalencia

There is more than just specs

OVerall Average Nvidia has the better driver support and they have exclusive features such as GPU accelerated Physx (non nvidia users can use it but it would run better on a Nvidia system)

AMD also has GpGPU based Physics via open source Bullet Physics and DMM2 middleware. From http://www.itproportal.com/2010/03/08/amd-gives-away-gpu-physics-tools/ AMD gives away GPU physics tools.

The latest Futuremark 3DMark 11 has dumped NVIDIA's proprietary Physx middleware.

On Windows, Microsoft's C++ AMP reduce the need for NVIDIA's proprietary middleware

So what games use it?

[QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

[QUOTE="reach3"]

Because Nvidia is overpriced garbage?

AMD offers the same specs for less money. Nvidia can go out of business for all i care

Inconsistancy

There is more than just specs

OVerall Average Nvidia has the better driver support and they have exclusive features such as GPU accelerated Physx (non nvidia users can use it but it would run better on a Nvidia system)

Yeah but it is part of the cost of Nvidia GPUs, I'm just glad that Physx is getting better CPU support so we can see it used in more games but Nvidia should be kind enough to at least the GPU do some of the work

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

There is more than just specs

OVerall Average Nvidia has the better driver support and they have exclusive features such as GPU accelerated Physx (non nvidia users can use it but it would run better on a Nvidia system)

NoodleFighter

AMD also has GpGPU based Physics via open source Bullet Physics and DMM2 middleware. From http://www.itproportal.com/2010/03/08/amd-gives-away-gpu-physics-tools/ AMD gives away GPU physics tools.

The latest Futuremark 3DMark 11 has dumped NVIDIA's proprietary Physx middleware.

On Windows, Microsoft's C++ AMP reduce the need for NVIDIA's proprietary middleware

So what games use it?

The focus is with next-gen games. EA's Frostbite 2 and CryEngine 3 doesn't need NVIDIA's proprietary Physx middleware.

From http://bulletphysics.org/wordpress/?p=279

The presentation is titled ?game physics artifacts? and covers similar material to chapter 2 of the Game Physics Pearls book. We will use both Bullet and the new Sony Physics Effects SDK to illustrate some examples. You can download the presentation for the Game Developers Conference Physics Tutorial and the preliminary Physics Effects-Bullet integration from http://code.google.com/p/bullet/downloads/list.

ARM, Sony, AMD, Microsoft, Google and Intel are working actively against NVIDIA's proprietary middleware.

Doesnt Nvidia have supply problems right now for 680 and 670? In addition, having a low power draw for a PC may still be too much for a console

ogre engine games also take advantage of this. torchlight 1 & 2 and the upcoming indie game nekkro all are based in the ogre engine

Doesnt Nvidia have supply problems right now for 680 and 670? In addition, having a low power draw for a PC may still be too much for a console

lostrib

Well some guy upgraded his AlienWare X51 to a GTX 670 and he had no problems and the PSU was only 330watts

Microsoft and Nintendo's current consoles use AMD video. Switching to Nvidia would likely complicate backwards compatibility a lot, such as when Microsoft went from Nvidia (Xbox) to ATI (360).famicommander

For Nintendo, Wii backwards compatibility on NVIDIA GPU hardware wouldn't be a problem e.g. refer to Wii emulator D*lphin.

Wii's GPU is nothing like Radeon HD GPU.

Now now, but later. :) How many games use GPU Accelerated PhysX? Three a year in a good year. Two average.ShadowDeathX

Well Physx is used in over 300 games but GPU accelerated Physx really only like 24

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"][QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

There is more than just specs

OVerall Average Nvidia has the better driver support and they have exclusive features such as GPU accelerated Physx (non nvidia users can use it but it would run better on a Nvidia system)

NoodleFighter

Yeah but it is part of the cost of Nvidia GPUs, I'm just glad that Physx is getting better CPU support so we can see it used in more games but Nvidia should be kind enough to at least the GPU do some of the work

From http://http.developer.nvidia.com/GPUGems3/gpugems3_ch16.html for Crysis1

Vegetation in games has always been mainly static, with some sort of simple bending to give the illusion of wind. Our game scenes can have thousands of different vegetations, but still we pushed the envelope further by making vegetation react to global and local wind sources, and we bend not only the vegetation but also the leaves, in detail, with all computations procedurally and efficiently done on the GPU.

Note that Crysis doesn't use NVIDIA's Physx .

[QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"] PhysX isn't a good feature because of its unnecessary exclusivity, it's by no means a feature that can't be done on AMD hardware. If anything the exclusive features it provides increases development time since you still have to develop an alternative for the other vendor, use the terrible CPU version, or exclude it all together.ronvalencia

Yeah but it is part of the cost of Nvidia GPUs, I'm just glad that Physx is getting better CPU support so we can see it used in more games but Nvidia should be kind enough to at least the GPU do some of the work

From http://http.developer.nvidia.com/GPUGems3/gpugems3_ch16.html for Crysis1

Vegetation in games has always been mainly static, with some sort of simple bending to give the illusion of wind. Our game scenes can have thousands of different vegetations, but still we pushed the envelope further by making vegetation react to global and local wind sources, and we bend not only the vegetation but also the leaves, in detail, with all computations procedurally and efficiently done on the GPU.

Note that Crysis doesn't use NVIDIA's Physx .

There are games that use Physx and there are games that don't.

I'm guessing your point is if devs put in the effort they don't need to use Physx and CPU physx to process stuff

[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"]Now now, but later. :) How many games use GPU Accelerated PhysX? Three a year in a good year. Two average.NoodleFighter

Well Physx is used in over 300 games but GPU accelerated Physx really only like 24

That's mostly current gen games and ussally tied with Epic's Unreal Engine (a known NVIDIA partner).

Sony and Microsoft has thier own ideas.

Nvidia is run by an *** and has screwed two major console manufacturers during the last two generations, consoles have to finalize hardware relatively late and major contract negotiations at this stage are a big nono, AMD has had better GPUs with little exception for the last several years, Nvidia doesn't make CPUs, and AMD is probably much more likely to cut a deal with slim profit margins.

So you know, just a few reasons.

[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"]Looks like it is Sony's move if they will use Nvidia this time around. Radeon HD 4770 GPU for Wii U AMD Kaveri APU for Next Xbox.reach3

Multiplats might change next generation with each platform being so different from one and another.

i wish i knew what you guys were talking about lol

Because a second fiddle company like AMD offers cheaper solutions.

Because a second fiddle company like AMD offers cheaper solutions.

Mr_BillGates

AMD's licensing model and partnership with IBM/GoFlo is superior i.e. able to have IBM PPE + AMD Xenos fusion chip.

Atleast AMD hasn't gimped 64bit floating point compute in thier Radeon HD 79x0.

AMD's PC GPU market share is larger than NVIDIA. http://www.guru3d.com/news/jpr-q1-2012-gpu-shipments-down-338-percent-yearoveryear/

It would be bloody impractical to have something like so in a small console. Cost, size, power and heat. Not ideal.Stevo_the_gamer