With the acquisition of ARM, Nvidia has CPUs and GPUs covered, just like AMD. Bidding for the next generation of consoles should be settled in about 5 years. That's just nice time for Nvidia to integrate its processes and produce a next-generation console. What do you think?
Will Nvidia be competing for the next generation of consoles?
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 4,184
I think the next gen (after the upcoming consoles) will do the heavy lifting server side.
Permabanned
Sony PS6 £500
MS Xbox Series Y £500
Nvidia Titan £1500
MS Xbox Series Y £500
Nvidia Titan £1500
Permabanned
not unless they sort the heat issue out .. there going to lose enough in the laptop market this time round .. they did the only thing they could bought arm ..
Caporegime
That's probably spot on. nVidia bought ARM because they see the data centre as a lucrative opportunity. What if they can design CPU/GPU or APU for Google Stadia or XCloud or PS Now for when the time comes in 2027. Like it or lump it, within 15 years tops we will either be gaming on a PC (which will always be required for game development) or totally via internet streaming.
Nvidia not being in current consults except for the low spec Nintendo's isn't realty just due their lack of CPUs though, is it?
Basically Nvidia managed to p*ss of both Sony and Microsoft with the way they do business plus the margins they want.
So as well as having to be able to offer a compelling deal in terms of technology, they would have to convince Sony or Microsoft that they had seriously changed their attitude
Basically Nvidia managed to p*ss of both Sony and Microsoft with the way they do business plus the margins they want.
So as well as having to be able to offer a compelling deal in terms of technology, they would have to convince Sony or Microsoft that they had seriously changed their attitude
Latency is still an issue.
Not only that but so is reliable, fast internet in many places. If you can’t go online you can’t play? Not sure I like the sound of it.
I dont think the xbox naming will be that logical.
Probably be the Xbox Series X One X or Series SXS One
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 4,184
I'm talking in perhaps 6-8 years time
Even then. There will have to be massive investments in infrastructure and switches, routers, and the like will have to be way faster. Think sub 1ms Ping times. Nvidia is now well-placed to develop those systems but implementing them is going to be a massive effort. I think your timescale is very optimistic.
What I do think will happen is that game data may be held on central servers and streamed out. So when a game loads a new level, it loads it from the cloud, not the local system, if it's not cached. This obviates the problem of games consuming more and more local space. Who cares if a game is 1TB in total if you only have 20 GB of it at a time on your system?
Good luck with that in this country, with most people still using aging copper lines to some extent.
Nope. Several reasons:
1) Nvidia likes fat margins, consoles are low margins.
2) Nvidia doesn't need the volume, so less incentive compared to AMD.
3) Consoles will absolutely loathe to switch from x86 to arm and that would massively screw up all their production & tools - which are perhaps the most important aspects above all else for devs.
4) ARM sucks and will still suck for these sorts of workloads. x86 will continue wiping the floor with arm for the foreseeable future.
5) Everyone hates working with Nvidia
I'm sure there's more but I just don't see it. Nintendo was a special case because a) they have their own unique eco-system and they don't go cross-platform; b) Nvidia had warehouses full of ****** chips no one else wanted so Nintendo got them for dirt cheap; c) switch works well for arm uses case as it's a very low power device (by necessity), so it's below an optimal x86 threshold; d) Nvidia hasn't had the opportunity to f0lk them over before so that resentment hasn't had the chance to develop... yet.
If anything there's a bigger chance for Nintendo to switch to an AMD+Samsung chip than Sony/Microsoft to jump ship to Nvidia, but that's also unlikely for the next Switch.
1) Nvidia likes fat margins, consoles are low margins.
2) Nvidia doesn't need the volume, so less incentive compared to AMD.
3) Consoles will absolutely loathe to switch from x86 to arm and that would massively screw up all their production & tools - which are perhaps the most important aspects above all else for devs.
4) ARM sucks and will still suck for these sorts of workloads. x86 will continue wiping the floor with arm for the foreseeable future.
5) Everyone hates working with Nvidia
I'm sure there's more but I just don't see it. Nintendo was a special case because a) they have their own unique eco-system and they don't go cross-platform; b) Nvidia had warehouses full of ****** chips no one else wanted so Nintendo got them for dirt cheap; c) switch works well for arm uses case as it's a very low power device (by necessity), so it's below an optimal x86 threshold; d) Nvidia hasn't had the opportunity to f0lk them over before so that resentment hasn't had the chance to develop... yet.
If anything there's a bigger chance for Nintendo to switch to an AMD+Samsung chip than Sony/Microsoft to jump ship to Nvidia, but that's also unlikely for the next Switch.
You can't cheat physics.
I think the reason the console manufacturers switched to AMD was because AMD were desperate for custom at the time and also it suits them to have a familiar architecture for developers that also allows backward compatibility.
I can't see them moving to ARM+NVidia GPU unless AMD try to fleece them.
I can't see them moving to ARM+NVidia GPU unless AMD try to fleece them.
AMD are the only company that has a cost effective and powerful CPU/GPU solution.