Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › NVIDIA › [SA] Was Nvidia's Sacrifice Worth It?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[SA] Was Nvidia's Sacrifice Worth It? - Page 3

post #21 of 33
AMD secured a predictable profit margin, wherein any price cuts are going to be eaten by Microsoft. nVidia has chosen to enter a competitive market with no guarantee for ROI, but they are in a solid financial situation and will continue to be unless they over-invest in the mobile market sector. That said, I wish nVidia luck, because honest competition is good for everyone.
post #22 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven.7 View Post

There is a rational business decision behind every choice they make.

I'm sure they saw a larger profit possibility freely-chasing after the mobile market than producing millions of the same dies for consoles.

In the end, the whole console fiasco was a win-win for AMD, Intel and nVidia.

For AMD, I'm pretty sure it has to do a lot with the company staying afloat for the next few years and ensuring stockholder confidence.

For the two other guys, It keeps them out of the bullseye of the government as possible market monopolies.

Agreed, this is probably the best thing that could happen for AMD, It gets them more publicity for being in the consoles plus the income from the consoles themselves.
R116
(23 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 5820k @ 4.6GHz / 4.3GHz Asus X99 Deluxe Nvidia GTX 980Ti 4 X 4GB G.Skill Ripjaws 4  
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
Seagate Barracuda 2TB Samsung 850 Evo 250GB EK Supremacy Evo  EK Mosfet X99 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
EK-FC Titan X Alphacool NexXxos XT45 360 Alphacool NexXxos UT60 240 Alphacool VPP655T + EK D5 X-RES 200 CSQ 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Corsair SP120 x5 Corsair AF140 x1 Windows 10 Pro x64 Benq XL2730Z @ 144Hz 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
CM Storm Quickfire TK EVGA 850W Supernova G2 Corsair 750D Zowie EC2-A 
Mouse PadAudioOther
OCUK Mega Mat / Steelseries QCK+ CREATIVE Soundblaster Z mCubed T-Balancer 
  hide details  
Reply
R116
(23 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 5820k @ 4.6GHz / 4.3GHz Asus X99 Deluxe Nvidia GTX 980Ti 4 X 4GB G.Skill Ripjaws 4  
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
Seagate Barracuda 2TB Samsung 850 Evo 250GB EK Supremacy Evo  EK Mosfet X99 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
EK-FC Titan X Alphacool NexXxos XT45 360 Alphacool NexXxos UT60 240 Alphacool VPP655T + EK D5 X-RES 200 CSQ 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Corsair SP120 x5 Corsair AF140 x1 Windows 10 Pro x64 Benq XL2730Z @ 144Hz 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
CM Storm Quickfire TK EVGA 850W Supernova G2 Corsair 750D Zowie EC2-A 
Mouse PadAudioOther
OCUK Mega Mat / Steelseries QCK+ CREATIVE Soundblaster Z mCubed T-Balancer 
  hide details  
Reply
post #23 of 33
I think nvidia doing mobiles and AMD doing consoles, with them both doing video cards seems to keep the companys fairly even.
post #24 of 33
What stops AMD from getting into the Mobile Market? If they aren't on it already that is.
post #25 of 33
Nvidia screwed themselves over when they burned a bridge with microsoft forcing an early release of next gen hardware. Consoles aren't money makers its the games that make money and it was nvidia who was responsible for the net loss microsoft took on hardware
due to high cost and high failure rate. Nvidia was to expensive and wouldn't adjust to the market.
post #26 of 33
Mobile markets definitely a more viable choice.
Rig
(15 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 5820K MSI X99A SLI PLUS EVGA GTX 1070 FTW 4x8GB G.Skill Ripjaws  
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 Pro Samsung 850 Evo Noctua NH-D15 Windows 10 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2515H Happy Hacking Keyboard 2  EVGA Supernova 750 G2 Corsair 600Q 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech G403 Steelseries QcK Mass M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 930 @ 3.7 HT Gigabyte X58A-UD3R VisionTek 4870x2 3x4GB's G.Skill Ripjaws 1600 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
500GB AAKS, 2x 640GB AAKS, 2x 1TB Samsung SH-S203B Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung 245BW 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Happy Hacking Keyboard 2 Silverstone OP850 Antec 1200 [Three Nanoxia FX12] [Two San Ace 1011] Logitech G500 
Mouse Pad
Razer eXactMat 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7 3615QM GT 650M 16GB DDR3 256GB SSD 
OS
OS X Mountain Lion 
  hide details  
Reply
Rig
(15 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 5820K MSI X99A SLI PLUS EVGA GTX 1070 FTW 4x8GB G.Skill Ripjaws  
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 Pro Samsung 850 Evo Noctua NH-D15 Windows 10 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2515H Happy Hacking Keyboard 2  EVGA Supernova 750 G2 Corsair 600Q 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech G403 Steelseries QcK Mass M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 930 @ 3.7 HT Gigabyte X58A-UD3R VisionTek 4870x2 3x4GB's G.Skill Ripjaws 1600 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
500GB AAKS, 2x 640GB AAKS, 2x 1TB Samsung SH-S203B Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung 245BW 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Happy Hacking Keyboard 2 Silverstone OP850 Antec 1200 [Three Nanoxia FX12] [Two San Ace 1011] Logitech G500 
Mouse Pad
Razer eXactMat 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7 3615QM GT 650M 16GB DDR3 256GB SSD 
OS
OS X Mountain Lion 
  hide details  
Reply
post #27 of 33
It's an interesting perspective, I'm sure Nvidia made a conscious decisions to focus on smartphone/tablet chips BUT I'm sure they would have loved to win console chipset contracts. To me it looks like AMD simply had a stronger position. The Wii and Xbox360 already used AMD gpu's for things like backwards compatibility it makes sense to continue with the same manufacturer. Also a combined CPU/GPU/APU is appealing for things like reduced power consumption and reduced component costs. While Nvidia could possibly make some sort of super-tegra4+ that could compete with "Jaguar", Nvidia can't do x86- a feature which is probably desirable to MS and Sony's as both have first party software development teams.
Spit in God's Eye
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-5960x @ 4.26 ghz core / 3.53 ghz uncore - 1.... AsRock X99 Extreme3 EVGA GTX980 Ti 16gb (4x4gb) Crucial DDR4 2133 CL15  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
A-Data SP600 256gb SSD (C:) Samsung 840 EVO 1TB SSD (D:) Seagate 2TB Hybrid Drive (E:) LITE-ON 24x DVDRW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H110 Win 10 x64 HP 2511x ( 25" 1080p ) AZIO L70 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Corsair TX750 Antec 300 (Modded) Logitech M100 Onboard 
  hide details  
Reply
Spit in God's Eye
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-5960x @ 4.26 ghz core / 3.53 ghz uncore - 1.... AsRock X99 Extreme3 EVGA GTX980 Ti 16gb (4x4gb) Crucial DDR4 2133 CL15  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
A-Data SP600 256gb SSD (C:) Samsung 840 EVO 1TB SSD (D:) Seagate 2TB Hybrid Drive (E:) LITE-ON 24x DVDRW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H110 Win 10 x64 HP 2511x ( 25" 1080p ) AZIO L70 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Corsair TX750 Antec 300 (Modded) Logitech M100 Onboard 
  hide details  
Reply
post #28 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by BD231 View Post

Nvidia screwed themselves over when they burned a bridge with microsoft forcing an early release of next gen hardware. Consoles aren't money makers its the games that make money and it was nvidia who was responsible for the net loss microsoft took on hardware
due to high cost and high failure rate. Nvidia was to expensive and wouldn't adjust to the market.

Are you referring to the original xbox? The 360 used AMD hardware....

Although it isn't a secret, Sony and nvidia didn't get along with regards to the PS3.
post #29 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post

Mobile markets definitely a more viable choice.

That is if you can compete in it, and make a sufficient profit margin from it. Intel is focused on the same mobile market given their heavy emphasis on power consumption in their press releases. ARM is also no pushover.

Meanwhile, AMD doesn't have to worry about competitors until the development of PS5, Xbox 1080, and Wii U2 starts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SniperOct View Post

What stops AMD from getting into the Mobile Market? If they aren't on it already that is.

There's relatively little mentions of AMD's tablets and phones compared to Intel, Nivida or ARM. I'm assuming AMD wanted to nab the easy stuff first before running headlong against three different competitors.
Edited by A Bad Day - 3/3/13 at 9:09pm
post #30 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by WorldExclusive View Post

The difference here is that they're obligated to provide chips for years into the future. If their financial outlook changes and need to switch their focus, they can't.
AMD could be providing chips for the sake of prodiving chips in the end. I can see why Nv didn't want to go that route.

That's not usually how console chips work, but its possible since as the author mentions, they probably cant license away a x86 chip because x86 is not theirs to license. But assuming they can somehow workaround it in league with Intel, they just design it and license the design to Sony/MS.

The reason this can be preferable for Sony/MS is that Sony and MS are committing to their designs for a long time. As semi process improves over the years, the cost per chip in order to make a chip that is at the same performance level goes down (another way to look at Moore's law). If AMD made the chips, they'd get the benefits of these cost reductions over the years, making more and more profit. Meanwhile MS/Sony would still be contractually obligated to pay the same price per chip.

So usually Sony and MS want to be responsible for getting the chips manufactured so they can be the ones to benefit from process improvements, and lower their chip production cost. Also, this way they can time process shrinks for what works for them and their schedules/inventories and mitigate risk.

In this way, for AMD, all the investment is NRE (non-refundable engineering) and is upfront, with likely little to no cost later... Pure profit... But much lower profit per chip than if they made the thing and sold it.
Edited by Seven7h - 3/4/13 at 12:20am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: NVIDIA
Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › NVIDIA › [SA] Was Nvidia's Sacrifice Worth It?