AfterDawn: Tech news

NVIDIA: Consoles can't match PCs anymore

Written by James Delahunty (Google+) @ 26 Sep 2013 3:28 User comments (16)

NVIDIA: Consoles can't match PCs anymore An NVIDIA executive has insisted that games consoles cannot keep up with PCs for performance any longer.
Tony Tamasi, senior vice president of content and technology at NVIDIA, said that the company spends around $1.5 billion every year in R&D related to graphics, which totals more than $10 billion in the average console life-cycle. Marketers of video games consoles, like Sony and Microsoft, just can't afford that kind of investment.

Outside of that R&D advantage, there are other reasons why consoles just can't keep up anymore.

"I'll tell you why. In the past, certainly with the first PlayStation and PS2, in that era there weren't really good graphics on the PC. Around the time of the PS2 is when 3D really started coming to the PC, but before that time 3D was the domain of Silicon Graphics and other 3D workstations. Sony, Sega, or Nintendo could invest in bringing 3D graphics to a consumer platform. In fact, the PS2 was faster than a PC," he said in an interview with PC PowerPlay.

By the release of the PS3 and Xbox 360, the consoles were on par with PCs, he said, but even by that time, all of the graphics innovations were coming from PC graphics companies.

Another major factor is the power requirements.

"The most efficient architectures are from Nvidia and AMD, and you're not going to get anything that is significantly more power efficient in a console, as it's using the same core technology," Tamasi said.

"Yet the consoles have power budgets of only 200 or 300 Watts, so they can put them in the living room, using small fans for cooling, yet run quietly and cool. And that's always going to be less capable than a PC, where we spend 250W just on the GPU. There's no way a 200W Xbox is going to be beat a 1000W PC."

On the PS4 and Xbox One, Tamasi said that while it might be possible for either console to do what a powerful PC can do now, it simple won't last very long.

Read the full interview: PC PowerPlay

Tags: NVIDIA
Previous Next  

16 user comments

126.9.2013 19:14

Thank You captain obvious. I think we all know a PC with a $300+ video card and a total cost of $800+ will outperform any console. But in the end it is not the power of the platform or the graphics it puts out that truly matters it is the games and usability.

One thing I will say it is easier today than ever to make a decent gaming PC and hook it to your TV through technologies such as HDMI but people that buy consoles know that a PC will have more raw power but buy the consoles for the games on those consoles (AKA exclusives) and convenience of a simpler interface to use to play their games.


"Have you tried turning it off and on again?" ~ Roy Trenneman

http://www.facebook.com/BlueLightningTechnicalServices

226.9.2013 19:34

Its what the software is made for. The PC will always out power the console but if the software is not made for it ect,ect.


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

327.9.2013 1:35

"Marketers of video games consoles, like Sony and Microsoft, just can't afford that kind of investment. "

first off i find that interesting as I'm pretty sure M$ Is a much larger organization than NVIDA, I take it your upset people are moving to ATI Graphics? I have personally wondered why this has taken the companies so long to figure out.

A console may be a step behind PC, but as time goes on technology gets cheaper, if you can fit this technology in a Laptop it will be in a console shortly after.

Regardless though, only the graphics whores will be the ones who truly care. I get far more enjoyment out of the arcade machines in my basement then I ever get from a console. Its not about having the latest technology in my living room as much is it is about having a well developed game that is enjoyable to play and gets me my money back in entertainment.

427.9.2013 10:30

Originally posted by Menion:
"Marketers of video games consoles, like Sony and Microsoft, just can't afford that kind of investment. "

first off i find that interesting as I'm pretty sure M$ Is a much larger organization than NVIDA,

You find it interesting why exactly?

Being a larger corporation means absolutely nothing when you consider how diversified MS is.

Nvidia only focuses on graphic hardware. So they can afford to spend that $1.5 billion every year just for research and development whereas MS can't.

527.9.2013 15:42

you dont say...

627.9.2013 19:55

And they don't need to, they are powerfull enough already, we need better games, not hardware.

727.9.2013 20:40

actually you need both if using console.

828.9.2013 9:24

Its about simplicity for me. Dont have to worry about getting new cards to support the latest games, drivers, configuring the game settings, patches, os management. Just pop the game in the console and play. But i always remember how thrilling games like cod1 and rtcw were on the pc.

928.9.2013 9:59

Most people just don't want to deal with or invest in 'gaming rig' PCs. Yes, a higher end gaming PC can run rings around any console, but a static spec system allows developers to totally optimize software for that set piece of hardware and there's not as much OS overhead, which yields better results (than a seemingly comparable-spec'ed PC) with no real worries about incompatibilities. Some games still on a $250 PS3 will run rings around a PC you can put together new for the same price. I kinda doubt any PC you put together new for $400 would eclipse PS4 performance as well, but yes, I concede to PC gaming elitist that their $1500-2000+ rig probably will...though you'd think they'd be secure enough to not have to bash others to justify their investments if they really thought they were worth it.

1028.9.2013 12:16

I look at the whole thing differently. My PC is on almost 24 t0 16 hours a day. Of this may be an hour is spent on gaming. Now for my regular work why do I want to consume 1000 watts of power when my i3-3220T based PC, consuming only 40 watts (sans display LCD) is much more than adequate. Just imagine what I can buy from saving say 10-12 kwhs of power everyday apart from not generating more heat!

1130.9.2013 6:56

The arguments about costs being relevant is silly... I don't pretend my OUYA competes in performance because it cost $100. Any motoring enthusiast will spend far more on their hobby than a PC gamer any day.

He's right... even if his motivation for saying so is because the new consoles don't use Nvidia hardware anymore... sure, there are less OS overheads and consoles are more efficient with software etc. etc. but they still can't beat PCs. I don't blame him from wanting to remind people, he has a business to run and they make good quality product.



Originally posted by pmshah:
My PC is on almost 24 t0 16 hours a day. Of this may be an hour is spent on gaming. Now for my regular work why do I want to consume 1000 watts of power ...?

It's not quite as you think. Say you are using the same screen & rig, if you have a good quality power supply unit (btw, a 100+Amp 700Watt psu will out-class a 1000W cheapo) then they actually run more efficiently doing the same idling (i.e. "regular") work than a lower powered psu would. It's not that they are just capable of producing more power when called upon when gaming or working hard.




Its a lot easier being righteous than right.


DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD

1230.9.2013 7:25

@Jemborg

I am not referring to the actual efficiency of the psu. What I am talking about is actual power consumption as measured at the wall socket. True a 100 watt PSU may not be actually be loaded at that level but to get best efficiency out of any switch mode power supply it must be loaded above 70% true capacity. In any case there will still be a lot of wasted energy in doing some real job requirement work. I also have a quad core Phenom that works faster than my low power consuming i3-3220T machine but idles at 120 watts while the i3 runs - sumultaneous http + torrent downloads from 2 different ISPs on 2 different NICs, VLC playback of 1080p h264 videos + handbrake video conversion which load the i3 to 90% but still consuming no more than 45 watts at the wall socket ! I am sure I could not play any hi fi games on it but does the job !

1330.9.2013 19:50

Quote:
Thank You captain obvious. I think we all know a PC with a $300+ video card and a total cost of $800+ will outperform any console.

Well, you are a breath of fresh air huh? Let me see, well, I think that the obvious to some is not the obvious to all.

Why is it that every person wants to approach all points of view with a condescending attitude.

This is superman

1430.9.2013 19:54

Originally posted by xnonsuchx:
Most people just don't want to deal with or invest in 'gaming rig' PCs. Yes, a higher end gaming PC can run rings around any console, but a static spec system allows developers to totally optimize software for that set piece of hardware and there's not as much OS overhead, which yields better results (than a seemingly comparable-spec'ed PC) with no real worries about incompatibilities. Some games still on a $250 PS3 will run rings around a PC you can put together new for the same price. I kinda doubt any PC you put together new for $400 would eclipse PS4 performance as well, but yes, I concede to PC gaming elitist that their $1500-2000+ rig probably will...though you'd think they'd be secure enough to not have to bash others to justify their investments if they really thought they were worth it.
1500 for a PC is next to nothing honestly, but I agree with your point.

This is superman

1530.9.2013 20:01

Screw next gen gaming no BWC means I will put more money into my PC new 250$ video card here I come...... then new CPU and mobo hopefully it wont be bug riddled.


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

1630.9.2013 22:28

Lets put actual graphics performance aside. Pc gaming offers a totally different experience. Playing with a mouse over a controller allows you to be much more precise. And something about being so close to the monitor and speakers just pulls you right into the game. I used to feel so much more "there" when i used to game on the pc. Besides that, the multiplayer experience (was) so much better than these consoles. Not sure if they still work the same way. You searched for a server. They ran 24 hours a day and would be occupied by the same clan of people usually. You really got to know the people in those multiplayer games. The people who ran the servers even controlled the rules on them, like no run and gunning. I hate console multiplayer. It just throws you into a game with different people every map. Usually 8 year old boys screeching in dolphin octaves

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive