NVidia VP: Console Graphics Cannot be Better Than PC Anymore

NVIDIA's Senior Vice President of Content and Technology, Tony Tamasi, believes that it has become impossible for consoles to offer better graphics quality than PC; not even at launch.

"It's no longer possible for a console to be a better or more capable graphics platform than the PC," he told Australia's PC Power Play. "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."

"By the time of the Xbox 360 and PS3, the consoles were on par with the PC. If you look inside those boxes, they're both powered by graphics technology by AMD or NVIDIA, because by that time all the graphics innovation was being done by PC graphics companies. NVIDIA spends 1.5 billion US dollars per year on research and development in graphics, every year, and in the course of a console's lifecycle we'll spend over 10 billion dollars into graphics research. Sony and Microsoft simply can't afford to spend that kind of money. They just don't have the investment capacity to match the PC guys; we can do it thanks to economy of scale, as we sell hundreds of millions of chips, year after year."

"The second factor is that everything is limited by power these days. If you want to go faster, you need a more efficient design or a bigger power supply. The laws of physics dictate that the amount of performance you're going to get from graphics is a function of the efficiency of the architecture, and how much power budget you're willing to give it. 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. 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."

Add new comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Comments

Didn't want it.

Nvidia didn't want the contracts for stupid console GPUs. Consoles are an obsolete, dying breed of unnecessary & impractical hardware. AMD fucked up. Nvidia has put their efforts into the future which in addition to PCs, is smartphones. SmartTVs will be next (basically a PC inside/behind a giant screen) & consoles will disappear. With each passing generation, consoles attempt to do more & more. They attempt to become like PCs without actually being one. It's just not possible. When a console can do what a PC can, then it's a PC. There is no room for consoles in the future. PCs are too powerful, versatile & inexpensive to allow it.

3do

Well, I remember when I bought the 3do, That was around 1994 and the pc only had a single drive, The 3do had a double cd drive which was faster than the pc at that time, Im not trying to fight with you kids over this, im just saying the facts at the time, dam am I that old?

LOL 3DO.

I had one of those. I thought because it was so expensive it must be awesome. It wasn't, awesome, but it was expensive. More than a PC. So w/e.

Useless arguments

Your arguments are all useless! Be a true gamer for once and support all your platforms. No console is better than a PC, and vice-versa. Each platform has its own exclusives, and therefore its own perks. In the end of the day what you want is a good game, not just graphics drawn from the raw power of the machine, and that's something that's not going to be decided by Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo, the developers pick their platforms. Pick your platform not by its power, but by its franchises.

hell no

consoles were only on par with pc until about 2000. Then PC ran over them. WHen 360 and ps3 came out, PC was WAAAAY superior in graphics. Always will be.

like a board of morons. Of

like a board of morons. Of course Pc is better now. We can build pc's that games cant even touch. 4 way GTX titans. What game is even gonna touch that right now. Nothing. I wish consoles would fuck off and go back to being consoles and not a pc wanna be or a multimedia centre. They are FUCKING GAME CONSOLES.

no, console graphics cannot

no, console graphics cannot be better than PC anymore, nor vice versa, because both platforms are now using the same graphics hardware (either ATI or Nvidia) vs the old days when consoles had custom hardware and programmers had to be really clever to optimize their games to run better on the weaker hardware than on PC, unlike the lazy morons nowadays who can't make a decent port across platforms that have become almost standardized in hardware.

That fine...

Some people have houses, cars, kids, etc... to take care of and dont have 2K+ to blow on a top end PC. Don't get me wrong, I miss having my top end PC (was a GeForce 2, thats how old I am) but when you look at the price and quality of graphics out of a £200 console, compared to the equivelant £1000 PC... the console wins... Even the biggest fanboy cant give me a parts list to build a PC that will give me the same graphics as a PS4 or Xbox One for the same price or less.

thats hilarious

i say this because ic an build a system that will play games at least at current console quality for about 200$ with 8yr old hardware lmfao. but if you want current hardware, and better visuals than consoles, i can still manage that for about 500$ with current hardware, because contrary to popular belief, you dont need the newest and bluest top of the line hardware, unless your working for pixar doing CGI movies or some shit. fact is, not only have consoles been under par for the course for about a decade, but we reached the limit of integrated computing output just over 7 years ago. things are now getting smaller yes, but not faster. in fact my CPU is slower than the single core i had in 2002, by enough of a margint hat id rather have that raw processing than the multithreading.

200£ for a PS4 or Xbone?!

Please tell me where you found that the PS4 or Xbone will be sold 200£... It will be more expensive than that. And as said before me, a 700$ PC is enough to play without worrying. On PC you often have the games with the DLC for free, games are cheaper, modding capabilities, and you can do a lot more than gaming with PC than with a console. On top of that after some years, you can change only your graphic card if you want more power, with console you need to wait 8 years and buy the whole thing again, even your games, accessories etc... So ok you pay less for your console when you buy it, but if you look on the long term, Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony are ripping you off.

You need 2k to build a pc? My

You need 2k to build a pc? My pc can run anything and I paid like 700$ including a mid-range videocard. Add the games which are less expensive on PC and it's much cheaper playing on PC and on any consoles plus adding the fact that gaming on PC gives you much more freedom thanks to all the modding, without having to pay monthly fees.. Am I a fanboy to you? In fact I'm just being realist and impartial.

A decent entry level system

A decent entry level system is around 700$, if you invest more into a good gpu/psu you can really max out some games. Nontheless, the argument here is the price of the games. I owned a 360 for years... and its far more expensive to own a console than a PC. Sure you pay what seems to be cheap for a AIO system, but than you have to pay for services, online services. Games are always top priced, DLC is always top priced, controllers, and any accessory is always top priced... it gets expensive. PC wise? we have deals... lots and lots of deals... steam sales, humble bundles, indie royals.. lots and lots of fucking deals that make consolers blush in envy. My steam account is well worth over 4,000$, and I never spent more than 250-300$ over the years buying during sales. You can't have those kind of sales on consoles. Ever. EVER!.

thats true and the beauty of

thats true and the beauty of it all is that you can make do with this and then next year with all the money you saved on not paying for xbox live and the 10-20 dollars a game premium you pay you can upgarde the gpu and hey presto awsome pc again

dont deny it

The 360 was the last console to actually match or surpass high end gaming pc's in 2005 to mid 2006. And it was the first to use unified shader based gpu on the market. In Nov 2006 the PS3 was released with a gimped G70 based gpu (ie Geforce 7800). However that same time frame as the PS3 Nvidia release the almighty 8800GTX which was nearly 3x faster then the 360 or PS3. Ever since then those consoles have been left in the dust. Now fast forward to 2013 MS and Sony are playing it smart by using whats available to fit their budgets and not taxing the power and heat limits of the console chassis's. We are not seeing the same performance ratio like we seen the the 360/PS3 this time around. The X1 and PS4 are sporting low tdp based cpu's with entry to mid tier gaming gpu's from last year. AMD put in a better bid then Nvidia did thats it AMD offered a cpu along with a gpu ie APU where Nvidia can only offer a gpu.... MS and Sony didnt want to spend millions more trying to a way to splice an IBM cpu with a Nvidia gpu or AMD cpu with Nvidia gpu when you can go to one place and get both in a single package. Nvidia isnt butthurt as some may think they can care less. AMD isnt going to get the money from X1/PS4 all at once but over a period of time. AMD financially isnt as secure as Nvidia because AMD also has to fight intel on the cpu and gpu front along with Nvidia , their cutting prices to make their cpu's and gpu's more appealing.

what you say is mostly

what you say is mostly correct but pcs did have the 7900 gtx in march of 2006 infact i had 2x in sli play cod 2 on 12x10 at 60fps was awesome . .this 7900 gtx was a far bit faster than the gimped 7800 gtx 256mb in the ps3 the xbox 360 on the other hand did have a x1800 gpu from ati although it did have the same crappy memeory on the chip fro AA free from performance hit but most studios didnt like using it at first cos it was difficult to program for

this is not entirely correct

this is not entirely correct NVidia was going to be the gpu provider msoft wanted however NVidia did not want the contract NVidia is working on r-n-d for their own consoles they have some sort of contract with steam and between working on the new pc gpus and tegras theuy didn't have enough time to deal with consoles look it up

Oh really?

I don't ever recall any console being on par with consumer pc's. Especially the PS2... at its peak. Pc processors were minimum 400mhz rocking pentium 3 chipcs... and the PS2? 294.9mhz at launch? LOL? faster than a PC? fucking moron! The PC has always been better than a console from the dawn of time.

Dont comment like a noob

Your argument is like the morons during AMD's hey day 'oh my 3.2 ghz pentium is faster than your 2.0 ghz athlon'.... GROW UP.!!! The architecture and OS of consoles and pc were vastly different before. A 30mhz ps1, easily competed with a 90mhz pentium 1 in terms of graphics capabilities.

Correct, the main difference

Correct, the main difference between the PS2 and a PC was the architecture. They were fundamentally different machines as PCs have a static instruction set while the PS2 had instructions provided dinamically to the CPU as well as data.

The architecture between the

The architecture between the PC and a console like the PS2 was not that different.that you are lead to believe. In reality the consumer Pc's of that time Like I said before were a minimum of 400mhz. I didn't say the maximum which was +600mhz. So when you say that the console had dynamic cpu instructions whereas the PC only had static is just retardly hilarious to say when you believe the architecture was that powerful over a personal computer. The logic behind the static process was mainly used for spreadsheet/word processing. Ps2 architecture processing was designed for media processing. So in reality you could say both architecture were either in draw or the PC architecture was ahead. You also need to realize that most developers couldn't use the PS2's architecture, because the learning curve was massive. So in reality most games at its time were never using peak processing of the architecture whereas the PC architecture was easier to create games for that didn't have that issue.

Actually, ZeroFrog from the

Actually, ZeroFrog from the pcsx2 team wrote an excellent piece about the differences between ps2 and pc hardware and why it's so hard to emulate it a few years back. I suggest you read it before posting your misplaced beliefs somewhere. I don't know what you mean by 'static process' but I don't think you understood what I was talking about because you just tried to claim the CISC architecture was created around spreadsheet and word processing. Also back then in the days of shader model 2 computer GPUS were crazy difficult to develop for, each had its own flavor of assembly for devs to learn.

Add new comment