Possible NVidia Link To PS3 Disputed

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Possible NVidia Link To PS3 Disputed

Posted by simoniker on Monday September 1, 2003 @03:55AM from the don't-even-think-about-it-say-no-go dept.

Thanks to Gamesindustry.biz for their report that a source close to Sony suggests nVidia's rumored involvement with the PlayStation 3 is 'ridiculous'. According to the article, which dismisses earlier analyst reports, the source claims "...it was a 'ridiculous suggestion' that Sony would look elsewhere for a designer and manufacturer for the graphics processor (GPU) for the future console. 'Sony has its own chip design teams and manufacturing facilities with massive experience in this sort of thing,' he commented. 'Lashing NVIDIA's technology onto the PS3 architecture would simply make no sense either technologically or commercially.'"

28 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Well, yeah... by GTRacer · 2003-09-01 04:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

'Lashing NVIDIA's technology onto the PS3 architecture would simply make no sense either technologically or commercially.'
-1, Duh.
Seriously, does nVidia (or ATI for that matter) make any non-PC graphics cards or chipsets? MS-ATI made sense as the Xbox is pretty much a PC but as all the 3rd-party PS2 developers already know, the PS2 is a unique beastie!
GTRacer
- It's the gameplay, stupid!

--
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
1. Re:Well, yeah... by DarkGamer20X6 · 2003-09-01 04:24 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  ATI made the chipset for the Gamecube. Look on the front of one; they bear the ATI logo in the lower corner.
2. Re:Well, yeah... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  And ATI will also provide the graphic component of the gamecube2 (or whatever it's called)
3. Re:Well, yeah... by silentbobdp · 2003-09-01 04:41 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Actually, ArtX did the GC's graphics, and was bought by ATi before the GC was actually released.
  
  It hasn't been announced yet that they're doing the Gamecube's successor, and I wouldn't expect it to be. There's a major conflict of interest there.
  
  --
  --Moo.
4. Re:Well, yeah... by My+name+isn't+Tim · 2003-09-01 06:53 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  actually ATi makes many non PC based chips, the Gamecube example has already been pointed out.
  but they also make graphics chips for PDAs and cell phones
  http://www.ati.com/products/handheld.html
  and chips for Digital TV
  http://www.ati.com/products/dtv.html
  and MPEG decoder/encoder chips and some others I can't think of right now...
That's Why I Doubted It by MBCook · 2003-09-01 04:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is exactly what I thought. Sony designed the chips for the PS1 and the PS2, why would they farm out the PS3? It would mean (among other things) sharing the profits. Why would they let their chip teams sit idly by why they send good money to 3rd parties that they, IHMO, don't even need.

--
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
1. Re:That's Why I Doubted It by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 06:47 · Score: 0
  
  This is exactly what I thought. Sony designed the chips for the PS1 and the PS2, why would they farm out the PS3?
  
  Maybe they actually listened to the developers who have been telling them what a nightmare POS the PS2 is to devel for compared to the Xbox.
2. Re:That's Why I Doubted It by JFMulder · 2003-09-01 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  Well I don't really know, but didn't Nintendo do their own stuff up until the GameCube? So Sony could have wanted to do that.
  
  But anyway, Sony has been telling everyone until their ears bleed that they're making the Cell processors/technology/thingy for almost two years now, so someone would have to be pretty clueless if he or she thought that Sony would ask nVidia for a whole GPU.
  
  As I said in another post, Sony may be interrested in knowing more about how to implement vertex and fragment shading efficiently in a GPU, since they probably never have done it themselves. But thinking that they would have nVidia make the whole GPU is just wishfull thinking.
3. Re:That's Why I Doubted It by The+Munger · 2003-09-01 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  They surely didn't design the PS1 chip. That was a MIPS processor (see here. I doubt they would have built it themselves either - why bother when they're being manufactured anyway (though I realise they certainly have the infrastructure to do so).
  
  While you mention that they have to share the profits, that also means they have to bear the cost of development. That said, they do have the infrastructure. We know they can do it. Who knows, maybe it will turn out that Sony have licensed some IP from nVidia or something. I agree it seems doubtful that Sony would just whack in their chips. Then again, stranger things have happened.
  
  --
  Refuse to make a statement in your sig!
Cell Technology by DarkGamer20X6 · 2003-09-01 04:29 · Score: 1

...and what about all those millions of dollars they spent with IBM and Toshiba, developing their "cell technology"? (Anyone have the figures for that?)

What? They're going to throw all that expensive research away and go with an Commercial Off-the-Shelf product? Um,...probably not.
1. Re:Cell Technology by GaimeGuy · 2003-09-01 06:41 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  here's the original announcement of the cell, claiming that 400 million dollars combined were already pledged the Cell. http://news.com.com/2100-1001-948493.html Here's a news story that the Ps3 will NOT use the Cell processor. http://ps2.ign.com/articles/394/394184p1.html And here's an a news story that Sony spent 1.6 billion dollars on a Cell production plant. http://www.zdnet.com.au/reviews/computers/componen ts/story/0,2000023499,20273860,00.htm
I still believe some part of it is true. by JFMulder · 2003-09-01 05:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

While Sony is developping their own GPU for the PS3, there was no doubt of that in my mind, they may be asking nVidia some sort of insights on vertex and fragment shading, since Sony has probably never implemented that kind of feature into hardware. So maybe they would ask nVidia to design some hardware to stick vertex and fragment shading to their cell processor. Sony may have deep pockets and a big workforce, if they realize that they don't have the resource of competences to deliver fast and cheap vertex and fragment shading hardware, they might turn to some people who do that for a living. Whether nVidia is a good company to turn to is another debate.
bob, that is INCORRECT. by GaimeGuy · 2003-09-01 05:57 · Score: 1

It was announced in March that a deal was struck between ATI and Nintendo, and reported on slashdot, as well. http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8103 I could go and find the ign link as well, but I'm too lazy.
Futureware, Rumorware by imperator_mundi · 2003-09-01 06:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

The deal between MS and ATI is annonced... and after a while rumor spreading begins...

PS2 overwhelms Xbox with a ratio that is somewhere in the 1 to 5 and at least in the near future it looks like hard that things will turn into a bed of roses for MS, so it's maybe in Redmond's interests to shift the attention to the next generation of game machines.

Nvdia is no longer the official chipmaker for the MS consoles... maybe producing for the first Xbox was not the King Mida's deal it seemed at first glance, but this isn't exactly the kind of news that makes shareholders explode of joy, and rumors about a possible deal with Sony for the PS3 will surely help theirs morale.

Sony on its side, after two sledgehammer consoles is working on number three, its position is of course enviable but its rivals are quite tough: a neverending cash company that usually crushs every competitor and a toymaker that has more fanatic disciples than an ayatollah and that year after year, despite a shrinking market share, earns tons of pokemoney... so if "mo' rumors mo' hype" still working (it should) mr. Kutaragi and friends will surely appreciate any kind of rumors about PS3.

Sounds a little a sort of "my rumors are bigger than yours" indeed.
1. Re:Futureware, Rumorware by AvitarX · 2003-09-01 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Also, Sony seems in no better a position now then Nintendo was when they fell from grace. Nintendo was on top of the world, untouchable with their 256 or so simulteaneous colors, and ready to sweep the world with a crazy powered 64 bit machine when Sony came in and cleaned their clock.
  
  We can only hope for Sony that they have good developer relations, or somebody could do some serious damage.
  
  I would also say that Nintendo is doing better this generation then last, I don't know about the numbers, but I see a lot more Game Cubes then N64's, and it is able to play games without them being scaled down, which means that any non-exclusives are available this time around.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Toy company? pokemoney? by GaimeGuy · 2003-09-01 06:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

riight. Nintendo has about 8 billion dollars in cash, and if you factor in assets, probably over 10 billion.
What's with calling them a "toy" company? They make video game consoles. and they earn money from not just pokemon, but all of their games, and liscensing fees to 3rd parties on the GBA and GC. Sorry if I sound like a fanboy, but calling Nintendo a "toy company" just sounds a little bit insulting when I hear it. Yeah, Nintendo is losing marketshare in consoles, but so is Sony, because there were THREE consoles this generation, not just two. If you factor in the GBA, Nintendo holds over 55 percent of the market share in the video game industry... kind of big for a simple toy company, no? :) Ok, I'm done now.
1. Re:Toy company? pokemoney? by imperator_mundi · 2003-09-01 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Mario and Zelda still selling in seven digits figures, that's right, and this is the fruit of the great legacy both series have, and the great legacy is the fruit of the massive success the old Big N consoles had.
  
  At present less people are playing Nintendo's game, in percent and even in absolute value, and less player today means a weaker legacy tomorrow... how many Mario Sunshine or Zelda more would Nintendo have sold if it had released them for the PS2... easily three or four times more.
  
  The GBA is a big hit but GC is the second worst seller in Nintendo history (if you the count the Virutal GB), and the mainstream are set by "house/hard/fix/dunnotherightword" consoles... mmmh well ther're some exception... pokemon for instance : )
The good old fifty-fifty. by krin · 2003-09-01 10:02 · Score: 1

I don't see the big hub-bub about the rumored Nvidia and Sony dealings.
But, I personally see no reason why Sony couldn't produce the GPU and develop it in some sort of partnership with Nvidia. I love my PS2 to death, but the graphics were never what they could have been, and now it's just hopelessy aging. I can really see Sony developing the Playstation 3 after the Xbox, basically a stripped down PC. They'd be fools if they release their next incarnation without a hard drive and network adapter out of the box (something the PS2 should have had, but wasn't a big loss in the long run). If they do go the Xbox route, would it be so hard to believe that they might look to Nvidia for a GPU built around the GF3/4 core with improvments? Whatever happens, I'm sure it'll be a good system. And as long as they release fun games I'm sold.

--
There is no spork.
Marketing over technology. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 10:54 · Score: 0

The Playstation 2 is a primitive, clunky, underpowered, backwards machine that only really thrived through superior marketing. It's a real shame that it won the next-generation console wars (it doesn't even have mip-mapping and full-screen antialiasing).

Looks like Sony is getting set to do it again. Nintendo and Microsoft both had far better approaches to a modern console design, it's just a real pity their marketing and the image they projected did not live up to their technical achievements.
Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 11:37 · Score: 0

Maybe Sony needs Nvidia to add a a few digits to the increase in processor power over the PS2. When you're going for 1000 times more power every little bit helps.
Rename the games by Lord_Dweomer · 2003-09-01 11:39 · Score: 3, Funny

If Nvidia made the cards for the ps2 they'd have to rename all the games to 3dmark03.exe.
I feel bad for making that joke now because I have Nvidia stock.

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
no use except by LordMyren · 2003-09-01 13:29 · Score: 1

making the ps3 architecture programmable by sane human beings.

what's ps2's biggest fault (besides no VGA adapter)? being INSANELY DIFFICULT to program for. standardize jerks.
1. Re:no use except by PainKilleR-CE · 2003-09-02 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  what's ps2's biggest fault (besides no VGA adapter)?
  
  There is a VGA adapter available for the PS2 (not directly from Sony afaik, but there is one). In fact, a quick Google search brought up a number of them, though except for generic adapters (ie adapters that would convert anything that had standard video outputs) I could only find one when I bought it a couple years ago. Unfortunately, the one I found used one of the memory card ports for power and wasn't very good (sometimes the video would go out in the middle of a game and you had to flip the converter between signals, sometimes a couple times, before it worked again).
  
  Either way, I have never seen a PS2 adapter that will handle 640x480 as well as the DreamCast did.
  
  --
  -PainKilleR-[CE]
2. Re:no use except by LordMyren · 2003-09-02 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  i could've sworn they were all just upconvertors, that ps2 was unable to output 640x480.
  
  bless the dreamcast.
3. Re:no use except by PainKilleR-CE · 2003-09-02 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I believe you're right, and I had no coffee until 11:30 this morning ;)
  
  Either way, the adapter I had couldn't even keep a steady video signal for very long, I'd hope that most of them are better than that.
  
  For a while I really considered picking up one of the more multi-purpose units, but it was cheaper to buy a large TV and a video switch (and despite the lack of resolution on a standard TV, bigger is better for most console games).
  
  --
  -PainKilleR-[CE]
4. Re:no use except by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-10 10:28 · Score: 0
  
  Not insanely difficult. Just different from PC's and Unix-boxes, where the programmers rely on libraries(often written by someone else) and the compiler. The difficult part was to actually think about one's solutions, instead of just do an OpenGL connect-the-dots. That's one of the things that irks me with games that rely on DirectX or OpenGL, you can instantly spot which API is being used because of how the image looks, texture blurring etc. One DirectX 8 game looks like the umpteen other DirectX 8 games. Games that use OpenGL 1.1 looks like all the other games that use OpenGL 1.1, because the textures all wind up with the same kind of blur etc.
  
  What the PS2 gave developers was absolute freedom of expressing the graphical representation of the world. And there were libraries available almost from the start, such as Renderware. Myself, I like the PS2, just for the fun in exploring the true capabilities of the hardware, and write a system that does it exactly the way I want it, instead of the way an API programmer limited it. Yes, API's cut down on development time. But also consider what kind of limits API's can impose.
Sony experience by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 17:15 · Score: 0

'Sony has its own chip design teams and manufacturing facilities with massive experience in this sort of thing,' he commented.
Translation: Sony wasn't willing to license the patent for jaggies to Nvidia.
Exactly, R&D isn't cheap! by WoTG · 2003-09-01 19:03 · Score: 1

Just as a (very) rough point-of-reference, Nvidia spends about $57M a quarter on research and development, according to Yahoo!Finance. Granted, a lot of this cost is related to reference board designs and multiple generations and lines of chips so it's not a perfect comparison. Still, my point is that current high-end graphics technology is expensive to develop and getting more expensive every year.

It could make a lot of sense for Sony to license some IP. I agree, that they're quite unlikely to purchase "chips" from nVidia. Sony would probably want to keep the option of integrating everything into fewer chips in the future.