AMD hardware gives them backwards compatibility to PS4.. Given there has barely been a worthwhile current gen only game - backwards compatibility is a crucial feature for the console and it wouldn't have the same importance in people's gaming rooms without it.
Tragedy is both major consoles uses AMD. Of I mean PS4 era. Bc now backwards compatibility is big thing so they stuck in AMD. Imho if one of both major console used NVIDIA we have better variety, more tech war etc
@@jarde1989it practically is. Console games are not PC games. They are made for that specific hardware. The reason PS5 and Xbox Series backwards compatibility with PS4 and Xbox One respectively improves performance without any tinkering is because they used an evolution of the architecture with some specific hardware things for backwards compatibility. It uses the higher clocks of the new consoles to bost performance, but that is simply not possible with a switch to Nvidia, that would require the games to be ported. Thousands of them, some by developers who don’t exist anymore. PC games are made with Directx, Vulkin, Open GL in mind, AMD, Intel, and Nvidia GPUs, and AMD and Intel CPUs, more cashe, less cashe, more RAM etc, meant to work backwards and forwards (to a point) because it’s ‘one’ platform. PC (Windows).
The lackluster backwards compatibility on playstation is a real shame. They have arguably the best library of old games, but it can't even play PS3 games without cloud streaming. Nintendo and Sony are miles behind Xbox in that respect.
@@joamettorresortiz9271 I do think it’s fair to expect the switch 2 with some sort of nVidia DLSS enchancement to get somewhere between a PS4 Pro and Ps5; though I worry about what kind of battery life that would lead to on such a large fabrication as has been leaked, and might only be used while in docked mode…
Even as an Nvidia owning pc gamer of +20 years, I don't think it's as bleak for AMD as Alex is making it out. This is because unfortunately half of Nvidias cool features shown never get widely supported until the AMD based consoles have an equivalent feature. I remember cool nvidia demos showing off features that barely had game support until years later when ps3 X360 shipped or years later when ps4/x1 shipped. Examples include displacement maps, Nvidia Hairworks, physX, tressfx, and half a dozen other features over the last 20 years pioneered or supported/adopted 1st by nvidia only sporadically being supported in pc games, until the consoles have the capability and horsepower to implement them. has the luxury of being the lead platform. Of course some features will be more widely adopted than others, but I suspect neuralmaterials and neuralfaces will be among the features that sadly don't get widespread support, unless ps6 and Xbox next get them.
It takes 5+ years to make a game. Obviously if they are in the middle of that cycle, these features may not be implemented in that current development cycle. Sony didn't originally think the PS5 needed RT capability, but it was pressed that it did, giving an indication of where developers were going with the games in the future. PS5 Pro doubled down, and now AMD is as well. Perhaps it can be the other way around, with hardware trying to catch up with where the software is going (In AMDs case). I don't at all think everyone waits on AMD to make a decision before they implement anything, and if anything, time is showing AMD/Sony making decisions to catch up with everyone else. Keep in mind, just because a new tech is announced, doesn't mean it is realistic for everyone to stop what they are doing and implement it, if it is simple implementation, you may see it sooner rather than later. Still this idea everyone is waiting on AMD consoles, I just don't see it. If anything I seen consoles change for developers (like when Sony only wanted 4gb on the PS4 and developers said no, it needs 8gb).
Alex is taking too much Nvidia D in his mouth. Deepseek proved how nvidia is just pumping hardware because of their bad optimization on AI that is not needed and now their stocks are shit. Nvidia lied to us all.
cause only nintendo knows how to make games unlike high powerd pc getting same quality as sony and xbox gets ...so much for mid range specs when it requires 5090 to brute force all flaws from game devs
@@Kpopboppin-bw8iv Handheld Consoles have always outsold Home Consoles. And these are at similar performance, just compare: NES vs Gameboy SNES vs GBA N64 vs NDS GameCube vs 3DS Wii vs N/A WiiU vs NSwitch Total vs Total ....the market prefers the sales of Handhelds.
The reason I feel Sony decided to use PSSR, is to maintain its Backward Compatibility in future console as they have control over the technology. For example, the Nintedo games that use DLSS in Switch 2 - if Nintendo decides to move away from nvidia, how will those titles work on hardware that doesn't support DLSS. Or the new FSR 4 that is hardware dependent unlike FSR 3.
Yes and no. As it’s a joint venture with AMD and based on AMD architecture, the two are intertwined. Sony would be able to jump ship to another vendor and reasonably take PSSR in it’s current iteration with them.
@@ForTheViolence Wish they could afford? Sony and Microsoft are much bigger than Nintendo. Sony likes going AMD because the semi custom architecture they can offer is more what PlayStation wants. Nvidia isn't as flexible or willing to be as collaborative with chip architecture. Nvidia don't have their own cpu architecture, relying on ARM designs for their apu's. There are a lot of reasons why Sony goes to AMD. Sony isn't interested in using someone else's proprietary software to properly utilize the hardware they put the R&D and money effort into
Here's you talking like a billionaire in Beverly hill with a shitty normal paying job just like everyone else. Acting like some kind of elite with delusions of grandeur self entitlement
@@lharsay Nintendo is using hardware with older architecture and bigger node. Those points let them go cheaper, but remember that this solution gets them weaker hardware.
Ignoring backwards compatibility on a hardware level, features like DLSS are dangerous for Sony to adopt even on Nvidia hardware. A company like Sony wants more control, wants to be in charge, if things fail, they don't want to be stuck with Nvidia like that. Just a big business risk for them, a risk they don't have to take.
NVIDIA is handing ML models for free, I bet that if you pay they would have no problem to give DLSS ones not to mention that Sony is a big company and can train it's own by themselves once they have accelerators in their consoles to run it
They don’t really have a choice as AMD is the only one who can provide a CPU + GPU SoC, to make the PS5 an Nvidia powered they would have to get a separate CPU from Intel or AMD which cost more to make than a single SoC.
@ it will be a headache to use ARM when the PS4 is x86 so backwards compatibility is important specially there are not a lot of PS5 games in its first couple of years, they are mostly patched PS4 games.
@@ChristopherZarate-g1s I agree, so the reason why AMD was choosen needs to be ajusted. Therefore, AMD is the only one who could provide an x86_64 SOC, since NVIDIA also makes SOCs.
@@tagodain x86 should become obselete, Apple has already proven that ARM is the future. All our phones are ARM. The consoles should have been ARM in 2013.....but they will become ARM too in 2 generations, just like the switch.
Transformer DLSS is such an improvement it will be hard for anyone to get a jump on Nvidia at this point. Of course, AI upscaling used in games are precisely those games where more people value image quality.
DLSS is so many steps above everyone now in terms of quality, performance, hardware and game compatibility. It is sad how no one else even comes close.
@@wizzenberry No need to get defensive man, it's alright. Companies can always catch up, it isn't a final determination that they never will. Have patience, and just know it isn't on you to be a company defender. If they pay you to do so, sure definitely. If you are unpaid though, try to enjoy your life instead as these corps don't care or likely even want anything to do with you outside of whats in your wallet. If PSSR was this amazing, forward thinking tech... do you think DF would had talked about it as such? Do you think they would had noticed? They go to these events and see first hand, and even they are saying companies are looking like 5 years behind.
I feel like if Nvidia was allowed to buy ARM, and started making their own CPU’s to go with their GPU’s, it would have been a very different landscape.
@ yes, they have a partnership, but Nvidia wanted to buy ARM entirely. This would have put Nvidia in a very powerful position where they’d be making chips for Apple, other cell phones that use ARM designs, and of course the Switch.
Imo the only really valuable thing Nvidia has over competition is their upscaler. Frame gen is not going to stick regardless of how much they push it, it's fundamentally limited in so many ways that it's going to stay either a "rich get richer" thing or as the last resort for weaker machines. Ray reconstruction is still useful only for 500$+ gpus, and even then so many people turn off full ray tracing for more fps, it's not as important as the upscaler. All the other "neural" stuff is still very experimental and is ~5 years away at least from wide adoption. People vastly overestimate how much nvidia is ahead right now.
Na. Amd and sony got something cool going on. We will be happy with what they put together for the ps6. What kind of retracing will we have gotten if they used Nvidia for the PS5 anyway? Was too early for anyone.
True, they would have risked BC for about 30% better raytracing that wouldn't have made things that much easier for devs, but PS6 may deliver enough lift to allow RT Global illumination and shadows in every game, making work a little easier for devs
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombat disappointing current gen??? in games it could be true but that's because games take longer to make hardware nope. Both console came out in 2020 and have great hardware for that time.
@@coffee7180 Yeah I don't agree either. Gamers are such entitled pieces of ****. They wanted the extra power put towards 60fps, and then complained that graphics weren't better. Let's be real, they will never be happy until they get the performance of a $3,000 PC, for a cost of $299 in a console. They may even complain then, if a generation after they don't get a $4,000 PC into a $299 console. A current day gamer, I'm convinced stares at spreadsheet numbers and hangs out on social media all day to talk about price 2 performance ratios for RaSteR, while crapping on AI and then turning around and turning on all the AI feature sets, or demanding them to get better (for free of course).
Trying to downplay everything about consoles or amd typical Nvidia shills. Multi frame gen what a joke like we need more ghosting and more fake frames.
Even if you ignore ps4 compatibility, I belive the Chance of Nvidia being in a PS5 or PS6 was never really above zero. The 6650xt has the same performance as the 4060 even though it was has almost half the transistor count (11Billion vs 19B). Nvidia simply cant compete with AMD in terms of cost or design efficiency. Ohh and %95+ of console owners cant tell the difference between a well implemented fsr3 and dlss at 4K. DLSS value is mostly noticeable at 1080p where its not really used.
Lmao Sony historically hated working with NVidia back with the PS3. That was forever ago, but still. Also the economics would look entirely different. Microsoft, Sony and AMD, over the course of more than a decadehave worked out a way to put AMD hardware in their system that works. It can be reasonably cheap because AMD needs these relationships and will do anything to hold them. No one likes working with NVidia lmao.
they don't like working with nvidia because they're used to being the one who can strongarm everyone else into accepting their demands while nvidia doesn't exactly need their money and can dictate what terms they're willing to accept.
@@darudesandstorm7002 Got solid proof for that speculation? Nvidia cannot provide the unified architecture needed for a console is more of factual reason for why they dont use nvidia.
I know we're talking about Sony and the performance of the PS3, PS4, and PS5. However just need to say Sony's Business Model has been in evolution since the original PS1. It is Microsoft which has largely remained consistent with the Xbox. Provide the fastest hardware, at the earliest date, for the best price. They did this with the Xbox in Q3-2001, then Xbox 360 in Q4-2005. They really needed to release the XB1 hardware back in like Q4-2011. Then they should have released the XSS hardware in like Q4-2017. While the XSX gets an upgrade to 32GB Shared RAM and released in Q3-2021 which would have been fine against the 2020 PS5. So I guess, Microsoft is also changing business models. They likely will release an XB6 for 2028, but they've got two-feet in the door for Cloud Gaming. That may be acceptable in the days of Home Fiber Internet, Satellite Streaming, Worldwide 5G and emerging 6G connectivity.
Not everyone has access to those things. The US (because that's where I live) would need to make those things mandatory for internet companies to offer for an affordable price.
@JeannieLove Almost everyone has access to the internet. So in this decade, it is available to certain people to experience an acceptable level of Cloud Streaming. In the next decade, this will be available to most users.
If you think PS5 is pricey already with AMD APU, imagine how it would be with Nvidia, pretty sure they thought of that already and decided to stick to AMD for that very reason 😂
When Nvidia disappeared from consoles after the Xbox (original), the signs there were that they were asking for too much money. Seeing as Samsung does not pay Nvidia for its use of Gsync in its TVs, I am also guess their licensing is not cheap. If Nvidia chips end up in consoles again, there will be a steeper price increse.
@@zachb1706 The original Xbox did, and then they moved to AMD for all the consoles from Sony and Micro, bar one. The only one that did go back to Nvidia was the PS3.
@@zachb1706 They basically went with, "who can do it cheaper" I think the only reason Sony went with Nvidia with the PS3 is because of the bluray. They needed a chip to run that side well, and they also knew if Bluray took off (people were impressed) Sony Bluray players would sell more (Sony is one of the main investors/owners of Bluray) AI tech-wise, Sony and Micro want Nvidia, but if the cost is too high, that will pass on to us, and people will not be happy.
AMD often has more raw hardware power than Nvidia. They lag however in software, which is less an issue with consoles. There Sony and developers have enough time and incentives to squeeze all available performance from the chips.
The same Netflix devs have said why they are betting on AMD in servers. In general, companies that write software for themselves prefer solutions from AMD
On the flip side had Sony gone with Nvidia they would have had significantly less powerful hardware for the same price. Or the console would have cost $1000+ for the base for similiar performance. Nvidia chips come with a premium.
The only big plus AMD has still going on PC is Linux/Steam OS compatibility. For consoles it might be over as soon as NVIDIAs integrated SOC ARM Cores get fast enough in single thread performance.
There’s obviously the backwards compatibility they maintain by staying AMD, but they’ve also usually shown the produce cards of the similar performance to Nvidea for lower costs. Now, it will be interesting with the PS6, because with how AMD is currently no longer focusing on developing high end gpu, we may see a console actually match the best gpu from the house gen that’s out at the same time.
Short answer NO. Whoever went nvidia(nintendo) always had to settle for inferior 5+ year old hardware because of how much they charge for their chips (switch and switch 2) being already outperformed by steam OS handhelds because its essentially 5 year+ old hardware AT LAUNCH because of nvidia pricing. Meanwhile PS5, PRO was the latest and greatest from AMD at the time , and steam based handhelds already beat the switch , and switch is onky surviving on its exclusives and game library investments made by gamers... Sodtware can be written later. Whats harder is having the hardware to run the software on .
You can already get Multi frame gen on AMD.. turn on AFMF2 and then go in game and turn on frame gen and magic,you get multi frame gen, you don't even need to use FSR either if it's 3.1+, it will work better when FSR4 comes out.
@@bes12000 there’s quite a significant difference. AMD’s FG is blurrier and has way more artifacts, and that’s compared to DLSS 3 FG Also sometimes really poorly implemented, like in COD. Enabling AMD’s FG in that without a frame rate limit like doubles your input latency it feels awful.
@@zachb1706 I saw someone enable multi frame gen with a new 5090 and the latency was like 12, if I enable it on my system with a 7900XTX my latency is 5 with double frame gen, I can use it in Cyberpunk and can actually get Path tracing, I been playing with the feature for a long time, since the first beta implementation of the AMD driver. ..So we will just agree to disagree. There are also AMD features that AMD released that are similar to Nvidia, but AMD never heavily advertised it and they can be found on AMD's developer website..
even IF sony are kicking themselves, then what? neither nvidia nor intel have the footing to support a new console launch with nvidia hardware. could you image the astronomical costs involved if sony chose nvidia. there is a reason AMD has been the choice for console for a long time (cost) unless nvidia can somehow make a console or provide the chips to sony/microsoft at fractions of a cost without somehow dumping the cost onto consumers then AMD wont be pushed out of the console space for a long time.
No, Mark Cerny is not "kicking himself" lmao. Love these children who have zero idea about the realities of running a business asking questions like this lol
Nvidia console would cost double unless it’s a super low powered mobile chip like switch. Then people would whine there wasn’t any graphical improvement over the past gen. Makes no sense unless consoles start charging pc prices which is unlikely.
Microsoft and Sony already used Nvidia hardware for the original Xbox and PS3 respectively. And from what I understand, Nvidia likes to charge a hefty price for their stuff. Plus, when thinking about the Next-Gen for PS4 and Xbox One. AMD had a full stack (CPU, GPU etc) available with very good performance.
You know yourself that AMD was not the only option for Sony and Microsoft. They clearly tested the other solutions from Nvidia and Intel (especially Microsoft who never had much connections to AMD) and found out, that for what ever they were looking for, AMD was the only right choice. Intel was for sure to weak and unstable while Nvidia probably too expensive and probably zero compatibility for an powerful enough APU. Furthermore, AMD is offering case to case solutions. Raytracing and other Features beyond FSR, were just not a thing that Consoles with that powerenvelope needed 5 or 6 years ago. Consoles were and are still not PC's (Microsoft tried it and failed). They are very specialized devices with their own OS. You dont need a Titan-class GPU with all the sh... from an Titan-class-card toned heavily down, just to hit price to performance parity. This is what Nvidia does. A unified card, where separation means, stripping down the CUDA-features, while AMD is building very specific Chips for each Manufacturer (Sony, Microsoft, Valve etc.), based on what TSMC can offer of course. They are "small" enough that they can afford to do something like that. Well, things can change when Nvidia brings out their own ARM-based-APU somewhere 2026, that is not build on the foundation of a Titan-card, but until then, the dice have already fallen for the next generation of Consoles like the PS6. But we might get Nvidia on a PS7 if they are really cheap and powerfull enough and can bring all the features that a Console needs in, maybe, 2035 or so (compatibility, low power, low noise, durability, affordability etc...) And again, Consoles: The Hardware are very rarely what holds them back. The Games are the problems. We have more than enough examples that showcases, that Graphics are always second place on consoles. People are willing to play on waaaay more underdeveloped hardware if the games are just good enough to keep them entertained. People are even willing to play on Emulators from China, just to experience the games that they want to play and not get anymore. There is a whole market for people like that. Stop emphasizing Hardware that much, especially when it comes down to consoles, where the main feature is the software that it has heavily to rely on.
Going with Nvidia would have meant no backward compatibility on the the PS5, also would have meant either more expensive or even less powerful hardware (or both), though likely better RT performance, so no I don't think Sony regret sticking with AMD this round. Though it is interesting Sony decided to use their own PSSR instead of partnering with AMD and FRS4, though it's possible the ML inside the new Pro consoles is not the same.
As other have said. I doubt ps5 using Nvidia gpu would been that much better. Sure DLSS might been bit better or sharper, but FSR 3x and Sony own scalers are just as good Imo when devs put the proper homework into it. Most Nvidia features have been mostly Ignored or not widely used, like physx or hair works, both been kinda forgotten about. Staying with AMD made backwards compatible posssble with ps4 games. Going with Nvidia gpu would have broken many ps4 games being playable on ps5/pro. And last note. A Nvidia does not care about gamers anymore. They care more about AI and servers along with cloud stuff. Not gamers. Both RTX 4xxx and RTX 5xxx are scam imo. They continued Jack prices up, making you Paying More primer prices for cut down performance. Adding fakes frames to primer prices. Imo last best Nvidia GPUs was RTX 3xxx imo.
@SWOTHDRA Yeah Kinda, Consider 3xxx was on 8nm node from samsung, and it was just refresh of their 10/12nm. But If I had choice, I'd rather take a new 3090 to replace my old GTX 1080ti right now, cus at least its not ticking time bomb with their shit new power plug, which would just slowly cook it self. I don't doubt if 5090 will also have same issue consider they draw even more power lol. Even if Nvidia says they fixed it. Lol No. But last I checked 3090 here canada are going for $2200 Canadian or more. LOL no pass.
All that stuff would be great if Nvidia price to performance ratio wasn't so god awful. VRAM limitations and raster performance are lacking compared to AMD counterparts in the PC space. With a proper AI upscaler, consoles are fine.
No. At the end Sony needs control over scaling solutions. If Sony needs to switch to something like imagination technologies, they need to be able to do so. If they are dependent on amd or Nvidia solutions they will be stuck on their hardware
I think for the console makers, Nvidia is more of a threat than a partner (excluding Nintendo ofc). For Microsoft and Sony, AMD’s more hands off and iterative approach to software is likely a positive, since it gives them the freedom to define their own platform, whereas with Nvidia, they’d get locked in, especially with how insular and proprietary Nvidia likes to keep things. In a lot of ways Nvidia is much like Intel at the height of their power, so obsessed with expansion and total dominance that they alienated partners and exceeded the bounds of their core business.
Thing is, nvidia tech is only for partners, which means big studios, which means big budget productions, which means minimum viable product is kicked out the door asap, which means actual advancements aren't stable till the next gen of GPUs is released, which means older hardware isn't up to snuff when it comes to the actual implementation, thus nvidia needs to develop more capability, which means more costly hardware, which in turn brings us to the initial step. I'll wait for all this to fizzle out into something more viable with long term support in mind. Everyone's sandbagging cause of nvidia's wake, seems like.
Deliver us the Moon, the first game with DLSS 2.0 mentioned in this video, was developed by a team of 90 core developers. That's not a big studio these days.
@@no1DdC 90 devs small ? i work in dev and i WISH there were this much devs around... all you get is interns and if you count them as devs think again.
Honestly AMD is sometjing everyone would use in the console space because the green tax would not be worth it. Nintendo choosing Nvidia then and staying now is cost reasons and no doubt Nvidia wanting to stay in the console space to some degree. The chip Nintendo chose was old and proven. The reason to stay with Nvidia now for Switch 2 isn't BC. Nintendo would have cut it out if they wanted. They stayed I'm betting because Nvidia wouldn't want to tarnish that relation and because they would be out of the console business entitely for a generation.
If deepseek has proven anything its that these AI advancements arent as far off or impossible to reach as market leaders like nvidia would have you believe
I would love to see a Nvidia run console with all those bells and whistles. But the biggest roadblock is really price. Throw Nvidia in there and you end up with outdated tech like the Switch is doing to keep pricing down, or you end up with some crazy prices in the console space. We already saw how people reacted to a 700 dollar Pro. I do think there is a market for a PC console hybrid or something powered by Nvidia that offers a lot more bang, even at higher pricing. Like I play on PC but I do like couch play sometimes as well. Imagine buying one copy of a game and having it available on your handheld, your PC, and your living room console. With most games coming to PC now anyway and things like Steam OS streamlining the UI, the sky’s the limit. Although if we ever saw one you can bet Sony’s going to stop porting games that’s for sure. Lol. I could see this as the future though with Sony and Xbox both just going the publisher route. PC gaming has been outpacing console growth for years and devs like Capcom releasing that they sell more games on PC than all 3 consoles combined was kind of insane. But as the player demographic gets much wider with an aging audience with disposable income and the desire for top end specs in recent years, it’s unsurprising. Especially with Sony and XBox bringing all their stuff over so you basically get it all.
Why should they regret, had the PS being in the price bracket of 1K-1.5K, as per todays tech and that in past 5 years, nVidia would be choice. But, the consoles are in about USD400-600 bracket, and here nVidia cannot compete, as AMD has much better package/tech in terms of price/performance, and maybe AMD is more willing to share tech info with Sony than nVidia is. Just my thoughts.
Well. Remember PS3? Nvidia played Sony, so I think that relationship is Burnt. Pretty sure that AMD will release their machine learning to compete with Nvidia. Plus and does grunt work that does not add much lag on the PS system.
I doubt anyone at Sony regrets going with AMD. Their partnership allows for extensive customization. If the Switch is any example, Nvidia offers an off-the-shelf part, which would not give PlayStation the "secret sauce" they need to compete.
Why would they regret it? It's not about whatever Alex thinks it's about. Nvidia doesn't need help, AMD does though. The reason Mark Cerny gave sounded awfully noble.
Dudes, I understand your hype for new tech but at this point that is the least thing devs have to worry about when they re making a game. Graphics have come far enough and frankly a lot of older uglier games had better and more complex mechanics. Games look good enough the focus should be new mechanics and constant performance. If nvidia had not come up with RT a lot of games would look and perform better on middle end hardware
They aren't, same with Microsoft. Nvidia doesn't have a hardware equivalentthey could use and it would most likely increase console prices quite a bit for basicly the same performance since a bunch of higer end RTX GPU features are useless for consoles. I don't get why console players suddenly act like every game need to be 4k 120fps max settings, just because of a bunch of last gen ports or muktiplat games run at 60. It will be the same thing with every console generation, early multiplats run well and then current gen only games will slowly perform worse because devs will push more and more for visuals becasue millions of casuals can barely even tell or care if a game runs at 30 or 60. But people just expect magic from a 500 dollar gaming box and to somehow keep up with a 2000 dollar gaming PC.
You praise NVIDIA for these new features, and maybe someone will finally say that this shit doesn't work, games have been looking the same for five years. They probably make these functionalities for themselves, because probably no one implements them correctly in games.
Yes, Nvidia has all these multi-letter enhancements and SO WHAT? Did it make games actually any better? Has Nintendo ceased to exist just because they use objectively worse hardware?
Yes, on PC games look way better played and perform better on a modern pc using an Nvidia gpu over using an equivalent AMD gpu. I'm talking specifically the huge image quality advantage DLSS has over FSR. As well as the performance advantage that Nvidia has over AMD in ray traces games.
for AMD the holy grail would be if they can backport FSR4 to RDNA2 and use it on ps5/xbox. AMD did say they had interest in getting FSR4 to work on pre RDNA4 hardware and that would be quite the accomplishment.
remember how arrogant sony engineers are, if they took nvidia GPU instead of AMD they couldn't really add something to upscalers or frame generation, and the funniest part is probably that PSSR looks worse than the first look of FSR4, so no sony didn't really regrets this because it could have created conflict in their engineers team
AMD research project / Amethyst will pay dividends 1) AI upscaling tech for handhelds ( steamdeck, ally, etc. Even ps portal) 2) For PS6, it will be a generational leap and probably the best emulation and backwards compatibility upscaler
dlss was so bad with every start and dlss was never "insanly" more better than fsr, specially when you dont have to use dlss because your gpu has enough vram for native rendering. shills fall into the "but software" trap. And everything was without AI, how much does that say about "Ai sOfTwaRe".
Just stop with increasing graphics fidelity. PS1 started on SD resolution, PS2 perfected it. PS3 ushered HD resolution, PS4 perfected it. PS5 trying the 4K resolution, PS6 should perfected it and that's it. I don't think 8K or 16K are gonna ever needed. They should use AI power to make bots (or NPCs) to behave more like real human, both for multiplayer and single-player games.
With Sony, that's probably not going to happen. Before the release of the PS5, they were touting how powerful it was, saying it was possible to play 8K games on it. They recently removed the 8K label on the PS5 box, but it shows what direction they are aiming for. Besides, Sony and Microsoft have historically tried to keep up with PC gaming, and with Nvidia pushing hardware limits along with upscaling and multi frame generation, Sony will try to follow, even though 8k gaming will obviously be a compromise to framerates and overall image complexity.
@LeeLee-fi7mx That's true. But that was before people realise how powerful AI is gonna be in a few years. I would rather PlayStation embraces AI for any other things beside super-resolution and frame generation. I mean, resolution and fps won't hurt, but 4K 60fps is more than enough for virtually everybody especially on consoles where most players are casuals (instead of pixel peepers.) I hope the fact that they removed the 8K label means they're no longer chasing it as it was intended originally. I saw videos on TH-cam where AI filter was put on top of gameplay clips and they do work wonder for especially hair. Hair is extremely difficult to be made work in traditional polygons simply because of the nature of it. Hair has almost no depth / no thickness, comes in thousands strands on each character, and moves like crazy. They bob and weave and are impossible to be motion captured. If they want to implement AI, this is the place, because the result is mindblowingly impressive. Way more impressive than 8K 240fps that most eyes can't even percieve.
I think because it was overwhelming the presentation that that also could be a blinding tactic. What of it is actually useful for me in gaming? Framegen useless or I already have 80 FPS, then it latency can be ok, but I do not need it at this point the upscaler can be useful, but how far is it supported by games? Also how many people will play it with expensive nvidia hardware? Most games use rasterization, where AMD shines more than the newest Nvidia generation except the 5090, which is way too expensive for me. Intel also offers more bang for buck at 1440pixels, as far as I have heard. For ne in gaming software features are nice to have, but native fps have to be ok first and foremost otherwise I can not play online games well, nor reaction based local games. To me most features seem like a distraction. Like free games with your GPU. That should not be the reason to buy a GPU unfortunately humans brain is not super great at this stuff. That we can get easily distracted by shiny new things, even when it turns out to be a mirage in this desert of decently priced GPUs.
Why should Sony regret anything? There is much more to a console than just AI stuff. I know Nvidia does not want you to believe that, because its what makes the tons of money and balooned their stock prices. Their GPUs at this point are basically a waste product of their AI stuff. Just look at reviews for 5090 and 5080, without the fake frames, they are nothing new. Sony has great engineers and developer and can develop their own solution instead of becoming depentent one someone else that does not care and proably takes an arm and leg during licencing. There are clear advantages to building their own stuff, like id does with their great, purpose-build engine instead of everybody just rushing to Unreal until Tencent decides they want to make more money out of it.
Neural rendering is the future of the company. I think switch 2 will have something about this tech to making it a baseline for any studio pipeline. And this will impulse windows arm nvidia laptops with tensor cores and maybe dlaas the best cost efficency platforms for gaming. But they need to incentivise developers to adopt RTX Kit as a standard; that's why Switch 2 is important for Nvidia.
Imagine Sony using Nvidia GPU. Let us give Nvidia the best chance for success. Let's assume that everything is the same except for the GPU architecture and backward compatibility can be achieved using Nvidia GPU (the CPU is AMD, the process is TSMC 7nm instead of the relatively worse Samsung 8nm being used on Ampere, and Sony paid the same price for going with Nvidia instead of AMD), what people need to remember is that to have those tensor cores and RT cores, it cost transistor, thus going with Nvidia design the actual compute performance will be much weaker (RX 7600 has 13.3M transistor, 4060 has 18.9M transistor). So if they go with Nvidia, PS5 probably will have like 8TF of compute and they will compete with 12TF Xbox Series X. Yes, PS5 with Nvidia GPU will have better upscaling, better raytracing, but how much useful RT in 8TF GPU? While DLSS provides better quality, but at typical seating distance for console player, which is much further than PC player, FSR or even any other non ML upscaling tech is good enough thus I don't see why someone would be really fixated on DLSS in this particular situation. If Sony want to match the performance of AMD GPU on raster but using Nvidia, well, say goodbye to the $500 launch price. Those are already with what I think the best scenario. The reality is if they are going with Nvidia it will be more complicated. If Sony want to go with a SoC design then most likely they will need to change to ARM CPU, thus not only Sony need to think the backward compatibility for the GPU but also the CPU. The SoC cost itself probably going to be higher vs if they went with AMD and this is assuming the chip size and process are the same since Nvidia historically has charged more for their chips vs AMD. I can only see an inferior console if Sony went with Nvidia and try to target $500 price. Nintendo has their own market thus can do whatever they wanted, but Sony has direct competition with MS, making the SoC performance very important.
Please SONY'S or Japanese corp or tech COMPLEX use there own AI learning to semiconductor chip's too. Engines etc micro chips to graphics card to graphics powers etc. Don't rely on OVERPRICED western GARBAGE tech etc az usual & COMPETITION too.
Or throw a bone to intel. Could actually have some interesting side effects. MS could get a good price advantage, intel could get much needed experience and help with drivers. Would also help assure sufficient market of scale for a larger GPU design.
What kind of question is this? Sony going for a custom PSSR doesn't mean Mark Cerny is kicking himself for choosing AMD, it just means Sony has more control over the software stack which has been a huge strength of Playstation since PS4 (devs have for years praised the ease of use of their SDKs) Also, just because AMD doesn't compete in the high end hardware doesn't mean they don't compete in the low to mid end segment, arguably the most important for pushing tech to the masses, and for pushing the lowest common denominator forward... most tech that is demoed on PC just isn't widely adopted until it reaches the masses, and it requires pushing that tech to $200-$400 GPUs instead, and the consoles influences that push too. Comparing the tech of $700+ GPUs is irrelevant when that tech will take years for most people to have, only then will most devs actually care about implementing. That the new neural rendering features. How long for it to be widely adopted, and I don't mean a few hand selected games for high end users, I mean widely accessible in games to the point it makes a genuine difference, specially in the $200-$400 GPU range where most people still buy cards? Spoiler: the next gen consoles will have already been out by then Also AMD is still arguably the only viable alternative for custom silicon for consoles, so this whole question is still irrelevant.
To me the bigger confusion is why Microsoft doesn't move to Nvidia for their console. I don't trust Microsoft enough anymore to buy another Xbox after that BS paper launch of the Series X.
yes, full stop. FSR4 aka "Research Project" is 7 years too late, assuming it lives up to the hype. NVIDIA employees actually play video games, and is and has been moving the industry forward. AMD has been 2nd rate since the acquisition of ATI. I guess Sony got what it paid for. I'd pay $1k for a legit nvidia powered ps6
@@Sheaksa Remember, my friend, a phone is a necessity by current standards, a Game console is a luxury toy, not the same business model, and seriously we have a Software problem not a hardware one, this generation has been about 60fps and faster loading times because devs haven't push for new ideas
@@abrahamj15 a >$1,000 USD phone is not a necessity and is very much a luxury. And the issues facing this current gen is both software and hardware, hence the release of the PS5 Pro and PSSR - PSSR wouldn't be needed if they went with nvidia. Nvidia has the hardware & software stack - AMD clearly does not.
AMD hardware gives them backwards compatibility to PS4.. Given there has barely been a worthwhile current gen only game - backwards compatibility is a crucial feature for the console and it wouldn't have the same importance in people's gaming rooms without it.
Using AMD isn’t required for backcompat… it just makes it much easier
@@jarde1989
They couldn't do a proper PS1 emulator and you expect them to change architectures
Tragedy is both major consoles uses AMD. Of I mean PS4 era. Bc now backwards compatibility is big thing so they stuck in AMD.
Imho if one of both major console used NVIDIA we have better variety, more tech war etc
@@jarde1989it practically is. Console games are not PC games. They are made for that specific hardware. The reason PS5 and Xbox Series backwards compatibility with PS4 and Xbox One respectively improves performance without any tinkering is because they used an evolution of the architecture with some specific hardware things for backwards compatibility. It uses the higher clocks of the new consoles to bost performance, but that is simply not possible with a switch to Nvidia, that would require the games to be ported. Thousands of them, some by developers who don’t exist anymore. PC games are made with Directx, Vulkin, Open GL in mind, AMD, Intel, and Nvidia GPUs, and AMD and Intel CPUs, more cashe, less cashe, more RAM etc, meant to work backwards and forwards (to a point) because it’s ‘one’ platform. PC (Windows).
The lackluster backwards compatibility on playstation is a real shame. They have arguably the best library of old games, but it can't even play PS3 games without cloud streaming. Nintendo and Sony are miles behind Xbox in that respect.
Think about PS5 Pro price, now add a NVIDIA GPU to it, makes no sense.
Its not that simple, as Switch 2 will show.
@@alexatkin the switch 2 will have a power of rtx 2050/ps4 pro
@@LeafyTheLeafBoyyou can't expect a handheld hybrid console to have same power of the ps5 or series x
@@joamettorresortiz9271 I do think it’s fair to expect the switch 2 with some sort of nVidia DLSS enchancement to get somewhere between a PS4 Pro and Ps5; though I worry about what kind of battery life that would lead to on such a large fabrication as has been leaked, and might only be used while in docked mode…
@@NicholasKoeppel it's not bro Nintendo has never been known for being the most powerful console or best hardware even i sold my first gen switch
Even as an Nvidia owning pc gamer of +20 years, I don't think it's as bleak for AMD as Alex is making it out. This is because unfortunately half of Nvidias cool features shown never get widely supported until the AMD based consoles have an equivalent feature. I remember cool nvidia demos showing off features that barely had game support until years later when ps3 X360 shipped or years later when ps4/x1 shipped. Examples include displacement maps, Nvidia Hairworks, physX, tressfx, and half a dozen other features over the last 20 years pioneered or supported/adopted 1st by nvidia only sporadically being supported in pc games, until the consoles have the capability and horsepower to implement them. has the luxury of being the lead platform. Of course some features will be more widely adopted than others, but I suspect neuralmaterials and neuralfaces will be among the features that sadly don't get widespread support, unless ps6 and Xbox next get them.
It takes 5+ years to make a game. Obviously if they are in the middle of that cycle, these features may not be implemented in that current development cycle. Sony didn't originally think the PS5 needed RT capability, but it was pressed that it did, giving an indication of where developers were going with the games in the future. PS5 Pro doubled down, and now AMD is as well. Perhaps it can be the other way around, with hardware trying to catch up with where the software is going (In AMDs case). I don't at all think everyone waits on AMD to make a decision before they implement anything, and if anything, time is showing AMD/Sony making decisions to catch up with everyone else. Keep in mind, just because a new tech is announced, doesn't mean it is realistic for everyone to stop what they are doing and implement it, if it is simple implementation, you may see it sooner rather than later. Still this idea everyone is waiting on AMD consoles, I just don't see it. If anything I seen consoles change for developers (like when Sony only wanted 4gb on the PS4 and developers said no, it needs 8gb).
Alex is taking too much Nvidia D in his mouth. Deepseek proved how nvidia is just pumping hardware because of their bad optimization on AI that is not needed and now their stocks are shit. Nvidia lied to us all.
I remember when AMD had tessellation support for their GPUs back in 2001 but it didn’t get widespread support cuz Nvidia GPUs didn’t have that tech
This is why i'm not jumping at the chance to get a 50 series, until DLSS4 + mfg are everywhere, it's going to stay a little niche
@@AlphariousOmegon-d5dDLSS4 is everywhere base DLSS is.
Nintendo using 2020 Nvidia and not caring about anything but getting hardware in the hands of the buying public.
It would be illuminating of Nintendo if only they weren't selling that old hardware with current-gen prices... 😒
cause only nintendo knows how to make games unlike high powerd pc getting same quality as sony and xbox gets ...so much for mid range specs when it requires 5090 to brute force all flaws from game devs
Switch 2 will outsell the PS5 and Xbox Series combined. Hardware has never been their main focus.
@@rodylermglez the fuck are you smoking switch cost 300$ and oled model 350$. Nintendo is the only gaming company with some sense left in it
@@Kpopboppin-bw8iv Handheld Consoles have always outsold Home Consoles. And these are at similar performance, just compare:
NES vs Gameboy
SNES vs GBA
N64 vs NDS
GameCube vs 3DS
Wii vs N/A
WiiU vs NSwitch
Total vs Total
....the market prefers the sales of Handhelds.
The reason I feel Sony decided to use PSSR, is to maintain its Backward Compatibility in future console as they have control over the technology. For example, the Nintedo games that use DLSS in Switch 2 - if Nintendo decides to move away from nvidia, how will those titles work on hardware that doesn't support DLSS. Or the new FSR 4 that is hardware dependent unlike FSR 3.
I feel the FSR4 thing might be a misread
Sony will have more flexibility, Nintendo will be stuck on Nvidia…
@@SoloEmpireOfficialI don’t think one can be stuck with Nvidia. When literally every console maker wishes they could afford Nvidia.
Yes and no. As it’s a joint venture with AMD and based on AMD architecture, the two are intertwined. Sony would be able to jump ship to another vendor and reasonably take PSSR in it’s current iteration with them.
@@ForTheViolence Wish they could afford? Sony and Microsoft are much bigger than Nintendo. Sony likes going AMD because the semi custom architecture they can offer is more what PlayStation wants. Nvidia isn't as flexible or willing to be as collaborative with chip architecture. Nvidia don't have their own cpu architecture, relying on ARM designs for their apu's. There are a lot of reasons why Sony goes to AMD. Sony isn't interested in using someone else's proprietary software to properly utilize the hardware they put the R&D and money effort into
AMD is cheaper, they need consoles to be cheap. They don't have a choice.
Here's you talking like a billionaire in Beverly hill with a shitty normal paying job just like everyone else. Acting like some kind of elite with delusions of grandeur self entitlement
Nintendo went with Nvidia, Sony could have done it too if they had a good reason.
@@lharsay Nintendo is using hardware with older architecture and bigger node. Those points let them go cheaper, but remember that this solution gets them weaker hardware.
@@lharsay nintendo never goes for cutting edge tech, they went for the cheap stuff from nvidia
Ignoring backwards compatibility on a hardware level, features like DLSS are dangerous for Sony to adopt even on Nvidia hardware. A company like Sony wants more control, wants to be in charge, if things fail, they don't want to be stuck with Nvidia like that. Just a big business risk for them, a risk they don't have to take.
NVIDIA is handing ML models for free, I bet that if you pay they would have no problem to give DLSS ones not to mention that Sony is a big company and can train it's own by themselves once they have accelerators in their consoles to run it
They don’t really have a choice as AMD is the only one who can provide a CPU + GPU SoC, to make the PS5 an Nvidia powered they would have to get a separate CPU from Intel or AMD which cost more to make than a single SoC.
NVIDIA also does CPUs, but only ARM. This is the case for datacenters and the Nintendo Switch
@ it will be a headache to use ARM when the PS4 is x86 so backwards compatibility is important specially there are not a lot of PS5 games in its first couple of years, they are mostly patched PS4 games.
@@ChristopherZarate-g1s I agree, so the reason why AMD was choosen needs to be ajusted.
Therefore, AMD is the only one who could provide an x86_64 SOC, since NVIDIA also makes SOCs.
CEO of Nvidia stated in CES 2025 that their cooperation with Microsoft will make x86 obsolete. You can guess the future from that.
@@tagodain x86 should become obselete, Apple has already proven that ARM is the future. All our phones are ARM. The consoles should have been ARM in 2013.....but they will become ARM too in 2 generations, just like the switch.
Transformer DLSS is such an improvement it will be hard for anyone to get a jump on Nvidia at this point. Of course, AI upscaling used in games are precisely those games where more people value image quality.
DLSS is so many steps above everyone now in terms of quality, performance, hardware and game compatibility. It is sad how no one else even comes close.
yeah they said the same about open ai, look what happened
@ the latest branch of pssr has more in common with the newer transformer dlss than the old convolution model, so yeah no
@@wizzenberry No need to get defensive man, it's alright. Companies can always catch up, it isn't a final determination that they never will. Have patience, and just know it isn't on you to be a company defender. If they pay you to do so, sure definitely. If you are unpaid though, try to enjoy your life instead as these corps don't care or likely even want anything to do with you outside of whats in your wallet.
If PSSR was this amazing, forward thinking tech... do you think DF would had talked about it as such? Do you think they would had noticed? They go to these events and see first hand, and even they are saying companies are looking like 5 years behind.
@ government happened…openai is going private lol
I feel like if Nvidia was allowed to buy ARM, and started making their own CPU’s to go with their GPU’s, it would have been a very different landscape.
Don't they already have license from ARM to create their own CPU? Switch even use NVidia CPU.
@ yes, they have a partnership, but Nvidia wanted to buy ARM entirely. This would have put Nvidia in a very powerful position where they’d be making chips for Apple, other cell phones that use ARM designs, and of course the Switch.
yeah, consoles would be $1500+
Imo the only really valuable thing Nvidia has over competition is their upscaler. Frame gen is not going to stick regardless of how much they push it, it's fundamentally limited in so many ways that it's going to stay either a "rich get richer" thing or as the last resort for weaker machines. Ray reconstruction is still useful only for 500$+ gpus, and even then so many people turn off full ray tracing for more fps, it's not as important as the upscaler. All the other "neural" stuff is still very experimental and is ~5 years away at least from wide adoption. People vastly overestimate how much nvidia is ahead right now.
Have you used frame gen?
Na. Amd and sony got something cool going on.
We will be happy with what they put together for the ps6.
What kind of retracing will we have gotten if they used Nvidia for the PS5 anyway? Was too early for anyone.
True, they would have risked BC for about 30% better raytracing that wouldn't have made things that much easier for devs, but PS6 may deliver enough lift to allow RT Global illumination and shadows in every game, making work a little easier for devs
Can't believe people still excited for any console after such a disappointing current gen lol
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombat disappointing current gen??? in games it could be true but that's because games take longer to make hardware nope. Both console came out in 2020 and have great hardware for that time.
@@coffee7180 Yeah I don't agree either. Gamers are such entitled pieces of ****. They wanted the extra power put towards 60fps, and then complained that graphics weren't better. Let's be real, they will never be happy until they get the performance of a $3,000 PC, for a cost of $299 in a console. They may even complain then, if a generation after they don't get a $4,000 PC into a $299 console. A current day gamer, I'm convinced stares at spreadsheet numbers and hangs out on social media all day to talk about price 2 performance ratios for RaSteR, while crapping on AI and then turning around and turning on all the AI feature sets, or demanding them to get better (for free of course).
I doubt it after Deepseek blew a hole in Nvidia’s model of more power = better LLM.
I aslo don’t think pricing wise Nvidia could compete. No one wants a thousand dollar ps5.
@@RiderOfKarma
Lmao so Switch 2 is gonna be $1000?
No of course not…
what you have failed to understand is while deepseek can run on 'slower hardware ' , it will still run faster on the faster hardware.
@@FirstNameLastName-xe4mxwell it’s running faster on a 7900XTX than a 4090 so 🤷♂️
@@FirstNameLastName-xe4mx The point is software optimizations > hardware .
Trying to downplay everything about consoles or amd typical Nvidia shills. Multi frame gen what a joke like we need more ghosting and more fake frames.
Even if you ignore ps4 compatibility, I belive the Chance of Nvidia being in a PS5 or PS6 was never really above zero. The 6650xt has the same performance as the 4060 even though it was has almost half the transistor count (11Billion vs 19B). Nvidia simply cant compete with AMD in terms of cost or design efficiency. Ohh and %95+ of console owners cant tell the difference between a well implemented fsr3 and dlss at 4K. DLSS value is mostly noticeable at 1080p where its not really used.
of course it was zero, it would have had a nonviable 30 series chip in it when the ps5 was developed, and where is cpu coming from?
Lmao Sony historically hated working with NVidia back with the PS3. That was forever ago, but still. Also the economics would look entirely different.
Microsoft, Sony and AMD, over the course of more than a decadehave worked out a way to put AMD hardware in their system that works. It can be reasonably cheap because AMD needs these relationships and will do anything to hold them.
No one likes working with NVidia lmao.
they don't like working with nvidia because they're used to being the one who can strongarm everyone else into accepting their demands while nvidia doesn't exactly need their money and can dictate what terms they're willing to accept.
@@darudesandstorm7002 Got solid proof for that speculation? Nvidia cannot provide the unified architecture needed for a console is more of factual reason for why they dont use nvidia.
@@hfjtrytry9216 What you said simply don't make any sense
“The future is now, old man” says Nvidia from CES 2025.
I know we're talking about Sony and the performance of the PS3, PS4, and PS5. However just need to say Sony's Business Model has been in evolution since the original PS1.
It is Microsoft which has largely remained consistent with the Xbox. Provide the fastest hardware, at the earliest date, for the best price. They did this with the Xbox in Q3-2001, then Xbox 360 in Q4-2005. They really needed to release the XB1 hardware back in like Q4-2011. Then they should have released the XSS hardware in like Q4-2017. While the XSX gets an upgrade to 32GB Shared RAM and released in Q3-2021 which would have been fine against the 2020 PS5.
So I guess, Microsoft is also changing business models. They likely will release an XB6 for 2028, but they've got two-feet in the door for Cloud Gaming. That may be acceptable in the days of Home Fiber Internet, Satellite Streaming, Worldwide 5G and emerging 6G connectivity.
Not everyone has access to those things. The US (because that's where I live) would need to make those things mandatory for internet companies to offer for an affordable price.
@JeannieLove Almost everyone has access to the internet. So in this decade, it is available to certain people to experience an acceptable level of Cloud Streaming. In the next decade, this will be available to most users.
what else are they going to use for low power?
If you think PS5 is pricey already with AMD APU, imagine how it would be with Nvidia, pretty sure they thought of that already and decided to stick to AMD for that very reason 😂
Curious if they'd bale able to tell us if FSR4 is anything close to DLSS4, or if it's even at DLSS3.5 levels or not.
Is Richard Regretting Using AMD Hardware For Hair Growing?
When Nvidia disappeared from consoles after the Xbox (original), the signs there were that they were asking for too much money.
Seeing as Samsung does not pay Nvidia for its use of Gsync in its TVs, I am also guess their licensing is not cheap.
If Nvidia chips end up in consoles again, there will be a steeper price increse.
The 360/PS3 ran on Nvidia I believe?
@@zachb1706 The original Xbox did, and then they moved to AMD for all the consoles from Sony and Micro, bar one. The only one that did go back to Nvidia was the PS3.
@ crazy, so they had an AMD GPU but IBM CPU for the 360?
@@zachb1706 They basically went with, "who can do it cheaper" I think the only reason Sony went with Nvidia with the PS3 is because of the bluray. They needed a chip to run that side well, and they also knew if Bluray took off (people were impressed) Sony Bluray players would sell more (Sony is one of the main investors/owners of Bluray)
AI tech-wise, Sony and Micro want Nvidia, but if the cost is too high, that will pass on to us, and people will not be happy.
AMD often has more raw hardware power than Nvidia. They lag however in software, which is less an issue with consoles. There Sony and developers have enough time and incentives to squeeze all available performance from the chips.
The same Netflix devs have said why they are betting on AMD in servers. In general, companies that write software for themselves prefer solutions from AMD
On the flip side had Sony gone with Nvidia they would have had significantly less powerful hardware for the same price. Or the console would have cost $1000+ for the base for similiar performance. Nvidia chips come with a premium.
The only big plus AMD has still going on PC is Linux/Steam OS compatibility. For consoles it might be over as soon as NVIDIAs integrated SOC ARM Cores get fast enough in single thread performance.
There’s obviously the backwards compatibility they maintain by staying AMD, but they’ve also usually shown the produce cards of the similar performance to Nvidea for lower costs.
Now, it will be interesting with the PS6, because with how AMD is currently no longer focusing on developing high end gpu, we may see a console actually match the best gpu from the house gen that’s out at the same time.
Reminder that EVGA chose to leave the gpu market rather than continue working with nvidia
Nvidia is never willing to give better performance for dollar than AMD
Short answer NO. Whoever went nvidia(nintendo) always had to settle for inferior 5+ year old hardware because of how much they charge for their chips (switch and switch 2) being already outperformed by steam OS handhelds because its essentially 5 year+ old hardware AT LAUNCH because of nvidia pricing.
Meanwhile PS5, PRO was the latest and greatest from AMD at the time , and steam based handhelds already beat the switch , and switch is onky surviving on its exclusives and game library investments made by gamers... Sodtware can be written later. Whats harder is having the hardware to run the software on .
You can already get Multi frame gen on AMD.. turn on AFMF2 and then go in game and turn on frame gen and magic,you get multi frame gen, you don't even need to use FSR either if it's 3.1+, it will work better when FSR4 comes out.
Yeah but AMDs FG is awful.
@@zachb1706 No it's not, there is no visible difference in visual quality with them enabled.
@@bes12000 there’s quite a significant difference. AMD’s FG is blurrier and has way more artifacts, and that’s compared to DLSS 3 FG
Also sometimes really poorly implemented, like in COD. Enabling AMD’s FG in that without a frame rate limit like doubles your input latency it feels awful.
@@zachb1706 I saw someone enable multi frame gen with a new 5090 and the latency was like 12, if I enable it on my system with a 7900XTX my latency is 5 with double frame gen, I can use it in Cyberpunk and can actually get Path tracing, I been playing with the feature for a long time, since the first beta implementation of the AMD driver. ..So we will just agree to disagree. There are also AMD features that AMD released that are similar to Nvidia, but AMD never heavily advertised it and they can be found on AMD's developer website..
even IF sony are kicking themselves, then what? neither nvidia nor intel have the footing to support a new console launch with nvidia hardware. could you image the astronomical costs involved if sony chose nvidia. there is a reason AMD has been the choice for console for a long time (cost) unless nvidia can somehow make a console or provide the chips to sony/microsoft at fractions of a cost without somehow dumping the cost onto consumers then AMD wont be pushed out of the console space for a long time.
No, Mark Cerny is not "kicking himself" lmao. Love these children who have zero idea about the realities of running a business asking questions like this lol
Nvidia console would cost double unless it’s a super low powered mobile chip like switch. Then people would whine there wasn’t any graphical improvement over the past gen. Makes no sense unless consoles start charging pc prices which is unlikely.
Microsoft and Sony already used Nvidia hardware for the original Xbox and PS3 respectively. And from what I understand, Nvidia likes to charge a hefty price for their stuff. Plus, when thinking about the Next-Gen for PS4 and Xbox One. AMD had a full stack (CPU, GPU etc) available with very good performance.
I don't think Sony regrets it. I'm pretty sure given how huge Sony is, they more than likely weighed the pros and cons and
You know yourself that AMD was not the only option for Sony and Microsoft. They clearly tested the other solutions from Nvidia and Intel (especially Microsoft who never had much connections to AMD) and found out, that for what ever they were looking for, AMD was the only right choice. Intel was for sure to weak and unstable while Nvidia probably too expensive and probably zero compatibility for an powerful enough APU. Furthermore, AMD is offering case to case solutions. Raytracing and other Features beyond FSR, were just not a thing that Consoles with that powerenvelope needed 5 or 6 years ago. Consoles were and are still not PC's (Microsoft tried it and failed). They are very specialized devices with their own OS. You dont need a Titan-class GPU with all the sh... from an Titan-class-card toned heavily down, just to hit price to performance parity. This is what Nvidia does. A unified card, where separation means, stripping down the CUDA-features, while AMD is building very specific Chips for each Manufacturer (Sony, Microsoft, Valve etc.), based on what TSMC can offer of course. They are "small" enough that they can afford to do something like that. Well, things can change when Nvidia brings out their own ARM-based-APU somewhere 2026, that is not build on the foundation of a Titan-card, but until then, the dice have already fallen for the next generation of Consoles like the PS6. But we might get Nvidia on a PS7 if they are really cheap and powerfull enough and can bring all the features that a Console needs in, maybe, 2035 or so (compatibility, low power, low noise, durability, affordability etc...)
And again, Consoles: The Hardware are very rarely what holds them back. The Games are the problems. We have more than enough examples that showcases, that Graphics are always second place on consoles. People are willing to play on waaaay more underdeveloped hardware if the games are just good enough to keep them entertained. People are even willing to play on Emulators from China, just to experience the games that they want to play and not get anymore. There is a whole market for people like that. Stop emphasizing Hardware that much, especially when it comes down to consoles, where the main feature is the software that it has heavily to rely on.
Going with Nvidia would have meant no backward compatibility on the the PS5, also would have meant either more expensive or even less powerful hardware (or both), though likely better RT performance, so no I don't think Sony regret sticking with AMD this round.
Though it is interesting Sony decided to use their own PSSR instead of partnering with AMD and FRS4, though it's possible the ML inside the new Pro consoles is not the same.
As other have said. I doubt ps5 using Nvidia gpu would been that much better. Sure DLSS might been bit better or sharper, but FSR 3x and Sony own scalers are just as good Imo when devs put the proper homework into it. Most Nvidia features have been mostly Ignored or not widely used, like physx or hair works, both been kinda forgotten about. Staying with AMD made backwards compatible posssble with ps4 games. Going with Nvidia gpu would have broken many ps4 games being playable on ps5/pro.
And last note. A Nvidia does not care about gamers anymore. They care more about AI and servers along with cloud stuff. Not gamers. Both RTX 4xxx and RTX 5xxx are scam imo. They continued Jack prices up, making you Paying More primer prices for cut down performance. Adding fakes frames to primer prices. Imo last best Nvidia GPUs was RTX 3xxx imo.
3 series and even the 2 series was a scamm too.
@SWOTHDRA
Yeah Kinda, Consider 3xxx was on 8nm node from samsung, and it was just refresh of their 10/12nm. But If I had choice, I'd rather take a new 3090 to replace my old GTX 1080ti right now, cus at least its not ticking time bomb with their shit new power plug, which would just slowly cook it self. I don't doubt if 5090 will also have same issue consider they draw even more power lol. Even if Nvidia says they fixed it. Lol No.
But last I checked 3090 here canada are going for $2200 Canadian or more. LOL no pass.
All that stuff would be great if Nvidia price to performance ratio wasn't so god awful. VRAM limitations and raster performance are lacking compared to AMD counterparts in the PC space.
With a proper AI upscaler, consoles are fine.
No. At the end Sony needs control over scaling solutions. If Sony needs to switch to something like imagination technologies, they need to be able to do so. If they are dependent on amd or Nvidia solutions they will be stuck on their hardware
I think for the console makers, Nvidia is more of a threat than a partner (excluding Nintendo ofc). For Microsoft and Sony, AMD’s more hands off and iterative approach to software is likely a positive, since it gives them the freedom to define their own platform, whereas with Nvidia, they’d get locked in, especially with how insular and proprietary Nvidia likes to keep things. In a lot of ways Nvidia is much like Intel at the height of their power, so obsessed with expansion and total dominance that they alienated partners and exceeded the bounds of their core business.
Thing is, nvidia tech is only for partners, which means big studios, which means big budget productions, which means minimum viable product is kicked out the door asap, which means actual advancements aren't stable till the next gen of GPUs is released, which means older hardware isn't up to snuff when it comes to the actual implementation, thus nvidia needs to develop more capability, which means more costly hardware, which in turn brings us to the initial step. I'll wait for all this to fizzle out into something more viable with long term support in mind. Everyone's sandbagging cause of nvidia's wake, seems like.
Deliver us the Moon, the first game with DLSS 2.0 mentioned in this video, was developed by a team of 90 core developers. That's not a big studio these days.
@@no1DdC 90 core devs is small by 2018 standards, you mean? Consider cutting back on the copium mate.
@@no1DdC 90 devs small ? i work in dev and i WISH there were this much devs around... all you get is interns and if you count them as devs think again.
@@mareck6946 I didn't say it was a small team, but it's not big either. This is a mid-sized or AA studio.
Honestly AMD is sometjing everyone would use in the console space because the green tax would not be worth it.
Nintendo choosing Nvidia then and staying now is cost reasons and no doubt Nvidia wanting to stay in the console space to some degree. The chip Nintendo chose was old and proven. The reason to stay with Nvidia now for Switch 2 isn't BC. Nintendo would have cut it out if they wanted. They stayed I'm betting because Nvidia wouldn't want to tarnish that relation and because they would be out of the console business entitely for a generation.
If deepseek has proven anything its that these AI advancements arent as far off or impossible to reach as market leaders like nvidia would have you believe
Sure, if you steal from competitors and hide 50k GPUs you can make any model look cheap.
Thanks for answering my question guys! Love your work
I would love to see a Nvidia run console with all those bells and whistles. But the biggest roadblock is really price. Throw Nvidia in there and you end up with outdated tech like the Switch is doing to keep pricing down, or you end up with some crazy prices in the console space. We already saw how people reacted to a 700 dollar Pro. I do think there is a market for a PC console hybrid or something powered by Nvidia that offers a lot more bang, even at higher pricing. Like I play on PC but I do like couch play sometimes as well. Imagine buying one copy of a game and having it available on your handheld, your PC, and your living room console. With most games coming to PC now anyway and things like Steam OS streamlining the UI, the sky’s the limit. Although if we ever saw one you can bet Sony’s going to stop porting games that’s for sure. Lol. I could see this as the future though with Sony and Xbox both just going the publisher route. PC gaming has been outpacing console growth for years and devs like Capcom releasing that they sell more games on PC than all 3 consoles combined was kind of insane. But as the player demographic gets much wider with an aging audience with disposable income and the desire for top end specs in recent years, it’s unsurprising. Especially with Sony and XBox bringing all their stuff over so you basically get it all.
Why should they regret, had the PS being in the price bracket of 1K-1.5K, as per todays tech and that in past 5 years, nVidia would be choice. But, the consoles are in about USD400-600 bracket, and here nVidia cannot compete, as AMD has much better package/tech in terms of price/performance, and maybe AMD is more willing to share tech info with Sony than nVidia is. Just my thoughts.
when the competition is so weak, who cares what chips Sony uses
I would not be surprised if Xbox went Arm.
i hope they do, if only to accelerate the death of x86.
PS 6 will launch with two consoles from the start. Base PS 6 with AMD and a Pro PS 6 with NVIDIA.
if amd put as much effort into making a good product and marketing as their cpu than they would be able to rival nvidia for market share
Microsoft has chosen Nvidia; during CES 2025, CEO of Nvidia Jensen Huang has mentioned their cooperations already with Microsoft Windows.
Well. Remember PS3? Nvidia played Sony, so I think that relationship is Burnt. Pretty sure that AMD will release their machine learning to compete with Nvidia. Plus and does grunt work that does not add much lag on the PS system.
Of course not. PSSR looks great even in its early form. Regardless, to get the same kind of power in a PS5 PRO with NVIDIA would be double the price.
Fsr4 was not ready in time
AI learning etc Japanese tech & engineering only. Thanks Sony's
Panasonic etc to Hitach corporation etc too.. or thanks Japanese tech to Corp.
I doubt anyone at Sony regrets going with AMD. Their partnership allows for extensive customization. If the Switch is any example, Nvidia offers an off-the-shelf part, which would not give PlayStation the "secret sauce" they need to compete.
Why are they looking down😂
Ps5 pro will probably be the last console I ever purchase. Unless they show more respect to consumers I believe they should sink as a company.
Why would they regret it?
It's not about whatever Alex thinks it's about. Nvidia doesn't need help, AMD does though. The reason Mark Cerny gave sounded awfully noble.
Because now PS has to spend a lot of money and time developing their own upscaling solution and dealing with the drawbacks of AMD
@zachb1706 They're working with AMD so it's a win-win
@@JeannieLove how big of a win win when Nvidia has had this tech and software integrated into their GPUs for 6 years already?
@zachb1706 Massive when Project Am3thyst is a joint venture for Open Source technology
The hardware is fine, the software is the problem
Dudes, I understand your hype for new tech but at this point that is the least thing devs have to worry about when they re making a game. Graphics have come far enough and frankly a lot of older uglier games had better and more complex mechanics. Games look good enough the focus should be new mechanics and constant performance. If nvidia had not come up with RT a lot of games would look and perform better on middle end hardware
Nvidia dont make cpu's so no soc possible with them. Hence AMD only choice.
Isn't the Tegra an Nvidia SOC?
Well, they actually do, but only ARM CPUs. They can't do x86_64, because only AMD and Intel have lisences.
@@jstew2938Yes, you're right
They aren't, same with Microsoft. Nvidia doesn't have a hardware equivalentthey could use and it would most likely increase console prices quite a bit for basicly the same performance since a bunch of higer end RTX GPU features are useless for consoles.
I don't get why console players suddenly act like every game need to be 4k 120fps max settings, just because of a bunch of last gen ports or muktiplat games run at 60. It will be the same thing with every console generation, early multiplats run well and then current gen only games will slowly perform worse because devs will push more and more for visuals becasue millions of casuals can barely even tell or care if a game runs at 30 or 60.
But people just expect magic from a 500 dollar gaming box and to somehow keep up with a 2000 dollar gaming PC.
Nintendo won this generation by W.O.
Especially for consoles hardware doesn't matter that much. It's all about the games. Xbox is not doing well because they have zero games.
You praise NVIDIA for these new features, and maybe someone will finally say that this shit doesn't work, games have been looking the same for five years. They probably make these functionalities for themselves, because probably no one implements them correctly in games.
Yes, Nvidia has all these multi-letter enhancements and SO WHAT?
Did it make games actually any better?
Has Nintendo ceased to exist just because they use objectively worse hardware?
Yes, on PC games look way better played and perform better on a modern pc using an Nvidia gpu over using an equivalent AMD gpu. I'm talking specifically the huge image quality advantage DLSS has over FSR. As well as the performance advantage that Nvidia has over AMD in ray traces games.
for AMD the holy grail would be if they can backport FSR4 to RDNA2 and use it on ps5/xbox. AMD did say they had interest in getting FSR4 to work on pre RDNA4 hardware and that would be quite the accomplishment.
Its impossible because RDNA2 doesn’t support WMMA
@@mr.ballstone1914 i stand corrected then.
remember how arrogant sony engineers are, if they took nvidia GPU instead of AMD they couldn't really add something to upscalers or frame generation, and the funniest part is probably that PSSR looks worse than the first look of FSR4, so no sony didn't really regrets this because it could have created conflict in their engineers team
Amazing video, thank you Digital Foundry.
Ps5 pro is a scam!
Sure Nvidia has all of these features, but how many are that critical to success? I still don't buy games for raytracing. Sticking to my 3080ti.
Nvidia is exclusive to Nintendo until now 😆
AMD research project / Amethyst will pay dividends
1) AI upscaling tech for handhelds ( steamdeck, ally, etc. Even ps portal)
2) For PS6, it will be a generational leap and probably the best emulation and backwards compatibility upscaler
After seeing DLSS 4, they are definitely regretting it
So they would sacrafice their Zen2 CPU for whatever Nvidia can license from ARM?
dlss was so bad with every start and dlss was never "insanly" more better than fsr, specially when you dont have to use dlss because your gpu has enough vram for native rendering. shills fall into the "but software" trap. And everything was without AI, how much does that say about "Ai sOfTwaRe".
Just stop with increasing graphics fidelity. PS1 started on SD resolution, PS2 perfected it. PS3 ushered HD resolution, PS4 perfected it. PS5 trying the 4K resolution, PS6 should perfected it and that's it. I don't think 8K or 16K are gonna ever needed.
They should use AI power to make bots (or NPCs) to behave more like real human, both for multiplayer and single-player games.
With Sony, that's probably not going to happen. Before the release of the PS5, they were touting how powerful it was, saying it was possible to play 8K games on it. They recently removed the 8K label on the PS5 box, but it shows what direction they are aiming for. Besides, Sony and Microsoft have historically tried to keep up with PC gaming, and with Nvidia pushing hardware limits along with upscaling and multi frame generation, Sony will try to follow, even though 8k gaming will obviously be a compromise to framerates and overall image complexity.
@LeeLee-fi7mx That's true. But that was before people realise how powerful AI is gonna be in a few years. I would rather PlayStation embraces AI for any other things beside super-resolution and frame generation. I mean, resolution and fps won't hurt, but 4K 60fps is more than enough for virtually everybody especially on consoles where most players are casuals (instead of pixel peepers.) I hope the fact that they removed the 8K label means they're no longer chasing it as it was intended originally.
I saw videos on TH-cam where AI filter was put on top of gameplay clips and they do work wonder for especially hair. Hair is extremely difficult to be made work in traditional polygons simply because of the nature of it. Hair has almost no depth / no thickness, comes in thousands strands on each character, and moves like crazy. They bob and weave and are impossible to be motion captured. If they want to implement AI, this is the place, because the result is mindblowingly impressive. Way more impressive than 8K 240fps that most eyes can't even percieve.
I think because it was overwhelming the presentation that that also could be a blinding tactic. What of it is actually useful for me in gaming? Framegen useless or I already have 80 FPS, then it latency can be ok, but I do not need it at this point the upscaler can be useful, but how far is it supported by games? Also how many people will play it with expensive nvidia hardware? Most games use rasterization, where AMD shines more than the newest Nvidia generation except the 5090, which is way too expensive for me. Intel also offers more bang for buck at 1440pixels, as far as I have heard. For ne in gaming software features are nice to have, but native fps have to be ok first and foremost otherwise I can not play online games well, nor reaction based local games. To me most features seem like a distraction. Like free games with your GPU. That should not be the reason to buy a GPU unfortunately humans brain is not super great at this stuff. That we can get easily distracted by shiny new things, even when it turns out to be a mirage in this desert of decently priced GPUs.
Definitely not
Why should Sony regret anything? There is much more to a console than just AI stuff. I know Nvidia does not want you to believe that, because its what makes the tons of money and balooned their stock prices. Their GPUs at this point are basically a waste product of their AI stuff. Just look at reviews for 5090 and 5080, without the fake frames, they are nothing new.
Sony has great engineers and developer and can develop their own solution instead of becoming depentent one someone else that does not care and proably takes an arm and leg during licencing. There are clear advantages to building their own stuff, like id does with their great, purpose-build engine instead of everybody just rushing to Unreal until Tencent decides they want to make more money out of it.
Ole dude look like Elon musk
Neural rendering is the future of the company. I think switch 2 will have something about this tech to making it a baseline for any studio pipeline. And this will impulse windows arm nvidia laptops with tensor cores and maybe dlaas the best cost efficency platforms for gaming. But they need to incentivise developers to adopt RTX Kit as a standard; that's why Switch 2 is important for Nvidia.
Nvidia shills
Imagine Sony using Nvidia GPU. Let us give Nvidia the best chance for success. Let's assume that everything is the same except for the GPU architecture and backward compatibility can be achieved using Nvidia GPU (the CPU is AMD, the process is TSMC 7nm instead of the relatively worse Samsung 8nm being used on Ampere, and Sony paid the same price for going with Nvidia instead of AMD), what people need to remember is that to have those tensor cores and RT cores, it cost transistor, thus going with Nvidia design the actual compute performance will be much weaker (RX 7600 has 13.3M transistor, 4060 has 18.9M transistor). So if they go with Nvidia, PS5 probably will have like 8TF of compute and they will compete with 12TF Xbox Series X. Yes, PS5 with Nvidia GPU will have better upscaling, better raytracing, but how much useful RT in 8TF GPU? While DLSS provides better quality, but at typical seating distance for console player, which is much further than PC player, FSR or even any other non ML upscaling tech is good enough thus I don't see why someone would be really fixated on DLSS in this particular situation.
If Sony want to match the performance of AMD GPU on raster but using Nvidia, well, say goodbye to the $500 launch price.
Those are already with what I think the best scenario. The reality is if they are going with Nvidia it will be more complicated. If Sony want to go with a SoC design then most likely they will need to change to ARM CPU, thus not only Sony need to think the backward compatibility for the GPU but also the CPU. The SoC cost itself probably going to be higher vs if they went with AMD and this is assuming the chip size and process are the same since Nvidia historically has charged more for their chips vs AMD. I can only see an inferior console if Sony went with Nvidia and try to target $500 price. Nintendo has their own market thus can do whatever they wanted, but Sony has direct competition with MS, making the SoC performance very important.
yes.
Upscing tech requires high end cpus
Please SONY'S or Japanese corp or tech COMPLEX use there own AI learning to semiconductor chip's too.
Engines etc micro chips to graphics card to graphics powers etc. Don't rely on OVERPRICED western GARBAGE tech etc az usual & COMPETITION too.
maybe next gen of xbox can make a splash by having nvidia hardware?
Or throw a bone to intel. Could actually have some interesting side effects. MS could get a good price advantage, intel could get much needed experience and help with drivers. Would also help assure sufficient market of scale for a larger GPU design.
Xbox isn’t going to be a thing next gen. Microsoft is axing it
@ Xbox could very well still be a thing next gen, but if so... I wouldn't be surprised to see an ad campaign from MS stating that "This is a PC!"
amd ruined an entire generation
What kind of question is this?
Sony going for a custom PSSR doesn't mean Mark Cerny is kicking himself for choosing AMD, it just means Sony has more control over the software stack which has been a huge strength of Playstation since PS4 (devs have for years praised the ease of use of their SDKs)
Also, just because AMD doesn't compete in the high end hardware doesn't mean they don't compete in the low to mid end segment, arguably the most important for pushing tech to the masses, and for pushing the lowest common denominator forward... most tech that is demoed on PC just isn't widely adopted until it reaches the masses, and it requires pushing that tech to $200-$400 GPUs instead, and the consoles influences that push too. Comparing the tech of $700+ GPUs is irrelevant when that tech will take years for most people to have, only then will most devs actually care about implementing. That the new neural rendering features. How long for it to be widely adopted, and I don't mean a few hand selected games for high end users, I mean widely accessible in games to the point it makes a genuine difference, specially in the $200-$400 GPU range where most people still buy cards? Spoiler: the next gen consoles will have already been out by then
Also AMD is still arguably the only viable alternative for custom silicon for consoles, so this whole question is still irrelevant.
PS wouldn’t develop PSSR if FSR was good.
To me the bigger confusion is why Microsoft doesn't move to Nvidia for their console. I don't trust Microsoft enough anymore to buy another Xbox after that BS paper launch of the Series X.
Because AMD offers both GPU and CPU.
$$$$
Damn didn’t realize bro was that thiCC 😮
why would they? more tops that a 3090... tensor ops are tensor ops
I believe not. AMD is cheaper, and they are the best CPU + GPU combo maker.
I’d rather see Nvidia tech integration. AMD is junk.
I've always been saying that AMD had single handedly dragged the whole gaming industry technological advancement behind for years if not a decade.
yes, full stop. FSR4 aka "Research Project" is 7 years too late, assuming it lives up to the hype. NVIDIA employees actually play video games, and is and has been moving the industry forward. AMD has been 2nd rate since the acquisition of ATI. I guess Sony got what it paid for. I'd pay $1k for a legit nvidia powered ps6
$1000 PS6 lmao
Ok bud, that would be market suicide. Only hardcore PS fanboys would be on board.
@@jarde1989 just get ISPs to subsidize it like they do with expensive phones
@@Sheaksa Remember, my friend, a phone is a necessity by current standards, a Game console is a luxury toy, not the same business model, and seriously we have a Software problem not a hardware one, this generation has been about 60fps and faster loading times because devs haven't push for new ideas
Consoles are sold for 499,99 US$.
More than that it is DOA. Do you remember the PS3 fiasco?
@@abrahamj15 a >$1,000 USD phone is not a necessity and is very much a luxury. And the issues facing this current gen is both software and hardware, hence the release of the PS5 Pro and PSSR - PSSR wouldn't be needed if they went with nvidia. Nvidia has the hardware & software stack - AMD clearly does not.
PlayStation should Ditch AMD as well as XBOX and use NVidia.