Valve Working On Explicit Sync Support For "NVK" NVIDIA Vulkan Driver

[mSparks]

You're mixing elephants and carburetors in a weird attempt to elevate Nvidia to more than they are, that's the "trend" here.

so you dont think people are going to buy RTX4090s that use 1 watt of power for 50 cents a pop.

Because that is what Nvidia started selling last year.

[Gusar]

And the key difference between Sonic the hedgehog and pokemon is one decided to run on AMD and the other nvidia.

One people remember fondly
The other is, afaik, the best selling game series of all time.

*facepalm*

[Jaxad0127]

And the key difference between Sonic the hedgehog and pokemon is one decided to run on AMD and the other nvidia.

One people remember fondly
The other is, afaik, the best selling game series of all time.

The games DO NOT care. Nintendo has used both ATI/AMD and NVidia in the past, along with others. There are a lot of Sonic games on Nintendo hardware, including exclusives.

Nintendo went with Tegra for the Switch because they wanted something mobile capable and they already had experience with ARM (GameBoy Advance, DS, and 3DS are ARM) and NVidia had a working platform for it. The GameCube, Wii, and WiiU used ATI/AMD for graphics (and PowerPC for CPU). N64 used SGI (and NEC CPU).

Pokemon and Sonic don't have a say in this.

[mSparks]

Nintendo has used both ATI/AMD and NVidia in the past

lol, not a great example
ATI died because they couldn't compete with nvidia...

what was this amd exclusive title that broke all the sales records at the time?

because the two points here are:

Nvidia provides the developer environment needed to break sales records

When Nvidia releases their next exclusive handheld game console, even powered by their current silicon, which is more powerful than an RTX4090, that sells for a few hundred dollars giving a 60 hour battery life, the competition isnt going to be able to compete.

[ssokolow]

Nvidia provides the developer environment needed to break sales records

Power efficiency, maybe... but I don't think the only company not using a derivative of some mainstream OS (Windows for XBox, FreeBSD for PlayStation) and famous for leaning on experimentation and R&D for their competitive advantage is going to look at nVidia's offerings and say "We're picking them because they've got good developer tools."

Besides. Every big-selling game targeting the Xbox One, Xbox One Series S, Xbox One Series X, PlayStation 4, or PlayStation 5 is "targeting AMD".

Just as nVidia knows CUDA is where their bread is buttered, AMD knows their big GPU market is big contracts for customized APUs for gaming consoles. Nintendo is the only console vendor keeping AMD from having had a de facto monopoly on gaming console GPUs for the last decade.

[illwieckz]

I doubt it. AMD are way ahead in making APUs. Tegra can't really compete.

And then you learn the 2016/7 Tegra is what powers the Nintendo Switch.

That's the exact proof Nvidia Tegra cannot really compete, and that it is a solution you should not look at by default, only as second option if your need is specific, if your need is a niche.

On gaming consoles AMD is king since forever, they are very hard to beat.

To beat AMD on gaming consoles, a maker should tailer a solution for a niche, which is what Nvidia did with the Tegra.

All powerful current consoles (Xbox Series, PS5) are using AMD APUs.
Previous generations (Xbox One, PS4) wer already using AMD APUs.
In older generations Xbox 360 already had an ATI Radeon GPU.
On Nintendo side, Wii U had an ATI Radeon, even the GameCube had an ATI Radeon.
That story goes from very long time ago. ATI had the experience, AMD bough ATI for their Fusion project, the Fusion project being the project of making those APUs.
AMD is working on this APU move on purpose since 20 years.

The exceptions? The first Xbox had an Nvidia, why? Because ATI attempted a bluff poker move by putting an inflated price to milk Microsoft and lost the bet. The PS3 had an Nvidia, I acknowledge I don't know why (Nvidia isn't that bad anyway), then happened the Switch.

Let's talk about the Switch. This is more a tablet-range device than other consoles, and then a tablet-range hardware fits more its need. At the time Nintendo was working on the Switch, it happened that Nvidia was right in the spot with a product ready for that with its ARM-based Tegra solution.

Nvidia in gaming consoles are just about fitting some specific niches at specific time like the Nintendo Switch, or very exotic hardwares like the PS3, or funny commercial moves like the first Xbox.

For making a game console today one should first look at AMD by default, then look if by chance some other brand would not have, by luck, a niche product that would fit better the specific need. It may happen, it happened multiple time, but this is the choice that comes when you're defining your product in more details in a way it becomes a niche that may fit an Nvidia niche by luck.

Both Nvidia and Intel are late on the topic. Intel is closing the gap on the graphics side with their Arc solutions, Nvidia is closing the gap on CPU side in their Tegra solutions, but they are the late competitors on the topic. On console gaming side, the only chances of Nvidia and Intel were and are niche products or specific commercial moves, technically the Switch and the first Xbox.

Valve is a PC-gaming company, like Microsoft was a PC-software company when they released their first Xbox. For their first console Microsoft went with an OS derivated from PC they well known (NT), and PC-like hardware, with Intel Pentium CPU and Nvidia Geforce GPU (that could have been an ATI one). Valve is doing exactly the same as Microsoft for their Steam hardware: Well known PC OS (Linux), PC component (AMD APU). So if Valve would go for another brand than AMD, there is more chance that Valve would go for an Intel CPU with integrated Arc. Integrating Nvidia with an AMD or Intel CPU would be a waste effort (and then money), so since Nvidia has no Intel-compatible CPU, this cannot be an option.

Even confidential products like the Atari VCS went the AMD APU way. Because AMD is king on the topic of making a game console, it is the default choice, they are the APU maker for 20 years, they are the Fusion project dudes, this is their strategy. AMD should be everyone first choice when making a game console, then when defining the product and the niche, some others like Nvidia may have their luck, but only in a second step.

The only situation where Nvidia stands a chance in a Valve context is a product with a removable GPU, basically the Steam Box line they tried to build-up at first, and that they may revive one day. But Tegra is not a dedicated GPU to plug next to separate CPU, Tegra is not a solution for a Steam Box.

Both Intel and AMD can be options for a Steam deck or a Steam box, both as APUs, or as CPUs, or as GPUs.

Nvidia Tegra can't be an option for a Steam deck or a Steam box.

Non-Tegra Nvidia can only be an option for a GPU of a Steam box, with an AMD or Intel CPUs.

If Valve is planning some Nvidia-based product, this can't be based on Tegra, unless Nvidia partners with Intel for the CPU cores… But because Intel are seriously attempting at competiting with Nvidia on the performance graphics chip the odds of having a mixed Intel + Nvidia APUs are very very very low. Intel has partnered with AMD for embedded graphics in their CPUs once, so one should never say never but I strongly doubt Valve is in position to force Intel to let Nvidia embed an Intel CPU in their Tegras, really.

So basically, if your product is not a Switch, the Tegra is not for you. Valve has no reason to make something lighter than a Steam deck. The only option for Valve to put an Nvidia in their product is a dedicated GPU in a product larger than a Steam deck, basically a Steam box. A laptop line may also work for an Nvidia GPU in a Valve product (basically a mobile Steam box).

[mSparks]

That's the exact proof Nvidia Tegra cannot really compete,

its taken 10 years for sony playstation and xbox to compete with tegra.

Tegra is not a current offering from nvidia. it is even further back from what a current mobile solution would look from that as a DGX is forward.

Tegra has No AI acceleration, DLSS, tensor, RT cores or cuda support - any of the fancy stuff nvidia "bet the company on" over the last ten years.

A new mobile offering from nvidia will likely have similar realtime graphics capabilities as the CGI used to make

https://youtu.be/cSp1dM2Vj48?si=6hdfIOU_aAjmB6Sb

But only if the games for it are nvidia exclusive, because AMD have neither the hardware nor the software to create anything similar.

[a5ehren]

The Tegra line has continued in automotive and robotics, where they could work on it without significant power constraints.

Nvidia also has a full ARM arch license from the failed merger - there isn’t any technical reason why they can’t make a console-class SoC, but they also aren’t exactly seeking out extra business at the moment.

[illwieckz]

its taken 10 years for sony playstation and xbox to compete with tegra.

LOL. They could chose Tegra, they had not.

They could do it, they already did bold moves, Microsoft went PPC for the Xbox 360, Sony went Cell for the PS3.

They have not, because Tegra would only be a serious competitor if Microsoft and Sony were making a Switch competitor.

because AMD have neither the hardware nor the software to create anything similar.

You fail at thinking about the product as a whole. An APU is a product, it's in competition with other APUs, An APU is not in competition with the parts of it.

That's because Nvidia has no APU that can compete against AMD APU those console makers went the AMD way, even if there exists dedicated Nvidia GPU that beats the graphics solution embedded in the AMD APU. A good example is ray tracing: AMD was behind Nvidia on the ray tracing topic went the XS and PS5 were designed, but Nvidia was even not in the competition of APUs to begin with so none of those console features them.

Nvidia dragsters maybe faster than the cars used by people who buy groceries themselves, but those people don't use dragsters to go buy groceries, and game consoles are sold to people who buy groceries themselves.

It's actually because all of this is right that Nvidia started the Tegra work years ago, to begin with, because people at Nvidia know they will never sell dragsters to game console makers. That's also why they even attempted to aquire ARM, because they know the problem is real and they are afraid about this problem: No one will buy them APUs if they don't have APUs to sell to begin with.

No one will buy them an APU only because they have another product that is not an APU that is better in another topic. Tegra actually exists because Nvidia is behind, Tegra is part of their attempts to close the gap. The example of the Switch is a good example of how the Tegra allowed them to keep a foot in the market of game consoles by targetting a lower level, which was a very good strategy for them, and this experience and such market is allowing them to progress on closing the gap more, because they have to close the gap and they know it well.

I'm not saying Nvidia will never be competitive in that market, neither they may be never be chosen in the future, neither they may not even become better in the future. But this is only a possible future. They're still working at closing the gap, and even Intel has now doubled them: The steam deck competitors in the same form factors that are not AMD are Intel.

Asus ROG Ally? AMD. Lenovo Legion GO? AMD. Ayaneo Kun / 2S / 1S? AMD. OneXPlayer Pro 2? AMD. GPD Win 4? AMD. MSI Claw AIM? Intel with Arc graphics… No nvidia around.

All of them are built to run Steam and PC games.

And if you even look outside of the main topic, which is about Valve and Steam interest, if you're OK to not have Steam and look at ARM where Nvidia Tegra may stands a chance, you get the Logitech G Cloud with ARM/Adreno or the Ayn Odin 2 with ARM/Adreno too. Where is Nvidia if it's so better and those makers can avoid PC compatibility and if they already do ARM?

Ah yes, the proof Nvidia Tegra is the APU of choice for game console products in 2024 and later is that Tegra was used in the Nintendo Switch 7 years ago. Even those choosing ARM for making game console products in 2024 don't chose Tegra today, but why? Nothing is preventing them to chose it if it's better for their need! And now you said the Nvidia Tegra was 10 years ahead 10 years ago? 7 years later, the Switch using Tegra still looks like an accident, and 7 years later the competitors are still used instead, even by those doing ARM…

A new mobile offering from nvidia will likely have similar realtime graphics capabilities as the CGI used to make [Ready Player One]. But only if the games for it are nvidia exclusive, because AMD have neither the hardware nor the software to create anything similar.

Then why do Nvidia doesn't offer it? Why do game console makers don't buy Nvidia? Are you aware they can? Microsoft already integrated Nvidia for an Xbox in the past, Sony already integrated Nvidia in a PlayStation in the past. They can do it, they already did it, why do they don't do it today if Nvidia is better? No one is forbiddng them to do it!

You talk like if Microsoft, Sony and Valve have chosen AMD but it would have been better if they had chosen Nvidia instead… But saying this doesn't make sense, because they all could chose Nvidia and they didn't do it. One cannot say “Imagine what would be an Xbox Series X with an Nvidia, a PlayStation 5 with an Nvidia, A Steam Deck with an Nvidia, it would be so better !”, because they all could do it and they all did not do it because it was worst.

[mSparks]

LOL. They could chose Tegra, they had not.

They could have chosen a 3DFX Voodoo II, you seem extremely surprised they didn't.

You fail at thinking about the product as a whole. An APU is a product, it's in competition with other APUs, An APU is not in competition with the parts of it.

You fail to recognise that tegra was last refreshed for games when 20nm silicon and ARMv8 was current

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tegra

we are down to 4nm as standard now, with an APU based on Blackwell and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Neoverse delayed but announced - that still is targeting HPC and Edge compute tho, a games version would go large on the RT cores, which are not needed for HPC, and have only very recently matured enough to replace raster graphics.

Then why do Nvidia doesn't offer it?

because developers are a limited resource, and they have been nearly 100% allocated to HPC on linux X11.