×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nvidia Announces 192-Core Tegra K1 Chips, Bets On Android

samzenpus posted about 4 months ago | from the get-it-while-it's-hot dept.

Android 128

sfcrazy writes "Nvidia just announced Tegra K1, its first 192-core processor. NVIDIA CEO Jen-Hsun Huang made the announcement at CES 2014. He also said that Android will be the most important platform for gaming consoles. 'Why wouldn't you want to be open, connected to your TV and have access to your photos, music, gaming. It's just a matter of time before Android disrupts game consoles,' said Huang." Nvidia's marketing department created a crop circle to promote the chip after CEO Jen Hsun Huang declared that it was so advanced that "it's practically built by aliens."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

128 comments

Global Warming is a fucking JOKE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45877619)

I haven't seen it this cold in years. There is no way these commie liberal fucks can sell this global warming bullshit now, not after this record-breaking cold snap. In a world with rising temperatures, we would not have to endure this. You can talk all you want about outliers and statistics and all that crap, but anyone with half a brain that pays to heat their house can tell you that there is no warming, and if anything, it's COOLING!! Strike that ... FREEZING!!

Re:Global Warming is a fucking JOKE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45877673)

That's just in the US, because you guys suffer from cold winds from the north and cold streams from the north.
You should try living in europe, we don't even need warm coats. Also in the summer you guys have it the opposite, the warm water streams from the south make things very, very warm, in europe we just had a relatively cool summer, nice and non-PCoverheating :)

Re:Global Warming is a fucking JOKE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45877737)

This is why we locate all of our datacenters in Iceland. We stay away from Europe because it is very employer unfriendly. Six weeks of vacation and a $15 minimum wage with full health benefits? You can keep it.

Re: Global Warming is a fucking JOKE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45880479)

That is really smart because Iceland has such a huge talent pool which keeps the wages low.

Re:Global Warming is a fucking JOKE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45877783)

Oh man, maybe I should move. How is the fuck scene, though?

Re:Global Warming is a fucking JOKE (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45877733)

Completely off-topic and feeding the troll so I'm AC'ing but here in Trondheim, Norway our Christmas Eve was the warmest on record ever. Ever see those nice pressure spirals on TV? Where air flows down on the left-hand side (assuming northern hemisphere) it gets fucking cold, where air flows up on the right-hand side it gets fucking hot. It pretty much evens out for the planet.

Re:Global Warming is a fucking JOKE (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45877757)

Well over here in Sweden, we haven't seen such a warm winter in 50 years, there was a tiny dusting of snow in late november, but since then, no snow and frequent above-zero nights. Global warming is *global*, it's the average temperature across the globe, which, believe it or not, is larger than the continental United States or your hometown.

Re:Global Warming is a fucking JOKE (1, Offtopic)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 4 months ago | (#45877915)

In the Netherlands, on the other hand, we're currently having the mildest winter I can remember.
It's the first year since I was born some 36 years ago without snow or ice.
Typically, temperature would be well below freezing. Right now it's 14C (57F).

Re:Global Warming is a fucking JOKE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45877927)

Ironically, it was 56 degrees and raining this morning in upstate NY. It's normally in the 20s or 30s on a high day this time of year.

Re:Global Warming is a fucking JOKE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45878489)

Global warming is caused by aliens, if you are not covered, I suggest complaint to them directly by going to the nearest crop circle.
In the meantime you can get a bunch of 192-core Tegra K1 chips to heat up your house. You'll need a lot of them though as mobile GPUs tend to have low TDP.

"Android most important platform for gaming" (4, Informative)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 4 months ago | (#45877621)

Nvidia's just saying that because they lost the bid for all the consoles.

(It doesn't mean it's not true, though.)

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45877641)

Never this Chinese crap will be comparable to American made Intel products.

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (5, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 4 months ago | (#45877661)

Well maybe, but also there is the trend that most people are playing games on smart phones and not consoles. For everyone that bought a new game for PS4 or Xbox One, there are probably 10x as many consumers who bought Candy Crush Saga. Not everyone wants to spend hours in front of TV or monitor playing games. Some people just want a bit of downtime between doing other things.

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45877685)

The Android app developers have figured it out - the console developers have yet to catch up. Nobody wants to spend $300 dollars on a console that ties up your $500 TV while your using it and buy a few $60 games on top of it, when you can just download a game on your phone that you already have and spend $4 on it.

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45877809)

Nobody wants to spend $300 dollars on a console that ties up your $500 TV while your using it and buy a few $60 games on top of it, when you can just download a game on your phone that you already have and spend $4 on it.

Both of those things give entirely different experiences. There will be plenty of people who prefer casual games on a phone screen, there will be plenty who prefer high-resolution fancy graphics displayed on their big TV with a control system more flexible than a touch screen, and there will be many who enjoy both depending on what they're in the mood for.

It's like arguing that nobody in their right mind would buy a $400 PC with a $150 monitor and $60 software packages on top of that when you can download an office app that lets you do spreadsheets and other office work on that phone you already have. People now have the option of using a phone when they want to which wasn't an option in the past, so of course some people will make that jump when it suits them, but it doesn't mean that console/PC systems are obsolete and have nothing to offer anymore.

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 4 months ago | (#45877919)

Yes it's not a binary choice; however, for many consumers, a game console isn't really an option. They just don't play console games. They will play a smart phone game.

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45878149)

Yes it's not a binary choice; however, for many consumers, a game console isn't really an option. They just don't play console games. They will play a smart phone game.

Oh absolutely, I was more addressing the other AC's statement which implied that consoles were dead and just didn't realise it yet. That's what I meant when I said there "will be many who enjoy both depending on what they're in the mood for."

Minor nitpick though: what's a "console game"? A while ago one of my friends took great pleasure in showing me how much fun he had playing one of the early GTAs (GTA3?) on his Android phone. A while later I walked into a highstreet store and saw Angry Birds PC sitting on the shelf. I don't think it's really the case that there are "console games" and "phone games", completely separate and unreconcilable categories. It's more that some games lend themselves to one platform and some to multiple platforms, and now that phones can handle games which are more complicated than Snake people are really exploring what is possible on a handheld platform that probably wasn't originally bought with games in mind. People who would never buy a console are suddenly faced with the realisation that they don't need one to play games, so of course there is massive growth and experimentation in games for devices which are already widely owned but weren't previously thought of as gaming devices.

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (2)

mangu (126918) | about 4 months ago | (#45878369)

There will be plenty of people who prefer casual games on a phone screen, there will be plenty who prefer high-resolution fancy graphics displayed on their big TV with a control system more flexible than a touch screen

The problem with consoles right now is that any argument you can make for consoles vs. tablets you can also make for PC gaming vs. consoles, and any argument you can make for consoles vs. PCs you can also make for tablets vs. consoles.

Consoles are in an ever shrinking gap between tablets and PCs, I don't think their market has very much space to grow.

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (1)

N1AK (864906) | about 4 months ago | (#45878561)

Actually the vast majority of the argument you can make for tablets over consoles you can make for tablets over PCs. There's a reason why the biggest screen in my house is in the living room and not a bedroom or office. Now, I'm waiting to see how steam boxes turn out instead of jumping on the next gen but don't assume that outside of the relatively hardcore gamer demographic that PC gaming is going to better out of this trend than consoles.

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 4 months ago | (#45881731)

Is there any PC gamers which isn't "hard core"?

How much of the console gamers isn't "hard core"? At least of the ones who buy more than 1-2 games?

I assume there may become some hard core portable gamers but at the time on Android I don't know how easy that is ..

use case bigotry genre (1)

epine (68316) | about 4 months ago | (#45879167)

Nobody wants to spend $300 dollars on a console that ties up your $500 TV while your using it and buy a few $60 games on top of it, when you can just download a game on your phone that you already have and spend $4 on it.

I don't see the original post. Kinda interesting if there never was one. In any case, whatever it's origins, it's a fine example of the use case bigotry genre.

This is the kind of thing frequently heard expressed by a person riding the special-needs short bus—as in, not comprehending the needs of others worth a damn. The longer one lives life the more one realizes that we are all special needs in some dimension, which is why the fascist unification of consumer sentiment sucks ass.

From my perspective, ? what the hell else would you do ? with a $500 television if you subscribe to Telus Optik 50, and you haven't even installed the television modem—as I haven't—because the default content available represents negative value: for every good show one manages to watch, there's an equal amount of cognitive filth to studiously avoid.

Studious avoidance is an expensive activity. Ask any college drop-out. Or read any of the recent science on the will-power muscle, which suggests that the effort expended successfully avoiding the tempting (but awful) TV program is quite likely to show up as inferior decision making later that evening when you juggle your retire savings plan.

I suppose that "Nobody" is just a youthful code word for "Nobody who is anybody" after first screening out the educated, the thoughtful, and the literate in order to better isolate the spending demographic of happening now.

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (1)

BobMcD (601576) | about 4 months ago | (#45882093)

Both of those things give entirely different experiences. There will be plenty of people who prefer casual games on a phone screen, there will be plenty who prefer high-resolution fancy graphics displayed on their big TV with a control system more flexible than a touch screen, and there will be many who enjoy both depending on what they're in the mood for.

Both of these things GAVE different experiences, before today. Now one device can give both experiences.

When you're out and about, you're playing Candy Crush, making calls, updating your Facebook.

When you get home you plug it in to charge and it wirelessly associates with your $500 TV, your custom controllers, and your $300 sound system. Then you break out the Call of Duty 14 or Madden 26.

When you go out to dinner later with the wife, you pop the thing back in your pocket. If you're still jones-ing for that adrenaline fix you pop back into that shooter and get a few quick kills.

Remember when that Asus guy said 'wearable computers are our future' and everyone mocked him. Seems odd today in the face of Glass and other wearables rushing to market. Well, this is like that. Android is going to be able to do everything you want, and soon. It's cheap and loosely controlled, and it does everything you want. Did I mention it does everything you want?

I don't understand how people fail to grok this.

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (2)

Tough Love (215404) | about 4 months ago | (#45882183)

Nobody wants to spend $300 dollars on a console that ties up your $500 TV while your using it and buy a few $60 games on top of it, when you can just download a game on your phone that you already have and spend $4 on it.

Both of those things give entirely different experiences. There will be plenty of people who prefer casual games on a phone screen, there will be plenty who prefer high-resolution fancy graphics displayed on their big TV with a control system more flexible than a touch screen...

You're talking about the hard core basement couch potato gamer demographic, now busy raising kids and growing a fine crop of gray hair while being steadily replaced by the ADHD social gaming generation on phones and tablets. The trend is fairly clear.

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45877861)

Not this s*** again.

Portables game devices have been around for ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handheld_game_console) and yet it didn't prevent game consoles from being successful. Not the same audience, not the same experience.

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 4 months ago | (#45877901)

Yes but most people didn't have portable games. Only gamers had them. These days, many, many people have a smart phone. So they are buying games for a few dollars. Will there be gaming consoles and gamers? Yes. But there are millions more average consumers with smart phones. So which market would you go after if you were a hardware manufacturer?

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45877955)

If your comment made sense built in video in the early 2000s would have been of far better quality for gaming. After all, every office desktop PC was being used for minesweeper and solitaire.

Candy crush on the phone gamers have far lower expectations (and thus budgets) than console and PC gamers.

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 4 months ago | (#45878091)

Who do I see everyday with smart phones? Everyone. Grandparents, teenagers, hipsters, soccer moms, etc. Who do I see with a Nintendo Wii U or PS Vita? Maybe the occasional teenager but most of the time, it's a gamer. Portable game consoles are not what nVidia is targeting. No one is saying handheld game consoles will overtake game consoles. It is a fact that there are vastly more smartphone owners than game console owners. nVidia is going after the smartphone market.

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (1)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | about 4 months ago | (#45877937)

Except that it *is* the same audience NOW because now everyone has a cell phone. When the choice was console or portable, consoles won big. But now the choice is portable or portable and console. The experience isn't the same, but it isn't wholly different either. It is close enough for some people to decide that gaming on their phone is good enough and skip buying a console.

How large will the number of people be? I don't know, but in the past that number was zero so drawing comparisons between the past and present isn't so simple.

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (1)

BobMcD (601576) | about 4 months ago | (#45882135)

Something that everyone seems to be missing here - the portable device is able to out perform the consoles.

So, why even have a console, in that world?

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (1)

Bert64 (520050) | about 4 months ago | (#45879081)

Phone gaming is driven by the same factors which drove PC gaming, while lacking many of the problems that plagued early PC games...

Everyone i know has a mobile phone, yet only a handful of people i know (including myself) have dedicated portable games consoles (i have a nintendo ds, which i hardly ever use).

Almost everyone already owns a phone, but most cannot justify the cost of a dedicated gaming device. It's easy to justify installing a free or $5 game on your existing phone, its a lot harder to justify buying a $150 handheld games device and some $30 games for it.

Most people carry their phones everywhere, but very few will take a psp/ds everywhere with them... I very rarely take my DS unless i know in advance i'll have lots of time to play it and actually remember it.

Games for phones are usually free or very cheap, and pirating them is relatively easy if even cheap is too much for you... If like me you very quickly get bored of most games, $5 is reasonable but $60 is not.

Data plans are widely available so downloading a game on a whim is easily practical. People quite often find themselves with a few minutes of spare time, and will download and start playing a random free or very cheap game.

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about 4 months ago | (#45878281)

Nobody? Like the two million people who bought either a PS4 or XBone on day one?

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#45880529)

Compared to the number of iOS and Android users, two million is almost a rounding error.

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45878453)

read the small print:

*$4 mobile game is for boot up screen and tutorial only. Buy a level now for only $4.99! Checkpoints now 60% off buy now for only $0.99! Go pro and remove ads for $14.99!

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 4 months ago | (#45878889)

I think they are still 2 completely different markets. Adidas isn't going to stop making soccer cleats because there's more people who watch soccer than play soccer. Similary, the console and phone/tablet games markets aren't really that closely related except insofar as they are both about video games. I think the only major change is that the entire video game market is getting bigger, because you can easily get someone who already owns a cell phone to spend $2 on a game. Personally, as someone who has a Wii, a tablet, and a cellphone, I still end up doing most of my gaming on the Wii, because I just like playing on on a big screen, with a real controller so much more fun.

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 4 months ago | (#45878145)

Recently Ive switched to driving but before that it used to be bus or tram or subway and it's perfect downtime to try catching a star in Angry Birds or whatever. Mobile gaming is usable in a lot of places consoles could never reach.

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (1)

DuckDodgers (541817) | about 4 months ago | (#45879413)

You can't take your console into another room while your dad watches a football game. You can't take your console for a drive. And the interface for surfing the web or posting to Twitter on your console usually sucks.

I thought about getting a Playstation 4, but I think I'm going to save up and get a relatively high end Android hybrid tablet with attachable keyboard, like the next generation equivalent to the ASUS Transformer TF701T (or whatever the designation is). My kids and I can use it as a tablet when we're goofing off, and I can use it as a min-laptop when I want, and I can use bluetooth keyboard and mouse plus an external monitor when I want true productivity (plus remote desktop/VNC into my home desktop if I need more processing power and RAM than the tablet provides).

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 4 months ago | (#45881861)

Kjella above you:

Recently Ive switched to driving but before that it used to be bus or tram or subway and it's perfect downtime to try catching a star in Angry Birds or whatever. Mobile gaming is usable in a lot of places consoles could never reach.

You:

You can't take your console into another room while your dad watches a football game. You can't take your console for a drive. And the interface for surfing the web or posting to Twitter on your console usually sucks.

I still don't think it's even comparable products. I have a DS. I rarely set down on the couch to play a game on it. I did at the toilet even if the visit could become closer to an hour instead. For some games of simpler content maybe half an hour.

The thing is you wouldn't go very far in Fallout at the bus even if the trip took 30 minutes. You wouldn't shoot very accurately in some shooting game either. You wouldn't get to play Zelda until you had accomplished whatever you wanted to finish. (Or maybe it would be ok for some of that, and I think there is a very obvious benefit of being able to play when you've got time over / can't do much else vs a situation where you're actively allocating time for gaming alone.)

And actually you can take up your WiiU controller or PS Vita and stream games from your console or Nvidia shield or maybe some simpler Steam box design later to stream games from your PC. And I guess in the future from the cloud.

And imho typing shit on a small touch-screen suck balls so that's how I feel about that .. (Then again you can get this: http://www.keyboardco.com/keyboard/usa-majestouch-minila-air-67-key-click-action-bluetooth-keyboard.asp [keyboardco.com] )

The later you mention seem like a good option and regardless it will offer games the Playstation 4 may not do well. Then again the Playstation 4 can at least draw you better looking environments (+ "movement" controllers.)

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 4 months ago | (#45881963)

Or put it otherwise:

Yeah, sure, you can play games on your phone on the bus, toilet, sitting in your bed before going to sleep or when some better screen&device is occupied. You can't use a PC for the same purpose.

But on the other hand you can easily type text on the PC, hold many more tabs in your browser, code things, more easily do adjustments to your photos, store more files and play stuff like Battlefield 4, Civilization V, Starcraft II and such which may not work that great on your phone (guess Civ V could work but BF4 and SCII simply wouldn't.)

They do different things, neither is a replacement for the other.

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 4 months ago | (#45880437)

But there's more to it.

One could question what the profits are per chip of these vs the profits on each GTX 780. But then one would also have to consider the R&D and production cost of each.

For me currently I'm buying my share of the Humble Bundles but the Android titles seem so über-shitty, shallow and ugly vs the PC titles so currently the Android games have little pull on me. Some portable titles may have more game content but maybe those are for the PSP, PS Vita, DS and 3DS at the moment.

Maybe some people play and like Candy Crush Saga. I would never want to play it. Guess it fit in well with the Humble Bundle Android titles I mention. Pure complete shit which is limited by the crap you hold in your hand (which include the whole interface issue, now that can be fixed by external analogue joysticks and such but to put them to their best use I guess they will have to be required by the game so the game can be designed for them and that will be more interesting for the developers if more people have them, then again if you're going to snap your phone into something which make it similar to a PSP you lose some of that portability. May still work at home but there you've got more options.

I'm totally not saying portal gaming is or will be dead and sooner or later there will of course be more power in the devices and maybe bigger studios will care and release games worth playing on Android to.

But to compare Candy Crush Saga vs the games people can play on TV or monitor .. Sure not everyone may want to play the later, but that's also true in return. They aren't even comparable, they could be completely different products. _IF_ one want to play full heavy games the Android selection is likely a little ... poor.

I would rather watch reviews of real games than play candy crush saga in the meantime ;D

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 4 months ago | (#45882605)

One could question what the profits are per chip of these vs the profits on each GTX 780. But then one would also have to consider the R&D and production cost of each.

First of all a gaming console would not have a GTX780. It would have a customized, somewhat cheaper and less powerful chip. But from the R&D and production view, as a manufacturer, it might be worth it to sell cheaper mobile GPUs but many more of them than bigger console GPUs. Every year people buy hundreds of millions of smartphones. This is easily more than both the lifetime sales of PS3 and Xbox 360 combined.

Maybe some people play and like Candy Crush Saga. I would never want to play it. Guess it fit in well with the Humble Bundle Android titles I mention. Pure complete shit which is limited by the crap you hold in your hand (which include the whole interface issue, now that can be fixed by external analogue joysticks and such but to put them to their best use I guess they will have to be required by the game so the game can be designed for them and that will be more interesting for the developers if more people have them, then again if you're going to snap your phone into something which make it similar to a PSP you lose some of that portability. May still work at home but there you've got more options.

This is pure gaming snobbery. Yes, your console or PC game is much more intricate and complex than a phone game. That lack of complexity actually attracts the average consumer. Grandma doesn't care to know which assault rifle is better in Call of Duty for a strike. She would rather line up 3 gems in Bejeweled or launch Angry Birds at structures. So would my nephews and nieces. Average consumers far outnumber gamers.

But to compare Candy Crush Saga vs the games people can play on TV or monitor .. Sure not everyone may want to play the later, but that's also true in return. They aren't even comparable, they could be completely different products. _IF_ one want to play full heavy games the Android selection is likely a little ... poor.

They are not the same (which is my point). Consumers want Candy Crush Saga. They like playing them while waiting for their food or at the airport. They can get them on their smart phones which they carry around everywhere. Some of them don't care about games like Call of Duty (shocking as that is). Those that do find those console games not to be very portable.

Also no one says that nVidia will stop trying to make GPUs for consoles. It's that it makes business sense for nVidia to go after the mobile market as well.

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (2)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | about 4 months ago | (#45882795)

Well maybe, but also there is the trend that most people are playing games on smart phones and not consoles. For everyone that bought a new game for PS4 or Xbox One, there are probably 10x as many consumers who bought Candy Crush Saga. Not everyone wants to spend hours in front of TV or monitor playing games. Some people just want a bit of downtime between doing other things.

Ehhhh. That's not the reason behind this.

You're right, mobile gaming is huge. But Candy Crush Saga doesn't require a Kepler GPU. There aren't many popular mobile games, tablet or otherwise, crying out for more horsepower at this point.

NVidia has a more basic problem. As the grandparent post noted, their customers are drying up. The industry has pretty much agreed the IGP is the future. IGP delivers extremely fast compute performance and lower power usage. Both the Xbox One and PS4 use a single chip for graphics and GPU. So if you look at the landscape:
- Intel has the Core processor and the Iris Pro IGP.
- AMD has their processors and the Radeon IGP.
- NVidia has ??? and GeForce.

Cue an Nvidia scramble. In order to compete against all in one chips, they need a processor architecture. Intel's x86 processors would be a great candidate, but Intel has pretty much decided on going their own for integrated graphics. Nvidia implementing their own x86 silicon against two established competitors would also be an uphill climb, if they could even get a license.

But Nvidia does have the option of ARM open to them. They can (and they did) build an Nvidia GPU coupled with an ARM CPU. Problem solved! Except ARM hasn't caught on yet with PCs. So they now need a market for their ARM chips until PCs warm up to ARM. So Nvidia begins making Tegra for tablets and phones.

This is why Nvidia is pitching silicon for a use case that doesn't exist. If they don't come up with a single chip solution, they'll be run out of business. They're using the tablet and phone market to keep themselves floating until they can launch Tegra on PC and consoles. Both may never happen, but if Nvidia wants to stay alive, that's really the safest bet to make.

I'm not sure OP was going for an explanation this deep, but he wasn't THAT far off in calling this a response to being drummed out of consoles.

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45877665)

niggerz!

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (1)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | about 4 months ago | (#45877721)

Right, the Ouya proves his point.

NOT!!!!!

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45877807)

Not the ouya, it was the ouija that was used to prove his point. Do not doubt the spirits. Watch this [youtube.com]

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45877837)

Right, the Ouya proves his point.

NOT!!!!!

The iPhone was not the first smartphone, and the first smartphone didn't run Android either. The first ones out of the gate often stumble, but that doesn't mean the general concept will never go anywhere.

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (1)

JMJimmy (2036122) | about 4 months ago | (#45879241)

Mobile + TV are two different experiences - trying to force one onto the other is just stupid.

My money is on the SteamBox.

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about 4 months ago | (#45877897)

I'm pretty sure the millions of phones and tablets people are using to play facebook games instead of PCs and consoles is proving his point.

There were also a fairly large number of Ouya's sold and shipped from their kickstarter. I think their downfall is that now that it's out in the wild, they have a very small selection of games to play on it. I've bought a couple of games on mine and, entertainment wise, it's just as good as my PS3, or Wii, it's just there isn't much there I'm interested in.

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about 4 months ago | (#45878297)

Every time I get excited about a really nice game on my tablet or phone, I start wishing it was on a bigger screen with a real controller instead.
There are very few exceptions.
Sure, that doesn't eliminate something like an Android-powered set-top device but the games aren't usually made to work well in that configuration.

Re:"Android most important platform for gaming" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45881065)

Nvidia's just saying that because they lost the bid for all the consoles.

(It doesn't mean it's not true, though.)

You should read the reports from happened to the talks between nVIDIA and Sony. Sony liked what nVIDIA expertise did to the PS3's GPU so they were in negotiations with nVIDIA for them to du to the PS4's GPU, but then nVIDIA walked away. nVIDIA could have been in the PS4 if they'd wanted, but they felt Android devices were a far higher priority. nVIDIA is stepping onto shaky ground, but often that is the way forward to conquer regions no one else dares.

"...powered by the 192-core NVIDIA Kepler GPU..." (0)

janeuner (815461) | about 4 months ago | (#45877653)

Am I the only person that read the headline and thought CPU? Misled?

Re:"...powered by the 192-core NVIDIA Kepler GPU.. (4, Informative)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | about 4 months ago | (#45877747)

The CPU in this has four 32-bit 2.3GHz Cortex A15 cores. A model will come out later with two 64-bit 2.5GHz "Denver" cores -- a CPU of NVidia's own making which they haven't released many details about but their benchmarks show as significantly faster.

When I saw them marketing it as 192 cores I let out a sigh... because these kind of dumb tactics are so expected now.

Re:"...powered by the 192-core NVIDIA Kepler GPU.. (2)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 4 months ago | (#45877787)

It would have been a lot more interesting if it actually was 192 CPU cores in it. Of course it would be a bit of a challenge to code for it - and to get an efficient OS build for it. But on the other hand it's probably the way that we need to go in order to get more performance in the future.

Re:"...powered by the 192-core NVIDIA Kepler GPU.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45882031)

It would have been a lot more interesting if it actually was 192 CPU cores in it.

I'm afraid it probably wouldn't, it would be expensive and pointless. Its virtually impossible to parallelize CPU code to that degree. No matter what you do, creating full fat CPU threads is very expensive just to do a bit of computation, and keeping a bunch of worker threads hanging around waiting for jobs is not only wasteful but just synchronising them is generally slower than starting a job on the GPU. That is why GPU computing is actually useful -- you create the equivalent of threads almost instantaneously, and they have a specialised memory set up (some dedicated per core, some shared) that allows them to work together or individually very efficiently. The GPU cores are of course limited in some senses, but the difference is what makes them useful.

32bit so games will be cap about 2.5 gb ram and 1g (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 4 months ago | (#45877899)

32bit so games will be cap about 2.5 gb ram and 1gb video ram?

Re:32bit so games will be cap about 2.5 gb ram and (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 4 months ago | (#45878907)

32bit so games will be cap about 2.5 gb ram and 1gb video ram?

What phone has more than that?

Re:32bit so games will be cap about 2.5 gb ram and (1)

Bert64 (520050) | about 4 months ago | (#45879123)

Sure, why not?
That's considerably more than an xbox 360 or ps3, and people are more than happy to play games on those.

Re:32bit so games will be cap about 2.5 gb ram and (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45879349)

32-bit means only that a single process sees a 32-bit virtual address space. The underlying A15 hardware supports 40-bit physical addresses, so the OS can deal with up to 1TB of RAM, if it wanted to. The only restriction is each process can only see 4GB at a time. The GPU frame-buffer is not mapped into the game processes address space (parts of it may be mapped in to the graphics driver's address space), so your app/game can use 4GB of ram (more or less).

http://www.arm.com/files/downloads/ARMv8_white_paper_v5.pdf talks about the limitiations of this approach and why 64-bit addressing is generally nicer, though

You are an idiot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45879605)

Those 'cores' are far more powerful CPU processors than anything we used in the pre-80486 age. The are NOT usually programmed like a traditional CPU, since such a paradigm would give LOUSY performance (see the world's most disastrous CPU/GPU project- the Larrabee- for a textbook example of why you NEVER EVER simply build loads of what a very very dumb person considers 'proper' cores).

You, PhrostyMcByte, are the kind of cretin that causes the Chinese companies to stuff EIGHT useless CPU cores in their newest ARM SoC parts, just so dribblers can say "DUH- my phone has 8 'proper' cores, duh". Meanwhile, everything that runs on that phone only lights up 2 cores, for power and coding reasons.

It gets worse for the dribblers. The GPU architecture of AMD and Nvidia is actually VASTLY more efficient doing most database operations- sorting, searching, indexing- often operating so quickly that the limiting factor is the speed of the memory itself- and remember the GPU has a VASTLY better memory sub-system than even the most expensive solutions from Intel. It is the DUMB, traditional CPU cores that hold back a modern computer, and it is the smart cores of AMD and Nvidia GPUs that allow levels of performance unthinkable only a few years back.

Re:"...powered by the 192-core NVIDIA Kepler GPU.. (1)

marcomarrero (521557) | about 4 months ago | (#45878441)

I was misled too. The useless headline is using the same pointless info nVidia presented, because they can't use "CUDA cores".

"Practically built by aliens", huh ? (1)

vikingpower (768921) | about 4 months ago | (#45877655)

Have to remember that one for the next time I present a design or an engineering proposition to some pointy-haired bosses. Ha !

Re:"Practically built by aliens", huh ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45877785)

H1B?

Re:"Practically built by aliens", huh ? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 4 months ago | (#45878691)

Alien doesn't just mean 'Extra-Terrestrials'; it also means 'immigrants'.

Re:"Practically built by aliens", huh ? (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 months ago | (#45877833)

I suppose that adds a cool, hip, sci-fi spin to the fact that we farmed out development to an outsourcing shop somewhere in ethniclashistan to save money...

Crop circle (1)

game kid (805301) | about 4 months ago | (#45877735)

I definitely thought the crop circle was manmade, given the design and the reports that said a group of people were in the area. I thought it was more an independent attention-whore art-prank, though; nor did bells go off in my mind that the Braille "192" meant a 192 core processor either (though it obviously was a processor or circuit board by appearance).

Re:Crop circle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45877907)

I definitely thought the crop circle was manmade.

So did I. For the simple reason that all crop circles are.

Why wouldn't you want to be open (1)

Jimpqfly (790794) | about 4 months ago | (#45877741)

... Why would Sony and Microsoft be open? What interest would they have in using a competitor's OS? And creating a completely NEW platform would still be very hard...

Me.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45877765)

I don't want to be connected to my tv... When im playing a game i also don't want access to anything but the game. And when i do.. I want it on my terms. Not their approved methods and programs. apps...

After doing the rounds of the consoles... I'm more than happy with my PC as my game device. It's easy to upgrade. It can multi-task easily on demand. Or not. Runs far faster and looks far better than any console ever will. Not to mention mouse and keyboard beats the fuck out of sloppy console controls that need aim assist to even come close for most games. And theres still whole styles of games that will NEVER work well without a mouse. And fuck all those games on any system that won't let you remap controls.

Maybe android can make inroads on pc gaming. But i don't see android being for games much beyond stuff like plants vs. zombies point and click type games, the kind of stuff you want on your phone. Quick time killers. Not in depth multi-hour session games. Andorid might hurt the consoles. But after surviving the console wars and choosing the PC.... meh.

Practically built by Aliens? (4, Funny)

Anarchduke (1551707) | about 4 months ago | (#45877771)

Why didn't they give this the code name Roswell?

Re:Practically built by Aliens? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45877853)

Why didn't they give this the code name Roswell?

Wasn't that the place where the thing made by aliens allegedly crashed and burned?

Re:Practically built by Aliens? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45880273)

Wasn't that the place where the thing made by aliens allegedly crashed and burned?

So it's reserved for AMD?

Practically built by aliens (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45877827)

Better be careful with statements like "Practically built by aliens". Nvidia might be getting a visit from immigration control to make sure their aliens are not illegal.

it's means it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45877879)

How many more GPU cores are needed until computers can auto-correct apostrophes for illiterates?

Re:it's means it is (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 4 months ago | (#45878101)

How many more GPU cores are needed until computers can auto-correct apostrophes for illiterates?

the answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind ...

First? (5, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | about 4 months ago | (#45878237)

To begin with, the summary and headline are being misleading - that's 192 GPU "cores" (really ALUs - there's only one scheduler on this entire GPU), so it's already inaccurate. But it's also hardly the first Nvidia chip with 192 "cores".

First Tegra with a 192-core GPU, but it's not their first 192-core GPU. Their first was the GeForce 260, followed by the GeForce GTS 450, GTX550 Ti, GT630, and GT635.

In fact, this is basically a GT630 with a smaller memory interface (64-bit LPDDR3 instead of 128-bit DDR3) and a few power optimizations.

The sad thing is, they don't have to make up bullshit for marketing - they're bringing a full-fledged, full-featured GPU to mobile products, with all the modern features that entails. And even with just one SMX at low clocks, that's still a lot of horsepower - I run Crysis at 1080p on high with just two SMX units (660M). Putting that amount of power into a tablet would be impressive on its own, no lying about "cores" necessary.

Re:First? (3, Informative)

Nemyst (1383049) | about 4 months ago | (#45879011)

The problem is, you needed an entire paragraph to get your point across (and that's assuming people know what Crysis is, which is fine on PC but not so much on mobile). They need to make it sound impressive in five words or less, otherwise the fickle market has already turned their collective head elsewhere.

Imagine a... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45879693)

...Beowulf cluster of..... ...oh, nevermind.

Re:First? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45880091)

I agree, this seems to be taking the already poorly understood measurement of "cores" and taking it to the level of being completely abused and meaningless.

From a "market perspective", I've always looked at a CORE as something on a CPU that could run an entire system. I never thought from that perspective a graphics card would even have a "Core" but perhaps technically, it would be something that could entirely run OpenCL or compute any graphics task -- which means we would have to distinguish a GPU Core from a CPU Core and I don't think the market is ready for that distinction.

This is a "landmark" piece of marketing because it now signals that the "core race" is as meaningless as the "megahertz race" became. They will now have to resort to "teraflops"comparisons. But I'm probably too late on that, and they will also include NOPs as part of the Flops ;-)

Re:First? (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about 4 months ago | (#45880311)

They already do that, and they already lie a bit by counting an FMA as two floating-point operations.

Re:First? (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 4 months ago | (#45880097)

While that may sound cool to someone who don't know their stuff where do that it relative the rest of the market?

GT 630: 311 GFLOPS (is that the one you mean? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_600_Series [wikipedia.org] )

Xbox 360: 240 GFLOPS (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6972/xbox-one-hardware-compared-to-playstation-4/2)
WiiU: 352 GFLOPS (? http://geekermagazine.com/xbox-one-vs-ps4-vs-wii-u/ [geekermagazine.com] )
Xbox One: 1,23 TFLOPS (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6972/xbox-one-hardware-compared-to-playstation-4/2)
Playstation 4: 1,84 TFLOPS (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6972/xbox-one-hardware-compared-to-playstation-4/2)

GTX 780: 4 TFLOPS
GTX 780 Ti: 5 TFLOPS

So whenever this is available in gflops it will be about 1/4 the speed of the Xbox One and 1/6 of the Playstation 4 and 1/13 the speed of the reasonable good bang for your buck card 1/16 of their most powerful graphics card for PC.

So maybe it's cool that "it's a portable graphics card!" but as can be expected it's not as fast as the best stuff you can put into a PC.

Scrypt mining? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#45878419)

I was about to ask the potential scrypt mining power of this thing relative to its cost and power requirements and then I realized it's nVidia.

Forget about it.

Re:Scrypt mining? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45880791)

GTX 780 devices get 630-650 kHash/s in scrypt mining.

I think your bias against nVidia is based on outdated information.

"created by aliens" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45878629)

So this was designed in Southern California?

Does anyone believe it? (2)

edxwelch (600979) | about 4 months ago | (#45878979)

A 5W chip producing 360 gflops. To put that into persective a GeForce 730M, which has the same architecture, but twice as many cores and rated at 556.8 GFLOPS, is a 33W part.
So basically, Nvidia have made Kepler 4 times more efficient with no architecture changes. What magic did they use?

Re:Does anyone believe it? (1)

fredan (54788) | about 4 months ago | (#45879299)

butterfly labs and josh "inaba" zerlan.

he's is they guy how can fix anything in just two weeks (tm).

BFL is known for their accurate power calculation when they are designing their products. that's why nvidia hired them.

Re:Does anyone believe it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45879421)

Hint: one of those is peak, the other TDP-limited average.

Re:Does anyone believe it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45879461)

Intel should be throwing money at nvidia to build an APU off this tech (die-shrunk and even less than 5 watts. maybe even push a TFLOP).

One big problem for Nvidia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45879489)

The Tegra 5 is renamed to Tegra K1, but either way Nvidia is the LAST of the big three to merge a true current generation GPU with the CPU cluster. AMD, of course, was the first. Intel finally got round to replacing its atrociously implemented PowerVR GPU licensed from Imagination with its own barely functional integrated solution, that at least, on paper, 'supports' modern GPU functionality.

With the Tegra K1, Nvidia releases its FIRST SoC part with a desktop class GPU. The BIG PROBLEM is who needs it?

The chip is HOT (very, very hot when its units are actually being utilised), and very expensive. The so-called 5Watt power profile is no such thing. 5W refers to power use when the chip is essentially doing little but browsing- switch to AAA gaming mode and power usage goes through the roof. But whether your battery can afford to max out this K1 or not, you still have to pay for the chip, so all that essentially unusable functionality adds to the cost of your device.

Be in no doubt. Mains-powered mobile gaming (yeah, I know that's a contradiction) will be world-beating on the K1. But exactly how big is that market, when most mobile gamers play 'casual' games easily handled by the cheapest of Chinese ARM parts. Meanwhile, as Sony's PS4 and Vita owners have discovered, the BEST path to AAA mobile gaming is to use the handheld as a remote display/input for games otherwise being created on a powerful mains connected console. Such a handheld can, again, simply contain the cheapest of Chinese ARM chips, all of which can easily handle the H264 video streams needed.

What about Chromebooks? Well no Nvidia part (if memory serves) has found its way into that market, and the K1 strengths lie in the wrong direction. The K1 is well under half the performance of AMD's mobile Kaveri, and while it uses far less power, mid-range performance notebooks (even if people were buying notebooks based on Android) need at least Kaveri levels of CPU and GPU performance.

There is a good reason the boss of Nvidia spent so much time wittering on about luxury cars. Nvidia needs such FANTASY markets badly, because the ordinary ARM/Android market is a VERY bad match for Nvidia's coming high-end parts. Nvidia could try to win back Apple's business, but the K1 again is weak in those areas that matter to Apple.

The K1 will follow the disastrous Tegra 4. Nvidia will build its own tablet around the chip, which at the very least will be great value for money. Nvidia will build Shield 2, their mobile platform with the obscenely large battery, but this time few will consider Shield a good option against remote PS4 play on a Vita. Meanwhile the vast ARM market will prefer good enough parts from anyone but Nvidia. Nvidia needs Android for Desktops- a version of Android that offers OSX/XP/Win7 like windows functionality, but there is no sign of Google releasing such a product this year. Nvidia needs SteamOS for ARM, but Valve seems only interested in quite high-end traditional PC solutions.

Nvidia's essential hardcore fan base wanted a new high-end gaming GPU this year, but unlike AMD and Intel, Nvidia doesn't fabricate its own chips, and is at the mercy of an industry increasingly focused on much lower performance mobile chips. At this time, all Nvidia can hope to do is prevent a slow decline from becoming a rapid decline.

NVIDIA has it tough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45881729)

I really do not see Nvidia making much headway in tablets. After all, most tablet users are fine with the game play they get from those cheap app store games and are not heavy into gaming. Android may be Nvidia's target, but what other target do they have? Not like Apple will suddenly adopt Nvidia chips or that Windows tablets will magically start setting sales records. Nvidia really has to convince not only tablet makers that their chips are worth more. But that generally consumers will also think so. I find that a tough sell to both.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...