[enlyth]

Even disregarding CUDA, NVidia has had like 80% of the gaming market for years without any signs of this budging any time soon.

When it comes to GPUs, AMD just has the vibe of a company that basically shrugged and gave up. It's a shame because some competition would be amazing in this environment.

[cebert]

What about PlayStation and Xbox? They use AMD graphics and are a substantial user base.

[ekianjo]

Because AMD has the APU category that mixes x86_64 cores with powerful integrated graphics. Nvidia does not have that.

[rbanffy]

Nvidia has a sprawling APU family in the Tegra series of ARM APUs, that span machines from the original Jetson boards and the Nintendo Switch all the way to the GB10 that powers the DGX Spark and the robotics-targeted Thor.

[MindSpunk]

The CPUs in their SOCs were not up to snuff for a non-portable game console until very recently. They used (and largely still do I believe) off the shelf ARM Cortex designs. The SOC fabric is their own, but the cores are standard.

In performance even the aging Zen2 would demolish the best Tegra you could get at the time.

You should note that the Switch, the only major handheld console for the last 10 years, is the only one using a Tegra.

And from everything I've heard Nvidia is a garbage hardware partner who you absolutely don't want to base your entire business on because they will screw you. The consoles all use custom AMD SOCs, if you're going to that deep level of partnering you'd want a partner who isn't out to stab you.

[keyringlight]

There has been a rumor that some OEMs will releasing gaming oriented laptops with Nvidia N1X Arm CPU + some form of 5070-5080 ballpark GPU, obviously not on x86 windows so it would be pushing the latest compatibility layer.

[rbanffy]

Aren't their APUs sufficient for a gaming laptop?

[bigyabai]

PlayStation and Xbox are two extremely low-margin, high volume customers. Winning their bid means shipping the most units of the cheapest hardware, which AMD is very good at.