Sony's first choice was Nivdia but Nivdia and Sony could not reach an agreement on price. I believe Nivdia wanted too much $$$. If Sony and Nivdia did agree how do you think PS4 would have turned out? --- everyone plays video games I want to make them
If Sony don't want to repeat the PS3 and release a $600 unit, then they have to cut the cost. How would they cut the cost? By using cheaper and weaker components. --- GameFAQs isn't going to be merged in with GameSpot or any other site. We're not going to strip out the soul of the site. -CJayC
I don't know where you get the idea that Nvidia makes more powerful chips than AMD. They don't, they just have better drivers. On consoles, the console maker makes their own drivers. The 360's GPU was more powerful than the PS3s despite coming out a year earlier, being AMD, and the system costing less money. The PS3 had a more powerful processor, but we all know how that turned out.
So yes, the system would have cost more money and probably have been weaker. Not only that, Nvidia's agreements with Microsoft are what killed the original Xbox. People think Microsoft abandoned the platform on purpose, but Nvidia wouldn't renegotiate their deal under any circumstances (which is technically Microsoft's fault but to be fair it was their first console) so they just abandoned the system and Nvidia. This reason, along with the expensive Cell processor, is one of the reasons the PS3 doesn't really price drop much as well, and they put out that joke 12GB PS3 Go system or whatever to cut costs.
Either way, it doesn't matter, even if Nvidia won't admit that being in none of the consoles this time around does indeed hurt their bottom line.