Aren't the Xbox and PS4 consoles based on Fusion technology?

[desura]

And if so...why can't AMD make a fusion processor with a fast graphics portion like that which exists on the consoles?

 

[maddogmcgee]

Consoles cost more than any APU. Consoles are not limited to DD3 ram speeds which really bottleneck AMD APU's. Consoles do not have very fast hardware overall but developers tweak the most out of them because they are closed systems. Consoles also run lower resolutions than most PC gamers, they get get away with this because TV's are further away etc, even then some games hit FPS issues.

 

[RussianSensation]

And if so...why can't AMD make a fusion processor with a fast graphics portion like that which exists on the consoles?

They will once they move APUs to Zen CPU architecture and add HBM memory. Without HBM memory, it's not possible to increase the memory bandwidth of the GPU enough to remove the bottleneck. The biggest argument against this idea is that you can often buy a stand-alone CPU and a discrete GPU for similar amount of $ and they will outperform the APU on both the CPU and GPU side.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Bandwidth is not the only problem with apus. You also have the problem of combining a hundred watt plus gpu with a 100 watt cpu(for amd at least) and cooling it properly. Finally, a separate cpu and dgpu is a much more flexible package in a desktop because you can upgrade the gpu separately. This is critical because a good cpu can last through several gpu upgrades, considering the much faster progress of gpus relative to cpus.

 

[Silverforce11]

Bandwidth is the main constraint, even if you build a very powerful iGPU, it will run crippled by DD3 system ram speeds. HBM will enable better iGPU performance for sure.

Cooling is a non-issue given the proliferation of water AIO coolers and now common it already is for high end OC CPU setups.

Upgrade-ability is also not a big issue if the CPU performance is there to drive a good dGPU. Currently most of the Intel users with dGPUs are wasting a huge chunk of their CPU as its not doing anything (iGPU takes a large die area), but its fine, because the CPU performance is good to prevent dGPU being bottlenecked.

For example, if there was an APU with Haswell like CPU and GTX970 class performance, it would make for a good gaming setup but also has potential for growth with the CPU able to drive Titan X SLI performance class dGPU.

The biggest hurdle will be pricing. If its a lot cheaper to go CPU + dGPU for similar performance, it will remain a niche product, for mITX setups mostly.

Price pressure will go down as HBM matures.

 

[ShintaiDK]

And if so...why can't AMD make a fusion processor with a fast graphics portion like that which exists on the consoles?

Desktop APUs have been a complete flop and nobody guys them for graphics performance. The CPU part is simply too weak to make the GPU part matter at all. And even if the CPU wasnt the limit, then the GPU would be due to memory speed.

A CPU also got longer lifespan than a GPU. So the big question is, why use it all at when you can buy a discrete GPU.

Its a product with no buyers outside of the consoles.

 

[AtenRa]

They will once they move APUs to Zen CPU architecture and add HBM memory. Without HBM memory, it's not possible to increase the memory bandwidth of the GPU enough to remove the bottleneck. The biggest argument against this idea is that you can often buy a stand-alone CPU and a discrete GPU for similar amount of $ and they will outperform the APU on both the CPU and GPU side.

Not correct, there is not a single setup to be able to perform better than a APU alone in both the CPU AND iGPU at the same price.

Also, there are APUs that are cheaper than a CPU + dGPU. Example the A6-7400K or the A8-7600/7650K.

 

[AtenRa]

Bandwidth is not the only problem with apus. You also have the problem of combining a hundred watt plus gpu with a 100 watt cpu(for amd at least) and cooling it properly. Finally, a separate cpu and dgpu is a much more flexible package in a desktop because you can upgrade the gpu separately. This is critical because a good cpu can last through several gpu upgrades, considering the much faster progress of gpus relative to cpus.

You can upgrade the GPU in the APU as well, you can even use DUAL Graphics and increase the performance of the APU at lower price than a CPU + dGPU.

 

[Blitzvogel]

You can upgrade the GPU in the APU as well, you can even use DUAL Graphics and increase the performance of the APU at lower price than a CPU + dGPU.

Assuming the CPU portion of the APU isn't a bottleneck, which it usually is for general gaming.

AMD simply wasn't able to boost their general CPU performance @ same wattage enough with each new round of APUs, nor able to push the software ecosystem to give them that "edge" over Intel systems at the same price point. Dual GPU performance always has been iffy.

Plus so few people know who AMD is. Had AMD been able to secure that Apple contract with Llano, I bet things would be a much different story. Not only would more people know who they are, but the APU software ecosystem would've received the huge boost it needed to thrive since you'd have all those photo and video editors benefiting from the graphics portion of the APU.

It's just one long sad story that missed so many crucial opportunities. I really hope Zen avoids being a big-graphics APU unless it finally realizes the HSA dream by natively using GPU SIMD to augment the CPU cores.

 

[Zodiark1593]

This reminds me of time on the Steam Forums back in 2011 where I predicted at least one console would use a beefed up APU. While hardly adequate on a pc, the potential balance of heat, performance and power use on a console platform makes it the ideal purpose for beefed up APU chips. Think the replies were something along the lines of "No way they would use anything that weak" though they missed my point.

 

[swilli89]

Man oh man how awesome would a theoretical Nintendo NX with about 1800 Shaders and a few Zen cores be? 8 GB of HBM2 memory for the entire system and voila! New king of consoles!

Really, really want to see nintendo have AMD build something like this for them..

 

[AtenRa]

Assuming the CPU portion of the APU isn't a bottleneck, which it usually is for general gaming.

AMD simply wasn't able to boost their general CPU performance @ same wattage enough with each new round of APUs, nor able to push the software ecosystem to give them that "edge" over Intel systems at the same price point. Dual GPU performance always has been iffy.

Plus so few people know who AMD is. Had AMD been able to secure that Apple contract with Llano, I bet things would be a much different story. Not only would more people know who they are, but the APU software ecosystem would've received the huge boost it needed to thrive since you'd have all those photo and video editors benefiting from the graphics portion of the APU.

It's just one long sad story that missed so many crucial opportunities. I really hope Zen avoids being a big-graphics APU unless it finally realizes the HSA dream by natively using GPU SIMD to augment the CPU cores.

Well i was talking about hybrid Cross Fire, example (prices from newegg)

Core i3 4330 at $135
R7 250 2GB DDR3 at $55

Total = $190

A10-7850K at $140

At a lower cost, the AMD A10-7850K almost has the same GPU performance and same CPU MT performance. If you OC the APU it will have both higher CPU MT and iGPU performance than the Core i3 + R7 250 DDR3.

-------------------

A10-7850K at $140
R7 250 2GB DDR3 at $55

Total = $195

The A10-7850K with dual graphics (Hybrid CF) will be ~2x faster than the Core i3 + R7 250 at the same price.
CPU wise, MT workloads will be faster with the A10-7850K at 4GHz+. The only thing Core i3 has is single thread and lower CPU consumption.

 

[Erenhardt]

Man oh man how awesome would a theoretical Nintendo NX with about 1800 Shaders and a few Zen cores be? 8 GB of HBM2 memory for the entire system and voila! New king of consoles!

Really, really want to see nintendo have AMD build something like this for them..

I second that!

 

[Zodiark1593]

Man oh man how awesome would a theoretical Nintendo NX with about 1800 Shaders and a few Zen cores be? 8 GB of HBM2 memory for the entire system and voila! New king of consoles!

Really, really want to see nintendo have AMD build something like this for them..

And 6 months later, Sony and Microsoft put out new consoles.

 

[swilli89]

And 6 months later, Sony and Microsoft put out new consoles.

And?

Well, that's ok! With a classic pro controller and an easy platform to develop for that is at least similar in power Nintendo would be primed to make a huge comeback.

And a potential 2016 Nintendo console wouldn't have to deal with new systems from Sony and Ms until 2020 or so.

We have been seeing it in Pc, and now in consoles, each "generation" is less and less awe inspiring, many complained about ps4 and Xbox1 bc they weren't that much better ala ps2 to ps3..

 

[Blitzvogel]

Well i was talking about hybrid Cross Fire, example (prices from newegg)

Core i3 4330 at $135
R7 250 2GB DDR3 at $55

Total = $190

A10-7850K at $140

At a lower cost, the AMD A10-7850K almost has the same GPU performance and same CPU MT performance. If you OC the APU it will have both higher CPU MT and iGPU performance than the Core i3 + R7 250 DDR3.

-------------------

A10-7850K at $140
R7 250 2GB DDR3 at $55

Total = $195

The A10-7850K with dual graphics (Hybrid CF) will be ~2x faster than the Core i3 + R7 250 at the same price.
CPU wise, MT workloads will be faster with the A10-7850K at 4GHz+. The only thing Core i3 has is single thread and lower CPU consumption.

Sorry, I was referring to Hybrid CF when I said "dual graphics", excuse me for not clarifying.

The first problem you're running into is the fact that outside of enthusiasts, no one knows what an A10-7850K is or even who AMD is. Consumers looking for a machine will see the Intel logo and instantly recognize it.

Second is that anyone with a clue about PC hardware would know how to spend their money better. The 7850k provides no upgrade path for the APU itself. I highly doubt Zen will be FM2+. Also I have little faith in Hybrid CFX. The "boost" in FPS, even in non-hybrid CF never seems to be worth it's cost. From a budget standpoint, I'd ditch the 7850K for an 860K, and dump the savings into a better graphics card. To hell with Hybrid CF.

Third, most benchmarks I've seen show the i3-4330 beating the 7850K. The A10 winning or matching the i3 is a very case-by-case basis.

The 7850K only makes sense to me when you can't have a graphics card for something like a really small HTPC, in which case, there are cheaper options that get the job done anyways.

Now for a system builder, the 7850K could be a wealth of value in selling cheap "gaming systems" to those making initial jumps into the world of PC gaming. However, the 860K + dGPU makes more sense to me since you can get an 860K + R7 250X (full Cape Verde!) for almost as cheap as the 7850.

 

[Silverforce11]

The current APUs have no good purpose outside of a few small niche builds.

But I am looking forward to some beefy Zen APU + HBM combo, they mentioned it was for servers, but I have no doubts it will trickle down to consumers.

It will be a success IF and only if Zen lives up to its hype. Gamers have to be confident that the CPU portion of it will be capable of driving a stronger dGPU down the road.

 

[AtenRa]

Also I have little faith in Hybrid CFX. The "boost" in FPS, even in non-hybrid CF never seems to be worth it's cost. From a budget standpoint, I'd ditch the 7850K for an 860K, and dump the savings into a better graphics card. To hell with Hybrid CF.

RussianSensation said you can have a faster CPU + faster dGPU at the same price as an APU.
Even if we only take prices in the US, Athlon 860K is at $78 and R7 250X at $65 after mail rebate. Total of $143 when A10-7850K is at $140. So we cannot have both Faster CPU + fraster dGPU at the same price.
And if we look at the rest of the world, for example in EU the Athlon 860K starts from 70 Euro, cheapest R7 250X at 84 Euro for a total of 154 Euro when the A10-7850K starts at 128 Euro.

And this is only for the A10-7850K, what happens for the rest of the APUs ???

A8-7600 in US costs just $90, There is not a CPU + dGPU to give you even the same performance both of the CPU and the GPU at only $90.

A6-7400K can give you an acceptable 720p gaming at only $65.

Third, most benchmarks I've seen show the i3-4330 beating the 7850K. The A10 winning or matching the i3 is a very case-by-case basis.

The A10-7850K has the added bonus of OverClocking. At an easy 4.3GHz it is faster than Core i3 4330 at the majority of MT workloads. And you will also need to add a $60 R7 250 to even match the A10-7850K iGPU performance.

So the core i3 4330 + R7 250 total cost is at $135 + $60 = $195 to reach the same performance both in CPU and GPU of the A10-7850K which only cost $140

The 7850K only makes sense to me when you can't have a graphics card for something like a really small HTPC, in which case, there are cheaper options that get the job done anyways.

For its current price, the A10-7850K is an excellent APU to start a cheap entry level gaming PC. You can start with the APU only and later upgrade the GPU with a cheap R7 250 and double the GPU performance with dual hybrid graphics, or you could even upgrade the GPU to an even higher model like a R9 285 or even R9 290.

Now for a system builder, the 7850K could be a wealth of value in selling cheap "gaming systems" to those making initial jumps into the world of PC gaming. However, the 860K + dGPU makes more sense to me since you can get an 860K + R7 250X (full Cape Verde!) for almost as cheap as the 7850.

For the US market that is correct because of the low R7 250X prices, but in the rest of the world that hardware combination is more expensive than the A10-7850K alone.

 

[frozentundra123456]

The problem with an apu is that even if you can build a somewhat acceptible gaming system cheaper than a discrete system, is that for such a small additional cost you can get around 50 percent better performance. And this improvement is at the lower end of the performance spectrum, where it makes a big difference in playability, especially for more demanding games. Plus you dont have to buy expensive high speed ram with a discrete card, which makes the price gap even smaller. And before people start to distort what i say, I am not saying you need titan X and a hex core intel cpu. OTOH, i just dont buy into these artificially priced constrained scenarios where such a big deal is made about giving up so much performance to save 50.00 on a 500.00 or more system.

 

[Red Hawk]

And if so...why can't AMD make a fusion processor with a fast graphics portion like that which exists on the consoles?

They can, there just isn't a demand for it. Graphics enthusiasts would rather have the CPU and graphics card separate so they can upgrade each independently.

Also, AMD has pretty much dropped the "Fusion" brand at this point. It's heterogenous computing now, I think.

 

[Qwertilot]

Worth being clear that it is very hard to believe that there's anything technical stopping AMD producing a desktop APU with a cache like the XB1 (and IrisPro) has. They've clearly got the technology and are mass producing it reasonably inexpensively for the consoles.

Also an attractive thing to do a priori - just as a 'look what we can do' iGPU part. It'd get some sales in small boxes but it is also just useful to have that sort of thing around for the halo effect.

That they haven't is presumably down to their current struggles and consequent need to focus on things with the best return. Oh well.

 

[Blitzvogel]

RussianSensation said you can have a faster CPU + faster dGPU at the same price as an APU.
Even if we only take prices in the US, Athlon 860K is at $78 and R7 250X at $65 after mail rebate. Total of $143 when A10-7850K is at $140. So we cannot have both Faster CPU + fraster dGPU at the same price.
And if we look at the rest of the world, for example in EU the Athlon 860K starts from 70 Euro, cheapest R7 250X at 84 Euro for a total of 154 Euro when the A10-7850K starts at 128 Euro.
............................For the US market that is correct because of the low R7 250X prices, but in the rest of the world that hardware combination is more expensive than the A10-7850K alone.

Sorry but you still haven't convinced me. A10 is a dead end for CPU upgrades, the iGPU is a waste of money better spent on the dGPU. Spending $10 to 20 dollars more (hell even $50) seems like a much better deal when you factor in price/performance ratio and longevity. Getting the most out of an APU also means having to buy very fast high performance system RAM (2133+ MHz or go home) which adds to the system cost. On the flip side, a decent dGPU will generally require a PSU with PCIE connectors so that could an argument against the dGPU.

I also don't see budget constrained people being the kind to know anything about OCing. Also, anyone who understands the massive increase in graphics performance from the A10 7850K to an 860k + R7 250X will probably find a way to push their budget up some to accommodate it, though I would recommend a 2GB R7 260X ($110 easy) to put such a system into well beyond Xbone graphics performance territory.

 

[SPBHM]

Worth being clear that it is very hard to believe that there's anything technical stopping AMD producing a desktop APU with a cache like the XB1 (and IrisPro) has. They've clearly got the technology and are mass producing it reasonably inexpensively for the consoles.

Also an attractive thing to do a priori - just as a 'look what we can do' iGPU part. It'd get some sales in small boxes but it is also just useful to have that sort of thing around for the halo effect.

That they haven't is presumably down to their current struggles and consequent need to focus on things with the best return. Oh well.

the XB1 also make use of quad channel DDR3 2133 for a GPU which is similar to an HD 7770, a PS4 level "APU" (like a 7850 more or less) would need a lot more than just 32-128mb or whatever cache, it would need memory faster than what current APUs can use (dual channel DDR3 2133 at best),

PS4 level of GPU with typical PC ram would be horrible, they would be forced to use GDDR5 as ram for the GPU and CPU, that means no memory upgrades and high cost/power

 

[Blitzvogel]

Future APUs are slated to have on-board HBM. Depending on the application, HBM makes quite a bit of sense for laptops, super-tiny NUC-like machines, etc. What I wonder is how will HBM pan out in terms of cost per GB. Even if HBM chips are more expensive, the ability to add 8 GB of HBM on top of a decent APU could save whoever OEM the cost of general system RAM and the associated motherboard traces, materials, etc. while further lowering the overall system power draw which further means a reduced PSU. However I do wonder how much extra heat HBM might add to the APU.

Also, will HBM be an add-on that AMD sells to OEMs, or will there be varying SKUs with varying HBM amounts? If HBM is too expensive to implement as a complete system RAM replacement, 2 GB of HBM should be fine for any foreseeable top-end APU in the next couple years as no game I know of is requiring more than 1 GB of VRAM yet.