Console hardware: what Sony/MS went with versus what they should have

[AnandThenMan]

Let's have a discussion on this, propose the hardware configuration that you think should have ended up in the consoles. Provide details about processor, GPU, memory etc. and the estimated cost of the hardware. Be specific. I'm posting this in the CPU forum because many times the console CPU is called "weak" etc. so the criticism is mostly about the processor side not the GPU, at least from what I've seen.

If you haven't already, I suggest watching at least one PS4 or Xbone teardown to get context of what is actually in the consoles . Here's one example.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CahIHYCUtws

 

[futurefields]

I tried to make a post about this and got flamed to hell.

"Oh so you think you know better than the PS4 XB1 designers?!?!" is the kind of response I got.

Anyways, it's true the CPU is the main problem not the GPU's, even with the XB1's weaker GPU taken into account.

A weaker GPU does not hold back game development in the same way a weak CPU does.

To get around a weak GPU, all you need to do is drop resolution a bit, lower some shaders precision, drop this and that effect. Yet the core game is 99% the same.

To get around a weak CPU, all you can do is make simpler games.

 

[railven]

I tried to make a post about this and got flamed to hell.

"Oh so you think you know better than the PS4 XB1 designers?!?!" is the kind of response I got.

Anyways, it's true the CPU is the main problem not the GPU's, even with the XB1's weaker GPU taken into account.

A weaker GPU does not hold back game development in the same way a weak CPU does.

To get around a weak GPU, all you need to do is drop resolution a bit, lower some shaders precision, drop this and that effect. Yet the core game is 99% the same.

To get around a weak CPU, all you can do is make simpler games.

Yep, what I saw.

But according to the OP - "No one ever provided an alternative. In fact, no one did! And I won't be hassled to look at the top of the last page of the thread recommended to me where they are openly discussing alternatives!"

 

[railven]

Let's have a discussion on this, propose the hardware configuration that you think should have ended up in the consoles. Provide details about processor, GPU, memory etc. and the estimated cost of the hardware. Be specific. I'm posting this in the CPU forum because many times the console CPU is called "weak" etc. so the criticism is mostly about the processor side not the GPU, at least from what I've seen.

If you haven't already, I suggest watching at least one PS4 or Xbone teardown to get context of what is actually in the consoles . Here's one example.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CahIHYCUtws

Hey, OP, seriously why is this an issue to you? I mean:

Yes, which isn't me. I don't own a console and don't want one. But for people that are not part of the "PC master race" they serve the market perfectly. I can't build a machine that matches the PS4 in all or even some metrics, I just can't. If I could I would do it and sell them, they would be a huge seller actually.

 

[AnandThenMan]

It's not an "issue" for me at all. I honestly want to see some alternative hardware setups that Sony/MS could have or should have gone with. Is this really that difficult? I have a few in mind but want to see what other people come up with.

BTW just because I'm not interested in owning a console doesn't mean I am don't care about the hardware. I do, in fact I find the hardware quite a bit more interesting then anything I build on the PC side because its "been there done that" so many times.

 

[monstercameron]

I tried to make a post about this and got flamed to hell.

"Oh so you think you know better than the PS4 XB1 designers?!?!" is the kind of response I got.

Anyways, it's true the CPU is the main problem not the GPU's, even with the XB1's weaker GPU taken into account.

A weaker GPU does not hold back game development in the same way a weak CPU does.

To get around a weak GPU, all you need to do is drop resolution a bit, lower some shaders precision, drop this and that effect. Yet the core game is 99% the same.

To get around a weak CPU, all you can do is make simpler games.

weak cpu in what way? single threaded ipc or throughput? just like you can reduce gpu load, so can you cpu load, that is just how the game is designed.

My vision for the console would just be a gddr5 based kaveri apu. That way hsa could bleed into console software dev for desperate developers.

 

[railven]

It's not an "issue" for me at all. I honestly want to see some alternative hardware setups that Sony/MS could have or should have gone with. Is this really that difficult? I have a few in mind but want to see what other people come up with.

Of course it's not an issue for you, you don't play console games.

BTW just because I'm not interested in owning a console doesn't mean I am don't care about the hardware. I do, in fact I find the hardware quite a bit more interesting then anything I build on the PC side because its "been there done that" so many times.

See above. What constitutes as "it's not an issue" aka "it's more than enough" for you is irrelevant as you don't play console games.

To re-iterate:
Pentium Dual Cores is more than enough for PC gaming. I don't own a PC, and I have no intentions of buying one.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Yep, what I saw.

But according to the OP - "No one ever provided an alternative. In fact, no one did! And I won't be hassled to look at the top of the last page of the thread recommended to me where they are openly discussing alternatives!"

You lost me here. Are you saying alternatives were proposed, or saying they were not? The only possible alternative proposal I've seen is a low cost large form factor PC which is not anywhere viable for obvious reasons. But let's get back on topic please instead of trying to derail this thread. The hardware config is not complicated, you have:

Central processing unit
Graphics processing unit
Memory controller(s)
RAM
Audio
Hard disc
North bridge/general I/O
other components

We are really only concerned with the top 4 items.

Of course it's not an issue for you, you don't play console games.

I do, although I don't own a console myself.

 

[railven]

You lost me here. Are you saying alternatives were proposed, or saying they were not? The only possible alternative proposal I've seen is a low cost large form factor PC which is not anywhere viable for obvious reasons. But let's get back on topic please instead of trying to derail this thread. The hardware config is not complicated, you have:

Central processing unit
Graphics processing unit
Memory controller(s)
RAM
Audio
Hard disc
North bridge/general I/O
other components

We are really only concerned with the top 4 items.

I do, although I don't own a console myself.

At this point I'm just going to bow down. I have zero reason to believe you won't be as dismissive as you were in the other thread that you won't even go back to check on.

At this point you are creating a scenario in which you can dismiss anything because "LOL, and what about the inter-connector speed between the NB and the input lag on the controller."

We clearly have different opinions of "alternatives."

Good luck towing that AMD tag line.

 

[tential]

Instead of an 8 core, I'd have rather had a faster Quadcore (or a Big/Little combination with a Quadcore x86+ARM Processor for OS or something like that).
Both using GDDR5 ram.
Stronger GPUs (equivalent to the Xbox360/Available GPU at the time of purchase of that console).
Better Kinect Support (Seriously this wasn't a bad featuer of hte Xbox One. It was poorly handled. On Madden, I should be able to make play calls with the Kinect. In NBA 2K, I should be able to call for a pick, on army games I should be able to tell the AI to flank, etc. the Kinect had a TON of potential and M$ just screwed it up. It should have been integrated into a TON of titles from development phase but instead it was tossed in and half baked and then FORCED onto people).

Better SmartGlass/Smartphone/Tablet support.
This was promised with Halo4 and was TERRIBLE. You were promised more advanced stats on your phone at the end of matches and it never worked well along with the other features they promised. I was very upset and it rarely worked as intended.

In the Xbox's case, I wish they had used the Sony Touchpad on their controller. Simply because when it made it's way over to PC, that controller would be a game changer. Even now the DS4 is a great controller for PC but it's not as reliable as the Xbox controller still.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Instead of an 8 core, I'd have rather had a faster Quadcore (or a Big/Little combination with a Quadcore x86+ARM Processor for OS or something like that).

Interesting, I never thought of this type of hardware config. I like the idea but is it possible be mixing/matching ISAs?

Ideally we would be looking at say a quad core Intel processor of some description, and an Nvidia or AMD GPU (doesn't really matter) with a little more grunt than the consoles currently have. The issue here is cost, you will need separate memory for the CPU/GPU, and Intel doesn't sell their 4 core processors cheap the lowest cost i5 is what, $180? I'm wondering if cost to Sony/MS could be brought down to $100, but then you still need the GPU.

 

[witeken]

Intel i5 with 2.5+ teraflops GPU.

 

[tential]

Interesting, I never thought of this type of hardware config. I like the idea but is it possible be mixing/matching ISAs?

Ideally we would be looking at say a quad core Intel processor of some description, and an Nvidia or AMD GPU (doesn't really matter) with a little more grunt than the consoles currently have. The issue here is cost, you will need separate memory for the CPU/GPU, and Intel doesn't sell their 4 core processors cheap the lowest cost i5 is what, $180? I'm wondering if cost to Sony/MS could be brought down to $100, but then you still need the GPU.

I have 0 idea if you can mix it lol. I was hoping because the OS/Game would be "separate" but I guess that's ridiculous.

I think we could still stick with AMD the whole way just like what was done.
Take a stronger APU (Is Kaveri AMD's strong one? I don't know...), and then just attach 1-2 Jaguar cores to it for the OS along with a stronger version of the GPU.

IMO, I think releasing at nearly the same time was the biggest mistake.
Whoever delayed 1 year would have lost initial sales, but if they got HBM/Stronger GPU they would have REALLY benefited. Even if the console was kind of scarce at launch because it would have only drummed up the hype machine more on how "Power/Awesome" the console was.

I don't think either console maker could afford Intel's solutions. I don't think the benefit to console gamers would have been worth it in CPU grunt.

 

[ShintaiDK]

3Ghz+ 2M4T SR.

And drop the silly TV wannabee.

 

[futurefields]

I'm still hoping Nintendo surprises everybody with a 2016 entry, which would still give the Wii U a 4-5 year life cycle so it's owners don't feel short changed.

There exists CPU's now with different power level cores

you could have a 6 core cpu

with 2 cores clocked at 1.2ghz to run the OS

and 4 cores clocked at 3+ghz that only come on when a game is running

 

[AnandThenMan]

I am of the opinion that Sony/MS should have clocked up the CPU and designed more robust cooling to deal with it. Push the APU more close to the edge and count on a die shrink down the road and have a version 2 of the entire unit. But we're not privy to cost/yields so that may not be viable.

The show stopper using a separate CPU/GPU for me is the two memory blocks, not so much a technical limitation but a cost one. The motherboard becomes more complex not to mention the memory cost.

Speaking of cooling, the Xbone is overkill. I get that MS didn't want to repeat the dreaded ring of death, but talk about an over reaction. Sony uses a tiny cooling solution in comparison and they have the power supply internal.

you could have a 6 core cpu

with 2 cores clocked at 1.2ghz to run the OS

and 4 cores clocked at 3+ghz that only come on when a game is running

I like this idea.

 

[positivedoppler]

I think you need to add a couple more additional constraints. You already had
1. cost (CPU, GPU, Memory, Blu-Ray, P/S, controller, Hard Drive) < $400
2 Power roughly 130 watts while gaming.
3 Available hardware at the time. Both System were released late 2013 which means manufacturing of both probably occured during early to mid 2013.

I don't think anyone had anything at the time. Intel's atom at the time was complete and utter garbage early in 2013 and would have had the additional cost of another gpu. Nvidia might have been able to pull something off by tweaking their Tegra design into a arm APU form factor but those were meant for mobile so I think Nvidia wasn't willing to accept the lower margin plus they might not have gotten a product out in time. An APU also cost less real estate on a board as oppose to a CPU + GPU combo.

Some people will keep repeating i3 i3 i3 i3 like a broken record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Bridge_(microarchitecture)#Desktop_processors

There is absolutely nothing there that could have came close to the budget of the cpu and power constraint alone.

 

[positivedoppler]

3Ghz+ 2M4T SR.

And drop the silly TV wannabee.

All the SR and even the Beema/Mullins part were released in 2014, just no way AMD would have been ready for a mid 2013 release in time for MS and Sony to make it by year's end.

 

[frozentundra123456]

weak cpu in what way? single threaded ipc or throughput? just like you can reduce gpu load, so can you cpu load, that is just how the game is designed.

My vision for the console would just be a gddr5 based kaveri apu. That way hsa could bleed into console software dev for desperate developers.

Obvious isnt it? Weak in ipc *and* clockspeed. If the cpu is so powerful why did MS already increase clockspeed and drop features in order to increase available cpu resources?

It is a compromise that is adequate (barely IMO) for the constraints of the consoles, and nothing more. That is not even necessarily a bad thing, but it just amazes me that some posters get so bent out of shape when the obvious truth is stated that it is not a powerful cpu in the conventional sense of the term.

 

[2is]

I'm not an AMD guy by any stretch but I think they made the correct choice given the hardware available at the time and cost.

As far as cooling. Sony used a much more innovative cooling solution that directs air to where it needs to go. MS got lazy and just brute forced their cooling solution.

 

[mrmt]

Let's have a discussion on this, propose the hardware configuration that you think should have ended up in the consoles. Provide details about processor, GPU, memory etc. and the estimated cost of the hardware. Be specific

Let me try to help you by narrowing the selection of suppliers:

- Who was willing to design and supply CPU + GPU for 15-17% margins?

 

[monstercameron]

Obvious isnt it? Weak in ipc *and* clockspeed. If the cpu is so powerful why did MS already increase clockspeed and drop features in order to increase available cpu resources?

It is a compromise that is adequate (barely IMO) for the constraints of the consoles, and nothing more. That is not even necessarily a bad thing, but it just amazes me that some posters get so bent out of shape when the obvious truth is stated that it is not a powerful cpu in the conventional sense of the term.

being weak is a relative term, weak relative to what? intel haswell cores? arm cores? ppc cores? mips cores? etc. The constant repetition of the "weak cores" mantra seems more like FUD than an obvious truth.

 

[positivedoppler]

I really don't think exotic cooling is an option also. It's not just the power within the console you have to worry about, you also have to be concern about the power being dumped into the general vicinity. I actually think both MS and especially Sony went too far by even allowing the consoles to exceed 100 watts overall. Remember this in many homes will be stuck in a wooden badly isolated entertainment hutch. Imagine the typical home with an entertainment hutch, you chuck a 100 watt light bulb in there and a fire is almost inevitable.

 

[monstercameron]

Let me try to help you by narrowing the selection of suppliers:

- Who was willing to design and supply CPU + GPU for 15-17% margins?

OT, hmm though the analysts said low teens margins? or are those numbers just for argumentts sake?

ot what were the margins for intel on the xbox one :hmm:

 

[AnandThenMan]

Here's the cost breakdown of the PS4 -

APU $100
GDDR5 RAM $88
power supply $20
Optical $28
Hard drive $37
electro-mechanical (cooling?) $35
Other (motherboard and components?) $40
Controller $18
Box/packing $6
Manufacturing cost $9

Total: $381
source

So a good template to try and cost out an alternative system.