Could the next Xbox use an AMD APU?

[Fox5]

Developers would be fine with an architecture switch. 360 games were developed using .net (which is Just In Time Compiled and uses Microsoft's Intermediate Language), and many using the even higher level Unreal Engine scripting.
It's in Microsoft's interests to unify its platforms (console, pc, phone) as much as possible, and they already have the technologies in place to do it.

If a Fusion chip does get used in the next Xbox, it will either have to have edram or AMD will have to finally use the L3 cache for graphics as well as cpu, since that's far more cost effective than a massive memory bus for a high end graphics chip.

I predict a Bobcat successor based APU is more likely than Bulldozer. AMD has already designed its netbook architecture to be synthesizable, so it can be easily integrated into different production processes and have additional functional blocks added on. If AMD can get 8 Bobcat successor cores (@ around 3ghz) on a chip, with a ton of L3 cache and a decently high end gpu, they'd have a good console chip, and something they'd probably be willing to license the design of to Microsoft. (although from a performance perspective, Bulldozer based would be way better, but more costly and it would take away from the GPU power budget)

 

[nenforcer]

So MS and Amd are best friends as of now. And is MS could they'd buyout Amd and cut the cost of Xbox chips by a shitload. But MS does not want to piss off intel so they aren't doing that yet.

I'm not so sure MS and AMD are as tight as you would believe. Microsoft owns the Xenon GPU design and manufactures it on its own and so I think has very little interaction with AMD as far as the old XBOX 360 goes now.

In fact it was recently revealed that Microsoft is an nVidia shareholder and has a right of first refusal in the event that an outside buyer wanted to purchase nVidia i.e. Intel or AMD.

This is probably to prevent one GPU provider from leveraging to much influence in the marketplace which would be disadvantageous when trying to solicit multiple bids every time a new console generation comes up.

I'm not so sure we will even see a new console from Microsoft / Sony until 2013 or 2014, even. They will probably let the Wii U come out and see how it stacks up against last generation PS3 / XBOX 360 titles.

 

[SickBeast]

haven't there been rumors that amd will be creating the gpu for the new xbox and for the new wii?

i wonder if sony will even use them as well.

from what i gather, nvidia pissed off microsoft with the original xbox, and then sony with the playstation 3. i'm not as convinced regarding the latter part of that statement, though.

 

[AnandThenMan]

AMD is in the next-X and Wii-U for sure, only question is the PS4.

 

[Dribble]

from what i gather, nvidia pissed off microsoft with the original xbox, and then sony with the playstation 3. i'm not as convinced regarding the latter part of that statement, though.

There's no info that nvidia ever upset sony, however sony tend to do their own thing. They'll almost certainly have some grand plan for the PS4 but who knows what that is? Perhaps another cell + gpu, perhaps some sort of nvidia cuda monster, perhaps something based of their portable range (lots of arm A15 cores, and an imagination gpu like in the vita).

 

[SickBeast]

There's no info that nvidia ever upset sony, however sony tend to do their own thing. They'll almost certainly have some grand plan for the PS4 but who knows what that is? Perhaps another cell + gpu, perhaps some sort of nvidia cuda monster, perhaps something based of their portable range (lots of arm A15 cores, and an imagination gpu like in the vita).

sony's got to be annoyed at the fact that the xbox 360 was released well before the ps3 and came with a significantly more powerful gpu.

 

[(sic)Klown12]

sony's got to be annoyed at the fact that the xbox 360 was released well before the ps3 and came with a significantly more powerful gpu.

That would be on the feet of Sony, Nvidia only gave them what they asked for. It's not Nvidia's fault that Cell didn't turn out the be the the super computer-on-a-chip that Sony was hoping for and came out way behind schedule.

 

[sm625]

You gain a lot of potential performance by having a known and unchanging cpu-gpu configuration. You can measure and track how long it takes every function to execute. And those times are constant. So you can build a block level design and work to fill in those blocks with extra eye candy and other goodies. In the early 90's, Nintendo was making games on 4MB cartridges that looked way better than 100-500MB pc games on CD. There is no doubt that they had every piece of code perfectly fit into a time based block design, just like a storyboard. While on the PC it is all just slapped together, wasting 100 times more resources.

 

[Dribble]

sony's got to be annoyed at the fact that the xbox 360 was released well before the ps3 and came with a significantly more powerful gpu.

I think that is Sony's fault - as I understand it they had grand plans and weren't planning to use any gpu because the super cell was going to do everything. When they worked out it wasn't they were in trouble and needed a gpu at the last minute. They asked nvidia who gave them a custom 7800 which did the job just fine (and isn't significantly less powerful the the 360 - most games look near identical).

 

[SickBeast]

I think that is Sony's fault - as I understand it they had grand plans and weren't planning to use any gpu because the super cell was going to do everything. When they worked out it wasn't they were in trouble and needed a gpu at the last minute. They asked nvidia who gave them a custom 7800 which did the job just fine (and isn't significantly less powerful the the 360 - most games look near identical).

however you want to make it out to be, the xbox 360 came out way before the playstation 3 and it has been shown to be capable of better graphics than what the ps3 can do.

there are some games like gta4 that run better on the ps3 due to the beefier cpu, but in terms of pure eye candy, the xbox 360 still wins.

the fact that the games look nearly identical on both systems speaks both to the talent level of the developers, and of the fact that most of them are probably creating games that run on the lowest common denomintator in terms of hardware.

pushed to the metal, what i'm saying, is that the xbox 360 should be capable of better graphics. the ps3 should be more potent in terms of physics and pure geometry performance.

the fact remains that nvidia in all likelihood ripped sony off because they knew sony was in a spot. it's well possible that amd signed a contract with microsoft saying that they were not allowed to work with sony for a period of time.

 

[Genx87]

the fact remains that nvidia in all likelihood ripped sony off because they knew sony was in a spot. it's well possible that amd signed a contract with microsoft saying that they were not allowed to work with sony for a period of time.

And you base this on what exactly?

 

[SickBeast]

look at the bill of materials on the playstation 3. then look at the bill of materials of the xbox 360 at the time.

 

[notty22]

So AMD must have stole the contracts by under-cutting costs. Not good business. /sarcasm
Its always one or the other with BIASED based logic.
LOL

 

[Genx87]

look at the bill of materials on the playstation 3. then look at the bill of materials of the xbox 360 at the time.

Right, I am sure the bill of material costs more for the PS3 at launch because of Nvidia. It had nothing to do with Sony using the PS3 as a hammer to get Blu-Ray adopted as the high definition media of choice.

Sounds like you have it all figured out.

 

[SickBeast]

i would be willing to wager that nvidia charged sony *more* for each gpu compared to the deal microsoft got through ati, all the while releasing the console later and with inferior gpu technology.

 

[DaveSimmons]

i would be willing to wager that nvidia charged sony *more* for each gpu compared to the deal microsoft got through ati, all the while releasing the console later and with inferior gpu technology.

"Citation needed."

It's well-documented that nvidia's contract with MS for the original xbox did not license the IP for the GPU, so MS was forced to buy chips from nvidia at a price that didn't fall over time. They learned their lesson, went to ATI, and licensed the design for the 360 GPU to manufacture themselves instead.

I've read nothing about Sony paying extra for nvidia GPU, or not having the right to manufacture and cost-reduce it.

The BOM for the PS3 60 GB included a blu-ray drive, card reader, wifi, bluetooth, HDMI, and the chips from a PS2 Slim for hardware based backwards compatibility, all missing from the 360.

If you have any evidence that Sony was paying significantly more for the nvidia GPU besides speculation, I'd love to see it.

 

[satsau]

I guess I'm in the minority, but I could care less what's inside.

They need to fix that damn heat/RROD issue and use a bluray drive.

 

[Red Hawk]

Part of the benefit of an APU would be it cuts down on heat. And Microsoft will make a custom HD disc reader (probably based on HD-DVD) before paying Sony to license blu-ray. Sony probably wouldn't be happy about giving their competitor an advantage only the PS3 had previously.

 

[satsau]

I agree, an APU might cut down on heat.
What I'm saying is I don't care if it's x86 by Intel or AMD or Arm by Nvidia or instruction set X by company Y.

I buy a box and expect it to just play the games I buy.

Custom HD-DVD is fine, but they better not be pushing this as another Hollywood disk format. Don't need another hi-def disk war! I was on the losing end of the first war. R.I.P. HD-DVD :-(

 

[Arg Clin]

I think it would make sense. If AMD can make an APU with a fast GPU unit and just CPU unit enough to feed it, that would make sense in a console setting. Considering Llano and Zacate, such a product seems likely.

From a strategic point of view I think AMD made a good (yet bold) move to buy ATI, and this just might be what could make it a brilliant move.

 

[Rezist]

I think there's more licensing costs by going the x86 route that the PPC route does not have also. When they made the 360 chip a SOC with the IBM PPU's I'm sure they had to pay AMD for some engineering time to make it happen and IBM.

 

[BenSkywalker]

BC doesn't matter

In the past 15 years the console with the best BC has won every generation- set top or hand held. This is regardless of price point, power, or title selection. Lots of people say it doesn't matter all the time, the market data says something else entirely.

Why does everyone equate more GPU power with a completely different hardware configuration?

If you change the timing on anything, it can make the game crash. The only way to deal with that is using a higher level of abstraction, which means inferior results for a given hardware level.

the xbox 360 came out way before the playstation 3 and it has been shown to be capable of better graphics than what the ps3 can do.

KZ3, GT5- give us the examples of 360 showing better graphics. I don't disagree with the 360's GPU having more power, but it certainly hasn't shown itself to be a big enough edge to counteract the big deficit in CPU power it has. MS went with an expensive GPU and a cheap CPU, Sony went with an expensive CPU and a cheap GPU. When comparing a cross platform game everyone on this forum could tell you which is going to look better. When pushed to their limits, the PS3 seems to win fairly easily.

It's well-documented that nvidia's contract with MS for the original xbox did not license the IP for the GPU, so MS was forced to buy chips from nvidia at a price that didn't fall over time.

The contract called for a price drop based on volume of shipments. MS failed to hit their volume numbers and tried to twist nV's arm and violate their contract, nV said no and the 360 was pushed out the door before they figured out how to attach a heatsink properly

I was on the losing end of the first war. R.I.P. HD-DVD

There never was a format war(as I pointed out repeatedly back then). MS announced the 360 was shipping with a regular DVD drive and at that moment BluRay won before it even shipped. I still buy BluRays on a regular basis that say 'Plays on the PS3' on a sticker on the box. If the 360 had shipped with a HD-DVD we would have had a real fight on our hands, without it BR won by default.

 

[Genx87]

i would be willing to wager that nvidia charged sony *more* for each gpu compared to the deal microsoft got through ati, all the while releasing the console later and with inferior gpu technology.

Huh? afaik Nvidia sold Sony a design. And you have no way to verify how much Nvidia charged Sony vs what AMD charged Microsoft. It was royalty based. At best it would be a few dollars either way. And certinaly didnt sink the PS3 when it came to costs. Either way the biggest cost in the PS3 was the then new Blu Ray player. Slap a Blu Ray player on an xBox 360 instead of a DVD player and watch as Microsoft loses as much money as Sony at the time.

 

[Fox5]

Huh? afaik Nvidia sold Sony a design. And you have no way to verify how much Nvidia charged Sony vs what AMD charged Microsoft. It was royalty based. At best it would be a few dollars either way. And certinaly didnt sink the PS3 when it came to costs. Either way the biggest cost in the PS3 was the then new Blu Ray player. Slap a Blu Ray player on an xBox 360 instead of a DVD player and watch as Microsoft loses as much money as Sony at the time.

Overall, the systems seem pretty similar in capabilities, with probably the edram of the 360 pushing it over the top...for limited resolutions.

PS3 is probably more expensive to produce, since the Cell chip was massive for the time (the size of a PC quad core in 2006), and seems to have more money spent on its cooling engineering, although that's a one time cost type of deal, not sure how it actually effects per unit costs.

 

[hooflung]

I don't see AMD's arithmatic units being used inside of a console anytime soon.

The PPC core in the Xenos and Cell 2-way processing units that are nearly identical to each other. That is 6-way processing for the 360 and 2-way processing for the PS3 on normal execution threads. The PS3 can augment that with SPUs.

Why would either company settle for x86 ( and truely i you get down to it risc86 because that is what AMD truely is ) just to get what they have now? IBM has been good to them and AMD is making a SoC for Microsoft right now anyways. PS3 could outsource IBM or AMD to design the SoC and then build it at their Nagasaki plant.

Either way I expect to see .32 or .28nm 3.2+ghz Cells with more SPE's on the next PS4. I expect to see a 6-8core variant to the Xenon on the next Xbox. As long as they dump more ram at a HD4000/GT4x0 family gpu they will hit true 720p internal rendering with extrume textures at 60fps then upscaling to 1080p if not out right hitting true internal 1080p altogether.

The Wii U will probably be able to at least do true 720p with great textures as well.

So why would they abandon the PPC ship? It will cost them tons to do so. Sony already owns a Cell production plant. Microsoft is already sitting pretty with AMD at their side.