Digital Foundry: next-gen PlayStation and Xbox to use AMD's 8-core CPU and Radeon HD

[VulgarDisplay]

Yep they decided to beat MS with the announcement.

Will probably make E3 a much better showing this year by having some new games to show instead of just a console reveal.

 

[Fjodor2001]

So this basically means AMD's future is secured for a couple of years since both Sony and Microsoft are going with AMD for their next gen consoles?

 

[inf64]

It's not as simple as that. They will have a big income this year(vs last year when they got peanuts money from it) from console business but they need to hit a home run with Kabini and to hold on in the PC(desktop) segment which is declining sharply.

 

[NTMBK]

It's not as simple as that. They will have a big income this year(vs last year when they got peanuts money from it) from console business but they need to hit a home run with Kabini and to hold on in the PC(desktop) segment which is declining sharply.

I really hope that Valve's Steambox initiative takes off, for AMD's sake. If it becomes common for PC gamers to have a HTPC/gaming rig under their TV which can handle 720p/1080p gaming, then AMD's APUs start to make a lot of sense.

 

[Fjodor2001]

It's not as simple as that. They will have a big income this year(vs last year when they got peanuts money from it) from console business

Why only this year and not the comming years?

but they need to hit a home run with Kabini and to hold on in the PC(desktop) segment which is declining sharply.

Won't the chip volumes from the consoles alone be enough to keep AMD floating? At least it ough to be a big enough economical contribution to keep AMD in good health.

Also, Sony and Microsoft cannot afford AMD going bust, since that would mean they are without chip supplier for their consoles. Unless there is some agreement that Sony and Microsoft are guaranteed that chips will be produced even if AMD ceases to exist. But who would own the intellectual property rights for the chips then?

 

[inf64]

Well sure,by winning both next gen console HW deals AMD ensured a steady $ income for at least next 5 years. Some estimates for this year land at around 1 bill. which might be a bit high. They do need that money badly and if both next gen consoles pick up sales,and valve gets good sales on their custom console based on APU too, AMD will have significant income in next few years. But whether it's enough is unknown. They need both big and small cores in next couple of years,until their HSA starts to pay off and we see more different types of workloads get offloaded and accelerated by GPUs. Then x86 will probably slowly start to die of as dedicated coprocessors and GPU will offer orders of magnitude better performance. Some specific market segments will still need absolute fastest x86 performance so it won't be completely irrelevant.

 

[2is]

Floating yes, profit, not a whole lot... I doubt there is much profit at all in each chip sold, they are relying on volume.

 

[jpiniero]

Won't the chip volumes from the consoles alone be enough to keep AMD floating?

If AMD had 0 debt, maybe. Not when they have $2B.

Also, Sony and Microsoft cannot afford AMD going bust, since that would mean they are without chip supplier for their consoles. Unless there is some agreement that Sony and Microsoft are guaranteed that chips will be produced even if AMD ceases to exist. But who would own the intellectual property rights for the chips then?

I was actually envisoning a scenario where AMD becomes a shell company of sorts where the whole purpose is to keep the console chips to continue to be fabbed without violating the treaty.

 

[Fox5]

Typically, consoles are a big lump sum payment up front, followed by very minimal royalties on every cheap produced.

IIRC, the rumored costs for the 360 were around $100 million to repurpose the existing cpu tech, and around $1 billion to make a from the ground up gpu. PS3 was around a $2 billion investment in the Cell processor, and a $100 million cost for repurposing an existing nvidia gpu. If those numbers are right, I couldn't see AMD netting more than half a billion for each console for serving up re-purposed designs, and possibly as low as that $100 million lump sum.

 

[quest55720]

Typically, consoles are a big lump sum payment up front, followed by very minimal royalties on every cheap produced.

IIRC, the rumored costs for the 360 were around $100 million to repurpose the existing cpu tech, and around $1 billion to make a from the ground up gpu. PS3 was around a $2 billion investment in the Cell processor, and a $100 million cost for repurposing an existing nvidia gpu. If those numbers are right, I couldn't see AMD netting more than half a billion for each console for serving up re-purposed designs, and possibly as low as that $100 million lump sum.

The next xbox GPU is hardly repurposed desktop GPU. With the move engines and working with ESRAM and a few other features. The PS4 GPU you are right repurposed desktop GPU.

 

[Blitzvogel]

The GFLOPs performance was high on the Cell not Xenon. Not that it really matters since integer and branching performance is more useful.

Xenon did have high GFLOPS in mind. They were much higher compared to that of PC x86 CPUs of the time, even dual cores. Had AMD or Intel even moved beyond 64 bit FPUs by that point? Devs have made good use of those GFLOPS and it's good-for-it's-time general performance. Versus the original Athlon 64 x2s or Pentium Ds, Xenon would make a better gaming CPU. Of course for PC use, the x86 CPUs simply slap it around.

Cell on the other hand was grossly imbalanced with it GFLOPS performance at the cost of general processing performance having the single PPE, though at least it could be used to augment the RSX quite handily, and like the Xenon, is used for audio processing.

As a console gaming processor, Xenon makes quite a bit of sense for it's time.

 

[Cerb]

Had AMD or Intel even moved beyond 64 bit FPUs by that point?

Yes, they had. But, making efficient use of them was another story. X86 needed AVX to compete with RISC 128-bit extensions, really.

Something not like the Cell's CPU (a real-time embedded CPU core, with all the general-purpose craptasticness that comes with it) would have made an even better gaming CPU, and I'll wager that whatever's inside, MS will have something better up their sleeve, this time. This time, they would be able to cheaply add a decent amount of cache, and have a decent variety of licensee cores to choose from. At the time, they didn't have very good choices: G4-alike (efficient for space and power, but low peak performance), G5-alike (so-so peak FLOPS, decent performance all-around, but hot like a P4), or Cell PPE (high peak performance, poor all-around performance, but they could fit 3 of them within their design/budget constraints).

 

[ViRGE]

Typically, consoles are a big lump sum payment up front, followed by very minimal royalties on every cheap produced.

Bingo. It's basically contract design work; AMD gets paid fairly well for the work considering they are doing pure virtual IP design, but once they deliver the product they're essentially done. The royalties after that are tiny, and mostly exist to cover patented technologies that are already widely licensed out by the design firm (and hence for fairness the console manufacturer has to pay too).

 

[Maragark]

I really hope that Valve's Steambox initiative takes off, for AMD's sake. If it becomes common for PC gamers to have a HTPC/gaming rig under their TV which can handle 720p/1080p gaming, then AMD's APUs start to make a lot of sense.

Look at it this way, you can build an SFF PC using an A10-5800K, 8 GB DDR3 1866 MHz RAM, 500 GB HD, and wireless keyboard and mouse for around $400 today. This time next year, you'll be able to build a Kaveri based SFF PC with the same components for around $350-$400. Kaveri is rumoured to use 8 GCN CUs which is what a HD 7750 uses. The next gen consoles are rumoured to have HD7850 level performance which is about twice that of the HD7750. By this time next year, the HD7750 will likely cost around $60-$70. By adding a low profile HD7750 to the SFF Kaveri system in dual graphics mode, the GPU performance would be similar to that of the HD7850 and the system would cost around $450.

A 500 GB PS3 costs around $300 and a 320 GB Xbox 360 costs around $270. The next gen consoles will probably cost at least $100 more than that at launch. So, as soon as the next gen consoles launch, you'll be able to build an SFF PC using off the shelf components with similar GPU performance, far greater CPU performance and the cost will be roughly the same as that of the next gen consoles.

There's no doubt in my mind that SFF PCs are not only going to take off, but capture a lot of the console market in the process.

 

[2is]

That's a whole lot of speculation going on there. I have every doubt SFF PCs are going to make much of a dent in the console market.

 

[Maragark]

That's a whole lot of speculation going on there. I have every doubt SFF PCs are going to make much of a dent in the console market.

You are free to have your doubts but here are the facts:

• You can currently build an SFF PC using the A10-5800K that is far more powerful than the PS3 and Xbox360 for $400.
• Trinity was priced similar to Llano at launch and Richland will be priced similar to Trinity at launch. It's a logical conclusion that Kaveri will be priced similar to Richland at launch.
• A 500 GB PS3 costs $300 and a 320 GB Xbox360 costs $270. The next gen consoles will be more expensive than those.
• The HD7850 provides about twice the performance of the HD7750.
• The HD7750 has 8 CUs
• Kaveri will have 8 CUs

Given similar GPU performance and a similar system price, who in their right mind would choose a locked down and restricted console over an unrestricted, fully functional PC? Now factor in the fact that PC games are generally cheaper than console games (£30 compared to £40 here in the UK). Now consider that people who don't give a damn about infringing copyrights can download pretty much any content they want to, free of charge, whether that be software, games, music, video or books. Another thing you should consider is that consoles don't sell that well in their first year or two as shown here:

Now consider that the APUs will only get more powerful each year and by 2016, AMD will have a 14nm APU which has a more powerful GPU than the next gen consoles. To purchase a next gen console at launch for anything over $400 is simply a poor decision, to purchase one in 2016 for anything over $200 is pure, unadulterated insanity. Even at $200, the next gen console would provide less value than a $300-$400 SFF PC with a 14nm APU.



Only fanboys and the uninformed spend more to get less. An informed buyer will purchase the system which offers the best value and when performance and price are similar, a PC will always be better value than a console.

 

[NTMBK]

You are free to have your doubts but here are the facts:

• You can currently build an SFF PC using the A10-5800K that is far more powerful than the PS3 and Xbox360 for $400.
• Trinity was priced similar to Llano at launch and Richland will be priced similar to Trinity at launch. It's a logical conclusion that Kaveri will be priced similar to Richland at launch.
• A 500 GB PS3 costs $300 and a 320 GB Xbox360 costs $270. The next gen consoles will be more expensive than those.
• The HD7850 provides about twice the performance of the HD7750.
• The HD7750 has 8 CUs
• Kaveri will have 8 CUs

Given similar GPU performance and a similar system price, who in their right mind would choose a locked down and restricted console over an unrestricted, fully functional PC? Now factor in the fact that PC games are generally cheaper than console games (£30 compared to £40 here in the UK). Now consider that people who don't give a damn about infringing copyrights can download pretty much any content they want to, free of charge, whether that be software, games, music, video or books. Another thing you should consider is that consoles don't sell that well in their first year or two as shown here:

Now consider that the APUs will only get more powerful each year and by 2016, AMD will have a 14nm APU which has a more powerful GPU than the next gen consoles. To purchase a next gen console at launch for anything over $400 is simply a poor decision, to purchase one in 2016 for anything over $200 is pure, unadulterated insanity. Even at $200, the next gen console would provide less value than a $300-$400 SFF PC with a 14nm APU.



Only fanboys and the uninformed spend more to get less. An informed buyer will purchase the system which offers the best value and when performance and price are similar, a PC will always be better value than a console.

Meh, I got a 250GB 360-S a year and a half ago in a bundle with Halo Reach for £150. I wasn't going to get an equivalent gaming experience from a PC for that kind of money.

 

[MisterMac]

You are free to have your doubts but here are the facts:

• You can currently build an SFF PC using the A10-5800K that is far more powerful than the PS3 and Xbox360 for $400.
• Trinity was priced similar to Llano at launch and Richland will be priced similar to Trinity at launch. It's a logical conclusion that Kaveri will be priced similar to Richland at launch.
• A 500 GB PS3 costs $300 and a 320 GB Xbox360 costs $270. The next gen consoles will be more expensive than those.
• The HD7850 provides about twice the performance of the HD7750.
• The HD7750 has 8 CUs
• Kaveri will have 8 CUs

Given similar GPU performance and a similar system price, who in their right mind would choose a locked down and restricted console over an unrestricted, fully functional PC? Now factor in the fact that PC games are generally cheaper than console games (£30 compared to £40 here in the UK). Now consider that people who don't give a damn about infringing copyrights can download pretty much any content they want to, free of charge, whether that be software, games, music, video or books. Another thing you should consider is that consoles don't sell that well in their first year or two as shown here:

Now consider that the APUs will only get more powerful each year and by 2016, AMD will have a 14nm APU which has a more powerful GPU than the next gen consoles. To purchase a next gen console at launch for anything over $400 is simply a poor decision, to purchase one in 2016 for anything over $200 is pure, unadulterated insanity. Even at $200, the next gen console would provide less value than a $300-$400 SFF PC with a 14nm APU.



Only fanboys and the uninformed spend more to get less. An informed buyer will purchase the system which offers the best value and when performance and price are similar, a PC will always be better value than a console.

You can performance\value check on the specifications\components all you want.


But dumb America sure as hell aint' gonna have a troublesome windows OS on a console - or similar.


It's P'n'P - it's not about performance.
Your delusional if you think other wise.

 

[MightyMalus]

Given similar GPU performance and a similar system price, who in their right mind would choose a locked down and restricted console over an unrestricted, fully functional PC?

People who want to Plug and Play. Which would be, most people.
Updates are automatic and simple, no driver issues or performance differences, no incompatibilities, no issues. It just works.

Second of all, Steam is not an open system at all. Its a store, managed by one company. How or why is it viewed differently than what Windows is doing with its own store is something that I can't comprehend.

 

[Red Hawk]

People who want to Plug and Play. Which would be, most people.
Updates are automatic and simple, no driver issues or performance differences, no incompatibilities, no issues. It just works.

Second of all, Steam is not an open system at all. Its a store, managed by one company. How or why is it viewed differently than what Windows is doing with its own store is something that I can't comprehend.

Relevant.

Simple and automatic? Try the huge updates for games like Metal Gear Solid. Try updates that take forever and brick your console if you stop them (Wii U). Performance differences? With specific consoles, no, but you still have to deal with crap like Skyrim's issues on PS3 and different performance between consoles. On PC there were player-created fixes such as the SkyBoost and the 4 GB mod that people could try; PS3 players were stuck up a creek without a paddle until Bethesda got around to a fix (and they still haven't released Dawnguard on PS3). No incompatibility? Hey, have you tried putting an N64 cartridge in a Wii U? Games from the past decade are generally compatible with newer PCs, and often players again make workarounds when compatibility is an issue. On consoles, you're at the mercy of developers re-releasing games for new consoles, which you have to pay for again.

Consoles can have so many issues it's not even funny. Save corruption on the PS3 version of Mass Effect 3. A system update on Xbox 360 that messed up colors in video playback. Textures not loading if you installed Skyrim to the hard drive on the 360. The entire PSN being taken down for months because it was hacked. That consoles "just work" is false; the key differentiator between consoles and PC is that if you own a PC you can seek out your own fixes, while on consoles you have to twiddle your thumbs until whatever relevant developer gets around to fixing your issue.

 

[Maragark]

Meh, I got a 250GB 360-S a year and a half ago in a bundle with Halo Reach for £150. I wasn't going to get an equivalent gaming experience from a PC for that kind of money.

But you can today though.

This system will offer similar performance to consoles - 720p @ 30fps avg with low-medium settings, as can be seen here.

 

[Maragark]

You can performance\value check on the specifications\components all you want.


But dumb America sure as hell aint' gonna have a troublesome windows OS on a console - or similar.


It's P'n'P - it's not about performance.
Your delusional if you think other wise.

If it's not about performance, then Sony and MS are going to be extremely disappointed when very few people purchase next gen consoles due to being happy with the PnP functionality of their current console.

People who want to Plug and Play. Which would be, most people.
Updates are automatic and simple, no driver issues or performance differences, no incompatibilities, no issues. It just works.

Second of all, Steam is not an open system at all. Its a store, managed by one company. How or why is it viewed differently than what Windows is doing with its own store is something that I can't comprehend.

Windows has had plug and play since 95. Perhaps you mean turn on and play? In which case, the consoles stopped being turn on and play when they abandoned ROMs. Both the PS3 and Xbox360 have operating systems which require time to boot up and need to be configured. The games also take a fair bit of time to load. And just like on the PC, both the OS and the games receive automatic updates. Also, as Red Hawk points out, consoles are not immune to problems.

I never even mentioned Steam but as to why people like it so much, the answer is very simple. People like saving money and Steam has plenty of sales. It also simplifies installation and maintenance of your games.

 

[MisterMac]

If it's not about performance, then Sony and MS are going to be extremely disappointed when very few people purchase next gen consoles due to being happy with the PnP functionality of their current console.



Windows has had plug and play since 95. Perhaps you mean turn on and play? In which case, the consoles stopped being turn on and play when they abandoned ROMs. Both the PS3 and Xbox360 have operating systems which require time to boot up and need to be configured. The games also take a fair bit of time to load. And just like on the PC, both the OS and the games receive automatic updates. Also, as Red Hawk points out, consoles are not immune to problems.

I never even mentioned Steam but as to why people like it so much, the answer is very simple. People like saving money and Steam has plenty of sales. It also simplifies installation and maintenance of your games.

I know right - it's not like Apple or any other tech company has gotten away with releasing incremental updates and scoring on it.

And it's not like closed platforms have been scoring well with ... "dumber" public.

Nope sirree.

Keep dreaming - Consoles will sell extremely well especially if cheap.
They're more powerful than the predecessors, way more powerful.
(This is not a feat - but it will be once marketing takes over).

Call of Duty kids will eat it up.
All they need is a few advertising campaigns and the mainstream america will buy it like hotcakes.

 

[2is]

You are free to have your doubts but here are the facts:

• You can currently build an SFF PC using the A10-5800K that is far more powerful than the PS3 and Xbox360 for $400.
• Trinity was priced similar to Llano at launch and Richland will be priced similar to Trinity at launch. It's a logical conclusion that Kaveri will be priced similar to Richland at launch.
• A 500 GB PS3 costs $300 and a 320 GB Xbox360 costs $270. The next gen consoles will be more expensive than those.
• The HD7850 provides about twice the performance of the HD7750.
• The HD7750 has 8 CUs
• Kaveri will have 8 CUs

Given similar GPU performance and a similar system price, who in their right mind would choose a locked down and restricted console over an unrestricted, fully functional PC? Now factor in the fact that PC games are generally cheaper than console games (£30 compared to £40 here in the UK). Now consider that people who don't give a damn about infringing copyrights can download pretty much any content they want to, free of charge, whether that be software, games, music, video or books. Another thing you should consider is that consoles don't sell that well in their first year or two as shown here:

Now consider that the APUs will only get more powerful each year and by 2016, AMD will have a 14nm APU which has a more powerful GPU than the next gen consoles. To purchase a next gen console at launch for anything over $400 is simply a poor decision, to purchase one in 2016 for anything over $200 is pure, unadulterated insanity. Even at $200, the next gen console would provide less value than a $300-$400 SFF PC with a 14nm APU.



Only fanboys and the uninformed spend more to get less. An informed buyer will purchase the system which offers the best value and when performance and price are similar, a PC will always be better value than a console.

I'm well aware of the facts and its not gonna happen. Next gen consoles being more expensive isnt a fact, though it is highly likely. And most of the world is uninformed. How will you get Xbox and playstation exclusives to work on that SFF that no one is gonna buy?

 

[MightyMalus]

"Simple and automatic? Try the huge updates for games like Metal Gear Solid. Try updates that take forever and brick your console if you stop them (Wii U)."

How are those examples NOT simple and automatic?

"Performance differences? With specific consoles, no, but you still have to deal with crap like Skyrim's issues on PS3 and different performance between consoles. On PC there were player-created fixes such as the SkyBoost and the 4 GB mod that people could try; PS3 players were stuck up a creek without a paddle until Bethesda got around to a fix (and they still haven't released Dawnguard on PS3)."

"Player created fixes" Something that people need to find for themselves. And didn't the PC version come loaded with massive amounts of bugs and glitches?

"No incompatibility? Hey, have you tried putting an N64 cartridge in a Wii U? Games from the past decade are generally compatible with newer PCs, and often players again make workarounds when compatibility is an issue. On consoles, you're at the mercy of developers re-releasing games for new consoles, which you have to pay for again."

Incompatibility with Hardware and Software features. Every game made on windows won't work on windows. But ever game made on a console will work on said console.

Consoles are easy, don't require work or tech knowledge. You don't need to search for anything. It is all there. For games that have problems, blame the game company not the platform. X360 is one platform but PC, is way too many.

"Consoles can have so many issues it's not even funny. Save corruption on the PS3 version of Mass Effect 3. A system update on Xbox 360 that messed up colors in video playback. Textures not loading if you installed Skyrim to the hard drive on the 360. The entire PSN being taken down for months because it was hacked. That consoles "just work" is false; the key differentiator between consoles and PC is that if you own a PC you can seek out your own fixes, while on consoles you have to twiddle your thumbs until whatever relevant developer gets around to fixing your issue"

Everything you mentioned happens on the PC also. The "hacking" problem is obviously not something to blame on the platform and can also happen on PC.

Pretty much anything that happens on a PC game can happen on a console, but less.