S|A : "Microsoft XBox Next will use an x86 AMD APU instead of PowerPC"

[Vdubchaos]

It's a simple fact that you will need to copy segments of memory from CPU memory, across a bus, into GPU memory in a two-board solution (or any split memory solution, for that matter). This is a hit to performance- and one reason why the 360 did better against the PS3 than people at first expected, as the PS3 had a split memory architecture, unlike the shared pool of the 360.

I've written and worked on plenty of GPGPU code using discrete boards, and I know first hand how much of a bottleneck the PCIe bus can be.

Do you realize that by buying a console ALL TOGETHER you taking a hit in performance???

 

[Arzachel]

And far, far, far, far (repeat many times) worse perf:$ if you want actual performance because of the massive die size that would be required to compete with discrete performance.

Define actual performance. HD7770+ performance isn't anything to scoff at, especially when coding closer to the hardware and the iGPU still wins on tasks sensitive to latency.

 

[sefsefsefsef]

My GPU smakcs any IGP...sorry, but you are dead wrong.
And the "performance" of an IGP...compared to a GPU...is wel...just sad.

You can hype it all you want to..just find oneone else than me...because I don't buy your *beep*

There is a reason why the CPU and GPU are still seperate in performance PC land...if you wanted the same power in a single die...it would be a dead end today.

There are two reasons why it's easier in a modern PC to have a CPU + discrete GPU have high performance than an APU-- power (including heat dissipation) and memory bandwidth. There is nothing magic about having a separate GPU die that gives higher performance. It only comes down to the two factors I mentioned.

A console is going to be power/thermally constrained no matter what, so on that end, it doesn't matter if a console uses an APU-like design or has two separate chips. You will not be able to run significantly more amps through your GPU (and therefore have more performance headroom) if it's 2 cm further away from the CPU in a small console enclosure.

Memory bandwidth is another thing that is a non-issue in the world of custom console chips. They can replace the 128-bit DDR3 interface (which is what Llano/Trinity have) and (perhaps) drop in a 256-bit GDDR5 interface and all of a sudden memory bandwidth is a non-issue. Even if they could only use a 128-bit GDDR5 interface it would still be a large improvement.

With those two things in mind I think that a console using an APU-like design is in no way hampering itself versus having separate CPU and GPU die.

 

[Ferzerp]

There are two reasons why it's easier in a modern PC to have a CPU + discrete GPU have high performance than an APU-- power (including heat dissipation) and memory bandwidth. There is nothing magic about having a separate GPU die that gives higher performance. It only comes down to the two factors I mentioned.

A console is going to be power/thermally constrained no matter what, so on that end, it doesn't matter if a console uses an APU-like design or has two separate chips. You will not be able to run significantly more amps through your GPU (and therefore have more performance headroom) if it's 2 cm further away from the CPU in a small console enclosure.

Memory bandwidth is another thing that is a non-issue in the world of custom console chips. They can replace the 128-bit DDR3 interface (which is what Llano/Trinity have) and (perhaps) drop in a 256-bit GDDR5 interface and all of a sudden memory bandwidth is a non-issue. Even if they could only use a 128-bit GDDR5 interface it would still be a large improvement.

With those two things in mind I think that a console using an APU-like design is in no way hampering itself versus having separate CPU and GPU die.

Each additional unit of area in a single die size is more expensive than the last.

 

[NTMBK]

And far, far, far, far (repeat many times) worse perf:$ if you want actual performance because of the massive die size that would be required to compete with discrete performance.

Let's run some numbers. Trinity die size is about 246mm^2 on a 32nm process. Roughly half the die is GPU related from a quick glance at a die shot (source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5831/amd-trinity-review-a10-4600m-a-new-hope ). Scale it down to 28nm for fair comparison with 7000 series GPUs, that's about 190mm^2. Chuck away a bit less than half the die (existing GPU part), that's ~100mm^2.

Now, the 7970 has a die size of 352mm², and the 7870 has a die size of 212mm². So you could do an APU with two Piledriver modules, 20 compute units (i.e. 7870 power) and still wind up with a die roughly the size of a 7970... which is happily in mass production.

EDIT: Of course, this is horrendously oversimplifying things. But this is just ballpark figures.

 

[Smoblikat]

Question is if you ship a x86 cpu core with a consol, why not give them the intire PC experiance?
A Xbox, that could "dual boot" into windows? Likely to happend?

The xbox one was like this, you could put a linux OS on it (dsigned for the xbox obviously) and have a fairly functional system.

 

[piesquared]

Wow the shills are all activated for this thread lol. Must be bad news for inetl.

 

[NTMBK]

Wow the shills are all activated for this thread lol. Must be bad news for inetl.

Ugh, shut up. Intel are actually further ahead than AMD in integrating GPU and CPU- they have shared L3 cache and better memory model in Sandy Bridge than there was in Llano. Intel clearly think that integrated graphics is the way to go as well- just look at the news about Haswell being a graphics monster. This is nothing to do with AMD fanboyism, this is about why an integrated CPU+GPU makes sense.

 

[sefsefsefsef]

Each additional unit of area in a single die size is more expensive than the last.

Are you talking about die manufacturing defects? Don't forget about testing and packaging costs which are lower per wafer when you more to larger die sizes. There's a balance somewhere in there, and both Intel and AMD seem to think it's worth it to integrate the GPU on-die (despite the larger die size and possibility for defects), so there must be something to it.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Gotta love the "APU is enough" part. That might work for Nintendo. But not at the current power requirements.

Its a rerun of the shoehorn approach. How do we make console makers use x product.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Hype.
It's always hype when it comes to consoles.
And now APU level of "performance" is going to be hyped as the shizzle.

It's retarded, it's face-to-desk-stupid...but at least it shows how underpowered consoles are...and always will be.

We get it, you don't like consoles. I'm not a big fan either. But I don't think anyone here is hyping them as 'the shizzle' so much as talking about what we might see and the business reasons for it. I think an APU will be a big jump over current consoles, but really not nearly enough of a jump. But, after seeing the very light hardware in the Wii sell alright, MS and Sony might be changing their hardware strategy here a bit. It is what it is, just don't buy one if you don't like what they sell. I may buy one evnetually as current consoles aren't half bad media centers, but that doesn't mean you have to.

 

[Gideon]

Having an APU alone would definitely suck donkeyballs, however having an APU AND a GPU might even make some sense (cosider using HSA for physics calculations for instance).

A few months ago I also mulled over a "what-if" idea, that Xbox Next would have an AMD APU and a GPU ALL running in the same memory-space. The APU would be a vastly over-sized Steamroller and the GPU would be a bit faster (separated mostly due to heat concerns) and could of-course run in Hybrid Crossfire if no huge compute/physics calculations are needed on the APU.

It might be doable as Southern Islands can read X86 memory pointers.The added bonus would be, that down the line, with a few shrinks, the GPU could be integrated into the APU and there would be a one-chip design as with Xenos + Xenon.

The biggest drawback is the lack of memory for Crossfire (Xbox Next will most probably have no more than 2-3GB GDDR5 combined for CPU and GPU). Therefore for this Hybrid-Crossfire rig to work well, the GPU and APU would have to share memory (the long sought holy grail of multi-GPU rendering). That however, makes this whole endeavoureven more unlikely.

 

[Lonbjerg]

We get it, you don't like consoles. I'm not a big fan either. But I don't think anyone here is hyping them as 'the shizzle' so much as talking about what we might see and the business reasons for it. I think an APU will be a big jump over current consoles, but really not nearly enough of a jump. But, after seeing the very light hardware in the Wii sell alright, MS and Sony might be changing their hardware strategy here a bit. It is what it is, just don't buy one if you don't like what they sell. I may buy one evnetually as current consoles aren't half bad media centers, but that doesn't mean you have to.

I don't like the long periodes of stagnation they introduce :thumbsdown:

The current consoles interest me as much as any other 6 year old hardware :sneaky:

 

[Olikan]

A few months ago I also mulled over a "what-if" idea, that Xbox Next would have an AMD APU and a GPU ALL running in the same memory-space. The APU would be a vastly over-sized Steamroller and the GPU would be a bit faster (separated mostly due to heat concerns) and could of-course run in Hybrid Crossfire if no huge compute/physics calculations are needed on the APU.

IMO, Steamroller is overkill for consoles...
the latest rumors points out that Wii U have a weaker CPU than Xbox...heh, cpu giving diminushing returns at games is nothing new today

console's CPU today, only struggle at AI and physics...hence "moar cores" is good...one core for each enemy/flying debris

a quad-hexa core jaguar based, is a nice call...a hexa core jaguar would even have a similar size to Xenon

 

[Makaveli]

Yeah I'm really confused by why this would be a great idea (other than 'cheap').

What we need for a good baseline for the new consoles :

CPU power on the range of a 2500k
GPU power on the range of a 7950, with at least 2GB VRAM
At least 8GB of ram @ 1600mhz
SSD @ 128GB
USB 3.0 + REAL External Storage support

Anything less will be a real disappointment, but pretty likely imho. We'll probably see something that's actually weaker in some ways compared to the current 360/PS3, or only marginally more powerful.

I think a console with the specs you listed above is just wishful thinking. I highly doubt they could market something that powerful keep their profit margins and it not cost $800+

Remember the consoles doesn't have to run a bloated OS!

And I think you final statement is right on what we will actually see will only be slightly more powerful than the current generation stuff. There is no need most of the market can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, they don't really even understand or care how the console works. They just care to sit on the couch pop in a game press power and start playing.

And its sad that noobs are what is driving the market but its where the money is at plain and simple.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

I don't like the long periodes of stagnation they introduce :thumbsdown:

The current consoles interest me as much as any other 6 year old hardware :sneaky:

Using APU's would make it far more cost effective for the console makers to reduce their console cycle.

Instead of 10 year cycles we could see 3-5 years cycles. By the time this upcoming cycle ends I can see an end to consoles entirely because APU's will be powerful enough that anyone buying a $400 PC should be able to run just about any game at acceptable framerates.

Higher resolutions could put at end to that prediction of mine, but since most TV isn't even being produced in full 1080p yet I can see it becoming a reality.

Everything I'm reading about the upcoming consoles and windows 8 points to a future where any Windows PC is basically an Xbox, and microsoft is only concerned about making money on software and not hardware. APU's bring us closer to that.

 

[pelov]

MS had problems with nVidia? How so. The GPUs are fully controlled by console makers.

MS had huge problems with nVidia as far as pricing went. They vowed to never use nVidia again because of how the 360 went down. There were also rumors that nVidia were difficult to work with.

Microsoft said on Thursday it is dumping Nvidia Corp. in favor of the graphics chipmaker's main rival, ATI Technologies, for the software giant's next-generation Xbox video game console.
The deal is a significant blow to Nvidia, the world's largest graphics chipmaker, because its Xbox business accounted for 21 percent of the Santa Clara firm's $1.9 billion revenue last year.
The immediate impact the switch will have on Nvidia's revenue is unclear because Microsoft's next-generation gaming console won't be out until late 2005 or 2006. In addition, Microsoft will probably continue to manufacture and sell its original Xbox as it goes through a product transition period, analysts say.
The inability of Microsoft and Nvidia to agree on the future development, manufacturing and pricing of the graphics chips apparently led to the choice of ATI.
"We selected ATI after reviewing the top graphics technologies in development and determining that ATI's technical vision fits perfectly with the future direction of Xbox," Robbie Bach, senior vice president of Microsoft's home and entertainment division, said in a written statement.
Microsoft's decision to go with ATI, which is based in Toronto, is not a huge surprise considering the tenuous ties between Nvidia and the software company. The two were at odds with each other over the pricing of Nvidia's chips, avoiding a certain bitter court battle through an arbitration hearing earlier this year.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/business/arti...-Microsoft-turns-to-2574657.php#ixzz25clXbm68

There was a big document that laid out the architecture of MS's next Xbox console and it was sporting both ARM and x86 cores along with an AMD GPU. For MS, it just makes sense to go x86. They've got as much vested in x86 as does Intel and AMD.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/06/leaked-document-points-to-299-xbox-720-for-2013/

All 3 console makers decided to not really push the boundaries this time around and they're playing it conservatively with the specs and pricing. You won't see consoles with hardware at the same level as an enthusiast PC or anywhere close, but considering how long it's been since we've seen an update in the console realm I guess incorporating any hardware that's been made in the past 5 years is considered a massive upgrade.

 

[Ferzerp]

For MS, it just makes sense to go x86

No more so than it ever did. The original xbox was a rushed product and was x86 for convenience more than for any other benefit.

Custom x86 processors just don't happen, and console makers really need full control. This makes x86 a very poor console option. IBM seems much more amenable to the needs of console makers with their Power line than can be had with x86. (Which is why the 360, the ps3, and the wii are all running power architecture).

 

[pelov]

No more so than it ever did. The original xbox was a rushed product and was x86 for convenience more than for any other benefit.

Custom x86 processors just don't happen, and console makers really need full control. This makes x86 a very poor console option.

I don't think you understand how Microsoft makes money...

I can put all the coins in one hand that MS has made from ARM, MIPs, and anything else. They're a company that revolves around x86 and legacy hardware/software. Metro and ARM compliance on win8 is the first deviation from it and it's going to get locked out of everything Microsoft and everything x86. Their business revolves around AMD and Intel. No AMD or Intel means no Microsoft playground.

At AMD's FA day they spent some time talking about custom designs and incorporating third-party IP. Would it really shock you to see a Microsoft product powered by an x86 processor? That's not exactly shocking, it's expected.

- Furthermore, if MS is planning to have an all-in-one type device that provides both entertainment and PC-style computing then they have no choice but to go with x86. Nobody in their right mind would port over applications just for a console (which is the same argument people have against winRT).

 

[Ferzerp]

Yes, it would shock me to see x86 return to consoles. IBM is a far better choice due to their flexibility with the console makers. x86 is the best option for general purpose computers due to huge masses of inertia and very, very high performance for a reasonable price.

These things are of little benefit to a console. Consoles don't need to run legacy code, have little inertia, have relatively low performance, etc.

 

[pelov]

These things are of little benefit to a console. Consoles don't need to run legacy code, have little inertia, have relatively low performance, etc.

This isn't your average console. If the documents are really MS's -- which they appear to be from the takedown notices that were sent just hours after it was leaked -- the new console is an entertainment/media HTPC kind of thing.

I don't understand how PPC is any more flexible than x86.

x86 is the best option for general purpose computers due to huge masses of inertia and very, very high performance for a reasonable price.

These are cheap consoles. We're not seeing any $500 PS3's with Blu-Ray players. All 3 console makers have made it quite clear the hardware specs are going to be conservative.

 

[Ferzerp]

None of what you've said makes a case for an x86 console...

It's more flexible because IBM wants it to be. Intel has little interest in catering to a razor thin margin market, and AMD is hobbled on just how much they can customize because of their licensing limitations.

 

[pelov]

AMD is hobbled on just how much they can customize because of their licensing limitations.

What licensing limitations?

Microsoft wants a core (or SoC, in this case) made that looks like this

AMD makes that core (or SoC)

 

[Ferzerp]

You still are making no case for x86 in a console.

I can see that this is another one of *those* threads on this board. It doesn't matter what history has shown, by gosh, you're convinced an x86 console is a good idea, and you're going to ignore any reasons otherwise.

 

[pelov]

You still are making no case for x86 in a console.

I can see that this is another one of *those* threads on this board. It doesn't matter what history has shown, by gosh, you're convinced an x86 console is a good idea, and you're going to ignore any reasons otherwise.

Hold on... I link you articles providing a rundown on the architecture and a leaked document that was apparently from Microsoft and you've got absolutely nothing but "licensing limitations" backed by no explanation why there would be any limitations at all (there wouldn't. AMD would be making an x86 core like they always have), yet I'm the one talking poopoo?

Cool. Now go away.