[techradar] AMD on the PS4: We gave it the hardware Nvidia couldn't

[StrangerGuy]

I think this is a win-win for AMD for not only added revenue and profits but for technology leadership awareness and potentially harness strategies to bridge their technologies for multi-platform with their developer relations.

Can AMD offer tangible strengths for the PC platform from this? Mobile?

That's a key question and looking forward to see their strategies and how the market reacts to them over time.

Having 8 weak CPU cores in consoles plays right into the hands of their more powerful BD uarch and undermining Intel's ST performance advantage, and having console GPUs also makes PC ports (read: practically every game now) more likely to run faster on their own PC APUs/GPUs. Bi-winning!

 

[Lonyo]

You do maybe have a point.
If consoles have 8 CPU cores, and they are x86 cores, developers are somewhat more likely to make more multithreaded game engines, which could benefit AMD in the desktop where their solution to having crap CPUs compared to Intel is to throw more cores in.

 

[Arkadrel]

their solution to having crap CPUs compared to Intel is to throw more cores in.

Would you look at that "CRAP" AMD CPU! the FX8350!

Its just a matter of optimisation of the applications to use more threads.
Once that happends the "crap" CPU AMD makes performs near Intel's.
(Dispite huge process node differnces ect)

Intel has monopoly or something very close to it, haveing like 85% of all the CPU market.
Because of this, things are OPTIMISED to run best on their hardware most of the time.

 

[2is]

Can you post the hardware for a PC build costing up to $500 and consuming up to 200W in gaming ??

ps: Including MS Win 8

You'd have good rebuttal if he was talking about value, but he isn't so you don't.

 

[2is]

Would you look at that "CRAP" AMD CPU! the FX8350!

Its just a matter of optimisation of the applications to use more threads.
Once that happends the "crap" CPU AMD makes performs near Intel's.
(Dispite huge process node differnces ect)

Intel has monopoly or something very close to it, haveing like 85% of all the CPU market.
Because of this, things are OPTIMISED to run best on their hardware most of the time.

You really don't want to get into a chart posting war if you're the AMD fan. You have to cherry pick from multiple different reviews, we just have to pull all the charts from just a single one of the very same reviews you used.

 

[Arkadrel]

You really don't want to get into a chart posting war if you're the AMD fan. You have to cherry pick from multiple different reviews, we just have to pull all the charts from just a single one of the very same reviews you used.

I know that.
My point is still valid though.

It all comes down to optimisation.

And intel is sitting on like 90% of the market space.
Bulldozer isnt a "Crap CPU", not if it can match Intels when programs are optimised for it.

Its just a matter of "design philosophy" differnces.
Thats why AMD has more cores.

their solution to having crap CPUs compared to Intel is to throw more cores in.

^ this was what made me reply to him (the AMD hate, or Intel fanboyism).
If its such a crappy CPU why does it sometimes beat Intel CPUs?

 

[2is]

Explaining "why" AMD performs poorly to intel so often doesn't change the fact that AMD performs poorly to intel so often.

 

[blackened23]

All this talk of optimization. The issue is bigger than that - You can't really distill it into an optimization issue. Optimization can give you a few %.

Specifically, with regards to graphics performance : The difference is bigger than optimization. The big issue is that directX API adds hundreds-thousands of cycles of wait time for even simple draw operations, which is simply not the case with direct to hardware programming. When you define "optimization", that means you find a better way to negotiate with the hardware through the API. The API cripples our possible performance - John Carmack and Tim Lottes have both expressed this numerous times. The performance we have available on the PC is out of this world but without exception is always held back by API DX11 middleware which adds thousands of cycle wait times.

This is not the case with no API, with libGCM. It isn't optimization - again optimization is finding a better way to negotiate with the API. Without the API you open a whole world of performance that simply wasn't possible before.

Now this change won't be immediate. It will take time for developer tools and engines to take advantage of this. But it will, without a doubt, open a lot of doors - and certainly if libGCM is available on PS4 I can see it vastly outperforming a similar GPU on a PC (eg 7870-7850). Already we've seen several developers come out and basically state that PS4 will outperform typical PCs for years to come. And respected developers have lamented about the API situation hampering PC performance. Ever wonder why GTA IV cranked up leads to pitiful frame rates? AT least for me at 2560x1600. Its because of microsoft and their steadfast refusal to let games do WITHOUT the API. Yet, despite all of these respected developers saying what they're saying, the die hard green camp fans will stop at nothing to talk smack. They haven't coded a day in their life. They have no idea the ramifications of dealing with an API. Apparently, they know more than developers such as Timothy Lottes and John Carmack. You know what, whatever. Nvidia is good at what they're doing, they will find a way to thrive. They don't absolutely need consoles, they will be fine. But i'm quite certain that the PS4 will be an amazing console.

 

[Arkadrel]

Explaining "why" AMD performs poorly to intel so often doesn't change the fact that AMD performs poorly to intel so often.

design philosophy.

Why AMD performs poorly?
Because most software doesnt take full advantage of 8 threads yet.

Because Intel has 90% market share, and makes beefier big cores (design philosophy) than AMD.

Thus most software developers dont bother to make things use lots of threads ect.
And even when they do, they optimise it for the 90% market space that use Intel CPUs, rather than the ones that use AMD ones.

Another part is Intel simply makes better CPUs (doesnt mean AMD ones are crap though).
They have huge R&D budgets.


I know it doesnt change facts (that intel beats amd in performance most of the time).


Why does AMD go with many smaller cores, instead of big ones like Intel then?

Hell if I know. Im sure they have their reasons though.

 

[Arachnotronic]

FX 8350 @ 4GHz with 8x integer cores @ 125W+ TDP...versus i7 3770k @ 3.5GHz with 4x integer cores + IGP @ 77W.

Do you AMD fans not understand that AMD has vastly inferior hardware?

 

[ShintaiDK]

design philosophy.

Why AMD performs poorly?
Because most software doesnt take full advantage of 8 threads yet.

I dont think you understand the complexity of coding for 8 threads. Yet not the fact a lot of software simply cant be threaded to that level.

The amount of software supporting quadcore today is still minimalistic at best. And majority of new software is still singlethreaded.

 

[Arkadrel]

FX 8350 @ 4GHz with 8x integer cores @ 125W+ TDP...versus i7 3770k @ 3.5GHz with 4x integer cores + IGP @ 77W.

Do you AMD fans not understand that AMD has vastly inferior hardware?

Do you understand that useing 22nm technology + 3D transistors, might favor Intel in power consumption ?

Compaired to AMD useing 32nm.

If AMD had 22nm + 3D transistors, how much power would their bulldozer use?
How fast could it run? would it be a match for Intels newest CPUs (if 8threaded)?

 

[raghu78]

FX 8350 @ 4GHz with 8x integer cores @ 125W+ TDP...versus i7 3770k @ 3.5GHz with 4x integer cores + IGP @ 77W.

Do you AMD fans not understand that AMD has vastly inferior hardware?

how does your post have anything to do with thread topic. its about the PS4. its about AMD being the only company who could provide Sony with a single chip APU design. so stop trolling.

 

[badb0y]

The fact that AMD could build a CPU and a GPU on the same die, thus lower cost and an all-in-one solution, played a big role in AMD getting the deal from Sony.
Slicing cost is very important and is a big reason why Sony didn`t go with Nvidia GPU + Intel/AMD CPU.

There is no doubt that it would have been a better solution in terms of power to pick Intel+Nvidia, but with the fierce competiton Sony is getting from Nintendo, Microsoft, PC and now Steam, it was probably a no brainer to pick AMD

Stupid comment, I would like to ask you what GPU do you think nVidia would have put into the PS4 if cost was not the issue? It wasn't going to be GTX 680,670 or the Titan because of power constraint. Would they be able to squeeze in a GTX 660? Possibly but how much better is the GTX 660 compared to a stronger version of a 7850? Not much.

You can argue that intel might have been able to fit a better CPU in but that argument comes down to cost because intel likes to maintain high margins on their CPUs. In a perfect world where cost was not an issue they would probably put in a Intel CPU for the best performance.

Then it comes down to the fact that intel/nVidia on the same chip would probably never happen and Sony/MS would need to buy separate GPUs/CPUs. So in some ways AMD is right, they were the only ones who can provide what the consoles were looking for since they have CPU/GPU on the same die and can sell it as a whole package to the console makers.

I get the feeling that people forget sometimes that consoles need to cost around $500 to be viable. There was no way Intel would put in a 3960X or nVidia would put in a GTX Titan into these consoles.

 

[blackened23]

FX 8350 @ 4GHz with 8x integer cores @ 125W+ TDP...versus i7 3770k @ 3.5GHz with 4x integer cores + IGP @ 77W.

Do you AMD fans not understand that AMD has vastly inferior hardware?

If the context of your discussion is desktop performance, yes, AMD CPUs perform not so well compared to intel. Yet, i'm trying to figure out why this discussion is about desktop CPU performance - I believe you're responding to a point that someone else brought up (arkadrel??).

 

[Cloudfire777]

Stupid comment, I would like to ask you what GPU do you think nVidia would have put into the PS4 if cost was not the issue? It wasn't going to be GTX 680,670 or the Titan because of power constraint. Would they be able to squeeze in a GTX 660? Possibly but how much better is the GTX 660 compared to a stronger version of a 7850? Not much.

You can argue that intel might have been able to fit a better CPU in but that argument comes down to cost because intel likes to maintain high margins on their CPUs. In a perfect world where cost was not an issue they would probably put in a Intel CPU for the best performance.

Then it comes down to the fact that intel/nVidia on the same chip would probably never happen and Sony/MS would need to buy separate GPUs/CPUs. So in some ways AMD is right, they were the only ones who can provide what the consoles were looking for since they have CPU/GPU on the same die and can sell it as a whole package to the console makers.

I get the feeling that people forget sometimes that consoles need to cost around $500 to be viable. There was no way Intel would put in a 3960X or nVidia would put in a GTX Titan into these consoles.

Good job in calling my comment stupid and then repeating what I just said.
Great job there buddy lol :whiste:

Intel clearly makes much better CPUs than AMD. So performance wise it would have been better to pick Intel.

As for GPU, who knows what GPU they would have picked if it wasnt a requirement to put them on the same silicon. GTX 650 TI boost maybe. Its cheaper than 7850 and its faster.
But yeah, that was IF they didn`t have such small margins which they do. So its nothing but what if thinking 🙂

 

[BallaTheFeared]

There are a lot of people who are posting to just to cheer on AMD.

They'll post graphs of photoshop for a 200w eight core AMD cpu, knowing that's probably nearly the entire power budget of the console vs a chip using about half that.

You'll also find people using cut up chips with different specs to show what they think to be true when it is simply not.

Amazingly though, at least I think most amazingly, is that there are people here who actually believe a GK104 680 costs more to create than the gk104 660 Ti.



Threads like this are scary, AMD cpu and AMD gpu - God help us.

 

[Cloudfire777]

There are a lot of people who are posting to just to cheer on AMD.

They'll post graphs of photoshop for a 200w eight core AMD cpu, knowing that's probably nearly the entire power budget of the console vs a chip using about half that.

You'll also find people using cut up chips with different specs to show what they think to be true when it is simply not.

Amazingly though, at least I think most amazingly, is that there are people here who actually believe a GK104 680 costs more to create than the gk104 660 Ti.



Threads like this are scary, AMD cpu and AMD gpu - God help us.

And don`t forget that Sony would have gotten a huge discount on a GK104 if they chose that. Just imagine the amount of chips they put in the machines world wide each year.

 

[blastingcap]

In a way I hope that AMD's chips in consoles leads to MUCH MUCH MUCH more pressure to make things truly multi-threaded and not rely on single-threaded programming so much. It's 2013, but so few games use more than 2 cores efficiently, it's sad.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

In a way I hope that AMD's chips in consoles leads to MUCH MUCH MUCH more pressure to make things truly multi-threaded and not rely on single-threaded programming so much. It's 2013, but so few games use more than 2 cores efficiently, it's sad.

At this point that too is my last remaining hope for a positive outcome for PC gaming with this generation.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Do you understand that useing 22nm technology + 3D transistors, might favor Intel in power consumption ?

Compaired to AMD useing 32nm.

If AMD had 22nm + 3D transistors, how much power would their bulldozer use?
How fast could it run? would it be a match for Intels newest CPUs (if 8threaded)?

SB is 32nm. Still destroys FX.

 

[Cloudfire777]

Do we really NEED 8-core CPUs? Is that a requirement? For the average Joe which only game, surf, watch movies etc, do he need 8-core?
I`m sorry but I`m not so sure if I like the whole MOAR cores and MOAR power consumption AMD got going on.

 

[raghu78]

There are a lot of people who are posting to just to cheer on AMD.

They'll post graphs of photoshop for a 200w eight core AMD cpu, knowing that's probably nearly the entire power budget of the console vs a chip using about half that.

You'll also find people using cut up chips with different specs to show what they think to be true when it is simply not.

Amazingly though, at least I think most amazingly, is that there are people here who actually believe a GK104 680 costs more to create than the gk104 660 Ti.

Threads like this are scary, AMD cpu and AMD gpu - God help us.

you are here to always talk negative about AMD. according to you AMD can't do anything right i guess. it doesn't matter that people like John Carmack appreciate the Sony PS4. it doesn't matter that Sony and Microsoft picked AMD APUs for the consoles. you are the guy who knows it all. People like you are seriously clueless. The value of the APU design from a software design point of view cannot be understated.

 

[badb0y]

Good job in calling my comment stupid and then repeating what I just said.
Great job there buddy lol :whiste:

Intel clearly makes much better CPUs than AMD. So performance wise it would have been better to pick Intel.

As for GPU, who knows what GPU they would have picked if it wasnt a requirement to put them on the same silicon. GTX 650 TI boost maybe. Its cheaper than 7850 and its faster.
But yeah, that was IF they didn`t have such small margins which they do. So its nothing but what if thinking 🙂

Your comment was stupid because what you said essentially meant that choosing intel/nVidia would somehow be better for performance which is false for the most part. Do you think nVidia would outfit the PS4 with anything stronger than a "7860" (basically what the PS4 has right now)? Do you think that intel would outfit the PS4 with a high performance CPU? These are honest questions because what your posted was that given unlimited cost, Sony/MS would have chose nVidia/Intel because they have uber performance.

You forget that power consumption is a big issue too since these consoles are not mid tower cases but small black boxes.

There are a lot of people who are posting to just to cheer on AMD.

They'll post graphs of photoshop for a 200w eight core AMD cpu, knowing that's probably nearly the entire power budget of the console vs a chip using about half that.

You'll also find people using cut up chips with different specs to show what they think to be true when it is simply not.

Amazingly though, at least I think most amazingly, is that there are people here who actually believe a GK104 680 costs more to create than the gk104 660 Ti.



Threads like this are scary, AMD cpu and AMD gpu - God help us.

You know what's really scary? nVidia/Intel monopoly. That's the real scary part because it's actually quite possible right now if AMD dies.

You think Titan/3960X is bad now? Prepare your angus for when AMD really does go under.

Do we really NEED 8-core CPUs? Is that a requirement? For the average Joe which only game, surf, watch movies etc, do he need 8-core?
I`m sorry but I`m not so sure if I like the whole MOAR cores and MOAR power consumption AMD got going on.

Yea and 640k ought to be enough for everyone.

 

[2is]

Do you understand that useing 22nm technology + 3D transistors, might favor Intel in power consumption ?

Compaired to AMD useing 32nm.

If AMD had 22nm + 3D transistors, how much power would their bulldozer use?
How fast could it run? would it be a match for Intels newest CPUs (if 8threaded)?

Except it doesn't. Here's how silly you sound, in cliffs notes version

Person x: Intel is better than AMD
You: but would Intel be better if it wasnt?