[Techspot]- AC:Unity "too much" for console CPUs

[DrMrLordX]

They could have chosen a different APU, such as an Iris Pro variant. Intel charges out the yin-yang for those things, but hey, you'd have more raw CPU power if that's really what console developers need. The thermals would be slightly worse, but not by much.

Intel probably wouldn't have wanted to play ball given what Sony and MS would have been willing to pay for such a chip.

Someone should tell Quebec government they are using Tax payers money to monopolize the market.

I am not 100% certain why Quebec is subsidizing game development, but I suspect it is due to the same sort of thinking that financed Uwe Boll's many wonderful films. Some government hack decides that they must promote art (or just business in general) to further the cultural/financial advancement of their state/nation, so they throw money at someone who appears to be doing just that (or offer tax incentives for private investors to do the same).

In Boll's case, his productions were nothing but a tax dodge for German investors. He and his production company allowed Germans to abuse a tax loophole intended to protect art of cultural significance. UbiSoft's situation may be different, though the mentality behind it may be related (in my opinion).

 

[mrmt]

But why should it be two chip. Its a huge waste of ressources? and for that reason its not comming back. Next solution is surely the same one chip as this one.

If you are targeting a certain performance level two chips is not a waste of resources, but the only way to go. That said, the XBO wasn't as much of a generational leap as the XB360 was, it is a project much more limited in terms of scope than the previous consoles. That said, the guys at MSFT and Sony should know what they are doing by restricting their scope, they can't force the two companies to bear the losses as they did on previous generations and a low cost solution was the way to go for this generation.

But let's not say that those are top notch, high end chips because they aren't. AMD, IBM, Nvidia and Intel could have delivered a much stronger solution if money was on the table, and once no money was on the table only AMD was willing to get the deal.

 

[krumme]

"Ubisoft and Warner Bros exempt from Quebec tax relief cuts. Special agreements means key publishers can continue enjoying higher subsidies until 2019"

http://www.develop-online.net/news/...os-exempt-from-quebec-tax-relief-cuts/0194614

"It had been believed that all of Quebec’s 130 studios would be affected by the drop in subsidies from 37.5 per cent to 24 per cent for games produced in English, which was made effective immediately as of June 5th.

However, due to special agreements sign by Ubisoft and Warner Bros, the publishers will maintain the high rate of tax relief until at least 2019. Both companies have significant operations in the region, with studios in Montreal and Quebec City."

"A review board on Quebec taxation is to be set up in Autumn that will recommend adjustments to tax credits in the upcoming budget. When asked whether this could mean further cuts or a raise in subsidies, the spokesperson said “it’s too early to know what the Finance Minister will do”."

Now look how Ubisoft performs in games. Watch the dog. Its just a bad product period. And now this PR stunt financed by NV.

This is not even wasting tax payers money. This is actually trying to hinder competition on the market - using Tax payers money. How pathetic can it be.

 

[ShintaiDK]

They could have chosen a different APU, such as an Iris Pro variant. Intel charges out the yin-yang for those things, but hey, you'd have more raw CPU power if that's really what console developers need. The thermals would be slightly worse, but not by much.

Intel probably wouldn't have wanted to play ball given what Sony and MS would have been willing to pay for such a chip.

I think most of us had hoped it would be AMDs big core series at least. A 2M/4T CPU at 3Ghz+.

 

[krumme]

If you are targeting a certain performance level two chips is not a waste of resources, but the only way to go.

Yes it used to be so but its not so any longer. The future is surely unified memory and a fusion of GPU and CPU whatever it is called. In means a one chip solution - for all intents and purposes on the consoles.

 

[mrmt]

Yes it used to be so but its not so any longer. The future is surely unified memory and a fusion of GPU and CPU whatever it is called. In means a one chip solution - for all intents and purposes on the consoles.

I think this future will only arrives once HBM/HMC solutions become mainstream and we're two-three years away from it.

 

[Fjodor2001]

I think most of us had hoped it would be AMDs big core series at least. A 2M/4T CPU at 3Ghz+.

Not possible within the given TDP limit of the PS4/XBONE. More smaller cores is more TDP efficient.

 

[NTMBK]

If you are targeting a certain performance level two chips is not a waste of resources, but the only way to go.

How does putting a hot and slow off-die interconnect in between the two main processors and partitioning the memory space improve performance? :sneaky:

 

[krumme]

Nvidia and Intel could have delivered a much stronger solution if money was on the table, and once no money was on the table only AMD was willing to get the deal.

You just cant stop writing that nonsense. Until today absolutely no proof or arguement have been brought to the table about it.

Where do you think AMD earns it money? - Yeaa, on the consoles, and thats about it.

Now go tell what alternative solutions for the deal there was? Who was in the bidding and what was the solution?

Well this was a pretty straightforward win for AMD. They were the only one suited for it by a long stretch. They used it. And the financial results confirm that.

 

[krumme]

I think this future will only arrives once HBM/HMC solutions become mainstream and we're two-three years away from it.

Yes i agree. But that is in time for the next consoles, so that sets it. One chip solution.

 

[Enigmoid]

Not possible within the given TDP limit of the PS4/XBONE. More smaller cores is more TDP efficient.

People are greatly overestimating how power inefficient PD is, especially for mobile.

35W a10-5750m has no problem running > 3ghz in a CB run

Could have easily been done.

 

[mrmt]

Now go tell what alternative solutions for the deal there was? Who was in the bidding and what was the solution?

What other Intel or Nvidia or IBM projects have the kind of toillet margins that AMD console chips have?

 

[mrmt]

How does putting a hot and slow off-die interconnect in between the two main processors and partitioning the memory space improve performance? :sneaky:

The same way PCs can push more geometry: Bigger chips, better production nodes.

 

[pw257008]

What other Intel or Nvidia or IBM projects have the kind of toillet margins that AMD console chips have?

The Atom tablet subsidies, for one

 

[mrmt]

The Atom tablet subsidies, for one

And what's the TAM of both projects?

 

[krumme]

What other Intel or Nvidia or IBM projects have the kind of toillet margins that AMD console chips have?

Tegra - lol

And still no argument where AMD earns their money? - keep on.

 

[krumme]

And what's the TAM of both projects?

Who cares? You have gotten straight answer for what you asked for. The consoles stand as solid business for AMD.

 

[mrmt]

Who cares? You have gotten straight answer for what you asked for.

Intel shareholders do. Contra-revenue is to open the doors of a much bigger market and should be a temporary condition. The console win generates a paltry 350MM per year and won't change much for the next years.

Same with Nvidia Tegra, and Nvidia is doing the right thing, instead of swallowing low margins on the consumer business they are trying to find a lucrative niche with their IP.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Intel shareholders do. Contra-revenue is to open the doors of a much bigger market and should be a temporary condition. The console win generates a paltry 350MM per year and won't change much for the next years.

Same with Nvidia Tegra, and Nvidia is doing the right thing, instead of swallowing low margins on the consumer business they are trying to find a lucrative niche with their IP.

And having AMD splashed across the screen or their name on every console can't open the doors to a bigger market in the way of console gamers getting into PC gaming at some point? You're moving the goalposts. AMD is making money on consoles while getting their name out to how many millions of console gamers?

That's 20,000,000+ consoles so far (counting the Wii U which uses AMD graphics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(eighth_generation)#PlayStation_4

It seems like you're saying it is good for Intel and Nvidia to lose many millions of dollars because they may make it up in the future from the market opportunity it creates; but AMD making low margins now and possibly making even more money in the future from these low margin sales isn't a good thing.

 

[krumme]

Intel shareholders do. Contra-revenue is to open the doors of a much bigger market and should be a temporary condition. The console win generates a paltry 350MM per year and won't change much for the next years.

Same with Nvidia Tegra, and Nvidia is doing the right thing, instead of swallowing low margins on the consumer business they are trying to find a lucrative niche with their IP.

Intel losing 4B a year is the way to go....I am sure shareholder notice.

Compared to that losing,winning 350 is perhaps meagre. But profit is profit. And the rest of AMD line is losing, but consoles generate profit. That is a difference.

And having profit from day one.

And everyone and his brother will go for risk free 350.

 

[mrmt]

It seems like you're saying it is good for Intel and Nvidia to lose many millions of dollars because they may make it up in the future from the market opportunity it creates; but AMD making low margins now and possibly making even more money in the future from these low margin sales isn't a good thing.

I'm saying that Intel and Nvidia are entering in bad deals now while trying to break in proven markets, which are much bigger than the consoles, while AMD is entering in a bad deal today that won't generate further benefits in the future.

Beyond the console chips, what other players do you think that might be attracted to similar deals with AMD? That's right, none. Almost nobody needs bleeding edge graphics and custom solutions can't compete with off the shelf solution on costs for anyone who need some graphics capacity. The console deals are really a two of a kind and unlikely to generate further benefits for AMD except become a top contender for the next generation of console chips.

AMD was floating last year semi-custom deals on the pipeline of around 500MM, now they are floating 100MM deals and nothing to be seen so far. It is not a big market.

 

[AtenRa]

It seems like you're saying it is good for Intel and Nvidia to lose many millions of dollars because they may make it up in the future from the market opportunity it creates; but AMD making low margins now and possibly making even more money in the future from these low margin sales isn't a good thing.

In his universe anything AMD is a failure

 

[AtenRa]

I'm saying that Intel and Nvidia are entering in bad deals now while trying to break in proven markets, which are much bigger than the consoles, while AMD is entering in a bad deal today that won't generate further benefits in the future.

Beyond the console chips, what other players do you think that might be attracted to similar deals with AMD? That's right, none. Almost nobody needs bleeding edge graphics and custom solutions can't compete with off the shelf solution on costs for anyone who need some graphics capacity. The console deals are really a two of a kind and unlikely to generate further benefits for AMD except become a top contender for the next generation of console chips.

AMD was floating last year semi-custom deals on the pipeline of around 500MM, now they are floating 100MM deals and nothing to be seen so far. It is not a big market.

Lets wait to see what they are up to first

http://seekingalpha.com/article/248...y-conference-transcript?page=8&p=qanda&l=last

So for us, semi-custom is basically an embedded business, right. You are embedding your graphics and compute into a product that has a long period of time. In semi-custom, you are tweaking it or designing it specifically for that solution, but the strategy is to become architecturally deep with the set of market makers in each of those growth verticals. That means you are going to have business with them for a long period of time. That's what we want to create in that space.


We remain on track for one to two semi-custom wins this year and that those businesses where you would see it would be anywhere where compute and graphics are going to come together, and there is going to be long runs of volume, right.

 

[Erenhardt]

going back to consoles CPUs... There was a test with discrete 7970 some time ago:
BF4, 1080p maxed

Clearly, the card is capable of 21FPS, while 4 jaguar cores produce around 30 FPS. Note the minimal difference in average fps, and no difference in min fps between 2,0 GHz and 1,6GHz.

But... there is an elephant in the room everyone missed. Consoles, as far as I know consoles don't run games in DX11. There is mantle like low level api.
I dunno, take you chances and guess how much faster will it run. Here is a little chart to help you make your mind:

Also, we don't know how much the single channel memory impacts the performance of am1 athlon.

The end result multiply by at least 1.5 (additional 2 or more cores). The end result is - both consoles are GPU limited, which is proven by every test digital foundy does:
http://www.eurogamer.net/?type=face-off

Every game runs:
1. Slower on Xbone which has faster CPU?!
2. With lower detail.
3. All of the above.

Console design is great! It makes devs make their games more multi-threaded, which is translating to PC games. Less CPU bottleneck is good for amd, since it enables people to game on the lower tier CPUs - where amd competes with intel quite well.
And as we know, amds products have more threads than their direct competitors. Improving multi-threading makes amds products that much more competitive.

 

[NTMBK]

The same way PCs can push more geometry: Bigger chips, better production nodes.

So by blowing the TDP budget, or waiting an extra 3 years for 14nm to be viable. Sounds like a great solution.

For any given manufacturing node and any given total chip size, an integrated solution will give better performance.

By the way, everyone trying to compare performance based on PC CPU performance- don't forget that the consoles have lots of specialised coprocessors which will offload tasks from the CPU. Audio coprocessors, DMA engines, compression/decompression coprocessors... each of these is taking a bit more load from the general purpose cores, and putting it on low power custom purpose silicon.