The real reasons Microsoft and Sony chose AMD for consoles [F]

Discussion in 'CPUs and Overclocking' started by galego, Jun 28, 2013.

  1. galego

    galego Golden Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,099
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some speculated that the reason was that AMD is cheap, but the real reasons are that competitors lacked the technology.

    POWER, ARM, MIPS, or X86?

    Power: No apps. Obsolete for the required performance per watt.

    MIPS: Not enough developer ecosystem. Not enough horsepower to power the new consoles.

    ARM: Not enough horsepower. 64-bit architecture wasn't ready.

    Winner: X86

    Nvidia, Intel, or AMD?

    Nvidia: No X86-based SOC

    Intel: No custom SOC. Bad graphics.

    Winner: AMD

    Now that is why Sony and Microsoft both chose a X86 design from AMD.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrick...ns-microsoft-and-sony-chose-amd-for-consoles/
     
  2. JAG87

    JAG87 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    3,876
    Likes Received:
    1
    Don't fool yourself. The only real reason is performance per dollar.
     
  3. erunion

    erunion Senior member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    0
    every console was PowerPC last generation, and this yahoo just writes it off as if Microsoft/sony didn't even consider that option.

    Microsoft chose AMD for price, Sony chose them for TTM (and price).
     
  4. Zodiark1593

    Zodiark1593 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    0
    AMD probably offered one heck of a deal to secure both consoles. Margins will likely be quite low in comparison though.
     
  5. lefty2

    lefty2 Senior member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    1
    I say it's because Microsoft and Sony wanted an APU - not a CPU with a GPU stuck on. There are only two companies in the world that make APUs. AMD were the better on price /performance.
     
  6. Ben90

    Ben90 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,866
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are literally thousands of companies that make APUs.
     
  7. nyker96

    nyker96 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    does any1 know how fast is the GPU inside both consoles? I mean in comparison to current stand alone gcards?
     
  8. Tsavo

    Tsavo Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^

    Intel gets cranky if its margins are under 60%.

    I wonder what AMD's margin will be? 2-3%?
     
  9. homebrew2ny

    homebrew2ny Senior member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2013
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    2
    2% - 3% margins on hundreds of million of units is nothing to sneeze at, however I would be surprised if it we not in the 15% - 20% range.
     
  10. AustinInDallas

    AustinInDallas Golden Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,128
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dumb question, but why are they x86 instead of x64?
     
    #10 AustinInDallas, Jun 28, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2013
  11. Tsavo

    Tsavo Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    If it was 15-20%, then everyone and their brother except Intel would have been wooing the next gen consoles.

    AMD are the only people to show up for bidding.

    Well, them and VIA. :biggrin:
     
  12. AnandThenMan

    AnandThenMan Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    If ever there was an obvious and only choice for MS and Sony, this gen of consoles was it. Simply put no one else has the tech suitable for the form factor/performance/feature set. There is no other APU like device out there at any price that would meet the needs for the PS4/Xbone anyway, so the price argument is moot.
     
  13. finbarqs

    finbarqs Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,026
    Likes Received:
    0
    x86 architecture w/ EMT64
     
  14. Haserath

    Haserath Senior member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    789
    Likes Received:
    0
    Every x86 chip is just called x86, whether it has 64-bit capability or not.

    x86 also came from Intel's 8086 processor, which was 16-bit.
    ---
    Anyway, I believe AMD won because they had the right product. Jaguar and GCN sound like a good combo for an optimized console.
     
  15. galego

    galego Golden Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,099
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are x86_64. Both the new x86_64 and the old x86_32 are x86. The article is not wrong, but was not precise.

    Yes, evidently both chose AMD because neither Nvidia nor Intel could provide the hardware needed.

    What I didn't know is that they considered MIPS and ARM before choosing x86. It was particularly interesting to read that simulated ARM performance.
     
  16. Charles Kozierok

    Charles Kozierok Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    Messages:
    6,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    This, naturally, is just another example of your Intelophobia. It is certainly not the case that Intel couldn't provide a custom SOC. It is simply that Intel didn't want to do so, because they didn't feel it was in their best business interests. AMD did.

    And that hints at the important other half of the equation that is ignored by this article -- who wins a contract depends on the needs and wants of both parties. A company hungry for business will work harder to get that business. AMD was chosen in large part because AMD really needed to be chosen, and Intel didn't.

    The "real reason" AMD won the contract is that it needed to, much as who gets a job sometimes boils down to who is willing to accept the lowest salary.

    Personal attacks will NOT be tolerated. We are here to discuss technology; discussion of other posters is off-topic at best, and destructive at worst
    -ViRGE
     
    #16 Charles Kozierok, Jun 29, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 30, 2013
  17. galego

    galego Golden Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,099
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wonder why you feel the need to ignore the facts before attacking me.
     
  18. Vesku

    Vesku Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,696
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is pretty much what I said when people asked "why AMD?" when the selection was first announced:

    ARM 64 bit was not far enough along, would have had to put off the console until at least next year's holiday season. Nvidia missed out on offering its own APU by a year or two.

    Intel is too expensive and inflexible (even though they've started to give signals they want to change that, at least a bit). MS was burned by that with original XBox.

    Take those two points and then throw in that AMD can offer a highly integrated CPU+GPU product.
     
    #18 Vesku, Jun 29, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2013
  19. CHADBOGA

    CHADBOGA Golden Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,424
    Likes Received:
    4
    Wasn't that Nvidia who burnt MS on original XBox?
     
  20. ShintaiDK

    ShintaiDK Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    20,077
    Likes Received:
    13
    No it was Intel. Or rather MS inability to do a proper deal.
     
  21. Sable

    Sable Golden Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,056
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd just like to say that I'm finding galego's sigs absolutely hilarious. Incredible wit.

    edit:

    And on topic.

    "The requirement for a custom SOC removed Intel from the running, as well as their graphics."
    "The requirement for an X86-based SOC ostensibly removed Nvidia"

    No [surprise] sherlock, tell us something we didn't know.


    No profanity in the tech forums, please.

    Moderator jvroig
     
    #21 Sable, Jun 29, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 30, 2013
  22. SiliconWars

    SiliconWars Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Messages:
    2,348
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whether or not Intel wanted to can be debated for ever - personally I doubt they cared. However, I see no way for Intel to get anything near the perf/Watt of an 8-core jaguar (30W) and 12-18 CU graphics for ~50-100W, in volume.
     
  23. JimmiG

    JimmiG Golden Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,862
    Likes Received:
    1
    If they had gone with Intel, they would have had to either go with an off-die GPU from Nvidia or AMD, or try to get one of them to put their tech on-die for some kind of Franken-SoC...

    AMD was the only logical choice as far as I can tell.
     
  24. ShintaiDK

    ShintaiDK Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    20,077
    Likes Received:
    13
    Considering that it doesnt support HSA. Ondie or not didnt matter much. Its all about the price. AMD was simply the company willing to go the lowest. And the result is anything but impressive. A mainstream GPU with an ultra lowend CPU.
     
  25. SPBHM

    SPBHM Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2012
    Messages:
    4,007
    Likes Received:
    4
    AMD was probably by far the best choice, because of cost and flexibility.

    Intel would probably limit the level of customization, and production to their fabs
    and probably the price was not right?

    but I'm pretty sure, considering the iris 5200 that Intel could build a better GPU, if it made sense for them, like the consoles offer much higher memory bandwidth.