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

[Vesku]

Well they might be derailing the thread with this latest "Intel makes lots of profit" line of posts but at least they aren't sticking to the ridiculous claim "Intel could have totally built a SoC with Radeon 7870 level graphics power for MS and Sony."

 

[NTMBK]

Well they might be derailing the thread with this latest "Intel makes lots of profit" line of posts but at least they aren't sticking to the ridiculous claim "Intel could have totally built a SoC with Radeon 7870 level graphics power for MS and Sony."

But Intel could have built an SoC with 7870 level graphics. It may well have been larger than the AMD equivalent, but Intel have made huge dies before. What they couldn't have done is made it at a price that Sony or MS would have been interested in.

 

[NTMBK]

Yesterday Intel were the biggest loser in the dow industrials. The analysts know it's coming and Intel has reacted far too slowly with Atom.

Never read too much into one day changes in the stock market.

 

[mrmt]

but intel could have build an soc with 7870 level graphics. It may well have been larger than the amd equivalent, but intel have made huge dies before. What they couldn't have done is made it at a price that sony or ms would have been interested in.

:d:d:d:d:d:d:d

 

[NTMBK]

:d:d:d:d:d:d:d

...I'm not sure if this is good or bad

 

[CHADBOGA]

Intel is making a planned transition, it's not that their house was on fire like AMD's.

I'm glad you'll still be able to cheerlead for AMD once their consumer line goes bust.

You seem to be forgetting that AMD has the power of HSA on their side. :awe:

 

[Vesku]

But Intel could have built an SoC with 7870 level graphics. It may well have been larger than the AMD equivalent, but Intel have made huge dies before. What they couldn't have done is made it at a price that Sony or MS would have been interested in.

More expensive and with a higher power draw, and we aren't talking a minor difference in those aspects. Which in the context of bidding for consoles is equivalent to having nothing to offer.

That's like saying Nvidia could have offered the console makers the full GK110 chip.

 

[Arkaign]

More expensive and with a higher power draw, and we aren't talking a minor difference in those aspects. Which in the context of bidding for consoles is equivalent to having nothing to offer.

That's like saying Nvidia could have offered the console makers the full GK110 chip.

One must remember after all that the philosophy in design for the new consoles is hugely different than last time.

X360/PS3 were huge discrete GPUs with pretty robust CPUs as well (successive versions integrated these more and more of course), along with somewhat skimpy ram even for the time.

Something analogous to that today would be :

IBM Power7 QuadCore, 32MB Cache + 4GB unified ram feeding Radeon 7970 for Xbox One
IBM Cell 2.0, 16MB Cache + 2GB System ram + 2GB Video ram on GTX 680

Complete with huge power thirst, divergent cpu designs, and short-sighted memory allocation combined with very strong GPUs for the time.

 

[Vesku]

Considering the headaches Sony and MS had in terms of production costs and in the case of MS the RROD, why would anyone think they want to go the expensive and power hungry route with this next generation?

This is getting pretty circular thanks to the "AMD just gave the console makers a sweetheart deal that's all, had nothing to do with the hardware design and business merits" folks.

If Intel and Nvidia were close business partners I could see the "they could offer a pretty good unified solution" argument, but they definitely don't have that kind of relationship.

 

[beginner99]

You seem to be forgetting that AMD has the power of Gandalf HSA on their side. :awe:

fixed

 

[Cogman]

3 reasons I can think of for going the x86 route

1. The developer tools for x86 are phenomenal... I mean, it is THE platform to target. There is (almost) no library or language that doesn't support x86. ARM is up there, Power is less, and everything else is a crapshoot.

2. Swappable components. They are going with amd today, probably because AMD offers a good price/performance for them, they have decent GPU performance and good enough CPU performance. However, if one day intel offers a dirt cheap x86 processor with great power savings and a super fast GPU, well, the cost of switching over wouldn't be all that huge.

3. Future backwards compatibility. Like it or hate it, x86 will probably be here in 10 years. That means that the PS5 or the XBox tew will have a pretty easy time (well, not terrible at least) being able to support PS4 and XBox one games.

Microsoft gets the added bonus that the original XBox was x86 based, which means they MAY be able to support the old XBox games.

Developers get the benefit that their game should work pretty seamlessly against either the xbox or the PS4... This is an interesting thing... We may even see the birth of an XBox/PS4 compatibility library, since the two platforms are almost identical such a thing make be possible for the first time ever.

I never would have predicted that the two console giants would go for nearly the exact same hardware... Insane. AMD must have had a pretty good sales team working for them.

 

[zlatan]

But Intel could have built an SoC with 7870 level graphics. It may well have been larger than the AMD equivalent, but Intel have made huge dies before.

But not with the same integration level. The killer feature is the unified virtual memory, and not the 7870 class graphics.

 

[ViRGE]

Get this thread back on topic, people. This is about console SoCs. This is not a financial analyst thread.
-ViRGE

 

[krumme]

I never would have predicted that the two console giants would go for nearly the exact same hardware... Insane. AMD must have had a pretty good sales team working for them.

The guys meeting over this development is people with deep technical knowledge with leadership abilities. Project like this is in no way driven by sales. Sales dont have the technical nor product knowledge to challenge the other parts thoughts and business understanding at this level.

When the solution is nearly the same in historical perspective, the most obvious would be the building blocks available gives pretty straight answers without even knowing the tech. GCN, hsa and Jaguar looks made for consoles, and for AMD they are just all available at the right time. I guess the beefy 128 bit wide FPU for Jaguar, and the added AVX, is in great part decided by the opportunity in embedded market and consoles. Its a pretty power consuming part to add if you were just targeting tablets and ultra mobile devices. Look at the new Atom comming, that dont have theese parts to enable higher freq and lower power consumption.

 

[Cogman]

The guys meeting over this development is people with deep technical knowledge with leadership abilities. Project like this is in no way driven by sales. Sales dont have the technical nor product knowledge to challenge the other parts thoughts and business understanding at this level.

Companies use engineering sales teams all the time. Think "salesmen with some computer/engineering background" they usually don't work directly on the product itself. They also don't generally talk the the lower level developers, but rather to upper management.

source: We had a couple of these guys at HP.

Still, the thing that is impressive here is that both Microsoft and Sony settled on the same cpu. It isn't like AMD is the only CPU manufacturer in the business, which is what makes these decisions pretty unprecedented.

 

[blackened23]

I still feel like some folks go out of their way to discredit AMD to extreme lengths. On one hand, I can understand how some feel about their desktop CPUs - I feel the same as many do here about AMD desktop CPUs (In other words, I *really* dislike the FX chips) but I think the SOC used in the PS4 is a pretty nice chip. Trust me, with 2TFlops of processing power it will be a substantial improvement over the PS3 and 360 to say the least - and this will benefit PC gamers as well. So i'm not sure why people are so quick to discredit them. It's a nice chip, IMO.

Could intel have made an SOC? Sure. Why didn't they? Well, nobody knows. We do know that AMD is more gaming focused with their GPUs, Intel not so much. And then intel has been slightly behind the curve in terms of features as well. I mean consider how well the GT3 does in synthetics compared to the GT650M but has some severe performance anomalies in actual games compared to it? It's something to consider. Intel is pretty much focused on general graphics performance for the masses, not necessarily focused on gaming.

But, I don't think there was a technical issue preventing intel from making a SOC for a console. I also don't think they would have been the best choice by default. Perhaps if nvidia had an x86 license (they don't) this would be a more interesting discussion.

 

[galego]

Could intel have made an SOC? Sure. Why didn't they? Well, nobody knows. We do know that AMD is more gaming focused with their GPUs, Intel not so much. And then intel has been slightly behind the curve in terms of features as well. I mean consider how well the GT3 does in synthetics compared to the GT650M but has some severe performance anomalies in actual games compared to it? It's something to consider. Intel is pretty much focused on general graphics performance for the masses, not necessarily focused on gaming.

Intel lacks the technology as pointed before. GT3 performs well in synthetics, because Intel optimizes for synthetics benchs (that is easy because are fixed code). Real games are a different league.

 

[Silverforce11]

But, I don't think there was a technical issue preventing intel from making a SOC for a console. I also don't think they would have been the best choice by default. Perhaps if nvidia had an x86 license (they don't) this would be a more interesting discussion.

Its technical issues that prevented them from competing with their own SoC design. When their iGPU architecture is so far behind in perf/mm, it is all technical. They lack the expertise because graphics was never their focus in their history, whereas ATI/NV is ALL about graphics... hence, Intel makes great CPUs but relatively crap GPUs. They still haven't gone anywhere with their attempt at consumer graphics (Larrafail etc), simply because they cannot match in perf/mm and perf/w or perf/$.

As its been said, people give too much credit to Intel when they are used to their CPU dominance.. but moving into a field they lack expertise in, takes a lot of time and effort and they are not there yet, and won't be there given the improvements NV and AMD keep on making with every new generation.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Amazing that there are posters who still think "Intel could totally build a Radeon 7870 equivalent. Doesn't matter that even extrapolating out HD 5200 would make that chip bigger, on a smaller node, and more power hungry than either AMD or Nvidia GPUs. They could totally do it."

The only true performance competitive alternative to AMD for 2013 Consoles would be an Intel + Nvidia combo and it's pretty easy to see why that would be troublesome from a business and technical integration aspect.

One don't even need deep technical understanding to see that would be unthinkable right on the onset. The Intel CPU would have its own DDR3 IMC/ RAM, and the NV GPU with it's own IMC/GDDR5 pool of RAM and another custom chip bridging both together, god forbid mentioning the software needed to run on this frankenstein of a system. It would be total logistical and technical nightmare, and if they are going to deal with a custom chip might as well go for the one chip AMD solution.

Edit: Also add in "licensing shitstorm" to the list.

 

[sniffin]

Its technical issues that prevented them from competing with their own SoC design. When their iGPU architecture is so far behind in perf/mm, it is all technical. They lack the expertise because graphics was never their focus in their history, whereas ATI/NV is ALL about graphics... hence, Intel makes great CPUs but relatively crap GPUs. They still haven't gone anywhere with their attempt at consumer graphics (Larrafail etc), simply because they cannot match in perf/mm and perf/w or perf/$.

As its been said, people give too much credit to Intel when they are used to their CPU dominance.. but moving into a field they lack expertise in, takes a lot of time and effort and they are not there yet, and won't be there given the improvements NV and AMD keep on making with every new generation.

This is it right here. Intel did not take graphics seriously for decades. Now they're interested and have developed some tech. People are assuming that "because it's Intel", that they can magically pull polished graphics tech out of their rear.

The reality is, GCN/Kepler are YEARS ahead of Intel's GPU tech. Just because they're Intel doesn't mean they are going to magically eliminate that discrepancy overnight. They are a long way behind and will be a long way behind for a while yet. In all likelihood Intel weren't even considering throwing their hat in the ring - they know full well they have nothing to offer this generation. I'm amazed this discussion is even happening, seriously.

 

[blackened23]

This is it right here. Intel did not take graphics seriously for decades. Now they're interested and have developed some tech. People are assuming that "because it's Intel", that they can magically pull polished graphics tech out of their rear.

The reality is, GCN/Kepler are YEARS ahead of Intel's GPU tech. Just because they're Intel doesn't mean they are going to magically eliminate that discrepancy overnight. They are a long way behind and will be a long way behind for a while yet. In all likelihood Intel weren't even considering throwing their hat in the ring - they know full well they have nothing to offer this generation. I'm amazed this discussion is even happening, seriously.

Huh? GT3 performs amazingly well and while it obviously needs better drivers for optimized gaming performance, I think intel is getting there. Anyway, as I said earlier AMD may have been a better choice since they were more gaming focused over the past several years but stating that intel is so far behind - I dunno. GT3 performs suprisingly well, so I don't think there's any technical issue preventing intel from making a console SOC. In fact, I'm sure of it.

Have you guys even seen the benchmarks for GT3? Intel is obviously focused more on the mobile market rather than pure gaming performance, but they're obviously making some strong strides. As I said -- I don't necessarily think intel was the best choice by default, because AMD has always been more gaming focused and optimized while intel has not. Intel is focused on different things, such as mobility and efficiency. Not necessarily all out gaming performance. But, if intel tried, I'm sure they have the capability. While i'm sure they had the ability - whether they were the best choice for gaming (they are obviously not gaming-focused) is another matter altogether.

 

[Silverforce11]

Huh? GT3 performs amazingly well and while it obviously needs better drivers for optimized gaming performance, I think intel is getting there.

It performs well for a massive price mark up? Are you kidding?

It's a massive die with a further die for eram.

 

[sushiwarrior]

Huh? GT3 performs amazingly well and while it obviously needs better drivers for optimized gaming performance, I think intel is getting there. Anyway, as I said earlier AMD may have been a better choice since they were more gaming focused over the past several years but stating that intel is so far behind - I dunno. GT3 performs suprisingly well, so I don't think there's any technical issue preventing intel from making a console SOC. In fact, I'm sure of it.

Have you guys even seen the benchmarks for GT3? Intel is obviously focused more on the mobile market rather than pure gaming performance, but they're obviously making some strong strides. As I said -- I don't necessarily think intel was the best choice by default, because AMD has always been more gaming focused and optimized while intel has not. Intel is focused on different things, such as mobility and efficiency. Not necessarily all out gaming performance. But, if intel tried, I'm sure they have the capability. While i'm sure they had the ability - whether they were the best choice for gaming (they are obviously not gaming-focused) is another matter altogether.

Just because Intel made Iris Pro doesn't mean Intel can go out and beat AMD/Nvidia because they want to. GT3e takes ~250mm^2 (GPU + cache) to compete with a ~118mm^2 GT650m, and still lose. Intel's "strategy" for GT3 simply consisted of throwing more inferior pipelines at the problem, rather than actually coming up with a competitive architecture. "Sub slices" have a very poor vector SIMD pipeline compared to Kepler or GCN, and while I suppose Intel "could" come up with a design that "compares" to a 7870 or what have you, it's a very loose definition of the word "compare" since the chip would have to be gigantic and rely on only Intel's superior (and expensive) process to have any semblance of a chance at competing on power.

The only way GT3 is showing Intel is making "solid strides" is by showing that they are trying I guess, not that they are doing a great job. It's lazy engineering at best.

 

[piesquared]

nv and intel are no doubt in worry mode.


[redacted] With good reason though, AMD's tech is awesome. A major part of the industry agree just have to look at the HSA Foundation. And developers are coding for HSA, hUMA, GCN, consoles making AMD the platform of choice. And where are developers? Gaming Evolved and HSA. When was the last time we had a big TheWayIt'sMeantToBePlayed announcement, or anyone impressed with intel's attempt at HSA with GT3E. It's pretty easy to see that developers chose the hardware for the next gen consoles, games and they got what they wanted. Nobody else has or had the ability to do it. It's not bragging or rubbing it in to say that, it's just a fact.
This is a pretty darn good debut of their Semi-Custom business unit.

I could write you up for flame bait on that one, but since you just got back, we'll cut you a bit of slack
-ViRGE

 

[insertcarehere]

GT3e takes ~250mm^2 (GPU + cache) to compete with a ~118mm^2 GT650m

I swear, will you guys ever stop quoting this disproven figure for the gt3 gpu, even counting for the 84mm^2 edram die (which even Intel admits is overkill), the total gpu logic should be more like 190mm^2