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

[guskline]

Cheaper

 

[JimmiG]

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.

It matters in terms of manufacturing cost. Two dies+all the stuff required for them to communicate = over twice the cost of one die. So yeah, it was because of the price, but not just because AMD was willing to go lower. They offered a superior overall package.

I agree that CPU performance is somewhat underwhelming, but this will force developers to utilize all cores, which is great for PC gaming too. On the GPU side, I think they're as good as anyone could have hoped for, especially the PS4. Can't expect them to put GTX 780-class graphics in a mass produced console...

 

[ShintaiDK]

It matters in terms of manufacturing cost. Two dies+all the stuff required for them to communicate = over twice the cost of one die. So yeah, it was because of the price, but not just because AMD was willing to go lower. They offered a superior overall package.

Thats absolutely not true. And MCM concept is nothing new.

 

[NTMBK]

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.

Meh, Intel could have probably put 8 Silvermont Atom cores and a whole load of Gen7 graphics shaders on one die- if they had wanted to.

 

[Atreidin]

Yes Intel could have made a product it if they wanted, but they didn't. Any company with enough time and resources could do it. Intel didn't devote the time or resources to it. AMD did. It is a nice product. Intel also has nice products. Everyone farts roses. Who cares. End of story.

The bickering sounds so juvenile. It's like listening to kids defending their dads.

Kid 1: "My dad is a navy seal."

Kid 2: "Yeah well my dad is super strong and could do that if he wanted to, he just doesn't feel like it."

 

[beginner99]

AMD is the only company that actually saves money when producing more chips even if they sell them for $0. WSA...they can sell the chips below actual manufacturing cost and still make a profit...

 

[Conscript]

I thought they chose AMD for the four free games?

 

[Haider]

There are literally thousands of companies that make APUs.

AMD64 APUs really only AMD and Intel. AMD64 instruction set keeps the devs happy too. A virtuous circle for AMD64...No CELL (Sony) or bastardised CELL (MS).

 

[krumme]

Meh, Intel could have probably put 8 Silvermont Atom cores and a whole load of Gen7 graphics shaders on one die- if they had wanted to.

Yes but silvermount is weak on the fpu side and the gpu is inefficient and to big. Intel does in no way have the right tech for the job.

Everyone could build it, amd just have the right tech to win this bidding.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[krumme]

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.

Nonsense. Had Intel had Amd tech they would have won this bidding because it would be good business for them running on old 32 nm. Intel is not remotely competitive here. Like amd in serverspace. What is so diffucult to grasp here? This deal is not any different than anything else. Your talk about hungry is nonsense, its plain and simple a profit calculation and not about feelings or wants. It shouldnt come as a surprice to you.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[ShintaiDK]

AMD64 APUs really only AMD and Intel. AMD64 instruction set keeps the devs happy too. A virtuous circle for AMD64...No CELL (Sony) or bastardised CELL (MS).

Intel doesnt make an APU. Its an AMD only definition.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Yes but silvermount is weak on the fpu side and the gpu is inefficient and to big. Intel does in no way have the right tech for the job.

Everyone could build it, amd just have the right tech to win this bidding.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Silvermont doesn't have a GPU...it is a CPU core. And what makes you think the FPU is weak? From what I've seen, it should be a very significant step up from Bonnell/Saltwell.

 

[krumme]

The battle for the next gen consoles will be far more interesting. Arm will have the power and that opens for nv. At the same time Intel gfx efficinency and tech with eg. avx2 tsx will be fully mature. Amd will have hsa full steam but next time is far more open imho. And probably because of x86 chosen this time and the low cost from day one we will probably not have to wait to long because the current solution is giving better profit for sony and ms than prior gen from day one.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Nonsense. Had Intel had Amd tech they would have won this bidding because it would be good business for them running on old 32 nm. Intel is not remotely competitive here.

What "tech" is it that you think AMD has that Intel does not? The article rather clearly focuses on making custom SoCs, and I see absolutely no reason why Intel could not do that if they wanted to. They have far more technical capability than AMD has ever had, and their R&D department is probably bigger than all of AMD put together.

This was not, as some have attempted to characterize, a matter of capabilities. It was a matter of business priorities. AMD needed this contract more than Intel did, and so they went after it. We don't know any of the details, or even how much money AMD is making on it, a somewhat-important detail that it seems a few people don't really care about.

Like amd in serverspace.

LOL, no, not like AMD in the server space. AMD has lost there because its products are not competitive and it cannot make ones that are. Because if they could, they would -- there's no reason for them not to, as it's a high margin, high profile segment. They went after it with gusto 10 years ago when their chips were superior.

Your talk about hungry is nonsense, its plain and simple a profit calculation and not about feelings or wants.

Profit calculations are about "hunger" -- it's the same issue. More specifically, it has to do with capacity utilization and amortization of fixed costs. Chip companies must have a certain amount of volume to remain viable, and this was a way for AMD to achieve that. I'm actually glad they got the deal, but I don't have to delude myself into thinking it's because they had some great technical skill that Intel lacks.

 

[NTMBK]

Silvermont doesn't have a GPU...it is a CPU core. And what makes you think the FPU is weak? From what I've seen, it should be a very significant step up from Bonnell/Saltwell.

He was referring to the Gen7 GPU that Silvermont is being combined with. And it only has 64-bit wide vector units, similar to what Bobcat had (Jaguar widens it to 128 bit).

 

[insertcarehere]

i don't really see how arm would not have enough horsepower when compared to the sony/MS solutions used now, 8 a15 cores @2ghz would be pretty competitve.

 

[krumme]

Silvermont doesn't have a GPU...it is a CPU core.

I was referring to the inefficiency in Intel GPU tech in generel, but i think you pretty much knew that?

And what makes you think the FPU is weak? From what I've seen, it should be a very significant step up from Bonnell/Saltwell.

Where have you seen that the FPU is a very significant step up?

Besides that it is not ready, - and therefore completely out of the picture, so this discussion is a little off topic. The competitor was Saltwell generation - witch Jaguar walks all over with about 70-80% better IPC. Try making a console and earn money from that tech.

But anyway, if i remember correctly from perhaps an Anand article (yeaa the usual 8 pages reminding of Intel PR slides so its a bit tough to read without getting dizzy, but lots of good info) - the fpu is still 64 bit wide and unlike saltwell without ht. It was the HT that made the fpu on old Atom acceptable fpu performance.
The design makes perfecty sense, to let it scale to high freq at low power, but for the console market Jaguar with its 128bit fpu - and yes probably fatter fpu - i guess is a better fit.

But anyway take IB GPU tech (at best), with a Saltwell cpu and try and compete with AMD. Yes Intel was hardly at the first meetings. It simply doesnt make any business sense.

Intel market cap is like Qualcomm, meaning Intel can not do whatever it wants. And i can tell you, if there is any one Inside Intel thinking they can behave like a Queen, or are to fine for some jobs, i can assure you the new CEO will kick their a...

 

[krumme]

What "tech" is it that you think AMD has that Intel does not?

Even remotely competitive GPU tech for mm2 and power. The console is 3/4 about gpu and Intel can in now way deliver competitive solutions here.

How on earht can we even have this discussion about this?

I thought it was quite obvious that only NV and AMD was in the competition for this deal and would never ever have thought anyone could propose or even think about eg. Intel. The article brings nothing new.

 

[aigomorla]

they should make consoles with a GPU upgrade option.

so the user can decide what gpu he wants .


like HDD upgrades... only on the gpu end.

 

[galego]

What "tech" is it that you think AMD has that Intel does not? The article rather clearly focuses on making custom SoCs, and I see absolutely no reason why Intel could not do that if they wanted to. They have far more technical capability than AMD has ever had, and their R&D department is probably bigger than all of AMD put together.

This was not, as some have attempted to characterize, a matter of capabilities. It was a matter of business priorities. AMD needed this contract more than Intel did, and so they went after it. We don't know any of the details, or even how much money AMD is making on it, a somewhat-important detail that it seems a few people don't really care about.



LOL, no, not like AMD in the server space. AMD has lost there because its products are not competitive and it cannot make ones that are. Because if they could, they would -- there's no reason for them not to, as it's a high margin, high profile segment. They went after it with gusto 10 years ago when their chips were superior.



Profit calculations are about "hunger" -- it's the same issue. More specifically, it has to do with capacity utilization and amortization of fixed costs. Chip companies must have a certain amount of volume to remain viable, and this was a way for AMD to achieve that. I'm actually glad they got the deal, but I don't have to delude myself into thinking it's because they had some great technical skill that Intel lacks.

Powerful and efficient jaguar cores, better multicore scaling designs, GCN, superb compute tech, innovations such as HUMA and HSA, the tech to develop a custom chip adapted to client specifications...

The article clearly says that Intel was rejected by several reasons, one of them being their low graphics performance. You have ignored this once again.

P.S: Yes Intel R&D department is one order of magnitude bigger than AMD department. It is about one order of magnitude more inefficient as well.

 

[AnandThenMan]

How on earth can we even have this discussion about this?

Some people are completely unable to accept that Intel is not the all conquering, flawless company. I've seen this argument many times, Intel "lets" AMD stay in business, they could put them under if they wanted to. Intel doesn't make high performance graphics because they don't want to. Larrabee's failure "doesn't matter" (this might be my favourite quote from an article ever). I imagine the same people who view Intel as god-like also believe they don't have a healthy ultra mobile presence because, well they don't feel like it right now. But when Intel gets serious, they will conquer that market easily as well.

Bottom line is Intel does not have a single chip solution anywhere near suitable for a console, AMD does. Could Intel make such a piece of silicon? Maybe, but by the time they did, the PS4/Xbone would be years into production.

We've heard similar arguments as to why Nvidia is out in the cold for this coming console generation. According to Nvidia, they didn't want the contract, Project Shield and PC gaming is where the market is going. Fair enough, that's NVDA market speak they are spinning the story to make themselves look good, you expect that from a good company.

 

[jpiniero]

We've heard similar arguments as to why Nvidia is out in the cold for this coming console generation. According to Nvidia, they didn't want the contract,

nVidia made it sound like they wanted the contract, but Sony wanted too little to make it worth it to them. Which is probably true.

 

[galego]

Even remotely competitive GPU tech for mm2 and power. The console is 3/4 about gpu and Intel can in now way deliver competitive solutions here.

How on earth can we even have this discussion about this?

I thought it was quite obvious that only NV and AMD was in the competition for this deal and would never ever have thought anyone could propose or even think about eg. Intel. The article brings nothing new.

In real world, your discussion with Charles makes no sense. That is why in real world both MS and Sony rejected Intel. But you are in anandtech forums where "Intel is God", as other poster wrote.

The article states the obvious, which is a good think, because what is obvious for you or for me is not obvious for others. The article also gives some additional new data: for instance that they did run simulations of ARM vs x86 before taking the x86 route.

 

[AnandThenMan]

nVidia made it sound like they wanted the contract, but Sony wanted too little to make it worth it to them. Which is probably true.

Well it's not really true, because Nvidia could not provide a one ship solution at any price, same as Intel.

 

[sontin]

nVidia can deliever an 1-chip solution. But Sony did not want to pay for it.