Well it's not really true, because Nvidia could not provide a one ship solution at any price, same as Intel.
Exactly, neither Intel nor Nvidia had the tech.
Well it's not really true, because Nvidia could not provide a one ship solution at any price, same as Intel.
Some here apparently have a really hard time dealing with this. I personally don't see what the big deal is, no company is the best at everything. I will say this, the argument that said company could make anything they wanted, they simply don't "want to" is juvenile at best. This type of thinking can be used to excuse any shortcoming, you can't have an intelligent conversation with such nonsense as a starting point.Exactly, neither Intel nor Nvidia had the tech.
If money wasnt an issue.
Some here apparently have a really hard time dealing with this. I personally don't see what the big deal is, no company is the best at everything.
If money wasnt an issue. There would not have used the weak jaguar cores that is already limiting the consoles in FPS.
And only AMD was willing or desperate enough to take the job. With 14% marketshare left in x86 and dropping, while being totally gone in the serverspace. And being hammered in the discrete segment by nVidia. You just cant be picky.
After growth of 21% or more during each quarter in 2011, Intel's first two quarters of 2012 showed less than 4% year-over-year growth. Then we went negative, with three straight quarters of 2.5% declines or worse. A weak PC industry was to blame, and this year's Q2 is forecast to be a little worse.
Because x64 isn't an ISA--at least not that we're ever going to deal with. All backwards-compatible processors that can run 8086 code are termed as x86.Dumb question, but why are they x86 instead of x64?
Because x64 isn't an ISA--at least not that we're ever going to deal with. All backwards-compatible processors that can run 8086 code are termed as x86.
The 32-bit move was termed by Intel to be IA32 (Intel Architecture, 32-bit). These also run 8086 code. Thus, they're x86.
The 64-bit move by AMD was termed x86-64. These also run 8086 code. Thus, they're x86.
MS calls x86-64 AMD64 in their file names and x64 for their package distribution. Everybody else either calls it x86-64 or AMD64 (AMD64 in part to poke fun at Intel, due to Intel going and naming their implementation EM64T, even though AMD/MS used a generic enough official name).
OK, so...how many pages before it's locked?
AMD getting this contract says flat out that they have the expertise Intel does not. That's it, deal with it. If you take that to be Intel bashing, then that is your perception. Saying AMD is better at something is not Intel bashing, saying Intel makes better processors than AMD is not AMD bashing. See how that works?If you guys would stop patting each other on the back long enough to actually listen to what others are saying, you might discover that we aren't saying Intel is "the best at everything". I, at least, am saying that AMD won this contract because they wanted it and needed it more than Intel did. That doesn't say, nor imply, anything about whether Intel is "better" than AMD or vice-versa.
There is a mountain of evidence that Intel is unable to provide anything even remotely viable for the likes of Sony. Just look at Intel's history in graphics tech both on the hardware and software side. That is not even taking into account AMD (and Nvidia) have a history of working with Sony and Microsoft, they understand what it takes. You're telling me Sony is going to approach the weakest player in graphics to make a single chip, high performance (compared to anything Intel has ever made by far) piece of silicon? Whoever did that would lose this console generation by default.But I'm not going to jump to conclusions about what Intel could or couldn't do based on it, because there is simply zero evidence that Intel could not make the chip that was wanted, if it was something they wanted to go after.
It has different operating modes. If running in a 64-bit mode (like long compatibility), you don't get to use any real mode features. It was a deliberate move to get people to stop using binaries from 1990 (and, in the long run, a good thing).I thought that AMD64 dropped support for 16 bit, so it would no longer run original x86 binaries?
EDIT: Oh no, that was Windows making a choice to drop support, not the silicon. My bad.
I don't think we should even bring up this argument when we look at how far Intel has come with Iris Pro. Granted, Iris Pro alone would not be enough for a console, I doubt anyone here really knows how far up the architecture can scale should a custom chip be made.AMD getting this contract says flat out that they have the expertise Intel does not. That's it, deal with it. If you take that to be Intel bashing, then that is your perception. Saying AMD is better at something is not Intel bashing, saying Intel makes better processors than AMD is not AMD bashing. See how that works?
There is a mountain of evidence that Intel is unable to provide anything even remotely viable for the likes of Sony. Just look at Intel's history in graphics tech both on the hardware and software side. That is not even taking into account AMD (and Nvidia) have a history of working with Sony and Microsoft, they understand what it takes. You're telling me Sony is going to approach the weakest player in graphics to make a single chip, high performance (compared to anything Intel has ever made by far) piece of silicon? Whoever did that would lose this console generation by default.
You are using reverse proof logic which is laughable. There is no evidence that aliens didn't teach us humans how to build the pyramids, therefore they must have taught us everything we know.
Don't fool yourself. The only real reason is performance per dollar.
If you guys would stop patting each other on the back long enough to actually listen to what others are saying, you might discover that we aren't saying Intel is "the best at everything". I, at least, am saying that AMD won this contract because they wanted it and needed it more than Intel did. That doesn't say, nor imply, anything about whether Intel is "better" than AMD or vice-versa.
I will say this, the argument that said company could make anything they wanted, they simply don't "want to" is juvenile at best. This type of thinking can be used to excuse any shortcoming, you can't have an intelligent conversation with such nonsense as a starting point.
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.
You don't get. What we are saying you is that AMD was chose because Intel, Nvidia, MIPS, ARM... had not the tech.
AMD getting this contract says flat out that they have the expertise Intel does not. That's it, deal with it.
If you take that to be Intel bashing, then that is your perception.
You're telling me Sony is going to approach the weakest player in graphics to make a single chip, high performance (compared to anything Intel has ever made by far) piece of silicon? Whoever did that would lose this console generation by default.
There is no evidence that aliens didn't teach us humans how to build the pyramids, therefore they must have taught us everything we know.
Wasn't that Nvidia who burnt MS on original XBox?
Another "what-if" and maybe scenario. Maybe Iris would scale, maybe not. Maybe Intel would be able to make a single chip solution with a fast GDDR5 memory controller/unified memory AMD64 8 core processor with GPU at a price point that made sense. But Sony/MS can't deal in potential, they need actual, working and on time silicon. Which is exactly what the article talked about, and why AMD got the contract.I don't think we should even bring up this argument when we look at how far Intel has come with Iris Pro. Granted, Iris Pro alone would not be enough for a console, I doubt anyone here really knows how far up the architecture can scale should a custom chip be made.
It is not entirely possible, because they don't have it. What they have is the potential. Until you can buy said silicon, it's paperware.I think it's entirely possible Intel has the tech, but is likely pricing too high for the console manufacturers to consider.
I don't think we should even bring up this argument when we look at how far Intel has come with Iris Pro. Granted, Iris Pro alone would not be enough for a console, I doubt anyone here really knows how far up the architecture can scale should a custom chip be made.
I think it's entirely possible Intel has the tech, but is likely pricing too high for the console manufacturers to consider.
It is not entirely possible, because they don't have it. What they have is the potential. Until you can buy said silicon, it's paperware.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, in markets where Intel does not have a patent imposed monopoly, they do poorly.
AMD getting this contract says flat out that they have the expertise Intel does not. That's it, deal with it. If you take that to be Intel bashing, then that is your perception. Saying AMD is better at something is not Intel bashing, saying Intel makes better processors than AMD is not AMD bashing. See how that works?
They also say that their FX line is competitive against Core, which we know it isn't. You have to be more careful when reading a PR statement.
I think you guys are overlooking a point here: AMD works in a different ROI bracket than Intel, and they *need* whatever volumes they can scrap because of the WSA. That alone makes a lot of difference when bidding for a project like the PS4 and XBO.
By the same token Intel could have beaten AMD's product and forced them out of business, because without the console wins AMD was toast. If they had the technology and know-how to do so, they'd have done it.
By the same token Intel could have beaten AMD's product and forced them out of business, because without the console wins AMD was toast. If they had the technology and know-how to do so, they'd have done it.
You dont need to do bad business to do what AMD is already doing perfectly fine by itself.
What's the point of killing AMD? To get the bottom of the PC markets that they are already winning without doing anything? If Intel is going to undercut someone on price, they will do it with Qualcomm on mobile, not help Sony and MSFT to get lower prices for their consoles.
And yet they are still around, taking billions of revenue from Intel every year. Why is that?
AMD is still worth ~$5 billion a year in PC and graphics revenues
What? We know exactly what the Moon is made of, in fact I've seen Moon rock in person. I have not however seen anything Intel makes in graphics that is anywhere near what I would want to buy in a console. This is factual, hard evidence. You know, actual real silicon? Not Intel "could" do it because they have the engineering prowess etc. etc.You can also say the moon is made of green cheese if you like; you have just as much evidence for that as you have evidence that Intel "had not the tech". (I won't comment on the other companies.)
Do you ever post anything that doesn't make you sound like the great Intel defender? You don't like me painting you with that brush? I don't like it either, so don't do that to anyone else.Do you ever write anything that doesn't sound like it was copied from an AMD marketing department PR manual?
It's also the fact that the bidder has to actually be capable or delivering what is requested. How many times does it have to be repeated, Intel has NO HISTORY in high performance graphics, has a terrible track record on the software side (I'm being kind) and about 10 other things not in their favour. These are facts based on the entire history of Intel and AMD.Projects are put out for bid every day in the business world. In each case every bidder but one loses the deal, and it's usually NOT because the losers "lacked expertise" but because they weren't willing to provide what the customer viewed as the best value. Value is a function of product quality, service quality and price, and AMD could very easily have gotten this job simply by being willing to do it the most cheaply.
Nonsense to you, factual to anyone that looks at the reality of what Intel has now, what they've produced in the past.I'm quite sure it is possible that Intel couldn't make this product for the price the customer wanted. Going from that to saying they didn't have the expertise to do so is utter nonsense.
That's your opinion. I am sure many would say you completely lack reasoning, objectivity, and are prone to bash AMD at every possible opportunity. But it's just that, an opinion.I assure you that it's not just mine. People call it "bashing" when you make broad proclamations about something with zero evidence and poor reasoning, especially when you have a past track record of lacking objectivity.
It does no such thing. It only shows that Intel is simply not capable. The tried with Larrabee and fell on their face. They were not capable of doing what they set out to do. Saying Intel can't do something is not denigrating them, good grief. When I say a company is not technically capable of something, I am not attacking their character, I am stating what is factual going by history, and by what said company has now.To conclude from this that a company with Intel's resources and engineering prowess was technically incapable of making this product demonstrates poor understanding of business, a desire to denigrate Intel, or both.
AMD is still worth ~$5 billion a year in PC and graphics revenues, that's revenue that Intel could have if they were gone.