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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
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.
 
Last edited:

AnandThenMan

Diamond Member
Nov 11, 2004
3,949
504
126
Exactly, neither Intel nor Nvidia had the tech.
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.
If money wasnt an issue.

When is money not an issue for a mass market consumer product?
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
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 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.

Without having the details on how much money AMD is making from this, there is no way to know whether the contract even counts as a "win" for them. And there's also no way to know why they beat out Intel, or on what grounds.

I'm glad AMD got the deal, because I want to see them continue as a viable entity, and they needed something like this (again, assuming they are actually making money on it). 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. What's really "juvenile" is claiming that an industry leader like Intel couldn't make a chip for a game console.

Unfortunately, there seem to be quite a few people around here who can't be content with AMD having gotten this deal unless they can somehow use it to bash Intel. Sort of like a younger brother who succeeds at something but is more concerned with rubbing his older brother's face in it than enjoying the accomplishment for its own sake. That's all this thread really boils down to.

Commentary on other posters is not necessary and is discouraged
-ViRGE
 
Last edited by a moderator:

galego

Golden Member
Apr 10, 2013
1,091
0
0
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.

You don't get. What we are saying you is that AMD was chose because Intel, Nvidia, MIPS, ARM... had not the tech. Once AMD was chose as winner, then Sony and MS chose a performance/cost optimal design. Do you believe that AMD could not provide a custom $1000 design? But then consoles would not sell as pancakes.

As shown in the PS4 thread, the 8 jaguar core design competes in performance with an i7 Sandy Bridge. Game developers have noticed that the PS4 lacks the bottlenecks found in the gaming PCs. AMD is not gone from servers and they plan to double in share, unlike Intel. Nvidia is now desperately moving to sell their graphics tech to others after loosing the three main consoles (I heard rumours Nvidia are trying hard to get at least the Steam box console contract).

Intel has drops in revenue, credibility, and stock. This is what Piper Jaffray analyst said after downgrading Intel rating some weeks ago: "the company's core PC business is in a state of decline". This is from an recent analysis of Intel revenues:

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.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1490152-intel-s-time-to-shine?

If Intel had the tech to power consoles they would do it. Why do you believe Intel is desperately looking for new markets?
 
Last edited:

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
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?
 

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,208
4,940
136
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?

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.
 

AnandThenMan

Diamond Member
Nov 11, 2004
3,949
504
126
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.
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?
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.
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. :colbert:
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
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.
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).

The same chip running in a protected mode (or lesser) OS can use those old addressing modes. It's not really 16-bit addressing, so much as real mode, which, true to its name, does not support virtual memory. Long mode allows for 16-bit protected mode, FI, despite that it practically never got used. Theoretically, 286 protected mode code should run in a 64-bit OS...but nobody in their right mind bothered with protected mode until the 386, which had a flat address space.
 

Zodiark1593

Platinum Member
Oct 21, 2012
2,230
4
81
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. :colbert:
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.
 

galego

Golden Member
Apr 10, 2013
1,091
0
0
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.

LOL. Look to this part of his message that you snipped:

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.

That was said in response to your

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.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
You don't get. What we are saying you is that AMD was chose because Intel, Nvidia, MIPS, ARM... had not the tech.

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 write anything that doesn't sound like it was copied from an AMD marketing department PR manual?

AMD getting this contract says flat out that they have the expertise Intel does not. That's it, deal with it.

No, actually, it does not say that at all. You are factually incorrect, period, and telling me to "deal with it" just makes you sound extremely childish.

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.

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.

If you take that to be Intel bashing, then that is your perception.

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.

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.

No, I am saying that if Intel really gave a damn about this market, they'd go after it. They don't, so they didn't. 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.

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. :colbert:

And now you're back to being childish again.
 

AnandThenMan

Diamond Member
Nov 11, 2004
3,949
504
126
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.
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 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.

On the subject of cost, Intel would probably be happy to just break even or even take a loss to get silicon in this gen of consoles. What better way to get their foot in the door for enthusiast graphics, and at the same time shut AMD out. Smart business, and you can be damn sure if Intel could do this, they would.

As far as the actual graphics tech go, Intel is riding the coat tails of the industry here. They have essentially free legal usage of the vast majority of graphics IP. Contrast that with x86, where Intel has shut an entire industry off sans AMD which is only a fringe player at this point. 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. And given the rapid trend of moving away from x86, it would serve Intel well to get their IP into the consoles. Intel is actually fortunate that this gen we are seeing x86 consoles, otherwise the x86 footprint would be even further eroded, an ARM based console would be a boon to seeing ARM move to the desktop.
 

galego

Golden Member
Apr 10, 2013
1,091
0
0
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.

Did you read the OP? Intel rejected because no custom SOC and poor graphics performance.

Moreover, Iris Pro is being massively rejected by OEMs for gaming notebooks because it is expensive and power hungry, besides slower than existent GPUs from AMD/Nvidia.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
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.

You don't know what they do and do not have. And a custom design by definition means it doesn't exist until it is made.

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.

Er.. huh? To take just one example... Intel does not have a "patent imposed monopoly" in the server market, and they seem to be doing pretty nicely there.
 

mrmt

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2012
3,974
0
76
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.
 

SiliconWars

Platinum Member
Dec 29, 2012
2,346
0
0
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.
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
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.
 

mrmt

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2012
3,974
0
76
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.

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.
 

SiliconWars

Platinum Member
Dec 29, 2012
2,346
0
0
You dont need to do bad business to do what AMD is already doing perfectly fine by itself.

And yet they are still around, taking billions of revenue from Intel every year. Why is that?

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.

AMD is still worth ~$5 billion a year in PC and graphics revenues, that's revenue that Intel could have if they were gone. Too late now perhaps with ARM on the way up, but they could have had ~$5 billion a year many years over if AMD was out of business. That's why they tried before. And no, Intel doesn't fear monopoly punishments because they've been getting away with slaps on the wrist worth far, far less than ~$5 billion per year for decades.

What you really want to ask yourself is, what does Intel get from AMD being around? There is always the risk that Nvidia will collapse leaving the entire GPU market to AMD, and frankly there is a huge risk from HSA that is coming anyway. Consoles could be a massive long-term boost for AMD as well. Intel doesn't need AMD around, they need AMD gone instead of helping ARM up.
 
Last edited:

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
And yet they are still around, taking billions of revenue from Intel every year. Why is that?

Yes, fantastic job they do:

bulletin20130520Fig01.jpg


They might not even reach 3B this year.

AMD is still worth ~$5 billion a year in PC and graphics revenues

More like 4 now and a steady decline...
 
Last edited:

AnandThenMan

Diamond Member
Nov 11, 2004
3,949
504
126
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.)
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.
Do you ever write anything that doesn't sound like it was copied from an AMD marketing department PR manual?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nonsense to you, factual to anyone that looks at the reality of what Intel has now, what they've produced in the past.
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.
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.
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.
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.

Your entire argument hinges around your assertion that Intel is an engineering powerhouse so they MUST be able to produce anything as good or better than the competition, no matter what. Do you know how ridiculous that comes across as? Yet you accuse me and others of not being objective.
 

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,439
9
81
AMD is still worth ~$5 billion a year in PC and graphics revenues, that's revenue that Intel could have if they were gone.

Do you have a breakdown of how much of that is graphics and how much of it is CPUs/APUs? Most of the graphics revenue would go to nVidia, not Intel.