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

[SiliconWars]

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.

You're probably right about that, I guess it would be around $750 million per year on discrete graphics. That still leaves $5 billion to Intel (was $6 billion more recently). Anyone who thinks they wouldn't kill off AMD for fear of reprisals is nuts, there is no reprisal getting near to those yearly $billions.

 

[ShintaiDK]

You're probably right about that, I guess it would be around $750 million per year on discrete graphics. That still leaves $5 billion to Intel (was $6 billion more recently). Anyone who thinks they wouldn't kill off AMD for fear of reprisals is nuts, there is no reprisal getting near to those yearly $billions.

AMDs MPU revenue in 2012 was 3.6B. And Q1 results showed the collapse continued for AMD with another 10% drop.

 

[mrmt]

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.

Oh, I see where you are trying to get. With 20/20 hindsight Intel might have taken that turn, but if you rewind the tape circa 2010/2011, when the console negotiations were underway, then that wouldn't be a factor, because nobody could predict the magnitude of AMD demise in the last couple of years.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Hey, I want zillions of processors, for my new games console(s)...

Intel
Process-Node = Latest and greatest = Fastest = Best = MOST EXPENSIVE (possibly)
(Latest, smallest feature size fabs, are usually the MOST EXPENSIVE)
(But IF quantity is big enough, can be cheapest, but needs big engineering costs to design new parts)
Processor Speed = Best or good enough = OK
Graphics = Good enough, maybe = possibly OK, not sure
Happy to customize quickly = Other high value projects, may delay

AMD
Process-Node = Not far from latest and greatest = 2nd place = CHEAPEST (possibly)
(Older, NOT that small feature size fabs, are usually the CHEAPEST)
Processor Speed = Good enough = OK
Graphics = Best or good enough = OK (presumably)
Happy to customize quickly = Quite possibly

Arm licensee companies
Process-Node = Various = CHEAP (possibly)
Processor Speed = probably too slow in current time scales (except for Google) = PROBLEMATIC
Graphics = 3rd rate = probably NOT GOOD ENOUGH
Happy to customize quickly = Yes, but may not have established resources, to meet requirements

Summary:

Intel can do it cpu wise, graphics slightly weak, price too high, custom = too slow

AMD = fine cpu wise, graphics fine, price medium to low, custom = fine and somewhat fast

Arm = current parts too slow for cpu, current graphics too weak, customisation teams may be too small and inexperienced (possibly)

DECISIONS (Microsoft, Sony) = AMD top of list ?

All the above are my own guess work, if you don't believe me, ask "Bill Gates" my Father, Gorden Moore, my brother, or my hand (which has strong connections with 'Arm').

 

[SiliconWars]

Oh, I see where you are trying to get. With 20/20 hindsight Intel might have taken that turn, but if you rewind the tape circa 2010/2011, when the console negotiations were underway, then that wouldn't be a factor, because nobody could predict the magnitude of AMD demise in the last couple of years.

It's got nothing to do with the "magnitude of AMD's demise" in the last couple of years.

Count up the many tens of $billions AMD has made in chips over their life, and count up the fines Intel has got for their corrupt behaviour.

It is very clear that Intel would benefit from AMD's not being around, and never having been around. They killed Cyrix, put VIA into irrelevancy but they couldn't quite finish the job on AMD.

Intel could still be milking Atom and not bothering about integrated graphics if AMD was defunct. GF wouldn't have existed had they done the job properly, now instead of a bunch of lame-duck fabs you have one that is growing rapidly and with a lot of money behind them.

AMD is in a strong position to work themselves back up while on-track to divorce themselves from the losing x86. At the same time they are empowering ARM with HSA and through their server expertise.

The argument that Intel needs - or ever needed - AMD is stupid.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Intel needed AMD in one respect, AMD saved Intel from going down the IA-64 insanity path. Intel wanted desperately (still do) to rid themselves of the the x86 license so they can truly monopolize the market, although ARM has thrown a nasty wrench into that plan.

But if Intel had gone full on trying to push IA-64, there would have been an industry wide revolt that made RAMBUS look like a blip on the RADAR.

AMD64 has made Intel billions, without it and Intel perusing IA-64 in earnest, we would have seen the industry embrace another ISA not freely available to Intel. Or at least not something they could monopolize.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Do you ever post anything that doesn't make you sound like the great Intel defender?

Yes, actually, I post on a wide range of subjects, as anyone can see by looking at my posting history. galego is a one-dimensional AMD cheerleader, as anyone can see by looking at his posting history.

It's also the fact that the bidder has to actually be capable or delivering what is requested.

True. But you have no way of knowing whether they were capable of delivering this or not. You're assuming they weren't, which is just your personal opinion. And while it is possible that they did not win the contract because they couldn't make the product, it's not likely given the company's general expertise and enormous R&D budget.

Regardless, your earlier flat statement that "AMD getting this contract says flat out that they have the expertise Intel does not" is simply logically false.

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.

Yes, it is. The difference is that you'd have a hard time finding posts from me actually bashing AMD. That kind of matters.

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.

No, actually, that is not the argument I am making. I am arguing against your specific assertion that this contract proves that Intel must NOT be able to produce this product, because the mere fact that they didn't win the contract simply does not prove that. There are a myriad of reasons why one company wins a contract over another. That is all I have been saying since I started wasting time in this utterly stupid thread.

As for Intel needing AMD, if it wasn't for government rules that exist for the benefit of the customer, AMD would likely have been out of the CPU market years ago. I do think both companies have benefited more from the other's existence than either would admit.

I want to be very clear to everyone about something right now. While Galego makes his beliefs clear - beliefs that I would wager most posters here do not agree with - at this very moment he is following our rules to our general satisfaction. You however are calling him out as a "one-dimensional AMD cheerleader"; which is as much as personal attack as it is a callout. So let me ask the group this: who is contributing more value to our forums right now? The unpopular guy following the rules, or the guy attacking other posters?

If you have a problem with another poster you need to bring it to the attention of the mods. These kinds of personal attacks will not be tolerated.

-ViRGE

 

[mrmt]

It's got nothing to do with the "magnitude of AMD's demise" in the last couple of years.

How's that? Could you predict in 2010 that AMD would be dead without the console chips? Because this is what you are saying here, and that wasn't clear at the decision time.

One thing is to kill your competitor and grab revenues having the trade off of a low return project, another different thing is to have a low return project AND your competitor around.

AMD is in a strong position to work themselves back up while on-track to divorce themselves from the losing x86. At the same time they are empowering ARM with HSA and through their server expertise.

Oh, wake me up when they have something to show.
]

 

[SiliconWars]

How's that? Could you predict in 2010 that AMD would be dead without the console chips? Because this is what you are saying here, and that wasn't clear at the decision time.

Yes, because they didn't have a tablet chip and are still a little short of having a really great one, and are obviously nowhere in phones. With hindsight it was quite obvious that AMD was going to lose out to ARM, but you know what they say about hindsight.

Oh, wake me up when they have something to show.

The same could be said for Intel's phone and tablet market share.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Regardless, your earlier flat statement that "AMD getting this contract says flat out that they have the expertise Intel does not" is simply logically false.

I am saying AMD is capable and won the contract because they have produced like products for years, have graphics expertise Intel does not, the list goes on and one. That is my proof, actual silicon, several generations of them.

Your proof is that Intel could produce said silicon because they have the engineering prowess according to you (for no other reason than well, they just do because they are Intel), although in actuality have NEVER produced a high performance graphics product. I'm sure it is easy for you to see the vast difference between the two examples.

 

[SiliconWars]

Yes, actually, I post on a wide range of subjects, as anyone can see by looking at my posting history. galego is a one-dimensional AMD cheerleader, as anyone can see by looking at his posting history.

To be fair, most of your posts appear like anti-galego or intel cheering. Just saying - I don't really frequent the other forums much except dipping into V&G, and I'll take your word for it that you post on a wide range of subjects, it's just that I personally am not seeing it here in CPU.

True. But you have no way of knowing whether they were capable of delivering this or not. You're assuming they weren't, which is just your personal opinion. And while it is possible that they did not win the contract because they couldn't make the product, it's not likely given the company's general expertise and enormous R&D budget.

While Intel has an enormous R&D budget, they still don't have truly cutting-edge graphics. You'd think that would be something of a necessity for next-gen consoles, right?

Regardless, your earlier flat statement that "AMD getting this contract says flat out that they have the expertise Intel does not" is simply logically false.

Of course we don't know for sure, but we have to look at the evidence as it currently stands. Intel has nothing remotely approaching AMD's perf/Watt in graphics. But the real problem is, they have nothing currently approaching the manufacturability and perf/Watt of the Jaguar core.

There could easily be 300 million of these Jaguar APU's sold over the lifetime of each console (Microsoft even claims 1 billion next gen consoles will be sold), and AMD's normal sales. Only Atom is manufacturable enough for Intel in these volumes and prices, and I doubt Atom was ever seriously considered.

So yeah basically, AMD had the best cpu and best gpu for the job. That's why they won the console war with ease.

Yes, it is. The difference is that you'd have a hard time finding posts from me actually bashing AMD. That kind of matters.

I don't really see any Intel bashing from Galego? He reports facts and stays away from personal attacks. Sure he's an AMD zealot but there are FAR worse on the Intel side here and I don't see you giving them the kind of comments you give Galego.

Public meta commentary on other posters is neither necessary nor appreciated. Please avoid it in the future.
-ViRGE

 

[erunion]

Anyone who thinks they wouldn't kill off AMD for fear of reprisals is nuts, there is no reprisal getting near to those yearly $billions.

You're absolutely wrong there. Intel isn't going to take a hit to its bottom line in order to hurt AMD's bottom line. Not going to happen.

 

[SiliconWars]

You're absolutely wrong there. Intel isn't going to take a hit to its bottom line in order to hurt AMD's bottom line. Not going to happen.

The threat AMD poses to Intel is far more than just bottom line. It's about the expertise they carry and their ability to empower other competitors, especially in graphics where Intel is weak. Server expertise is obviously another arena that the ARM guys are interested in - I can see AMD being used as a foothold here.

Both of these are very dangerous areas for Intel.

 

[Zodiark1593]

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.

I don't recall saying that Iris Pro in itself would be suitable for consoles, but a variant scaled up for gaming (more shaders, texture units, etc). But, I concede it's a moot point anyway as Intel rarely ever makes custom chips.

 

[SiliconWars]

I don't recall saying that Iris Pro in itself would be suitable for consoles, but a variant scaled up for gaming (more shaders, texture units, etc). But, I concede it's a moot point anyway as Intel rarely ever makes custom chips.

I'm pretty sure Intel makes custom chips for Apple.

 

[MisterMac]

Wether or not - Intel could design a SOC with beefed up graphics and some pentium\celeron 3rd class binned chip is irrelevant.

The question is - comparing to the price Sony\MS was willing to pay who wanted to deliver.

I don't doubt Iris Pro could be scaled like Zodiark says - not an issue.

...but i doubt Intel would touch it unless they got X% projected margins at Y Volume.
Clearly they didn't see that was a good risk to take.

Just like Otellini said no to creating a SOC for first Iphone (I believe he regrets that as well) - neither he nor anyone else predicted the volume it would create.


A volume geuss for Nextgen consoles should be fairly non-risky - so that sort of just leaves price.

 

[Broheim]

The threat AMD poses to Intel is far more than just bottom line. It's about the expertise they carry and their ability to empower other competitors, especially in graphics where Intel is weak. Server expertise is obviously another arena that the ARM guys are interested in - I can see AMD being used as a foothold here.

Both of these are very dangerous areas for Intel.

Nvidia is going to start licensing kepler and provide their expertise, they have a lot of experience in the ARM "arena" whereas AMD has none. This will greatly minimize any impact AMD could have on the ARM market.

a lot of people keep talking about ARM getting into servers but I really don't see it happening, between MIC (knights landing will be available as a host processor), incoming tic-toc atom and the core family I really don't see where ARM is going to fit in. Nobody is going to abandon their existing software stack unless there's a tremendous benefit to doing so, and I just can't see what that would be.

 

[krumme]

I don't recall saying that Iris Pro in itself would be suitable for consoles, but a variant scaled up for gaming (more shaders, texture units, etc). But, I concede it's a moot point anyway as Intel rarely ever makes custom chips.

Well its a moot point because if Intel was the only one allowed to give the bid for the consoles the consoles would end up so expensive that everyone and his brother would slap together a cheap pc and call it a console
Iris pro shows excactly why Intel is not there...yet.

I actually think it will change with broadwell. Amd will probably have improved cpu ipc also but with a competitive gpu eff. Intel will just push on using 14nm and future process advantage.

What i learned in this thread is that Intel was lucky it was x86 that won. I think they are quite happy about the outcome as opposed to a stronger nv with eg. A57 tech tacked on. That would have been far more unpredictable.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[frozentundra123456]

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.

I dont know if they had the tech to make the consoles or not. But I can almost guarantee you that Intel does not want AMD to go out of business and deal with the monopoly claims, valid or not, that would result.

In fact with the cash resources they have, Intel could have cut prices so far as to put amd out of business almost any time they wanted, but are prevented from doing so by government regulation.

 

[Exophase]

If the question is whether or not Intel could make a competitive CPU/GPU chip for consoles (not whether or not they'd sell it at a competitive price, which is almost certainly a no) it really boils down to how their Gen IGP scales. If they could slap 80 EUs on it (and 2x Iris 5200's resources in every other way too) they'd probably be fairly competitive even vs PS4's design. That would be with 2 or perhaps 4 Haswell cores, likely a fairly reduced L3 cache, and paired with a Crystalwell die (possibly only 64MB or even 32MB instead of 128MB). I expect a dual core part would have a die size at most comparable to that of PS4's APU, while a quad core would have a substantially larger die. Probably still smaller than XBox One's APU though.

The whole thing could perform well with a TDP budget around 100-125W. I think 2C4T at a decent clock would be sufficient for consoles, given how much raw SIMD power per core Haswell has. But 4C8T at a lower clock would be preferable.

Silvermont cores would likely not be ready in time.

 

[krumme]

If the question is whether or not Intel could make a competitive CPU/GPU chip for consoles (not whether or not they'd sell it at a competitive price, which is almost certainly a no) it really boils down to how their Gen IGP scales. If they could slap 80 EUs on it (and 2x Iris 5200's resources in every other way too) they'd probably be fairly competitive even vs PS4's design. That would be with 2 or perhaps 4 Haswell cores, likely a fairly reduced L3 cache, and paired with a Crystalwell die (possibly only 64MB or even 32MB instead of 128MB). I expect a dual core part would have a die size at most comparable to that of PS4's APU, while a quad core would have a substantially larger die. Probably still smaller than XBox One's APU though.

The whole thing could perform well with a TDP budget around 100-125W. I think 2C4T at a decent clock would be sufficient for consoles, given how much raw SIMD power per core Haswell has. But 4C8T at a lower clock would be preferable.

Silvermont cores would likely not be ready in time.

Yes at 22nm expensive finfet. So in no way technically the same.

Besides the huge cost for the hardware the cost of developing for Intel Gpu would probably add up.

I simply dont buy the: if money was no issue by another poster. Well if money was not an issue people would buy amd server cpu. Well they dont because of cost. This is a piece of silicon. Only cost and benefit matters.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[Exophase]

I already said they wouldn't sell it for a competitive price. Can't we play thought experiments with hardware without turning everything into a competition?

 

[Erenhardt]

In fact with the cash resources they have, Intel could have cut prices so far as to put amd out of business almost any time they wanted, but are prevented from doing so by government regulation.

Hahaha
It is government who is telling intel to sell their chips for $500. Sure thing:thumbsup:

 

[blackened23]

I dont know if they had the tech to make the consoles or not. But I can almost guarantee you that Intel does not want AMD to go out of business and deal with the monopoly claims, valid or not, that would result.

In fact with the cash resources they have, Intel could have cut prices so far as to put amd out of business almost any time they wanted, but are prevented from doing so by government regulation.

Monopoly? Maybe 10-15 years ago, but not any longer. The world of computing isn't dominated by x86/Windows or AMD/intel anymore. Intel doesn't even consider AMD a primary competitor, that honor would go to the likes of Qualcomm, nvidia, Apple, and all other ARM SOC makers.

I think AMD is in an OKAY position for the time being, and I prefer it that way as I still like some of their graphics solutions (discrete), but I highly doubt intel goes out of their way to enable AMD to stay in business. As well, I don't think AMD is in any immediate danger as they're making a surpringly large amount of money on all of the next generation consoles (all of them are being sold per chip, a big difference compared to prior consoles.) Nor is there any type of monopoly situation - again, that definitely would have been true circa 2001. But not now.

 

[galego]

They also say that their FX line is competitive against Core, which we know it isn't.

In real world the FX line is competitive and AMD wins console contracts over Intel.