• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trinity review

Page 39 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
AMD designs CPU, AMD gets CPU produced, AMD sells CPU to whatever. Break that and you break the license. AMD just barely got permission to sell its fabs in pure generousity from Intel already.

But that aside, everyone seems to forget the financials. Even if AMD just want 1% margins on it. Its 1% Sony/MS have to pay from their profit.
 
Last edited:
Vesku said:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5505/amd-the-flexibility-is-in-the-fabric

Seems more than just rumor, yes?
Click to expand...

I´m not sure you even read that article, or how it fits into the context of consoles. Or the reason why consoles wont use AMDs CPUs.

Could you elaborate? Just because AMD can slap on a wifi controller or something else to a x86 CPU. (Most likely bobcat for tablets/smartphones.) How do that fit this talk?

In the article, 3rd party company would license x technology to AMD to be run on a certain design that AMD produces and sells. See it?
 
Last edited:
ShintaiDK said:
AMD designs CPU, AMD gets CPU produced, AMD sells CPU to whatever. Break that and you break the license. AMD just barely got permission to sell its fabs in pure generousity from Intel already.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't stray from the licensing agreement at all. You know this yet keep beating that dead horse. It's dead. Leave it alone. If AMD makes the chip then they can sell it to whoever they want. That's the way it works now so why would it be different for a single console for MS?

ShintaiDK said:
But that aside, everyone seems to forget the financials. Even if AMD just want 1% margins on it. Its 1% Sony/MS have to pay from their profit.
Click to expand...

Again, how is this any different from the slim margins on their GPUs? Are CPUs some magical creatures that require magical higher margins because ShintaiDK magically commands it so? Hell, look at the slim margins AMD have been operating on in the consumer space for the last several years. Would it be any different with MS/Sony because it's now a CPU instead of a GPU? The only reason AMD is still alive (barely) is because they work off of slim margins yet you think they'll somehow stray from that for a single chip designed for a console when their GPU that's going in that same console is also very very cheap? So for everything else and the GPU in the same console slim margins are believable but the CPU inside it has to be more expensive?

You keep bringing up radical points with absolutely no reason to believe them. If you put things into perspective you'll see that x86 actually makes more sense to console makers than a PPC or ARM (obviously not ARM). The notion that x86 costs more is only true if they're asking a higher price. When has AMD ever asked a higher and outlandish price for their chips other than Bulldozer? Inherently x86 is no more or less costly than any other chip design, particularly if you're going to customize it anyway.
 
Last edited:
So you put AMD back in as the middleman. Great 😉

Thats exactly what MS/Sony dont want.

x86 CPUs requires engineers in the 1000s to be designed. GPUs are in the 100s. Not to mention you design a GPU in 2-3 years. A CPU takes 4-5 years.

I´m looking forward to PS4/Xbox720 using this APU of yours. The hole argument is based on headless rumours and the "working backwards" arguments. Have fun with it.

I thought AMD had suffered enough from those already.
 
Sony or MS could drop in their IP block and have it produced as a single die. They can then work out an arrangement between MS/Sony<->TSMC/GF<->AMD. The contract would be constructed around AMD's obligations under the x86 license, but if that was not palatable MS/Sony could replace x86 with their own CPU block. The reason MS had issues with original Xbox x86 unit was because Intel was both the IP provider and the manufacturer.
 
Alright, then why would PPC be a better solution? Backwards compatibility? Sony? The same people that already dumped backwards compatibility? Or Nintendo, the other company that dumped backwards compatibility?

Or is it Microsoft? God knows how much they hate x86 😛

Seriously, I'd like to know why you think an x86 chip would make a worse alternative to PPC in a gaming console.
 
pelov said:
Alright, then why would PPC be a better solution? Backwards compatibility? Sony? The same people that already dumped backwards compatibility? Or Nintendo, the other company that dumped backwards compatibility?

Or is it Microsoft? God knows how much they hate x86 😛

Seriously, I'd like to know why you think an x86 chip would make a worse alternative to PPC in a gaming console.
Click to expand...

Price, control, design without waste.

Xbox360s CPU got 165mio transistors for a tricore design with SMT support (168mm2). The same era Athlon X2 got 243mio transistors in a dualcore design (219mm2).

The 45nm Xbox360 CPU shrink already got the GPU ondie as well. You know, about a year before AMD released their first APU.
 
Last edited:
and the Athlon X2 with 512k L2 per core was 118 mm2?

Edit: That is 65nm. Sry.
 
Last edited:
But if you're customizing an x86 design what waste is there? MS *needs* x86. Prevalence of x86-only software is the only Microsoft is still alive. Have you seen how MS has handled ARM with their winRT?

Furthermore, you'd get a better on-die GPU with AMD.

Lastly, the price is a non-issue. AMD already has very very good pricing on their GPUs they're selling to the console makers so why should a custom design CPU cost more than a competing customized CPU arch?

Had AMD been stuck with GloFo I'd have said this rumor couldn't have legs to stand on. But considering they're allowing to incorporate 3rd-party IP and they severed final ties with GloFo I personally think it makes more sense than PPC. Neither MS nor Sony will spend lots of cash on hardware this round and AMD's consumer APUs are already cheap and aren't suffering from yield issues (this point doesn't really matter much as the WSA would be signed by MS).

I think the x86 uniformity for developers would help immensely as well. This allows for for more games across all platforms and better games for PC gamers as well. Can you imagine having games coded close-to-metal with semi-modern hardware and x86? There would be fewer hurdles for devs to jump through to sell their products.
 
pelov said:
But if you're customizing an x86 design what waste is there? MS *needs* x86. Prevalence of x86-only software is the only Microsoft is still alive. Have you seen how MS has handled ARM with their winRT?

Furthermore, you'd get a better on-die GPU with AMD.

Lastly, the price is a non-issue. AMD already has very very good pricing on their GPUs they're selling to the console makers so why should a custom design CPU cost more than a competing customized CPU arch?

Had AMD been stuck with GloFo I'd have said this rumor couldn't have legs to stand on. But considering they're allowing to incorporate 3rd-party IP and they severed final ties with GloFo I personally think it makes more sense than PPC. Neither MS nor Sony will spend lots of cash on hardware this round and AMD's consumer APUs are already cheap and aren't suffering from yield issues (this point doesn't really matter much as the WSA would be signed by MS).

I think the x86 uniformity for developers would help immensely as well. This allows for for more games across all platforms and better games for PC gamers as well. Can you imagine having games coded close-to-metal with semi-modern hardware and x86? There would be fewer hurdles for devs to jump through to sell their products.
Click to expand...

Amen to that, x86 everywhere was and is Intels gospel.
 
pelov said:
Furthermore, you'd get a better on-die GPU with AMD.

Lastly, the price is a non-issue. AMD already has very very good pricing on their GPUs they're selling to the console makers so why should a custom design CPU cost more than a competing customized CPU arch?
Click to expand...

You dont need an AMD CPU to get the same GPU ondie or not.

Price aint an non issue. AMD dont sell GPUs either to console makers. They sold designs for for GPUs for around 50mio$.

MS already fused the GPU to the CPU a year before AMD. Thats control.

And how did it go on the CPU design again? 3 cores, 6 threads vs....a dualcore with 30% bigger die.
 
Last edited:
ShintaiDK said:
And how did it go on the CPU design again? 3 cores, 6 threads vs....a dualcore with 30% bigger die.
Click to expand...

You're aware you're comparing a retail mass marketed CPU to a specifically designed customized architecture, right?

Wanna see how small x86 can get? Take a look at Medfield.
 
pelov said:
You're aware you're comparing a retail mass marketed CPU to a specifically designed customized architecture, right?

Wanna see how small x86 can get? Take a look at Medfield.
Click to expand...

At 90nm a singlecore Atom with SMT would be around 95-104mm2.

Still quite big...
 
But you've still got unnecessary cache and FPUs, ISAs, etc.

A customized x86 design doesn't necessarily have to be bloated. The retail products are bloated because they have to be due to legacy concerns. You don't have the same issue with a gaming console, particularly one where they drop all backwards compatibility anyway. And it's not like they're reluctant to do that. Nintendo and Sony have both done it and Microsoft can extend its x86 line of products to the console as well.

I like the Power architecture. It's actually really cool but it also just doesn't make as much sense anymore in the console segment. The benefits of x86 uniformity outweigh potential benefits of sticking to IBM's throughput baby. While x86 uniformity doesn't mean much in mobile since it was late to the party, gaming needs x86. PC gamers need x86. Now if we can just pry DX away from Microsoft 😛
 
There's a lot of unused and unnecessary extensions that games don't use. SSE # (pick a number, any number) AVX (if you need it) or it can be replaced with AVX2.

The cache design could change, sure, but it's already drastically different between Intel and AMD across their entire line of products, from Atom > Llano > IB > Bulldozer yet they can all run the same software
 
pelov said:
There's a lot of unused and unnecessary extensions that games don't use. SSE # (pick a number, any number) AVX (if you need it) or it can be replaced with AVX2.
Click to expand...

I dont think the real world agrees with you...

All 64bit Windows applications requires SSE2 for example.
 
ShintaiDK said:
You dont need an AMD CPU to get the same GPU ondie or not.

Price aint an non issue. AMD dont sell GPUs either to console makers. They sold designs for for GPUs for around 50mio$.

MS already fused the GPU to the CPU a year before AMD. Thats control.

And how did it go on the CPU design again? 3 cores, 6 threads vs....a dualcore with 30% bigger die.
Click to expand...

Those three cores used in-order execution, significantly slower than x86 out-of-order execution at the same clock speed.
 
ShintaiDK said:
And how did it go on the CPU design again? 3 cores, 6 threads vs....a dualcore with 30% bigger die.
Click to expand...

And are we deliberately missing the fact that these 3 in-order cores using SMT are horrifically slow and often get their ass kicked by the same era SINGLE core x86 processors, even in threaded applications.

It's not just about the number of cores/threads. By the same logic AMDs "moar cores!" strategy should be everyone's holy grail.
 
Could you show me the benchmarks for that?

Not to mention the Xbox360 CPU costed around 80$ at that time. The X2 used in comparison multiple times more.

Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2.2GHz 512KB $537
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 2.2GHz 1024KB $581
Athlon 64 X2 4600+ 2.4GHz 512KB $803
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 2.4GHz 1024KB $1001

I know we are comparing apples and oranges. But we are on more parameters than people realize.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top