AMD is dominating the console market

[Zeruel]

If AMD could fit an Athlon x4 in there over a Kabini processor along with something like a r7 370 for the GPU It would instantly be better than the Xbox and PS4. CPU power is key here.

[Prysin]

To be fair, there's nothing to say that a console CPU must be x86 compliant.

 

Until current gen, all other consoles (bar the original xbox I think?) were RISC of some sort, usually IBM PowerPC.

 

You could definitely make a console using ARM, it just would have a much lower performance cap (yes, even compared to AMD's APU's).

 

 

As far as I know, GRID servers would just use standard x86-64 Intel CPU's - probably Xeons. But those are basically server rendering farms. The receiving device isn't doing much more than accepting the video stream and sending back input commands.

 

Probably using Xeons + something similar to AMDs "SKY" firepro cards... which are GPUs with direct network connection... I dunno what those cards are for, but my guess is that they is for streaming graphical content onto the web rather then using a processor to do all the work....

[adithyay328]

I bet if Nvidia was cheaper all the consoles would be Nvidia.

That is exactly what I would think. Nvidea GPUs(modern ones) have CUDA, so they can actually speed up the console experience when not gaming, or when under light load. For example, navigating the UI, playing a very unintensive game, etc. But still, I don't think many all in one solutions are better(performance wise) or cheaper than AMD APUs, so there definitely are chances for AMDs APU technology.

[Techhog]

Lets hope its a Zen APU, with HBM/HBM2 ram shared for sys and GPU. I think that would be awesome to see.

Not a chance. Based on rumors, it's an overclocked Wii U for $150. HBM is way too expensive either way.

[Techhog]

That is exactly what I would think. Nvidea GPUs(modern ones) have CUDA, so they can actually speed up the console experience when not gaming, or when under light load. For example, navigating the UI, playing a very unintensive game, etc. But still, I don't think many all in one solutions are better(performance wise) or cheaper than AMD APUs, so there definitely are chances for AMDs APU technology.

..................................................... *facepalm*

 

LTT forums gold right here. Look up something called "OpenCL."

[Nielips]

Do AMD even make any money off APU sales for consoles?? As they (Xbone and PS4) are selling millions, but AMD stil are posting huge losses.

[MageTank]

Do AMD even make any money off APU sales for consoles?? As they (Xbone and PS4) are selling millions, but AMD stil are posting huge losses.

They probably do not get a piece of the pie when it comes to sales. They are probably contracted to produce X amount of processors for them, and are paid based on that contract. Very unlikely they get a percentage from sold consoles.

[Alurit]

They probably do not get a piece of the pie when it comes to sales. They are probably contracted to produce X amount of processors for them, and are paid based on that contract. Very unlikely they get a percentage from sold consoles.

what percentage would they get? ms and sony have losses on consoles sold, not as sever as last gen, but they still take a loss whenever one buys a console that is why they went with the cheapest possible chip. they only make money off of games, but oh boy do they make money from games, it about 30% of every game sold excluding vat.

[Alurit]

Do AMD even make any money off APU sales for consoles?? As they (Xbone and PS4) are selling millions, but AMD stil are posting huge losses.

not really, console manufacturers go with the one with least margin, they will only make some decent money after the die shrinks

[Briggsy]

Do AMD even make any money off APU sales for consoles?? As they (Xbone and PS4) are selling millions, but AMD stil are posting huge losses.

 

iirc its about 15 dollars per console sale. AMD design the chip, and licence out its use on a per sale basis to retailers.

[dalekphalm]

iirc its about 15 dollars per console sale. AMD design the chip, and licence out its use on a per sale basis to retailers.

AMD isn't licensing out the design to the retailers, they're licensing it directly to Microsoft and Sony.

 

AMD makes that $15 every time a console is produced and sold to Microsoft or Sony. AMD still makes that $15, even if that console sits in a Microsoft warehouse and never sees the light of day.

 

I'm not sure if the $15 cost is accurate, but it sounds pretty close to what I would guess.

 

AMD is not selling their console APU's at a loss. They're just selling them for quite a low margin - they need cashflow most of all, to stay alive, and console sales give them that.

 

AMD is seeing huge losses still, because most of their other departments are losing money - non-custom APU and CPU department, mostly. GPU and semi-custom APU (Read: Console) sales are the only things keeping AMD afloat.

[MageTank]

what percentage would they get? ms and sony have losses on consoles sold, not as sever as last gen, but they still take a loss whenever one buys a console that is why they went with the cheapest possible chip. they only make money off of games, but oh boy do they make money from games, it about 30% of every game sold excluding vat.

I just said they would NOT get a percentage. It is likely they contracted them to make the hardware beforehand. AMD probably got their dime before sales, and will not see a penny from the sales themselves unless both companies request more hardware be made to suit demands. That is most likely in the contract itself too. We don't know, and it is pointless to guess. The deals these companies make with each other are behind closed doors, and are not always done with money. Microsoft could have made deals giving AMD free windows licenses for their companies, or free office for their companies, we do not know. 

 

What is more likely, is that both companies were looking for the best hardware at the lowest price, and AMD fit the bill at the time. AMD already had previous ties with the console gaming industry, and already had their foot in the door. Deals were most likely made for all parties involved to benefit mutually, which is why it went down that way. Since we have no information to go on, it is best not to make assumptions about it. 

[Briggsy]

AMD isn't licensing out the design to the retailers, they're licensing it directly to Microsoft and Sony.

 

AMD makes that $15 every time a console is produced and sold to Microsoft or Sony. AMD still makes that $15, even if that console sits in a Microsoft warehouse and never sees the light of day.

 

I'm not sure if the $15 cost is accurate, but it sounds pretty close to what I would guess.

 

AMD is not selling their console APU's at a loss. They're just selling them for quite a low margin - they need cashflow most of all, to stay alive, and console sales give them that.

 

AMD is seeing huge losses still, because most of their other departments are losing money - non-custom APU and CPU department, mostly. GPU and semi-custom APU (Read: Console) sales are the only things keeping AMD afloat.

 

I never said they are licencing it out to retailers. I suppose I could have been a bit clearer, but I thought it was pretty obvious what I meant...

[Techhog]

I never said they are licencing it out to retailers. I suppose I could have been a bit clearer, but I thought it was pretty obvious what I meant...

 

uhhhhhhh

 

iirc its about 15 dollars per console sale. AMD design the chip, and licence out its use on a per sale basis to retailers.

[dalekphalm]

I never said they are licencing it out to retailers. I suppose I could have been a bit clearer, but I thought it was pretty obvious what I meant...

I assumed that's what you meant, but it's definitely not what you wrote. See @Techhog's quote. You specifically said license out to retailers. But I digress, easy to make mistakes

 

uhhhhhhh

[CommandMan7]

 

With AMD’s highly successful APU

[patrickjp93]

What makes you think that? I don't think Nvidia even holds a license to legally produce x86 cores. They would owe Intel a lot of money before they could even put their name in the hat.

Build it on Denver ARM, duh...

[patrickjp93]

So games would use ARM? I don't think so.

The APUs that consoles have is X86, and Tegra's are ARM.

Tegra's can do X86 emu but they need a license from Intel before they even start using X86.

Why not? GCC and Clang both can compile to ARM. Whatever delivers performance at a certain price point should work. Just use the Denver architecture.

[Clyne]

Why not? GCC and Clang both can compile to ARM. Whatever delivers performance at a certain price point should work. Just use the Denver architecture.

Yep ik that, but devs would have to start using ARM to program for instead of X86 or something.

But even if ARM is out, i doubt it will have it's place in it's market until the performance for it's price would work. 

[patrickjp93]

Yep ik that, but devs would have to start using ARM to program for instead of X86 or something.

But even if ARM is out, i doubt it will have it's place in it's market until the performance for it's price would work.

Unless you're programming in assembly, there's no need to learn anything special to program for an ARM chip. And it's certainly easier assembly than PowerPC or x86.

[evilarceus]

Has there ever been a console with an Nvidia GPU before? Just asking.

[Clyne]

Unless you're programming in assembly, there's no need to learn anything special to program for an ARM chip. And it's certainly easier assembly than PowerPC or x86.

Exactly, that's why i don't know much about this "programing" stuff atm. 

[GoldSrc]

Has there ever been a console with an Nvidia GPU before? Just asking.

The Original Xbox.

[themaniac]

What makes you think that? I don't think Nvidia even holds a license to legally produce x86 cores. They would owe Intel a lot of money before they could even put their name in the hat.

so Intel owns x86 if so couldn't they just revoke amds license and poof amd pretty much dies off from the CPU market?

[dalekphalm]

so Intel owns x86 if so couldn't they just revoke amds license and poof amd pretty much dies off from the CPU market?

No, AMD and Intel hold a cross license agreement. Intel cannot forcibly remove the license, unless under very specific pre-defined conditions (Such as AMD going out of business, or being purchased by another company).

 

Furthermore, AMD holds the x86-64 (aka 64-bit) license. And frankly, Intel needs that more than AMD needs x86. This gives AMD incredible bargaining power.