[Rumor] AMD could be supplying chips for next generation of consoles in 2018

[DarkBlade2117]

I'm honestly done with consoles, I don't want to put all of the games I buy on disk on the 500gb hdd that holds 10 games at most, I don't want to pay for multiplayer access and to access the store to buy more stuff, I don't want to play and 900p and I don't want to pay $70 per game. And lastly, I don't want shitty servers. I just really hope AMD can pull off their zen chips and all will be well.

Takes about 5 minuts to swap that 500GB drive over to a 2TB

[Mbarton]

Is this surprising in any way? amd did the last consoles and intel has no interest in doing it. 

[asiancorruption]

Takes about 5 minuts to swap that 500GB drive over to a 2TB

yeah, and? the points that follow my complaint about the hard drive are way more important.

[Godlygamer23]

it is 2x Athlon 5350 which is downclocked. Quite litterally it is 2x 5350s...

It still does not have the performance of two 5350s. It's not that simple.

[Prysin]

It still does not have the performance of two 5350s. It's not that simple.

i know, but the Jaguar APU used in the XBox and PS4 is basically based off of the 5350.

 

The PS4 also has an auxiliary ARM cpu for OS tasks.

[ivan134]

Is this surprising in any way? amd did the last consoles and intel has no interest in doing it.

Yea, this less a rumor and more an educated guess. Unless some other company jumped into the hardware game between now and the launch of the next consoles (if any), it was always safe to assume AMD would be their vendor.

[QueenDemetria]

It still does not have the performance of two 5350s. It's not that simple.

Athlons in Crossfire X, kek

[Curufinwe_wins]

If consoles actually made amd money then cool...

 

But literally the fact that AMD made all of the "current gen" consoles probably has only hurt AMD's standing with /pcmasterrace and contrary to what so many people seem to think, the enthusiast market is a massive disproportionate profit sink, and that is where AMD is having the most issues.

 

AMD thought that its issue was no one knew about them, but its real issue was no one cared about them. Consoles will never make pcmasterrace care. Just ask IBM.

[soaringchicken]

I seriously do not think consoles will be able to achieve true VR in the next 3 years (but only time will tell of course). 

[Sammael]

I seriously do not think consoles will be able to achieve true VR in the next 3 years (but only time will tell of course). 

 

 

Actually, I think the lesson Microsoft will take from this generation is that weaker hardware WILL affect the perception of your console and the install base, even if they make of the revenue difference with xbox live subs.  I fully expect them to go with something much more powerful next time, and it helps that by 2018 amd will likely be able to deliver a 250-300 dollar APU design with significant performance increases compared to what's available today.

 

in 2018 such a design for that price could easily be 1.5x-2x the performance of a 980ti/fury x with a gpu arch that is up to 3 generations newer than what we have today, and a zen successor for a cpu with much improved ipc, plus the same shared memory they have today, probably bumped to 8-16 GB HBM by default.

[soaringchicken]

Actually, I think the lesson Microsoft will take from this generation is that weaker hardware WILL affect the perception of your console and the install base, even if they make of the revenue difference with xbox live subs.  I fully expect them to go with something much more powerful next time, and it helps that by 2018 amd will likely be able to deliver a 250-300 dollar APU design with significant performance increases compared to what's available today.

 

in 2018 such a design for that price could easily be 1.5x-2x the performance of a 980ti/fury x with a gpu arch that is up to 3 generations newer than what we have today, and a zen successor for a cpu with much improved ipc, plus the same shared memory they have today, probably bumped to 8-16 GB HBM by default.

Yes but the consoles still have to make a profit, console buyers aren't going to pay another $300 for better hardware, and Microsoft and Sony have to make profit, so I really don't think a console will be able to run a VR setup with decent graphics, 1440p and run at 144fps (which is necessary for VR).

[RagnarokDel]

Why do they need to use APUs in consoles instead of CPUs and mobile gpus?

 

 

 

Yes but the consoles still have to make a profit, console buyers aren't going to pay another $300 for better hardware, and Microsoft and Sony have to make profit, so I really don't think a console will be able to run a VR setup with decent graphics, 1440p and run at 144fps (which is necessary for VR).

Actually, Console hardware doesnt need to make a profit, in fact they can lose money if it means it's going to be more performant. the PS1, PS2, Xbox, Gamecube and N64 all didnt make a profit as far as I remember. Dont forget that Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo makes a cut out of every game sold on their platform, just like Steam.

 

edit: actually ~90hz is what you need for VR, 144hz is not a necessity, it's just better.

[Sharkyx1]

They should be handling 1080p60 right now. 1080p60 should be the standard by now.

I hate this logic with a passion

 

It's Telling developers "i know you want to create interesting dynamic worlds on PS4, but some PC players are angry and say you can only make 60FPS games"

Oh, well i guess

 

1080 60

http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/7/7/8/2/5/8/PS4_001.bmp.jpg/EG11/quality/90/format/jpg

1080 30

http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/7/5/6/6/2/1/PS4_000.bmp.jpg/EG11/quality/90/format/jpg

 

I guess Witcher 3 shouldn't be allowed on PS4 and we should only get bland grey deserts.

[Sharkyx1]

Why do they need to use APUs in consoles instead of CPUs and mobile gpus?

Because it condenses heat and lowers cost

 

Why would you want to use discrete parts of the same performance?

 

the PS4 GPU is a 7970M equivalent. Sure maybe we might have seen 2 bulldozer modules instead but would that really be better?

[Godlygamer23]

I hate this logic with a passion

The PS3 could run Ratchet and Clank A Crack In Time at 1080p60, despite its age and the game still looked great. You're telling me devs can't do that now?

[NuclearPeace]

AMD is really the only vendor that can make console SoCs.

 

NVIDIA lacks a license to x86 and aren't interested in the console market.

 

Intel has x86, but their graphics units are more tuned for low energy consumption than power, and their services never come cheaply.

[Sharkyx1]

The PS3 could run Ratchet and Clank A Crack In Time at 1080p60, despite its age. You're telling me devs can't do that now?

I just showed you a 1080 60 game, i also showed you a 1080 30 game, theres a reason to make both, theres room in the market for both. 1080 60 comes at some heavy compromises, games like fallout 4 would take some serious retooling to work at 1080 60

 

and Rachet and Clank runs at

 

 

Similar to the last Ratchet game, we peg A Crack in Time at 960x704 in the final analysis, but the proprietary AA buffer merging technique does an astonishingly good job of creating the effect of native 720p, albeit with a slight blur.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/insomniac-60fps-no-more

[Godlygamer23]

games like fallout 4 would take some serious retooling to work at 1080 60

And that's why you develop it from ground up to run at 60FPS. It might take more work, but I'm tired of people accepting 30FPS as "playable." I don't agree with your logic - A Crack In Time looks great and runs at 1080p60 on severely limiting hardware. If developers put more work into their games, they can accomplish the same, especially since they have a greater amount of computational resources at their fingertips. There is no excuse for 30FPS unless the game looks THAT amazing, but IMO, they don't.

[jecho]

I really don't understand these days what takes so long to make a console. All they are now are locked down PCs. I hope steam machines slowly kill consoles. The only thing consoles have going for them is that you can resell your games.

[Sharkyx1]

And that's why you develop it from ground up to run at 60FPS. It might take more work, but I'm tired of people accepting 30FPS as "playable." I don't agree with your logic - A Crack In Time looks great and runs at 1080p60 on severely limiting hardware. If developers put more work into their games, they can accomplish the same, especially since they have a greater amount of computational resources at their fingertips. There is no excuse for 30FPS unless the game looks THAT amazing, but IMO, they don't.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/insomniac-60fps-no-more

 

R&C runs at 960x704 according to actual professionals who know what they are talking about.

 

now again i showed you what a 1080 60 game looks like. More work will not get a 1080 30 game running at 60, you may get there, but there will be heavy compromises. To put a rule that 1080 30 or lower resolutions shouldn't be around is just absurd, there is enough room in the market for titles that run at 30 and 60, I want games like Until Dawn, Detroit, Witcher 3, along side 1080 60 stuff. But its the developers game at the end of the day, if you want 60FPS, get the PC version.

 

1080 30 is playable, and has its place, 1080 60 is better, but will not give you the same experience. To ask Witcher, or Fallout to run at 60 is a misuse of resources when the game will look much worse, and the game play style does not benefit in the ways stuff like Call of Duty, Metal Gear, Wolfenstien, Metro, Sports games, Battlefield games, stuff like that do from the increased refresh rate.

[MadyTehWolfie]

When suddenly, AMD chooses 10nm process for no reason just to beat Intel.

AMD beat intel? No their next cpu line up was supposed to compete with the 4690 and 4790 generation cpu's skylake is already beating it and by the time they actually get around to releasing im sure intel would have moved from skylake.

[Misanthrope]

Iris 6200 is way ahead so the only scenarios that I can think for this are

 

1) Zen somehow surpasses intel by a comfortable margin....unlikely

 

2) AMD makes another terrible deal and gets almost no margin on the APUs

 

So I really think they shoudn't. Like at all. Let Intel or Nvidia supply em.

[Godlygamer23]

But its the developers game at the end of the day, if you want 60FPS, get the PC version.

PC version of Need For Speed Rivals runs at 30FPS without tweaking, and if you do tweak it, better make sure you edit the frame rate of the physics engine because that's tied to it and makes the game literally run faster. Arkham Knight was released at 30FPS on PC at launch.

 

 

Gaming on PC doesn't mean you're going to get 60FPS as an option. Because of the whole "cinematic" shit, we're starting to get games locked to 30FPS on PC.

[Sharkyx1]

Iris 6200 is way ahead so the only scenarios that I can think for this are

 

1) Zen somehow surpasses intel by a comfortable margin....unlikely

 

2) AMD makes another terrible deal and gets almost no margin on the APUs

 

So I really think they shoudn't. Like at all. Let Intel or Nvidia supply em.

Intel will never go cheap enough to put in a console, and Iris will never beat an amd console GPU unless it swells up several times larger, 

[PlayStation 2]

It's capable if you want 5FPS. I guess if frame rate doesn't matter, then it should be good, right?

I mean TF2 could probably be done 4k60 on the PS4... but that doesn't really count?