The Console Wars Have a Clear Winner: AMD

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
There’s something to be said for being a monopoly, just ask AMD. No matter which console tops the sales charts, AMD wins and is pulling equally for all of them to break every sales record. The chip manufacturer has managed to get its chips into each and every next-gen console on the market.

If you buy any new game console this holiday, you'll be helping to fill AMD's depleted coffers — but AMD's sweep could have far more significance than that. The company's dominance in next-gen consoles could actually make PC gaming more relevant than it's been in ages.
Click to expand...
 
I can only imagine console ports for next gen consoles will be quite favored towards AMD GPU's for the PC. I wouldn't be surprised if Nvidia GPU's had issues even keeping up or just getting optimized.

But this is a good thing , far too long Nvidia has dominated the GPU game. Its nice to see some good news for AMD , their CPU market has been so bad in recent time.
 
Ported games will run a lot better now because of this and how ps4/one are x86/x64 now. Its was only logical to go AMD. We know they are always cheaper than Nvidia. Now that AMD has their own gpu on cpu APU tech, they have what most integrated onboard fanatics want. Its going to run a lot cooler so the systems will last a lot longer in theory ;)
 
Besides GPU advantages, the games will be coded for 8 threads, and I would think quite thoroughly due to the low performance nature of each core. This might swing AMD into getting a boost on the desktop where its architecture would highly benefit from that kind of programming.
 
Am I the only one delighted with this because a fully compatible XBox One and PS4 emulator is probably going to arrive for the PC faster than ever before with previous console generations? I would also expect less overhead but that is to be seen.
 
I really hope AMD used some leverage and convinces game developers and publishers to keep pushing PC game development/cross-platform releases.
 
Can someone tell me why The Verge feels the need to cover everything from video games to movies in addition to tech news?
 
DedEmbryonicCe11 said:
Am I the only one delighted with this because a fully compatible XBox One and PS4 emulator is probably going to arrive for the PC faster than ever before with previous console generations? I would also expect less overhead but that is to be seen.
Click to expand...

PS4, likely yes. Xbox one, likely not as quick. Xbox one is the more expensive consoles in part b/c every xbox one...and I do mean to emphasis 'every' comes with Kinect 'built-in' whether you wanted it or not.

The new Kinect 2.0 sensor that so far is not purchasable independent of a console(as its built in, so will it ever be?) and thus not available for PC. With the exception of buying an xbox one and removing the Kinect 2.0 sensor(but then why emulate?). So theoretically, every-game can do or require some kind of periodic Kinect based checks to sense heart-rate, happiness, number of people, listening for voice-commands and many other 'creepy' factors built into the Kinect 2.0 sensor. Potentially, you could have games crashing all over the place all the time when 'Kinect 2.0' calls are made; due software calls to missing hardware that's suppose to be built-in or a fundamental component. Akin to a game crashing b/c it can't read your dvd-rom or hard-drive b/c it's dieing/having hardware related problems.

PS4's move and motion-sensing controller is still 'optional' and therefore likely a system check is done that'll go 'Ohh, this PS4 doesn't have move, ignore those features' and you'll be able to play the game fine with a PS4 controller tethered via Bluetooth.

So in short, I think a PS4 will be very quickly emulated but the xbox one will be much trickier to get around... short of Kinect 2.0 sensors going on sale separate of the console with the specific market being pc enthusiasts/gamers/hobbyists/homebrew apps. It won't go on sale as an xbox one 'add-on' like it did for the 'xbox 360' b/c there will be no xbox ones without Kinect 2.0.
 
DedEmbryonicCe11 said:
Am I the only one delighted with this because a fully compatible XBox One and PS4 emulator is probably going to arrive for the PC faster than ever before with previous console generations? I would also expect less overhead but that is to be seen.
Click to expand...

I guess the only other reason I am not too excited is because emulators generally don't run at 100% speed or a 1:1 emulation. There's always a bit of overhead. On some systems, its pretty terrible. Like to emulate a 90 MHz N64 processor, you need like a 1.6GHz(1,600MHz) Pentium 2 machine or greater. PS2 emulators don't run that well without a i7-920+ or a highly overclocked quad-core processor of the previous generation running at 4+ Ghz. The ps2's risc processor I believe was around 300MHz.

That being said.... Granted, one of the biggest bottlenecks was probably the hardware emulation. Even if we reach 5:1 emulation fast before optimization were every 1 clock cycle of the PS4's cpu requires 5 clock cycles of say an i7-930, it'll take a while to match the speed.
 
DedEmbryonicCe11 said:
Am I the only one delighted with this because a fully compatible XBox One and PS4 emulator is probably going to arrive for the PC faster than ever before with previous console generations? I would also expect less overhead but that is to be seen.
Click to expand...

That's what we all thought about the original Xbox with its Pentium 3 CPU and GeForce GPU. An emulator up to par with what is available for PS2 and other consoles never surfaced, even to this day.
 
I think you'll have a good emulator...a PC version of the same game. x86 consoles is a win for PC gamers.
 
very nice for AMD, i was getting worried they might go under a while back like everyone else. if this doesn't turn them around they must have some blazingly stupid management at the helm.

can we hope for a better cpu from amd in the future? i dream too much :p
 
Good for AMD! I hope all the consoles are everything the manufacturer's intended them to be on AMD hardware.
 
THRESHIN said:
very nice for AMD, i was getting worried they might go under a while back like everyone else. if this doesn't turn them around they must have some blazingly stupid management at the helm.

can we hope for a better cpu from amd in the future? i dream too much :p
Click to expand...

Well, a while back Nvidia reported that it was a sucker contract because there wasn't any money to be made in it as the margins were so low. I'm sure it might be that way at first, but there's no reason why they can't make money 2-3 years from now on it.
 
Trimlock said:
Im glad AMD got this and im happy consoles finally went x86.
Click to expand...

Beating the competition by giving the chips away at no profit hoping that the ROI will be in P.R. value is hardly "getting it"
 
Megalith said:
Can someone tell me why The Verge feels the need to cover everything from video games to movies in addition to tech news?
Click to expand...

More variety in topics = more eyeballs = more ad revenue.

Your really need to ask?
 
"wars"... why use such an extreme word for what actually should mean "competition"?
 
I don't think ported games are going to run any better or any of that garbage. Does mac software run on windows? Is it easy to port because Apple uses intel CPUs now? Nope.... Consoles run proprietary APIs and OSes and while there is certainly tons of recycling going on in the MS camp they look to be the outright loser of this generation anyway. Second the real problems with console ports are often the simplest things like the GUI sucks because it was made for a console or many options for graphics etc, are locked or hidden. None of that shit ever mattered what OS or hardware it was running it was plain laziness. So how is any of that going to change?
 
rudy said:
I don't think ported games are going to run any better or any of that garbage. Does mac software run on windows? Is it easy to port because Apple uses intel CPUs now? Nope....
Click to expand...
Most consoles today run PowerPC, and developers rarely optimize their games for x86. Especially the PS3 with it's strange array of SPE cores. For example, if developers code for AVX on the consoles, then that same code will benefit PCs as well.

Second the real problems with console ports are often the simplest things like the GUI sucks because it was made for a console or many options for graphics etc, are locked or hidden. None of that shit ever mattered what OS or hardware it was running it was plain laziness. So how is any of that going to change?
Click to expand...
Developers have said that they will favor PCs over console in next generation. Probably for good reasons. Why you think Microsoft was so hell bent on enforcing their DRM on Xbox One? There are two things that's changed developers and how they see what platforms to support. Firstly, services like Steam and Origin on PC. Secondly ARM and Android, or Armdroid.

The PC and console are essentially merging, and you'll see this with Valve's Steam box. Steam is simply cheaper to distribute your games then on a game console. Like they don't charge a butt load of money to patch a game and etc. I wouldn't be surprised if EA did something similar with their Origin service.

Then there's Android devices, which are surprisingly cheap. These maybe platforms that welcome Indie developers more so then PC or consoles would. Devices like OUYA are probably just the tip of this iceberg.

Is it a wonder why Microsoft wanted games to be unsellable and linked to an Xbox Live account? They wanted to make a safe haven for developers to ensure their games weren't pirated and resold. Cause otherwise they may find the PC and Armdroid better platforms to develop on.
 
Ashbringer said:
Most consoles today run PowerPC, and developers rarely optimize their games for x86. Especially the PS3 with it's strange array of SPE cores. For example, if developers code for AVX on the consoles, then that same code will benefit PCs as well.


Developers have said that they will favor PCs over console in next generation. Probably for good reasons. Why you think Microsoft was so hell bent on enforcing their DRM on Xbox One? There are two things that's changed developers and how they see what platforms to support. Firstly, services like Steam and Origin on PC. Secondly ARM and Android, or Armdroid.

The PC and console are essentially merging, and you'll see this with Valve's Steam box. Steam is simply cheaper to distribute your games then on a game console. Like they don't charge a butt load of money to patch a game and etc. I wouldn't be surprised if EA did something similar with their Origin service.

Then there's Android devices, which are surprisingly cheap. These maybe platforms that welcome Indie developers more so then PC or consoles would. Devices like OUYA are probably just the tip of this iceberg.

Is it a wonder why Microsoft wanted games to be unsellable and linked to an Xbox Live account? They wanted to make a safe haven for developers to ensure their games weren't pirated and resold. Cause otherwise they may find the PC and Armdroid better platforms to develop on.
Click to expand...

lol but the whole problem with the SPE cores was no one was using them and that's why nothing ever materialized on the PS3 and a large part of why Sony opted to go a much more standard route this time around. I mean I get what people are saying it's suppose to make sense but in reality that optimizations is overblown and closer to non existent. If people were actually working the SPE cores the PS3 was suppose to be really good and even so none of that explains silly things like lack of properly supported mouse options, or often even the ability to click the freaking mouse in the menus in a console port, or the lack of video options etc... Those things are specific to parts of consoles that will remain the same, the standard hardware, controllers etc..
 
Regarding the actual financials of the AMD deal, since there seems to be a lack of information in this area, here is some information to go on.

The deal is speculated to actually be a chip deal as opposed to a design/license deal and so similar to the xbox as opposed to the xbox360. Nvidia's gross margins for the xbox was initially around 25% which neither party was happy with. As such I would think it unlikely that Sony and MS agreed to a higher rate then this and would likely be lower. AMDs gross margins for the last quarter was ~45% and ~28% for the last year. Nvidia's was ~55% for both. Keep in mind gross margins is not the same as profits.

AMD themselves believe that embedded products, which is what they will classify the XBOne and PS4 deals under including other similar solutions, to account for 20% of their revenue by the end of this year (which is when both consoles will launch). Note this statement does not reflect the same thing as a 20% increase in revenue.

The biggest win for AMD is actually related to PR. In a way they are being paid to advertise. By contrast Nvidia may need to now increase its own marketing expenditure to maintain its brand advantage. In terms of the console hardware business in general PR is very important. If you look at the finances of the Xbox and Playstation divisions since that battle started you will find they are actually quite terrible in terms of actual fiscal performance.

Regarding emulation. Here is a writeup regarding the issues with emulating the xbox - http://www.ngemu.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132032
 
Actually I would like to see all cross platform titles eliminated ... titles should be available on one and only one platform ... then we can see which one is truly most popular (PC, Playstation, XBox) ... this would also give you the best possible games since they could be optimized to run on the one platform they are designed for ... a little less revenue for the game companies but better for the gamer in the long run ;)
 
It s good to know that websites still post stupid shit that somehow rings like a bell but is just marketing propaganda

Electronic Arts is one company still asking that question, though, and not necessarily for the reason you'd expect. EA Sports boss Andrew Wilson says that one reason none of its next-gen sports games are coming to PC is because Microsoft and Sony's new game consoles are actually more powerful than many PCs in a very specific, subtle way: "How the CPU, GPU, and RAM work together in concert,
Click to expand...

And now for the real reason , EA sucks donkey balls, their programmers just can't do the job, when you have a 8 core Jaguar chip which is not that fast (even if it runs at 1.6ghz) it prolly doesn't match stuff like 6 core 1100T.

Now how come this piece gets published are "the verge" just a big gather of computer n00bs or do they think that because marketing of company A or B says something you need to write it down and post it on the internet because if you don't do it others will ?

While the EA Sports example shows that HSA and HUMA aren't necessarily good news for today's PC gamers, it might actually give AMD a leg up in PC gaming tomorrow. AMD's new desktop and laptop processors will bring HSA features to the table later this year, and games built for those features could theoretically run better on AMD chips than components from Intel and Nvidia.
Click to expand...

Yes HUMA and HSA the magic words that are so completely void of making this statement , they do improve things but not in the manner that it just skyrockets above anything mid range plus cpu.


The trick is when you are writing a story is to have some form of knowledge yourself, when you don't know what you are saying or what is being said to you don't write it down :) that way you can't be caught in a stupid article like this :)

Btw if i made spelling errors so be it :) (words missing is also sometimes possibility).
 
for amd and nvidia the field is a little different when thinking about margins. Nvidia cannot really benefit from a mature process when fab'ing chips like AMD can. AMD has their own fabs, many of them and AMD has to turn to a TSMC, IBM or equiv. to process their chips for them.
So when the mask sets are made and processes are better, Nvidia still has to pay the same price per chip, AMD on the other will be able to reap some cost advantages in this way.
So for NVIDIA it might not have looked good to go for the consoles, where AMD could actually make some money in it.
 
AMD has to turn to a TSMC, IBM or equiv. to process their chips for them.


I meant NVIDIA has to turn to a fab to have their chips made.
 
DPI said:
Beating the competition by giving the chips away at no profit hoping that the ROI will be in P.R. value is hardly "getting it"
Click to expand...

That's not actually what it's all about at times.

Sometimes in big business you do stuff not for profit but to look good for the markets.

If you get a contract that ties you in to several big partners that increases your viability. That makes you look good to the markets, that makes you look good to the banks and therefore you get more cash borrowing at better rates.

Big business isn't all about profit profit profit at every turn. It's more strategic than that.
 
I hope that they can make more cross-platform games now. So the PC guys can play with their Xbox friends.
 
The clear winner is nVidia, it's powering the 3 minor consoles. The Ouya, Shield and Mojo :D:D
 
Megalith said:
Can someone tell me why The Verge feels the need to cover everything from video games to movies in addition to tech news?
Click to expand...

The article was OK, but it's wrong...It repeats EA's nonsense about how much more "powerful" the consoles are than PCs can be. It's complete rubbish published to stimulate console sales. If console buyers didn't deliberately choose the inferior platform simply because it's "easier" than operating a computer...I might feel sorry for them, all of the garbage PR that's is being spewed at them simply to take advantage of their ignorance. The old saw is true, I suppose: ignorance is bliss. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be so many ignorant folks, I guess...;)
 
rudy said:
lol but the whole problem with the SPE cores was no one was using them and that's why nothing ever materialized on the PS3 and a large part of why Sony opted to go a much more standard route this time around. I mean I get what people are saying it's suppose to make sense but in reality that optimizations is overblown and closer to non existent. If people were actually working the SPE cores the PS3 was suppose to be really good and even so none of that explains silly things like lack of properly supported mouse options, or often even the ability to click the freaking mouse in the menus in a console port, or the lack of video options etc... Those things are specific to parts of consoles that will remain the same, the standard hardware, controllers etc..
Click to expand...
Games that are badly ported are likely just compiled games that literally are directly ported to PC. Without a care as to how the menu and controls work. Remember most games are made directly on a PC, and then optimized and ported to console. It's a simple process to just release a PC version of a game.

Stoly said:
The clear winner is nVidia, it's powering the 3 minor consoles. The Ouya, Shield and Mojo :D:D
Click to expand...

Don't laugh, it could be a growing market. The only reason those consoles are a joke is cause they literally use cell phone chips stuck into a home console. If Nvidia tried to make a desktop version, then we'd see some serious business.

WBurchnall said:
I guess the only other reason I am not too excited is because emulators generally don't run at 100% speed or a 1:1 emulation. There's always a bit of overhead. On some systems, its pretty terrible. Like to emulate a 90 MHz N64 processor, you need like a 1.6GHz(1,600MHz) Pentium 2 machine or greater. PS2 emulators don't run that well without a i7-920+ or a highly overclocked quad-core processor of the previous generation running at 4+ Ghz. The ps2's risc processor I believe was around 300MHz.
Click to expand...
The N64 UltraHLE required at least a 300 Mhz Pentium 2 back in the day, with a 3Dfx Voodoo 2 bare minimum. The PS2 has multiple processors, and thus makes emulation harder. Dolphin will run GameCube games faster then PCSX2 can run PS2 games, and the GC is consider a more powerful console.

That being said.... Granted, one of the biggest bottlenecks was probably the hardware emulation. Even if we reach 5:1 emulation fast before optimization were every 1 clock cycle of the PS4's cpu requires 5 clock cycles of say an i7-930, it'll take a while to match the speed.
Click to expand...
That's not how emulation works. The original Xbox ran a Nvidia graphics chip with a Celeron at 733 Mhz. There are emulators for the original Xbox that don't requirements much higher then that. For example Cxbx plays a couple of games with no problems. Granted that the project has been abandon for some time. Mostly due to fear with Microsoft.

Another example of this is WINE for Linux. You don't have to emulate the CPU or graphics, but there's still some overhead. Mostly due to translation of Direct 3D to OpenGL. If you tried running an OpenGL game on WINE, you'd get nearly the same performance as you would on Windows.
 
DPI said:
Beating the competition by giving the chips away at no profit hoping that the ROI will be in P.R. value is hardly "getting it"
Click to expand...

You dolt. AMD is giving away nothing, they are getting paid in full for every Xbox One and PS4 chip made. Sony and Microsoft do not have a license to manufacture and sell x86 chips, I'll let you figure out the rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top