AMD On Building Custom Silicon For New Consoles

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
AMD claims that Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft had no idea that they were all to be AMD powered until they were launched. That's odd, I wonder how we knew that two years ago?

Moshkelani wouldn't get into the details of the differences between the chips he built for the consoles. Instead, he talked about how AMD developed custom silicon for each and the necessity of secrecy in the process. In fact, Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft had no idea that they were each going to the AMD well to get silicon for their next-gen platforms until they were announced.
Click to expand...
 
I think more likely that both Sony and Microsoft had suspicions of their competitor using AMD (I mean really, it makes so much sense), but without confirmation, it could have been one of many rumours. And we didn't "Know" for sure 2 years ago, we just had rumours that turned out to be true. We didn't know for certain until the PS4 reveal.

In any case, AMD is likely laughing all the way to the bank, since I'd venture so far as to say that getting both Next Gen Consoles probably saved their company from inevitable bankruptcy. Given the 6+ year life-cycle that we're expecting from the new consoles, AMD is likely to make a pretty damn large amount of cash from this.
 
dalekphalm said:
I think more likely that both Sony and Microsoft had suspicions of their competitor using AMD (I mean really, it makes so much sense), but without confirmation, it could have been one of many rumours. And we didn't "Know" for sure 2 years ago, we just had rumours that turned out to be true. We didn't know for certain until the PS4 reveal.

In any case, AMD is likely laughing all the way to the bank, since I'd venture so far as to say that getting both Next Gen Consoles probably saved their company from inevitable bankruptcy. Given the 6+ year life-cycle that we're expecting from the new consoles, AMD is likely to make a pretty damn large amount of cash from this.
Click to expand...

No one knows if AMD is going to make much money.
1 console makers now know to secure the rights to build chips themselves. This way if they can find someone to do it cheaper than AMD /GF they can / will putting downward pressure on price.
2 If AMD won all 3 doesn't that mean they had the lowest bid? Well not for sure but it stands to be very likely they did. In which case there might not be as much profit in it as people think.

No one will really know until AMDs earnings reports start rolling in. Even then all these consoles might not be enough to save them from being pinched in between Intel and ARM.
 
dalekphalm said:
I think more likely that both Sony and Microsoft had suspicions of their competitor using AMD (I mean really, it makes so much sense), but without confirmation, it could have been one of many rumours. And we didn't "Know" for sure 2 years ago, we just had rumours that turned out to be true. We didn't know for certain until the PS4 reveal.

In any case, AMD is likely laughing all the way to the bank, since I'd venture so far as to say that getting both Next Gen Consoles probably saved their company from inevitable bankruptcy. Given the 6+ year life-cycle that we're expecting from the new consoles, AMD is likely to make a pretty damn large amount of cash from this.
Click to expand...

Even the console makers know, that competition in the computer hardware industry, is good for everyone, because the hardware is constantly being improved (not as fast as it was in 1999-2005 in my opinion), it wouldn't do anyone any good if Intel and nVidia were the only ones left controlling the graphics and processors market (especially as Intel are complete shit at anything involving graphics).
 
rudy said:
No one knows if AMD is going to make much money.
1 console makers now know to secure the rights to build chips themselves. This way if they can find someone to do it cheaper than AMD /GF they can / will putting downward pressure on price.
2 If AMD won all 3 doesn't that mean they had the lowest bid? Well not for sure but it stands to be very likely they did. In which case there might not be as much profit in it as people think.
Click to expand...

Unless I'm mistaken, to get a chip that licenses x86, your choices are Intel, AMD, and Via. Since Via appears to be mainly be doing industrial and ultra high efficiency products, all AMD had to do was underbid Intel, which I can't imagine is difficult (or unexpected).
 
dalekphalm said:
I think more likely that both Sony and Microsoft had suspicions of their competitor using AMD (I mean really, it makes so much sense), but without confirmation, it could have been one of many rumours. And we didn't "Know" for sure 2 years ago, we just had rumours that turned out to be true. We didn't know for certain until the PS4 reveal.

In any case, AMD is likely laughing all the way to the bank, since I'd venture so far as to say that getting both Next Gen Consoles probably saved their company from inevitable bankruptcy. Given the 6+ year life-cycle that we're expecting from the new consoles, AMD is likely to make a pretty damn large amount of cash from this.
Click to expand...

I would suspect this is pretty much it. I am sure that they had their suspicions, but there was no confirmation until now. Since pricing can be pretty cut-throat when it comes to pieces of silicon that are designed for volume and not niche' applications, I don't think AMD will be making as much money as many think. However, it may just be enough to let them continue being around.
 
djsb said:
Unless I'm mistaken, to get a chip that licenses x86, your choices are Intel, AMD, and Via. Since Via appears to be mainly be doing industrial and ultra high efficiency products, all AMD had to do was underbid Intel, which I can't imagine is difficult (or unexpected).
Click to expand...

I think you are speaking about 2 very different issues in 1 comment.

1 I would assume they made the proper arrangements to get the ability to secure the chip with any agreements needed. This was went over with the original XBOX where MS choose a GPU then when yields came up and processes went down they could not get NVidia to lower the price.

Point 2 is irrelevant, at the time the bidding took place intel probably wasn't even in contention. ( I make this assumption because I am unaware of any console intel has ever made a chip for why would that change now? ) AMD was more likely competing heavily against IBM and maybe with ARM options. In addition the main fight was between AMD and NVidia that most reference. Plenty of people can make a CPU to power a console since console makers can sell people anything. And surely tegra based options would have been pretty cheap.
 
Why do people insist on talking like this is no big deal? They are going to be making an assload of chips., and they aren't making them for free. I'm pretty sure that making chips for all the consoles is better for them financially than doing nothing or having a bake sale .
 
It is still possible that AMD didn't have the lowest bid. AMD has the strongest CPU and GPU combo, for example in you wouldn't see Intel CPU and an Intel GPU combo raising eyebrows. And I'm sure they woo'd the console makers with lofty ideas of making the CPU and GPU play off each other almost as a single unit.
 
Even internally, these projects are very hush hush. They are only referred to by code names, and only on a need to know basis. And it's always "the external customer", never the actual company name.
 
Parmenides said:
It is still possible that AMD didn't have the lowest bid. AMD has the strongest CPU and GPU combo, for example in you wouldn't see Intel CPU and an Intel GPU combo raising eyebrows. And I'm sure they woo'd the console makers with lofty ideas of making the CPU and GPU play off each other almost as a single unit.
Click to expand...

It is possible the problem is too many people are assuming its simply true without knowing anything or think about all the angles.
 
I really think people are underestimating the amount of money AMD will make off of these. I HIGHLY doubt either XBox or PS4 secured full production rights to the APU's. AMD owns too much of the technology for that to happen. Even if Sony did contribute some of the technology, odds are 75% or more of the APU is still AMD technology.

And despite how "low" AMD would have bid for it, they would not have bid for a loss. What would be the point? They would have signed their own Death Warrant if they sold the APU's at a loss.

I'm 100% confident that this will turn AMD around info a profitable company (Maybe not LOADS of profit, but profit none the less). This in my mind will give AMD a chance to invest more into R&D. Whether they'll be able to turn around their higher-end desktop CPU's? Who knows. That's certainly not where their profit is made anymore, but it's still possible in the future.
 
You don't intentionally bid for a loss it just happens because things don't go as expected. For instance why does AMD sell many lower end CPUs most likely at a loss? Because their yield and process is not good enough and intel competes with them too well. Almost all chip production has lower price skus which ares sold at break even or a loss in order to stay afloat and make the money off the higher end products.

So maybe AMD says I think I can make this for this much, and I REALLY need to make a break even low end part. I can probably get better at it and start turning a profit after a die shrink. But then, like phenom it doesn't happen. The yields never come around and they are pacing at break even or maybe even a loss. At the same time their consumer chips keep sinking like a ship as intel crushes them from the top and ARM from the bottom. What now?

Hypothetical, sure, unrealistic, no way ever since C2D intel has been crushing AMD from the top and some people even argue that intel could have killed them but choose not to because it would put them in anti trust issues again. But if ARM rises intel wont give a shit about AMD anymore. They might just finish them right off so they can focus on ARM.

That's why you gotta think about things from both angles. Your idea is that the console chips make a profit to float the failing consumer chips, but you didn't think about maybe the console chips were just suppose to break even so they could make a profit off of consumer chips.

In fact it all makes a lot of sense if you think about it. The entire market has been focusing on low power mobile solutions. But AMD was horribly failing in that area. So the consoles were probably a god send since the ultra low power sipping needs were not there. It was do or die, or maybe die later but they had to nail these contracts.

Maybe they got a great deal and will be set as dalekphalm thinks, or maybe they cut it too close to close the deal. Once again only time and earnings reports are going to tell us which way this deal went.
 
choppedliver said:
Why do people insist on talking like this is no big deal? They are going to be making an assload of chips., and they aren't making them for free. I'm pretty sure that making chips for all the consoles is better for them financially than doing nothing or having a bake sale .
Click to expand...

Do we know for certain if the console companies are purchasing every single chip from AMD or they are purchasing the design and can fabricate the chip themself ?
 
AMD is very likely building all the chips it would be very unlikely they are not. That's less the problem than something like yield is. For instance the PS4 chip is suppose to have an extra big GPU that can complicate things and rumors already swirl that MS is having issues with esRAM on the chip. In both cases if yields are low or problematic AMD can lose money.

For AMD its a good thing to at least try though since they will need to produce something like a high power APU at some point as a cheap counter to competition from ARM and intel
 
AMD is the only company that make sense, having the only gaming grade GPU embedded on a CPU in the industry.


Nvidia could offer superior GPUs, but CPUs would cost more.
Intel could offer superior CPUs, but their onboard GPUs are not gaming grade worthy, forcing them to purchase more expensive stand alone AMD or Nvidia GPUs.
 
RadCliffeX said:
AMD is the only company that make sense, having the only gaming grade GPU embedded on a CPU in the industry.


Nvidia could offer superior GPUs, but CPUs would cost more.
Intel could offer superior CPUs, but their onboard GPUs are not gaming grade worthy, forcing them to purchase more expensive stand alone AMD or Nvidia GPUs.
Click to expand...

Well both Sony and MS experienced Nvidia before.
 
I wouldn't have minded seeing an Intel Core i3 and GTX680MX, that should have been easy enough to cool and keep within thermal requirements.

But really AMD was the only one that made sense and some of us called it years ago.
 
Well on the upside, if all the chips are made by AMD then so are the chipsets... and well i guess we are 1 ball grid array from failure.... ( You know from the HP Laptop days!!!!)

RROD and Black Screens of Deaths all around!!!
 
dasaint said:
Well on the upside, if all the chips are made by AMD then so are the chipsets... and well i guess we are 1 ball grid array from failure.... ( You know from the HP Laptop days!!!!)

RROD and Black Screens of Deaths all around!!!
Click to expand...

And the venerable $30 heat gun, $10 IR laser thermometer, and $40 brake caliper grease to fix it. Thank you BGA and RoHS for helping the fix/repair used market thrive (and the modding crowd too).

All have paid themselves many times over (electronics only... not including usage for car repair / mods). When I get used electronics cheap that have RoHS/BGA issues I generally have not cared enough to go through the effort of re-balling it.
 
Parmenides said:
It is still possible that AMD didn't have the lowest bid. AMD has the strongest CPU and GPU combo, for example in you wouldn't see Intel CPU and an Intel GPU combo raising eyebrows. And I'm sure they woo'd the console makers with lofty ideas of making the CPU and GPU play off each other almost as a single unit.
Click to expand...

Yes, Intel makes nothing competitive, so I'm not sure they might've bid or were even asked to bid--ditto, nVidia makes nothing competitive, except that I think nVidia probably did try and bid with something--probably Shield (ugh.) I think you are exactly right, though--it was the combo of the tech & pricing that sealed the deals for AMD.
 
This is a no brainer on the part of the console makers, who else would be able to make an APU that can really game beside AMD? If nvidia was able to acquire the x86 license they were after a few years back maybe they would have had a chance. Although I think a hugely scaled up tegra 4 would have been interesting as well. I think the tegra line is going to wind up being really important down the road. That would have been a cool showdown, x86 vs ARM, AMD vs nvidia. Oh well...

BTW I predict the PS4 handily outselling the xbox one, by at least 2 to 1.
 
Yeah, AMD just makes sense for consoles... I would think especially for programming! Consoles are coded directly in a closed hardware spec, having direct support from ONE company can optimize the process very nicely.

Profit? I'm sure AMD are profiting nicely from this deal directly, but I'd wager the indirect profits must add up nicely too!
 
There is a lawsuit there if Nvidia and Intel want it. That is a complete monopoly and no competition clause in hardware. I can see M$ waiting on sales not being even close to number they expect, getting blown out by PS4, then turning around and suing AMD for this "Shady" practice. You think M$ wanted a slower system then PS4??? They have to be pissed already. More money, less power?? Maybe AMD charged more for lesser hardware to M$ then they did Sony and in the process broke it off in M$ ass. There has to be some closed door meetings at M$ over this. Love to be a fly on the wall. ;)
 
I completely agree with SnowBeast, anyone who chooses an Xbox One over a Playstation 4 is an idiot. (Sorry to those that pre-ordered, but on the bright side we all make moronic choices sometimes!)
 
rudy said:
I think you are speaking about 2 very different issues in 1 comment.

1 I would assume they made the proper arrangements to get the ability to secure the chip with any agreements needed. This was went over with the original XBOX where MS choose a GPU then when yields came up and processes went down they could not get NVidia to lower the price.

Point 2 is irrelevant, at the time the bidding took place intel probably wasn't even in contention. ( I make this assumption because I am unaware of any console intel has ever made a chip for why would that change now? ) AMD was more likely competing heavily against IBM and maybe with ARM options. In addition the main fight was between AMD and NVidia that most reference. Plenty of people can make a CPU to power a console since console makers can sell people anything. And surely tegra based options would have been pretty cheap.
Click to expand...

You argue using facts from the first Xbox, but then forget that the first Xbox was powered by a Pentium 3...
 
Just stating the obvious. WTF Nvidia I guess your shit don't stink after all. Ha ha ha ha!
 
I think the profit from this extends beyond just what AMD is able to make by selling to console manufacturers. If all of the main consoles are using AMD APU's, then AMD may be able to optimize and work closely with ALL of the game programmers to make the games run faster on their hardware in general.

This may very well directly translate to optimized performance on their PC desktop and mobile video cards as well.

The downside to this is that with this kind of control AMD can work closely with game programmers to optimizes games in such a way so that they run as slow as possible on nvidia cards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top