AMD Designing Next-Gen Playstation's GPU

[faramir]

Originally Posted by TC-man

Well, it's not only that AMD is cheaper, it's also that Sony learns from its mistake, since the Nvidia's RSX gpu for the PS3 is just a modified Geforce 7800gt with reduced ROPs, I believe. AMD (ATI) designed a totally new and more advanced gpu (Xenos) for the Xbox 360 with embedded memory and unified shader architecture and all, and the result was evident, even now when compared to PS3 graphics in games, especially in most cross-platform games that are available for both console.

Indeed it was, Xbox 360 has much crappier graphics than PS3. The most evident case of that I can think of is GTA4 where buildings and other objects just pop out of nowhere (result of low rendering distance to keep the framerate manageable). I played this game on friend's PS3 first so the difference was stunning, I couldn't get used to tis annoyance, it made quick action scenes (when you're chasing someone etc.) much more frustrating as objects appeared where it used to look like free passable space.

That GPU in Xbox 360 is a piece of poop so no wonder results are so underwhelming. I'm a long time ATI user, currently running HD5770 but the Xbox GPU downright sucks.

[m1dg3t]

Didn't ATi do the last GPU for xBox?

@ Benetanagia: I find your post's amusing, please continue

[badtaylorx]

as long as its dx11.1 i dont care WHO makes it

[Zakin]

Originally Posted by faramir

Indeed it was, Xbox 360 has much crappier graphics than PS3. The most evident case of that I can think of is GTA4 where buildings and other objects just pop out of nowhere (result of low rendering distance to keep the framerate manageable). I played this game on friend's PS3 first so the difference was stunning, I couldn't get used to tis annoyance, it made quick action scenes (when you're chasing someone etc.) much more frustrating as objects appeared where it used to look like free passable space.

That GPU in Xbox 360 is a piece of poop so no wonder results are so underwhelming. I'm a long time ATI user, currently running HD5770 but the Xbox GPU downright sucks.

Ironically that must have been Rockstar's fault, the 360 is only stronger than the PS3 in the GPU department. Only reason the PS3 does such things as Uncharted 3 is the developers are being very crafty with the fairly powerful cell processor.

[Dent1]

Originally Posted by faramir

That GPU in Xbox 360 is a piece of poop so no wonder results are so underwhelming. I'm a long time ATI user, currently running HD5770 but the Xbox GPU downright sucks.

Actually, the Xbox 360s GPU is a fair bit more powerful than the PS3s. It just shows that you have no clue what you're talking about.


Quote

There are three critical performance aspects of a console:

•The Xbox 360 CPU architecture has three times the general purpose processing power of the Cell.
•The Xbox 360 GPU design is more flexible and it has more processing power than the PS3 GPU.
•The memory system bandwidth in Xbox 360 exceeds the PS3's by five times.

The Xbox 360 GPU has more processing power than the PS3's. In addition, its innovated features contribute to overall rendering performance.

CONCLUSION
When you break down the numbers, Xbox 360 has provably more performance than PS3.

IGN: http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html

[Nihilus]

Farimer, considering that game is at least 4 years old it is more likely that the lack of graphics were from difficulty in porting it over. Each has their own strengths and weakness.

In most cases cross platform game have looked better in Xbox 360. GTA may be better, but skim through this: http://hlime.wordpress.com/2007/06/2...-ps3-graphics/

There are many other articles like this from different sources. Please feel free continuing to share your opinions though.

Bottom line, a unified console GPU producer is good for developers, weather you prefer Nvidia or AMD. For those like Farimer, this is terrible!

[Nihilus]

(faramir quietly walks to the kiddy table)

[Nyte]

As an employee of AMD's GPU division, I can gladly (and safely) say that you are all wrong.

But because I'm an employee, I can't say much else.

[Fluffmeister]

Hmm when people continue to blame consoles for holding back PC gaming graphics, at least we know where to point the finger of blame!

[NdMk2o1o]

Dictionary.com: Fanboys defintion...

PR: Fa.n.bo.ys [ fan-buoys]

Examples in real world usage:

Originally Posted by Benetanegia

And yet they will make 2x as much money as the entire AMD, as usual.

Originally Posted by LDNL

You know what, im glad that consoles choose AMD over Nvidia. Lets see how many controllers get thrown to the wall when each game requires 2-3 driver updates

Originally Posted by AthlonX2

or every game will just look muddy and washed out.

[Katanai]

Noooooooooooooooooo! That crappy AMD chip in the 360 console is the main thing that holds back graphical advances in games. This is bad news my friends, no matter how you look at it. I was hoping that things will get better somehow but now I'm thinking they will get even worse...

[theoneandonlymrk]

Originally Posted by Crap Daddy

Let's not forget that the market cap of NV is almost double than that of AMD.

a companys worth is more a percieved value then an actual value and their share price like any companies can go down

[Inceptor]

Setting all the AMD vs NVidia mumbo jumbo aside for a moment, let's talk about the stock market.
Yes, 90% of console users have no idea what's in the box, but that isn't AMD's concern; they only need the analysts from the world's investment firms to know it, and they will.
*PRESTO!*
It generates some investor confidence in AMD stock. And the major investors in big name stocks are not individuals, but multi-million and multi-billion dollar investment funds managed by investment banks.
The stock is bought, the share price increases, AMD's market capitalization increases, the psychological effect is huge. And that psychological effect carries forward and creates momentum.
That's all AMD needs to do with their GPUs for consoles, their APUs, etc, they don't need to make large profits directly from console gpu sales. That is their goal.
The worst case scenario, it still looks good, that they got the supply contracts.
Absolute worst case scenario, graphics division looks good.
Best case, see above.

[Completely Bonkers]

My perspective is this: console brings dollars, but it isnt leading edge. The companies that jump on the console bandwagon make money in the short term, but it isnt where the enthusiasts are.

So good for AMD and will help them though their CPU disasters. But on the other hand, will it lead to complacency? Let's see.

[NC37]

Originally Posted by AthlonX2

They havent lost the entire console market,it was rumored the new xbox will have an nvidia gpu. most likely something comparable to a 4 series but none the less nvidia

So you missed the talk weeks ago where they said M$ is going to use AMD also? GPU listed in that was the 6670. Yeah, midrange stuff. Next console gen is looking to be crap. Originally there was also talk Sony would use Intel for PS4 graphics, then larrabee was canned and that was history.

NV lost these contracts because of their bonehead moves. They did this during the first Xbox. M$ wanted to lower to cost to help sell units, the GeForce 3 in it was a big expense. NV wouldn't budge on price. They wanted a premium for it despite it being old chips by that time.

I heard a similar thing happened with Sony and PS3. NV is not the best partner when it comes to consoles. The plus side of all consoles having AMD now is that they will be similar in hardware which may help cross platform titles.

[Dent1]

Originally Posted by Completely Bonkers

My perspective is this: console brings dollars, but it isnt leading edge. The companies that jump on the console bandwagon make money in the short term, but it isnt where the enthusiasts are.

So good for AMD and will help them though their CPU disasters. But on the other hand, will it lead to complacency? Let's see.

Not sure how this will help their CPU disasters??

But I think this move to produce GPUs for Sony is good. It means consistant orders for the next few years. Its always good to know where your next pay cheque is coming from.

[cadaveca]

Originally Posted by Nyte

As an employee of AMD's GPU division, I can gladly (and safely) say that you are all wrong.

But because I'm an employee, I can't say much else.

PSH! As if. You should be working then, not posting.

Who said we gotta be right? Opinions seldom are.

Silly cubicle workers.

[theoneandonlymrk]

Originally Posted by Completely Bonkers

My perspective is this: console brings dollars, but it isnt leading edge. The companies that jump on the console bandwagon make money in the short term, but it isnt where the enthusiasts are.

enthusiasts though big spending dont account for very much of the bottom line so.....
and they earn and earn ,i know many people that have bought more then 1 of a console over its life cycle, im one of them (i begrudgingly did)

and thats not in any way, what any company would call short term gain=, regular monthly output for 5-10 years

Originally Posted by cadaveca

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyte
As an employee of AMD's GPU division, I can gladly (and safely) say that you are all wrong.

But because I'm an employee, I can't say much else.

PSH! As if. You should be working then, not posting.

Who said we gotta be right? Opinions seldom are.

Silly cubicle workers.

yeh get piledriver sorted lazy ass asap

i do hate that kinda ,i KNOW, but cant whisper a word comment

[Crap Daddy]

Originally Posted by Nyte

As an employee of AMD's GPU division, I can gladly (and safely) say that you are all wrong.

But because I'm an employee, I can't say much else.

All of us? So that means Nvidia will provide the part for the next PlayStation? Or maybe Intel?

[nerdydesi]

Originally Posted by faramir

Indeed it was, Xbox 360 has much crappier graphics than PS3. The most evident case of that I can think of is GTA4 where buildings and other objects just pop out of nowhere (result of low rendering distance to keep the framerate manageable). I played this game on friend's PS3 first so the difference was stunning, I couldn't get used to tis annoyance, it made quick action scenes (when you're chasing someone etc.) much more frustrating as objects appeared where it used to look like free passable space.

No, actually that was the fault of the 360 version running entirely off the disc whereas the PS3 version has a mandatory installation onto the HDD, like the PC version. I also had that pop-in on the 360 and it was quite frustrating and have played it on all three platforms, PC, PS3 and 360. Several times, I would be driving and have my car slam into an invisible object which popped up after I hit it.

If you installed the game onto the HDD on the 360 version, that pop-in problem would likely go away.

[theoneandonlymrk]

Originally Posted by Nyte

As an employee of AMD's GPU division, I can gladly (and safely) say that you are all wrong.

But because I'm an employee, I can't say much else.

BS anyway why the hell would you be glad(and safely),that were all wrong about AMD winning 3 contracts(big)

and thats the main topic and point being discussed

[random]

Thank god for this, as a PS3 owner and XBOX 360 user I found the 360 to be much better designed in terms of performance, there could be a very different reason for this but the frames are just horrible on the PS3 and as everyone should know alot of games have stuttering issues as well. I hope this move to design their next GPU based on an AMD card will give their next gen console more resilience. So far the 360 games with an AMD gpu has looked alot better and performed alot better than their PS3 variants. AKA Red Dead Redemption, Bayonetta etc. (Can google more PS3 practically has less detailed textures and more.)

[Rowsol]

Originally Posted by Delta6326

I just hope they don't chose some old crappy gpu.

They will.

[Benetanegia]

Originally Posted by theoneandonlymrk

95 million wiiu's to also possibly supply with gpus all over the next 5-10 years, wow they are going to be busy(wikki'd) if they only got a pound in proffit per chip, that their is still BEEEads

The bold part, I didn't pay attention before, but it's an interesting one, because it made me realize that maybe my point is not understood because you are not really paying attention to what console sales really mean. Soo...

If they got 1 dollar of profit per chip...

...they would make 55 + 65 + 95 = 215

$215 millions in 10 years

or $21 million every year

or $5 million per quarter

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....123&highlight=

That's pretty much nothing considering their annual earnings. And the reality is that they don't make 20x more profits than that, probably not even 10x that, per Xbox360 sold.

By contrast they make several dozens, sometimes hundreds of $ in profits per GPU or CPU sold and any shift in those markets will have a much much greater impact than console sales.

Console sales are a nice little addition considering that R&D overlaps with their GPU bussiness. A good way to get $20-50 million extra revenue at the end of the quarter, but it is in no way a life changing scenario as so many people pretend in this thread. If AMD had to be saved by this, it wouldn't, and it will certainly not make a scratch in Nvidia's financials which is what my original point was about.

EDIT: Sme more background: http://www.techspot.com/news/47544-j...l-leading.html

Slightly more than 124 million graphics chips shipped during Q4 2011.

AMD came in second with 24.8 percent

So this last quarter AMD shipped 30 million, extrapolating for 10 years 30x4x10== 1200 million GPUs shipped. At a much higher average profit per unit sold.

[NinkobEi]

AMD the superior GPU manufacturer, no surprise they get all the luxurious contracts.