AMD sees merger viable option for PS4 and Xbox 720

PCH: "Neal Robison, Head of Software at AMD Developer Relations Department stated in an interview with the Xbit Labs on record that he believes a merger-APU as a basis for a powerful next-generation consoles to be useful, will be more powerful than you can imagine."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
theonlylolking2914d ago

If it's not compatible with the PS3 then sony will probably stick with something like cell.

ATiElite2913d ago

I see a price problem. A dual core 3ghz chip with a high end DX10 gpu on board makes sense. This would provide better graphics, 1080p for ALL games at a solid 30fps and a few new bells and whistles.

Only problem is the manufacturing cost because these chips are brand new. sure prices will go down in a few years but parts need to be bought TODAY and readied for mass production.

A PS4 can re-use the Cell but this time around have a GPU that has some balls and add more Ram.

kaveti66162913d ago

DX10 and only 2 cores?

That's 2008 tech.

alex33692913d ago

lol dual core for next gen would make me cry.

B1663r2913d ago

wow i disagree with almost everything you said...

First the xbox already has a 3 core cpu and those cores are hyperthreaded, so it is like 6 cores...

Also the xboxs gpu is already integrated onto the same chip at cpu on current model.

I think the next chips on the consoles will be massive numbers of special purpose cores, with a hefty dose cpu like cores to stage everything...

Like 30-50 cores on next gen cpus... all on specially designed silicon for each of the consoles...

Skynetone2913d ago

A dual core, maybe if you game on a commodore 64 it would be a nice upgrade

dirthurts2913d ago

High clocked dual cores still run as good as mid clocked quad cores on games these days.

alex33692913d ago

yes but the next gen should be ahead of the curve. look at the xbox 360 back in 2005 it was a 2.8ghz triple core machine. very nice if you ask me and so putting out average performing components will mean the next gen wont last so long and that is a bad trend.

dirthurts2913d ago

To be fair, consoles are never ahead of the curve. They always ship with dated hardware, as they must be affordable. I think maybe a 3.4ghz dual core would do just fine. Maybe a tripple core if they can tolerate the heat in such a small enclosure.
Ram and Video Card performance will have a much higher effect on the long term usability of a console.

SkyGamer2913d ago

X360 has 3.2 ghz Triple Core IBM PowerPC cpu with Dual Thread.

ATiElite2913d ago

1. The GPU does all the work in gaming
2. Consoles are just gaming machines. they do not need 4GB of ram or 6 core processors. you will not be multitasking with a console or doing video editing, burning a disc, and video chatting at the same time on a console.
3. Any 3GHZ Dual core CPU can run all games today. sure 3 or 4 cores sounds better but in reality those are only good so a PC can multi-task better.
4. the day the 360 and PS3 shipped they were behind the PC by one generation. PC developers already had DX10 and a few months later DX10.1 came out. PC were already gaming at 1080P in 2005 consoles are NEVER ahead of the curve. PC had 1080p CRT monitors and Games back in the late 90's

starchild2913d ago (Edited 2913d ago )

I just hope they come up with something decent for the next consoles so that gaming can make that next leap forward. PCs will always have the best performance, but the inescapable truth is that in order to see the next big jump across the board in PC games there will need to be a new generation of consoles.

But I agree with those who are saying that the RAM and graphics processor are the more critical components for graphical performance. They just need to give the consoles some decent RAM and a capable GPU and make sure the CPU and the rest of the system aren't presenting any bottlenecks.

This generation I would say that lack of memory is what is holding back the consoles more than anything. The next consoles need to have at least 4GB of memory. I know that some people think that amount isn't necessary, but I honestly think that if the next consoles have much less than that it won't provide for the visual leap that people are expecting.

Also remember that Sony and Microsoft are only adding more features to the consoles and are pushing them ever further towards being all-in-one entertainment devices, so multitasking in some form is only going to increase.

All of the above is even more true if the rumors are correct about the next consoles still being several years away. By that time PCs will be light years ahead. Besides, RAM is very cheap nowadays anyway. Maybe they can stick with the same CPU architecture and just add faster speeds, more cores and more cache, along with much more powerful GPUs and a lot more RAM.

dirthurts2913d ago

4gb of ram would be pretty excessive for a console. 1.5 or 2gb would be about perfect. You have to keep in mind the cost of these things. Even on a pc, you see little boost in performance past 2gb, and almost none past 4gb of ram. They could place those additional resources on better audio, or perhaps a faster GPU.

DanSolo2913d ago (Edited 2913d ago )

To the people above saying RAM isn't an issue and you don't need much....

I thought it was a case of you needed more RAM for the multi-tasking?

And that one of the problems Sony had back when they were setting up the in-game XMB was a RAM problem and that more RAM would enable the console to be able to multi-task alot quicker....

Now I am not stating that as a fact as I am no expert on the matter.... it is just what I heard to be the case!

EDIT: If that is wrong feel free to explain why as I like to learn new things. But please only people who actually KNOW what they are talking about give an explanation.... as I hate it when someone who knows fuck all spreads their incorrect views! ;)

kyl2772912d ago


People are saying you don't need like 4GB of rRAM, the PS3 had RAm issues as it only has 512MB and it was split between 2 different thing (i forget what)

My PC from 2000 had 128MB of RAM and considering how fast technology moves it says how little the PS3 has.

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 2912d ago
Emilio_Estevez2914d ago

Don't quite get what the article is saying. If someone could break it down in laymens terms that would be great.

ATiElite2913d ago (Edited 2913d ago )

AMD and Intel currently have a Computer Processing Unit (CPU) that has a graphics processor on the same die or built in (die meaning little square thing you plug in or CHip). Nvidia is making one as we speak or they already have one.

So instead of requiring two different chips to do graphics it now can be done with one chip.
Only problem is these chips are EXPSpensive and they so far do not have the power to be next gen. The more higher end APU's as they are called will have the muscle to be considered for next gen consoles but they will cost a lot. Triple core Xeons and first generation Cells and Blu-ray drives are why the 360 and PS3 were so dam costly to Microsoft and Sony.

For cost concerns next gen consoles are better off using 3.5 ghz dual core CPU's which Intel and AMD have a stock pile of for cheap and using DX10 graphics card in which AMD and Nvidia have a stock pile of for cheap. this would allow FULL 1080p graphics with AA and also maybe allow for console upgrades if done right. Ram (memory) is cheap.

Emilio_Estevez2913d ago

Thank you sir....I get it now. Bubble for helpful

B1663r2913d ago

One gaping problem with your theory...

The xbox already has integrated the cpu and gpu into one chip...

house2913d ago (Edited 2913d ago )


you sir should write articles.

the only thing that worrys me about next gen is heat issues i know thats whats said almost every console.

and on another note i really hope next gen that the ps3 at the least have 4gbs of ram at the least!

caperjim2913d ago

Bubble up for being helpful. It would be nice if others made decent comments instead of being rude or ignorant.

playaplayer2913d ago

I agree with you about cost considerations, but one thing you forgot is that consoles. The 360 and ps3 were state of the art at release. So the nex-gen consoles won't be dx10. They'll be DX11 or DX12. Also they will include more than a dual core cpu. That's way to dated for a system with a 2013-14 release date. In order for a next-gen console to last 7-10 year it would at least have to have these specs.

Xbox 720/PS4

6-8 core processor (12/16 threads)
AMD 8970/8990 GTX 780/790 GPU

SkyGamer2913d ago

I don't know why you got so many disagrees B1663r. The X360s has the cpu and gpu on one die and I believe that it is the valhalla.

ATiElite2913d ago

@ DrStabwounds..No problem
@ B1663r..... Yep your right, sorta, I forgot IBM is the one who makes all this stuff up, they put a System on Chip inside the 360 but it has a front side bus to make it perform like two chips where as the APU has NO front side bus and works as one chip.

@ house..Thanks but the PS4 wouldn't need 4GB of ram just to play games and do web browsing. 512 system 1.5GB Video. you only begin to use up 4GB on a PC while editing video or doing many intensive programs at once which a console won't be needed for.

@playaplaya...your 720/PS4 specs are way out there. Developers had DirectX 10 in 2005 while the public got it in 2006 the same years the 360 and Ps3 where released thus making them a generation behind on release day. You have to remember consoles use proven tech that is cheap and readily available for the most part. A $700 Hd6990 is the only GPU with 4GB of GDDR5. A console doesn't need more than 3 cores to just play games and do simple web browsing. Any 3.0ghz dual core CPU can run all PC games. The consoles will need No more than 3GB total ram but this time around have a more capable GPU like the Nvidia 460GTX or AMD HD5850. these cards are cheap, cool, use low watts and can produce 1080p w/ AA in DX11 mode locked at 30 fps.

playaplayer2913d ago

I agree there are a little high for 2013/14 release. But you have to remember consoles life span is going to be 7-10yrs before a new release. So if next-gen comes out in 2013 at the earliest. By 2020 those specs would be laughable. PC gamers by 2020 would have far more advanced hardware than what I just mention. So I feel it's better for console manufactures to put out the best and latest hardware technology at release. So they won't be as far behind as if they did if they went with current technology today.

BTW one thing I don't want to see is MS or Sony pull a Wii on there next consoles. That would be bad for us all. PC and console gamers.

anonym2913d ago

I have to disagree with you on one point, ATiElite. The next generation of consoles will not be using DX10, I can pretty much guarantee. DX11 is both more powerful and efficient, and has been out now for several years. In fact, developers are more familiar with DX11 than they are with DX10, because virtually everyone skipped right over it.

As far as AMD and Nvidia having stockpiles of DX10 cards lying around, I highly doubt that. Both of them left DX10 behind pretty quickly after they realized devs were just skipping over it to DX11. Plus, they would have pushed them much harder than they actually did to make some money off of all those surplus parts. Even if they do have some still lying around, there's no way it's anywhere remotely close to enough to accommodate a full generation of consoles.

Tyre2913d ago (Edited 2913d ago )

if i remember correctly the unified shaders architecture in the Xbox360 was ahead of the curve back in was a novel prototype chipset architecture and all PC Graphics Cards got that architecture not until 1.5 years later,likewise the GDDR3 memory in the 360, PC didn't have GDDR3 dimms in 2005, so Xbox360 was the most advanced piece of hardware when it launched in was an exception to the rule that consoles drag behind PC hardware...I hope MS/AMD/IBM/Intel/Sony will implement an even better architecture representing a bigger leap in comparison to current PC hardware.

anonym2913d ago (Edited 2913d ago )


I think you're right about the timeline for the unified shader architecture but PC GPUs, like the X700 and X800 Pro cards, were using GDDR3 at least a year and half before the 360 came out.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 2913d ago
JohnnyMann4202913d ago

This will offend some, but this is why they are AMD and NOT Intel, Nvidia or IBM.

I dunno, after their last CPU debacle, I tend to give the 'ol stinkeye to any AMD article so perhaps I'm biased.

kaveti66162913d ago

Intel makes mistakes, too.

Stealth20k2913d ago

no differentiation, no origination , annihilation

arjman2913d ago

for the nation of masturbation?

RegalPrince2913d ago (Edited 2913d ago )

Of course AMD would want a piece of the 6 billion dollar video game industry.

As much as APU's are cool I still feel that they dont offer the same performance of dedicated CPU's & GPU's YET. While they are a good idea at the moment they are targeted at netbook/low end PC's enabling them to handle HD content and basic gaming needs.

We still need dedicated hardware. Ageia Physx cards still give better performance than GPU generated Physx just because the hardware is specifically designed to take on physics code, in which GPUs slow down to do.

I might get some disagrees but I think its time for a more efficient architecture than x86. Its old and in need of better architecture. Moore's law is showing weakness as it performance gains continue to dwindle.

Edit: When I think about it, Sony could just stick with the current Cell and enable all the cores and slam a new GPU and more RAM, call it PS4 and I would buy.

ATiElite2913d ago

That's what i say and maybe Sony will say the same. The Cell just needs the last spu unlocked, give the PS4 a REAL GPU instead of that crappy RSX graphics accelerator, and have 512 system ram and 1.5 video ram and the PS4 would be good to go.

Show all comments (68)
The story is too old to be commented.

Out Today