540°

The Real Reasons Microsoft, Sony Chose AMD For The XBOX One And PS4

Forbes - It has been two weeks since E3, the world’s largest gaming show, and the final pieces of the game console puzzle are starting to come into place. The public knows what the XBOX One and the PlayStation 4 look like, what they will run, what they won’t, digital rights management and their price. Ironically, I have yet to read or hear exactly why Microsoft and Sony chose AMD silicon to power their new consoles and my goal here is to simply lay it out.

Death4371d ago

Interesting read. the SOC design was a huge factor. Nvidia was never an option since they refuse to scale their pricing with production costs over time. Nvidia and their pricing pretty much sent the original Xbox to an early grave.

kwyjibo4370d ago

If that were the case with Xbox, why did Sony go with Nvidia for the PS3?

As soon as you go x86 SoC, you have to go AMD. The interesting thing from the article is that they considered ARM though.

I didn't think ARM was anywhere near close enough to be considered.

hesido4370d ago (Edited 4370d ago )

Of note, Nvidia screwed Sony, contantly stating how unified shaders were not ready for mainstream and implied their DX9 cards will have separate vertex / pixel shaders, while AMD was working on Xenos. Months after PS3 release, they released their unified shader arcitechture gfx cards, which was kept under wraps, and would have been years in the making (as it was a major design change from previous cards)

kneon4370d ago

ARM was considered because it's the only viable CPU that Nvidia could get access to. If you want both the CPU and GPU on the same die your only real options are ARM/Nvidia, X86/AMD or X86/Intel. And you do want them on the same die to reduce costs and power consumption/heat output.

Of those 3 options the obvious choice is x86/AMD. Intel hasn't yet matched the graphics performance of AMD, though that looks to have improved quite a bit with Haswell. And games developers are more familiar with x86 so ARM is not the best choice.

But the Author doesn't seem to be very knowledgeable about software development. The actual CPU architecture is largely irrelevant for the kinds of apps he's talking about. It's the APIs and tools that determine the ease of development unless you need to get down to the bare metal, and that will typically only be games that need that level of optimization. The facebook, twitter etc apps will just use the high level APIs.

Mounce4370d ago

PS3 went with Nvidia and you have to think. That's why PS3 didn't get a price cut in particular at E3. It has been quite some time since the last price cut and they chose not to because the Cost of production, between the Cell and Nvidia were still incredibly present.

With this? That'd mean PS4 and Xbox One down the road of their lives can get easier price cuts compared to the current gen which was painful for both the consumer and the companies involved.

ProjectVulcan4370d ago (Edited 4370d ago )

This isn't some mystery.

AMD could provide an APU- a GPU + a CPU on the same package, with all the other bells and whistles at the best price.

Nobody else could deliver the whole package, either because they don't own the technology or they couldn't do it at the right price.

AMD also have a good track record with this sort of project which helps as well...

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 4370d ago
wishingW3L4371d ago

because it was the cheapest option? AMD always offer better performance for the money than Nvidia but Intel CPUs utterly destroy AMD's CPUs.

ShwankyShpanky4371d ago

Funny, I've had Intel employees tell me different. They said it was Intel's production methods that give them the market edge, not the horsepower of the chips.

360ICE4371d ago

Intel promotes Intel.
Some questionable intel you've got there. Ha!

NarooN4371d ago

When it comes to the market share, it's because the average user has no idea about any differences between AMD and Intel. There were various cases of Intel bribing various OEM system vendors (like Dell) and consumer stores into not putting AMD chips into their products, and not selling AMD products in their stores. Google it, lol.

Nowadays, a lot of manufacturers are afraid to put AMD chips into their stuff out of fear that the average joe won't buy it because they see that fancy blue sticker on it. It's like how Bobcat destroyed Atom, yet people bought Atom-powered products anyway. Jaguar, the successor to the Bobcat design (and what is powering the CPU-side of the APU's in these systems) will further expand the performance and efficiency gains, but it won't matter since the vendors and manufacturers are too dumb to put them into more products.

In terms of production methods, I don't know what any Intel employee would mean by that besides efficiency of the chips, which is definitely a big factor in the mobile arena, but means nothing in the desktop sector. The truth is that desktop parts are NOT the main source of revenue for either AMD or Intel. Both companies are focusing more on Servers but moreso the mobile segments.

ShwankyShpanky4371d ago

@360ICE: Actually, I'd say that's more of a point against them than a "promotion." Basically admitted that AMD has better chips, but Intel can consistently crank out more of them.

The comment came from an Intel engineer when I was visiting one of their fabs.

@NarooN: By production methods they meant efficiency/quantity of actual chip production.

The Great Melon4370d ago

Intel is just years ahead everyone in the silicon industry with its fabrication methods. AMD is at the mercy of the tech that GlobalFoundries can currently produce.

ProjectVulcan4370d ago (Edited 4370d ago )

Theres nothing really 'wrong' with AMD central processors for desktops and laptops, honestly I wouldn't mind an AMD machine.

Fact of the matter is however they are inferior to Intel as a product. They aren't as fast, they aren't as power efficient or as cool.

They just aren't. Which is why they have to be sold for less money.

Intel have the edge because they are a much bigger company with a lot more money for R&D and thus also have the absolute bleeding edge manufacturing process, while AMD make do with older processes.

Intel as always months and sometimes years on the latest process before AMD.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 4370d ago
4371d ago Replies(2)
kewlkat0074371d ago

@wishingW3L

Can't disagree with that..I wonder what kind of power/muscle an Intel/Nvidia console collaboration would be like...

aquamala4371d ago

I didn't think there were reasons other than AMD submitted a lower bid

ginsunuva4370d ago

AMD also were already giving them CPU's. So they gave a package CPU/GPU deal.

o-Sunny-o4371d ago

Lower cost. I'm ready for PS4 like never before! ^~^

RandomDude6554371d ago (Edited 4371d ago )

Price/Performance and manufacturing.
Larrabee was considered-too hot/large for performance
Powervr 6 didn't hit performance target
Nvidia was too conservative with licensing fees.
Cell 2 wasn't getting shrunk and was off the roadmap.

Pretty simple choice actually

Show all comments (39)
90°

AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D & 9900X3D 3D V-Cache CPUs Now Available

AMD launches the Ryzen 9 9950X3D for $699 & Ryzen 9 9900X3D for $599, offering the best-in-class gaming & content creation CPU performance.

Read Full Story >>
wccftech.com
mkis00794d ago

X3D really turned around AMD's cpu prospects. I wont touch intel now, vs 10 years ago I wouldn't imagine going anywhere near AMD cpu's for gaming only.

ZycoFox94d ago

Zen 1 was merely "meh" IMO, it had major RAM compatibility issues, only really worked with Samsung memory from what I recall, and performance was ok at best, the 8700k launched the same year and was top dog even when Zen 2 came out. Though Zen 2 was much better.. it just lacked a bit in gaming, good all rounder chips though for other applications.

AMD are trying to upsell the 9900x3D to 9950x3D, pricing is weird (too close) and odd chip configuration.. it should be a lot cheaper. They did the same with the 9070 -> 9070XT.

Some funny choices going on at AMD..

FinalFantasyFanatic93d ago (Edited 93d ago )

Zen 1 was pretty great for what it was, considering that was the first time in a long time that AMD was actually competitve with Intel, it was also the first time you could easily get something with more than 4 cores/threads. The RAM issues was frustrating AF though, especially since Zen 1 performance relied so heavily on fast RAM.

If we ignore the price, the 990x3D and 9950X3D look pretty great provided you can actually make use of those extra cores/threads, otherwise the 9800x3D is better value.

PixelOmen93d ago

Zen1 was the beginning of the turn around and by Zen3 it was starting to become ultra competitive. X3D was really only the final nail in the coffin.

Jingsing93d ago (Edited 93d ago )

I guess the real question is how many compatibility issues will arise from their motherboard chipsets? also the selection of motherboards for AMD is more limited too. Which often limits what kind of form factor build you want. Last time around I avoided AMD due to their chipsets having horrid USB3 support with accessories. You tend not to see these kind of issues being talked about, it ends up just being games and synthetic benchmarks.

220°

Project Amethyst: AMD & Sony Collaborate on FSR 4

AMD and Sony co-develop FSR 4 upscaler under Project Amethyst, enhancing visuals and performance for future PlayStation consoles.

Read Full Story >>
techgenyz.com
98d ago
Eonjay97d ago

Clearly there was a colab as every game used to demo the tech was a WWS game. And of course they alluded yo this as far bask as the Pro Tech deep dive.

This means that PSSR is probably a lightweight CNN version of FSR 4 which would make sense due to the Pro and PS6 being AMD cards. The biggest relevant difference in the PRO and the RDNA 4 cards being that the PC cards have 3x+ the TOPS.

They both deliver good results with FSR4 having a better denoiser.

PanicMechanic94d ago

I remember Cerny saying that whatever developments were made with PSSR for the prop, that tech would translate into and help develop FSR 4. Sony is making the right moves with AMD

Eonjay94d ago

Yes it feels like they helped them catch up with ML real fast.

Starman6997d ago

Can't believe how good God of war Ragnarok is on the pro 😳

DivineHand12597d ago

The question is, is PSSR going to be replaced by FSR4 on future playstation consoles and is the PS5 Pro FSR4 capable?

--Onilink--97d ago

Unlikely given that FSR4 is only supported by the 9000 cards.

I would expect the PS6 to use FSR4 since it is definitely superior to PSSR, not really much of a point in keeping investing separate resourced into PSSR, but who knows if both will be available on PS6

ABizzel196d ago

FSR 5 would likely be out by then and probably a transformer model. I assume Sony will continue to use PSSR for branding purposes but it will essentially be FSR 5 with a PlayStation specifically solution.

The_Hooligan96d ago

In my opinion I think they will still use PSSR for the PS6 mainly because that was a big marketing point for the PS5 Pro and Sony probably doesn't want to abandon it. They might call it PSSR 2.0 or something and will probably use similar tech as FSR4 due to the partnership between the two companies. I doubt PS6 will use anything similar to the 9000 cards so won't have the same bells and whistles as the FSR4.

NoDamage97d ago

I was going to build a PC soon with a last gen and card but this makes me think I should wait to make sure I get the best experience in the next generation as well.

I guess I'm going to be all in on AMD which is the opposite of what I would normally lean towards.

ZycoFox96d ago (Edited 96d ago )

Value wise the 9070XT is a decent card if you don't want to pay for Nvidia ones.. That being said, make sure you're happy with the restrictions using some software, if you're happy with just gaming though AMD should be fine.

Probably best bet price wise is get the 9070XT and then upgrade next gen in a couple of years.. With Nvidia this new gen has been a bust, only the 5090 is a decent step up, even the 4090 beats the 5080 by a fair margin.

Hopefully Nvidia bounces back next gen.. though I expect refreshed 5000 cards before then, 5080 Ti / Super will probably be = to a 4090.

NoDamage96d ago

Thanks! I'll look into software restrictions. Never thought there would be issues there and it's important since I do some graphic design. I was thinking about the 9070 but will have to wait till a it's actually available to buy without the current nonsense.

Show all comments (14)
80°

Our First Look At FSR 4? AMD's New AI Upscaling Tech Is Impressive

DigitalFoundry : Running on AMD's new Radeon 9070-series GPUs at CES 2025, a machine learning upscaling demo of Sony's Ratchet and Clank is almost certainly FSR 4 AI upscaling - and as it's running on Ratchet and Clank - our 'go to game' for AI upscaling quality tests, we could really put the tech through its paces. Oliver and Alex are at the show - and this is their report.

Read Full Story >>
digitalfoundry.net
ZycoFox155d ago

They're saying better than PSSR! Impressive.. guess it's really close to Nvidia's solution. I'm interested in seeing how the 9070XT or whatever their highest end card will perform, we already know AMD are only aiming for the mid range (or upper mid range) with these new cards but it will still be interesting to see how they compare to a 5070Ti on price/performance.

But certain apps don't play well with AMD that do with Nvidia cards, shame because these cards could be great/price performance.. but not an issue for pure gamers.

883154d ago

Visually it may well be similar to DLSS, but they were quick to point out that they do not have any actual performance data at this point. Time will tell, but it is definitely promising and good to see them impressing.

155d ago
Psychonaut85154d ago

Interesting. Since AMD is largely behind PSSR, they’ve now sort of have two different upscalers in play. Curious to see how it all pans out.