Support NeoGAF

[JonnyDBrit]

It's quite likely they got a better margin on Switch. They were never unwilling to equip the consoles, but the lack of an x86 soc and their unwillingness to work with razer thin margins made AMD the only logical choice for Microsoft and Sony. They just didn't need the revenue stream as badly as AMD did. They weren't willing to go as low as AMD was to win the contract. NVidia has been highly profitable without console contracts, which is why all the "NVidia salty" memes wound up being self parodies after the fact.

Pretty much. In broad terms, being in the console market has more to do with bragging rights and looking good for their investors, from Nvidia's perspective. With regards to the Switch, they jumped on it particularly because Nintendo were seeking to make use of a product that Nvidia had sunk a lot of money into but wasn't really selling all that much of - their Tegra X1's. Now they're making their money back, and have likely secured themselves a guaranteed customer for the next decade.

 

[ethomaz]

Pretty much. In broad terms, being in the console market has more to do with bragging rights and looking good for their investors, from Nvidia's perspective. With regards to the Switch, they jumped on it particularly because Nintendo were seeking to make use of a product that Nvidia had sunk a lot of money into but wasn't really selling all that much of - their Tegra X1's. Now they're making their money back, and have likely secured themselves a guaranteed customer for the next decade.

I thought they sold at least 30 million Tegra X1 at end of June 2015... that accounts only for the automotive segment.

 

[Smokey]

So is Nvidia still salty?

Or has that now switched to AMD

 

[capitalCORN]

So is Nvidia still salty?

Or has that now switched to AMD

Nvidia so salty, they made record profits.
So salty.

 

[rambis]

nVidia contract with Nintendo is better (give them more profit) than the console contract from AMD.
They indeed found console contract not good for them... and the new portable contract (Switch) was better.

Their words in that article are still true for them.

.

I would love to see specifics of this cause I find it very unlikely.

It's quite likely they got a better margin on Switch. They were never unwilling to equip the consoles, but the lack of an x86 soc and their unwillingness to work with razer thin margins made AMD the only logical choice for Microsoft and Sony. They just didn't need the revenue stream as badly as AMD did. They weren't willing to go as low as AMD was to win the contract. NVidia has been highly profitable without console contracts, which is why all the "NVidia salty" memes wound up being self parodies after the fact.

Again, I would love to see specifics because most of this is unbelievable. The MS contract alone for AMD was valued at over $3b from the onset. . Extrapolate the top line revenue increase from the OP to 5 years and thats only ~$2b from Nintendo. I do agree that AMD was the only logical choice after both MS/Sony got terrible products from Nvidia in the past and NV having no x86 SOC ready.

The Nvidia is salty comments never had anything to do with their performance outside of consoles. I don't know how that keeps getting mixed up but here we are. Companies have pride. The were obviously feeling a way after losing out on PS4/XB1, and the top brass of the company went out of their way to shit on the console business model and power restrictions compared to PC parts. You can be "salty" and successful. Since the Switch you haven't heard a peep about how weak consoles are or how the model doesn't suit them.

 

[Principate]

It's quite likely they got a better margin on Switch. They were never unwilling to equip the consoles, but the lack of an x86 soc and their unwillingness to work with razer thin margins made AMD the only logical choice for Microsoft and Sony. They just didn't need the revenue stream as badly as AMD did. They weren't willing to go as low as AMD was to win the contract. NVidia has been highly profitable without console contracts, which is why all the "NVidia salty" memes wound up being self parodies after the fact.

Well tbf their tegra line are absolutely nothing like their gpu line. it doesn't set the charts a fire anywhere and is difficult to justify it's continued existence beyond future profitability opportunities. It's a very different situation.

 

[capitalCORN]

The Nvidia is salty comments never had anything to do with their performance outside of consoles. I don't know how that keeps getting mixed up but here we are. Companies have pride. The were obviously feeling a way after losing out on PS4/XB1, and the top brass of the company went out of their way to shit on the console business model and power restrictions compared to PC parts. You can be "salty" and successful. Since the Switch you haven't heard a peep about how weak consoles are or how the model doesn't suit them.

Nvidia is not at obligation to feed you propaganda 24/7. Considering all their revenue streams, they probably just gave Nintendo a ready made product and called it a day.

 

[rambis]

Nvidia is not at obligation to feed you propaganda 24/7. Considering all their revenue streams, they probably just gave Nintendo a ready made product and called it a day.

You mean they gave them a console GPU? How is this any different from AMD and their slightly modified parts they gave Sony/MS? IIRC Sony did most of the modification to the PS4 GPU. Is it impossible for Nvidia to be jealous they didn't get picked?

 

[RootCause]

That's just insane. I guess the rumors that they sold them to nintendo for cheap wasn't correct.

 

[ethomaz]

.

I would love to see specifics of this cause I find it very unlikely.




Again, I would love to see specifics because most of this is unbelievable. The MS contract alone for AMD was valued at over $3b from the onset. . Extrapolate the top line revenue increase from the OP to 5 years and thats only ~$2b from Nintendo. I do agree that AMD was the only logical choice after both MS/Sony got terrible products from Nvidia in the past and NV having no x86 SOC ready.

The Nvidia is salty comments never had anything to do with their performance outside of consoles. I don't know how that keeps getting mixed up but here we are. Companies have pride. The were obviously feeling a way after losing out on PS4/XB1, and the top brass of the company went out of their way to shit on the console business model and power restrictions compared to PC parts. You can be "salty" and successful. Since the Switch you haven't heard a peep about how weak consoles are or how the model doesn't suit them.

Let's first put something in perspective...

- This "Multi-year deal between Microsoft and AMD revealed to be valued at over $3 billion" was estimated before XB1 launch... everybody including MS, AMD, analyst, etc thought XB1 to be the best seller gaming console or in easy works it being the PS4 of this generation... so they expected 100 million sales for XB1 in the generation (a lot of years)... so $3 billion was a estimated made using that amount of XB1 made in a lot of years with APU shrink that decrease the revenue from it.

- nVidia and Nintendo are estimating way lower sales than it was estimated by MS/AMD for XB1.

Now the way the contract was made is different I guess... I don't have concrete info about AMD deals with MS/Sony but I will try to give a resume of both ways:

1) Nintendo x nVidia deal: nVidia sell the chip directly to Nintendo... so all the cost and deals with TSMC is done by nVidia... they put it royalties and profit over it and sell it do Nintendo that just receive the chip to put it on Switch... there is no project or custom options... nVidia already has the chip.

2) MS/Sony x AMD deal: MS/Sony pays something to AMD project a custom chip for them... with the project finalized Sony/MS choose a foundry to produce the chip... Sony/MS paid the foundry (TSMC) and pay royalties to each chip sold to AMD.

The big difference is that the foundry cost in with nVidia while the foundry cost is with MS/Sony... so what nVidia and AMD reports are different revenues but at the end the profit is similar but I believe nVidia profits more than AMD per chip.

 

[Cuningas de Häme]

LOL.

AMD was desperate back then and of course they got on their knees to plead Sony/Microsoft to accept their solution.

Nvidia is the clear leader, they don't have to make themselve look desirable in any way possible. They probs saw an opportunity with Nintendo to give a new life to their lower achieving segment and they took it.

This deal seems to be a pretty good for both Nintendo and Nvidia, and hopefully they will continue far into future. We will eventually get AMD vs Nvidia fights for the console side too, like the ones raging in the PC side! Yay! Pick your side, grab some popcorn and enjoy the show!


And people comparing Sony to Nvidia... Sony makes that damn high profit from HW solely? I thought that paywalling online made the money for Sony...

 

[capitalCORN]

You mean they gave them a console GPU? How is this any different from AMD and their slightly modified parts they gave Sony/MS? IIRC Sony did most of the modification to the PS4 GPU. Is it impossible for Nvidia to be jealous they didn't get picked?

Nvidia has other markets cornered, unlike AMD. They've been posting record profits since at least the inception of CUDA. Nvidia shares are trading at $100+, while AMD is at $10+. I'm pretty sure the design principle on Xbox One and PS4 rested on X86, and they made their bed.

 

[joesiv]

Well, they are "smart"
A Sony/Microsoft contract would cost them some work.

With Nintendo they are selling them a product.stacked at warehouses

Yeah, pretty much, Nvidia has no higher end system on a chip, they had Tegra (which I still think was them specifically targeting Nintendo, saying look look, you want us, you want us)

 

[koss424]

So, the U Wii.

You just Switched them - clever.

 

[rambis]

Let's first put something in perspective...

- This "Multi-year deal between Microsoft and AMD revealed to be valued at over $3 billion" was estimated before XB1 launch... everybody including MS, AMD, analyst, etc thought XB1 to be the best seller gaming console or in easy works it being the PS4 of this generation... so they expected 100 million sales for XB1 in the generation (a lot of years)... so $3 billion was a estimated made using that amount of XB1 made in a lot of years with APU shrink that decrease the revenue from it.

- nVidia and Nintendo are estimating way lower sales than it was estimated by MS/AMD for XB1.

Now the way the contract was made is different I guess... I don't have concrete info about AMD deals with MS/Sony but I will try to give a resume of both ways:

1) Nintendo x nVidia deal: nVidia sell the chip directly to Nintendo... so all the cost and deals with TSMC is done by nVidia... they put it royalties and profit over it and sell it do Nintendo that just receive the chip to put it on Switch... there is no project or custom options... nVidia already has the chip.

2) MS/Sony x AMD deal: MS/Sony pays something to AMD project a custom chip for them... with the project finalized Sony/MS choose a foundry to produce the chip... Sony/MS paid the foundry (TSMC) and pay royalties to each chip sold to AMD.

The big difference is that the foundry cost in with nVidia while the foundry cost is with MS/Sony... so what nVidia and AMD reports are different revenues but at the end the profit is similar but I believe nVidia profits more than AMD per chip.

I'm sorry but this is all very speculative. We have absolutely no idea how MS/AMD reached that valuation of the deal. Saying that they were expecting record LTD console sales and basing their expectations off that is completely unfounded and provides no perspective.

Secondly, I don't think the deals from Sony and MS to AMD are that similar. Sony by Cerney's remarks did most of the customization work on the GPU. I know MS' footprint on hardware design is generally alot lighter and the XB1 is alot more standard GCN than the PS4 GPU. We have next to no idea about each companies' expenditures into these products so profit talk again is very speculative.

I will say there is next to no reason to assume that either is significantly higher than the other. Which still makes all the previous talk from Nvidia about margins a head scratcher. If Nintendo's contract is worth it for this increase in revenue at whatever margin there is really no reasoning that both the Sony and MS contracts at similar margins would be desirable to NV as well.

Nvidia has other markets cornered, unlike AMD. They've been posting record profits since at least the inception of CUDA. Nvidia shares are trading at $100+, while AMD is at $10+. I'm pretty sure the design principle on Xbox One and PS4 rested on X86, and they made their bed.

What does the money or their success have to do with anything? Nobody ever implied that NV is hurting from missing the console sales.

Your defense of Nvidia here is similar to a kid thats getting roasted in school and opting to brag about how high his grades are.

 

[Instro]

So much for that whole story about Nvidia not making money on this deal.

 

[capitalCORN]

What does the money or their success have to do with anything? Nobody ever implied that NV is hurting from missing the console sales.

Your defense of Nvidia here is similar to a kid thats getting roasted in school and opting to brag about how high his grades are.

I'm here to show your fallacy. You insist that Nvidia was hurt by the lack of console contracts. I provided otherwise.

 

[Regginator]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=50117472

Ah, I need to brush up my GAF memes.

 

[rambis]

I'm here to show your fallacy. You insist that Nvidia was hurt by the lack of console contracts. I provided otherwise.

Uh no, I never implied that at all?

 

[capitalCORN]

Uh no, I never implied that at all?

You mean they gave them a console GPU? How is this any different from AMD and their slightly modified parts they gave Sony/MS? IIRC Sony did most of the modification to the PS4 GPU. Is it impossible for Nvidia to be jealous they didn't get picked?

.

 

[Skittzo0413]

That's just insane. I guess the rumors that they sold them to nintendo for cheap wasn't correct.

So much for that whole story about Nvidia not making money on this deal.

Remember this number is apparently purely an analyst estimate, so we really still don't know what they get per unit sold. But yeah it seems to be working out very well for them.

 

[rambis]

.

Where does that imply that they are "hurting"?


You even previously quoted a post where I break it down yet you still are missing the point. Are you being obtuse??

The were obviously feeling a way after losing out on PS4/XB1, and the top brass of the company went out of their way to shit on the console business model and power restrictions compared to PC parts. You can be "salty" and successful. Since the Switch you haven't heard a peep about how weak consoles are or how the model doesn't suit them

 

[Liliana Eileen]

AMD salty about that console contract.

Well, that backfired, lol.

 

[capitalCORN]

Where does that imply that they are "hurting"?


You even previously quoted a post where I break it down yet you still are missing the point. Are you being obtuse??

Cute, an empty quote.

You mean they gave them a console GPU? How is this any different from AMD and their slightly modified parts they gave Sony/MS? IIRC Sony did most of the modification to the PS4 GPU. Is it impossible for Nvidia to be jealous they didn't get picked?

.

 

[rambis]

Cute, an empty quote.

.

Empty quote? Do you just lack comprehension? Jealousy does not equal hurt. I never implied that NV is financially hurting. Any misunderstanding is on your part, sorry.

 

[ethomaz]

I'm sorry but this is all very speculative. We have absolutely no idea how MS/AMD reached that valuation of the deal. Saying that they were expecting record LTD console sales and basing their expectations off that is completely unfounded and provides no perspective.

The deal was made thinking XB1 being the market leader... and the $3 billion was an estimated made by somebody based in the future years of sales that every single guy in the world put XB1 ahead anything else in console market.

I'm not being speculative at all... before XB1 reveal AMD, MS, analyst, gamers, etc believed XB1 to be the best selling console on the market.

Of course the $3 billion across multiples years was made with that metric in mind... that is how you estimate something.

Secondly, I don't think the deals from Sony and MS to AMD are that similar. Sony by Cerney's remarks did most of the customization work on the GPU. I know MS' footprint on hardware design is generally alot lighter and the XB1 is alot more standard GCN than the PS4 GPU. We have next to no idea about each companies' expenditures into these products so profit talk again is very speculative.

The MS and Sony deal with AMD is the same... it is called Semi-custom SoC... why it is called semi-custom? Because the contractor can modify some parts of the SoC adding, removing or changing it.

Cerny customized PS4's APU as MS engineers customized XB1's APU... I will say more... MS customized way more their APU than Sony did with them... PS4 is more a standard AMD's APU (you can buy similar APU on PC market) while XB1 is a heavy customized AMD's APU (you can't buy similar APU on PC market).

BTW this semi-custom SoC deal is open for any other company in the world... you just need to talk with AMD.

I will say there is next to no reason to assume that either is significantly higher than the other. Which still makes all the previous talk from Nvidia about margins a head scratcher. If Nintendo's contract is worth it for this increase in revenue at whatever margin there is really no reasoning that both the Sony and MS contracts at similar margins would be desirable to NV as well.

Nintendo/nVidia contract is different from MS/Sony/AMD contracts... the revenue is different because in the first case they post the value they sold it to Nintendo that includes the costs to manufacture the chip while the second case they post the value they received from MS/Sony that does not include the costs to manufacture the chip.

Even being different you can expect nVidia has a higher margin of profit than AMD... nVidia already said they didn't work with the margin MS/Sony wants for console parts supply... it is petty clear nVidia wants more profit from their deals.

nVidia doesn't needs any console deal... so to make a deal Nintendo had to pay the profit nVidia wanted to them... that is better than AMD profit per chip they have with Sony/MS.

 

[capitalCORN]

Empty quote? Do you just lack comprehension? Jealousy does not equal hurt. I never implied that NV is financially hurting. Any misunderstanding is on your part, sorry.

You refuse to quote the mention of my contention. It's plainly obvious for anyone else. Not gonna bother with your passive aggressive shit.

 

[digitaltrance]

That's if Nintendo can produce...

 

[NOLA_Gaffer]

What a turnaround for Nintendo. This is like the opposite Wii U.

It's like it's 2006 all over again. Coming off of the unsuccessful Gamecube and coasting right into the phenomenon Wii.

 

[orioto]

I read it as nvidia making 400 million switch next year.

 

[Aostia]

So, the U Wii.

Actually the U iiW

 

[rambis]

The deal was made thinking XB1 being the market leader... and the $3 billion was an estimated made by somebody based in the future years of sales that every single guy in the world put XB1 ahead anything else in console market.

Dude stop. I get that you follow hardware development but you are speculating specific contract details based in absolutely no knowledge of the internal workings of these particular neogotiations. It is incredibly asisine to discuss this with somebody who runs with their own blind inclinations.

I'm not being speculative at all... before XB1 reveal AMD, MS, analyst, gamers, etc believed XB1 to be the best selling console on the market.



Of course the $3 billion across multiples years was made with that metric in mind... that is how you estimate something.

What? How is this not speculative? Be clear, you have no idea of any specific clause, SOW, MUO, or anything about this contract. Pretending you do is not doing your credibility any favors. And what you're saying makes no sense in the first place. If there is no specific performance and you are the promisor you always undersell the cost of the contract to the promisee. I don't know what about your years of browsing web forums that has led you to believe what you are saying here but this spits in the face of basic business principle.

The MS and Sony deal with AMD is the same... it is called Semi-custom SoC... why it is called semi-custom? Because the contractor can modify some parts of the SoC adding, removing or changing it.

Cerny customized PS4's APU as MS engineers customized XB1's APU... I will say more... MS customized way more their APU than Sony did with them... PS4 is more a standard AMD's APU (you can buy similar APU on PC market) while XB1 is a heavy customized AMD's APU (you can't buy similar APU on PC market).

Lmao when are any two deals the same? Do you think AMD just has a template contract they plug Sony's/MS' name into? Have you ever dealt with business negotiation because this is laughable. I know what semi custom means...

Also you're dead wrong on the GPUs. From every breakdown we have, XB1 is using far more standard GCN cores with more standard instructions than PS4. The overall APU is different because of the wonky memory setup in the XB1 but we have no idea of who or where that engineering effort layed on. Again you can't guess at multi party contract details.

BTW this semi-custom SoC deal is open for any other company in the world... you just need to talk with AMD

.
Right, they just copy and paste the different companies' name on the proposal amirite?

Nintendo/nVidia contract is different from MS/Sony/AMD contracts... the revenue is different because in the first case they post the value they sold it to Nintendo that includes the costs to manufacture the chip while the second case they post the value they received from MS/Sony that does not include the costs to manufacture the chip.


Even being different you can expect nVidia has a higher margin of profit than AMD... nVidia already said they didn't work with the margin MS/Sony wants for console parts supply... it is petty clear nVidia wants more profit from their deals. nVidia doesn't needs any console deal... so to make a deal Nintendo had to pay the profit nVidia wanted to them... that is better than AMD profit per chip they have with Sony/MS.

LMAO ok Im done...

You refuse to quote the mention of my contention. It's plainly obvious for anyone else. Not gonna bother with your passive aggressive shit.

You have lost me. I have no idea of what you are saying but its not reflective of what I was saying or intending. I've layed it out as best I can and if still you don't grasp then its on you. Again, sorry I cant help.

 

[Durante]

Also you're dead wrong on the GPUs. From every breakdown we have, XB1 is using far more standard GCN cores with more standard instructions than PS4.

Details and sources please.

You accuse another poster of making things up, but frankly, it doesn't seem like most of the things you say are based on anything other than hearsay.

 

[rambis]

Details and sources please.

You accuse another poster of making things up, but frankly, it doesn't seem like most of the things you say are based on anything other than hearsay.

Sure but this is mostly common knowledge so idk what you're getting at.

Here's the Architects themselves discussing the designs.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-complete-xbox-one-interview

Andrew Goossen: To a large extent we inherited a lot of DX11 design. When we went with AMD, that was a baseline requirement. When we started off the project, AMD already had a very nice DX11 design.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/191007/inside_the_playstation_4_with_mark_.php?print=1

The XB1 GPU is far closer to a standard GCN part than the PS4 is. There's alot more instructions for memory management on PS4 compared to PC/XB1 GCN, there's far more ACE queues, and overall alot more control over the granularity in the PS4 which then got implemented into Polaris and future archs.

 

[ethomaz]

Sure but this is mostly common knowledge so idk what you're getting at.

Here's the Architects themselves discussing the designs.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-complete-xbox-one-interview


http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/191007/inside_the_playstation_4_with_mark_.php?print=1

It is the opposite... there are a lot of changes for memory management on XB1 than PS4.

But let's use some sources just to prove you wrong again...

Cerny said there are three custom thinks that they added to PS4's APU over the actual AMD's APU:

1) An additional bus has been grafted to the GPU, providing a direct link to system memory that bypasses the GPU's caches. This dedicated bus offers "almost 20GB/s" of bandwidth, according to Cerny.

2. The GPU's L2 cache has been enhanced to better support simultaneous use by graphics and compute workloads. Compute-related cache lines are marked as "volatile" and can be written or invalidated selectively.

3. The number of "sources" for GPU compute commands has been increased dramatically. The GCN architecture supports one graphics source and two compute sources, according to Cerny, but the PS4 boosts the number of compute command sources to 64.

2 & 3 are part of GCN 2 standard (PS4 is GCN 1 with added features that AMD used on GCN 2)... it was new on PS4? Yes but every APU launched with GCN 2 has these custom features made by Sony. 1 I will give you that is really something the new APUs doesn't have and maybe they doesn't needs it... a direct bus between CPU and GPU.

These are the Sony changes...

http://techreport.com/news/24725/ps4-architect-discusses-console-custom-amd-processor

Now let's talk about XB1's APU changes:

1) eSRAM, that is probably the big change that makes this APU different from AMD/PS4 APU.

2) DMAs, MS added a lot DMAs to move data between the four elements: CPU, GPU, eSRAM and DDR3... the data can travel simultaneous between them without need CPU resources... these DMAs has secondary functions like data compression/decompression (again without CPU resources needed).

3) Tensilica DSP cores, instead to use the default audio cores found in PS4's APU they choose to made a custom one.

4) Highly customise the command processor on the GPU... it is not like this is new because AMD allow you to create customized command processor for GCN after some version... but they talk in the interview so I put here.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-complete-xbox-one-interview

There is no AMD's APU in the market like the XB1's APU because it is heavy customized from it "standard".

While there are APUs exactly the PS4's APU in the market with less processing units because it is the AMD "standard".

The XB1 GPU is far closer to a standard GCN part than the PS4 is. There's alot more instructions for memory management on PS4 compared to PC/XB1 GCN, there's far more ACE queues, and overall alot more control over the granularity in the PS4 which then got implemented into Polaris and future archs.

While AMD used the changes in PS4's APU for GCN 2 (that is two versions before Polaris GCN 4) the PS4's APU was still the same standard layout of AMD's APUs... no drastic changes with only added features to actual processor inside it... these added feature was used in GCN 2 by own AMD and all the APUs that come after that.

XB1 customizations not followed the AMD's standard layout... the opposite MS and AMD strong customized XB1's APU adding a lot of new processor units (4x DMA, DPS, etc)... just the eSRAM and memory controller to support it was a bigger change than anything Sony did with PS4's APU.

You can't and you will never see on PC market an APU as XB1's APU because it is not standard for AMD.

Since release of the two consoles we know:

- PS4's APU: simple, cheaper and stronger.
- XB1's APU: complex, expensive and weaker.

XB1's APU is complex and expensive because rely in too many customizations... and it is weaker because they needed space on the chip for these customizations and this space was a trade off by GPU units.

 

[rambis]

It is the opposite... there are a lot of changes for memory management on XB1 than PS4.

But let's use some sources just to prove you wrong again...

Cerny said there are three custom thinks that they added to PS4's APU over the actual AMD's APU:

1) An additional bus has been grafted to the GPU, providing a direct link to system memory that bypasses the GPU's caches. This dedicated bus offers "almost 20GB/s" of bandwidth, according to Cerny.

2. The GPU's L2 cache has been enhanced to better support simultaneous use by graphics and compute workloads. Compute-related cache lines are marked as "volatile" and can be written or invalidated selectively.

3. The number of "sources" for GPU compute commands has been increased dramatically. The GCN architecture supports one graphics source and two compute sources, according to Cerny, but the PS4 boosts the number of compute command sources to 64.

2 & 3 are part of GCN 2 standard (PS4 is GCN 1 with added features that AMD used on GCN 2)... it was new on PS4? Yes but every APU launched with GCN 2 has these custom features made by Sony. 1 I will give you that is really something the new APUs doesn't have and maybe they doesn't needs it... a direct bus between CPU and GPU.

These are the Sony changes...

http://techreport.com/news/24725/ps4-architect-discusses-console-custom-amd-processor

Now let's talk about XB1's APU changes:

1) eSRAM, that is probably the big change that makes this APU different from AMD/PS4 APU.

2) DMAs, MS added a lot DMAs to move data between the four elements: CPU, GPU, eSRAM and DDR3... the data can travel simultaneous between them without need CPU resources... these DMAs has secondary functions like data compression/decompression (again without CPU resources needed).

3) Tensilica DSP cores, instead to use the default audio cores found in PS4's APU they choose to made a custom one.

4) Highly customise the command processor on the GPU... it is not like this is new because AMD allow you to create customized command processor for GCN after some version... but they talk in the interview so I put here.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-complete-xbox-one-interview

There is no AMD's APU in the market like the XB1's APU because it is heavy customized from it "standard".

While there are APUs exactly the PS4's APU in the market with less processing units because it is the AMD "standard".

Why are you conflating the GPU with the overall APU? You're changing the discussion. I am specifically discussing the GPU and nothing else. My memory management claim is only in regards to the GPU's local memory. Obviously the odd memory layout in XB1 is alot more complex than PS4's...

 

[Tagyhag]

Empty quote? Do you just lack comprehension? Jealousy does not equal hurt. I never implied that NV is financially hurting. Any misunderstanding is on your part, sorry.

Nvidia isn't Trump, why would they be jealous of a contract if it didn't hurt them?

Do you just imagine a board of directors being like "Those..Those jerks at Microsoft and Sony didn't go with our company! Instead they went with the boogerfaces at AMD!"

 

[rambis]

Nvidia isn't Trump, why would they be jealous of a contract if it didn't hurt them?

Do you just imagine a board of directors being like "Those..Those jerks at Microsoft and Sony didn't go with our company! Instead they went with the boogerfaces at AMD!"

Pride?

And no, board of directors generally care about one thing and one thing only. They maybe were peeved at missed opportunity but who know's because they rarely talk. Jen-Hsung on the other hand basically went on a campaign against the whole console model during their last launch period.

 

[th3sicknness]

I have no faith in Nintendo meeting the demand to sell the units they even quoted conservatively after the shortages experienced with everything else they have sold.

 

[Skittzo0413]

I have no faith in Nintendo meeting the demand to sell the units they even quoted conservatively after the shortages experienced with everything else they have sold.

Even when they sold 740,000 more units in March than they expected?

 

[Calm Mind]

I have no faith in Nintendo meeting the demand to sell the units they even quoted conservatively after the shortages experienced with everything else they have sold.

You do realize they are halfway to 10M (at least) as of now right?

 

[ethomaz]

You do realize they are halfway to 10M (at least) as of now right?

?

The 10 million started on April 1st... Apr17 to Mar18.

 

[capitalCORN]

Pride?

And no, board of directors generally care about one thing and one thing only. They maybe were peeved at missed opportunity but who know's because they rarely talk. Jen-Hsung on the other hand basically went on a campaign against the whole console model during their last launch period.

.

 

[Skittzo0413]

You do realize they are halfway to 10M (at least) as of now right?

The 10M units estimation is for April 1st 2017 to April 1st 2018. We have no idea how many sold in April, but I think we can probably guess it's between 4 and 5 million units LTD, which would mean 1.3-2.3M units sold this FY so far.

 

[SmokedMeat]

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-golden-days-consoles-over-other-ways/

Back when their feelings were hurt over no console contracts. You won't see an article like that now.

 

[Astral Dog]

they did a good job with the Switch

 

[CharminUltra]

Go go go go

 

[MrCunningham]

I bet Nvidia's happy that their Tegra chipset wasn't a failure after all. The Switch looks like it is going to be a much bigger seller than the Wii-U.

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

AMD salty about that console contract.

hahahahahaahahaha I can't breathe

 

[sixteen-bit]

AMD salty about that console contract.

can someone explain this joke, i wanna laugh too