[HN Gopher] Intel lost the Sony Playstation business to AMD
___________________________________________________________________
Intel lost the Sony Playstation business to AMD
Author : arcanus
Score : 87 points
Date : 2024-09-16 20:43 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| jandrese wrote:
| It's a little vague what the "6 chips" would have been. CPU
| obviously. Probably some southbridge equivalent, but then what? A
| NIC? Was Intel going to supply the graphics chip too? That would
| have been a real turnaround for their GPU division.
| bhouston wrote:
| There wasn't 6 chips. I believe it refers to "PlayStation 6",
| the version that comes after "PlayStation 5".
|
| I think the main thing Intel was competing for was CPU + GPU
| given they have the new Xe graphics architecture which is
| decent. But I guess they could have just gone after the CPU
| with NVIDIA likely then supplying the GPU as they did in the
| first Xbox.
| jandrese wrote:
| Oh derp. You are right. I totally misread that.
| deelowe wrote:
| I bet Intels hubris is too strong to allow them to do that
| these days.
| bangaladore wrote:
| Maybe I'm misinformed, but I could never see Intel getting this
| contract.
|
| AMD has extensive experience with high-performing APUs, something
| Intel, at least in my memory, does not have. The chips on modern
| high-end consoles are supposed to compete with GPUs, not with
| integrated graphics. Does Intel even have any offerings that
| would indicate they could accomplish this? Intel has ARC, which
| presumably could be put in a custom "APU"; however, their track
| record with that is not stellar.
| pknomad wrote:
| Ditto. AMD also reliably delivered on CPUs for the past 2
| iterations of both Xbox and PS. AMD feels like the only choice
| for consoles at this point.
| coder543 wrote:
| Well, Nvidia has powered a much more popular console... the
| Nintendo Switch, and Nvidia looks set to power the Switch 2
| when it launches next year. So, AMD is clearly not the _only_
| choice.
| pinewurst wrote:
| That's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Switch is lower
| price, lower performance by design and used, even
| originally, a mature NVIDIA SoC, not really a custom.
| mdasen wrote:
| The problem with choosing Nvidia is that they can't make an
| x86 processor with an integrated GPU. If you're looking to
| maintain backward compatibility with the Playstation 5,
| you're probably going to want to stick with an x86 chip.
| AMD has the rights to make x86 chips and it has the
| graphics chips to integrate.
|
| Nvidia has graphics chips, but it doesn't have the CPUs.
| Yes, Nvidia can make ARM CPUs, but they haven't been
| putting out amazing custom cores.
|
| AMD can simply repackage some Zen X cores with RDNA X GPU
| and with a little work have something Sony can use. Nvidia
| would need to either grab off-the-shelf ARM Cortex cores
| (like most of their ARM CPUs use) or Sony would need to bet
| that Nvidia could and would give them leading-edge
| performance on custom designed cores. But would Nvidia come
| in at a price that Sony would pay? Probably not. AMD's
| costs are probably a lot lower since they're going to be
| doing all that CPU work anyway for the rest of their
| business.
|
| For Nintendo, the calculus is a bit different. Nintendo is
| fine with off-the-shelf cores that are less powerful than
| smartphones and they're already on ARM so there's no
| backward incompatibility there. But for Sony whose business
| is different, it'd be a huge gamble.
| coder543 wrote:
| I think changing from AMD GPUs to Nvidia GPUs by itself
| has a good chance of breaking backwards compatibility
| with how low level and custom Sony's GPU API apparently
| is, so the CPU core architecture would just be a
| secondary concern.
|
| I was not saying Sony _should_ switch to Nvidia, just
| pointing out that it is objectively incorrect to say that
| AMD is the only option for consoles when the most popular
| console today does not rely on AMD.
|
| I also fully believe Intel _could_ scale up an integrated
| Battlemage to meet Sony 's needs, but is it worth the
| break in compatibility? Is it worth the added risk when
| Intel's 13th and 14th gen CPUs have had such publicly
| documented stability issues? I believe the answer to both
| questions is "probably not."
| alexjplant wrote:
| > Nvidia has graphics chips, but it doesn't have the
| CPUs. Yes, Nvidia can make ARM CPUs, but they haven't
| been putting out amazing custom cores.
|
| Ignorant question - do they have to? The last time I was
| up on gaming hardware it seemed as though most workloads
| were GPU-bound and that having a higher-end GPU was more
| important than having a blazing fast CPU. GPUs have also
| grown much more flexible rendering pipelines as game
| engines have gotten much more sophisticated and,
| presumably, parallelized. Would it not make sense for
| Nvidia to crank out a cost-optimized design comprising
| their last-gen GPU architecture with 12 ARM cores on an
| affordable node size?
|
| The reason I ask is because I've been reading a lot about
| 90s console architectures recently. My understanding is
| that back then the CPU and specialized co-processors had
| to do a lot of heavy lifting on geometry calculations
| before telling the display hardware what to draw. In
| contrast I think most contemporary GPU designs take care
| of all of the vertex calculations themselves and
| therefore free the CPU up a lot in this regard. If you
| have an entity-based game engine and are able to split
| that object graph into well-defined clusters you can
| probably parallelize the simulation and scale
| horizontally decently well.
| janice1999 wrote:
| Intel has Battlemage [1]. Presumably that would be the basis of
| the console APU. Their iGPU performance is actually getting
| good now. [2]
|
| [1] https://www.pcgamer.com/hardware/graphics-cards/embargo-
| no-p...
|
| [2] https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/lunar-
| lake-i...
| phonon wrote:
| Probably Celestial, considering a PS6 is still a few years
| out, and Celestial is due next year on 18A with Panther Lake.
|
| https://www.extremetech.com/computing/intel-to-offer-
| panther...
| bangaladore wrote:
| The "Intel Core Ultra 7 258V" is at least 2-3x slower than
| the GPU within the PlayStation 5. It is not even close, and
| that's last gen. Again, the APUs within modern consoles
| compete with desktop grade GPUs. In the case of the PS5 its
| roughly comparable to an RTX 2070 or Rx 6700 (better analog).
| Scramblejams wrote:
| > Their iGPU performance is actually getting good now.
|
| I've only been waiting for Intel to ship a compelling iGPU
| since, I dunno, their "Extreme Graphics" in 2001? What on
| earth have their iGPU teams been doing over there for the
| last 20+ years?
|
| I guess the OEMs were blinkered enough not to demand it, and
| Intel management was blinkered enough not to see the upside
| on their own.
| deelowe wrote:
| Intel didn't take gaming seriously until very recently.
| They stayed focused on productivity focused applications
| well past the time when netbooks became viable for most use
| cases.
| adastra22 wrote:
| Intel's absolute best integrated GPU being roughly comparable
| to a lower end model from the competition is not "getting
| good."
| epolanski wrote:
| Not sure the title has the right framing.
|
| It's hard to compete with AMD which is the only tech company to
| offer both x86 and a solid GPU technology that comes with it.
|
| On top of that you have backwards compatibility woes and the
| uncertainty around Intel being able to deliver on its foundry.
|
| All in all, this win would've been a great deal for Intel's
| foundry in PR, but money wise those were never going to be huge
| sums.
| ChocolateGod wrote:
| > both x86 and a solid GPU technology that comes with it
|
| If only Project Denver had kept its original goal
| wmf wrote:
| Transmeta and Denver never had great performance. If you want
| an x86 CPU it's so much safer to go with AMD.
| eigenform wrote:
| I wonder if Sony having to adapt their DRM/platform security
| strategy into Intel-world would've introduced a lot of friction.
|
| This kind of thing is probably part of the motivation behind
| Intel splitting out a "Partner Security Engine."
| andrewstuart wrote:
| Everything is about GPUs these days.
|
| Be it little GPUs inside the CPU package or be it consumer GPUs
| or big GPUs in data centers.
|
| Unless Intel can start to get its GPU act together, it won't be
| leading the industry again in a hurry.
| MBCook wrote:
| They're getting better. But as the article mentions backwards
| compatibility is a huge lock in factor. It's way easier for AMD
| to achieve it than it would be for Intel (or anyone else)
| following the PS5.
| criticalfault wrote:
| If we are talking foundry, Intel could still manufacture amd
| chips in their own fab instead of tsmc. Given that 18A is good...
|
| This would be strange, but it would show Intel will do what it
| takes.
| bgnn wrote:
| They have to do that to stay in fab business. Their design
| business is gonna be sold out I think, like HP/Agilent.
| whalesalad wrote:
| Intel hasn't made a console CPU/GPU since... the original Xbox?
|
| AMD has done: Gamecube, Wii, Xbox 360 (gpu, not cpu), Xbox one,
| PS4, PS5 ...
| snitty wrote:
| Just to clarify, GameCube and Wii CPU was an IBM PowerPC chip.
| GPU was ATI in both, later acquired by AMD.
| christkv wrote:
| I think GameCube GPU was ArtX bought by ATI then ATI bought
| by AMD.
| aappleby wrote:
| I was there, this is correct.
| mey wrote:
| The Steamdeck is an AMD APU (potentially originally developed
| for Magic Leap), and several follow on portable PC handhelds
| using AMD Z1 apus.
| https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/handhelds/ryzen-z...
| mastazi wrote:
| According to the writer everything in tech is AI. It bothers me
| and makes it difficult to take the article seriously.
|
| > Similar to how big tech companies like Google and Amazon rely
| on outside vendors to help design and manufacture custom AI chips
|
| > Having missed the first wave of the AI boom dominated by Nvidia
| and AMD, Intel reported a disastrous second quarter in August.
| deelowe wrote:
| I mean, it's very likely next gen consoles will feature AI
| hardware. The PS5 pro is already touting it.
| MBCook wrote:
| > It bothers me and makes it difficult to take the article
| seriously.
|
| But if you're in the chip game AI is _the_ big thing of the
| last 10 years. It's driven a huge chunk of new sales and demand
| for upgraded choices than they likely would have seen
| otherwise.
|
| Having missed out on AI in many ways (nVidia was perfectly
| positioned, AMD better than Intel) they need stuff to keep
| growing.
|
| Their current business is looking shakier than any time in
| recent history. ARM is getting pretty realistic on the desktop.
| Apple proved it and now Samsung and Qualcomm have parts for
| Windows users that perform well enough (compared to the failure
| of early ARM on Windows).
|
| They're behind on selling silicon for AI to business and it's
| not clear consumers care enough to upgrade their PCs. And when
| consumers upgrade they have not only great options from AMD,
| doing better than ever, but the ARM threat.
|
| They're being squeezed on all sides. The PS6 wouldn't make them
| dominant but it would have been a very steady and reliable
| revenue stream for years and a chance at parlaying that into
| additional business. "See what we did for Sony? We can do that
| for you."
|
| The article seemed rather well done to me. I think you're being
| too dismissive in this case.
| voytec wrote:
| s/Playstation/PlayStation 6/ - next generation
| lapinovski wrote:
| playstation 6 already?
| wmf wrote:
| It will probably be released around 2027-2028.
| MBCook wrote:
| And with the PS5 Pro announced we know the PS5 is basically
| dead inside Sony's engineering organization.
|
| Other than a die shrink or chip reduction or something
| there's not much else to do. The designs are basically done.
|
| So all hardware work would currently be focused on the PS6.
| At least for the home console line.
| Danieru wrote:
| No one appears to have mentioned the important meta game going
| on: Intel bidding as a credible alternative supplier.
|
| For Intel, by bidding they get to undercut AMD's profits.
|
| For Sony, they get a credible alternative which they can pretend
| would be a viable choice. Thus forcing a slightly better deal
| from AMD.
|
| We saw similar articles related to the Switch 2. That time it was
| AMD acting as spoiler to Nvidia. Nvidia reportedly got the
| contract. That time too we got news articles lamenting this loss
| for AMD.
|
| As a gamedev I have a different perspective: Sony and Nintendo
| would be fools to give up backwards compatibility just for
| savings on chips.
|
| Switching vendors does not just invalidate old games
| compatibility, it also requires retooling for their internal
| libraries. Console games, outside small or open source engines,
| use proprietary graphics api. Those apis are tied to the
| hardware. With this coming generation from Nintendo, and the
| "current gen" from Sony and Xbox they've been able to mostly
| reuse much of their software investment. I'd case more but this
| is obviously nda, other devs should be able to confirm.
|
| Thus I don't think AMD for switch2 or Intel for ps6 was ever a
| credible path. Their bids existed to keep the existing vendor
| from getting overly greedy and ruining the parade for everyone.
| This is important, famously the original Xbox got hamstrung in
| the market by Nvidia's greed and refusal to lower prices as costs
| went down.
| johnklos wrote:
| And they rightly deserve to lose the business to AMD.
|
| Intel to Apple: "We're too big to deliver what you want for cell
| phones." Apple: "Ok. We'll use ARM."
|
| Intel to Sony: "We're too big to commit to pricing, compatibility
| and volume." Sony:" Ok. We'll keep using AMD."
|
| It's interesting that Intel keeps trying to ship "features", some
| of arguable utility but others that are decently helpful, like
| AVX-512, that now AMD delivers and Intel does not. I'm sure Sony
| didn't want a processor that can't properly and performantly run
| older and current titles.
| tester756 wrote:
| >Intel to Apple: "We're too big to deliver what you want for
| cell phones." Apple: "Ok. We'll use ARM."
|
| Reality:
|
| "We ended up not winning it or passing on it, depending on how
| you want to view it. And the world would have been a lot
| different if we'd done it. The thing you have to remember is
| that this was before the iPhone was introduced and no one knew
| what the iPhone would do... At the end of the day, there was a
| chip that they were interested in that they wanted to pay a
| certain price for and not a nickel more and that price was
| below our forecasted cost. I couldn't see it. It wasn't one of
| these things you can make up on volume. And in hindsight, the
| forecasted cost was wrong and the volume was 100x what anyone
| thought."
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-16 23:00 UTC)