Trinity review

[ShintaiDK]

AMD designs CPU, AMD gets CPU produced, AMD sells CPU to whatever. Break that and you break the license. AMD just barely got permission to sell its fabs in pure generousity from Intel already.

But that aside, everyone seems to forget the financials. Even if AMD just want 1% margins on it. Its 1% Sony/MS have to pay from their profit.

 

[grimpr]

Intel supremacists and patriarchs neglect that Sonys first foray into x86 will end in Intels door.

 

[Vesku]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5505/amd-the-flexibility-is-in-the-fabric

Seems more than just rumor, yes?

Thats exactly where the x86 license stops. Same if someone buys AMD for that matter. Then the license is terminated.

"We want this rumour to be true, how can we make it true. Lets work backwards."

 

[ShintaiDK]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5505/amd-the-flexibility-is-in-the-fabric

Seems more than just rumor, yes?

I´m not sure you even read that article, or how it fits into the context of consoles. Or the reason why consoles wont use AMDs CPUs.

Could you elaborate? Just because AMD can slap on a wifi controller or something else to a x86 CPU. (Most likely bobcat for tablets/smartphones.) How do that fit this talk?

In the article, 3rd party company would license x technology to AMD to be run on a certain design that AMD produces and sells. See it?

 

[pelov]

AMD designs CPU, AMD gets CPU produced, AMD sells CPU to whatever. Break that and you break the license. AMD just barely got permission to sell its fabs in pure generousity from Intel already.

It wouldn't stray from the licensing agreement at all. You know this yet keep beating that dead horse. It's dead. Leave it alone. If AMD makes the chip then they can sell it to whoever they want. That's the way it works now so why would it be different for a single console for MS?

But that aside, everyone seems to forget the financials. Even if AMD just want 1% margins on it. Its 1% Sony/MS have to pay from their profit.

Again, how is this any different from the slim margins on their GPUs? Are CPUs some magical creatures that require magical higher margins because ShintaiDK magically commands it so? Hell, look at the slim margins AMD have been operating on in the consumer space for the last several years. Would it be any different with MS/Sony because it's now a CPU instead of a GPU? The only reason AMD is still alive (barely) is because they work off of slim margins yet you think they'll somehow stray from that for a single chip designed for a console when their GPU that's going in that same console is also very very cheap? So for everything else and the GPU in the same console slim margins are believable but the CPU inside it has to be more expensive?

You keep bringing up radical points with absolutely no reason to believe them. If you put things into perspective you'll see that x86 actually makes more sense to console makers than a PPC or ARM (obviously not ARM). The notion that x86 costs more is only true if they're asking a higher price. When has AMD ever asked a higher and outlandish price for their chips other than Bulldozer? Inherently x86 is no more or less costly than any other chip design, particularly if you're going to customize it anyway.

 

[ShintaiDK]

So you put AMD back in as the middleman. Great

Thats exactly what MS/Sony dont want.

x86 CPUs requires engineers in the 1000s to be designed. GPUs are in the 100s. Not to mention you design a GPU in 2-3 years. A CPU takes 4-5 years.

I´m looking forward to PS4/Xbox720 using this APU of yours. The hole argument is based on headless rumours and the "working backwards" arguments. Have fun with it.

I thought AMD had suffered enough from those already.

 

[Vesku]

Sony or MS could drop in their IP block and have it produced as a single die. They can then work out an arrangement between MS/Sony<->TSMC/GF<->AMD. The contract would be constructed around AMD's obligations under the x86 license, but if that was not palatable MS/Sony could replace x86 with their own CPU block. The reason MS had issues with original Xbox x86 unit was because Intel was both the IP provider and the manufacturer.

 

[pelov]

Alright, then why would PPC be a better solution? Backwards compatibility? Sony? The same people that already dumped backwards compatibility? Or Nintendo, the other company that dumped backwards compatibility?

Or is it Microsoft? God knows how much they hate x86

Seriously, I'd like to know why you think an x86 chip would make a worse alternative to PPC in a gaming console.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Alright, then why would PPC be a better solution? Backwards compatibility? Sony? The same people that already dumped backwards compatibility? Or Nintendo, the other company that dumped backwards compatibility?

Or is it Microsoft? God knows how much they hate x86

Seriously, I'd like to know why you think an x86 chip would make a worse alternative to PPC in a gaming console.

Price, control, design without waste.

Xbox360s CPU got 165mio transistors for a tricore design with SMT support (168mm2). The same era Athlon X2 got 243mio transistors in a dualcore design (219mm2).

The 45nm Xbox360 CPU shrink already got the GPU ondie as well. You know, about a year before AMD released their first APU.

 

[Schmide]

and the Athlon X2 with 512k L2 per core was 118 mm2?

Edit: That is 65nm. Sry.

 

[pelov]

But if you're customizing an x86 design what waste is there? MS *needs* x86. Prevalence of x86-only software is the only Microsoft is still alive. Have you seen how MS has handled ARM with their winRT?

Furthermore, you'd get a better on-die GPU with AMD.

Lastly, the price is a non-issue. AMD already has very very good pricing on their GPUs they're selling to the console makers so why should a custom design CPU cost more than a competing customized CPU arch?

Had AMD been stuck with GloFo I'd have said this rumor couldn't have legs to stand on. But considering they're allowing to incorporate 3rd-party IP and they severed final ties with GloFo I personally think it makes more sense than PPC. Neither MS nor Sony will spend lots of cash on hardware this round and AMD's consumer APUs are already cheap and aren't suffering from yield issues (this point doesn't really matter much as the WSA would be signed by MS).

I think the x86 uniformity for developers would help immensely as well. This allows for for more games across all platforms and better games for PC gamers as well. Can you imagine having games coded close-to-metal with semi-modern hardware and x86? There would be fewer hurdles for devs to jump through to sell their products.

 

[ShintaiDK]

and the Athlon X2 with 512k L2 per core was 118 mm2?

That would be Brisbane on 65nm released in dec. 2006.

I am talking about 90nm products in 2005.

 

[grimpr]

But if you're customizing an x86 design what waste is there? MS *needs* x86. Prevalence of x86-only software is the only Microsoft is still alive. Have you seen how MS has handled ARM with their winRT?

Furthermore, you'd get a better on-die GPU with AMD.

Lastly, the price is a non-issue. AMD already has very very good pricing on their GPUs they're selling to the console makers so why should a custom design CPU cost more than a competing customized CPU arch?

Had AMD been stuck with GloFo I'd have said this rumor couldn't have legs to stand on. But considering they're allowing to incorporate 3rd-party IP and they severed final ties with GloFo I personally think it makes more sense than PPC. Neither MS nor Sony will spend lots of cash on hardware this round and AMD's consumer APUs are already cheap and aren't suffering from yield issues (this point doesn't really matter much as the WSA would be signed by MS).

I think the x86 uniformity for developers would help immensely as well. This allows for for more games across all platforms and better games for PC gamers as well. Can you imagine having games coded close-to-metal with semi-modern hardware and x86? There would be fewer hurdles for devs to jump through to sell their products.

Amen to that, x86 everywhere was and is Intels gospel.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Furthermore, you'd get a better on-die GPU with AMD.

Lastly, the price is a non-issue. AMD already has very very good pricing on their GPUs they're selling to the console makers so why should a custom design CPU cost more than a competing customized CPU arch?

You dont need an AMD CPU to get the same GPU ondie or not.

Price aint an non issue. AMD dont sell GPUs either to console makers. They sold designs for for GPUs for around 50mio$.

MS already fused the GPU to the CPU a year before AMD. Thats control.

And how did it go on the CPU design again? 3 cores, 6 threads vs....a dualcore with 30% bigger die.

 

[pelov]

And how did it go on the CPU design again? 3 cores, 6 threads vs....a dualcore with 30% bigger die.

You're aware you're comparing a retail mass marketed CPU to a specifically designed customized architecture, right?

Wanna see how small x86 can get? Take a look at Medfield.

 

[ShintaiDK]

You're aware you're comparing a retail mass marketed CPU to a specifically designed customized architecture, right?

Wanna see how small x86 can get? Take a look at Medfield.

At 90nm a singlecore Atom with SMT would be around 95-104mm2.

Still quite big...

 

[pelov]

But you've still got unnecessary cache and FPUs, ISAs, etc.

A customized x86 design doesn't necessarily have to be bloated. The retail products are bloated because they have to be due to legacy concerns. You don't have the same issue with a gaming console, particularly one where they drop all backwards compatibility anyway. And it's not like they're reluctant to do that. Nintendo and Sony have both done it and Microsoft can extend its x86 line of products to the console as well.

I like the Power architecture. It's actually really cool but it also just doesn't make as much sense anymore in the console segment. The benefits of x86 uniformity outweigh potential benefits of sticking to IBM's throughput baby. While x86 uniformity doesn't mean much in mobile since it was late to the party, gaming needs x86. PC gamers need x86. Now if we can just pry DX away from Microsoft

 

[ShintaiDK]

What parts exactly do you claim unnecessary? In specifics please.

And removing those parts. You lose the uniformity.

 

[pelov]

There's a lot of unused and unnecessary extensions that games don't use. SSE # (pick a number, any number) AVX (if you need it) or it can be replaced with AVX2.

The cache design could change, sure, but it's already drastically different between Intel and AMD across their entire line of products, from Atom > Llano > IB > Bulldozer yet they can all run the same software

 

[ShintaiDK]

There's a lot of unused and unnecessary extensions that games don't use. SSE # (pick a number, any number) AVX (if you need it) or it can be replaced with AVX2.

I dont think the real world agrees with you...

All 64bit Windows applications requires SSE2 for example.

 

[Vesku]

I think he means legacy x87 FP stuff could be trimmed.

 

[Red Hawk]

You dont need an AMD CPU to get the same GPU ondie or not.

Price aint an non issue. AMD dont sell GPUs either to console makers. They sold designs for for GPUs for around 50mio$.

MS already fused the GPU to the CPU a year before AMD. Thats control.

And how did it go on the CPU design again? 3 cores, 6 threads vs....a dualcore with 30% bigger die.

Those three cores used in-order execution, significantly slower than x86 out-of-order execution at the same clock speed.

 

[Gideon]

And how did it go on the CPU design again? 3 cores, 6 threads vs....a dualcore with 30% bigger die.

And are we deliberately missing the fact that these 3 in-order cores using SMT are horrifically slow and often get their ass kicked by the same era SINGLE core x86 processors, even in threaded applications.

It's not just about the number of cores/threads. By the same logic AMDs "moar cores!" strategy should be everyone's holy grail.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Could you show me the benchmarks for that?

Not to mention the Xbox360 CPU costed around 80$ at that time. The X2 used in comparison multiple times more.

Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2.2GHz 512KB $537
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 2.2GHz 1024KB $581
Athlon 64 X2 4600+ 2.4GHz 512KB $803
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 2.4GHz 1024KB $1001

I know we are comparing apples and oranges. But we are on more parameters than people realize.

 

[Red Hawk]

Could you show me the benchmarks for that?

You can't benchmark a console, let alone separate variables like RAM, CPU, or GPU.