Trinity review

[grimpr]

PS4 spec rumour float from Dresdenboy.

AMD Fusion APU - Codenamed 'Liverpool'
AMD x86 Quad Core at 3.2 GHz, propably "Steamroller"
ATI r10xx (3rd generation) GFLOPS at 800 MHz and 1843 - Codename "Tahiti"
Unified 2GB of memory (still uncertain, this can be 4GB)
Blu-ray
HDMI 1.4 - 1080p output
320GB + HDD
16GB Flash Memory

http://translate.google.nl/translat...ver-de-playstation-4-inclusief-specificaties/

 

[ShintaiDK]

PS4 wont be an APU or any x86. Its pretty simple.

Consoles want a design they buy and control. They produce it themselves on whatever factories they choose. Hence also controls the cost and any price reductions in the future.

That rumour is so dumb it hurts.

 

[computerparts1]

That's strange. I could have sworn I read somewhere that the PS4 and nextbox will have x86 cpus.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The problem as MS experienced with the Xbox is, that you cant determine price, volume or shrink of the product. MS payed out their nose in the last years of the Xbox for the 733Mhz P3 on an old processnode. Imagine paying ~300$ today for an E6600 for every console you need to sell.

Another issue with AMD is they dont have a good reputation for being able to deliver. We only have to look back to Llano to see that.

Plus there is the long run supply guarantee. Will AMD make the exact same APU in 5 years?

Will AMD put the same APU through 2-3 shrinks?

The rumours are just silly. Just as the 4K ones and whatever.

 

[Red Hawk]

PS4 wont be an APU or any x86. Its pretty simple.

Consoles want a design they buy and control. They produce it themselves on whatever factories they choose. Hence also controls the cost and any price reductions in the future.

That rumour is so dumb it hurts.

Well, it could still technically be an APU without being AMD-built or x86. The current Xbox 360 model essentially uses an APU already.

It's possible that Sony worked out a deal with AMD where Sony pays AMD to design the chip but once it's designed Sony controls the design, so they can do whatever they want with it. Shrink it, etc. Much like what they've been doing with current console hardware.

Though if they have to deal with Intel at all for x86 that would indeed be problematic.

 

[ShintaiDK]

APU is an AMD invented term. Hence only applies to AMD.

Its the classical hype/rumour behaviour. Now we are working backwards to how it could be true. See the problem?

PS4/Xbox720 will be PPC CPUs.

 

[nonameo]

Having AMD in a console is not totally inconceivable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM_Towns_Marty

However, it just doesn't seem too practical for a console today for the reasons that have already been stated.

Maybe AMD is working with IBM to get AMD GPUs on a PPC CPU? So it'd be like fusion, but with power cores, and possibly eDram. IF they wanted to bring eDram to the desktop(and IF, I'm not sure if they'd really want to or not) then that would be a good opportunity to get their fingers in it.

 

[jpiniero]

Those specs are fake because they are too optimistic.

 

[pelov]

APU is an AMD invented term. Hence only applies to AMD.

Its the classical hype/rumour behaviour. Now we are working backwards to how it could be true. See the problem?

PS4/Xbox720 will be PPC CPUs.

Do you really think Sony values backwards compatibility? What rock are you living under? Sony would actually save money by going x86 if they decide to go APU + GPU as it would require a more slender GPU and allow for streamlining across multiple platforms (PC).

We already know both Xbox and PS4 are going AMD GPU this round and considering their APUs are pretty cheap and are now not afflicted by yield issues it's completely plausible we'll get an APU + GPU for both the Xbox and the PS4. The GPUs are supposedly 40nm 6670s which would allow for Trinity to be crossfired if that's what they're gunning for. Supposedly the consoles will be cheaper to produce than the last gen was when it was initially released. How that plays into what CPU we'll see, but it's definitely not going to be much over $100 if that.

I'm not sure why people are insisting it has to be PPC. If you give up backwards compatibility you gain a uniform x86 across all platforms for your games/licenses and thus a bigger audience as well as making it easier for developers. Hell, considering AMD's recent press releases it could even be ARM

 

[Red Hawk]

If consoles do go APU then it means they likely won't use a discrete GPU, so no crossfire'ing.

 

[grimpr]

If consoles do go APU then it means they likely won't use a discrete GPU, so no crossfire'ing.

The article says that the PS4 will include an HD 7970 too.

"This chip is also include on AMD Radeon HD 7970, both chips (CPU and GPU) are 28nm processors."

 

[Skurge]

I'm sorry, what?

A 7970 in a console that going to be launched in the next year?

 

[Red Hawk]

The article says that the PS4 will include an HD 7970 too.

"This chip is also include on AMD Radeon HD 7970, both chips (CPU and GPU) are 28nm processors."

Ok, that's bull. I shouldn't even need to explain why.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Do you really think Sony values backwards compatibility? What rock are you living under? Sony would actually save money by going x86 if they decide to go APU + GPU as it would require a more slender GPU and allow for streamlining across multiple platforms (PC).

Sony would massively bleed to use x86. I dont think you understood how it went for MS and Xbox. Plus all the issues of a design you cant control.

 

[antihelten]

The article says that the PS4 will include an HD 7970 too.

"This chip is also include on AMD Radeon HD 7970, both chips (CPU and GPU) are 28nm processors."

Actually the full quote would be:

"The GPU is an ATI r10xx at 800MHz with 1843 GFLOPS, this is code-named "Tahiti." This chip is also include on AMD Radeon HD 7970, both chips (CPU and GPU) are 28nm processors."

And although I don't speak dutch, I think the article is saying that the PS4 chip is codenamed tahiti, a codename that also includes the HD7970 (but also the HD7950 so the codename doesn't tell us much)

Looking at the GFLOPS a tahiti with 1152 ALU's (18 CU's) would fit the bill perfectly, this would be something akin to a hypothetical HD7860.

I still think the rumours of a 7700 level GPU sounds more plausible though.

 

[Chiropteran]

I dont think you understood how it went for MS and Xbox. Plus all the issues of a design you cant control.

How did it go for MS and XBox? They went from being non-existent in the console market to being a huge major player. Seems like mission accomplished to me, how is that such a bad thing?

 

[(sic)Klown12]

How did it go for MS and XBox? They went from being non-existent in the console market to being a huge major player. Seems like mission accomplished to me, how is that such a bad thing?

Intel does not license their x86 chips. They created a contract with Microsoft where they would fab them and sell the completed chips for installation. But Microsoft didn't allow for restructuring of the contract as production cost got cheaper so they had to pay full price the whole time so they couldn't get to a point where they make money from hardware. With IBM or ARM, you license the design and build it where you want, which means you can get lower cost as yields improve.

 

[pelov]

Sony would massively bleed to use x86. I dont think you understood how it went for MS and Xbox. Plus all the issues of a design you cant control.

Closer-to-metal programming occurs on the GPU end and considering the CPUs are generally in-house custom designs there should be no issues you "can't control." If they suffer from a "can't control" issue it's on Microsoft or Sony or whatever considering they would potentially have more impact on the design of the chip than AMD would. This isn't Intel, AMD actually needs the $$ from consoles whereas Intel couldn't give a crap who or how many people they pissed off.

Sony bled from their Blu-Ray thing and were forced to sell at a couple hundred $$ of loss per console and MS/Xbox didn't bleed anything. The only complaint we've heard from MS with respect to Xbox was regarding nVidia and how difficult they were to work with as well as unwilling to negotiate on pricing. AMD has been working off slim margins for decades -- that's the way AMD does business. They've done that with their GPUs for consoles (for two generations of all 3 consoles now) so what makes you think they'll charge an arm and a leg for their x86 license? Sudden change in direction to willingly piss off all the console makers and lose a great advantage and steady source of income? Really?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Closer-to-metal programming occurs on the GPU end and considering the CPUs are generally in-house custom designs there should be no issues you "can't control." If they suffer from a "can't control" issue it's on Microsoft or Sony or whatever considering they would potentially have more impact on the design of the chip than AMD would. This isn't Intel, AMD actually needs the $$ from consoles whereas Intel couldn't give a crap who or how many people they pissed off.

Sony bled from their Blu-Ray thing and were forced to sell at a couple hundred $$ of loss per console and MS/Xbox didn't bleed anything. The only complaint we've heard from MS with respect to Xbox was regarding nVidia and how difficult they were to work with as well as unwilling to negotiate on pricing. AMD has been working off slim margins for decades -- that's the way AMD does business. They've done that with their GPUs for consoles (for two generations of all 3 consoles now) so what makes you think they'll charge an arm and a leg for their x86 license? Sudden change in direction to willingly piss off all the console makers and lose a great advantage and steady source of income? Really?

MS payed thoughout the to Intel in the last years of the Xbox due to the same CPU was still produced on a 180nm process. There wasnt any problem with nVidia, because nVidia sold MS a design that MS got manufacted at whatever place they wish. And you can not sell an x86 design.

Also what happens when AMD for example says, hey we gonna stop Llano and make Trinity CPUs. Then MS would say. STOP, we need this Llano CPU. And we need it not only on 32nm, but also 22nm and 14nm. Trinity is not an option.
But why pay AMD 100$ for something you can make yourself for 10$ after you payed 50mio to the designer.

And AMD pissed off the entire channel before. So that excuse doesnt work.

But hey, keep dreaming. Its gonna backfire as it always do. Just with Barcelona, Reverse Hyperthreading, Bulldozer and so on. It seems some people just never learn.

 

[pelov]

You claim it'll be PPC for sure and say the word "Bulldozer" like you don't know where the idea came from.

Here's a hint

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER6

but instead of "threads" add "integer cores."

I think paying out of the GloFo contract might have something to do with this if it is indeed true. You're right in that a 'die shrink this forever' type deal wouldn't generally work with AMD but considering they are completely fabless now it shouldn't be a problem. Had they been stuck with GloFo it would have been absolutely impossible but now... not so much.

AMD did the same thing with their GPUs, ShintaiDK. They, unlike nVidia for GPUs and Intel for their x86 license, allowed for very cheap chips and razor thin margins while being open to a completely customized design as well as continuous straight shrinks. AMD won't be paying for the masks nor producing the chips, the fabs will. The fab argument makes absolutely zero sense to me.

AMD might suck on the desktop and the high end (and in servers they do even worse), but you know what they do REALLY well? Embedded, GPUs and cheap prices. That's 3 huge checks for any console maker.

Also what happens when AMD for example says, hey we gonna stop Llano and make Trinity CPUs. Then MS would say. STOP, we need this Llano CPU. And we need it not only on 32nm, but also 22nm and 14nm. Trinity is not an option.
But why pay AMD 100$ for something you can make yourself for 10$ after you payed 50mio to the designer.

How is this any different than IBM? or Intel? or nVidia for that matter? It isn't different for any of them. Why would MS stop Llano production? What the hell does MS have to do with Llano? Trinity? I think you're forgetting AMD is fabless. AMD, if they are to make the chips, will do something like IBM did but without the fab, meaning they'll help design it, charge a small licensing fee and then that's it. Their job is done. The rest is the same as it's ever been: up to the fabs to produce high yields and good volume.

If any supply issues were to occur it wouldn't be weight on AMD to shoulder but on GloFo (remember GloFo promises the yields and supply now, not AMD) and it would have to be the retail Llano/Trinity chips. If it isn't the retail Llano/Trinity chips then all bets are off as far as fabs go and everyone tosses their name in the hat. Again, even if it were to be an exact Trinity/Llano chip the supply issues would have nothing to do with AMD as MS would be the ones signing the WSA with GloFo.

When it comes to getting blamed, being fabless ain't that bad. People are pointing their fingers at TSMC for 28nm, not Qualcomm/nVidia/AMD

 

[ShintaiDK]

Sure sure.....

 

[grimpr]

How is this any different than IBM? or Intel? or nVidia for that matter? It isn't different for any of them. Why would MS stop Llano production? What the hell does MS have to do with Llano? Trinity? I think you're forgetting AMD is fabless. AMD, if they are to make the chips, will do something like IBM did but without the fab, meaning they'll help design it, charge a small licensing fee and then that's it. Their job is done. The rest is the same as it's ever been: up to the fabs to produce high yields and good volume.

If any supply issues were to occur it wouldn't be weight on AMD to shoulder but on GloFo (remember GloFo promises the yields and supply now, not AMD) and it would have to be the retail Llano/Trinity chips. If it isn't the retail Llano/Trinity chips then all bets are off as far as fabs go and everyone tosses their name in the hat. Again, even if it were to be an exact Trinity/Llano chip the supply issues would have nothing to do with AMD as MS would be the ones signing the WSA with GloFo.

When it comes to getting blamed, being fabless ain't that bad. People are pointing their fingers at TSMC for 28nm, not Qualcomm/nVidia/AMD

Its coming online too.

http://fab2construction.com/

 

[Vesku]

AMD can offer to license the right to have custom modified APUs produced at TSMC or GF. They already entrust their core designs to these foundries so I don't see why they couldn't work out an arrangement where they design an APU to a customers spec and allow the customer to arrange production and wafer purchases with TSMC or GF. IMO, the next generation of APU with x86+GCN would make an excellent basis for a gaming console. MS or Sony can design in their own proprietary additions with AMD's assistance.

I believe Intel and AMD have worked out an arrangement for how to deal with extras being bolted onto their x86 products.

 

[ShintaiDK]

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."

 

[pelov]

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

Technically it's still AMD designing the chips. How is this a licensing issue? First it's fabs now it's licensing? It doesn't sound like either.

MS - "We want this!"

AMD - "Okay"

Some months later...

MS - "Got it yet?"

AMD - "Yes. Now go talk to TSMC about a WSA"

After that their work is done. It would all be up to the fabs to supply