Infernostew
Member
I'm pretty sure they have still not made a profit on the Xbox hardware considering how much the first Xbox put them in the hole, RODD and R&D on consoles. Xbox Live subscriptions have been a huge success for them though.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Rumor: Microsoft is interested in buying AMD
- Thread starter statham
- Start date
I'm pretty sure they have still not made a profit on the Xbox hardware considering how much the first Xbox put them in the hole, RODD and R&D on consoles. Xbox Live subscriptions have been a huge success for them though.
MS also gets money for every xperia sold.
The Abominable Snowman
Member
They have to buy and or build the hardware to run those cloud and service servers. AMD has processors aimed at the server market that's supposed to be an exponential boost in processing power, even moreso when including GPGPU processing and HSA.
AMD is completely uncompetitive with Intel in the mobile and ultramobile segments of the market. I don't think a Microsoft purchase will change that, and it'd be foolish for Microsoft to chase that.
This is then Sonys problem. But next-gen is far off, hardware market can change a lot.
But we also have to keep in mind that both companies are most likely already making concepts for next-gen and if MS buys amd Sony might look for alternatives (arm, nvidia, perhaps a mobile gpu).
thekiddfran
Member
Terrible idea for Microsoft.
AMD are about 10 years behind when it comes to processors.
If Microsoft want to be leaders in the server market, using intel is the only option
AMD are about 10 years behind when it comes to processors.
If Microsoft want to be leaders in the server market, using intel is the only option
Unknown Soldier
Member
I own a Surface Pro 2. My point was that they are huge financial losses for the company, MS has been hiding Xbox losses in various divisions for years now. The Bone is just the latest toilet for money flushing in the history of MS's console ventures. And no, the Xbox and Surface are not huge successes. The Bone is being hammered by the PS4 and the Surface is a very tiny selling niche product.
Good, gamers don't want them anywhere near our consoles. I don't mind their GPU's but stay the hell away from consoles.
For MS and their consoles in general this would mean MS really goes for a PC like road with Xbox. They will keep the architecture, even the CPU and GPU in many parts, just with more power. This means they don't have to completely rewrite their API, developers can adapt the "new" technology easier and the system would be automatically backwards compatible. They could even make "old" Xbone games look or run better (given future APIs have the ability of enabling this and devs also implement it) and the "upgrade path" would be smooth.
Sony could, of course, still use AMD tech but that's not likely to happen. They could, of course, go all Intel with a strong CPU and a GPU with esram.
Sony could, of course, still use AMD tech but that's not likely to happen. They could, of course, go all Intel with a strong CPU and a GPU with esram.
exmachina64
Banned
Hasn't Microsoft said that's not true?
For reference:
http://www.microsoft.com/Investor/E...ancialStatements/FY15/Q3/SegmentRevenues.aspx
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1263463
It seems that they've long since recouped the $1+ billion they spent on the RROD.
If this happens, of course PS5 will be powered by an Nvidia GPU.
Maxwell? No, it'll be ancient by 2020. Pascal? Maybe, but by 2020, Pascal will be becoming outdated.
I welcome a VOLTA powered PlayStation 5.with HBM3 and 2 TB/sec bandwidth (not gonna guess on the actual amount of HBM memory though).
Fun times.
p.s., I think Microsoft is more likely to buy AMD than Samsung.
Btw, Samsung and Microsoft have a history of going after the same graphics tech.
Samsung bought 3DO Systems in 1997 along with their nearly finished MX chipset (the successor to the unreleased M2). Microsoft ended up buying Samsung's newly renamed 3DO division and tech from Samsung. And Nintendo nearly got it for themselves before Microsoft.
Now Microsoft possibly getting AMD? Oh boy. If it happens you can bet they'll have a next-gen Xbox design ready to go in 2018.
Maxwell? No, it'll be ancient by 2020. Pascal? Maybe, but by 2020, Pascal will be becoming outdated.
I welcome a VOLTA powered PlayStation 5.with HBM3 and 2 TB/sec bandwidth (not gonna guess on the actual amount of HBM memory though).
Fun times.
p.s., I think Microsoft is more likely to buy AMD than Samsung.
Btw, Samsung and Microsoft have a history of going after the same graphics tech.
Samsung bought 3DO Systems in 1997 along with their nearly finished MX chipset (the successor to the unreleased M2). Microsoft ended up buying Samsung's newly renamed 3DO division and tech from Samsung. And Nintendo nearly got it for themselves before Microsoft.
Now Microsoft possibly getting AMD? Oh boy. If it happens you can bet they'll have a next-gen Xbox design ready to go in 2018.
I would think existing contracts Sony have with AMD will prevent any underhanded tactics. A buyout of AMD would not void existing contractual obligations AMD have.
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
I wouldn't be so sure. In the grand scheme of things we're probably not many years away from the next generation of consoles. I would suggest that R&D on both is well under way, and if Sony were planning for PS5 to be AMD-based then discussions on architecture with them would already be underway. It would be a huge set back for them to now switch manufacturer, not to mention a sizeable risk.
Besides which, nVidia wouldn't provide an APU, only GPU, which then adds cost when you have to source a CPU on a seperate die. Only really Intel that's in a position to do that, other than AMD, and the the graphics side of their APU is not known for being a market-leader.
Qualcomm or Samsung seem more likely, to be honest, except for the fact they're not known for x86 which is something Sony are likely to want to maintain.
So with AMD having such a low valuation currently, it would almost be worth MS buying it solely for server use. they could probably recoup that investment quickly from the savings made by producing their own server chips at cost.
Depending on profitability they may even dump things like the APU/low end chips for laptops.
Yeah.
I don't think this will happen, and if it happens I don't think it will automatically cause Sony to go Nvidia, but it isn't really true that NV can't provide a SoC. It would just be ARM-based rather than x86.
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
Which, as I said, is unlikely. x86 makes developers very happy, and leads very nicely to the prospect of BC on the next generation.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Intel's Broadwell is now faster than any AMD APU in both CPU and GPU. Intel has come a very long way in integrated graphics and they have all but erased AMD from every market segment from top to bottom. Starting with Skylake, AMD will no longer be competitive anywhere in either CPU or GPU from top to bottom of the x86 product stack. This is the situation right now, today. Broadwell's GPU is scary good. Scary for AMD anyways.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9320/intel-broadwell-review-i7-5775c-i5-5675c/7
If it really came down to that scenario, I'm sure by the time the PS5 is due to debut, Sony could rely on Intel to deliver a console x86 SoC that was competitive in both CPU and GPU with anything AMD could put forward. Remember that Intel is something like 5 years ahead of AMD in process nodes at this point, and they have been tick-tocking along during those 5 years as well. Skylake will mark the 3rd new architecture since Bulldozer debuted on the AMD side, Intel has been busy.
Of course if Sony cared more about GPU power than CPU, there's always Nvidia Tegra or Denver. That seems fairly unlikely though, as you say, Sony is likely keen to stay on x86 and so are MS. Nintendo is likely to move to x86 with Project NX as well, PowerPC is a dead end and I'm just not seeing Nintendo betting on ARM at this point.
Windows RT
Banned
None of big tech blog such as The Verge had this news (rumor). It just doesn't make any sense.
MS has long term partnership with Intel and I don't think they want to break it.
And holy shit about the cash amount MS has on hand.
MS has long term partnership with Intel and I don't think they want to break it.
And holy shit about the cash amount MS has on hand.
geordiemp
Member
Intel's Broadwell is now faster than any AMD APU in both CPU and GPU. Intel has come a very long way in integrated graphics and they have all but erased AMD from every market segment from top to bottom. Starting with Skylake, AMD will no longer be competitive anywhere in either CPU or GPU from top to bottom of the x86 product stack. This is the situation right now, today. Broadwell's GPU is scary good. Scary for AMD anyways.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9320/intel-broadwell-review-i7-5775c-i5-5675c/7
If it really came down to that scenario, I'm sure by the time the PS5 is due to debut, Sony could rely on Intel to deliver a console x86 SoC that was competitive in both CPU and GPU with anything AMD could put forward. Remember that Intel is something like 5 years ahead of AMD in process nodes at this point, and they have been tick-tocking along during those 5 years as well. Skylake will mark the 3rd new architecture since Bulldozer debuted on the AMD side, Intel has been busy.
Of course if Sony cared more about GPU power than CPU, there's always Nvidia Tegra or Denver. That seems fairly unlikely though, as you say, Sony is likely keen to stay on x86 and so are MS. Nintendo is likely to move to x86 with Project NX as well, PowerPC is a dead end and I'm just not seeing Nintendo betting on ARM at this point.
What about Ps4 APU....AMD wins I think, by a long chalk.
Your just listing the low cost APU's that AMD sell.
I don't think it's x86 in particular which makes developers happy. Why would it? Most of them never even see the ISA.
If anything, a mainstream-like overall HW architecture makes developers happy, and it's hard to get more mainstream than an ARM SoC.
A more believable reason for staying on x86 is BC and/or keeping the same toolchain.
lol
Unknown Soldier
Member
But the A10-7870K is the highest end APU that AMD sells. There's nothing higher than that, above those there's only the FX line which have no iGPU.
You're right that the custom APU in PS4/Bone sacrifices CPU die for more GPU, the Jaguar cores in the consoles are incredibly weak but the GPUs are much stronger. My point is that Intel is at a point where they could do the same thing and pile on a lot of GPU cores on a custom console SoC, they are at the 14nm node and have die space to burn for days. AMD has no natural advantage in designing a potent console SoC, Intel could do it with a vastly more powerful Intel CPU core than Jaguar and also put a bunch of GPU cores on it too, but AMD just were willing to license designs to MS and Sony and Intel likely were not. Should MS remove Sony's options by acquiring AMD, Sony could go to Intel or Nvidia with hat in hand if they had to. The real question would be if Intel or Nvidia would care enough to offer Sony something, the amount of money would be really low compared to what Intel and Nvidia are used to right now.
cebri.one
Member
PS4's APU is a custom chip desinged by both AMD and SONY.
Actually he is quite right. MS makes (a lot) money from software licensing (OFFICE and Win). Income coming from Hardware is low in comparison.
Only fanboys get excited with news like this because they thinks MS would block Sony from parts.... Corporations have so many partnerships and longterm contracts with "rivals" (or rather competition) all the time. Did MS block Windows on Sony laptops? Or Minecraft on other platforms?
Does Sony block cam sensors in Iphones or medium format Canon cams? Samsung doesn't block his fast smartphone memory or display from getting used in other phones.
These business decicion are bigger than "letting Xbox *win* over Playstation".
Would still be pretty good for GPU solution for the XB2. Im pretty stoked for the Windows 10 launch. Besides their the Xbox handling and their lackluster Smartphones (OS), i like MS pretty much. Still longing for a Surface Pro 3 *drool*.
Does Sony block cam sensors in Iphones or medium format Canon cams? Samsung doesn't block his fast smartphone memory or display from getting used in other phones.
These business decicion are bigger than "letting Xbox *win* over Playstation".
Would still be pretty good for GPU solution for the XB2. Im pretty stoked for the Windows 10 launch. Besides their the Xbox handling and their lackluster Smartphones (OS), i like MS pretty much. Still longing for a Surface Pro 3 *drool*.
Why wouldn't Sony and Nintendo simply go to Nvidia if MS buys AMD and messes up their relations with the console makers?
Even if MS did buy AMD, I doubt their operations with Sony and Nintendo would change that much. Why would they stop a successful, profitable avenue for the company they spent billions on to purchase?
Even if MS did buy AMD, I doubt their operations with Sony and Nintendo would change that much. Why would they stop a successful, profitable avenue for the company they spent billions on to purchase?
General Lee
Member
You seem to be completely ignoring the cost factor. Intel's ahead of AMD's APU solely because of Crystalwell's massive 128 MB eDRAM. It alone probably costs more than AMD's entire package. They have very little interest in making a competitive offer for console manufacturers, or making custom chips for MS/Sony.
Err, hyperbole? I am sure many would welcome AMD back in the GPU race once they have top quality drivers.
Nvidia's stuff is probably expensive. AMD gave console manufacturers really great terms this generation and Nvidia weren't willing to discount their stuff so much. Also prior generations that used Nvidia resulted in Nvidia getting as much money as they could before it was over.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Yes I'm aware of this, I was just demonstrating what Intel has been up to. But yeah, Intel's keeping their fabs plenty busy, they have no need for zero-margin console IP licensing. I actually wonder if consoles are even worth Nvidia's effort at this point, they're busy making new records in profits year over year.
MidgarBlowedUp
Member
Isn't ZEN coming out next year?
Unknown Soldier
Member
Supposedly. I'll believe it when I see it though, no one knows anything about it right now besides the fact AMD claims it exists.
Anti-competitive in relation to what other product?
exmachina64
Banned
Could slip to 2017 and AMD's financials are a trainwreck.
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
It's less about the actual architecture of x86, and more about commonality. Developers' lives are a lot easier when there's similar metal across Xbox, NX and PlayStation. And since PC is very entrenched in x86, you can sure as shit expect developers to be happy having all the others be x86 as well.
No more so than Microsoft developing its own hardware with its own OS and allowing other manufacturers to create competing products using the same OS.
If MS buy AMD then they would almost certainly drop out of that market.
- it is clearly not profitable.
- it is not in Microsoft's interests to compete against 2 favoured partners (NVIDIA/Intel).
- it's a battle they would probably lose, as AMD are not competitive in CPU/GPU.
- it would re-open a bunch of monopoly issues.
- MS has no interest in desktop hardware, it never has had.
Actually he is quite right. MS makes (a lot) money from software licensing (OFFICE and Win). Income coming from Hardware is low in comparison.
So you think because Xbox consoles and Surfaces are not selling as high as the most popular OS and productivity suite, they are not succesful? Is that relation apt?
In what sense?
It is not profitable because their drivers are terrible. Does Apple not compete with Samsung because it is Apple's favoured supplier? Sony cameras? Third point is baseless speculation if Microsoft takes over. What monopoly issues? Last is baseless again.
BoltonTerrace
Neo Member
If Sony did't want to line MS's pockets in that scenario, there are some pretty powerful ARM-based solutions on the market right now. ARM licensees have been integrating multiple components onto a single chip (SoC) for a while now so they should be considered reliable.
With ARMv8 and 64-bit support already available, they could go for a dual SoC approach depending on the cost. I expect the licensees would be up for it and, when you go for ARM rather than x86 there's a lot more competition and therefore hopefully lower per unit prices.
One thing is clear: nobody's using Intel any time soon
With ARMv8 and 64-bit support already available, they could go for a dual SoC approach depending on the cost. I expect the licensees would be up for it and, when you go for ARM rather than x86 there's a lot more competition and therefore hopefully lower per unit prices.
One thing is clear: nobody's using Intel any time soon
Because Nvidia killed the first Xbox? Like theres destroying relationships then theres destroying relationships. Nintendo also got burned when Nvidia could not produce what Nintendo requested for the 3DS - they made a power hogg and Nintendo had to quickly change.
More likely the console makers would turn to other companies, discuss and work with Nvidia sure but I think their a pretty unreliable company. Personally I don't think MS would kill AMDs relationships with console makers, they'd just pull AMD out of a lot of space and turn their focus to mobile - and consoles are going mobile so it works out quite well.
Certainly for Nintendo I don't see this affecting them greatly especially in the handheld space where MS is not directly competing with them.
dgrdsv
Member
Microsoft killed the first Xbox by going with a badly written contract, not Nvidia. This was settled in court by the way and Nv was proven as being right in this case. So stop posting nonsense.
Lightning Count
Member
Looks like Microsoft are trying to run Nintendo out of the market, put the brakes on their future plans.
Similar threads
- Locked