AMDs exclusivity on choosing which console to manufacture?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for vpacalypse
vpacalypse

589

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 vpacalypse
Member since 2005 • 589 Posts

I wonder why Microsoft or Sony didn't ask AMD to exclusively work & build consoles for them this generation.

It certainly would have made the whole hardware side of things more interesting (because they wouldn't so similar).

And does anything they both knew they were using the same vendor (AMD)?

Avatar image for wis3boi
wis3boi

32507

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#2 wis3boi
Member since 2005 • 32507 Posts

nvidia refused to do them, simple as that

Avatar image for osan0
osan0

17779

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#3 osan0
Member since 2004 • 17779 Posts

no point. no one is going to buy a console simply because the GPU or CPU was designed by a certain company. it would cost a lot of money to get AMD to turn down contracts from the other manufacturers.

generally a console manufacturer will have a set of requirements they want their next console to meet. they then negotiate with different companies like nvidia, intel, AMD and so on to see who can offer them the best deal.

clearly AMD had something to offer that intel and co did not. perhaps it was price. maybe it was previous experience in delivering hardware designs for consoles. maybe the others wouldnt agree to the T&Cs the console manufacturers were looking for. who knows.

but AMD managed to seal the deals.

Avatar image for daious
Daious

2315

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#4  Edited By Daious
Member since 2013 • 2315 Posts

@wis3boi said:

nvidia refused to do them, simple as that

Yeah, the profit margins are really low. NVIDIA didn't want to take it at all. AMD was deep in the red and already designs cpu (unlike nvidia). It made sense for them to pick up the deal as long as some profit was made.

Cheap CPU and a cheap gpu that was already developed. I really enjoy the magic stories about how both contain tech that will be unveiled years from now. It was made from old technology they already had.

Avatar image for edwardecl
edwardecl

2240

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 edwardecl
Member since 2005 • 2240 Posts
@daious said:

@wis3boi said:

nvidia refused to do them, simple as that

Yeah, the profit margins are really low. NVIDIA didn't want to take it at all. AMD was deep in the red and already designs cpu (unlike nvidia). It made sense for them to pick up the deal as long as some profit was made.

Cheap CPU and a cheap gpu that was already developed. I really enjoy the magic stories about how both contain tech that will be unveiled years from now. It was made from old technology they already had.

Dunno, they GDDR5 unified ram thing isn't done much in PC systems yet, kinda makes sense for APU systems. Probably something you will see in APU systems in the future.

Avatar image for naz99
naz99

2941

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 naz99
Member since 2002 • 2941 Posts

@edwardecl said:
@daious said:

@wis3boi said:

nvidia refused to do them, simple as that

Yeah, the profit margins are really low. NVIDIA didn't want to take it at all. AMD was deep in the red and already designs cpu (unlike nvidia). It made sense for them to pick up the deal as long as some profit was made.

Cheap CPU and a cheap gpu that was already developed. I really enjoy the magic stories about how both contain tech that will be unveiled years from now. It was made from old technology they already had.

Dunno, they GDDR5 unified ram thing isn't done much in PC systems yet, kinda makes sense for APU systems. Probably something you will see in APU systems in the future.

Future APU's will be using DDR4 so that problem is already sorted

Avatar image for ShadowDeathX
ShadowDeathX

11698

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By ShadowDeathX
Member since 2006 • 11698 Posts

Because it's much easier to work out a deal with one company and much easier to manage the logistics from one company. AMD are the only ones capable of providing a unified CPU and GPU for one contracted price.

  1. Intel? They can make CPUs, but lag way behind on GPUs.
  2. Nvidia? They can make GPUs, but only make ARM based CPUs. Those aren't developed enough to power a console.
  3. IBM? They can make CPUs, but don't make GPUs.
  4. Samsung and the other ARM-based companies? Their chips aren't powerful enough currently to power a console.

They could have done what Microsoft did last generation and what Nintendo did and is currently doing; negotiate with IBM for the CPU part, AMD for the GPU part, and make a unified chip themselves. But again, that is too expensive.

AMD was the only logical choice.

Avatar image for vpacalypse
vpacalypse

589

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 vpacalypse
Member since 2005 • 589 Posts

Look I get why both companies chose to partner with AMD for their consoles.

What I'm actually asking is:

Say if (for example) Sony went to AMD first, worked out some sort of deal... then said "but we want you to exclusively work with our console only. No other console this gen". Meaning Microsoft (or vice versa) would have had to look elsewhere.

Could this have been possible to try, why didn't we anything of the sort because it seems like a big competitive advantage to me.

Avatar image for clyde46
clyde46

49061

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#9 clyde46
Member since 2005 • 49061 Posts

@ShadowDeathX said:

Because it's much easier to work out a deal with one company and much easier to manage the logistics from one company. AMD are the only ones capable of providing a unified CPU and GPU for one contracted price.

  1. Intel? They can make CPUs, but lag way behind on GPUs.
  2. Nvidia? They can make GPUs, but only make ARM based CPUs. Those aren't developed enough to power a console.
  3. IBM? They can make CPUs, but don't make GPUs.
  4. Samsung and the other ARM-based companies? Their chips aren't powerful enough currently to power a console.

They could have done what Microsoft did last generation and what Nintendo did and is currently doing; negotiate with IBM for the CPU part, AMD for the GPU part, and make a unified chip themselves. But again, that is too expensive.

AMD was the only logical choice.

This. AMD is a one stop shop for APU's.

Avatar image for wolverine4262
wolverine4262

20832

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 wolverine4262
Member since 2004 • 20832 Posts

Microsoft wont work with nvidia again after they were screwed on the OG Xbox.

Avatar image for GarGx1
GarGx1

10934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#11 GarGx1
Member since 2011 • 10934 Posts

@wis3boi said:

nvidia refused to do them, simple as that

this, nothing else that Sony or MS could do about it

Avatar image for deactivated-5ac102a4472fe
deactivated-5ac102a4472fe

7431

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#12 deactivated-5ac102a4472fe
Member since 2007 • 7431 Posts

@vpacalypse:

Likely because I doubt Sony would have the Money for such a deal? Sony is not some huge behemoth with unending Cash reserves, and Xbox don't either since they are not exactly grenlit to spend all the Money of MS on something so halfpointless as a sonsole (in the grand scheme of Things).

No one with a sane mind would limit themselves like that so even if they could, I doubt AMD would accept.

Avatar image for Bishop1310
Bishop1310

1274

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 Bishop1310
Member since 2007 • 1274 Posts

@daious said:

@wis3boi said:

nvidia refused to do them, simple as that

Yeah, the profit margins are really low. NVIDIA didn't want to take it at all. AMD was deep in the red and already designs cpu (unlike nvidia). It made sense for them to pick up the deal as long as some profit was made.

Cheap CPU and a cheap gpu that was already developed. I really enjoy the magic stories about how both contain tech that will be unveiled years from now. It was made from old technology they already had.

simple explanation - amd's over head < nvidias.. allowing them to take on consoles..

Avatar image for vpacalypse
vpacalypse

589

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 vpacalypse
Member since 2005 • 589 Posts

@Maddie_Larkin said:

@vpacalypse:

Likely because I doubt Sony would have the Money for such a deal? Sony is not some huge behemoth with unending Cash reserves, and Xbox don't either since they are not exactly grenlit to spend all the Money of MS on something so halfpointless as a sonsole (in the grand scheme of Things).

No one with a sane mind would limit themselves like that so even if they could, I doubt AMD would accept.

Makes sense, Thanks