Why do Google, Xbox, and Playstation use AMD graphics?

  • 72 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for ronvalencia
#51 Edited by ronvalencia (28082 posts) -

@tormentos said:

@ronvalencia:

Ryzen now is kicking Intel CPU and for a cheaper price zen 1 was an evolution in that direction,stop making stupid ass comments and stop fu**ing arguing shit that no one is arguing,either take classes so you can fallow better or stop posting.

Nope. https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-and-ryzen-7-3700x-cpu-review-leak-gaming-benchmarks/

  • Zen 2's latancy behavior rivals Skylake S.
  • Ryzen 3700X and 3900X has DDR4-3200 benefits while Intel CoffeeLake was gimped with DDR4-2667. My Core i9-9900K has out-of-the-box DDR4-3600 XMP as defined by Intel.

Zen 2 is better than Zen 1. Zen 2 is some where like Skylake S and 1st gen CoffeeLake 8000 series.

Note that Zen 3 arrives next year with TSMC's second gen 7nm+

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#52 Edited by PC_Rocks (2502 posts) -

@tormentos said:

@pc_rocks:

Yeah I am sure that is what they claimed after losing sony,fact is their consoles GPU were over priced for the kind of performance they had,Sony played for the RSX almost the same MS did for the xenos yet the Xenos was not only more powerful it was also more advance.

Fact is I am sure Sony would had ended with AMD anyway because they can get an apu,which would not be the case with nvidia at least not at the performance level Sony has hoping to get.

You sound like bitter because you're getting low performance, sh*t tier hardware. Fact is they weren't desperate for money like AMD was and could charge a premium. Nothing in AMD's arsenal of GPUs comes close to Nvidia's performance. They didn't lose, the just choose not to bid as low as AMD. They weren't dying to get console's contract and the history proved it as well. Nvidia was worth multiple times more than AMD all during this console gen.

Avatar image for tormentos
#53 Posted by tormentos (29198 posts) -

@ronvalencia said:

Nope. https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-and-ryzen-7-3700x-cpu-review-leak-gaming-benchmarks/

  • Zen 2's latancy behavior rivals Skylake S.
  • Ryzen 3700X and 3900X has DDR4-3200 benefits while Intel CoffeeLake was gimped with DDR4-2667. My Core i9-9900K has out-of-the-box DDR4-3600 XMP as defined by Intel.

Zen 2 is better than Zen 1. Zen 2 is some where like Skylake S and 1st gen CoffeeLake 8000 series.

Note that Zen 3 arrives next year with TSMC's second gen 7nm+

All this bulllshit you post is irrelevant Ryzen is doiung great which is the point,the evolution of it has now Intel admitting AMD is a threat to their business.

Reported Intel leak admits AMD is a competitive threat

It is no secret that the launch of the Zen architecture has brought plenty of competition back to the CPU market. AMD is about to make another leap with Zen 2, which will also introduce the first 7nm desktop CPUs to the market and put them in the hands of gamers. Now, it looks like Intel might be starting to feel the heat.

Rumours of incoming price cuts aside, there is more news coming out of Intel this week ahead of AMD’s Ryzen 3000 launch. Over on Reddit, one person leaked a document claiming to be from an employee-only publication called ‘Intel Circuit News’, which is supposedly a private news portal. The post was titled “AMD Competitive profile: Where we go toe-to-toe, why they are resurgent, which chips of ours beats theirs”. The original leak has unfortunately been deleted but reports about its contents have been doing the rounds, so the cat is already out of the bag.

https://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/matthew-wilson/reported-intel-leak-admits-amd-is-a-competitive-threat/

This is all that matter chaper AMD CPU beating more expensive Intel ones.

@pc_rocks said:

You sound like bitter because you're getting low performance, sh*t tier hardware. Fact is they weren't desperate for money like AMD was and could charge a premium. Nothing in AMD's arsenal of GPUs comes close to Nvidia's performance. They didn't lose, the just choose not to bid as low as AMD. They weren't dying to get console's contract and the history proved it as well. Nvidia was worth multiple times more than AMD all during this console gen.

NO actually you sound bitter trying to imply any reason other than AMD beating Nvidia in price vs performance on this market.

No one is arguing Nvidia doesn't have the strongest GPU,but certainly their shit is to expensive for what you will get.

Yeah just because Nvidia sell more than AMD doesn't mean they are begging for money on streets corners,that is such a blind shitty crap to imply is not even funny,it sound like a bitter loser.

Fact is Nvidia wasn't getting sony money period,unless they have something great for a good price which they did not have,their GPU have always been to expensive ask MS and sony about it.

That is not how busines work you either make a good deal or you lose,they simply could not deliver,oh and considering that Nvidia doesn't do CPU like AMD and that Nvidia APU are WAYYYYY behind AMD is was impossible for Nvidia to compete period.

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#54 Posted by PC_Rocks (2502 posts) -

@tormentos said:

@pc_rocks said:

You sound like bitter because you're getting low performance, sh*t tier hardware. Fact is they weren't desperate for money like AMD was and could charge a premium. Nothing in AMD's arsenal of GPUs comes close to Nvidia's performance. They didn't lose, the just choose not to bid as low as AMD. They weren't dying to get console's contract and the history proved it as well. Nvidia was worth multiple times more than AMD all during this console gen.

NO actually you sound bitter trying to imply any reason other than AMD beating Nvidia in price vs performance on this market.

No one is arguing Nvidia doesn't have the strongest GPU,but certainly their shit is to expensive for what you will get.

Yeah just because Nvidia sell more than AMD doesn't mean they are begging for money on streets corners,that is such a blind shitty crap to imply is not even funny,it sound like a bitter loser.

Fact is Nvidia wasn't getting sony money period,unless they have something great for a good price which they did not have,their GPU have always been to expensive ask MS and sony about it.

That is not how busines work you either make a good deal or you lose,they simply could not deliver,oh and considering that Nvidia doesn't do CPU like AMD and that Nvidia APU are WAYYYYY behind AMD is was impossible for Nvidia to compete period.

Yup definitely butthurt because you don't get the quality hardware. It's always about money, quality comes with a premium price. Nvidia will continue to charge a premium as long as they don't have competition which AMD haven't been able to provide for years. You want a Ferrari, better pay for it. It's always about cost and profit, that's how all businesses work. Sony/MS couldn't afford Nvidia + Intel for consoles. Deal with it.

Avatar image for tormentos
#55 Edited by tormentos (29198 posts) -

@pc_rocks said:

Yup definitely butthurt because you don't get the quality hardware. It's always about money, quality comes with a premium price. Nvidia will continue to charge a premium as long as they don't have competition which AMD haven't been able to provide for years. You want a Ferrari, better pay for it. It's always about cost and profit, that's how all businesses work. Sony/MS couldn't afford Nvidia + Intel for consoles. Deal with it.

Na you are bitter.

Nvidia APU are way behind AMD ones is not a secret is a FACT.

Nvidia is ahead in the GPU race,but on the CPU one they are not even close,so it was simply impossible for them to compete with AMD,what CPU would have they use a ARM?

Even less so this time considering Ryzen will be inside the PS5 and next xbox,they simply could not deliver the performance for a price or the complete package AMD would deliver.

Fact is Nvidia isn't competitive,the RX580 basically outperformed the 1060 in most games,and was cheaper hell even the 8GB version was cheaper than the 6GB version on Nvidia side.

There is a difference between not having competition and simply delivering worse performance for more money,keep been stupid if you are not on the very best Nvidia GPU chances are over paying for worse performance.

Yeah MS of all companies could not affort it what a moronic thing to say..lol

They loss 4 billion by using Nvidia an Intel back in 2001,it wasn't a question of affording it was a question of getting something better cheaper,its a fool games what you want to argue.

So according to your shitty argument Sony and MS should go with Nvidia even if the get a worse performing GPU, for more money than will cost them on AMD side,just because Nvidia has the best porforming GPU,but completely ignoring that the GPU that would be inside those consoles will not be the top Nvidia one or even close.

Man some of you fake hermits are simply lol worthy,is like you get a big fat bath every morning on pure stupidity.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
#56 Edited by ronvalencia (28082 posts) -

@tormentos: That's a red herring argument which doesn't show in actual gaming results.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/22.html

Intel i9-9900K still has PC gaming leadership, but AMD found a hole between Intel's i9900K PC gaming vs X299 Skylake X workstation segments.

Avatar image for tormentos
#57 Posted by tormentos (29198 posts) -

@ronvalencia said:

@tormentos: That's a red herring argument which doesn't show in actual gaming results.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/22.html

Intel i9-9900K still has PC gaming leadership, but AMD found a hole between Intel's i9900K PC gaming vs X299 Skylake X workstation segments.

Red hearring is what you do here every time some one is talking a bout something and you bring something completely irrelevant.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1869-amd-ryzen-3900x-ryzen-3700x/

The gap is very small and considering it is on 1080p which CPU get hit harder i say,they should be about even in 4k,hell in 1440p they were even in some and close to in others,considering you are paying less is great.

Who pays for a CPU of those to pair it with a GPU that work at 1080p?

Most people who have a CPU like that would probably have a 1080ti or 2080 or better GPU and probably aim for 4k where CPU bound scenarios are even smaller.

Not to mention that from those benchmarks Ryzen now simply beat Intel CPU in productivity for less money.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
#58 Edited by ronvalencia (28082 posts) -

@tormentos said:
@ronvalencia said:

@tormentos: That's a red herring argument which doesn't show in actual gaming results.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/22.html

Intel i9-9900K still has PC gaming leadership, but AMD found a hole between Intel's i9900K PC gaming vs X299 Skylake X workstation segments.

Red hearring is what you do here every time some one is talking a bout something and you bring something completely irrelevant.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1869-amd-ryzen-3900x-ryzen-3700x/

The gap is very small and considering it is on 1080p which CPU get hit harder i say,they should be about even in 4k,hell in 1440p they were even in some and close to in others,considering you are paying less is great.

Who pays for a CPU of those to pair it with a GPU that work at 1080p?

Most people who have a CPU like that would probably have a 1080ti or 2080 or better GPU and probably aim for 4k where CPU bound scenarios are even smaller.

Not to mention that from those benchmarks Ryzen now simply beat Intel CPU in productivity for less money.

Competive multi-player needs very high refresh rates.

Strange result.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/18.html

AMD's TDP PR is a load of BS.

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_3700x_ryzen_9_3900x_review,24.html

PS; RTX 2080 Ti FE (guru3d) is faster than reference RTX 2080 Ti (techspot)

Techpowerup used EVGA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti FTW3 Ultra (1755 Mhz) which is overclock varaint.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-ti-founders-edition/

RTX 2080 Ti FE (1635 MHz) vs reference RTX 2080 Ti (1545 MHz) difference.

My MSI GeForce RTX-2080 Ti GAMING X TRIO has 1755 Mhz like EVGA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti FTW3 Ultra. Mhz quoted before NVIDIA's stealth/opportunistic overclock mode e.g. my RTX 2080 Ti GX Trio ussually lands around 1900 Mhz for most of my games "out of the box" without manual overclock e.g. 2 Ghz.

Using one of the highest RTX 2080 Ti factory OC reduces GPU bottleneck influences and exposes CPU's power.

Avatar image for tormentos
#59 Posted by tormentos (29198 posts) -

@ronvalencia said:

Competive multi-player needs very high refresh rates.

People who go for those CPU are not running GPU in 1080p they run them in 4k with expensive GPU,4k has less impact on CPU than 1080p has,so yeah they are neck and neck basically but intel is more expensive.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
#60 Edited by ronvalencia (28082 posts) -

@tormentos said:
@ronvalencia said:

Competive multi-player needs very high refresh rates.

People who go for those CPU are not running GPU in 1080p they run them in 4k with expensive GPU,4k has less impact on CPU than 1080p has,so yeah they are neck and neck basically but intel is more expensive.

It depends on the usuage. On single player games, I run at 4K, but with multi-player I may reduce resolution to max out re-fresh rates, it depends on if I'm criusing/relaxing multi-player or compititive multi-player mindset. Using lower resolution may show CPU headroom for future GPUs like RTX 3080 Ti.

Techspot didn't use higher RTX 2080 TI factory OC like Techpowerup's setup.

I'm not the only PC gamer in this forum with 144 hz PC gaming and I'm only a part-time 144 hz PC gaming .

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#61 Edited by PC_Rocks (2502 posts) -

@tormentos said:
@pc_rocks said:

Yup definitely butthurt because you don't get the quality hardware. It's always about money, quality comes with a premium price. Nvidia will continue to charge a premium as long as they don't have competition which AMD haven't been able to provide for years. You want a Ferrari, better pay for it. It's always about cost and profit, that's how all businesses work. Sony/MS couldn't afford Nvidia + Intel for consoles. Deal with it.

Na you are bitter.

Nvidia APU are way behind AMD ones is not a secret is a FACT.

Nvidia is ahead in the GPU race,but on the CPU one they are not even close,so it was simply impossible for them to compete with AMD,what CPU would have they use a ARM?

Even less so this time considering Ryzen will be inside the PS5 and next xbox,they simply could not deliver the performance for a price or the complete package AMD would deliver.

Fact is Nvidia isn't competitive,the RX580 basically outperformed the 1060 in most games,and was cheaper hell even the 8GB version was cheaper than the 6GB version on Nvidia side.

There is a difference between not having competition and simply delivering worse performance for more money,keep been stupid if you are not on the very best Nvidia GPU chances are over paying for worse performance.

Yeah MS of all companies could not affort it what a moronic thing to say..lol

They loss 4 billion by using Nvidia an Intel back in 2001,it wasn't a question of affording it was a question of getting something better cheaper,its a fool games what you want to argue.

So according to your shitty argument Sony and MS should go with Nvidia even if the get a worse performing GPU, for more money than will cost them on AMD side,just because Nvidia has the best porforming GPU,but completely ignoring that the GPU that would be inside those consoles will not be the top Nvidia one or even close.

Man some of you fake hermits are simply lol worthy,is like you get a big fat bath every morning on pure stupidity.

Nvidia doesn't have x86 license nor do they make desktop CPUs. That's like saying MS is crap because they don't make airplanes. Come back with a better excuse. Nvidia make APUs or more like SoCs for IoT, self driving cars etc. and again a market leader in that. Did AMD even made any ARM CPU after acquiring its license for more than 5 years?

The rest of the post isn't worth reading because that sounds like DC and butthurt. I'll go with what Nvidia publicly stated, they decided to focus their investment and time on other ventures and knowing their balance sheet, they were right.

AMD, don't have better GPUs aginst Nvidia nor better CPUs against Intel. Premium products cope with a premium price, deal with it.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
#62 Edited by ronvalencia (28082 posts) -

@pc_rocks said:
@tormentos said:
@pc_rocks said:

Yup definitely butthurt because you don't get the quality hardware. It's always about money, quality comes with a premium price. Nvidia will continue to charge a premium as long as they don't have competition which AMD haven't been able to provide for years. You want a Ferrari, better pay for it. It's always about cost and profit, that's how all businesses work. Sony/MS couldn't afford Nvidia + Intel for consoles. Deal with it.

Na you are bitter.

Nvidia APU are way behind AMD ones is not a secret is a FACT.

Nvidia is ahead in the GPU race,but on the CPU one they are not even close,so it was simply impossible for them to compete with AMD,what CPU would have they use a ARM?

Even less so this time considering Ryzen will be inside the PS5 and next xbox,they simply could not deliver the performance for a price or the complete package AMD would deliver.

Fact is Nvidia isn't competitive,the RX580 basically outperformed the 1060 in most games,and was cheaper hell even the 8GB version was cheaper than the 6GB version on Nvidia side.

There is a difference between not having competition and simply delivering worse performance for more money,keep been stupid if you are not on the very best Nvidia GPU chances are over paying for worse performance.

Yeah MS of all companies could not affort it what a moronic thing to say..lol

They loss 4 billion by using Nvidia an Intel back in 2001,it wasn't a question of affording it was a question of getting something better cheaper,its a fool games what you want to argue.

So according to your shitty argument Sony and MS should go with Nvidia even if the get a worse performing GPU, for more money than will cost them on AMD side,just because Nvidia has the best porforming GPU,but completely ignoring that the GPU that would be inside those consoles will not be the top Nvidia one or even close.

Man some of you fake hermits are simply lol worthy,is like you get a big fat bath every morning on pure stupidity.

Nvidia doesn't have x86 license nor do they make desktop CPUs. That's like saying MS is crapp because they don't make cars. Come back with a better excuse.

The rest of the post isn't worth reading because that sounds like DC and butthurt. I'll go with what Nvidia publicly stated, they decided to focus their investment and time on other ventures and knowing their balance sheet, they were right.

AMD, don't have better GPUs aginst Nvidia nor better CPUs against Intel. Premium products cope with a premium price, deal with it.

Nvidia has x86 license via ALi buyout and most of 586 patents are in public domain. AMD controls X86-64 patents. AMD has licensed AMD64 ISA to VIA, Transmeta and Intel.

https://www.nvidia.com/page/uli_m6117c.html Nvidia's 386SX CPU via ALi buyout.

Nvidia has it's inhouse CPU design via Project Denver which is VLIW based CPU which is similar to Transmeta's VLIW CPU design. Denver is currently translating ARMv8 64bit ISA.

NVIDIA doesn't have AMD64 license.

AMD has ARMv8 64bit CPU via K12 project which is an offshoot from Ryzen R&D. There's Ryzen v1 like CPU with ARMv8 64bit from AMD.

AMD covers both ARMv8 and X86-64 CPU semi-custom potential.

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#63 Posted by PC_Rocks (2502 posts) -

@ronvalencia said:
@pc_rocks said:

Nvidia doesn't have x86 license nor do they make desktop CPUs. That's like saying MS is crapp because they don't make cars. Come back with a better excuse.

The rest of the post isn't worth reading because that sounds like DC and butthurt. I'll go with what Nvidia publicly stated, they decided to focus their investment and time on other ventures and knowing their balance sheet, they were right.

AMD, don't have better GPUs aginst Nvidia nor better CPUs against Intel. Premium products cope with a premium price, deal with it.

Nvidia has x86 license via ALi buyout and most of 586 patents are in public domain. AMD controls X86-64 patents. AMD has licensed AMD64 ISA to VIA, Transmeta and Intel.

https://www.nvidia.com/page/uli_m6117c.html Nvidia's 386SX CPU via ALi buyout.

Nvidia has it's inhouse CPU design via Project Denver which is VLIW based CPU which is similar to Transmeta's VLIW CPU design. Denver is currently translating ARMv8 64bit ISA.

NVIDIA doesn't have AMD64 license.

Nvidia is prohibited from making/emulating x86 as part of their settlement with Intel. Hence the reason they stopped Project Denver from emulating x86 and just made it ARM based.

NVIDIA also does not get an x86 license. x86 is among an umbrella group of what’s being called “Intel proprietary products” which NVIDIA is not getting access to. Intel’s flash memory holdings and other chipset holdings are also a part of this. Interestingly the agreement also classifies an “Intel Architecture Emulator” as being a proprietary product. At first glance this would seem to disallow NVIDIA from making an x86 emulator for any of their products, be it their GPU holdings or the newly announced Project Denver ARM CPU. Being officially prohibited from emulating x86 could be a huge deal for Denver down the road depending on where NVIDIA goes with it.

Source

Avatar image for tormentos
#64 Edited by tormentos (29198 posts) -

@pc_rocks said:

Nvidia doesn't have x86 license nor do they make desktop CPUs. That's like saying MS is crap because they don't make airplanes. Come back with a better excuse. Nvidia make APUs or more like SoCs for IoT, self driving cars etc. and again a market leader in that. Did AMD even made any ARM CPU after acquiring its license for more than 5 years?

The rest of the post isn't worth reading because that sounds like DC and butthurt. I'll go with what Nvidia publicly stated, they decided to focus their investment and time on other ventures and knowing their balance sheet, they were right.

AMD, don't have better GPUs aginst Nvidia nor better CPUs against Intel. Premium products cope with a premium price, deal with it.

Which is why i claim it would be ARM based.

Fact is they can't compete with AMD for consoles APU because they lack the hardware to do so period,the SOC on switch is patheticly weak compare to what AMD has for some time now,they have lower power SOC which can't compete in this market with AMD ones.

There is no excuse Nvidia simply can't deliver period.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-ti-founders-edition/

Thats funny i see Ryzen kicking the crap out of intel on those test,even with CPU that are considerably cheaper.

But that is the beauty of it there is 1 part were AMD is kicking both intel and Nvidia.

SOC.

GPU wise they destroy intel best offerings and CPU wise they destroy Nvidias best offerings as well ARM just doesn't cut it.

Now what are consoles using since the 360 changed its dedicated GPU and CPU to an APU latter on and since the PS3 came with Cell again which was an early day APU.

Oh yeah SOC,the APU's on AMD side are ahead performance wise to those intel and Nvidia has,so much is that truth that even Intel bundle AMD GPU with their CPU..lol

Intel Launches AMD Radeon-Powered CPUs

Intel took the wraps off its 8th Generation CPU core with AMD Radeon integrated graphics today. It’s a historical event for more than one reason. First, the new CPUs are likely to set a new high water mark for integrated graphics performance. Second, the new chips represent the first time AMD and Intel have ever collaborated in this type initiative. It’s a testament to how much the market has changed that this happened in the first place — even 10 years ago, the idea of an AMD-Intel alliance would’ve been unthinkable.

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/261646-intel-launches-radeon-powered-cpus-hp-dell-announce-upcoming-systems

But one thing AMD have is better APU than both,so save your tears and bitterness fact is neither does intel or Nvidia can beat AMD on the APU market so yeah they are not an option,and like i already told you unless you are using Nvidia's very best GPU which a super ultra mega tiny portion of the market use chances are you are paying more for less performance on Nvidia side.

What do i care if Nvidia has a 2080ti if the GPU i want on my PC is a RX580 and for the performance it offer Nvidia doesn't have anything cheaper.

Unless sony or MS are interested in packing a $1,200 RTX 2080TI performance like GPU i don't see any reason why sony or MS should look at them,hell Nintendo went Nvidia i am sure because of the low watt consumption and how it was vital for their portable other wise they would have been better off with AMD as well.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
#65 Edited by ronvalencia (28082 posts) -

@pc_rocks said:
@ronvalencia said:
@pc_rocks said:

Nvidia doesn't have x86 license nor do they make desktop CPUs. That's like saying MS is crapp because they don't make cars. Come back with a better excuse.

The rest of the post isn't worth reading because that sounds like DC and butthurt. I'll go with what Nvidia publicly stated, they decided to focus their investment and time on other ventures and knowing their balance sheet, they were right.

AMD, don't have better GPUs aginst Nvidia nor better CPUs against Intel. Premium products cope with a premium price, deal with it.

Nvidia has x86 license via ALi buyout and most of 586 patents are in public domain. AMD controls X86-64 patents. AMD has licensed AMD64 ISA to VIA, Transmeta and Intel.

https://www.nvidia.com/page/uli_m6117c.html Nvidia's 386SX CPU via ALi buyout.

Nvidia has it's inhouse CPU design via Project Denver which is VLIW based CPU which is similar to Transmeta's VLIW CPU design. Denver is currently translating ARMv8 64bit ISA.

NVIDIA doesn't have AMD64 license.

Nvidia is prohibited from making/emulating x86 as part of their settlement with Intel. Hence the reason they stopped Project Denver from emulating x86 and just made it ARM based.

NVIDIA also does not get an x86 license. x86 is among an umbrella group of what’s being called “Intel proprietary products” which NVIDIA is not getting access to. Intel’s flash memory holdings and other chipset holdings are also a part of this. Interestingly the agreement also classifies an “Intel Architecture Emulator” as being a proprietary product. At first glance this would seem to disallow NVIDIA from making an x86 emulator for any of their products, be it their GPU holdings or the newly announced Project Denver ARM CPU. Being officially prohibited from emulating x86 could be a huge deal for Denver down the road depending on where NVIDIA goes with it.

Source

https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/with-onboard-cpu-ali-m6117c.html

M6117 386SX embeded micro-controllers are still being sold. LOL

https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/industrial-AAEONSBC-357-4M-SBC-357_1570874452.html?spm=a2700.7724857.normalList.7.73392ea1F3hVId

These are industrtial x86 based PCs which drives industrial robots and other industrial automation.

M6117 chipset was updated to drive LCD.

NVIDIA doesn't get a modern X86 licence from Intel, but NVIDIA's ALI subsidiary already has existing 80386SX CPU license.

-------

For some advanced features, x86 may require license from Intel; x86-64 may require an additional license from AMD. The 80486 processor has been on the market for more than 20 years[1] and so cannot be subject to patent claims. The pre-586 subset of the x86 architecture is therefore fully open.

Extensions (read licenseS) x87, IA-32, x86-64, MMX, 3DNow!, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4, SSE4.2, SSE5, AES-NI, CLMUL, RdRand, SHA, MPX, SGX, XOP, F16C, ADX, BMI, FMA, AVX, AVX2, AVX512, VT-x, AMD-V, TSX, ASF

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86

Sony and MS wanted a 64bit CPU for thier game consoles.

486 CPU wouldn't run Windows XP (NT 5.1) OS due to Pentium instruction set requirements

Windows 2000 (NT 5.0) can run on 486 CPU.

Loading Video...

IBM POWER has supplanted Denver as NVIDIA’s server CPU of choice.

NVIDIA Denver has ARM ISA hardware decoder i.e. NVIDIA wasn't stuipd like Transmeta.

ARM HW decoder acclerates the instruction translation between ARMv8 to native VLIW CPU

Avatar image for ronvalencia
#66 Edited by ronvalencia (28082 posts) -

@tormentos said:
@pc_rocks said:

Nvidia doesn't have x86 license nor do they make desktop CPUs. That's like saying MS is crap because they don't make airplanes. Come back with a better excuse. Nvidia make APUs or more like SoCs for IoT, self driving cars etc. and again a market leader in that. Did AMD even made any ARM CPU after acquiring its license for more than 5 years?

The rest of the post isn't worth reading because that sounds like DC and butthurt. I'll go with what Nvidia publicly stated, they decided to focus their investment and time on other ventures and knowing their balance sheet, they were right.

AMD, don't have better GPUs aginst Nvidia nor better CPUs against Intel. Premium products cope with a premium price, deal with it.

Which is why i claim it would be ARM based.

Fact is they can't compete with AMD for consoles APU because they lack the hardware to do so period,the SOC on switch is patheticly weak compare to what AMD has for some time now,they have lower power SOC which can't compete in this market with AMD ones.

There is no excuse Nvidia simply can't deliver period.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-ti-founders-edition/

Thats funny i see Ryzen kicking the crap out of intel on those test,even with CPU that are considerably cheaper.

But that is the beauty of it there is 1 part were AMD is kicking both intel and Nvidia.

SOC.

GPU wise they destroy intel best offerings and CPU wise they destroy Nvidias best offerings as well ARM just doesn't cut it.

Now what are consoles using since the 360 changed its dedicated GPU and CPU to an APU latter on and since the PS3 came with Cell again which was an early day APU.

Oh yeah SOC,the APU's on AMD side are ahead performance wise to those intel and Nvidia has,so much is that truth that even Intel bundle AMD GPU with their CPU..lol

Intel Launches AMD Radeon-Powered CPUs

Intel took the wraps off its 8th Generation CPU core with AMD Radeon integrated graphics today. It’s a historical event for more than one reason. First, the new CPUs are likely to set a new high water mark for integrated graphics performance. Second, the new chips represent the first time AMD and Intel have ever collaborated in this type initiative. It’s a testament to how much the market has changed that this happened in the first place — even 10 years ago, the idea of an AMD-Intel alliance would’ve been unthinkable.

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/261646-intel-launches-radeon-powered-cpus-hp-dell-announce-upcoming-systems

But one thing AMD have is better APU than both,so save your tears and bitterness fact is neither does intel or Nvidia can beat AMD on the APU market so yeah they are not an option,and like i already told you unless you are using Nvidia's very best GPU which a super ultra mega tiny portion of the market use chances are you are paying more for less performance on Nvidia side.

What do i care if Nvidia has a 2080ti if the GPU i want on my PC is a RX580 and for the performance it offer Nvidia doesn't have anything cheaper.

Unless sony or MS are interested in packing a $1,200 RTX 2080TI performance like GPU i don't see any reason why sony or MS should look at them,hell Nintendo went Nvidia i am sure because of the low watt consumption and how it was vital for their portable other wise they would have been better off with AMD as well.

Btw, Microsoft sells Intel/NVIDIA based systems along with AMD based Xboxes. With AMD, MS obtains IP licence and production risk is on MS.

https://www.techspot.com/news/80686-microsoft-playing-amd-silicon-upcoming-surface-devices.html

Microsoft is working on semi-custom Zen 2 based APUs for Surface mobile devices not just Xbox Scarlet.

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#67 Posted by PC_Rocks (2502 posts) -

@tormentos said:
@pc_rocks said:

Nvidia doesn't have x86 license nor do they make desktop CPUs. That's like saying MS is crap because they don't make airplanes. Come back with a better excuse. Nvidia make APUs or more like SoCs for IoT, self driving cars etc. and again a market leader in that. Did AMD even made any ARM CPU after acquiring its license for more than 5 years?

The rest of the post isn't worth reading because that sounds like DC and butthurt. I'll go with what Nvidia publicly stated, they decided to focus their investment and time on other ventures and knowing their balance sheet, they were right.

AMD, don't have better GPUs aginst Nvidia nor better CPUs against Intel. Premium products cope with a premium price, deal with it.

Which is why i claim it would be ARM based.

Fact is they can't compete with AMD for consoles APU because they lack the hardware to do so period,the SOC on switch is patheticly weak compare to what AMD has for some time now,they have lower power SOC which can't compete in this market with AMD ones.

There is no excuse Nvidia simply can't deliver period.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-ti-founders-edition/

Thats funny i see Ryzen kicking the crap out of intel on those test,even with CPU that are considerably cheaper.

But that is the beauty of it there is 1 part were AMD is kicking both intel and Nvidia.

SOC.

GPU wise they destroy intel best offerings and CPU wise they destroy Nvidias best offerings as well ARM just doesn't cut it.

Now what are consoles using since the 360 changed its dedicated GPU and CPU to an APU latter on and since the PS3 came with Cell again which was an early day APU.

Oh yeah SOC,the APU's on AMD side are ahead performance wise to those intel and Nvidia has,so much is that truth that even Intel bundle AMD GPU with their CPU..lol

Intel Launches AMD Radeon-Powered CPUs

Intel took the wraps off its 8th Generation CPU core with AMD Radeon integrated graphics today. It’s a historical event for more than one reason. First, the new CPUs are likely to set a new high water mark for integrated graphics performance. Second, the new chips represent the first time AMD and Intel have ever collaborated in this type initiative. It’s a testament to how much the market has changed that this happened in the first place — even 10 years ago, the idea of an AMD-Intel alliance would’ve been unthinkable.

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/261646-intel-launches-radeon-powered-cpus-hp-dell-announce-upcoming-systems

But one thing AMD have is better APU than both,so save your tears and bitterness fact is neither does intel or Nvidia can beat AMD on the APU market so yeah they are not an option,and like i already told you unless you are using Nvidia's very best GPU which a super ultra mega tiny portion of the market use chances are you are paying more for less performance on Nvidia side.

What do i care if Nvidia has a 2080ti if the GPU i want on my PC is a RX580 and for the performance it offer Nvidia doesn't have anything cheaper.

Unless sony or MS are interested in packing a $1,200 RTX 2080TI performance like GPU i don't see any reason why sony or MS should look at them,hell Nintendo went Nvidia i am sure because of the low watt consumption and how it was vital for their portable other wise they would have been better off with AMD as well.

All the random garbage that you posted to DC has nothing to do with my point. Yup, definitely butthurt and trying to sidestep the issue. Wouldn't even waste my time with it. You gotta pay premium price for premium products. Deal with it.

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#68 Posted by PC_Rocks (2502 posts) -

@ronvalencia:

How any of that contradict what I said?

Avatar image for ronvalencia
#69 Posted by ronvalencia (28082 posts) -

@pc_rocks said:

@ronvalencia:

How any of that contradict what I said?

You claimed "Nvidia is prohibited from making/emulating x86 as part of their settlement with Intel" meanwhile NVIDIA's ALI 386SX embedded hardware solution are still being sold.

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#70 Posted by PC_Rocks (2502 posts) -

@ronvalencia said:
@pc_rocks said:

@ronvalencia:

How any of that contradict what I said?

You claimed "Nvidia is prohibited from making/emulating x86 as part of their settlement with Intel" meanwhile NVIDIA's ALI 386SX embedded hardware solution are still being sold.

I was talking about modern x86 hardware and how Nvidia is prohibited from making such components or try to emulate them ala Project Denver. Of course, the things they are already in public domain can't be restricted.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
#71 Edited by ronvalencia (28082 posts) -

@pandadropkicks:

https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-radeon-vii-reaches-end-of-life

Radeon VII "End of Life".

AMD Radeon VII is no more

Cowcotland has just confirmed with their sources that AMD Radeon VII is no longer in production. The stores are selling the remaining stock and apparently, no more Radeon VII cards will be made.

According to Cowcotland, Radeon VII was declared ‘end of life’ last month by AMD.

The Radeon VII is AMD’s first 7nm-based graphics card featuring Vega 20 GPU with 3840 Stream Processors. The VII was also AMD’s first to feature 16GB memory for the consumer market.

With the announcement of Radeon RX 5700 series, it became clear that VII is simply not as power-efficient and cost-effective solution as Navi-based models.

This also puts an end to rumors about custom Radeon ‘7’ models.

GCN is a dead end architecture.

PS; NAVI can run GCN's wave64 instructions as two wave32 compute as backward compatibility.

Loading Video...

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Navi-12-14-21-and-Lite-variants-of-AMD-s-latest-GPU-range-revealed-in-Linux-driver-code-RX-5800-could-take-on-the-GeForce-RTX-2080.424788.0.html

With the Radeon RX 5700 series set to take on the GeForce RTX 2060 and RTX 2070 it could be left to an RX 5800 series with Navi 21 GPUs to give Nvidia’s GeForce RTX 2080 and RTX 2080 Ti some proper competition

NAVI 21 and NAVI 21 Lite coming....

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cakxlq/hardware_unboxed_on_twitter_i_put_an_r9_290/

Hardware Unboxed on Twitter has recycled custom R9-290 AIB cooler on 5700 XT and it maxed at just 67c.

2Ghz clock speed can be reached with 100 percent fan speed.

Avatar image for ten_pints
#72 Posted by Ten_Pints (3831 posts) -

@drlostrib: You're argument is retard.l