Support NeoGAF

[Diablos]

Sony, MS and Nintendo are not using AMD processors for their CPU's, and as an AMD fanboy I take offense to this.

Seriously though, AMD makes awesome CPU's and time and time again, Intel and probably everyone else always follows their lead... I am really surprised that no one decided to allow AMD to develop a specialized CPU(s) for a next-gen console.

 

[Slurpy]

To be fair.. noone is using intel cpus either.

I'm sure there's a reason. These cpus are not efficient enough, nor specialized enough for what they will be doing.

 

[Diablos]

I know they aren't using Intel, but MS DID, and since they switched over to ATI, a switch to AMD would be a complete step in the right direction

I'm just saying that all the diehard CPU people know that AMD is very dedicated to coming up with new approaches to making their CPU's... their research and development in making a completely different one for a next-gen console would probably be outstanding.

 

[hooo]

Cost. They can get good performance without having to pay for all the x86 circuitry that they don't need. RISC 4ever.

 

[Gek54]

I wonder why IBM doesnt make CPUs.

 

[cubicle47b]

Intel and AMD make great general-purpose CISC processors that are very different in design from the gaming centered CPUs that IBM is creating (*lots* of parallel processing).

 

[frunty]

I wonder why IBM doesnt make CPUs.

They do, there's a bunch in the IBM servers at work and two inside my PowerMac G5. Or were you joking? ^^;;

 

[Tea Master]

Sony, MS and Nintendo are not using AMD processors for their CPU's, and as an AMD fanboy I take offense to this.

Seriously though, AMD makes awesome CPU's and time and time again, Intel and probably everyone else always follows their lead... I am really surprised that no one decided to allow AMD to develop a specialized CPU(s) for a next-gen console.

Please, don't be such an AMD slut. AMD used to be pretty crappy compared to Intel, it wasn't until the AMD 64 that AMD had an edge over Intel. Not only that, Intel was the one that entered the dual core market first.

 

[pestul]

Please, don't be such an AMD slut. AMD used to be pretty crappy compared to Intel, it wasn't until the AMD 64 that AMD had an edge over Intel. Not only that, Intel was the one that entered the dual core market first.

I think you seem to forget that the First AMD Athlon absolutely trumped Intel for a little while.. not to mention that they were the first to 1GHz.

 

[Sqrt_minus_one]

Apparently you missed the AMD Athlon.
Intel entered the dual core market first ? T be clear I do not know I heard about both within 24hrs of each other. I thought AMD was first out with the dual core Opteron. *shrugs*

 

[teh_pwn]

Both Intel's and AMD's stuff are too weak right now. They're both just making multi-core processors

 

[Blackace]

Please, don't be such an AMD slut. AMD used to be pretty crappy compared to Intel, it wasn't until the AMD 64 that AMD had an edge over Intel. Not only that, Intel was the one that entered the dual core market first.

AMD used to be crappy like 10 years ago.. but since then they were the only thing that stopped Intel from changing mainboard specs every year....

 

[blackadde]

I have a feeling that AMD just isn't a big enough company to design and manufacture a completely different/specialized core for a mass produced console. iirc they have something like 15% marketshare in the desktop & server market? (I could be way off there.)

 

[CaptainABAB]

CPUs from AMD and Intel are suited for a general OS and not a gaming machine.

This isn't RISC vs. CISC (Pentiums since PentiumPro translate CISC instructions into RISC within the core of the chip)

PS3 and 360 (correct me if I'm wrong) are using PowerPC cores that use an In-order architecture whereas Intel and AMD are Out-of-Order. These aren't the same chips as the G5 in Apples either.

More explanation here...
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2379

 

[Pochacco]

I wonder how much component makers (namely IBM) make off console contracts.
If the margins are good, IBM will be raking in the cash - no matter who 'wins' this generation

 

[Spike]

IBM RISC processor vs. Intel/AMD CISC processor.

 

[Phoenix]

Sony, MS and Nintendo are not using AMD processors for their CPU's, and as an AMD fanboy I take offense to this.

Seriously though, AMD makes awesome CPU's and time and time again, Intel and probably everyone else always follows their lead... I am really surprised that no one decided to allow AMD to develop a specialized CPU(s) for a next-gen console.

Because they needed someone who could actually fab the chips in massive numbers without going out of business or having to sell the company to get them out on time. AMD does not fab anywhere near the volume that will be produced by any of the parties.

This specific general purpose application (massive parallel transforming/rendering of vertices) is well suited to several tried and true PowerPC architectures that can be readily modified inexpensively.

 

[accord 4 me]

Please, don't be such an AMD slut. AMD used to be pretty crappy compared to Intel, it wasn't until the AMD 64 that AMD had an edge over Intel. Not only that, Intel was the one that entered the dual core market first.

even if they did come to market first, did it make a difference considering how much better the amd's were. not to mention they beat amd by how much? a few months tops

 

[Tea Master]

Guys, the point is, AMD is not some some CPU god that "time and time again, Intel and probably everyone else always follows their lead".