AMD Console Wins for 2017?

[Shortbread]

Why would AMD, Sony or MS want to negotiate the prices of shrinks at the start of a gen? AMD isn’t a fab. It would only have an inkling of what a 2016 16 nm finfet based chip would cost pre 2013.

You don't need an initial monetary cost or value (dealing with future needs) on negotiating certain aspects of contracts, as seen in many perpetual contracts (service vendors, software vendors, and yes, hardware vendors). Many contracts have open-ended clauses and considerations towards these types of scenarios (i.e., future cost).

 

[dobwal]

You don't need an initial monetary cost or value (dealing with future needs) on negotiating certain aspects of contracts, as seen in many perpetual contracts (service vendors, software vendors, and yes, hardware vendors). Many contracts have open-ended clauses and considerations towards these types of scenarios (i.e., future cost).

There is relatively no point in negotiating mandated shrinks at the start of a gen. Can it be done? Yes. But why?

You can’t shrink and produce a x86 and GCN based SOC without AMD. Sony and MS can’t guarantee the success of its hardware whereby a node shrink is financially feasible.

Now there might be language that obligate AMD to honor requests for shrinks. But I doubt there is language that mandate shrinks to the point that AMD can classify those mandates as design wins at the start of a gen.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

This doesn't sound like Microsoft is working exclusively with AMD, nor that the next-xbox architecture hasn't really been finalized yet.

Of course Microsoft is working with several hardware companies. AMD doesn't make power supplies, wifi/bluetooth modems and antennas, HDMI chips, USB connectors, storage and tens/hundreds of other components that go in a console.

That statement doesn't really carry any meaning regarding Microsoft's next SoC.

OK, but again what about PS4 slim? Why is everyone ignoring that but not the One S? I would think both of these shrinks would have been a part of the original contracts?

The PS4 Slim seems to be just an optical shrink. The XboneS has an updated video engine that supports 4K60 H265 decoding, a hardware upscaler for 4K TVs and support for HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2.

 

[Shortbread]

There is relatively no point in negotiating shrinks at the start of a gen. Can it be done? Yes. But why?

You can’t shrink and produce a x86 and GCN based SOC without AMD. Sony and MS can’t guarantee the success of its hardware whereby a node shrink is financially feasible.

That's why many contracts are either open-ended or perpetual for such scenarios. And Sony and Microsoft being as big as they are, there are more than likely several contracts in place just dealing with their original machines (PS4/XB1) alone. I'm not saying I'm right, just offering a different view of things. Remember all the hardline talk about Nintendo's next-system (Switch) using AMD hardware, until mid October 2016 we learned otherwise? Just saying...

 

[Shortbread]

Of course Microsoft is working with several hardware companies. AMD doesn't make power supplies, wifi/bluetooth modems and antennas, HDMI chips, USB connectors, storage and tens/hundreds of other components that go in a console.

I'm pretty sure Phil Spencer wasn't talking about USB, PSUs, and Wi-Fi, when he specifically mentioned resolution and performance metrics (improvements).

The PS4 Slim seems to be just an optical shrink.

What? It's still a shrink.

The PS4 Slim's APU has been reduced to 16nm from the PS4's original 28nm chip size, culminating a reduction of about 57%. This means the new slimmer model will draw less power and run cooler than current PS4s, which is a pretty big deal for console owners.

 

[dobwal]

That's why many contracts are either open-ended or perpetual for such scenarios. And Sony and Microsoft being as big as they are, there are more than likely several contracts in place just dealing with their original machines (PS4/XB1) alone. I'm not saying I'm right, just offering a different view of things. Remember all the hardline talk about Nintendo's next-system (Switch) using AMD hardware, until mid October 2016 we learned otherwise? Just saying...

By definition a “design win” is when a customer submits an order for the product in question. An open ended contract may have language about shrinks but unless it contains explicit language that AMD will supply so many SOCs at a particular node to Sony or MS, it wouldn’t be considered a design win.

 

[Shortbread]

By definition a “design win” is when a customer submits an order for the product in question. An open ended contract may have language about shrinks but unless it contains explicit language that AMD will supply so many SOCs at a particular node to Sony or MS, it wouldn’t be considered a design win.

But we don't know what all those 'design wins' were (specifically the third one in question), other than deduction work of the hardware that followed. If these design wins included the Pro SOC, XB1-X SOC and XB1-S SOC, then by nature it should have include the PS4 slim SOC during such mentions (4 rather than 3). If the assumption is that XB1-S SOC is the third one in question.

 

[dobwal]

But we don't know what all those 'design wins' were (specifically the third one in question), other than deduction work of the hardware that followed. If these design wins included the Pro SOC, XB1-X SOC and XB1-S SOC, then by nature it should have include the PS4 slim SOC during such mentions (4 rather than 3). If the assumption is that XB1-S SOC is the third one in question.

I wouldn’t include the X. It would be the S, Pro and Slim. The X wouldn’t be driving revenue increases in Q2 2016.

I think AMD may have used a little obscurification in their language. Stating “at least one ramping in the 2nd half” doesn’t exclude a reality where all three are ramping in the second half. Nor does “by 2017” exclude a reality where all three launch in the second half of 2016.

 

[Shortbread]

I wouldn’t include the X. It would be the S, Pro and Slim. The X wouldn’t be driving revenue increases in Q2 2016.

I think AMD may have used a little obscurification in their language. Stating “at least one ramping in the 2nd half” doesn’t exclude a reality where all three are ramping in the second half. Nor does “by 2017” exclude a reality where all three launch in the second half of 2016.

I think that was conjecture on Ars Technica part (4/21/2016 article) when they stated, "At least one of those three SOC deliveries will begin "ramping" in the second half of this year (i.e., 2016), with all of those SOCs launching by 2017." When in reality the Xbox S launched on August 2, 2016, PS4 slim on September 16th 2016, Pro on November 10, 2016, and XB1-X on November 7, 2017. So it's quite odd that three SOCs (rather than four) would be mentioned during AMD's meeting, when all four SOCs fit within AMD's timeframe (quoted below) which should include XB1-X as well. Just a little strange...

AMD estimates that these SOCs will bring in $1.5 billion in revenue "over the next three or four years."

 

[AlNom]

What if the 3rd semi-custom is

... a high powered thermometer :O

 

[Shortbread]

What if the 3rd semi-custom is the Intel collaboration

... a high powered thermometer :O

Possible.

So what would be the possible combination between the five (Pro, PS4 Slim, XB1-S, XB1-X and Hades Canyon NUC) on making up the three cited?

a) Pro, PS4 Slim and XB1-S
b) Pro, XB1-S and XB1-X
c) Pro, XB1-S and Hades Canyon NUC
d) Pro, XB1-X and Hades Canyon NUC
e) --- --- ---

 

[mrcorbo]

FWIW, I consider the One S, PS4 Slim and Pro as most likely to be the three design wins mentioned given the time-frames referenced.

 

[dobwal]

I think that was conjecture on Ars Technica part (4/21/2016 article) when they stated, "At least one of those three SOC deliveries will begin "ramping" in the second half of this year (i.e., 2016), with all of those SOCs launching by 2017." When in reality the Xbox S launched on August 2, 2016, PS4 slim on September 16th 2016, Pro on November 10, 2016, and XB1-X on November 7, 2017. So it's quite odd that three SOCs (rather than four) would be mentioned during AMD's meeting, when all four SOCs fit within AMD's timeframe (quoted below) which should include XB1-X as well. Just a little strange...

The details were centered around three SOCs that were to be major contributors to revenue during Q2 2016. The X wasn’t driving revenue during that time. AMD wasnt shipping huge quantities of Scorpio chips to MS from April to June 2016.

“By 2017” doesn’t exclude 2016 launches. If I say I will get something to you by Friday, getting it to you on Thursday doesn’t make my declaration untrue. AMD was obligated not to give statements that would provide a clear understanding of the launch periods of SOCs it was providing. This seems to be a case of AMD trying to provide some information on the realities at the time but not enough to run afoul of MS and Sony who wanted launch information to remain confidential.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The three wins were to be revenue drivers for AMD in Q2 2016. During that time, the S, Slim and Pro would of been in the middle of ramping up production for their launch dates.

Sorry to be pendantic but this is a very common fault of written English that needs to be stamped out.

The term is "would have", as in "Slim and Pro would have been in..." The contraction is "would've'" which is where people get confused with using "would of".

Shifty Geezer will be lecturing people on proper English.
Shifty Geezer has been lecturing people on proper English.
Shifty Geezer would have been lecturing people on proper English if the loony bin had let him out.

If not addressed, the commonality of 'would of' will make it part of the language despite being grammatical nonsense, which would be bad. With due diligence, we'll look back and say it would've been bad, but wasn't, because we fixed it.

 

[dobwal]

Sorry to be pendantic but this is a very common fault of written English that needs to be stamped out.

The term is "would have", as in "Slim and Pro would have been in..." The contraction is "would've'" which is where people get confused with using "would of".

Slim and Pro will be lecturing people on proper English.
Shifty Geezer has been lecturing people on proper English.
Shifty Geezer would have been lecturing people on proper English if the loony bin had let him out.

If not addressed, the commonality of 'would of' will make it part of the language despite being grammatical nonsense, which would be bad. With due diligence, we'll look back and say it would've been bad, but wasn't, because we fixed it.

I know, I know. It’s just late at night here and sometimes it slips through the cracks. LOL

Usually I do it on purpose and make reference to Tot because I know it burns his eyes.

I should of ( ) caught that!

 

[Deleted member 13524]

I remember one of the semi-custom wins was mentioned as something "beyond gaming". This would mean that design win was either kept in secret (is this possible?), cancelled or it's Kaby Lake G.

Usually I do it on purpose and make reference to Tot because I knows it burns his eyes.

I should of ( ) caught that!

Goddammit!

 

[dobwal]

I remember one of the semi-custom wins was mentioned as something "beyond gaming". This would mean that design win was either kept in secret (is this possible?), cancelled or it's Kaby Lake G.




Goddammit!

I have a hard time imagining intel needing a 21 month headstart of sourcing Vega gpus to produce Kaby Lake G based products.

 

[eloic]

Sorry to be pendantic but this is a very common fault of written English that needs to be stamped out.

The term is "would have", as in "Slim and Pro would have been in..." The contraction is "would've'" which is where people get confused with using "would of".

Slim and Pro will be lecturing people on proper English.
Shifty Geezer has been lecturing people on proper English.
Shifty Geezer would have been lecturing people on proper English if the loony bin had let him out.

If not addressed, the commonality of 'would of' will make it part of the language despite being grammatical nonsense, which would be bad. With due diligence, we'll look back and say it would've been bad, but wasn't, because we fixed it.

One of my pet peeves!! So annoying!

I know, I know. It’s just late at night here and sometimes it slips through the cracks. LOL

Usually I do it on purpose and make reference to Tot because I know it burns his eyes.

I should of ( ) caught that!

​

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

Sorry to be pendantic but this is a very common fault of written English that needs to be stamped out.

The term is "would have", as in "Slim and Pro would have been in..." The contraction is "would've'" which is where people get confused with using "would of".

Shifty Geezer will be lecturing people on proper English.
Shifty Geezer has been lecturing people on proper English.
Shifty Geezer would have been lecturing people on proper English if the loony bin had let him out.

If not addressed, the commonality of 'would of' will make it part of the language despite being grammatical nonsense, which would be bad. With due diligence, we'll look back and say it would've been bad, but wasn't, because we fixed it.

Like the word "literal," which has been so consistently misused that it now means its actual meaning as well as its exact opposite.