ARM based Game Consoles on the way?

It's boring in the sense that although technically speaking it isn't strictly this way but in reality an x86 CPU for consoles essentially means a semi-custom AMD CPU and GPU (both using N-1/.05 uarchs). If multiple vendors go this way it also means a similar technology stack with very little differentiation (if at all).

Also personally related to the above I have some speculation on whether or not "safeguards" are in place to prevent multiple customers from basically getting the same semi-custom design (I've wondered if Microsoft not going with a more "conventional," and likely optimal to be honest, 256bit GDDR setup for 2 gens now wasn't entirely by choice).
I dont see how ARM CPU's would be much different. If you're not using QC/Nuvia's existing ARM IP, then you're just using ARM's own basic IP. There's a bit of room to play with things, but nothing that's going to fundamentally alter the performance of the CPU cores themselves, which is what really matters. It'll come down to a very similar sort of set of 'off the shelf' semi-custom choices.

And with GPU's, do you just go with their own GPU's as well? Cuz well....ugh, no thanks. You could of course pair these CPU's with some separate Intel/Nvidia/AMD GPU, but we have that option today as well. APU's are just convenient/cost efficient, which is why they keep choosing AMD.
 
And with GPU's, do you just go with their own GPU's as well? Cuz well....ugh, no thanks. You could of course pair these CPU's with some separate Intel/Nvidia/AMD GPU, but we have that option today as well.
QC GPUs are genuinely decent in terms of design and in several cases (ISA, gfx state management/separable shader linking, native 64-bit atomics) are better than Intel's own designs ...
 
QC GPUs are genuinely decent in terms of design and in several cases (ISA, gfx state management/separable shader linking, native 64-bit atomics) are better than Intel's own designs ...
Beating Intel's iGPU designs is not some massive accomplishment. Can they beat Nvidia or even AMD in the high powered arena?
 
Beating Intel's iGPU designs is not some massive accomplishment. Can they beat Nvidia or even AMD in the high powered arena?
It's missing some potentially big features like mesh shading, work graphs, and maybe tensor cores too to make them a compelling high-end graphics option. Also don't know how well their RT implementation is going to turn out with the smallest SIMD mode being wave64 or play with their fragile shader compiler and advanced GPU driven rendering seems to be the hot trend these days so unknown how well they'll perform in older APIs like ExecuteIndirect over there as well ...

QC's graphics technology does have a solid foundation/basis for evolution into high-end graphics. Their drivers just get a bad reputation since they don't do a lot of conformance testing and their team is pressured into pushing out broken API functionality implementations as fast as possible to show performance wins against competitors in benchmarks ...
 
Many good answers (y)

My (not so) quick take on this topic:

Last round, AMD was the obvious choice. intel was not remotely close and Nvidia was not interested by this low margin bizness.
Apparently, Sony is doing a mid-gen refresh with a more custom AMD SoC, using a Sony ML block for "DLSS like" solution and RT taken from RDNA4. At quick glance, it looks like an unbalanced APU with the outdated Zen2 CPU that will crumble under RT loads. But I may be well wrong. Anyway, it won't move the needle too much as RDNA4 + Zen2 will be perceived as a low-end combo when put in front of the PCs from the same time frame with Blackwell GPUs and Zen5 CPUs.
MS is clearly the looser of this gen and it seems they are going directly to a next gen solution. In the meantime, they are leveraging new software tricks to boost the performance and extend the life of their console.

But what everybody want to know is what's coming next.
Intel is in better position this round with Celestial, matured drivers and flexibility on the fab side (in-house and/or TSMC). If they are willing to sacrifice margins, they can be a serious contender. They can even offer the CPU only and pair it with AMD/NV GPU in a chiplet. Anything is possible with intel. I call them the dark horse.
AMD is the natural choice. They are cheap, accommodating, a long history of successful cooperation but let be honest, MS/Sony won't get anything "avantguarde" from AMD. it's been too long that they are followers, not innovators in the eyes of the end-user. Yes they are perceived as the "chiplets king" but it doesn't translate into anything gamer cares about. I call them the safe "grandpa" choice.
Then you have Nvidia. They just setup a new semi custom division and one of the main goal is grab these console deals. Obviously, green team strong point is the best GPU tech and gaming ecosystem. RT, DLSS, FG, AI (NIM, NPC, ML), name it, they have it all. Paired with a efficient ARM Cortex X5 or (why not) a Neoverse V3, Nvidia is able to offer a very compelling SoC. Cons are price and... price (but I got some news on that front later). Note that backward compatibility is not a major problem these days, especially with Zen2 level of performance that a emulator like Prism can easily take care of (Remark: contrary to what many people say, MS and Nvidia have currently an excellent relationship. MS buys billions of dollars of Nvidia products every quarter). I call this solution the "uprising"
Finally, Qualcomm can also enter the bid but their GPU is few class below and they are not know to be aggressive in price. So I don't know if they stand a chance in this fight

So what's my prediction?
Well, I got some important information that may change the course of this battle. The big news is that Nvidia is willing to be aggressive in price and abandon their standard 70%+ margins for consoles. The reason is simple. They make so much money with AI (and they expect to be like that for the next 3~4 years) that these console deals won't move a needle on their balance sheet. And when you look at the numbers, its true. Nvidia will do ~$120 billion revenue in 2024. AMD total gaming division revenue (GPU + console) for 2023 was $6.2B with 50% gross margin (and I guess low 30% for the consoles). Let's say half came from consoles, which is ~3% of Nvidia expected revenue for 2024 and it would represent a negative impact on their gross margin lower than 1%!!! Nvidia can definitely afford that.
But will it be enough? MS and Sony don't take risk. Like every big cooperation, they want predictable outcome. With AMD, they are in a safe zone. Another point to consider is that going with Nvidia will kill AMD Radeon division. I mean totally. Imagine Nvidia on Xbox, Playstation, and Switch plus 80% market share on PC... RIP Radeon. And MS / Sony know the consequence of this choice. They definitely don't want to depend on a single vendor in the future. That's the biggest counterpoint to a Nvidia solution and that's why I believe only one console may go with Nvidia even if they offer a better overall solution.

In any case, everything can happen. This time, the choice will be much more difficult than last gen. Interesting times ahead...
 
Last edited:
AMD certainly seems like the safe and obvious bet. It will be much more exciting if MS and Sony opt for different architectures though. Not that I see myself buying another console anytime soon with everything now coming to PC.
 
It's not about 'margins' with portable or console gaming devices SoCs. Nvidia never seems to offer anything reasonable in terms of perf/area as of late and unless they're willing to eat these losses directly, they're not going to be a realistic option soon in those segments until they either diverge in HW design or have potential customer change requirements to suit them ...
 
It's not about 'margins' with portable or console gaming devices SoCs. Nvidia never seems to offer anything reasonable in terms of perf/area as of late and unless they're willing to eat these losses directly, they're not going to be a realistic option soon in those segments until they either diverge in HW design or have potential customer change requirements to suit them ...
Perf/area is better on Nvidia when you take into account everything. I know you think only raster but it's so last century. RT and AI are the next big thing in consoles. So let's compare NV and AMD when they will both have matrix units and RT cores.

And secondly, both Samsung and IFS are begging Nvidia to make some stuff in their foundries at much lower price than TSMC, which is playing in Nvidia's favor. Samsung in particular is extremely aggressive. Their offered their SF3 node (3nm GAAFeT) at lower price than TSMC 6nm! (But God knows if they can produce at any decent yield...)
 
Perf/area is better on Nvidia when you take into account everything. I know you think only raster but it's so last century. RT and AI are the next big thing in consoles. So let's compare NV and AMD when they will both have matrix units and RT cores.
Considering the content that both AAA game console vendors want to make such as a lot of Microsoft owned studios/publishers defaulting to UE5 and many Sony studios (sans Insomniac) with their own proprietary tech, basic raster/compute performance matters A LOT in their metrics currently and they'll remain confident that it'll play out that way too with a lot of other developers (Square/CD Projekt/Crystal Dynamics/Konami/GSC/EA/etc.) subscribing to UE5 ...
 
Considering the content that both AAA game console vendors want to make such as a lot of Microsoft owned studios/publishers defaulting to UE5 and many Sony studios (sans Insomniac) with their own proprietary tech, basic raster/compute performance matters A LOT in their metrics currently and they'll remain confident that it'll play out that way too with a lot of other developers (Square/CD Projekt/Crystal Dynamics/Konami/GSC/EA/etc.) subscribing to UE5 ...
Let's agree to disagree.
But don't believe that you will simply sale a next gen console solely based on raster. Every studio is moving towards RT and AI features. And even more if Nvidia will be part of a next gen console. Matrix units and RT cores will play the biggest part of the marketing promotion. It's obvious and you know it
 
Let's agree to disagree.
But don't believe that you will simply sale a next gen console solely based on raster. Every studio is moving towards RT and AI features. And even more if Nvidia will be part of a next gen console. Matrix units and RT cores will play the biggest part of the marketing promotion. It's obvious and you know it
Wait, the next Xbox will get an Nvidia GPU?

:?:
 
Let's agree to disagree.
But don't believe that you will simply sale a next gen console solely based on raster.
You think so ? They could find other more clever/elaborate ways (planar reflections, higher resolution SDFs/alternative world space data structures, implementing HW soft shadows, etc.) to workaround the lack of robust RT/AI HW for next generation ...
 
You think so ? They could find other more clever/elaborate ways (planar reflections, higher resolution SDFs/alternative world space data structures, implementing HW soft shadows, etc.) to workaround the lack of robust RT/AI HW for next generation ...
Absolutely not.
Even If I don't disagree with your technical arguments, It's not how you promote a console to mainstream audience.
 
Last edited:
Nvidia never seems to offer anything reasonable in terms of perf/area
Too bad that in the real world, both AD104 and AD103 offer higher perf/area, perf/bandwidth and perf/watt in rasterization at smaller actual die sizes compared to AMD’s chiplet complexes.

Considering the content that both AAA game console vendors want to make such as a lot of Microsoft owned studios/publishers defaulting to UE5 and many Sony studios (sans Insomniac) with their own proprietary tech
They create content that best fits the hardware, not the other way around. If they had GPUs fast at ray tracing, they would have developed content for it.
 
Too bad that in the real world, both AD104 and AD103 offer higher perf/area, perf/bandwidth and perf/watt in rasterization at smaller actual die sizes compared to AMD’s chiplet complexes.
Console implementations of AMD GPUs aren't weighed down with infinity cache or inferior memory setups and you can't directly compare "added total die area" when they feature asymmetric process technology ...
They create content that best fits the hardware, not the other way around. If they had GPUs fast at ray tracing, they would have developed content for it.
Yet they very much intentionally chose those HW configurations to make their said software on them ...
 
you can't directly compare "added total die area" when they feature asymmetric process technology ...
Don’t see why I cannot compare like this, especially since the SRAM scaling has practically stopped.

Console implementations of AMD GPUs aren't weighed down with infinity cache or inferior memory setups
I can imagine that if you drop the cache, the perf/bandwidth disparity would only worsen.

Yet they very much intentionally chose those HW configurations to make their said software on them ...
They didn't. AMD simply had not had time to develop something better for RT back then, obviously, so they implemented the most minimalistic RT solution - the instructions for the ray-triangle and ray-AABB tests.
 
Last edited:
Don’t see why I cannot compare like this, especially since the SRAM scaling has practically stopped.


I can imagine that if you drop the cache, the perf/bandwidth disparity would only worsen.
They'd visibly look much better if their PC GPUs had access to GDDR6X over infinity cache. PS5 and Xbox consoles just overclock their memory as opposed to integrating more cache as seen with NV22 ... (all similar die sizes/perf but consoles managed to include integrated CPUs too)
They didn't. AMD simply had not had time to develop something better for RT back then, obviously.
Are you implying that Microsoft and Sony were still somehow forced to choose AMD regardless ?
What other option did they have?
Again, they knowingly chose AMD in spite these limitations so let's not somehow pretend that others weren't an option even if they thought that they were inferior for their own purposes ...
 
Back
Top