Or it could all be bullshit.
I lean towards BS.
LOL. Could be that too.
But usually the truth lies somewhere in between the pieces of undigested corn.
Or it could all be bullshit.
I lean towards BS.
You've got that back to front. It makes little sense to have Sony design a console GPU architecture to then use as your basis for PC parts when those PC parts are going to massively outsell the console parts. Note GCN sold to 2x as many units as consoles even though it wasn't a great, popular architecture. RDNA is hoping to sell many, many more units. It can't do that if it's hampered from being a great versatile part because it's bespoke for a console.AMD press release for RDNA made a statement about the GCN being in 450 million devices. Roughly 150 million of these devices are consoles across only 6 skus. While the other 300 million gpus span 5 different GCN gens across dozens of chips in 100s of different products. Console manufacturers have an order of magnitude more influence than any other outside buyer.
A reaction to what, exactly? There was no news of XsX at the time.The only case of were a company arguably "reacted" that I can think of because of a power difference was when Microsoft upclocked the Xbox One a few months before launch and that was 53MHz....and it was probably only possible at that point because of the overly conservative design of Xbox One due to the RROD issues with 360.
It's possible the 1.8GHz -> 2.0 GHz was a "reaction" but a completely new chip I doubt.
Guess Nintendo got the shit end of the stick and nerfed the Switch for free?Has anyone actually disproven the possibility of Microsoft just moneyhatting extra Tflops from Sony. Like they paid them $1B or something for them to stay at less than 10 Tflops so they could have double-digit Tflop exclusivity for this gen?
Did Phil Spencer deny this yet?
Yes, the PPE CPU core was created for Sony and Toshiba, to use in Cell. Sony was one of the two of the technology takers in the consortium created to develop the Cell microprocessor.PPE was just part of the project of CELL, it wasn't created for Sony.
You mistook the entity who developed the technology (research & development & technology maker) for the entity who ordered the technology (technology taker). They are two different entities in a consortium.Why are you still on this? It just shows how pedantic you are if you can't drop a point like this.
There's a number of reasons why Sony could do it and you named some of them.The idea of Sony funding Navi and everyone getting it is very unrealistic. Sony knew AMD were creating a GCN successor. Why would they want to fit the bill and fund their rivals? Why not just let AMD get on with it and buy into whatever they produced? There'd have to be something exceptional to the deal, like some tech only Sony could use for a period, or which was refused on other platforms (maybe allowed on PC but not other consoles).
I disagree.It's far more realistic that Sony just had some involvement, perhaps regards supporting BC.
He never claimed his sources were anonymous.The trouble with paying any attention to "anonymous sources say" journalism is that it could be anything.
It's a very different example though, not at all comparable. IBM created Cell for Sony. In the process of creating Cell, that no-one else was going to use, a part of Cell, a smallish percent, helped created a new Power ISA processor. In essence, IBM didn't need to create a new from-scratch CPU for MS because they already had the work done in creating the PPU. What MS got out of Sony's investment wasn't Sony's investment - they didn't get Cell. MS didn't look at Cell and say, "Hey, IBM, can we have a triple-PPU processor, please." What MS got was an IBM Power processor, and what IBM got was a nice deal because they didn't have to spend a lot to create this processor as they'd already done the ground work in researching a small Power processor for use as the PPU.The PPE on the X360 happened, and that's just one very important example (for how closely related to the console industry it is) on how a company can adopt technology that was partially funded and kickstarted by a rival.
It was and continues to be the correct thing to do here at B3D. It is on Jason or anyone else who makes the claim that Navi was designed for Sony to adhere to the burden of proof of which none exists.B3D in general was way too quick to dismiss and dogpile on Jason Evangelho and his article, based on either plain ignorance over possible technology transfer deals and/or ignorance on not even reading the article. To the point of believing the article is suggesting Sony developed Navi.
And discussion will focus on most probable cases, including common-sense reasoning, and an acute awareness that an expressed interpretation could very well be wide of the mark. It's not difficult to get to "Navi was designed for Sony" from "Sony is involved in Navi development and has ensured features for their purposes", but it is hard to get from "Navi was designed for Sony" to "AMD based its entire next-gen hardware on a bespoke console part basis funded by Sony to be used by everyone else."That isn't to say the claim that "Navi was designed for Sony" is false. But it is correct to reject anyone's (Jason's) claim of it until evidence is reviewed and brought forward for discussion and debate.
In essence, IBM didn't need to create a new from-scratch CPU for MS because they already had the work done in creating the PPU. What MS got out of Sony's investment wasn't Sony's investment - they didn't get Cell. MS didn't look at Cell and say, "Hey, IBM, can we have a triple-PPU processor, please." What MS got was an IBM Power processor, and what IBM got was a nice deal because they didn't have to spend a lot to create this processor as they'd already done the ground work in researching a small Power processor for use as the PPU.
Let's assume Cell as being PPE + SPEs + Rambus MCU. Sony invested in Cell, not just the SPE and/or Rambus MC.The Cell comparison would be Sony investing in Cell for use in PS3 and then MS and Apple and PC getting it from IBM without any of the R&D costs.
Technology gets developed everywhere, all the time and sooner or later most of the world benefits (or suffers) from it.You think Sony paid for that to get a console GPU only to let the rest of the world benefit?? Why not just take whatever AMD provides anyway at much reduced cost?
I don't think Sony needs to specify the full details of all the deals they make to their investors.Also, if Sony were entering such a major partnership, don't you think they'd need to tell their investors? "Yes, we're bankrolling AMD's R&D for the next few years to create our next console SOC. Yes, they'll be able to use the IP after us for other clients but we get 40% of all sales in return." If it comes out that Sony has financed their rival platforms - both MS and PC - without letting anyone know and without clear financial gains at the end, that's not going to go down well.
I'll disagree that the correct thing to do at B3D is to dogpile on an article and its author if the ones doing the dogpiling even failed to read as little as the article's title.It was and continues to be the correct thing to do here at B3D.
I completely agree with all of the above. Other than Jason Evangelho's background, there isn't any other data point to support that article's claims. There's also the fact that he might have misinterpreted what was told to him.But more importantly what happened in the past is has no evidence of a relationship to what happened with Navi. We do not have any significant "data points" that suggest that Navi was designed for Sony. That isn't to say the claim that "Navi was designed for Sony" is false. But it is correct to reject anyone's (Jason's) claim of it until evidence is reviewed and brought forward for discussion and debate.
I get where there could have been more maturity.I'll disagree that the correct thing to do at B3D is to dogpile on an article and its author if the ones doing the dogpiling even failed to read as little as the article's title.
The article's title reads, on its first line: AMD created Navi.
This thread's title? Sony Engineering the AMD GPU.
Most of the discussions generated around this article are purely driven by fake readings, fake news, fake interpretations, willful ignorance and probably a bit of dishonesty.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The other interesting aspect to all of this is that my sources never mentioned Microsoft in the Navi conversations. This is pure speculation, but maybe Microsoft's next Xbox devices -- code-named "Scarlett" -- won't use Navi at all. Perhaps it will use a separate semi-custom solution incorporating Vega, or something else entirely that we're not privy to. Either way, the conversations I had referred to Navi in the past tense, as if it was already finished.
Perhaps Sony is closer to a PS5 than Microsoft is to a next-generation Xbox?
Pull on that thread and it sheds more light on Vega's troubled development, due to the majority of Koduri's engineering team being swiped away not just to work on Navi, but to work on Navi for Sony.
On a related note, a new rumor emerged recently about Navi for desktop being merely a midrange part and not competing with Nvidia's high-end GeForce cards. That makes perfect sense if it was developed primarily for a console first.
Taken as a solitary piece of news, this may sound borderline ridiculous. But when zooming out to a wider angle -- as I did today analyzing AMD's history of consumer graphics products and its semi-custom business -- it fits like a glove. The same sources who spoke to me about the PS5 had more to say about AMD's business motivations with Apple, Microsoft and Sony in the link below.
A good counter-argument to mine comes from this linked article in the Forbes one:I'll just petition the mods here:
Can we get a thread title change to
(2019) Forbes: AMD Created Navi for Sony, Vega Suffered *spawn*
and a link to the article in the first post?
Yea, or the obvious other choice is that AMD is generating generic designs that would best fit their semi-custom client profiles - in which they could then take and customize for their own needs.A good counter-argument to mine comes from this linked article in the Forbes one:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasone...-amds-graphics-identity-problem/#7b8d88dd32e2
It suggests the AMD doesn't design a GPUs for general graphics etc. and then provides a flavour for specific clients, but actually makes GPUs for clients like Sony and Apple and then sells these as GPUs. That is, the semi-custom concept is actually bespoke hardware made-to-measure that's then mass-produced for the PC space regardless whether it's a good fit or not.
I find that hard to swallow. It's a silly way to be competitive with nVidia.
The problem is: it kinda fits the timeline, AMD developed and then released GCN, two years before XO and PS4 release, then stuck with it for the whole PS4/XO life cycle, refusing to dramatically change it or break away from the formula, until almost two years before the PS5/XSX release, when they developed RDNA which -coincidentally- is also the basis of PS5/XSX.It suggests the AMD doesn't design a GPUs for general graphics etc. and then provides a flavour for specific clients, but actually makes GPUs for clients like Sony and Apple and then sells these as GPUs. That is, the semi-custom concept is actually bespoke hardware made-to-measure that's then mass-produced for the PC space regardless whether it's a good fit or not.