AMD CPU speculation... and expert conjecture

[Cazalan]

Thats how HTT words though; only a handful of CPU resources (Registers) are copied on a HTT core; there's still one ALU per core, for instance. So there are significant bottlenecks that exist when using HTT, hence the spikes. HTT is more meant for running a second light application in the background, not as an extra core for heavy processing.

The main reason Intel keeps HTT is because its cheap to add, and offers good performance for its cost.

Small nearly asinine correction. It's 3 ALU's per core for Intel design's though superscalar uArch allow multiple ALU's to be used simultaneously. Otherwise yes HTT is a really cheap way to get the most out of those 3 ALU's. Oracle does something very similar to get eight threads per core.

Interesting to note they actually removed HTT from their "small" cores aka Atom-Silvermont. Citing that the gains weren't worth the added logic. They just doubled the cores instead like Jaguar.

 

[8350rocks]

This is also an interesting reading:

http://hezik.nl/arm-ceo-we-can-convince-amd-of-giving-up-x86/

Wow that's a shocker. The CEO of an IP company boasting about how their IP is better.

He goes on about Intel competition and their "monopoly". Well on the ARM front they have 3 bigger competitors. Samsung/Qualcomm/Apple are all BIGGER than Intel. Instead of David vs Goliath, it's David vs Goliath x3. In spite of the perpetual litigation the 3 are still in bed with each other. Samsung buys Qualcomm parts, Apple buys Qualcomm and Samsung parts. The fact that Samsung still buys Qualcomm parts made at competitors fabs tells you the bulk of the profits are being made elsewhere. I'll just stop there because the more you dissect the ARM competition and where they're actually making money, the worse it looks (for AMD).

Samsung/Qualcomm/Apple are not a monopoly, because don't control ARM. However, x86 is a monopoly controlled by Intel which cross-licenses with AMD and several litigations.

For instance, Nvidia went to purchase a x86 license to make x86 chips and Intel rejected it. That is a monopoly. However, Nvidia went to ARM and got a license to use standard cores and another to design their own curstom cores, independently of how big Samsung/Qualcomm/Apple are.

There are other sides of that monopoly. For instance (correct me if I am wrong), if someone buys AMD, the license to make x86 chips is lost, because it is not transferable.

There are many more legal issues with x86. This range from cache technology to restrictions in the volume of chips that AMD is allowed to do in certain factories. (*)

There are also some interesting legal issues with the custom APUs made for the consoles.

The interesting part of the ARM CEO link is the last paragraph:

the company can choose to develop the processors which integrate ARM and x86, when the developed ARM CPUs is mature, they can gradually decrease the development for x86 processors, or even finally give up X86 to get rid of monopoly and suppression from Intel.

The first stage is ready. Kaveri, Berlin, Beema, and Mullins include a standard ARM core for security features.

The second state is partially in progress. Warsaw is launched for legacy purposes. In the words of AMD, Warsaw is for institutional customers that will be slow on migrating to ARM servers. Berlin is for HSA workloads.


(*) http://www.cpushack.com/2012/09/06/intel-vs-the-world-the-338-patent/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/technology/companies/13chip.html?_r=0

So, let me get this straight...

You are going to tell me that because AMD used a tiny ARM core for a separate security protocol on Kaveri, Beema, and Mullins...you're going to tell me that it is a "sign" that AMD is migrating entirely to ARM?

LOL!!!

...

LOL!!!

Ok...to offer a quote from Shakespeare: "Lord, what fools these mortals be..."

EDIT: I would like to point something out before your crazy illogical wandering becomes contagious...

The FTC would have a bone to pick with you about AMD abandoning x86 CPUs. That would create what is called a "monopoly". So if AMD were even considering stopping production of x86 in it's entirety...the government would step in and prevent them from doing so purely on the basis of another term called "free market competition integrity".

That would be the same entity that you, yourself, cited earlier in the article talking about when the FTC sued Intel for monopolistic practices.

I hate to say it, but if AMD were to even consider that course...they would be prevented from doing so. Purely because they are the only competitor with enough market share to even force competition. VIA has less than 3% of the market share and could not plausibly supplant them as a large player in any sense in the consumer x86 market.

/silliness

 

[juanrga]

Spoiler

GCN is drastically more power efficient than VLIW4, look at how much the TDP got better on the GPUs from HD 6XXX to HD 7XXX. Additionally, for the same thermal envelope they increased performance by a massive amount.

GCN is faster, better at compute, and less power hungry than VLIW4. These are not disputed facts.

You're dodging the question. I repeat it again:

(iv) Which is the efficiency of GCN compared to VLIW4?

How am I dodging the question? I clearly, concisely, explicitly answered it very succinctly.

I don't think I can be more precise with my answer.

You cannot answer because you don't know which is the efficiency. Ok.

 

[juanrga]

Because this go around, Sony is allegedly making a profit per console sold. And if the BOM is only ~$20 cheaper then the retail price, then it follows that each component is being brought at basically break-even value. AMD probably makes the most profit per part, but I can't imagine its in excess of $10 or so.

In other words: Great for market share, not so much for profit. Especially if this locks out production of consumer chips with higher margins.

http://www.zdnet.com/amd-pulls-in-100-for-every-playstation-4-sold-7000023423/

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2308282/amd-makes-more-profit-than-sony-on-the-ps4

Another of your 'predictions' being off by a factor of ten. :sarcasm:

LOL.

while AMD is likely making around $100 per console sold.
...
The PS4's custom built AMD processor, which combines an eight-core Jaguar architecture CPU with a 1.84TFLOPS Radeon GPU, is apparently the console's most expensive component, costing around $100 all in.

so ... in order to turn $100 profit the cpu doesn't cost AMD anything to manufacture ... Then again, GK was talking about profit, not gross sales.

It could be costing AMD $90 each from TSMC, so that means that TSMC is making $90 for every ps4 sold.

From the second link:

AMD makes more profit than Sony on the PS4
Sony makes $18, AMD makes close to $100

JAPANESE ELECTRONICS FIRM Sony reportedly is making an $18 profit on its Playstation 4 (PS4), while AMD is likely making around $100 per console sold.

Both articles are more or less a copy of each other. they both say that sony is paying amd around $100 for the cpu. Any tool with a small brain in business knows there are costs to make the part.

The processor, which combines an eight-core Jaguar architecture CPU with a 1.84TFlop Radeon GPU comes in, according to IHS, at a round $100.

thats from the other one. pretty much the exact same thing. This term is called GROSS SALES or Gross profit. That means AMD is getting $100 from sony and giving $XX to TSMC. $100 minus $xx = NET PROFIT. The term "making money" generally refers to net profit and not gross sales.

the only way AMD is making $100 is if they are paying TSMC $0.

other than that, the article is pretty amusing.

From the second link:

AMD makes more profit than Sony on the PS4
Sony makes $18, AMD makes close to $100

 

[8350rocks]

Spoiler

GCN is drastically more power efficient than VLIW4, look at how much the TDP got better on the GPUs from HD 6XXX to HD 7XXX. Additionally, for the same thermal envelope they increased performance by a massive amount.

GCN is faster, better at compute, and less power hungry than VLIW4. These are not disputed facts.

You're dodging the question. I repeat it again:

(iv) Which is the efficiency of GCN compared to VLIW4?

How am I dodging the question? I clearly, concisely, explicitly answered it very succinctly.

I don't think I can be more precise with my answer.

You cannot answer because you don't know which is the efficiency. Ok.

But...I am pretty sure I do. Because I told you what it was, or is it that you do not know what the efficiency is? There are benchmarks to show GCN > VLIW4 in every facet.

 

[anxiousinfusion]

Take a look at Nvidia. They have wanted to make CPUs forever and the best they can do are ARM units. They would kill for an x86 license. An x86 license means you can offer a product that powers Microsoft Office, modern PC games, and other full featured software suites like Photoshop.

I always thought that Nvidia and VIA would be the perfect merger for competing with AMD.

 

[Cazalan]

Because this go around, Sony is allegedly making a profit per console sold. And if the BOM is only ~$20 cheaper then the retail price, then it follows that each component is being brought at basically break-even value. AMD probably makes the most profit per part, but I can't imagine its in excess of $10 or so.

In other words: Great for market share, not so much for profit. Especially if this locks out production of consumer chips with higher margins.

http://www.zdnet.com/amd-pulls-in-100-for-every-playstation-4-sold-7000023423/

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2308282/amd-makes-more-profit-than-sony-on-the-ps4

Another of your 'predictions' being off by a factor of ten. :sarcasm:

The article is talking about revenue, gamerk316 was talking about profit. The article title is completely wrong as the cost is not $0 to AMD. Journalism these days...

If the $100 revenue is accurate and AMD's "mid teens" (quote from Q3 earnings conference) margin is 15% then that would be $13 profit. ($86.9565 x 1.15 = $100)

 

[blackkstar]

From the second link:

AMD makes more profit than Sony on the PS4
Sony makes $18, AMD makes close to $100

Wow, that really puts the brakes on "if Sony isn't making that much money off of PS4 then neither can AMD, or TSMC, or Foxconn, or anyone else that is a part of making a PS4"

 

[The Q6660 Inside]

From the second link:

AMD makes more profit than Sony on the PS4
Sony makes $18, AMD makes close to $100

Wow, that really puts the brakes on "if Sony isn't making that much money off of PS4 then neither can AMD, or TSMC, or Foxconn, or anyone else that is a part of making a PS4"

The issue is, why would AMD or any others invest in the PS4, there has to be something deeper in..

 

[Cazalan]

It could be costing AMD $90 each from TSMC, so that means that TSMC is making $90 for every ps4 sold.

That depends who is doing the packaging and testing. There's usually a company (OSAT) in between. It's a 24billion industry, so far from free.

http://www.tsmc.com/english/dedicatedFoundry/services/integrated_backend.htm

http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2469515

 

[logainofhades]

From the second link:

AMD makes more profit than Sony on the PS4
Sony makes $18, AMD makes close to $100

Wow, that really puts the brakes on "if Sony isn't making that much money off of PS4 then neither can AMD, or TSMC, or Foxconn, or anyone else that is a part of making a PS4"

The issue is, why would AMD or any others invest in the PS4, there has to be something deeper in..

As someone mentioned earlier, AMD feels they are growing with regard to gaming on PC. Games ported from PS4 and Xbox One will be well optimized to run on x86 AMD hardware. Many software developers are lazy, so I don't see them changing the code much for the PC ports. Probably support so they will run properly on a Windows platform and little else. This could give AMD an edge in future gaming.

 

[blackkstar]

From the second link:

AMD makes more profit than Sony on the PS4
Sony makes $18, AMD makes close to $100

Wow, that really puts the brakes on "if Sony isn't making that much money off of PS4 then neither can AMD, or TSMC, or Foxconn, or anyone else that is a part of making a PS4"

The issue is, why would AMD or any others invest in the PS4, there has to be something deeper in..

The real issue is why have we spent time discussing the fact that if Sony isn't making massive profits then neither is anyone else related to PS4.

AMD will not stop making x86 CPUs until their big GPUs and PC gaming stops being profitable to them. If AMD drops x86 CPUs, they will leave the only platform for AMD GPUs to run in in the sole hands of Intel.

You know, the same Intel that S|A wrote about who wants to kill PCIe to remove AMD and Nvidia from competing with their GPUs.

AMD needs to keep making big x86 CPUs to support their dGPU and gaming business. If they don't, Intel could easily show up with a new platform with one PCIe 3.0 4x port max and watch as AMD burns.

The only way AMD could go ARM only would be if they convinced members of the HSA Foundation as well as game studios to support other platforms like ARM. They would have to get major companies to also port over their existing solutions (Visual Studio, Photoshop and other Adobe products, Microsoft Office, etc).

I do see it as feasible at some point in time but I don't see it happening any time soon. AMD is in control of the tools for HSA and Mantle game development but it's already a hard enough sell to get people to optimize just for GCN chips, imagine if you had to convince people to make Mantle + ARM ports.

Also, take a look at Via in the last JPR. They are the biggest losers so far and they are doing what some of you are suggesting in this thread, focusing on mobile and lower end products.

 

[juanrga]

I think some of you are overlooking this.

Take a look at Nvidia. They have wanted to make CPUs forever and the best they can do are ARM units. They would kill for an x86 license. An x86 license means you can offer a product that powers Microsoft Office, modern PC games, and other full featured software suites like Photoshop.

ARM means you get absolutely none of that. You get Angry Birds and Photoshop Elements and Google Documents.

AMD replacing x86 chips with ARM and discontinuing x86 (which is what replacing their line-up implies) means that AMD is either about to throw away their x86 license OR that they're admitting that they can't even come close to competing with Intel and they would rather compete with Qualcomm, Samsung, Apple, Nvidia (in CPUs and GPUs instead of just GPUs), MediaTek, Calxeda, etc.

We are starting to see some design wins for Kabini and Temash now, and you know what? It coincides with the product lifecycle of Windows 8 updating to Windows 8.1.

If anything it's AMD's fault for releasing products in the middle of an OS lifecycle and then waiting until the product is fixed. People are forgetting that the lack of design wins for Temash and Kabini might have had more to do with the fact that Windows 8 was a dud as opposed to the fact that no one wants Temash.

I see a lot of people in this thread that are making conclusions and then looking for the evidence to support those conclusions instead of looking at other possibilities and making conclusions from that.

As an example, note how some people think that AMD is done with dCPU because all AMD is talking about is HSA? They're completely neglecting the fact that there could be no big dCPU Steamroller because it wouldn't work out on 28nm Bulk and SOI is a long ways away.

I'm not saying that that's exactly what's happened, AMD might actually be done with dCPUs. But the fact remains that there are other reasons explaining why there was no October HEDT CPU release this year like what usually happens.

That nobody is porting Photoshop to run in a phone has little to see with the ARM ISA. Just by curiosity how many x86 phones you know that run full Photoshop? Do you conclude that the problem is the x86 ISA? It is not.

There is a version of Microsoft Office for ARM tablets. It lacks some stuff of the PC (x86) version and adds other (touch support) because it is for tablets, but according to Microsoft "differences between the two products are subtle."

About AMD future plans, AMD chief executive already said:

AMD will no longer focus on delivering high-performance products built on the latest process technology.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/116977-goliath-wins-amd-retreats-retrenches-and-seeks-to-reinvent-itself

http://www.pcper.com/news/Editorial/AMD-will-not-chase-Intel-making-needlessly-powerful-CPUs

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5492/amds-rory-read-outlines-amds-future-strategy

I expect he did mean x86 only... at least the server roadmap seems to indicate so

 

[juanrga]

This is also an interesting reading:

http://hezik.nl/arm-ceo-we-can-convince-amd-of-giving-up-x86/

Wow that's a shocker. The CEO of an IP company boasting about how their IP is better.

He goes on about Intel competition and their "monopoly". Well on the ARM front they have 3 bigger competitors. Samsung/Qualcomm/Apple are all BIGGER than Intel. Instead of David vs Goliath, it's David vs Goliath x3. In spite of the perpetual litigation the 3 are still in bed with each other. Samsung buys Qualcomm parts, Apple buys Qualcomm and Samsung parts. The fact that Samsung still buys Qualcomm parts made at competitors fabs tells you the bulk of the profits are being made elsewhere. I'll just stop there because the more you dissect the ARM competition and where they're actually making money, the worse it looks (for AMD).

Samsung/Qualcomm/Apple are not a monopoly, because don't control ARM. However, x86 is a monopoly controlled by Intel which cross-licenses with AMD and several litigations.

For instance, Nvidia went to purchase a x86 license to make x86 chips and Intel rejected it. That is a monopoly. However, Nvidia went to ARM and got a license to use standard cores and another to design their own curstom cores, independently of how big Samsung/Qualcomm/Apple are.

There are other sides of that monopoly. For instance (correct me if I am wrong), if someone buys AMD, the license to make x86 chips is lost, because it is not transferable.

There are many more legal issues with x86. This range from cache technology to restrictions in the volume of chips that AMD is allowed to do in certain factories. (*)

There are also some interesting legal issues with the custom APUs made for the consoles.

The interesting part of the ARM CEO link is the last paragraph:

the company can choose to develop the processors which integrate ARM and x86, when the developed ARM CPUs is mature, they can gradually decrease the development for x86 processors, or even finally give up X86 to get rid of monopoly and suppression from Intel.

The first stage is ready. Kaveri, Berlin, Beema, and Mullins include a standard ARM core for security features.

The second state is partially in progress. Warsaw is launched for legacy purposes. In the words of AMD, Warsaw is for institutional customers that will be slow on migrating to ARM servers. Berlin is for HSA workloads.


(*) http://www.cpushack.com/2012/09/06/intel-vs-the-world-the-338-patent/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/technology/companies/13chip.html?_r=0

So, let me get this straight...

You are going to tell me that because AMD used a tiny ARM core for a separate security protocol on Kaveri, Beema, and Mullins...you're going to tell me that it is a "sign" that AMD is migrating entirely to ARM?

LOL!!!

...

LOL!!!

Ok...to offer a quote from Shakespeare: "Lord, what fools these mortals be..."

EDIT: I would like to point something out before your crazy illogical wandering becomes contagious...

The FTC would have a bone to pick with you about AMD abandoning x86 CPUs. That would create what is called a "monopoly". So if AMD were even considering stopping production of x86 in it's entirety...the government would step in and prevent them from doing so purely on the basis of another term called "free market competition integrity".

That would be the same entity that you, yourself, cited earlier in the article talking about when the FTC sued Intel for monopolistic practices.

I hate to say it, but if AMD were to even consider that course...they would be prevented from doing so. Purely because they are the only competitor with enough market share to even force competition. VIA has less than 3% of the market share and could not plausibly supplant them as a large player in any sense in the consumer x86 market.

/silliness

That is, you took the first part of my post, ignored completely the second part, and just used this as excuse to post your really lovely idea what if AMD want to abandon the market, the FTC would obligate them to continue to work

<facepalm>

 

[-Fran-]

Uhm... The console business model is not the same as a regular product supplier like AMD or Qualcomm. I'm getting the vibe you guys think Sony is going to have a bad revenue stream because of the close-to-zero profit margin on each console sold, but the reality is that consoles make money out of the games they sell and the content they provide (this one is new). Nintendo is the only console maker that has a different business approach to them.

And I agree with AMD not making a $100 "profit" out of every PS4 sold. Profit = sum(Revenue) - sum(Costs), remember that. It's the basis for companies, haha. I will bet the guys from the article used in a loose manner the term "profit"; they shouldn't have used any specific term to refer to AMDs cut; it's just a "cost" to Sony, but by no means "profit" to AMD.

"This sees AMD making quite a healthy profit per console.", from the first link. If we go by the definition of profit, it's an inaccurate statement (i.e. false), so please drop the economics discussion in regards to how much money AMD makes, since although the links provide good info, it's not accurate in the terms used and incomplete, as they don't say how much it costs to AMD make each APU sold to Sony.

Cheers!

PS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(economics)

EDIT: Lol, after reading the comments, they all point out that same mistake in the article.

 

[juanrga]

Because this go around, Sony is allegedly making a profit per console sold. And if the BOM is only ~$20 cheaper then the retail price, then it follows that each component is being brought at basically break-even value. AMD probably makes the most profit per part, but I can't imagine its in excess of $10 or so.

In other words: Great for market share, not so much for profit. Especially if this locks out production of consumer chips with higher margins.

http://www.zdnet.com/amd-pulls-in-100-for-every-playstation-4-sold-7000023423/

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2308282/amd-makes-more-profit-than-sony-on-the-ps4

Another of your 'predictions' being off by a factor of ten. :sarcasm:

The article is talking about revenue, gamerk316 was talking about profit. The article title is completely wrong as the cost is not $0 to AMD. Journalism these days...

From the second link:

AMD makes more profit than Sony on the PS4
Sony makes $18, AMD makes close to $100

 

[juanrga]

Spoiler

GCN is drastically more power efficient than VLIW4, look at how much the TDP got better on the GPUs from HD 6XXX to HD 7XXX. Additionally, for the same thermal envelope they increased performance by a massive amount.

GCN is faster, better at compute, and less power hungry than VLIW4. These are not disputed facts.

You're dodging the question. I repeat it again:

(iv) Which is the efficiency of GCN compared to VLIW4?

How am I dodging the question? I clearly, concisely, explicitly answered it very succinctly.

I don't think I can be more precise with my answer.

You cannot answer because you don't know which is the efficiency. Ok.

But...I am pretty sure I do. Because I told you what it was, or is it that you do not know what the efficiency is? There are benchmarks to show GCN > VLIW4 in every facet.

Still waiting for the answer

 

[Cazalan]

Samsung/Qualcomm/Apple are not a monopoly, because don't control ARM. However, x86 is a monopoly controlled by Intel which cross-licenses with AMD and several litigations.

If AMD has 18-20% x86 market share, and VIA 0.5% then how is that even close to a monopoly? A monopoly would be if no one else can produce x86 parts period. The ARM CEO is tossing around a term that he knows scares people.

"A monopoly (from Greek monos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity."

Anyway, the point I was making is that AMDs troubles are from the resources the competition has. Lack of capital to demand cutting edge process nodes being one of the major ones. Lack of R&D budget to produce and test multiple die configurations. Lack of budget to hire key engineers away from Apple/Qualcomm/Intel.

If AMD (2.48B market cap) has trouble competing with Intel (122B mc). How much easier will it be to compete with say Qualcomm (120B mc) or Samsung (210B mc)? Excuse the rudimentary MC as a gross valuation but it shows ball park resources.

With so many ARM competitors a company like Qualcomm is free to undercut any particular product they want to. When AMD employees start adding ARM core development skills to their resume they become ripe for poaching.

 

[-Fran-]

Samsung/Qualcomm/Apple are not a monopoly, because don't control ARM. However, x86 is a monopoly controlled by Intel which cross-licenses with AMD and several litigations.

If AMD has 18-20% x86 market share, and VIA 0.5% then how is that even close to a monopoly? A monopoly would be if no one else can produce x86 parts period. The ARM CEO is tossing around a term that he knows scares people.

"A monopoly (from Greek monos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity."

Anyway, the point I was making is that AMDs troubles are from the resources the competition has. Lack of capital to demand cutting edge process nodes being one of the major ones. Lack of R&D budget to produce and test multiple die configurations. Lack of budget to hire key engineers away from Apple/Qualcomm/Intel.

If AMD (2.48B market cap) has trouble competing with Intel (122B mc). How much easier will it be to compete with say Qualcomm (120B mc) or Samsung (210B mc)? Excuse the rudimentary MC as a gross valuation but it shows ball park resources.

With so many ARM competitors a company like Qualcomm is free to undercut any particular product they want to. When AMD employees start adding ARM core development skills to their resume they become ripe for poaching.

And to add hurt to injury... Right after the ATI buyout, AMD sold the low power technology for GPUs to Qualcomm, haha. Man, what a bad irony now.

I don't think AMD will step away from X86 for the simple reason that even though Intel has the upper hand in mostly everything right now, AMD is not incapable of actually making a profit out of that market. Intel has managed to keep them in the support line (ICU?) for a good while, but they've had their success stories against Chipzilla. Now, the APUs are getting a great spotlight thanks to being inside the consoles and that I'm sure will translate to some more sales in the lower power segment. Not a big market, but profit is profit I guess.

Cheers!

 

[The Q6660 Inside]

In other news, ASUS has finally got their ThunderboltEX card certified and updated, which is a decent advancement http://rog.asus.com/280892013/news/asus-thunderboltex-ii-what-you-need-to-know/. This technically should be able to work on any board since the original Crosshair V and P8P67 series, but I bet Intel will go "ERMEHGAWD NO BOARD BESIADE LIAK SEEZEXTEHHATE THRU ZEEAITYSEVEN CAN LIAK GIVE TEH PROPHURR VULTAGEZ OR ELSE DAT STAWFFF BE BRICKED"

 

[noob2222]

It could be costing AMD $90 each from TSMC, so that means that TSMC is making $90 for every ps4 sold.

That depends who is doing the packaging and testing. There's usually a company (OSAT) in between. It's a 24billion industry, so far from free.

http://www.tsmc.com/english/dedicatedFoundry/services/integrated_backend.htm

http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2469515

If you really wanted to you could break it all the way down to the person who shoveled the sand for the silicon wafer.

 

[False_Dmitry_II]

From the second link:

AMD makes more profit than Sony on the PS4
Sony makes $18, AMD makes close to $100

Wow, that really puts the brakes on "if Sony isn't making that much money off of PS4 then neither can AMD, or TSMC, or Foxconn, or anyone else that is a part of making a PS4"

The issue is, why would AMD or any others invest in the PS4, there has to be something deeper in..

As someone mentioned earlier, AMD feels they are growing with regard to gaming on PC. Games ported from PS4 and Xbox One will be well optimized to run on x86 AMD hardware. Many software developers are lazy, so I don't see them changing the code much for the PC ports. Probably support so they will run properly on a Windows platform and little else. This could give AMD an edge in future gaming.

Indeed. To expand more on what I said earlier, and to just blatantly say it: I think that as time goes on piledriver CPUs will begin winning benchmarks against haswell more and more often. Optimization is not a small thing at all.

This is somewhat unique, because back when the original xbox was out that was the only other time x86 was used in a console. At that time it was an intel chip and software was generally optimized in that direction anyway. Even if it wasn't, everyone only had one single core, so there wasn't any fancy breakdown of resources on the chip. At least nothing like how it is now.

It was also really during the 360 era that console ports to PC started happening alot, and at that time the consoles were generally some powerpc type, which doesn't directly translate to anything. I expect this behavior to continue because it is well known, however the landscape is suddenly very different because of Jaguar.

 

[juanrga]

Samsung/Qualcomm/Apple are not a monopoly, because don't control ARM. However, x86 is a monopoly controlled by Intel which cross-licenses with AMD and several litigations.

If AMD has 18-20% x86 market share, and VIA 0.5% then how is that even close to a monopoly? A monopoly would be if no one else can produce x86 parts period. The ARM CEO is tossing around a term that he knows scares people.

"A monopoly (from Greek monos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity."

Anyway, the point I was making is that AMDs troubles are from the resources the competition has. Lack of capital to demand cutting edge process nodes being one of the major ones. Lack of R&D budget to produce and test multiple die configurations. Lack of budget to hire key engineers away from Apple/Qualcomm/Intel.

If AMD (2.48B market cap) has trouble competing with Intel (122B mc). How much easier will it be to compete with say Qualcomm (120B mc) or Samsung (210B mc)? Excuse the rudimentary MC as a gross valuation but it shows ball park resources.

With so many ARM competitors a company like Qualcomm is free to undercut any particular product they want to. When AMD employees start adding ARM core development skills to their resume they become ripe for poaching.

I explained what I mean by monopoly in the paragraphs that you snip from my message: from the Nvidia example to the final two links. I did mean monopoly of the x86 architecture.

There is a problem with your numbers and it is that one cannot isolate x86 and ARM as disjoint markets and then pretend that AMD either fights Qualcomm or fights Intel. It is not so anymore. There is an ARM vs x86 fight (from phones to servers/HPC) and AMD is convinced that ARM will win

That is why AMD plans to recover server market share to intel using ARM, not x86.

If AMD had stuck to x86, released a 16-core Steamroller Opteron, it would waste lots of money and recover that at best 1% of market share? If AMD had accelerated plans and released a superb 16-core Excavator Opteron that destroy anything Intel, they had gained market share to Intel just to lost it against future ARM servers.

The move to ARM is a wise decision.

 

[juanrga]

About console profits. AMD is not only earning money from selling silicon but also from licensing graphics technology for custom designs.

Nvidia reaction to AMD win of console business was to license also

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/nvidia-to-licence-graphics-tech-to-third-parties/0117365


Due to x86 monopoly, AMD cannot license x86 technology to third parties, only sell the x86 silicon they make. Nvidia couldn't even obtain a x86 license.

 

[juanrga]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/graphics/display/20131118084842_Vesuvius_Set_to_Strike_Dual_Chip_Radeon_R9_290X_Hawaii_in_the_Works.html