I came across this article

Alienware admits consoles are like Pc now

And i went into the good old wikipedia to chec the xbox one and PS4 specs and I found this:

Xbox one:
CPU AMD 8 core APU (2 Quad-Core Jaguar modules)
Graphics AMD Radeon variant (inside of APU)

and for the PS4:
CPU Semi-custom 8-core AMD x86-64 CPU (integrated into APU)
Graphics Semi-custom AMD Radeon GPU (integrated into APU)

I happened to wonder why did the two biggest console companies chose AMD over Intel?

11 years ago*

Comment has been collapsed.

$$$

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

its cheaper than intel

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

AMD is usually cheaper than Intel. That's why console makers made a deal with them.

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

i prefer amd to intel, but ive only been a pc gamer for about 8 years, and only making my own pcs for about half that

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

in my experience AMD perfoms pretty much on par and at a cheaper price than intel

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

that is true, and many reviewers agree on performance, people just point out the heating issues on AMD

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

AMD nearly always scores a flawless win when it comes to gaming, especially budget gaming. No game really needs the power of i5 or i7, those two are aimed more towards professional video editors etc., some people are just fanboys and point out little things that don't really matter much.

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

heating issues? amd have always had better cooling / less heat output

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

What? Tell that to my Phenom II X4 processor. :D

i5/7 has half power consumption.

And AMD 7970 (7950) also has higher consumption than Nvidia 680/770 (670/760)

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

That only applies to their graphics cards. The same isn't true for their processors. At least with the pricing in the UK anyway.

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Mmm, it's getting that way - an FX-8320 will set you back £118 right now and a 4670K will set you back £188. The 4670K is undeniably a better processor, but purely from a gaming perspective, I'd argue that it's nowhere near £70 better.

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

No, they arent on par with Intels CPUs. Intels CPUs perform better in pretty much every single game. Thats mostly because AMDs architecture is inefficient and not really state-of-the-art. (And thats why they have to fool ppl with their "awesome 5Ghz CPU")

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Because AMD has both an APU and more importantly, proper GPU technology and they can deliver it as a complete solution. Intel does not possess the technology to deliver such a solution.
Look the the architecture of the PS4

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

lol PS4 running intel HD 4000 XD

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Løl, maybe it could emulate PS1 games xD

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

becoz of HSA (Heterogeneous System Architecture), google it!

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Maybe AMD was cheaper ? :D

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

AMD is better

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Combination of integration and performance. (I just saw an article about this yesterday, but I'm too lazy to search for it.)

Short of it: Going for an Intel CPU would have required a discrete graphics chip, going for NVIDIA would have required a discrete CPU. AMD provides an integrated APU with decent (even if not stellar) CPU and GPU performance. (Integrated is an issue of both price and performance.) The alternative integrated solution would have been an ARM CPU, but that's considerably weaker.

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Basically intel would requiere separated dedicated peripherals rathar than AMD having them (and being efficient) integrated on their chips already.

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Perhaps part of it is "dedicated peripherals", but more of it is "dedicated GPU". Intel's integrated GPU still doesn't reach the performance of AMD's.

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Such a misleading title.

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Reason is APU. (processor and graphics on one chip).

Only AMD does have technology currently that can produce APU with strong enough GPU (graphics). Intel do APU too, but have weaker graphics so it could not have been chosen. Nvidia does not and can't produce x86 processors so it could not supply such APU.

Reason is that AMD could provide product other could not.

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

All the above are wrong. Intel deliberately let AMD win. You know why? Because AMD is barely afloat now and Intel is very pleased with "competition" having 15-20% of the market. Better let AMD win some extra profit in niche, non-progressing market than to have them bankrupt and Intel being forcibly divided by anti-monopoly laws into several companies.

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Løl. You do know the 2 Companies sell more than just CPU's for gamers right? Intel did and still don't have any Integrated solution like AMD did. AMD could provide proper Graphics. Intel can hardly provide desktop Graphics, let alone anything gaming related.

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Dude, Intel owns server processor market. You should educate yourself, yes, they not only make 'CPU's for gamers', they dominate almost all processor segments and that's why Intel has so big share of the market. Integrated solution means nothing, Intel could have easily produced console on par with AMD, with or without Nvidia's help, but they DID hand them that contract by refusing. AMD workers admitted that in interviews, maybe read something outside of biased fantexts?

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I don't think Intel could have won it even if it wanted to. Intel GPU's have come a long way but not far enough to beat AMD.

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

This. Intel is not afraid of AMD, because that competition is almost non-existent in server and hi-end workstations market. If they forced them selves into this, regulators would intervene for sure. They need AMD to survive more than AMD needs to live, lol.

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

probably amd has better salesmen than intel

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

When was the last time an Intel CPU was inside a console?

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The original Xbox had a pentium 3

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

AMD
next gen

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Price, that's the main issue with Intel and Nvidia. M$ and Sony knows that after first Xbox (original Xbox) and huge problems with Nvidia and their pricing.

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Considering that games on E3 were still presented on Windows 7 PCs ran by nVidia GPUs, you can guess. Definitely not performance. (strictly talking about GPU)

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Closed 11 years ago by 01002920.