Sections

AMD believes it will have a “performance advantage” on PC due to its PS4, Xbox One partnerships

Wednesday, 18th September 2013 21:22 GMT By Stephany Nunneley

AMD believes due to its chips being inside both Xbox One and PlayStation 4, it will have an “edge” when it comes to PC development.

Speaking with Forbes, vice president Matt Skynner said due to the firm’s architecture being in the consoles, “it’s easier to port the games.”

“Because they’re first developed on our hardware, there should be a performance advantage,” he said. “They should run better on our hardware.

“Couple years ago when we saw how the console thing was gonna shake out, we thought how can we leverage this to a better Radeon gaming solution across other markets, so if we can create that performance advantage on the PC – from a graphics point of view – then we can give our customers a better gaming experience and grow our market share.”

Xbox One and PS4 are both out in November.

Thanks, Shack.

Latest

28 Comments

  1. sleaker

    Having your hardware in 2 consoles doesn’t inherently mean your company produces quality drivers. Also, if I’m not mistaken, driver support is still pretty poor for both of these devices. It also doesn’t mean the performance translates to other graphics cards, or CPUs.
    Last I checked AMD was still trailing (if only slightly) in both Graphics and CPU performance categories.

    I’d say it’d be more accurate to state ‘There might be performance improvements in the future, but it’s definitely too early to tell.’

    #1 1 year ago
  2. DarkElfa

    ^^Nvidia and Intel user, nothing to see here, move along.

    #2 1 year ago
  3. boothegreat

    @2

    #1′s info doesn’t automatically make him a Intel fan boy. What he said is true. Just cause you might market your products in a more advantageous way doesn’t mean they are better. It’s known that Intel CPU’s performance wise are much better, but obviously cost more.

    #3 1 year ago
  4. ninjakenzen

    Obviously they’re right. Even though I am a Nvidia and Intel user myself. It would make the most sense that any PC ported PS4/X1 console games in the near future would be better optimized on AMD PC platforms. As the consoles themselves are native AMD platforms.

    @#1 You went off course, but I get what you’re saying about DRIVER support. But I think your Nvidia/Intel defense force mode made you misguided about the articles actual information.

    #4 1 year ago
  5. sebastien rivas

    Well AMD, don’t laugh too hard,
    You were chosen only because of the edge and advance you’ve got through ATI and nothing else. It gave you a clear edge over Intel so be happy, indeed but don;t laugh too hard, that is a sign you may as well have nothing up your sleeve and 5~7 years goes by really fast. Intel already made progress, they are still behind but they are coming back up.
    Since you left the gaming CPU war market then beware that APU are the last bastion for gamers, after that you well made retrench AGAIN and this time only be for servers :/
    Nobody wants that but hey be happy for now but kick in to surpass yourself or die like others.

    #5 1 year ago
  6. lookingglass

    Total advantage. Until you realize next gen console GPUs are based on a midrange PC architecture that’s already over a year old.

    Compared to the PS4, PC graphics cards will seem like alien technology in two years. We’re talking 2-3x the performance here and drastically different architectures.

    Nvidia is fine. Titan is already about 3x the PS4 in pure TFlops. Titan-like performance will be at least $200-300 in two years.

    #6 1 year ago
  7. spoffle

    @1 In the real world, nVidia drivers are absolutely awful and have caused a multitude of problems for those who own nVidia graphics cards, so quite how AMD has this poor driver stigma, I really don’t know. AMD has never killed graphics cards through driver releases, nVidia have multiple times, and each time seemed to coincide with them releasing some new cards.

    @6, the PS3 and Xbox 360 were also in the same situation. The PS4′s GPU is roughly 10x as powerful as the PS3 GPU.

    How the console hardware compares to PC hardware is completely irrelevant, it’s how it compares to the previous consoles and there is a huge difference.

    Also, Titans aren’t these magical wonder cards that people who sperge over them make them out to be. They are the fastest single GPU, sure, but it’s not by much at all,

    #7 1 year ago
  8. SplatteredHouse

    AMD has to play whatever advantage it may, but I find it unlikely that this is going to prove to be the case.

    It just so happens that I am looking presently at graphics cards, so I am looking through a lot of comparison articles/graphs, and typically, AMD’s current best is out-ranked or near-matched in performance even by some of Nvidia’s B-Tiers, in the case of single GPU cards. Which can be some of Nv’s last (card)-gen rebadges!

    Here is what seems to be informed expansion on that:
    http://forums.hexus.net/graphics-cards/288781-gtx-760-par-gtx-680-a.html#post2972557

    A review from several months ago showing comparison.
    http://www.techspot.com/review/675-nvidia-geforce-gtx-780/page3.html

    #8 1 year ago
  9. Keivz

    This sounds like utter BS to me, but then I’ve always thought that Nvidia and AMD were quite similar HW wise, only with Nvidia having somewhat better driver support (I’ve owned a couple ATI cards before and the driver support was always subpar… even now they struggle with runt frames).

    Then again, we haven’t seen the scenario of the main consoles sharing the same GPU/CPU architecture/company components before. Plus I’m not a hardware developer (and neither are most (if not all) of us on this board).

    #9 1 year ago
  10. ninjakenzen

    @6

    I really don’t understand this thread in PC gamers proving PC hardware is superior. Isn’t that obvious? Like PC hardware is VARIED and VERSATILE. It’s open to UPGRADES in CUSTOMIZATION on practically a yearly basis. Each PC gamer likely has a different set-up.

    Consoles on the other hand, essentially have the same hardware from release. The customization are very limited and generally upgrades only refer to the HDD size.

    Having said that. I’m sure EVERY gamer knows this. But what we Gamers should look at, are the games themselves. Not only that, I don’t think PC gamers really understand the amount of OPTIMIZATION that goes into consoles, and from a game making POV how much of an advantage having a single unified platform composed of the SAME hardware can be, as opposed to offering high-end and low end support.

    I mean when I console game, I look at how much some PC gamers miss out on actual GAMES I consider worth playing and to an extent opposing console exclusives. I mean, I may never get to play games on PC such as Ninja Gaiden, Last of Us, Gears of War, Halo, GTA V…the list goes on. The Xbox 360 and PS3 have done an impressively amazing job on running some of these games, especially considering the age of the HARDWARE. I don’t think PC gamers appreciate this notion at all. It fact they slam the age old hardware in the face and retort with specs to justify better gaming experiences.

    But then I get reminded by the nitty gritty of superior hardware and techno blabble, in truth it’s really is ‘the bigger picture’ that some gamers miss out on.

    A similar argument can be applied to PC exclusives and the use of KB+Mouse. But reading #6 comment just makes me realise how some people gamble the future of gaming experience solely on specs and that makes me wonder who actually plays games for the…. games?

    This talk of ‘Alien technology’ is the kinda talk of pure insecurity and feeds this whole ‘PC master race’ ideology in video-games. While I get your very obvious point. PC hardware out rival Console by a significant margin on a yearly basis. The real question is…so what? Yes it may run more smoothly, look better in higher resolution and higher framerates, but for the majority of people, what does that matter if you can’t even access it on the platform. I mean look at Steam, arguably PC lead distributors of games, it’s main releases are mostly console ports.

    You get trickled down console ports in exchange for your superior hardware most of the time. I think this issue needs to be addressed because PC gamers simply ignore this with their ears and ears redirected. That’s the real tragedy of PC gamers and in turn PC gaming. As the gaming industry is very console-focused but PC gamers refuse to understand this and reply with the same retort over and OVER again.

    Update: I’m just gonna add. I don’t think PC gamers actually understand the purpose of video-game ‘Console Wars’. The primary focus is not on hardware, it has never been just about that. It’s gonna be a neaty gritty battle of EXCLUSIVES and this refresh of ‘Next-Gen’ is most likely going to be something PC gamers aren’t gonna benefit too much from. This is in terms of new IP’s that won’t get ported to PC, because of the important reason of keeping the Consoles worth buying. Simply, this is something PC gamers will miss out on, like EVERY generation before it. So superior hardware argument only applies to games which purposely need just that. The last example I can think of is as far back as Crysis 1. Quite simply it could only be a PC exclusive at the time because it was unable to run on consoles, which at a later period was proven wrong. That’s where techno blabble should be highlighted as a comparison to console gaming.

    #10 1 year ago
  11. TMRNetShark

    Not gonna lie… been using AMD for going on 13 years now (last Intel I had was a P3). Never been let down by the processors.

    As for the graphics, they are essentially the same as Nvidia.

    #11 1 year ago
  12. nollie4545

    Old hat CPU/GPU maker claims it will oust intel and Nvidia because of some cheap half rate shit product it just flogged for a song to Sony and MS.

    Jesus, you couldn’t make this crap up.

    Intel/Nvidia financial performance speaks for itself. AMD in dire straights and has been for 18 months. Google it.

    Their CPU technology is seriously old hat and hasn’t been comparable to intels products for as long as anyone can remember. Even basic or far earlier intel products are capable of mixing it with the front line AMD SKUs and with far less TDP required.

    I was an AMD man for a long time but I saw the light ages ago.

    As for people talking about Nvidia drivers, errr, even if you installed the latest one and it was totally crap, I take it you are totally incapable of rolling back your drivers and/or downloading an older version? Very difficult I know…

    Unless AMD sort their shit out and seriously start shifting some product for a sensible margin, the supreme law of economics means they just aren’t going to exist in 3 years time, particularly since Nvidia want to enter the CPU world and Intel are keen to swipe the low end GPU market with on board tech, traditionally the AMD bastion.

    Real major concern for AMD gamers at the moment is their total lack of any new chipsets, meaning you can have a razor sharp 8 core beast of a CPU but you’ll have to stick it to a ridiculously ancient chipset and mobo.

    Meanwhile in the last 18 months intel have launched 3 new chipsets and two generations of CPU. Go figure.

    #12 1 year ago
  13. DSB

    Lulz. So because the consoles contain an AMD component, the games are gonna run better on PC using entirely different components?

    That’s really not how shit works, dude.

    AMD are in a world of hurt right now, and I’m pretty sure they’ll be one of the PC-related companies that are gonna be killed off by the tablet crunch.

    Either killed off or assimilated, they do still have those fabs right?

    I’m sure their products are just fine, but they really can’t compete. I owned an ATI card once and based on all the software woes and the lacking support from developers, I’m not ever buying another one.

    #13 1 year ago
  14. SplatteredHouse

    In single GPU comparison, AMD’s heavy hitters get snuck up on and nearly jumped by Nvidia’s B-Tier. (often last-card-gen rebadges)

    http://forums.hexus.net/graphics-cards/288781-gtx-760-par-gtx-680-a.html#post2972557

    #14 1 year ago
  15. SplatteredHouse

    In single GPU cards, AMD’s heavy-hitters get snuck up on, and almost caught in a choke hold by Nvidia’s B-tier. (typically, rebadges of the previous numbered series).

    This scene that left stunned onlookers, was captured earlier today, outside the AMD company building: http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/lookandlearn-preview/B/B000/B000369.jpg

    #15 1 year ago
  16. fearmonkey

    I personally started with 3dFX cards and switched to Nvidia when the Geforce 2 was released. I bought a few ATI cards that were lower range cards for computers that werent my main system and they died early. Also, a friend made the mistake of buying a ATI Rage maxx pro and they wouldnt make the drivers he needed when a new OS was released, just droped support entirely. I avoided Ati after that just buying Nvidia.

    I bought a Alienware system (because I got an amazing deal on it, I usually build my own but needed a system fast and the cost was amazing) that had a ATI 7870 in it and I love the card. It has HDMI and display port which is nice, and runs quiet and cooler than the comparable Nvidia card. It’s changed my mind about ATI actually. Their drivers have been stable and performance has been great. The fact that the PS4 has a GPU close to it’s level has me happy as I like the card.

    I do wonder about the cooling in the PS4 though. Sony is usually really good hardware wise but it seems rather small for great cooling. I would prfer no RROD type of situation like I had with my 360′s.

    #16 1 year ago
  17. pcbros

    I just buy AMD chips because they are cheaper (I don’t need a $300 i7). I buy Nvidia cards because of the CUDA cores (I use Blender for 3D extensively).

    #17 1 year ago
  18. sebastien rivas

    @6
    I must disagree with you on one point. I really doubt we will see Titan @ 200~300 unless things happen.
    1) Nvidia rushes out a series of overpowering cards
    2) AMD/ATI come back in Nvidia’s face with something comparable in power/price and market it at your suggested price point

    I really see a titan not falling under 699 in 2,3, perhaps 4 years from now which seems Nvidia mid-range price point at the moment. I know it stinks and that is a point In elevated not long ago about GPUs and how we are the sheep and the cow altogether just feeding the man. After all, let’s look at GPU timeline for last 10 years. Sure cards are more powerful by a lightyear distance, yet and beside the fact and point of die shrink and further emphasis on memory ram, the rest is just technical terms that we are willing to spend money on.

    weeewwwww look my SLI power tank 18 cards hooked up with Turbone XL dual engine turbines and a woopie 8 gigs of ram total across the boards.
    Ching ching, ching ching…
    PR is PR, we gotta pay for the shiny box.

    #18 1 year ago
  19. KTF26

    i agree with AMD
    but after less than two years they will have to change the architecture
    so this advantage will be gone

    they know this
    and they need to work very hard to be on the top

    #19 1 year ago
  20. merseymal

    I ditched AMD after the mess they made out of DX11 Crossfire support for Far Cry 3 which even carried their logo as being a game designed with their cards in mind.

    #20 1 year ago
  21. smartalves

    First of all, please give some credit to AMD for this win over Intel and Nvidia. They did a good job to sell a product that will sell on millions of next gen consoles in the next 3-4 years.
    This news is about consoles not PC market. I’m a AMD/ATI user and I know that on processor side I’m behind Intel but on graphics I think ATI is much friendly and less trouble with drivers that Nvidia (at least judging for my friends who run mostly Nvidia and sometimes have to roll back drivers). My Phenom X4/ATI 7870 runs BF3 nicely on high even on MP.
    Intel continues to maintain high prices on processors because they can: if they decide (and they can lower prices and still make an humungous mont of money) to lower the prices, AMD will be out of business.
    On the developer side, maybe the technology envolved in making PS4/Xbox One titles will make them easier to port to PC, but the market have show us to many bad mistakes to tell us if this true or false. We have to wait after the next gen releases to see what will happen.
    My hopes is that this AMD deal with Sony and Microsoft will give them some money to invest in new processor technologies for PC’s because we need more competition and more options to the user.

    #21 1 year ago
  22. smartalves

    Ninjakenzen
    I’m glad that you agree that PC hardware is miles in front on next gen consoles. I can agree with you more. That’s one of the reason’s because consoles exclusives exist. All of this runs around money. Money in a sense that you make GTA V first on consoles because Rockstar wants to make a lot of money first because they think that all pc users and pirates and cheaters. That’s why we will never play Uncharted, Gran Turismo or MGS on a PC: is just a question of money and because programming for a PS3/Xbox 360 console is so difficult that, monetarily speaking, it’s to dam difficult to port them to a PC (and Microsoft and Sony don’t want to loose their “exclusive” base of users).
    Once more: this is all about the money. This is not about porting, with more or less difficulty, from consoles to PC. So, maybe, maybe, porting from PS4/Xbox One to PC will be easier, but consoles manufactures don’t going to give up their base so easily. If they do, they will loose money. Se, it’s all about the money!

    #22 1 year ago
  23. DSB

    @19 Define “win”. It’s really fairly slim pickings. How much will the Xbone and PS4 sell? Maybe 100 million units each over a period of 8-10 years.

    The PC market is currently shifting around 70 million units every quarter. And it’s dominated by Intel and Nvidia, who are also heavily engaged in the mobile and server markets, where AMD has really dropped the ball.

    I think this is simply a question of AMD scrambling to seize whatever’s left, and Nvidia and Intel not wanting it as badly.

    Again that’s not to say that their products are bad, it’s not a question of Intel and Nvidia being the only way, it’s just to say that they’ve really painted themselves into a corner over the last few years. Becoming a niche gaming company is a very real option for them, unless things go much worse.

    #23 1 year ago
  24. TheWulf

    A graphics card is a graphics card. You choose the right one for the job, and they’ve been fighting over performance and pricing for ages, now. With AMD quite frequently either pulling ahead in either performance or price, and I say that as an Nvidia user.

    I just don’t see the point in being a brand zombie. It’s kind of like arguing which kettle boils the best pot of tea, really. Whilst there may be minor variations between kettles, you’re not going to be able to spot them in the end result. If both cards play games equally as well, then you just go for the set of features and pricing that appeals to you the most.

    Locking yourself into any one brand only limits your options. As such, I’ve been hopping between AMD and Nvidia for years, never sticking with one. Currently I’m with Nvidia, but that’s only because they were offering what I wanted at the time.

    Intelligent and responsible consumerism should be lauded, really. I don’t get this desire to segregate and separate people into camps.

    RAR, I HAVE A AMD. I R BEST!
    NUH-UH. NVIDIA PUT OUT A BETTER CARD!
    YUH-HUH!
    NUH-UH!
    YUH-HUH!
    NUH-UH!
    YUH-HUH!
    NUH-UH!

    Blargh. Now I’m reminded of those annoying kids from Emperor’s New Groove. Poor Patcha. Where was I?

    Oh yes. It reminds me of the ridiculousness of the “console wars.”

    RAR, I HAVE A PS4. I R BEST!
    NUH-UH. XBOX ONE HAS BETTER GAMES!
    YUH-HUH!
    NUH-UH!
    YUH-HUH!
    NUH-UH!
    YUH-HUH!
    NUH-UH!

    Sigh.

    Please, won’t someone think of my waning faith in humanity?

    #24 1 year ago
  25. TheWulf

    That said, I don’t think this sort of rivalry puts either Nvidia or AMD in a good light, either. It insults their more intelligent consumers.

    Frankly, I’d rather just have them sell me their goods based upon their own merits. Given the variances in AMD’s own cards, no, it’s not going to give them any benefits. Did having ATi hardware in the 360 do so? No. Did having Nvidia hardware in the original XBox provide Nvidia a leg-up over the competition? No.

    This is just silly, and it makes me sigh weary sighs.

    It just makes me feel so bloody old.

    #25 1 year ago
  26. nollie4545

    Errrr, I don’t know what school of business management you may or may not have attended, but just because AMD get to provide the APU for both consoles, does not give you much insight into:

    A how much margin they will make per unit

    or

    B ultimately how it will affect overall profitability.

    Intel and Nvidia spend billions on R&D and dish out new product which does new and more exciting things each time, and unsurprisingly, they sell a lot of stuff, particularly to the enthusiast end of the market where there is serious cash to be made.

    Ultimately there was no way Nvidia or intel alone were going to clinch the console deal, as intel didn’t have a potent enough on board GPU, and Nvidia don’t make CPUs full stop. And since the cost of a combined intel + discreet Nvidia GPU was probably double what AMD were going to crank out their APU for, Its hardly rocket science or surprising to see AMD churning out the guts for the consoles.

    How the hell flogging a load of already outdated and out-performed tat to MS or Sony is going to put AMD ahead in the PC world, I have no clue. Do they honestly think they are going to beat Haswell and the 7 series GPUs using an APU solution? I’ll bet anyone $100 it won’t be done inside the next 2 years.

    #26 1 year ago
  27. Pitts

    As long as it works and gives me as few headaches as possible, I couldn’t care less if I got AMD, Intel, Nvidia, or a fast hamster stuffed in there.

    If any of this turns out to be true, good for them? I doubt it will affect my PC gaming much.

    #27 1 year ago
  28. Junoh315

    I don’t see how putting an AMD card in the PS4/X1 will make AMD come out on top. Nvidia is making the best mobile chips out there right now. Without any real competition, they will dominate the largest market to have ever existed. Smart phones are extremely popular and will continue to sell hundreds of millions of units. The new consoles might sell 100 million units. There’s a lot more money in the mobile market for hardware developers.

    Also, I have to wonder how AMD plans to improve its financial situation. The stock price for AMD is only at 3.86 USD right now. Nvidia and Intel are doing much better.

    Nvidia: 15.59 USD

    Intel: 22.83 USD

    Even if games are optimized for AMD, they will still work with Nvidia. I’ll stick with Nvidia/Intel because I don’t just play games. I need hardware that can handle editing tools, video converters, and lots of other types of programs. AMD/ATI has never been better than Intel when it comes to those kinds of programs. As for the reason why I get Nvidia, it’s because there’s a program that I use every day for work and it works a lot faster at handling video rendering than AMD does for me. I’ll have to try getting a new AMD card and testing that out. The last time I had two comparable video cards from both of the rival companies was a few years ago.

    #28 11 months ago

Comments are now closed on this article.