AMD: We will have no problem supplying silicon for PS4, Xbox One

By on June 27, 2013, 2:00 PM
sony, microsoft, amd, nintendo, ps4, wii u, silicon, playstation 4, gaming console, xbox one

It’s way too early to declare a winner in the next generation console race but with Microsoft’s recent decision to do away with daily check-ins and used game restrictions, the playing field is much more level now. One thing is for certain, however: Microsoft and Sony are poised to sell a ton of new consoles this holiday season and beyond.

That of course presents another interesting question. Will the console makers be able to keep up with supply or will gamers have to submit to typical price gouging on eBay to get a system at launch? That’s yet another question that remains to be seen but according to chip maker AMD, there won’t be any production delays on their end.

If you weren’t aware, AMD is supplying silicon for both the Xbox One and the PlayStation 4. AMD corporate vice president Saeid Moshkelani recently told GamesIndustry they have a strong manufacturing base for their APUs and discrete graphics and that they leverage the same manufacturing infrastructure to develop for game consoles.

As such, volumes were not something that raised eyebrows for AMD because they already manufacture in high volumes, Moshkelani noted. From a manufacturing perspective, they can ship tens of millions of units within a year.

AMD also supplied hardware for Nintendo’s Wii U which is all part of their plan to be the dominant player in game consoles, handhelds and cloud gaming. Gaming has always been a part of their business – "gaming is in our DNA," Moshkelani concluded.




User Comments: 17

Got something to say? Post a comment
1 person liked this | Guest said:

I am an AMD fan. And I think its awesome that they are "taking control"

But, even though I love AMD, I do wish nvida would have supplied the chips for either the ps4 or xbox1. You know, make some competition. Even though both systems are mostly even, the ps4 has a RAM advantage - making it look like the stronger system. If the xbox one were to have a different GPU we would have to wait and see which one was actually a better system.

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

The Xbox one does have a different GPU, it's considerably less powerful, google for the specs but I believe the throughput of the Xbox one GPU is 1.2TFLOP and the PS4 is 1.8 TFLOP and the PS4 advertises it is using ATI's GCN architecture where as the Xbox one doesn't.

1 person liked this | cuerdc said:

Good to see amd beating nvidea in this part maybe they will be able to up their game a bit more on the PC side with the extra revenue

1 person liked this | 9Nails, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I know it's not quite apples to apples, but shouldn't one of the side-effects of developing games on PS4 or Xbox One be that the games ported to PC will be better optimized to be played on AMD Radeon GPU's?

Might be time to buy some AMD stock.

2 people like this | amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

Good to see amd beating nvidea in this part maybe they will be able to up their game a bit more on the PC side with the extra revenue

Consoles are made as cheap as possible and priced as high as possible, this is why every new console has AMD components. Thier price for performance can't be beat (well usually) and AMD's countless & various driver issues can be more easily addressed/fixed on a console where its simple production enviroment.

Nvidia products are priced higher because you get CUDA, PhsyX, superior architecture and less issues with smoother gameplay. Things a PC gamer will want but not a console gamer...although PhysX in BL2 looks amazing!

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

PhysX in BL2 looks amazing!

Agreed, it quite literally transformed the effects, I hope more games impliment PhysX as well as they did in borderlands!

VitalyT VitalyT said:

They should hire Alicia Douvall, to make sure they never run out of silicon.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

At this point in time, AMD has little to do with production and delivery of the hardware. AMD furnished the design and IP. TSMC is responsible for manufacturing the silicon, and Foxconn is responsible for assembly of the Xbox One with parts sourced from TSMC, Lite-On, Jentech, Delat etc...Likewise, the PS4 will likely be assembled by either Foxconn or Pegatron -or partial assembly by both- from parts sourced from TSMC (the APU), Delta, Cheng Uei etc...

AMD's involvement is little more than as a collector of royalties at this stage.

Puiu Puiu said:

The Xbox one does have a different GPU, it's considerably less powerful, google for the specs but I believe the throughput of the Xbox one GPU is 1.2TFLOP and the PS4 is 1.8 TFLOP and the PS4 advertises it is using ATI's GCN architecture where as the Xbox one doesn't.

While different they should be from the same gen, meaning it's just the same GPU, but in different sizes. We still need confirmation on this though.

evolucion8 evolucion8 said:

Both uses the same GCN architecture used on PC, the only difference is that the Xbox One has 768 SPU's while the PS4 has 1152 SPU's.

2 people like this | evolucion8 evolucion8 said:

Good to see amd beating nvidea in this part maybe they will be able to up their game a bit more on the PC side with the extra revenue

Consoles are made as cheap as possible and priced as high as possible, this is why every new console has AMD components. Thier price for performance can't be beat (well usually) and AMD's countless & various driver issues can be more easily addressed/fixed on a console where its simple production enviroment.

Nvidia products are priced higher because you get CUDA, PhsyX, superior architecture and less issues with smoother gameplay. Things a PC gamer will want but not a console gamer...although PhysX in BL2 looks amazing!

You can't really say that nVidia has a superior architecture. AMD's architecture has vastly more general purpose computing performance, that is why even Titan has a hard time outperforming the HD 7970GHz in GPGPU performance, plus CUDA and PhysX are offerings from them, while AMD offers AMD APP and superior DirectCompute/OpenCL performance which can accelerate any Physics engine.

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

You can't really say that nVidia has a superior architecture. AMD's architecture has vastly more general purpose computing performance, that is why even Titan has a hard time outperforming the HD 7970GHz in GPGPU performance, plus CUDA and PhysX are offerings from them, while AMD offers AMD APP and superior DirectCompute/OpenCL performance which can accelerate any Physics engine.

Have you played Borderlands 2 with the PhysX turned up to max on an nvidia card? I actually kept a fast machine gun on me in the game just so I could rip apart different fabrics in the game! it looks soo cool! plus the explosions, I kept hold of a low level corrosion grenade just because it looked ridiculously cool when it blew up.

I'm yet to see ATI release a PhysX type system for their cards, I did like the hair they created in Tomb Raider though, that was pretty awesome.

Either way, if ATI Cards have all this GPGPU power, surely they should start really showing it off by getting their cards to offload certain work in games such as Physics? Maybe strike a deal with Nvidia so PhysX works on ATI cards? or maybe find a way of shoe horning it in?

Guest said:

I actually play BL2 always at 100+ FPS with PhysX on the maximum allowed setting using an AMD 7970 Ghz. The game supports the version of PhysX where you are able to offload the workload to your CPU, where I'm using a 3770k. I was disappointed initially after my graphics card purchase against a 680, but with the same hardware and continuing driver support my card simply improves over time, with decent room for overclocking too. With more games being developed to support this architecture for the new consoles, I think the AMD owners should be having a much more optimized experience from here on out.

PhysX while obviously can perform better in a graphics card, is not a reason to buy a graphics card. At least with the existing applications on the market which make use of it.

JC713 JC713 said:

They have the capabilities, now dont F it up.

amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

You can't really say that nVidia has a superior architecture. .

From a gaming standpoint you might be able to. The 256bit GK-104 basically matches the 384bit Southern Islands until the bandwidth becomes an issue (well past 1600p). If you have a fair match a 384bit GF-110 (GTX 780) destroys the 384bit 7970Ghz. No super driver update will save you here, if anything the 780 will get faster in the next year.

AMD's architecture has vastly more general purpose computing performance, that is why even Titan has a hard time outperforming the HD 7970GHz in GPGPU performance,

Thats all true but there are certain things each GPU/architecture does better, I could post floating point charts or whatever Nvidia's GPU's do better but overall they both make great workstation options. We have some of the FirePro's here at work and we love them, and HydraVision works great.

plus CUDA and PhysX are offerings from them, while AMD offers AMD APP and superior DirectCompute/OpenCL performance which can accelerate any Physics engine.

What I have seen so far has been nothing impressive, they still lose considerable performance when pushing it on high end systems/resolutions. AMD's true weakness though is thier drivers. Here is a quote from Toms 770 review.

Enthusiasts ready to go big with multiple GPUs should be looking to Nvidia's cards until AMD can sort out the issues with its frame pacing that we saw affect Battlefield 3, BioShock Infinite, Crysis 3, Far Cry 3, and Tomb Raider.

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

From a gaming standpoint you might be able to. The 256bit GK-104 basically matches the 384bit Southern Islands until the bandwidth becomes an issue (well past 1600p). If you have a fair match a 384bit GF-110 (GTX 780) destroys the 384bit 7970Ghz. No super driver update will save you here, if anything the 780 will get faster in the next year.

How is that a fair matchup, your comparing a next-gen card to a card from the previous generation. I would expect the new generation card to be faster, thats a given, the 680 though loses in most gaming benchmarks and in multi-monitor displays compared to the 7970GE which is where the higher bandwidth shines.

What I have seen so far has been nothing impressive, they still lose considerable performance when pushing it on high end systems/resolutions. AMD's true weakness though is thier drivers. Here is a quote from Toms 770 review.

Yeah... Have fun doing this on any Single Nvidia Card, btw that game is called Tomb Raider on the display, one you keep quoting from Toms Hardware as saying theres driver issues. Looks fine to me on those 5 way Eyefinity Display system. Next to it on the display was Bioshock Infinite on a 3 Way Portrait Eyefinity Display at the same panel.

Also just for the purpose of showing something you fail to acknowlege, heres Techspots review of the GTX 770 showing the AMD cards at which you dismiss in BF3 and Crysis 3. Performance seems fine to me...

amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

PhysX while obviously can perform better in a graphics card, is not a reason to buy a graphics card. At least with the existing applications on the market which make use of it.

Unless you play BL2, then it is.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.