elektranine said:
|
"This is not correct. The richland architecture is NOT an APU at all. You cannot compare them. I was only talking about APUs. Richland is just a discrete CPU and a discrete GPU glued together in a single package much like Intel does. The richland "APU" lacks all the features true APUs have such as : heterogenious memory management, full coherence of memory between CPU/GPU, GPU pagable memory, etc. Not quite the same thing here."
You would be right... except that you're wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Accelerated_Processing_Unit
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113335
The APUs AMD made originally used the "fusion" branding. After a copyright dispute, they began to call it HSA. Same concept. Obviously the earlier models didn't do memory sharing and communication as well, but they were most certainly APUs. So... as it seems with most things you've said, you are wrong.
"Nope. Do you really think AMD would not sell these if they could. Many budget PC gamers would go after a $200 APU with a moderately powerful GPU. Enterprise use would also be huge as many corporation's employees need a capable desktop with good graphics capabilties. "
No I don't think they would. Because it's a computer not a console. So it wouldn't make sense to buy something made for a console. It also wouldn't make much sense to put mobile chips in a desktop, because those are made with different things in mind.
For between 250 and 300 dollars you could get an i3 processor and a mid range desktop gpu. You can get a lot more bang for your buck, especially since some of the features of the PS4 may not be relevant to a PC, and especially not for a desktop.
"Nope again. SCE has been a member of the HSA group for years. I never said that it was some sort of SCE exclusive tech. And the PS4 APU uses Kaveri as its reference design NOT the kabini."
Wrong on the Kaveri. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/171375-reverse-engineered-ps4-apu-reveals-the-consoles-real-cpu-and-gpu-specs
As for You saying it's exclusive text. Lets take a look at the replay shall we?
"All this extra power & technologies (such as HSA, hUMA) are not found in AMD's retail lineup because AMD does not own the rights to manufacture them. SCE paid alot of money to license the reference design & then customize it. "
You said that HSA is not found in AMD's retail lineup. That is absolutely false. You also said they do not have the rights to manufacture it. You said Sony's PS4 uses hUMA which as far as I can tell is false. The clear implication is that they couldn't use HUMA because it was a custom Sony feature. Maybe I misunderstood that last one, but the first three are absolutely, demonstrably wrong.
As for being a member of the HSA foundation... Again, wrong, so far as I can tell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:HSA_Foundation_members
Wikipedia may not be completely accurate, but I can't find any source claiming Sony is an HSA foundation member. At any rate, that's pretty irrelevant to the point. The point was you said that AMD cannot manufacture them. Not only can they do so, but many other companies can as well. So, yeah. Wrong.
Actually nope again. SCE has never said anything about their clockspeeds. That is all under NDA and not even AMD can legally say anything about it.
Wrong again.
https://plus.google.com/+sonyuk/posts/eiA6sDQvWwQ
Actually the CELL was co-developed by SCE and IBM and Toshiba. SCE's share of the cost was $400 million. So that puts the total cost at $1.2 billion. Much of the cost SCE endured with the APU is the licensing of the patents & trademarks coming with the APU reference design. Dozens of tech companies cross-license patents like this and that builds the cost up. Patents from AMD, Intel, Nvidia, ATI, etc.
Yet again wrong. The claim in the book (The Race for a New Game Machine) claims the project cost Sony and their partners five years and 400 million dollars. Not just Sony.
I'll ask again. Do you have any sort of evidence whatsoever to back up anything you're saying? Because pretty much everything I've looked into has turned up false. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. If you think you do, then back up what you're saying.