JWeinCom 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. (So a wikipedia page and an online PC part retailer wow! The APU is a concept not a marketing term. And HSA has nothing to do with fusion at all as fusion was a marketing brand used by AMD to market their predecessor to the APUs while HSA is a standard co-developed by dozens of different companies. In order to be a APU a chip must have the following: 1)CPU & GPU on the same die 2) CPU & GPU can directly communicate 3) Heterogenious memory mapping 4) CPU memory pagable from GPU using GPU pointers 5) GPU pagable from CPU using CPU pointers 6) Both CPU & GPU are fully aware of each other and can access each others variables without delay & know what eachother are doing at all times. The richland architecture has none of that: 1) CPU on single die 2) GPU on another die 3) CPU & GPU dies integrated together on a chip package 4) does not support heterogenious memory mapping 5) CPU does not know GPU exists & GPU does not know CPU exists. Each runs in their own world runnig their own seperate tasks not working together. Richland is just a something AMD tried to pass off as a newer tech but isn't. Other companies like Intel have also doen this before where they have a new product line and try to sell the older products under the new product line's branding. ) "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. (Except that the PS4 APU would still outperform that setup and the APU only costs about $30 to manufacture so the $200 was a really high mark. They could sell this for $99-$130 and still make a killing.) "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 (Extremetech is not a reliable source as they have from day 1 tried to downplay everything related to Playstation 4. Sorry that's like using fox news or wikepedia as a source.) 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. (Actually no there is no retail AMD part that has a full HSA & hUMA setup. HSA/hUMA requires the following: 1)APU compliant with both HSA & hUMA standards 2)System memory array that is a homogenious pool with sufficient bandwidth to support caching of data. Xbone cant do this 3)An operating system that is fully compliant and support HSA memory access by system software HSA/hUMA is not just an APU thing it requires special infrastructure both, hardware & software, to actually implement it. There is no motherboards that support this and windows/linux would have to be rewritten to properly support this new type of memory access. So I am still correct when I say there is no retail HSA/hUMA yet. ) 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. (The articles are really easy to find on google you must not be looking hard enough. SCE is not a founding member but they are still one of the main contributing members.) 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 (SonyUK has nothing to do with SCE, besides the PS4 was mainly developed in SCEA so its highly unlikely a foreign branch of your parent company is gonna have much intimate knowledge on the PS4. Google plus is hardly an official source for anything. I was talking about official press releases or announcements or maybe even official SCE FB or twitter pages not something so remote as an unverified 'SonyUK' google plus page.) 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. (Actually that book was highly critisized on release for having factual incorrect statements and sensationalism. The authors needed to sell book so they took massive liberties with the truth and tried to create fake scandels like "SCE paid for MS's Xbox 360 cpu dev costs" etc. Not the best source at all. I thought you had some other source for the $400 million so in retrospect the CELL development costs were even more.) 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. (I am not doing your work for you as I was merely pointing out that you were incorrect. You can be rest assured that I have sustantial knowledge in this subject matter and "know what I am talking about". Your original post did not have any sources and I just pointed out the incorrectness. You made the original assertions so it is you who has to prove them to be correct, I should not have to prove them incorrect.) |
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
