By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
potato_hamster said:
Pemalite said:
Consoles typically use semi-custom designs, Thus the "Hypothetical" chips generally don't exist until they hit the market anyway.
There is only one exception that comes to mind though... The Switch.

Sure, consoles use semi-custom designs. The key there being semi-custom, you know, meaning a customized version of something that actually exists. Except in this case it would be a semi-custom design of something that doesn't yet exist that people are assuming exists secretly, or will exist within the next 6-18 months or so, and be at a price point comparative to current APUs. Kev here is acting like there's a decent chance Sony already has this all nailed down and could be announcing it at E3.

Low powered Ryzen APU's exist and they have Superior CPU and GPU capabilities to the Playstation 4.
The only issue they have is bandwidth, they would likely need a redesign of the memory controller to take advantage of HBM/GDDR5/GDDR5X/GDDR6.

potato_hamster said:

Well wonderful that you found an exception to a broadly established rule of thumb per se. Unless you're advocating that it would make any sense to design a PS4 mobile APU that is design to spend as much time idling as possible, please make your case, and if not, why bother bringing it up?

I brought it up because there was an exception to the rule. - You cannot assert something is true when there are cases of it being false.

potato_hamster said:

You keep talking like it's just arbitary to effectively emulate something closely resembling the PS4's APU on something like a 2300U, with the appropriate TDP and cost, do you have an examples of something similar being done using similar technologies, or is this just something that you think hypothetically should be easily manageable?

I'm not talking emulation. Nor would it be required. Thus I am not obligated to provide examples on how "it's done".
If everything is kept ISA compatible, there is generally no issue on that front... Which is why the Xbox One X having a ton of hardware deviations from the base Xbox One, still retains full hardware backwards compatibility.

potato_hamster said:


I mean, it kinda would have to have a 1080p screen, maybe not in the the "they could make it work on a 720p screen" but definitely in the "how in the fuck are we going to market device for a target audience that definitely won't accept a 720p screen on a handheld  in 2019 for $400.?"

I am a massive advocate for higher resolution screens. If the device doesn't have a 2560x1440 display at a minimum, regardless if it's a 5.5" display or a 32" display... I generally have no interest in it.
There is a reason why that has been my largest criticism of the Switch and for the longest time... Xbox One X.

With that in mind... 1080P IPS panels (Sure, they are likely to be 6-bit with FRC at the budget end...) are pretty inexpensive and would be the minimum I would opt for.
Otherwise Super AMOLED or a derivative could offer 1080P+Power savings over the switch display whilst offering superior contrasts.

potato_hamster said:


https://www.anandtech.com/show/12677/tsmc-kicks-off-volume-production-of-7nm-chips

"TSMC’s CLN7FF process technology will rely on deep ultraviolet (DUV) lithography with argon fluoride (ArF) excimer lasers operating on a 193 nm wavelength. As a result, the world’s largest contract maker of semiconductors will be able to use existing manufacturing tools to make 7 nm chips. Meanwhile, to keep using DUV lithography the company and its customers have to use multipatterning (triple and quadruple patterning), which increases design and production costs as well as product cycles."

If I'm reading this correctly (and forgive me as I am not anywhere close to an expert at these manufacturing processes) it appears to me that TSMC's 7nm process might actually be more expensive than previous fabrication processes? Doesn't that fly in the face of previous claims about how much you can expect such an APU based on this technology to cost? Let's also keep in mind that production of these chips is only getting underway right now, and they plan on ramping up production of different 7nm processes oeer the next year or so. If Sony is going to produce a PS4 portable, the window for releasing it more than likely shuts firmly as soon as the PS5 releases, so unless these new hypothetical 7nm AMD 2300 APUs, and/or PS4 portable semi-custom APU is one of the 18 customer products being manufactured in 2018, or having it manufactured by one of the other producers ASAP, this hypothetical handheld would most likely be released in 2019-2020, which falls squarely in PS5 territory. The Vita experienced very similar issues launching a year before the PS4. People didn't really see the appeal of paying $100 less than a PS4 to play dated-looking ports of PS3 games. Wouldn't a PS4 portable have to endure similar challenges?

All newer fabrication processes are generally more expensive. That is how things go.

If you were to build a 1 Billion transistor chip on 28nm and build that same chip on 14nm, the 28nm chip would likely be cheaper. (Ignoring all other factors of course which muddies the water.)
But once you start throwing enough transistors at a chip... Like say 8~ billion of them, the 28nm built chip would become monolithic in size, yields would take a massive nosedive and costs would skyrocket... Whereas on 14nm the chip would still be in the realm of a good size and thus costs.

Same goes for 14nm and 7nm. There will reach a point where a chip is large enough that 7nm simply becomes more cost effective.
Plus over time costs will naturally go down anyway, so some manufacturers may opt for the initial cost hit.

Now ARM manufacturers tend to use the latest node because their chip design library's are relatively simple, so they can optimize the chip layout to increase yields... NAND also used to be thrown onto leading nodes to test the waters for the same reason.

Fabrication is a complex topic, so hope I have explained that eloquently enough.


potato_hamster said:

Considering AMD doesn't currently have any 7nm APUs they're offering to the public, it's going to be pretty hard to improve on something that doesn't exist. But if you think you're up for improving an APU that might not currently exist and whose design definitely isn't public, please go ahead. I'm very curious how you would improve something you can't possibly know enough about. Why don't you tell me how you'd simultaneously improve the fuel economy and  BHP of the 2019 Toyota Supra while you're at it.

Does it need to be 7nm? (I don't think I have actually asserted the chips needed to be 7nm anyway)
What's wrong with one of the iterative "advertising" nodes like 12nm, 11nm,10nm and so on which show improvements over 14nm?



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--