Read my comment again.  Did I say 'GPU' anywhere?  The module does all the things you have mentioned, possibly offloading audio processing from the PS4 itself, and thereby freeing up some cpu [not gpu] power for VR.  The others are for processing video outputs to different screens and modes it seems like.  

http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/software-technologies/enhanced-media/trueaudio

• A dedicated digital signal processor (DSP) is built in to the AMD GPU core. That’s a hefty dose of processing power committed just to generating immersive soundscapes. That doesn’t just enable new and exciting audio features in games; it also saves CPU cycles that can be used for other tasks.

Almost certainly using the above dedicated audio chip.  Or...it could be a small gpu which has this dsp chip integrated into it, as most, if not all AMD gpus have this capability these days.  It is not yet clear, but Im sure that information will be revealed at some point as to what exactly the chip is.

Regardless, this box is the definition of a semi-custom design.

Regards.

Larrabee doesn't help your argument. It was expensive and still could not match Nvidia and AMDs(ATI at the time) offerings. Intel scrapped the project. Ironically the APU's that AMD makes are essentially what Intel promised Larrabee to be. Also the bolded statement is completely false. The PS4's GPU wasn't even the most powerful AMD has created at the time of its release.  It's more or less an AMD Radeon 7850 from specifications standpoint and the 7850 launched in March of 2012. That's approximately 18months before th PS4 released. The 7870 which also launched in March of 2012 pushes 2.56 TFLOPS. The PS4 GPU pushes 1.84 TFLOPS. Bear in the 7870 is over 4 years old at this point.

Given that Larrabee was more than just a GPU, that might be the reason... And it was AMD that said that, not me... 

If Skylake is any indication, they can make powerful and efficient GPUs... They will still be more expensive than AMD though, but if MS buys AMD, they will be the only option left... 

Oh, what a thread this turned out to be.

We literally can't know how they will do if we don't ask them and nobody's ever asked! 

Oh, but you started it!  

By the way, the IPG is not an standalone unit and we're dealing with something with a processor that is far more powerful that anything the Xbox One has. I shall remind you we're dealing with the forerunners of the technology you're using. They don't do graphics, but they can... 

And I do care, but not that much. I am just saying I'd welcome less AMD in the console market... 

We don't need anybody asking Intel. They shat on themselves alone with just Larrabee by not releasing it ... 

@Bold "You literally contributed nothing to this conversation besides tiring your fingers... " Awful accusations or posts like these will get you nowhere so why not quit the backseat thread crapping ? 

Far more powerful ? Lel this is too funny. Intel are the forefront alright, at least in terms of x86 CPU performance and transistor technology. BTW your wrong about them not doing graphics, they've been doing it for YEARS now ever since 1998 ...

Afaik the margins are too small for them. They're already busy enough trying to supply their domination of the PC market that they don't need to outbid AMD on console hardware.

Exhibit A: The original Xbox. It's common knowledge the Xbox production was cut by MS after only 4 years in part to clear the slate for the XB360, but also due in part to a dispute with Nvidia over the OEM GPU contract I can only assume had to do with per part cost. 

Exhibit B: RSX, PS3. Underpowered, relative to the ATI "Xenos" in the XB360, most likely the key contributor to YLoD PS3 failures as the GPU was the focus of most reflow repairs. Costly. 

While I'm not privy to any of the info stemming from internal discussions pertinant to OEM GPU contract bids for either MS or SCE, all I can assume from the results is ATI/AMD offered them both the better bid. 

Whether it was a case of petty retaliation or a legitimate take on their business model moving forward, Nvidia went on record as saying there is no future in the console business or something to that effect. They were trying to sell consumers on a gaming PC centric future, joined by their SoC parts and SoC based Shield product line. 

In short, they don't want to be OEM parts suppliers; they want to have their own ecosystem. 

As for the AMD statement, it's not client specific. It could refer to an OEM contract with Nintendo for the NX, an OEM contract with SCE for the PS4k or even both.

The only one I would be more apt to rule out would be the XBOne.5.

Funny extension to exhibit A. Nvidia demanded royalties from the Xbox 360 because Microsoft wanted backwards compatibility. I imagine that Microsoft got pretty mad after that but in the next generation Microsoft released DX12 to spite Nvidia because Microsoft somewhat resented Nvidia in the past and they weren't going to make the same mistake again going all buddy-buddy with them ... 

Not even Apple wants to deal with Nvidia! Practically every major ISVs don't like Nvidia very much. It just goes to show you how shitty of part supplier Nvidia really is ... 

Nvidia would want to be a part supplier at least to show their IP dominance and monopoly but they can't since not many ISVs like their attitude ... 

Their mobile products aren't exactly doing so hot since they demanded that Qualcomm pay them 352 million dollars cause of the losses by competing against them LOL ... (Consoles were low margin yet they happily entered the mobile space. Pathetically hypocritical if you ask me. )