yea.Im pretty sure that is how XBox and PS hardware have been handled since AMD has been involved. An initial design fee, then a flat IP /licensing fee per chip sold, manufacturing handled between TSMC and Sony/MS.
Why?And they certainly won't be getting as favorable a deal from AMD this time around.
Yeah they are.AMD is not in the same position that they were in last time around
in 2018? lmao.Previously, they were desperate for ANY degree above COGS
could you please stop?This is why I suggest that a single CCD Medusa Halo would be a good fit.
As for the discussion on how price sensitive a gaming console is, the current XBOX retails for about $600. IME, that means the entire BOM needs to be around $200. I would be shocked if the APU is over $100.00 of that.
Why?
Surface bad blood?
That's not how any of that works.I'd say because AMD is in a much better position these days and will demand higher premiums for hardware
They're not limited by wafer counts for either of those.It doesn't make sense to use fab space on cheap console APU's when it can be used for Epyc or Instinct
AMD is not in the same position that they were in last time around. Previously, they were desperate for ANY degree above COGS. Now, anything that they do in semi custom is essentially an opportunity investment. They could put more resources towards their own branded devices, or they could put them towards MS's chip. Each has an expected return on investment. MS has to offer them enough to not only cover their costs, but to also beat the return on doing anything else.
This is why I suggest that a single CCD Medusa Halo would be a good fit. It's a completed design, so there's no new R&D to pay for. Unused IP in the chip can be fused off, reducing licensing costs. So, pay the smaller integration cost up front and buy the rest on a volume discount.
I don't think so. There is no OEM profit margin. Microsoft does not sell to OEMs for further mark up. Microsoft sells directly, likely at cost or below at first. Later in the life cycle, the costs come down somewhat.
If new XBOX sells for $600, your cost estimates are off by factor of 2x-3x.
lmao.I think it is better than 50% probability that new XBOX uses LPDDR5 or LPDDR6, rather than GDDR7
You can't do a wider bus, analog shoreline on N3 is $$$.You can have 2x or more memory for the same cost, and they can just go up memory bus width.
consoles are ALWAYS bespoke silicon with zero commonality with other parts.If the choice is LPDDR, then the design will likely heavily borrow from Strix / Medusa or even share silicon...
Console parts are ALWAYS bespoke designs.
Well handhelds do not exist.XBOX console, XBOX handheld, PS6 console, PS handheld
No that's normal for products with 6-7 year lifecycles.That's a lot of bespoke designs there.
THEY CAN'T.I think there is a good possibility there will be some sharing of designs to silicon or even chiplets.
For themselves.If AMD has designed standardized chiplet to chiplet connectivity
Because 2.5d volumes are tiny.why not use it, rather than designing multiple massive monolithic dies?
That's not how any of that works.
Consoles are a strategic investment that keeps the ISV moat going.
They're not limited by wafer counts for either of those.
Semicon ain't a zero-sum game.
That's not how any of that ever works.but generally speaking any company is going to prioritize parts with higher profitability
They get them a gigantic share of gaming ISV brains.What consoles get them is reliable long term income while making less
No because then console vendors would just defect to Nvidia.AMD can try to make a more lucrative deal this time around as they are in a stronger position.
You can't do a wider bus, analog shoreline on N3 is $$$.
consoles are ALWAYS bespoke silicon with zero commonality with other parts.
24G is enough.32 GB or more of GDDR7 is also $$$.
AMD's been using MALL since RDNA2 in case you forgot that.BTW, AMD used chiplets in RDNA3, with MALL cache on them, to improve the effective bandwidth. Even though GDDR already has good bandwidth.
Really expensive, a ton of packaging overhead for the most mainstream products alive.Why not use that approach with LPDDR5, with mall, on trailing node.
YES.Do you think it is a good approach to spam bespoke parts with zero commonality?
YES.Devote 100s of people doing duplicative work?
they can always hire more.It doesn't seem like the best idea, given all the opportunities out there and only so much human resources that AMD has or can hire.
I never said it was zero sum but generally speaking any company is going to prioritize parts with higher profitability. What consoles get them is reliable long term income while making less. AMD can try to make a more lucrative deal this time around as they are in a stronger position. At the same time you don't want to piss off what has been a good partner so they won't go too far IMHO.
That's not how any of that ever works.
AMD's revenues in server are not gated by wafers available, but their competitive positioning.
They get them a gigantic share of gaming ISV brains.
No because then console vendors would just defect to Nvidia.
Very.Do you really think Nvidia would even be interested
Switch 2 silicon surely sells at a huge premium right.I'm sure they will want to sell it at a premium though.
Very.
Switch 2 silicon surely sells at a huge premium right.
Yeah but that's Nintendo gimmick.Switch 2 uses far older/cheaper technology for graphics
Yeah they are.
My mistake, "degree" was supposed to be "revenue", and, yes, their balance sheet wasn't that great back in 2018. It is arguable that the volume and revenue for the two game console SoCs was a key factor in them staying cash flow positive, even with low margins.in 2018? lmao.
I won't give up the fantasy, first because it annoys you, and second because, unlike back in 2018, when AMD didn't have anything even close to what a console needed, they currently have something much more applicable to the target product in the pipeline.could you please stop?
Console parts are ALWAYS bespoke designs.
The sooner you give up, the merrier it'll be!
Idk how that impacts their semicustom biz.Their balance sheet is notably better in 2025 than it was in 2018.
No they weren't lmao.It is arguable that the volume and revenue for the two game console SoCs was a key factor in them staying cash flow positive, even with low margins.
It doesn't annoy me; just turns this place into more of a petting zoo than it already was.I won't give up the fantasy, first because it annoys you, and second because, unlike back in 2018
They don't?they currently have something much more applicable to the target product in the pipeline.
Idk how that impacts their semicustom biz.
No they weren't lmao.
Cost includes R&D sunk costs. Spending massive amounts (series x SoC was estimated to costs hundreds of millions in 2018 money) to develop a bespoke design has to be folded back into the cost of each chip. They may move 7 million units a year on average, something that takes hundreds of millions to develop adds a nontrivial cost to each chip.It doesn't annoy me; just turns this place into more of a petting zoo than it already was.
They don't?
Consoles need heavily cost-optimized, graphics-focused SOCs with cheapest DRAM BOM available (in $/offchip byte moved).
No it doesn't, that's not how semicustom BU operates.It impacts it by allowing AMD to demand increased margins for semi custom projects.
At basically zero opmargin.In 2019, semi custom represented 37% of AMD's total revenue (2.5 billion out of 6.7 total)
That's spread across foundry, EDA, AMD and MS.(series x SoC was estimated to costs hundreds of millions in 2018 money
Yea and?to develop a bespoke design has to be folded back into the cost of each chip
no they can't.they can afford higher per unit costs on the back end