Why?
Has Intel done anything with Altera? I’m curious.
AMD’s acquisition of ATI is generally viewed as a strategic error. Does this make more sense?
Has Intel done anything with Altera? I’m curious.
AMD’s acquisition of ATI is generally viewed as a strategic error. Does this make more sense?
Historically it was (when AMD was drowning in debt from the acquisition and had no competitive processors on the timeline), but is this still true? For instance, all of the major game consoles (ps4/ps5/xbone/xbox series x/switch) use AMD boards, and as I recall, those deals lifted the company's financials quite well.
I can see where the case for AMD could be made (the Steam Deck's APU is truly impressive), but I think Nintendo has invested pretty heavily into the Nvidia stack at this point. The Tegra boards that they made the original Switches with were left over from the Nvidia Shield; nobody was sure if the concept would take off or not. Now that the Switch has outsold the Wii, I'd imagine Nvidia and Nintendo are working very closely to design a successor to the chip, even if it's not going to be a mobile console.
Probably one the of the best things that happened to the gamedevs, console wise, was Microsoft and Sony going for x86 and AMD SoC.
What you're saying, which is true, is that Nintendo likes to cut costs and it's cheap on the hardware they use because they care more about the content for their IP, not much for the tech behind it. They could keep stretching the switch for 3/5 or more years if they wanted to.
To be fair, developers have been making games run on underspecced AMD hardware for more than a decade at this point between the XBox One and PS4, and any games coming to PC have to have AMD alternatives to CUDA physics, PhysX, etc. anyway.
Also, its not like the AAA ports have been without issues, many of them run poorly and look pretty awful compared to first party efforts like BotW. Their optimization stack might be amazing, but recycling the shield SoC AND underclocking it is definitely causing some pain.
It does seem like Nintendo has buddied up to NVidia more than console manufacturers usually do so I think its likely they stick with NVidia but I wouldn't write off the possibility entirely, especially since AMD seems so willing to please with custom solutions even for much lower volume products like the Steam Deck.
Nintendo could use one of the new Samsung SoCs with RDNA2 graphics though. Those could be pretty good competition for Tegra X* chips.
Now, Nintendo doesn't care much about that because they're into their own thing, they don't even see themselves as a tech or gaming company, the position themselves as an entertainment company.
Like, I think they see themselves closer to Disney than to Sony Computer Entertainment.
About the power profile, the switch came out with around 2h-3h battery life while gaming, depending on the game of course, I don't think it would be much of a problem.
Problem is, many existing Switch games use some nvidia-specific API (IIRC called "NVN" or whatever) instead of Vulkan.
IMO, the strategic error was AMD paying a bunch of cash for ATI, instead of an all stock deal. In 2006, with their stock near the all time high (~$40) AMD decided to borrow $2B instead. Six months later, AMD is issuing shares at $14 to meet expenses. Two years later, AMD is trading at $1.50, and on the verge of bankruptcy. In retrospect, AMD's outcome could have been vastly different if they had done the all-stock deal in 2006, or even issued shares instead of borrowing.
Also if we look at the latest gen, there's some pretty cutting edge architecture and manufacturing processes used in the new xbox/playstations. Zen2 is no slouch.
A few of these are pre-acquisition but the GPU's for the xbox 360, Gamecube, Wii, and Wii U were all ATI/AMD as well.
I'm sure at this point more console hardware has been AMD than any other manufacturer.
[1] The rationale of getting into the GPU business made a lot of sense but here we are 15 years later and it's arguable AMD has largely squandered the opportunity. Even in APUs where they should be slaughtering Intel, AMD continues to hobble them by putting previous gen GPU cores in them. This was during a decade and a half when Intel's iGPUs were fairly weak and nVidia had nothing to counter with... smart move AMD!
The work they did around HSAIL and APUs shows that they have the creativity and the will.
At the time they were talking about integrated compute units between CPU and GPU, mapping GPU register space into CPU address space, linking/unlinking CPU and GPU pipelines, etc etc. And the CPU and GPU teams would be working on this while also having to produce top-shelf stand-alone CPUs and GPUs to fight on 2 separate fronts against entrenched and capable competitors. It didn't really seem possible or even desirable at the time.
I also don't understand why having a GPU would improve their chances with console vendors. Those vendors could have still selected AMD CPUs but cut separate deals for the GPU with other companies. This is a business AMD is already and was already in. They do this in all sorts of markets like network switches.
I don't know what the grand plans were to have CPU and GPU teams both in a multiple level deep tick tock pipeline (organizations are structured like CPUs or CPUs are structured like assembly lines ... pick your causal metaphor). That would require the right fabric, I don't know if they have that yet. There is a ton of research that shows that a mediocre GPU on the same memory bus as a CPU has a huge number advantages over a GPU on the PCIe bus, even at x16. With HBM, hell put the GPU in the HBM. All HSAIL the HBM!
CPU, GPU and FPGA will all merge into a computational goo. With AMD acquiring Xilinx and their past with APUs and HSA, I stand by my statement. AMD has been stalling on the G series Ryzen parts because I think they don't want to cannibalize their discrete GPU business, but CPUs have more than enough compute and memory bandwidth to support software geometry and rasterization.
https://moorinsightsstrategy.com/the-real-reasons-microsoft-...
I also know that many clients ditched SoCs with ARM cores from Altera when Intel acquired it being afraid that Intel does not like these alien cores.
To me Intel taking over Altera and removing the Altera name was a mistake. I don't associate the name "Intel" with FPGA's nor do I think they have a real interest in them beyond server acceleration. To me, Altera and their product line are dead.
I don't know what AMD will do to Xilinx but I hope it isn't more of the same hype driven nonsense of ML/AI/Crypto/Cloud chasing. And it will be sad to see the Xilinx name disappear.