Originally Posted by lacrossewacker
Is this in anyway indactive of the profit's AMD is making? Also, Nvidia isn't in the position to deliver an APU like AMD.
Take this for example.
Let's say Sony gave a $50 budget for CPU and a $50 budget for GPU.
AMD "hey we'll sell you a $50 dollar CPU and a $50 GPU. AMD's expense cost $80. AMD's revenue $100. AMD's profit - $20.
Nvidia "hey we can only sell you a $50 GPU. Nvidia's expense cost $40. Nvidia's revenue $50. Nvidia's profit - $10.
Obviously all of my numbers are fictitious, but in this simple example, you can see how AMD is making more out of this deal than Nvida could. For that $10, Nvidia has to weigh the cost of allocating resources to this project; potentially detracting from their bigger more profitable markets.
Not to mention, the APU design would have also made it easier for Sony to design the motherboard, cooling, case, etc so AMD could have pulled profits in from there too. (eg. If Sony paid them a bit extra to do an APU rather than going with Intel + nVidia or something)
People also seem to be over-rating the costs of designing and building these chips, remember, they've already got the GPU side (GCN) and CPU side (Jaguar) designed, they just had to put them together with the other stuff Sony wanted inside the PS4 APU which while it isn't simple, is a heck of a lot simpler than designing a new chip, not to mention I severely doubt MS and Sony weren't helping AMD with paying for test wafers if they're throwing other stuff (eg. MS' eDRAM) onto the die too.
Originally Posted by Kinaesthetic
Then you apparently haven't been here long enough. He posts a fair bit good about AMD, maybe not to the extent of Intel/Nvidia, but he does.
The way I saw it (And seem to remember other members saying so around the time) was that he was unbiased and pretty much started being negative on AMD out of the blue one day. There's little question as to whether he's biased against AMD or not, as smart as the guy is.