How did AMD pursue console makers to stick with their platform?

How did AMD pursue console makers to stick with their platform?

Attached: UFjqHu80OmMM.jpg (800x600, 99K)

By actually having the flexibility to customize their processors while keeping x86 which makes porting much easier (for CPU), and basically the same reason for GPU.

Lisa Poo gave Microsoft and Sony CEOs a lot of blowjobs.

by being cheaper

By being cheaper.

they didn't put broken speculative pipeline into their CPUs that would make the consoles crackable

By being objectively better.

AMD almost always have better cost-benefit.

That and their APU architectures are FAR better than Intel-Aviv's iGPU mess.

By selling at a loss.

are you retarded?

>Use INTLEL processors inside your gaming console
>NSA can now run malicious code on your entertainment device
ooops, sorry *-*

>almost
margin is pretty thin

>Calls a chink poo
>Guess where the head poo from amd went to?
faggot

Holy shit, imagine the shitstorm if both new consoles had Intel CPUs and then got jailbreaks thanks to Meltdown. Imagine Sony+MSFT suing Intel for (((lost game sales))). They really dodged a bullet there.

The only other real option was making an Intel + nvidia combo which would cost much more and have no support for FreesSync which many modern televisions have. Tegra is NOT an option, it is outperformed by ARM chips on smartphones. It looks like next gen PS and XBox will both have Ryzen+Navi either in an APU form or separately.
*no*

Attached: no_u.jpg (520x626, 94K)

i can smell the jew from here

By willing to be be cheaper.

Because they make both CPUs and GPUs, thus they could make an APU to Sony and Microsoft's specifications.

>By selling at a loss.
AMD's profit margins on consoles are pretty slim, but they don't sell at a loss. Console manufacturers like Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony are the ones who sell their hardware at a loss.

There is no company on Earth who can make APUs that scale from tiny devices to xbox huge devices. Nvidia borrows CPU shit, Intel borrows GPU shit, people who work in ARM still use adreno, etc.

>The only other real option was making an Intel + nvidia combo
They could have gone IBM, Via, ARM honestly, or anything else. Consoles don't need to have powerful hardware anyways, but console manufacturers went with AMD, because of price.

Price per performance

A single company delivering both CPU and GPU, meaning a lot of the development and testing can be offloaded to AMD, instead of Microsoft/Sony having to try to make arbitrary CPUs work with random GPUs, and hoping it still works in five years.
Microsony only need to worry about their games interfacing with the one AMD chunk.
Not losing sleep over it is worth twice the money for half the performance.

Attached: gabu.jpg (576x512, 52K)

The only right answer is that AMD agreed to sell them hardware at insanely low prices with very low mark up.

Who knows

being cheap.

Not this gen, neither Sony or MS.

Attached: q8colay2wty01.jpg (1920x1080, 143K)

AMD has a monopoly on x86 APU SoCs.

Consoles sell at a loss to attract adopters. It's the typical business model.