Support NeoGAF

[dragonfart28]

I will never get over this meme lol

 

[Maggots]

I love Game Cube based graphics cards

 

[tuxfool]

Let me clarify. AMD provided the base hardware, let's assume an HD 7970 GPU. Microsoft took that core product, and added some features, removed some features, and redesigned some features. It is now a heavily modified HD7970 that is in most ways better than the original 7970, but it may also miss features, that Microsoft thought the Xbox One didn't need, and making it worse than 7970 in those aspects.

Sony did the same thing with the PS4. They took that base GPU and heavily modified it. Just because the core is the same as the Xbox One GPU does not mean they are both the same in every single way. Some features PS4 clearly has advantage, like the extra ROP's and all that other stuff. Xbox One version on the other hand has a higher clock, because maybe Microsoft modified in some way, ie. the cooling process, to make it run cooler at the same temperature. AMD then just manufactures the GPU given the specifications by Microsoft/Sony.

The same process then repeats with the CPU. Microsoft and Sony took that base Jaguar CPU and they each modified it to their liking. Of course with a CPU there is less headroom for customization, but some things can be modified. As an example, the Xbox One Jaguar runs at a higher clock speed, and again this is probably tied to the cooling design Microsoft has for the rest of the system.

Some of the hardware, such as the RAM, is just base hardware, and not modified. The same can be said for HDD, but these are probably tested more thoroughly to ensure it lasts an entire generation.

Is this clearer?

Yes. But still mostly wrong. AMD did the design of all these features. MS and Sony may have specified certain functions and feature set for ex. the 2 command processors in the xb1 and the volatile bit in the PS4.

The hardware architecture however does not have the hardware features for 12_1. It is highly likely 12_1 wasn't even specified when the consoles were designed. So you should believe AMD when they they the xb1 does not support 12_1. Semicustom design for clients is exactly what is being offered by AMD, they are not licensing the IP for Sony and MS to customize.

 

[neogaffer1]

The OP image was broken for me, I rehosted it

 

[nib95]

So does anyone have a specific list of the feature set differences between 12.1 and 12.0?

Appreciate the fixed image above. Anything else beyond those two things, whatever they mean lol.

 

[viveks86]

So the xbox doesn't natively support features that are yet to released, which are only supported by some GPUs released in the last year? Shocking news

 

[etta]

Yes. But still mostly wrong. AMD did the design of all these features. MS and Sony may have specified certain functions and feature set for ex. the 2 command processors in the xb1 and the volatile bit in the PS4.

The hardware architecture however does not have the hardware features for 12_1. It is highly likely 12_1 wasn't even specified when the consoles were designed. So you should believe AMD when they they the xb1 does not support 12_1. Semicustom design for clients is exactly what is being offered by AMD, they are not licensing the IP for Sony and MS to customize.

Where is this stated officially that AMD did the design and manufacturing? Because unless it is officially stated exactly like that, then I will assume what makes sense, which is that Microsoft performed the full R&D and design on the GPU. They did that for every other component in the Xbox One, and they are also a software company, which means they themselves know how to design hardware to maximize the potential of the software. They also injected 100 million dollars into the controller R&D, and if they did that just for the controller, I find it very hard to believe that they offloaded the design process of the GPU onto AMD, which is a much more important component than a controller.

 

[chadskin]

So Microsoft would do the R&D for most of the console but omit the GPU R&D? Makes sense...

Spoiler

not really.

This is exactly like the case with Apple and Samsung. Apple designs the CPU, but lacks the manufacturing abilities, so they pay Samsung to manufacture it. Also, they would have to pay a lot more to AMD/Samsung for them to design it as well, and not just manufacture it. Microsoft/Apple also has way more control on the design process if they do it themselves.

AMD doesn't own factories (anymore) and thus doesn't manufacture CPUs/GPUs/APUs. Their components are all being manufactured by Globalfoundries (their former manufacturing division) and TSMC. Hence the comparison is not very apt.

Apple also has an in-house studio to (heavily) modify their AX chips (which, for a while now, are not based on ARM design "templates") while MS and AMD worked in conjuncture on the XBO APU based off of AMD's IP. So it's not a very apt comparison in that regard, either.

Where is this stated officially that AMD did the design and manufacturing? Because unless it is officially stated exactly like that, then I will assume what makes sense, which is that Microsoft performed the full R&D and design on the GPU. They did that for every other component in the Xbox One, and they are also a software company, which means they themselves know how to design hardware to maximize the potential of the software. They also injected 100 million dollars into the controller R&D, and if they did that just for the controller, I find it very hard to believe that they offloaded the design process of the GPU onto AMD, which is a much more important component than a controller.

Digital Foundry: When you look at the specs of the GPU, it looks very much like Microsoft chose the AMD Bonaire design and Sony chose Pitcairn - and obviously one has got many more compute units than the other. Let's talk a little bit about the GPU - what AMD family is it based on: Southern Islands, Sea Islands, Volcanic Islands?

Andrew Goossen: Just like our friends we're based on the Sea Islands family. We've made quite a number of changes in different parts of the areas.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-complete-xbox-one-interview

 

[hodgy100]

So Microsoft would do the R&D for most of the console but omit the GPU R&D? Makes sense...

Spoiler

not really.

This is exactly like the case with Apple and Samsung. Apple designs the CPU, but lacks the manufacturing abilities, so they pay Samsung to manufacture it. Also, they would have to pay a lot more to AMD/Samsung for them to design it as well, and not just manufacture it. Microsoft/Apple also has way more control on the design process if they do it themselves.

dont be so condescending. Microsoft and Sony aren't microchip designers they are consumer electronics designers. They don't design each chip down to a transistor level. they ask chip manufacturers to design a chip to their specifications, amd produces a sample, sony/ms test it out give feedback for changes, amd go away and apply the changes.

In the case of Apple. Apple own an ARM licence so they can design their own ARM cpu's based off ARM's own designs. MS / Sony do not own a bionaire / pitcairn licence so they cant design their own custom gpu's. they wouldn't go to amd for manufacturing if they did, they would go direct to GloFo or another manufacturer.

 

[Locuza]

The Xbone is based on a DDR3 variant of the Bonaire GPU. It is the PS4's GPU that is based on Pitcairn.

None of both is entirely correct.

So does anyone have a specific list of the feature set differences between 12.1 and 12.0?

The two are the only ones, but two very important ones.

 

[etta]

AMD doesn't own factories (anymore) and thus doesn't manufacture CPUs/GPUs/APUs. Their components are all being manufactured by Globalfoundries (their former manufacturing division) and TSMC. Hence the comparison is not very apt.

Apple also has an in-house studio to (heavily) modify their AX chips (which, for a while now, are not based on ARM design "templates") while MS and AMD worked in conjuncture on the XBO APU based off of AMD's IP. So it's not a very apt comparison in that regard, either.




http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-complete-xbox-one-interview

So what's this then?

My name is Andrew Goossen - I'm a technical fellow at Microsoft. I was one of the architects for the Xbox One. I'm primarily involved with the software side but I've worked a lot with Nick and his team to finalise the silicon. For designing a good, well-balanced console you really need to be considering all the aspects of software and hardware.

We're actually extremely proud of our design. We think we have very good balance, very good performance, we have a product which can handle things other than just raw ALU. There's also quite a number of other design aspects and requirements that we put in around things like latency, steady frame-rates and that the titles aren't interrupted by the system and other things like that.

This just proves my side of the argument, that Microsoft designed and AMD manufactured, or Globalfoundries.

dont be so condescending. Microsoft and Sony aren't microchip designers they are consumer electronics designers. They don't design each chip down to a transistor level. they ask chip manufacturers to design a chip to their specifications, amd produces a sample, sony/ms test it out give feedback for changes, amd go away and apply the changes.

In the case of Apple. Apple own an ARM licence so they can design their own ARM cpu's based off ARM's own designs. MS / Sony do not own a bionaire / pitcairn licence so they cant design their own custom gpu's. they wouldn't go to amd for manufacturing if they did, they would go direct to GloFo or another manufacturer.

I find it hard to believe that when you are a software behemoth like Microsoft, you would be clueless about CPU design process.

 

[tuxfool]

Where is this stated officially that AMD did the design and manufacturing? Because unless it is officially stated exactly like that, then I will assume what makes sense, which is that Microsoft performed the full R&D and design on the GPU. They did that for every other component in the Xbox One, and they are also a software company, which means they themselves know how to design hardware to maximize the potential of the software. They also injected 100 million dollars into the controller R&D, and if they did that just for the controller, I find it very hard to believe that they offloaded the design process of the GPU onto AMD, which is a much more important component than a controller.

MS does not have the human expertise to design a high performance GPU or CPU. Apple started buying design houses starting with PA semi and then continued hiring engineers which why their A series SoCs are custom in house designs.

MS has nothing to gain in hiring engineers just for one specific project, it is much cheaper and simpler for them to simply contract AMD to do this design, after all it is their design. One does not simply just pick up another firms in-house IP and proceed to modify it particularly one based on x86.

Believe whatever you want.

 

[hodgy100]

So what's this then?
This just proves my side of the argument, that Microsoft designed and AMD manufactured, or Globalfoundries.

no it doesnt. it says they finalised the final hardware, so the motherboard, the system as a whole. he would have also have signed off on the final soc design from AMD. Thats how these things work.

I find it hard to believe that when you are a software behemoth like Microsoft, you would be clueless about CPU design process.

im not saying they are clueless, im saying they didn't engineer the cpu.

 

[cakely]

Someone check on misterxmedia and see if he's Ok.

 

[etta]

no it doesnt. it says they finalised the final hardware, so the motherboard, the system as a whole. he would have also have signed off on the final soc design from AMD. Thats how these things work.

So Microsoft has the resources, the knowledge capital, and the financial capital to design the Xbox One GPU, but doesn't do so because they aren't allowed to modify it?

If that is true then consider me enlightened and shocked.

 

[tuxfool]

no it doesnt. it says they finalised the final hardware, so the motherboard, the system as a whole. he would have also have signed off on the final soc design from AMD. Thats how these things work.



im not saying they are clueless, im saying they didn't engineer the cpu.

Forget it. That person cannot distinguish the difference between product/industrial design of a controller with high performance IC design. At this point they're not going to be convinced no matter how much sense people that actually understand these these things throw at them.

Edit: wow the needle is indeed moving.

 

[Putty]

Someone check on misterxmedia and see if he's Ok.

No. Gone into spin mode already. "Insider" was very quick to respond 8)

 

[tuxfool]

So Microsoft has the resources, the knowledge capital, and the financial capital to design the Xbox One GPU, but doesn't do so because they aren't allowed to modify it?

If that is true then consider me enlightened and shocked.

They have the potential. But then they have to build a massive knowledge base, i.e. hiring engineers with the very specific knowledge required to modify GCN and x86. This is a very small group of people that would inevitably be coming from AMD, Intel or Via. This would be very expensive to maintain for very little gain over just contracting a firm that has intimate knowledge of their own product.

Plus I'm not sure if the x86 license (Intel's to give) extends to others beyond AMD to design IP based on it.

 

[hodgy100]

So Microsoft has the resources, the knowledge capital, and the financial capital to design the Xbox One GPU, but doesn't do so because they aren't allowed to modify it?

If that is true then consider me enlightened and shocked.

microsoft don't employ the people to design a GPU. why would they? the xbox one is the only device they sell that requires a high performance gpu. its much easier and cheaper for them to have a third party (amd) design something to meet their needs.

Theres the added cosnt's of licencing x86-64 (which would probably require paying both AMD and Intel a lot of money) . amd and intel have mature architectures (over 20 years of iteration) that would likely be leaps and bounds ahead of anything microsoft could put together in 2 years, even with amd cpu's being i nthe state they are. it's jsut not cost effective.

Forget it. That person cannot distinguish the difference between product/industrial design of a controller with high performance IC design. At this point they're not going to be convinced no matter how much sense people that actually understand these these things throw at them.

I know its just. uuuuuuuuuugggggghhhhhhh

 

[Nafai1123]

This is surprising? We've known existing GPU's wouldn't be able to take full advantage of DX12 feature set for awhile now.

 

[etta]

microsoft don't employ the people to design a GPU. why would they? the xbox one is the only device they sell that requires a high performance gpu. its much easier and cheaper for them to have a third party (amd) design something to meet their needs.




I know its just. uuuuuuuuuugggggghhhhhhh

They have the potential. But then they have to build a massive knowledge base, i.e. hiring engineers with the very specific knowledge required to modify GCN and x86. This is a very small group of people that would inevitably be coming from AMD, Intel or Via. This would be very expensive to maintain for very little gain over just contracting a firm that has intimate knowledge of their own product.

Plus I'm not sure if the x86 license (Intel's to give) extends to others beyond AMD to design IP based on it.

Very well then, I am still shocked. I assumed with the financial and knowledge capital Microsoft has, that they would have their own engineers as consultants at the very least if they don't need them to manufacture any hardware outside of the Xbox One.

 

[tuxfool]

Very well then, I am still shocked. I assumed with the financial and knowledge capital Microsoft has, that they would have their own engineers as consultants at the very least if they don't need them to manufacture any hardware outside of the Xbox One.

They absolutely do. They have those technical fellows that you quoted. They would have to have the capability to know what they are contracting AMD to do. They absolutely will consult with AMD. This does not mean that they themselves design the IC.

They use possessive terms when talking about the chip because it is theirs, they contracted amd to design it. If you want a custom piece of furniture, you know what size you want it to be, maybe colour etc, but then a carpenter builds it. At the end it is *your* furniture but it doesn't mean you designed it.

 

[Easy_D]

So Tahiti GCN cards support the DX12.0 featureset?
Not just DX12 allows more drawcalls?

So basically my 280x is good to go except for 12.1?

Not all, not none, but some? I just wanna know how badly I fucked up picking the 280x over the 960

 

[Locuza]

So Tahiti GCN cards support the DX12.0 featureset?
Not just DX12 allows more drawcalls?

So basically my 280x is good to go except for 12.1?

Not all, not none, but some? I just wanna know how badly I fucked up picking the 280x over the 960

Tahiti should only support FL11_1.
The 960 is feature-wise a lot above Tahiti.

 

[Crisium]

So Tahiti GCN cards support the DX12.0 featureset?
Not just DX12 allows more drawcalls?

So basically my 280x is good to go except for 12.1?

Not all, not none, but some? I just wanna know how badly I fucked up picking the 280x over the 960

I think the extra vram and better average performance means you made a good choice. Future proofing with 28nm cards, especially lower midrange, isn't gonna work period.

 

[Easy_D]

I think the extra vram and better average performance means you made a good choice. Future proofing with 28nm cards, especially lower midrange, isn't gonna work period.

You know I thought about that too and came to the same conclusion after reading your post. The 960 is slightly weaker to begin with so it's not a sure thing it'll even handle the 12.1 stuff well.

I remember getting hyped for DX11 and tesselation and got a 5870, then it kind of sucked at tesselation :lol. Card was great though. But still

 

[lolosgolos]

They absolutely do. They have those technical fellows that you quoted. They would have to have the capability to know what they are contracting AMD to do. They absolutely will consult with AMD. This does not mean that they themselves design the IC.

They use possessive terms when talking about the chip because it is theirs, they contracted amd to design it. If you want a custom piece of furniture, you know what size you want it to be, maybe colour etc, but then a carpenter builds it. At the end it is *your* furniture but it doesn't mean you designed it.

Microsoft picks a gpu from amd, redesigns it to their specifications including dx12 features and gives amd to manufacture it

 

[tuxfool]

Microsoft picks a gpu from amd, redesigns it to their specifications including dx12 features and gives amd to manufacture it

How about reading the entire thread instead of repeating things that have already been covered.

1) MS does not have the capability to redesign a GCN gpu. Only AMD can do that.
2) GCN 1.1 gpus already do dx12_0.
3) AMD is a fabless company. It no longer manufactures anything.

 

[Tripolygon]

Microsoft picks a gpu from amd, redesigns it to their specifications including dx12 features and gives amd to manufacture it[/QUOTE]
AMD does not manufacture.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

It's good to finally have real confirmation. I remember there being quite a bit of doubt as to whether or not the Xbox One GPU would turn out to be, at the very least, a full DX12 feature compliant part in hardware, as opposed to a chip that while it had some DX12 features, couldn't actually be referred to as a DX12 part. Well, AMD appears to have finally answered that question. Xbox One's GPU is, no bs, a true DX12 graphics chip. Compare that to the Xbox 360's GPU, which had partial support for DX10, but couldn't actually be called a fully compliant DX10 part.

Now, obviously it doesn't have the highest feature levels of support for DX12, but this is really about as good as it gets for a system that released holiday 2013. And then there's the added fact that no currently available GPU from AMD even supports up to feature level 12_1. It appears that only Nvidia's latest cards have that degree of support.

 

[NoMoChokeSJ]

How about reading the entire thread instead of repeating things that have already been covered.

1) MS does not have the capability to redesign a GCN gpu. Only AMD can do that.
2) GCN 1.1 gpus already do dx12_0.
3) AMD is a fabless company. It no longer manufactures anything.

How exactly do you know that MS didn't employ or contract with somebody to redesign their gpu? Seems speculative to me, especially as MS has migrated towards hardware development with the Surface.

I personally have a hard time believing they would invest 10s of millions of dollars into a controller (which is hardware), yet leave their GPU solely up to AMD to design. I'd be willing to bet that they had a pretty hands on approach with it knowing that DX12 was in the pipeline.

Unless you have some concrete way of proving that MS didn't have a direct hand in developing thir GPU you are just being condescending without cause.

 

[Seanspeed]

How exactly do you know that MS didn't employ or contract with somebody to redesign their gpu? Seems speculative to me, especially as MS has migrated towards hardware development with the Surface.

I personally have a hard time believing they would invest 10s of millions of dollars into a controller (which is hardware), yet leave their GPU solely up to AMD to design. I'd be willing to bet that they had a pretty hands on approach with it knowing that DX12 was in the pipeline.

Unless you have some concrete way of proving that MS didn't have a direct hand in developing thir GPU you are just being condescending without cause.

There's a middle ground between 'left it solely up to AMD' and 'designed the GPU themselves'. It's possible that these 12.1 features were requested but AMD were unable to satisfy that request, which seems plausible considering none of their desktop GPU's feature the technology, either.

 

[e-gamer]

Better than not support at all...

 

[NoMoChokeSJ]

There's a middle ground between 'left it solely up to AMD' and 'designed the GPU themselves'. It's possible that these 12.1 features were requested but AMD were unable to satisfy that request, which seems plausible considering none of their desktop GPU's feature the technology, either.

I'm sure the answer does lie somewhere in the middle.

Howver when some act like the most powerful software company in the world is either clueless about or powerless to affect development of specialized hardware for their console they are either being intentionally ignorant, or blindly unrealistic.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

LOL this means only Maxwell supports 12_1 right? Another colossal fuckup by AMD.

 

[x3sphere]

LOL this means only Maxwell supports 12_1 right? Another colossal fuckup by AMD.

Eh, we'll see... DX 11.1 never amounted to much

Their new cards may support feature level 12_1 as well.

 

[kitch9]

Where is this stated officially that AMD did the design and manufacturing? Because unless it is officially stated exactly like that, then I will assume what makes sense, which is that Microsoft performed the full R&D and design on the GPU. They did that for every other component in the Xbox One, and they are also a software company, which means they themselves know how to design hardware to maximize the potential of the software. They also injected 100 million dollars into the controller R&D, and if they did that just for the controller, I find it very hard to believe that they offloaded the design process of the GPU onto AMD, which is a much more important component than a controller.

Yes the well known GPU designer Microsoft designed their own GPU and everything.

Intel showed then how easy it was you see.

 

[hodgy100]

How exactly do you know that MS didn't employ or contract with somebody to redesign their gpu? Seems speculative to me, especially as MS has migrated towards hardware development with the Surface.

I personally have a hard time believing they would invest 10s of millions of dollars into a controller (which is hardware), yet leave their GPU solely up to AMD to design. I'd be willing to bet that they had a pretty hands on approach with it knowing that DX12 was in the pipeline.

Unless you have some concrete way of proving that MS didn't have a direct hand in developing thir GPU you are just being condescending without cause.

I'm sure the answer does lie somewhere in the middle.

Howver when some act like the most powerful software company in the world is either clueless about or powerless to affect development of specialized hardware for their console they are either being intentionally ignorant, or blindly unrealistic.

just.. just... read the thread.

 

[Sinistral]

LOL this means only Maxwell supports 12_1 right? Another colossal fuckup by AMD.

Wow FUD much? GCN 1.1 came out 2 years ago. Kepler owners are seriously fucked with your attitude and in light of the recent tanking performance. GJ nVidia.

Their new cards may support feature level 12_1 as well.

I would bet there's a high possibility there.

 

[BlackNinja]

First I just want to see AO done in world space. That is most important to me before all the other expensive stuff starting being done.

They need to implement real-time soft shadows for every light source first, it's getting ridiculous seeing baked shadow crap every game or light sources that aren't shadow casting.

 

[pixelation]

Someone check on misterxmedia and see if he's Ok.

Is there a picture somewhere of misterxmedia's physical manifestation out there?, i'm curious...

Spoiler

*imagines The Simpson's comic book guy*

 

[Dictator93]

They need to implement real-time soft shadows for every light source first, it's getting ridiculous seeing baked shadow crap every game or light sources that aren't shadow casting.

Really good point. Unshadowed lights make me sad. Especially without proper umbra penumbra.

 

[tuxfool]

I'm sure the answer does lie somewhere in the middle.

Howver when some act like the most powerful software company in the world is either clueless about or powerless to affect development of specialized hardware for their console they are either being intentionally ignorant, or blindly unrealistic.

That isn't an argument anybody is making. Rather some people insist that MS has the absolute power and expertise to redesign AMD's GPU.

 

[tuxfool]

LOL this means only Maxwell supports 12_1 right? Another colossal fuckup by AMD.

Were you making this same argument when Nvidia was slow in transitioning to 11_1? That sure was a Colossal Fuckup...

 

[dr_rus]

LOL this means only Maxwell supports 12_1 right? Another colossal fuckup by AMD.

We don't know for sure about Fiji and Grenada yet but some evidence suggest that they'll be 12_0 as well.

Eh, we'll see... DX 11.1 never amounted to much

Were you making this same argument when Nvidia was slow in transitioning to 11_1? That sure was a Colossal Fuckup...

Part of the reason why 11.X never amounted to much was because 70% of the GPUs out there never supported it. If 12_1 will be supported by the same 70% of GPUs I expect it to be used more often. Still, this would amount to either a speed up of the rendering on 12_1 cards or some GameWorks NV exclusive effects in TWIWMTB games. Not a big loss - but AMD is in a position where even a small one can hurt.

 

[Skyzard]

So... DX12 is bringing some PC *exclusive* graphical features?

 

[SenjutsuSage]

There's no way Microsoft didn't have serious input on the design of the Xbox One GPU. I mean, are people implying they just said "hey, build us a GPU and get back to us when it's done?"

Surely Microsoft collaborated with AMD to ensure to a strong degree that whatever they had in the pipeline, AMD did as much as possible to accommodate and get the most out of that. Microsoft may not be a known major hardware manufacturer, but what exactly do people believe Microsoft does when they talk with and work so closely with companies like AMD or Nvidia in prep for a new DirectX release? Considering when the console released, there's no way we get feature level 12_0 on the Xbox One without a serious collaboration between Microsoft and AMD.

edit: Or better yet, maybe the timeline just matched up and it would've happened anyway, as I suppose even the PS4 GPU qualifies as having feature level 12_0 even though it doesn't use or need to use DirectX?

 

[tuxfool]

Part of the reason why 11.X never amounted to much was because 70% of the GPUs out there never supported it. If 12_1 will be supported by the same 70% of GPUs I expect it to be used more often. Still, this would amount to either a speed up of the rendering on 12_1 cards or some GameWorks NV exclusive effects in TWIWMTB games. Not a big loss - but AMD is in a position where even a small one can hurt.

This will require 70% of graphics cards to be Maxwell2 cards. It certainly isn't important in the near future given game dev cycles, but I expect Arctic Islands to support 12_1.

Either way the other poster's "colossal fuckup" is an obvious exaggeration. But then it is the kind of thing I expect that person to make at every term.

 

[tuxfool]

There's no way Microsoft didn't have serious input on the design of the Xbox One GPU. I mean, are people implying they just said "hey, build us a GPU and get back to us when it's done?"

Nobody suggested that. However there is a contingent that is suggesting that MS bought the rights to the GCN IP then redesigned it and then handed it off to amd to build.

Even more laughable is the thought that only they had a part in defining the hardware requirements for dx12_1 (no input from AMD, Nvidia, Intel, Qualcomm etc). Thus the xb1 gpu secretly has full dx12_1 features because MS had a hand in its specifications. It should also be mentioned that at the time the APU was designed the dx12 api and featureset probably still was entirely in flux.

 

[KidBeta]

That isn't an argument anybody is making. Rather some people insist that MS has the absolute power and expertise to redesign AMD's GPU.

Not just the GPU but also the CPU which is 10000x less likely to happen considering how ansty AMD/Intel seem to give out x86 licences.