Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: Fox5
There is one reason you'll never see another Intel processor in a console.
Cost.
As long as consoles target the $300 and below market, PC cpus are too expensive. They sell for far more in PCs than commodity devices could absorb.
Manufacturing wise I suppose Intel could handle it, but unless there's a big downturn in PC demand that they don't foresee, it wouldn't make the most economical decision for Intel.
I could see Atom in a console however. In the Wii's successor.
What was wrong with the 733MHz P3 used in the XBOX? Worked out just fine then, what's to keep a 22nm Intel octo-core chip from being used in consoles come 2012?
Let's face it, who else on the planet is going to be able to produce IC's in leading edge 22nm process tech before 2014 other than Intel? To not sign them up at this time is to leave that advantage to your competition.
I pity the CEO that will be looking back saying "well we really thought TSMC would have 22nm ready for ATI's GPU to go into our console in 2012, who knew the foundries would not be able to deliver on their roadmaps..." Or IBM for 22nm Cell, etc.
The issue isn't that Intel can't make a competitive part, it's that Intel makes more money selling their chips on the x86 commodity market than they could in a console. Several times as much. They also haven't shown much willingness to sell designs wholesale as IBM does, which is a major problem with cost reductions in consoles.
Profit margins on x86 chips are way higher than most cpus. The profit margins that graphics cards see are closer to what is reasonable to include in a console, but they also cost way more to produce (for a top end chip anyway), leaving the 360 and ps3 with rather small graphics chips compared to what was available on PC at the time.
In case you're curious, an x1900xt had a die size of 315 mm^2, xenos is about 210mm^2 while rsx is about 240mm^2. Additionally, both xenos and rsx had built in redundancy since failed chips couldn't be sold as cut down versions like on pc. Overall, slightly better than the mid-range chips (comparable to $200-$300 and not the $300 to $400) that were available when the 360 launched, and rather low end for when the ps3 launched. In Microsoft's case, they paid to own the design outright, and in Sony's case there's rumors that they're getting a bit of a raw deal with nvidia selling the chips to them directly. Not quite applicable though because nvidia and ati don't own their own fabs, Intel does and generally can make good use of just about all of their fab capacity without selling cheap chips into the console market.
yes... intel provided the p3 for the xbox, and the triple core 3.2ghz xenon used in the xbox360... and most of the world chipsets...
Intel, while expensive to the enthusiast system builder, has rebates in place to make them cheap to system integrators like dell... intel is out to make a buck, and if they have to undercut AMD to score millions of consoles then they will...
Intel dumped P3 based Celerons on the xbox that were unsold due to AMD's surprising success in the PC market at the time. After the initial supply of cheap Celerons dried up, subsequent orders were expensive for Microsoft.
The triple core in the 360 is provided by IBM. The chipset is provided by SIS.
And Intel usually doesn't have to undercut AMD. AMD only competed for the original Xbox and generally isn't involved in consoles. As cheap as AMD chips are, console chips have to sell for cheaper.
Additionally, Intel has always had a higher average selling price than AMD regardless of the performance situation, so no, they don't need to undercut AMD. They also tend to have lower manufacturing costs as well, sometimes significantly. Atoms may not be much to look at performance wise, but they're 1/3rd the size of a single core Athlon 64, and sell for roughly what a console cpu would have to sell for. (yet would be way inferior for the purpose)
Though considering the multithreading revolution didn't happen quite as much as was expected, and that Intel currently leads everybody in single threaded performance, I could see Intel getting in if it offers enough of a performance boost. Give the i7 some time to come down in price, or alternatively maybe scoop up some core 2 quads cheap(but I'd assume not, since those will be phased out by the time the next console launches). The i7's hyperthreading also works extremely well, which would make them attractive even if many threaded programs are in the future.
