MrControversial
Senior member
The only reason why PC's need so much memory is overhead. Xenon will be running one game at a time. I don't know about you guys, but my PC doesn't run one thing at a time.
Originally posted by: X
Is anyone else wary of the 256MB of RAM? How can they get away with this when you need 1GB in the pc world? Does the operating system have such a lean overhead that you can get away with that kind of difference?
Originally posted by: kextyn
I'd really like to see them release a triple 3.0GHz core CPU and modern high end graphics technology for $300. I really don't see it happening. When have consoles (at least hardware) ever been BETTER than PC's and cost less? Anyone? yea...thats what I thought.
Originally posted by: rikadik
Does anyone get the feeling that one day people just won't bother with PCs for gaming? I'm close to it you know, because it just makes financial sense. With a console you don't get caught up with the constantly improving technologies, like a new better GPU every 3 months. And you also KNOW that anything you buy for a console will work beautifully, unless its broken. The next few years will be very interesting.
Originally posted by: Cheesetogo
If these specs are true, then I would buy one, take all the parts out of it and make it into a pc with one of those cards. The companies that sell them would make a fortune. They are basically going to be selling a $2000 computer for $300. Can these specs really be true?
Originally posted by: MrControversial
Originally posted by: kextyn
I'd really like to see them release a triple 3.0GHz core CPU and modern high end graphics technology for $300. I really don't see it happening. When have consoles (at least hardware) ever been BETTER than PC's and cost less? Anyone? yea...thats what I thought.
Razor...razorblades. Console manufacturers aren't in the business to sell consoles, they're in to sell games. They'll lose money on a $300 console, but if they sell 50 million units and each unit has an attach rate of 5 $50 games...do the math.
Let's say they lose around $100 per console, then that's -$5 billon dollars. But they'll make $12.5 billion in game sales. They net $7.5 billion dollars and that's shooting low because the price of the components goes down after time. Basic economics folks. For example, I own 30+ Xbox games. There are millions of Xbox owners just like me.
The console industry is a software business, not a hardware one.
Originally posted by: Eug
Undoubtedly they'll be taking a loss on each unit sold, but if they can make it up in software sales...
Also, the 3 GHz of a Xenon won't be like the 3 GHz of a G5, or even the 3 GHz of a P4. The core is capable of performing much less per clock. However, with 3 cores it's still a monster. 🙂
It will be interesting to see how the games pan out.
Xenon is gonna have 3 moderate speed cores. Run the code on just one core and the game may just suck. The coders are gonna have to really try to make use of all three cores.
Cell is gonna have a much faster clocked CPU with a PPE core very similar to Xenon's core, but most of the work is supposed to be done by the SPE vector units, of which there are a ton of them.
Porting and optimization of these games from one platform to the other is gonna prove interesting... 😛
Originally posted by: doublejbass
Originally posted by: MrControversial
Originally posted by: kextyn
I'd really like to see them release a triple 3.0GHz core CPU and modern high end graphics technology for $300. I really don't see it happening. When have consoles (at least hardware) ever been BETTER than PC's and cost less? Anyone? yea...thats what I thought.
Razor...razorblades. Console manufacturers aren't in the business to sell consoles, they're in to sell games. They'll lose money on a $300 console, but if they sell 50 million units and each unit has an attach rate of 5 $50 games...do the math.
Let's say they lose around $100 per console, then that's -$5 billon dollars. But they'll make $12.5 billion in game sales. They net $7.5 billion dollars and that's shooting low because the price of the components goes down after time. Basic economics folks. For example, I own 30+ Xbox games. There are millions of Xbox owners just like me.
The console industry is a software business, not a hardware one.
And that model failed, champ! Why did they axe the HD from the base model of XBNext? Because they lost too much money on the original XBox hardware sales.
As you said in an earlier post, the PS2 admits defeat graphically. However, if I had to recommend someone a current gen system now, it would be PS2 without a doubt, as you're 100% right about the software argument. MS had great sales this season BECAUSE of a MFG strike by Sony. Sony's in the driver's seat, and they'll be staying there. 😉
Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
Originally posted by: X
Is anyone else wary of the 256MB of RAM? How can they get away with this when you need 1GB in the pc world? Does the operating system have such a lean overhead that you can get away with that kind of difference?
console is a dedicated gaming machine, the xbox only had 64mb, and look how good that is, i think 256mb will be sufficient