freebs2 said:
For their prospective probably while ps and xb move a lot of units, console chips have very thin margins compared to graphics cards and laptops gpus. Mind me, I don't have anything against AMD, but PS and Xbox use their chips not because they're superior to Nividia's but only because they're chepaer. |
Not only because they are cheaper. They are cheaper for that performance envelope.
And certainly the margins are thin. But it grants a stable and good revenue stream. And just on the money flow it creates a lot of leverage and gain of scale that they can use to finance other technologies and recover their position (AMD).
As console customer, knowing they won't make a 2000 USD box, I rather they get the best possible GPU under 200 USD cost and with the CPU and GPU into a single chip they gain a little more on the cost for best performance per money expend.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."