| invetedlotus123 said: I don't understand much about it. But, going for a x86 plataform would make the system cheaper to make? Since most of the processor produced nowadays uses this architechture. And using a x86 the development costs and time would drop? Since we see powerhouse PC games that costed little to make when compared to powerhouse console games. |
Not really. They would be about the same price; the console alone is sufficient volume to get the maximum volume discount on whatever they choose. 90% of the reason PCs are faster than consoles at the moment is the graphics card, not the CPU. And I would argue the opposite; current PC games cost far more than consoles because of all of the artists and programming needed to get the higher detail levels seen.
x86 matters only when you need prior compatibility with Windows applications. Since consoles don't, they are free to choose whichever is better on price and performance out of all of the architectures.
The Cell architecture was a mistake for practical reasons, not technological ones. If Sony had been undisputed first place (PS2-like domination) as they expected then programmers would have had to learn the new system faster and optimise for it more.
Essay Pro