Squilliam on 05 April 2010
I don't really see Nintendo/Intel making that much sense since Nintendo doesn't tend to use cutting edge hardware so they can keep costs low.
No, they tend to use hardware which suits their needs. I doubt you would call the 3DS obsolete before it released for instance.
AMD is a much better match for Nintendo in a lot of ways. They produce reasonable performance on the cheap. Nintendo doesn't want a cutting edge chip to beat the competition on graphics, that proved to be a losing battle on the Gamecube (keeping up with the joneses graphics wise). Instead look for a cheap processor and graphics card that puts the Wii at PS3ish graphics by 2012 for under 300 dollars on release yet again.
Nintendo wants an effective chip which meets their needs which has a good cost/benefit ratio. Whether this is a new chip or an older design it doesn't matter. I did not mention beating the competition in graphics, however a unique visual presentation is desirable. Intel has every incentive to provide Nintendo with cutting edge technology for cheap, so the cost of said technology is moot.
Also the Wii isn't helped by X86 much since Nintendo like Sony, Apple and everyone who isn't Microsoft doesn't use direct X. Direct X is why X86 is different then other kinds of programing for the Xbox and the PC since direct X has a lot of X86 contingencies built in. If you use Open GL it matters far less what processor you use and so companies are free to go for the most cost effective option.
How about excellent out of order execution, low latency, strong single threaded performance, easy programming environment and the best compilers in the industry. All this without even mentioning Direct X.
X86 is the most cost effective processor on the market today, except that Intel usually doesn't care to sell them on a cost+ basis. However if they had the right incentive they would.
Tease.
