BlueFalcon said:
1. AMD could have given them a higher discount on the CPU + GPU combo than going with IBM + AMD GPU separately. 2. You are overestimating the performance of Power CPUs for games. There is a reason Apple ditched Power in favor of Core 2 Duo back in the days, citing lack of CPU performance and per core performance necessary for applications. While AMD's CPUs are not faster than Intel's, even a $50 AMD quad-core CPU is faster than the CPUs in either Xbox 360 or PS3. In fact, the entire Xbox 360 Xenon CPU is only 70-85% as powerful as one Core i7 core (but Core i7 CPUs have 4 cores with 2 threads each!!) (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-tech-interview-metro-2033?page=4) The worst low-end AMD/NV GPU and the worst low-end AMD CPU deliver 30 fps constant in Dark Souls, something PS3 and Xbox360 can only dream of. That shows you how much lacking in power the Power PC in-order-architecture CPUs are. The more modern Power 7 is better but the CPUs in PS3 and 360 are extremely underpowered compared to even a $50 budget Intel/AMD chip. $50 CPU + $60 GPU has no problem keeping 30 fps constant in Dark Souls at 2560x1600. http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Dark%20Souls%20Prepare%20To%20Die%20Edition/ds%202560.png http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Dark%20Souls%20Prepare%20To%20Die%20Edition/ds%20proz.png 3. x86 code means it would be a lot easier and cheaper to develop games and port them from PC. You could make a PC game from scratch using common tools, and easily port the game to the console by turning down some settings. This worked well for Xbox 1. It would have been better if MS had gone with a Core 2 Duo CPU for Xbox 360 but such option was too expensive at the time. With AMD now selling decent speed CPUs for under $125, x86 is now back on the table. 4. The above are still uncomfirmed specs and rumors. For all we know, there is no x86 CPU switch. |
I agree about points 1,3 and 4.
About point 2, there are actually 3 points to answer:
2a) Apple mainly switched to Intel because IBM had no interest in developing also a mobile version of the G5, so MacBooks were stuck with G4 and going to become too underpowered soon. OTOH Intel always thrived in the notebook market and so always had the maximum interest in developing the best it could for that market.
2b) I agree that despite not always offering the most powerful CPU, AMD very often offers the best value from low to middle-high end (although on desktop Athlon was not only the best value, but also the most powerful x86 CPU from 1999 to 2006, and AMD was the first to extend x86 to 64bit and first in 64bit PC performances for some more years, but unfortunately during those years only Linux exploited that power, while mainstream Windows seriously switched to 64bit too late to help AMD).
2c) Basically, Power's scalability isn't enough, there must be IBM's interest in developing the right version, but there's also one thing wrong in the comparison you cite: the article is from 2010 and it compares the performances of XB360's Xenon, a 2005 mid-range CPU that given the timeline could be at best based on Power 5+, with Intel Core i7, a high-end 2008 CPU, that, BTW, at launch was very expensive, out of reach for a console with prices starting from less than $300, and at 3GHz it ate 130W, the CPU alone, when in 2008 a Jasper XB360 had a 150W power supply. And in 2007 IBM released Power 6, that for almost the same power consumption of Power 5 gives double performances.
But basically, Intel CPUs could offer neither the performance per Watt, nor per Clock, nor per Dollar of contemporary Power CPUs.
Edit: not to mention that in 2005 Intel, outside of notebook market, was still stuck with very poor CPUs compared to both AMD Athlon and IBM Power, it took Core 2 Duo for Intel to beat again AMD, as the first Core Duo failed by a whisker and before it P4 utterly failed.
