| ethomaz said: Well MS have to choice THE BEST or THE CHEAPEST... choose AMD. And a 8 cores running at 2.4Ghz will be overkill for consoles... even the 1.6Ghz is great. |
It's not that simple. If they choose x86, they lose hardware BC. In regard to CPU performance for games, the order of CPU performance is:
Intel >> AMD >>>>>>>>> Everyone else.
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/prozessoren/2012/test-intel-core-i7-3970x/5/
An 8-core 4.0ghz FX8350 would destroy a 2.4ghz 8-core IBM CPU in games without even trying. PC gamers pay $100 extra sometimes to step up from GTX670 to GTX680 or from 925mhz HD7970 to 1050mhz HD7970GE to just gain 8-11% more performance. In those situations, 15-20% differences between CPUs starts to matter. Also, a lot of enthusiast gamers overclock and power consumption of Intel's CPUs compared to AMD's in overclocked states is dramatically superior.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/7
However, if we look at AMD and Intel processors compared to everyone else, for all intents and purposes for gaming AMD is like a Ferrari 458 and Intel is Pagani Zonda R/Veyron Super Sports/Lamborghini Aventador/Agera R. You go with PowerPC when you cannot afford to go AMD/Intel for a console, not the other way around. It wouldn't even be surprising if a 4-core AMD CPU beat an 8-core IBM CPU in games.
