Soleron said:
2. AMD does not and will not have a faster gaming CPU on the market than the FX-8350 until at least 2014. Therefore the FX-8350 is an upper bound of what's possible in next-gen consoles, and since it's $200 even that is unlikely. 3. AMD does not have multi-threading tech. Even if it did, on current PC CPUs, the second thread adds about 5% to performance and subsequent threads do much less. You're incorrectly assuming an AMD 'core' and an Intel (PC) 'core' are worth the same amount. |
No, my only assumption is that given a GFlop performance, an 8-core CPU would out perform a dual-core CPU if all things were equal. Which I stated. You however, are making several assumptions that cannot be verified. I don't assume it's an AMD processor. It is entirely possible that the CPU if AMD is even the source for the manufacturing of it, could simply be the ones pressing the die. In other words, Microsoft or Sony is handing them a CPU design to press. I also don't assume that a rumored processor speed will be the real speed. Which means, I don't sit and try to divine the future based on rumor. How about this possibility? It's an IBM Power-based processor, coupled with additional ARM-based cores for specific application purposes, and AMD is the company doing the die pressing? Well that just screwed up your entire CPU debate didn't it? I'm going to guess your too young to know that prior to building their own processors, AMD used to build Intel processors. Not Intel compatible processors, they were licensed by Intel to build processors because Intel didn't have the capacity to build as many processors as the market demanded. So using AMD as the fabricator for a CPU they didn't design wouldn't be unusual. Amazing, I know. Your mind must be blown. When we have detailed specs about the CPUs than we can debate performance, but right now, if all things are equal an 8-core processor would have higher performance than a dual-core CPU. Since you have no proof that all things aren't equal, except current CPU performance to price ratio charts, I'm not sure how this conversation can continue. There are WAY too many assumptions being made to hamstring a processor that we don't even have real performance specs on. Regardless of whether or not it's from Sony or Microsoft. I personally doubt Sony and Microsoft are using similar CPUs with the only difference really being the GPU. It would only serve to benefit developers, not either of the platform holders. The idea of both Microsoft and Sony's next generation consoles are to provide enough performance to easily get through the next seven years, if not get through the next ten. They won't be able to do that if the CPU performance can't match or significantly best that of the current PC CPUs. To get the most from their investment, to make the most profit, they need to extend the life of the console as long as possible. If the performance cannot match even that of the current PC CPUs, then it'll make either for a short generation or a shift from consoles to PCs. Consoles are too lucrative for either Sony or Microsoft to throw away the business to PCs. Even if 100% of the shift went to Windows PCs, Microsoft still makes more money on console games than they do on PC games. It doesn't make sense for either to throw the business away with a product that would be obsolete the day it was released. Neither the PS3 nor the Xbox 360 were that when they were released. They only became it over the life of the current generation.
