joeorc said:
Squilliam said:
You could say the same for the Cell when IBM sold them directly and inside servers. Anyhow price discrimination is alive and well within the semi-conductor industry. Take server chips for instance, they cost THOUSANDS each, and yet the retail model is mere hundreds and the actual margins on the chip itself at retail is often over 100% more than the fabrication costs.
Nintendo doesn't need a chip which will even run native X86 code without a recompile so theres no conflict of interest for say AMD to gimp/rework the instruction decode or you know add more registers or funny things like that because the money Nintendo would pay them and the volume are both high enough to justify this. HP couldn't exactly turn around and complain if the chip is technically X86 non compliant now can they?
|
it's not the same thing with CELL
Remember Cell was not just Ibm's it was also's Toshiba's and Sony's.
this is where Nintendo has to go outside and shop, what ever price is set that's what Nintendo has to go with. yes they can have a chip made for them , but it still all bois down to how much Nintendo is willing to spend.The next Wii replacement is not like their handheld's and if it does this will be one of the thing's that's would be a question, would Nintendo make a system they would take a hit on in a sizable way. Which i doubt it very much.the hardware will be powerful for a Nintendo system but as for it being very robust, I doubt it will surpass the technology in the xbox360 or the ps3 if they intend to launch in 2011 it would just be too expensive to do so.
Nintendo could but i very much doubt it the way the Wii is selling. the handheld market is not like the system's that are directed for your living room.
They still have to get what ever price is set by the manuf. so still between now and 2011 it's still going to be expensive. for what your trying to think Nintendo will be able to release without costing an arm and a leg, yesa they could do it but I doubt it very much. remember it's about the software.
|
It strikes be that you actually know very little about technology from what you've just said.
They would have to fall over themselves to release a system which was not at least twice as powerful as the PS3 in 2011.
Memory technology has advanced rapidly, the Xbox 360 used 8 512Mb ram chips whereas they can use just two 2Gb GDDR5 chips and double the memory bandwidth of the Xbox 360 at significantly lower cost.
Fabrication technology improvements mean they can use relatively power efficient cache, so instead of 3MB embedded framebuffer on the Wii they can easily install 15MB or more given the fact that there are over 1B transistors per 100mm^2 at the 28nm bulk process nodes of both Global Foundries and TSMC and cache is very compact compared to logic and analogue circuitry.
processor technology has also improved significantly. Not only are modern GPUs more efficient on a performance per watt and performance per area metric. They are also significantly more efficient at reproducing modern post processing effects you see on all AAA games today on a per transistor basis. A DX11 GPU is typically at least 50% faster using compute shaders than a DX10 counterpart running the same shaders. The same also applies to the latest model CPUs as well.
None of this costs any extra money, the performance improvements over the current generation are either free or cheaper than what is currently implemented inside the Xbox 360 or PS3.
I could go on and on, but quite frankly I don't expect you to understand or if you do understand I don't expect you to acknowledge any of this so why bother?
