Intel Touting its Chips for Future Consoles Options

[Xbox-Scene]

Intel Touting its Chips for Future Consoles Posted by XanTium | December 14 13:55 EST | News Category: Xbox360

From next-gen.biz: [QUOTE] Leading chip maker Intel has spoken to platform holders about the possibility of using its advanced technology in the next generation of consoles. Intel believes that advancements in silicon chip design over the next decade will open doors to new ways of interacting with machines, and the firm has been courting console platform holders, reports Business Week. IBM currently supplies Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft with processors for their videogame consoles. Having been trumped by IBM this time round, Intel appears intent not to miss out on the market opportunities that will arise from the coming of future generations of consoles. [/QUOTE] Full Story: next-gen.biz

[halofun121]

A console-processor war? Interesting thought. And if IBM buys AMD, things could really start to heat up.

This post has been edited by halofun121: Dec 14 2007, 09:36 PM

[bucko]

Well if I recall MS had problems with Intel in Xbox 1, especially when they dumped a load of stock because of a # security number broke, Nvidia and Intel didn't like it..

MS also didn't like the fact that the IP was closed, so they had to pay Intel a lot of royalitys. I doubt MS will work with Intel on consoles again unless Intel changes to IBM ways of doing things.

[Merkaba]

i think intel is out of the game for a while when it comes to consoles.

[Altima NEO]

No chance, me thinks.

For a few reasons.

IBM would have jack if it wasnt for the consoles, especially now that they dont even make CPUs for Apple, so its likely IBM would be very competitive in order to keep its contracts with Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony.

The other reason is future reverse compatibility is much easier on the next-next gen consoles if they stay with the same powerPC processor theyre using. Switching to a different cpu, like one from Intel could result in the same crap reverse compatibility that 360 suffers (just look at the Wiis nearly 100 percent RC with Gamecube games, due to it being the same type of processor).

[JCDenton@AS]

I wonder what the specs on these chips are and i wonder if they will still be up to date when the xbox 3 is in development for real.

[21cwSpanky]

No chance, me thinks.

For a few reasons.

IBM would have jack if it wasnt for the consoles, especially now that they dont even make CPUs for Apple, so its likely IBM would be very competitive in order to keep its contracts with Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony.

The other reason is future reverse compatibility is much easier on the next-next gen consoles if they stay with the same powerPC processor theyre using. Switching to a different cpu, like one from Intel could result in the same crap reverse compatibility that 360 suffers (just look at the Wiis nearly 100 percent RC with Gamecube games, due to it being the same type of processor).

Please, IBM has a gross revenue of 91 billion dollars in '06. They have a very very large chunk of the corporate market share.

[sephiroth99]

wouldn't the console makers already developping for the "next-next-generation" ? if I would be a console maker, I'd be already working with a processor maker, someone I know and I've already worked with, instead of switching companies. Seems to me that Intel is a little late to the party, for the next consoles anyway...

This post has been edited by sephiroth99: Dec 15 2007, 03:58 AM

[SpRiTe ReMiX]

NOOOOOOOO! I don't want my next XBOX to be disgraced with an Intel processor!!

I would feel so nasty buying it...

AMD FTW

"Intel does it first, AMD does it right."

[21cwSpanky]

NOOOOOOOO! I don't want my next XBOX to be disgraced with an Intel processor!!

I would feel so nasty buying it...

AMD FTW

"Intel does it first, AMD does it right."

This would be another prime example of a foot in mouth comment. It's actually quite the opposite, AMD actually pioneered most of the home CPU breakthroughs is the past 10 years and while sporting a rather cheap price tag, but in the end they also run a lot hotter and have less stability.

[Kinitex]

Ya but intel's new generation of cpus are really starting to pull away from anything AMD can throw at them. The new QX9650 overclocks to 4.5ghz on air no problem and still runs pretty cool. Imagine that?

[g8crapachino]

Why the heck do some of you people care or waste your time fighting these Intel vs AMD arguments? It's Stupid. It's not like Intel or AMD will send you a Xmas card or put your picture up on the wall of their corporate offices just because you use one chip over the other. Those of you actually getting emotional over CPU brands really need to get out of that dark hole you're living in.

This post has been edited by g8crapachino: Dec 15 2007, 01:40 PM

[d-range]

I'm ok with it, provided that they do not put x86 in it, and not x86-64 either, because the x86 instruction set sucks for games. Not enough registers and too many instructions that are useless for gaming applications. The PPC instruction set is much smaller, which makes it easier to develop a stripped-down CPU that doesn't do all the fancy run-time optimizations that help general-purpose performance together with a compiler that specifically optimizes around these limitations at compile time. IE: like the way it is now.

At the moment there is no advantage at all switching to x86, and I don't remember intel having a serious high-performance alternative architecture. I'd expect console CPU's moving more towards Cell-like architectures anyway, as soon as all big developers have adapted to such platforms the benefits will show big time.

This post has been edited by d-range: Dec 15 2007, 01:39 PM

[gonkle]

I'm ok with it, provided that they do not put x86 in it, and not x86-64 either, because the x86 instruction set sucks for games. Not enough registers and too many instructions that are useless for gaming applications. The PPC instruction set is much smaller, which makes it easier to develop a stripped-down CPU that doesn't do all the fancy run-time optimizations that help general-purpose performance together with a compiler that specifically optimizes around these limitations at compile time. IE: like the way it is now.

At the moment there is no advantage at all switching to x86, and I don't remember intel having a serious high-performance alternative architecture. I'd expect console CPU's moving more towards Cell-like architectures anyway, as soon as all big developers have adapted to such platforms the benefits will show big time.

point. I just wanted to start a statement like this. RISC CPU'a are way better for this and have always been, like the good old 68000.

This post has been edited by gonkle: Dec 15 2007, 03:49 PM

[0794]

A console-processor war? Interesting thought. And if IBM buys AMD, things could really start to heat up.

as long as we the consumer keep winning while the "big ones" battle it out, i appreciate this expanded competition for the hardware components that make up the consoles...and yes, the market for these machines will keep expanding as they become the epicenter of entertainment in the home...