The thing is, the xbox lowered intels asp for the last few quarters, they really dont need it. Consoles are cheap, 300-350 TOPS, the cpu in them HAS to be cheap to make the whole shebang cheap, if intel put a 2.2ghz p4 in every xbox2 and sold them for at most 100 bucks, they would lose so much money, so maybe intel dosent care about the xbox2 contract.
1) Can you provide any evidence that the X-Box lowered Intel's ASP for the last few quarters?
2)Since Microsoft is the one producing the X-Box, the onus of profit loss should fall upon them, unless Intel were to sign a really bad contract. (Which their management has certainly shown itself to be stupid enough to do.) Chances are high though that what actually took place was that Microsoft is making a loss on the X-Box hardware (which is true of virtually every console ever sold), and Microsoft is making that money up in proprietary software titles, and in licensing for others to develop software for their console. This is how virtually every console since the dawn of time has worked, and why Sega couldn't compete. (They had problems convincing people to licence and weren't exactly the best at proprietary software development.)
This is also where the X-Box has a <i>very</i> strong competetive nature. Convincing people to licence to use the X-Box as a software platform is incredibly easy when the X-Box's native programming base is just a stripped-down version of Windows. This allows anyone to develop for both the X-Box and for Windows with very little effort, and also gives incentive for many other software vendors to put the little effort needed to port from one to the other. Who can beat launching software on two platforms instead of one for very little effort?
The X-Box licensing practically sells itself. So Microsoft should more than be able to take a loss on the X-Box hardware and still make a great deal of money from the X-Box. Hence Intel shouldn't have to sell the P3 chip to Microsoft at a loss just to make Microsoft happy.
3) In a way, you have a partially good point. If Microsoft wanted to put a P4 2.2aGHz into every X-Box2, they would quite possibly lose more money on the X-Box2 hardware than what it would be worth making up in licensing and proprietary hardware. I don't really know, but it is a possability. So chances are, Microsoft will be trying to use as inexpensive parts as possible. Seeing as how the Thoroughbreds and Bartons are likely to be quite inexpensive and offer good performance, chances are Microsoft would try to use these.
Here are the reasons why I believe that Microsoft will at the least strongly consider the Thoroughbred(or Barton) for the X-Box2 over anything from Intel:
I) Actual CPU power isn't very important to a console. What matters to a console is GPU performance and sound. If you have a superb GPU and a good sound chip, then you have little need for a powerful processor. So Microsoft will probably be looking at a 'budget' CPU to use in the X-Box2. I expect that AMD will be providing a better quality 'budget' CPU than Intel. (Though this could open up possabilities for VIA even over AMD.)
II) A console will be part of the living room environment. No one likes a loud cooling fan. A low-clock Thoroughbred or Barton will (hopefully) run quite cool, allowing Microsoft to put a less-efficient quiet-running cooler onto the CPU. (Again, this could be a place where VIA could have even more of an advantage over AMD.)
III) To extend point II), a console should be as compact as possible. A smaller heat sink would allow for development of a smaller case. So again, AMD wins out over Intel. (And again, VIA could win out over AMD.)
IV) nVIDIA and AMD play nice together. nVIDIA and Intel have had their arguments. So looking at nVIDIA for the next X-Box would involuntarily drag AMD along for the ride.
And here are my reasons for thinking that Microsoft will consider Intel over AMD:
I) Intel can produce more chips in an amount of time than AMD can. Since Microsoft will need millions of chips for their initial release date alone, this puts AMD into bad favor.
II) Intel designs CPUs that in and of themselves can run without a heat sink and still not need to shut down the entire system. AMD has yet to achive this. So Microsoft may desire a system that even when abused (as consoles often are tossed around and transported with little to no consideration when compared to how a PC is handled) will not completely die.
So ultimately, my current expectations are that Microsoft will consider VIA first, AMD second, and Intel last for the hardware in the X-Box2.
Ultimately, VIA can provide a cheap, cool-running, small form factor CPU and motherboard combo which can be expected to have future support long enough for a continued production of the platform. If I were Microsoft, I would be looking at VIA first. (As much as I personally dislike the company, I have to admit that they do make a strong case for use as a set-top-box/internet appliance/console.)
Add to that, that if I were Microsoft I would be considering ATI for my next console (because last I saw, they <i>do</i> play DVDs with less CPU usage than nVIDIA does), this could mean that the nVIDIA and AMD playing nice together isn't a strong point for Microsoft chosing AMD.
<pre>Join PETT.(People for Equal Treatment of Trolls)
Trolls:Keeping bridges clean 'n safe.</pre><p>
Engineering is the science of making life simple, by making it more complicated.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram