Blacklord
Banned
That the PS3 has a dual pool [email protected] and the whole thing cost 300$ when an Xeon cost 1000$. WTF this is daylight robbery!
Did anyone notice?
- Thread starter Blacklord
- Start date
Shin_Gouki
New member
...for sure...do u know how the price of a CPU is determined? and then how the Price of a console? I think not...
thats some very basic buisness economics..(u can't compare it directly..)
wbr Shin Gouki
thats some very basic buisness economics..(u can't compare it directly..)
wbr Shin Gouki
Trotterwatch
New member
PS3 uses the Cell which isn't the Xeon. And the price that Sony are selling for will not be the price that the manufacture and R&D costs, they will offset the costs themselves with losses for the initial period of sales (which is what usually happens anyway).
Don't underestimate buying in bulk either.
Don't underestimate buying in bulk either.
TerraPhantm
New member
Sony bought the rights to the cell processor IIRC. Either way the cell processor is based on the PPC architecture, which IMO is pretty crappy anyways.
TerraPhantm
New member
I have my doubts about that, Apple seems to have shared my opinion as well (hence their switch to intel)
TerraPhantm
New member
The point I was trying to make was that, apple probably felt the PPC architecture to be inferior to x86. Either way, since macs are mostly used for multimedia, intel was a better choice. Also, AMD probably doesn't have the capacity to produce chipes for apple.
To keep this from going too far OT, I'm going to say, considering the PS3 has the RSX which is roughly equatable to the 7800GTX-512, and the fact that the cell can't be too cheap, Sony must be selling the PS3s at a rather large loss.
To keep this from going too far OT, I'm going to say, considering the PS3 has the RSX which is roughly equatable to the 7800GTX-512, and the fact that the cell can't be too cheap, Sony must be selling the PS3s at a rather large loss.
TerraPhantm
New member
They're a small company, they simply don't have the production capabilities to produce that many processors. Intel is huge and has plenty of resources to spare.
TerraPhantm
New member
Intels labs are simply bigger. They make plenty of things outside of processors, which allows for more profit. Also they sell more processors then AMD due to all their deals with PC manufacturers. AMD is preferred among gamers, but gamers only make 5% of the market, the rest of the market is filled with people who just want to word-process or something. These people go for Dells, gateways', etc... and those computers usually have Intels. Also due to Intel's marketing, they are perceived to be better.
Doomulation
?????????????????????????
Only now recently, AMD outsold Intel in the processor market. AMD is nowhere near "small."
TerraPhantm
New member
Okay, I'll admit I missed the news of AMDs market share surging up to 50%. Intel does indeed have larger labs however, that I know for certain. I didn't realise how much AMD grew over the course of 6 months. Apple has stated however, that they have no plans to switch to AMD, and when I read that a lot of people were saying it was due to AMDs relatively lower production capacity.
WhiteX
New member
Looks like "he said, she said" to me, you must know that AMD opened new factories in the last quarter of 2005 and the market on emerging countries is owned by AMD because of their low prices, i can understand that you may cheer for Intel and Apple is with them at a commercial agreement but it does not make AMD small in any way, since for computers "custom tailored" AMD rocks.
TerraPhantm
New member
Look at my rig, I love AMD, and I wouldn't give it up for any Intel system out there. I simply did not realise that AMD grew so exponentially since Apple announced their switch to Intel. Any how, due to Intels superiority in multimedia apps, I doubt Apple will switch any time soon.