Quick recap on the latest energy friendly X86 embedded device CPU range from Intel:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46999
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=47097
For information's sake, I'll also mention Via's Isaiah even though I don't see it fitting into the required TDP/energy requirement for a mainstream console handheld.
So, here's the idea and some argumentation:
The + :
The - :
My take on the subject:
Personally, I wouldn't expect the DS and PSP successors to use a X86 CPU from Intel, if anything, it would the platforms succeeding to these that could potentially be good candidates to use the technology. New comers, on the other hand , would be a very realistic guess in the foreseable future. I'm thinking about companies manly going for a niche market, relying mainly on homebrew to create consumer interest, like the Tapware or GP32 handhelds did in the past. These X86 handheld would have the advantage of being able to run X86 Windows/Linux and thus their games as well. It wouldn't mean playing Crysis on the go, of course, but it could let people play a ton of their old and/or simplier games.
It could also be a good business opportunity to publishers, since they could support such a platform at a very low cost: They'd just allow their portfolio of old games to be sold on the platform manufacturer's online marketplace, à la Gametap or Steam.
Now, another possibility would be Microsoft. Many time we have speculated about a handheld MS platform, and until now, it never made a lot of sense (then again, launching Zune didn't make a lot of sense to many, and that includes me.
)
It now makes for MS because it opens two potential markets to the company. It can either create a Windows Mobile Xbox OS plus a set of requirements (layout, number of buttons, etc) and rely on IHVs to create, update and sell the hardware. MS would pocket (intended) the licensing costs, promote its Xbox brand, but also push its own online marketplace from where games (and other content) would be sold. The second possibility would be to treat the product like the two other major players do. Release the console, and handle it (intended) entirely from specs to design. In which case, it would also hold some positive points for MS. Namely, these positive points would be the ones I listed above. The Redmond folks have the OS, they have the tools and thus the project cost for them, on that end would be pretty much reasonable. They also have the Xbox platform, with its X86 CPU, and thus, MS and their publisher partners, could have access to content to port easily.
It would be a much more controlled bet, if they went down the first speculated path. I think that MS, of all the companies, knows that it's better to own the platform than it is to actually produce it in the material sense of the term. And that would allow it to expand its reach in the digital distribution market more rapidly by also having the control of an online marketplace used by many handheld devices.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46999
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=47097
For information's sake, I'll also mention Via's Isaiah even though I don't see it fitting into the required TDP/energy requirement for a mainstream console handheld.
So, here's the idea and some argumentation:
The + :
- Leverages X86 knowledge: there's a million books, usenet discussions, groups, university (or other) courses, etc on the architecture. Most programmers out there have experience with this ISA.
- Use existing tools: You can rely on powerful compilers and debuggers from day 1. In fact if you use an Intel solution, like this thread implies in its content, you'll land yourself the ability to use what many consider the best X86 compilers (optimizing for Intel's architecture) out there.
- Access to many existing libraries and code sample: back to point one. X86 is old and so much entrenched as the defacto standard that it's not hard to understand why you can get your hand on so much code available for it.
- Code re-usability: this point is similar in nature to the precedent, but it's worth noting. Developers could port down their PC engines and middleware easily. Just like they could port their old tech almost as is (depending on how portable and reliant on certain OS/API calls the code is, of course).
The - :
- Price/cost: this is Intel we're talking about and thus, you'd have to pass by them to buy the silicon at the price the company judge fit. We'd also have to consider the fact that it might not give you the best perf-dollar results in the embedded CPU market. Impossible to shop around for the cheapest foundry, Intel would produce it all. Which take use to this point's immediate corollary.
- CPU's IP is not yours (In Intel's case): obviously, history shown that Intel is not willing, nor especially eager to license, let alone sell, their IPs or a particular implementation of their IPs. Which might tie you to Intel's goodwill more than what a game manufacturer might want to (see MS' issues with Intel/Nvidia in the Xbox days).
- Technical feasibility: to take an example that will speak to the B3D folks: remember when IBM told Kutaragi that his initial preformance goal for the C:BE were unrealistic? Well, it's the same story here. It's easy to draw conjectures and speculate based on a limited base of information gathered from initial reports (A.K.A. dream big). But we can't expect these conjectures to fall in line with the realities of the final products (A.K.A. reality hates you and your dreams, bub!). In other words, the technology might not be so great for an handheld console.
My take on the subject:
Personally, I wouldn't expect the DS and PSP successors to use a X86 CPU from Intel, if anything, it would the platforms succeeding to these that could potentially be good candidates to use the technology. New comers, on the other hand , would be a very realistic guess in the foreseable future. I'm thinking about companies manly going for a niche market, relying mainly on homebrew to create consumer interest, like the Tapware or GP32 handhelds did in the past. These X86 handheld would have the advantage of being able to run X86 Windows/Linux and thus their games as well. It wouldn't mean playing Crysis on the go, of course, but it could let people play a ton of their old and/or simplier games.
It could also be a good business opportunity to publishers, since they could support such a platform at a very low cost: They'd just allow their portfolio of old games to be sold on the platform manufacturer's online marketplace, à la Gametap or Steam.
Now, another possibility would be Microsoft. Many time we have speculated about a handheld MS platform, and until now, it never made a lot of sense (then again, launching Zune didn't make a lot of sense to many, and that includes me.
To the MS folks on B3D who work(ed) on the project, note that I'm not criticising Zune. Just that as a corporate move, it surprised me from MS. So, you can peacefully put down the pitchforks and the release the Shift button and/or remove Capslock 
It now makes for MS because it opens two potential markets to the company. It can either create a Windows Mobile Xbox OS plus a set of requirements (layout, number of buttons, etc) and rely on IHVs to create, update and sell the hardware. MS would pocket (intended) the licensing costs, promote its Xbox brand, but also push its own online marketplace from where games (and other content) would be sold. The second possibility would be to treat the product like the two other major players do. Release the console, and handle it (intended) entirely from specs to design. In which case, it would also hold some positive points for MS. Namely, these positive points would be the ones I listed above. The Redmond folks have the OS, they have the tools and thus the project cost for them, on that end would be pretty much reasonable. They also have the Xbox platform, with its X86 CPU, and thus, MS and their publisher partners, could have access to content to port easily.
It would be a much more controlled bet, if they went down the first speculated path. I think that MS, of all the companies, knows that it's better to own the platform than it is to actually produce it in the material sense of the term. And that would allow it to expand its reach in the digital distribution market more rapidly by also having the control of an online marketplace used by many handheld devices.
