Sony PS6, Microsoft neXt Series - 10th gen console speculation [2020]

Yeah, the author has a slightly salty take on the whole issue. Blocking Nvidia from buying ARM is the exact opposite of stifling innovation. That happens when ever any large corporation is allowed to purchase a chunk of the market that has always been open to everyone. The political shenanigans between the US and China, US and Europe, Europe and UK, UK and US, and the multitude of other us vs them battles that are going on are stifling innovation but this is not an instance of that.

Not that it is going to make any difference in the long run, all that flag waving that trump did only served to make China double down on its efforts to globalise and create its own tech.

But I totally agree with the decision to block Nvidia from purchasing ARM. But not for political reasons, but because they would be terrible custodians for ARM and that would stifle innovation globally.
 
lol jesus that article
The reality is that our human progress over the past few decades has been advanced by the rise of computing power. The last thing we need right now is for exponential technology growth to vanish. For the world to combat climate change, the pandemic and global recession, we need technologies to deliver more solutions, not less. Preventing a tie-up like Nvidia/Arm potentially stands in the way of that.

If only Nvidia was allowed to purchase ARM we'd have carbon capture by now. Oh well enjoy your climate change kiddos
 
If only we had an extremely clean and safe power source that was easy to implement and left almost no waste..... oh we do have nuclear plants...
Did you really use "clean" and "nuclear power plants' in the same sentence? Jesus..
 
Did you really use "clean" and "nuclear power plants' in the same sentence? Jesus..
Well it is clean energy in that it has none of the impact of hydrocarbon based energy sources. The waste products are the issue and how we deal with them is the problem. Maybe encase it in diamond shells using the carbon we extract from the atmosphere :p

I'm not quite sure whether this will be relevant to the next next-gen consoles etc. Unless they come with their own micro-grain nuclear power sources so that TDP headroom is off the charts!!
 
The waste products are the issue and how we deal with them is the problem. Maybe encase it in diamond shells using the carbon we extract from the atmosphere :p
If you ignore waste byproducts every process is clean! It's just a bigger swallow when the waste is going to last 10,000 years. ;)
 
Well it is clean energy in that it has none of the impact of hydrocarbon based energy sources. The waste products are the issue and how we deal with them is the problem. Maybe encase it in diamond shells using the carbon we extract from the atmosphere :p

I'm not quite sure whether this will be relevant to the next next-gen consoles etc. Unless they come with their own micro-grain nuclear power sources so that TDP headroom is off the charts!!
Nuclear waste is reusable fuel!! It's not waste in fact. There are systems to manage the waste efficiently. The biggest issue faced by Nuclear are a combination of finance(which can now be solved by building small modular reactors). The political issues will eventually fade away as the public realizes how safe, clean and cheap it is.
 
If you ignore waste byproducts every process is clean! It's just a bigger swallow when the waste is going to last 10,000 years. ;)

It depends on the nuclear fuel cycle and reactor type. The sodium cooled reactors developed by the US govt in the late 80s would cut that down to <1000 years. And that waste could be reused in more efficient nuclear reactors.
 
It depends on the nuclear fuel cycle and reactor type. The sodium cooled reactors developed by the US govt in the late 80s would cut that down to <1000 years. And that waste could be reused in more efficient nuclear reactors.
And yet the US have none operating in the civil fuel cycle. Odd...
Every other country that built one has decommissioned it. Odd..
 
And yet the US have none operating in the civil fuel cycle. Odd...
Every other country that built one has decommissioned it. Odd..
GE Hitachi's next reactor(PRISM) is going to be sodium cooled based off the IFR that you're alluding to. When built as an SMR as intended by the IFR program, it makes economical sense. The US ended their work on the IFR due to misguided politics(everyone knows that). Today GE Hitachi has one of the best nuclear reactor designs in with their BWRX-300 water cooled reactor. The PRISM has some of the best chances out of any advanced reactor designs to make it.
 
Last edited:
Nuclear power.... leaving no waste. Oh boy. *facepalm*
I said almost

FYI
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel

"
2. The U.S. generates about 2,000 metric tons of used fuel each year
This number may sound like a lot, but it’s actually quite small. In fact, the U.S. has produced roughly 83,000 metrics tons of used fuel since the 1950s—and all of it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards."

And as others have said the majority of the fuel can be reused in newer reactors. So we can actually repurpose the waste and make less of it.

Nuclear waste is reusable fuel!! It's not waste in fact. There are systems to manage the waste efficiently. The biggest issue faced by Nuclear are a combination of finance(which can now be solved by building small modular reactors). The political issues will eventually fade away as the public realizes how safe, clean and cheap it is.

Yup the problem is how ancient the designs of our power plants are. WE can easily use one of the newer generations of power plants that for those who don't know don't require gigantic cooling towers that say hey this is a nuclear power plant.

I'm all for solar and wind too btw , just don't think its a real replacement until we get better battery tech
 
Such articles are heavilly misguided when they make distinctions between markets and governments. Governments serve economic interests.
They are part of the market. Governments want to gain ground over other governments for economic reasons. They are competing. The US didnt ban Huawei because they are immorally doing espionage. It is because both countries are fighting to gain the bigger pie of the wireless market. The information they collect and will collect, and the aspects of our societies that will be connected to the wireless network and cloud services are massive. They will have access to everything. From traffic circulation to what's in your fridge. Everything. The US knows what China does because thats what they do too and they are after the same thing as well.
It is the reason why US fought Huawei and China prevented the merger between NVIDA and ARM. The espionage and each government's efforts to expand their local businesses happen on behalf of interests.

A merger between NVIDIA and ARM would have excluded a massive economy in China from having access to the technology too. There is nothing innovative or good about that. Its an economic war.

In addition NVIDIA would have had access to a lot more information and technology than any of it's competitors that will want to get there like AMD and we are already having a strong oligopoly in that market.

If the market was really honest, open source and free or aiming towards innovation to help societies, companies would have been sharing information and technologies without hesitation, without owning patents or having exclusive access, without requiring mergers. But this is a profit driven economy. This is why China and the US government respond the way they do, this is why companies try to eliminate competition, and this is why regulators become necessary when in a truly honest and free market that strived towards the betterment of society they wouldnt have existed.

This is kind of a controversial topic but I guess if I can add two quick cents: yeah technically speaking countries like the U.S and China are after the same things in terms of economic, political, technological power etc. And neither country is exactly perfect when it comes to aspects of their society that could be considered harmful or impractical to individuals from certain segments of groups or classes in those countries (though this can be said for virtually every country on the planet).

That said, and while I'm not at all a fan of the heavy, almost seemingly clique-like, coordinated levels of gatekeeping major tech companies and platforms have been engaging with in America (especially over the past year), at the end of the day I still have to look at things like the Nvidia/ARM deal from the perspective of, okay, IF a corporation based in this country or that country were to acquire such a company, who would I rather it be? Well, just honestly speaking, I'd rather it be a company in the country I actually reside in, in a country that I feel has a comparatively better track record on civil rights, human rights, and individual freedoms. The country that hasn't (yet) moved onto a completely social credit-based society (though in a lot of ways it feels like America is trying very hard to do this). The country that a person as I am, would feel more comfortable living in WRT things socially, economically and so forth.

I know that may sound incredibly selfish but it's just what I would say off the top of my head, because such major events, they do trickle down eventually to us (this is no commentary whatsoever on the idea of trickle-down economics, btw xD). And I'm pretty sure there are many citizens in China who feel the same way as I on such a matter, just replace America with China and there you go. Same to those across the pond in various countries like Britain or the U.K. Especially considering, just for a second, that China in particular doesn't necessarily "play fair" anyway in terms of foreign market entities when it comes to certain types of business with Chinese-based companies (foreign companies are not allowed to make purchases of or investments in Chinese companies, for starters, nor buy up any land in China, but the inverse is allowed for Chinese companies and investors WRT other countries, particularly America).

So, in a way, when or if Nvidia were to acquire a company like ARM, even though I know I get little benefit in it (no stock ownership and none of that licensing money would be lining my own pockets. If anything, money would probably leave my pockets to fill Nvidia's xD), in a way I would kind of ironically consider is karma, in a sense. I agree with your points insofar as how Nvidia buying ARM would be nothing in terms of generating genuine innovation and that it'd essentially be economic war but...to think a little outside the box here, sometimes you HAVE to play the game of economic war to win, in order to ensure a healthy domestic economy to drive further genuine innovation in the first place.
 
I said almost

FYI
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel

"
2. The U.S. generates about 2,000 metric tons of used fuel each year
This number may sound like a lot, but it’s actually quite small. In fact, the U.S. has produced roughly 83,000 metrics tons of used fuel since the 1950s—and all of it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards."

And as others have said the majority of the fuel can be reused in newer reactors. So we can actually repurpose the waste and make less of it.



Yup the problem is how ancient the designs of our power plants are. WE can easily use one of the newer generations of power plants that for those who don't know don't require gigantic cooling towers that say hey this is a nuclear power plant.

I'm all for solar and wind too btw , just don't think its a real replacement until we get better battery tech
I'm glad we finally got something to agree on. Eventually we're going to need a combination of renewable energy and nuclear. Nuclear can displace fossil fuels in a short period of time. France was able to virtually eliminate fossil fuels from their electricity generation in 10 years by the mid 80s. Germany after 30 years of investing in renewables still hasn't.
 
I'm glad we finally got something to agree on. Eventually we're going to need a combination of renewable energy and nuclear. Nuclear can displace fossil fuels in a short period of time. France was able to virtually eliminate fossil fuels from their electricity generation in 10 years by the mid 80s. Germany after 30 years of investing in renewables still hasn't.
We can thank all the "green" activists around the world for it. Without their misinformed campaigns, nuclear power would have replaced a lot more fossil fuel plants around the world. Germanys situation is direct result of them getting into Schröders government and as much as I hate their current leadership, at least they've delayed the original plan which was to quit nuclear altogether by 2022.

ps. what's up with the gigantic towers in US plants? Here's how we did it in Finland (Olkiluoto without the catastrophe of Olkiluoto 3, probably the most expensive building in the world that's still not finished)
2560px-Olkiluoto_1%262.jpg
 
Back
Top