ps3 much more powerful than xbox 360?

[PC-Engine]

Shall we get back on topic by you answering why MS wouldn't be able to pack in more silicon with the money saved from going with good ol DVD?

 

[London Geezer]

Shall we get back on topic by you answering why MS wouldn't be able to pack in more silicon with the money saved from going with good ol DVD?

I never said they wouldn't. The illogical part is the fact that, like usual, you say something that no one can really disagree to, nor agree, cause it's the future, you're not Bill Gates and i'm not Santa. They could, but for all we know, Sony will see the Xbox2 specs and pump up their processors, whatever the cost. Will it happen? Who knows!

 

[Carl B]

Shall we get back on topic by you answering why MS wouldn't be able to pack in more silicon with the money saved from going with good ol DVD?

I have to say I'm not sure where you are approaching things from when you say things like 'money they saved.' It would only make sense within the framework/context of a max cap budget allocated to the initial system cost. If they're trying to 'save' money on anything, I don't see how that would mean they spontaneously decide to increase spending on something else. I'm not saying individual component spending decisions were made inside a void, but I am questioning where saving 'all that money' on using DVD rather than HD-DVD suddenly translates into a bigger, better CPU.

 

[PC-Engine]

Shall we get back on topic by you answering why MS wouldn't be able to pack in more silicon with the money saved from going with good ol DVD?

I never said they wouldn't. The illogical part is the fact that, like usual, you say something that no one can really disagree to, nor agree, cause it's the future, you're not Bill Gates and i'm not Santa. They could, but for all we know, Sony will see the Xbox2 specs and pump up their processors, whatever the cost. Will it happen? Who knows!

And that's whay I didn't say that's what they'll do. Instead I said that's what they could do if push comes to shove.

Shall we get back on topic by you answering why MS wouldn't be able to pack in more silicon with the money saved from going with good ol DVD?

I have to say I'm not sure where you are approaching things from when you say things like 'money they saved.' It would only make sense within the framework/context of a max cap budget allocated to the initial system cost. If they're trying to 'save' money on anything, I don't see how that would mean they spontaneously decide to increase spending on something else. I'm not saying individual component spending decisions were made inside a void, but I am questioning where saving 'all that money' on using DVD rather than HD-DVD suddenly translates into a bigger, better CPU.

It's not saving money per se. It's reduced costs in one area so that you can spend more on another. As an example instead of the XPU in Xenon being a tri-core around 180mm^2 on 90nm process using a blue laser optical drive. They'd be able to use a quad-core around 225mm^2 at 90nm using a cheaper DVD drive. The quad-core is bigger and more powerful than the tri-core but also more expensive...

 

[blakjedi]

PCE - What does "saving money" mean? Getting parts they expected to spend x amount of dollars on for y amount of dollars instead where x>y? At that point id think they'd actually just keep their money... its automatic profit...If MS saved $2 per drive (which is alot of money per system) I dont think they can or would try to get a processor that is $2 better imho. They would just keep it and it goes into their margin...

Usually money saved like that is marginal and not enough to turn into another extraordinary feature... now if they saved $25 per part by just getting a better manufacture than they originally negotiated then you may see some improvements to the chipset but that windfall would have had to have occurred a long time ago... its too late for that now.

But i do understand what your trying to say though..

 

[PC-Engine]

PCE - What does "saving money" mean? Getting parts they expected to spend x amount of dollars on for y amount of dollars instead where x>y? At that point id think they'd actually just keep their money... its automatic profit...If MS saved $2 per drive (which is alot of money per system) I dont think they can or would try to get a processor that is $2 better imho. They would just keep it and it goes into their margin...

Usually money saved like that is marginal and not enough to turn into another extraordinary feature... now if they saved $25 per part by just getting a better manufacture than they originally negotiated then you may see some improvements to the chipset but that windfall would have had to have occurred a long time ago... its too late for that now.

But i do understand what your trying to say though..

That's a valid point, however were talking about a mass mass production DVD drive that's dirt dirt cheap vs a blue laser optical drive that's not mass produced and not dirt cheap. The savings could be substantial relative to the cost of a XPU. I'd say the XPU would cost maybe around $60 to manufacture and a blue laser drive would costs at least 3X that of a DVD drive. All of this depends on whether or not MS thinks it needs to do this to be competitive performancewise with the future PS3. If they don't think it's necessary then they'll just pocket the savings.