What is going on in this thread?
Obviously AMD could sell A64's to Microsoft for less than what you and I pay for the chip. $1000? No way. That said though, the fact is that the XeCPU is the chip with the far higher performance potential, and that's what the topic is here. Sure Carmack and the gang may not be excited about in-order execution and threaded code, but people are coming out of his interview believing the wrong thing if they feel that the traditional x86 CPU's are actually more powerful.
In a way it's almost the same arguments as made for XeCPU vs Cell, just scaled differently. We have x86 as easier to utilise than the XeCPU, but the later holding the potential performance edge. So how much will devs extract from the Xenon vs what they might have done with the traditional dual-core? Who knows, but I think the XeCPU was the right way to go.
Back at the AMD chip though, low-wattage variants do exist, and they are honestly somewhat conservative on their desktop chips. I run an A64 overclocked while at the same time undervolted, and it's certainly the case that MS would probably source mobile variants for a console. Remember that these chips carry a huge mark-up when they're sold to the consumer. I'm sure that a chip at cost would have been quite competetive with the XeCPU price-wise for the beginning of the consoles life, but as we know depeding on how the agreement were structured, that could lead Microsoft towards the same pitfalls experienced with the original XBox and it's Intel/NVidia agreements.
I know I'm jumping around all over the place here, but the point is, the XeCPU was the way to go IMO.
Obviously AMD could sell A64's to Microsoft for less than what you and I pay for the chip. $1000? No way. That said though, the fact is that the XeCPU is the chip with the far higher performance potential, and that's what the topic is here. Sure Carmack and the gang may not be excited about in-order execution and threaded code, but people are coming out of his interview believing the wrong thing if they feel that the traditional x86 CPU's are actually more powerful.
In a way it's almost the same arguments as made for XeCPU vs Cell, just scaled differently. We have x86 as easier to utilise than the XeCPU, but the later holding the potential performance edge. So how much will devs extract from the Xenon vs what they might have done with the traditional dual-core? Who knows, but I think the XeCPU was the right way to go.
Back at the AMD chip though, low-wattage variants do exist, and they are honestly somewhat conservative on their desktop chips. I run an A64 overclocked while at the same time undervolted, and it's certainly the case that MS would probably source mobile variants for a console. Remember that these chips carry a huge mark-up when they're sold to the consumer. I'm sure that a chip at cost would have been quite competetive with the XeCPU price-wise for the beginning of the consoles life, but as we know depeding on how the agreement were structured, that could lead Microsoft towards the same pitfalls experienced with the original XBox and it's Intel/NVidia agreements.
I know I'm jumping around all over the place here, but the point is, the XeCPU was the way to go IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
*
