Why there're so few console (one I remember..Xbox) using x86 processor technology? What are the difference that make company choose PowerPC one, RISC or MIPS architecture?
Bye.
x86 processors are not cheap. Unlike other companies, Intel and AMD won't license out their designs so you have the higher cost of buying directly from them. They also typically run hotter than you'd want in a console, though that's not so true anymore. At the same time, the high performance of x86 processors is often directly linked to the advanced mass scale fab techniques amd and Intel use, you couldn't farm that out to TSMC and get the same results in cost or performance. Using an x86 chip, means you lock yourself into the pc distribution channel, and you'll be like apple and have to pretty much produce a pc-lite.
Supply limitation - x86 processors head to the more lucrative pc market first, and since there's only one supplier for the chip you're using, tough luck if you need to make more consoles that quarter. Additionally, whatever model you're using is likely to become outdated/discontinued and it will cost you significantly to have more produced, and you most likely won't benefit from die shrinks.
And from what I've seen, there appear to be hidden costs to the x86 architecture. No small form factor x86 board is as clean and simple as what I've seen done with powerpc, risc, or mips. It seems there's always at least a few more capacitors and chips (for the bios?) than say...a gamecube.
On the console processors IBM have done both customised design and used their high speed process. This is why Microsoft's ability to switch manufacturers is somewhat questionable, there's very few companies who have a process that fast, companies like UMC or TSMC may simply not be capable of building Xenon, even Intel would have difficulties - at least at 90nm, it'll get easier at 65nm.
Since IBM and AMD share fab tech, maybe AMD could produce some.
x86 will wallop the console chips on SPECInt but it isn't useful for games.
There's yet to be anything that shows that a PowerPC processor will outperform a modern x86 processor in games, assuming the presence of a GPU. x86 was more passed over for cost per performance, and not just flat out performance. (though if the 360 does well, it's possibly microsoft could get a sweet deal from intel next time, but I'd imagine they'd want to stick with IBM who's basically sold themselves to the console market at this point) I'd say chips already exist in the x86 world that will outperform cell or xenon by a lot in most circumstances, while cost of production to AMD and Intel is at worst comparable to cell, and probably cheaper. It's the cost to anyone else looking to sell a console at cost that would be a problem. (I suppose that's the deathknell of ever seeing an x86 processor in a console again, short of AMD or Intel going in themselves, Apple seems to have gotten both cheaper and faster from going Intel, but Apple already sold for very high margins)
MIPS used to be the only option if you wanted this level of flexibility, since there are no longer any competitive MIPS cores, the only option is Power.
There's ARM, but that's really only an option for Nintendo, and even then it's probably be a struggle to produce an ARM chip that can match the chip in the Wii. Integer performance would probably be doable, but I doubt that a fpu coprocessor would match Broadway while still being cost effective. Plus, it'd kill backwards compatibility with gamecube, and more importantly nintendo's established dev tools. It'll be interesting to see if the cpu ever goes on die with the gpu in the wii.
