Nintendo's E3 showing--and beyond

[trancejeremy]

The Xenon (Xbox 360 CPU) is a triple-core 3.2 GHz PowerPC chip, but it's less than it seems. People are used to thinking of PPC chips as faster clock per clock than x86 chips, because we were used looking at early PPCs vs Pentium IIs, and G5s against Pentium IVs (G4s and Pentium IIIs were pretty similar clock per clock). But any one Xenon core is actually a lot slower than any modern AMD or Intel x86 core clock for clock in most tasks, enough that running at 3.2 GHz isn't going to make up for it. The best guess is that a single Xenon core is about twice as powerful as the original Xbox's 733 MHz Celeron.

Okay, that might not be very much. But what about the jump in the GPU? I believe the 360s is based on the ATI's R500 chips, which is the basis for their X1xxx line, which are quite good, like the PS3 GPU is based on nvidias 7800.

I actually have no idea what the Wii's GPU is. Some say it's just a faster version of the GC GPU, others say it's a mid range ATIx1xxx card. But in either case, again it doesn't seem to be in the class of either other console.


I'm starting to think the time is ripe for Sega to get back into the console business. Basically make a version of their "Lindbergh" arcade system, which is based on PC hardware. Relatively cheap, powerful, and easy to program for.

 

[drothgery]

Okay, that might not be very much. But what about the jump in the GPU? I believe the 360s is based on the ATI's R500 chips, which is the basis for their X1xxx line, which are quite good, like the PS3 GPU is based on nvidias 7800.

The Xbox 360's Xenos GPU isn't based on ATi's R5xx chips; ATi's forthcoming DirectX 10 chips (R6xx) are based on it. It's in the same performance class as the GeForce 7800 series, generally speaking, though it works a bit differently. With DirectX 10, unified shaders (rather than seperate pixel and vertex shaders) will make sense on PCs, but they really don't yet.

ATi's done this sort of thing before; a lot of the tech that the current Radeons are based on (going back to the Radeon 8500 that was ATi's first really competitive GPU) came from the GameCube GPU that they acquired with ArtX.

 

[Vocenoctum]

The Blu-Ray in a PS3 (like the forthcoming HD-DVD add-on for the Xbox 360) is really more like a PC drive than a standalone player.

How does this affect quality though? If that method of BluRay making is cheaper, then why not make all of them that way.

Basically, what I mean, is how does Sony justify a $600 blu ray that includes a game system, and a stand alone that is $1000. If the $600 system is equal, then why have the $1000 system?

Just wondering, since I'm a bit away from HD Era

 

[drothgery]

How does this affect quality though? If that method of BluRay making is cheaper, then why not make all of them that way.

It's only cheaper if you're attaching it to something with enough processing power to handle decoding the movie on its own. A reasonably new PC or a next-gen console has enough processing power to handle software decoding of high-def video without dedicated hardware (at least, a PS3 or an Xbox 360 does; a Wii probably doesn't), and has to have all of the other stuff that makes a dedicated player more expensive than an internal drive for a PC (case, power supply, input and output ports) no matter what kind of media it uses.

The other thing is that over time, specialized hardware decoders tend to get really cheap as they're mass-produced. It happened for CDs, and it did for DVDs. It will happen for HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, too (in fact, the decoding hardware for both will be the same, because they use the same codecs at the same bit rates, and once things hit the decoding hardware, bits are bits). And usually, the hardware decoders end up being better.

 

[Vocenoctum]

It's only cheaper if you're attaching it to something with enough processing power to handle decoding the movie on its own. A reasonably new PC or a next-gen console has enough processing power to handle software decoding of high-def video without dedicated hardware (at least, a PS3 or an Xbox 360 does; a Wii probably doesn't), and has to have all of the other stuff that makes a dedicated player more expensive than an internal drive for a PC (case, power supply, input and output ports) no matter what kind of media it uses.

I don't mean "PC BluRay", I mean if they can build a little box that runs the BluRay for $600, why do they also have another box for $1000?

 

[TwistedBishop]

Well they do sell consoles at an extreme loss, which I'm not sure happens in any other technology field. The PS3 costs near $900, iirc.

 

[drothgery]

I don't mean "PC BluRay", I mean if they can build a little box that runs the BluRay for $600, why do they also have another box for $1000?

It's really usual for the markup on new electronics to be somewhat higher than the manufacturing costs, because you're trying to recoup the development costs, and because you're selling high-end merchandise (even if the cheap stuff three years from now will be better) to early adopters.

With consoles, Sega started a trend with the Dreamcast of taking a loss on the console hardware and trying to make things up on games. Since then, the PS2 was intially unprofitable (but not very, and was profitable soon after its launch), the GameCube was always sold at a profit (Nintendo has none of this "sell hardware at a loss and make it up on games" business), the Xbox was always unprofitable, and Microsoft expects to follow the PS2 model (small losses initially, profit in the long run) with the Xbox 360. Sony's trying to do the same with the PS3, but the problem is that the launch price point required for this is probably even higher than the $600 that they're charging.

It's worth noting that taking a loss on hardware for more than a short period just after launch has never been done profitably by anyone, and only Microsoft (which has far deeper pockets than any other company to ever get into the console business, ever) has ever built marketshare effectively that way.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I know it's just me, but...

What kind of company undercuts their own product with a cheaper alternative? How can the PS3 not hurt the sales of $1000 Blu Rays?

I understand that console prices are this and that, but looking at the product only as a Blu Ray, it doesn't make any sense. To me at least.

 

[drothgery]

What kind of company undercuts their own product with a cheaper alternative? How can the PS3 not hurt the sales of $1000 Blu Rays?

It's certainly going to hurt the sales of $1000 Blu-Ray players. Of course, $500 HD-DVD players will do that, too. Still, you're right that it doesn't make much sense. My working theory is that Sony intended to launch the PS3 in 2007, and was forced into launching in 2006 when it became clear the Xbox 360 was really launching in 2005 (which I considered a crazy rumor until MS officially announced it).

 

[Bront]

Actually, the early reports are that the standalone BR players will start off at around $1000.

Best Buy price

NexTag search

engadget article

The delay in the PS3 was part of the reason why they were announced so high. It was supposed to provide a baseline for the lower end BR players, but the delay forced them to come to market early with a price.

My guess is that they will drop to withing a few hundred of the PS3 by the time it comes out.