3 ms·
Both Sony and Microsoft were on a PowerPC base for the PS3/Xbox360 generation. Sony was on a MIPS before that. While there's definitely value in knowing you bas
by pdpi 6y ago
Both Sony and Microsoft were on a PowerPC base for the PS3/Xbox360 generation. Sony was on a MIPS before that. While there's definitely value in knowing you basically own the console market for the next few years, consoles have a much easier time jumping ship on architectures than PCs do, so having such a large portion of your revenue tied to two customers, both of whom are capable of jumping ship quite easily on the 4-5 year timeframe is maybe not great from a strategic point of view.
- selykg 6y agoI think that's a bit LESS likely now that gamers are "demanding" backwards compatibility. While not entirely unfeasible, it's a lot more feasible to simply stick with what they have been using to make that process easier. So my opinion, as a gamer and not much else, is simply that it feels like it's easier to stick with x86 at this point.
- wmf 6y agoYou're saying AMD "only" won the "short-term" console market for 2013-2027 (so far) but instead they should... what? Focus on a 20-30 year time horizon? There's no such thing in the chip industry.
- Shorel 6y agoYeah, whatever. The future of consoles is not really relevant right now. The past generation of consoles, the PS4 and Xbox something, is what gave AMD the cashflow to create their current Ryzen and Navi technologies. The current generation of consoles is the same. AMD has guaranteed earnings that can be invested in new R&D. Will the consoles in five years use something different? It really doesn't matter. Cashflow is cashflow. What matters is the impressive advancement that Apple has with their M1 ARM processor. This is current technology, being sold right now.