3 ms·
As already mentioned by others, AMD won the console market because back then the only thing they could compete on was price. Which coincidentally, the most imp
by Dalewyn 3y ago
As already mentioned by others, AMD won the console market because back then the only thing they could compete on was price.
Which coincidentally, the most important thing to Sony and Microsoft with regards to consoles ("make tons and sell tons" products) is cost of materials. Even getting that cost 1 cent cheaper still means a $1 difference over 100 units, $10 over 1,000 units, $100 over 10,000 units, and onwards. Remember, we're talking many millions of basically identical units sold.
AMD couldn't compete in performance nor efficiency, but they could absolutely compete in price, while both Intel and Nvidia couldn't due either to their business strategy or the logistics for Sony/Microsoft of procuring more materials from different suppliers.
So long as AMD can continue to undercut Intel, Nvidia, and any other contenders they will continue to dominate consoles.
- choudharism 3y agoI generally agree with this reasoning, but your example could use some scaling down to convince a reader. 1 cent cheaper would net Sony a total of 500K USD for all PS5 units sold till date. So about a hundred PS5 units at retail as pure profit. A company of the size of Sony for a product of the scale of PS5 would absolutely forego that profit if the alternative offered any tangible benefits at all.
- Dalewyn 3y ago>if the alternative offered any tangible benefits at all. That's the thing though: A new generation console only needs to be better than it's predecessor. It doesn't have to have groundbreaking technologies or innovations, let alone be a pioneer paving the way forward for other computing hardware products. So cost of materials remains the chief concern.